Speak With Authority

Another IRS Scandal: Two ‘Sentenced for Unemployment Insurance Fraud’

2013-05-22T21:23:00.003-04:00

Congressional hearings over the last two weeks have been filled with stories of misconduct due to incompetence and inexperience among certain IRS employees. Both Republicans and Democrats have leveled the accusations, and Internal Revenue officials testifying before Congress have admitted as much. At the same time, all parties have stressed that the vast majority of IRS employees are hard-working, competent, and honest civil servants.

This story isn't about them either.

The Indiana Department of Workforce Development just announced the sentencing of two former IRS employees for unemployment insurance fraud. Seven other former IRS employees have already been convicted and sentenced as a result of the investigation:

INDIANAPOLIS – Over the past week two former United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees have been sentenced for unemployment insurance fraud. Carmen Brown, also known as Carmen Smith, 41, of Indianapolis, and Terri Wardell, 48, of Fishers, both pled guilty to unemployment insurance fraud. The two filed for and received unemployment insurance benefits while working full-time for the IRS. Smith illegally received nearly $14,000 in benefits. Wardell fraudulently collected over $18,000...

“It does not matter who you are or who you work for, we work diligently to make sure those who take funds they are not eligible for, are held accountable”, said Scott B. Sanders, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development. “These funds are for Hoosiers truly in need and we take our job safeguarding these funds very seriously.”

The IRS detected the original signs of fraud and reported the information to the DWD who then pursued the investigation resulting in these convictions.

Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

GAO: ‘Visa Overstay’ Backlog at DHS Remains Over One Million

2013-05-22T11:30:00.000-04:00

Visa overstays by visitors to the United States received attention recently amid reports that some students from Kazakhstan linked to the Boston bombing suspects remained in the U.S. despite invalid or expired student visas. Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office issued a report of preliminary finding on the progress the Department of Homeland Security has made in its efforts to reduce the backlog of such visa issues. Although almost 863,000 records were "closed" in the last two years, the backlog of potential overstays remains at more than one million [emphasis added]:

In the summer of 2011, DHS reviewed the 1.6 million potential overstay records. As a result, DHS closed about 863,000 records and removed them from the backlog. Since that time, DHS has continued to review all potential overstay records for national security and public safety concerns. However, as of April 2013, DHS continues to maintain more than 1 million unmatched arrival records in ADIS. GAO's preliminary analysis identified nonimmigrants traveling to the United States on a tourist visa constitute 44 percent of unmatched arrival records, while tourists admitted under a visa waiver constitute 43 percent. The remaining records include various types of other nonimmigrants, such as those traveling on temporary worker visas.

The report does note a change implemented since the Boston bombing related specifically to student visas:

Beginning in April 2013, ICE’s Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) began automatically sending data to ADIS on a daily basis, allowing ADIS to review SEVIS records against departure records and determine whether student visa holders who have ended their course of study departed in accordance with the terms of their stay. Prior to this date, DHS manually transferred data from SEVIS to ADIS on a weekly basis. According to DHS officials, these exchanges were unreliable because they did not consistently include all SEVIS data—particularly data on “no show” students who failed to begin their approved course of study within 30 days of being admitted into the United States.

DHS has yet to comply with federal law requiring reporting of visa overstays, but the GAO notes that Janet Napolitano has said that DHS intends to begin such reporting by the end of the year:

Federal law requires DHS to report overstay estimates, but DHS or its predecessors have not regularly done so since 1994. In September 2008, GAO reported on limitations in overstay data that affect the reliability of overstay rates. In April 2011, GAO reported that DHS officials said that they have not reported overstay rates because DHS has not had sufficient confidence in the quality of its overstay data and that, as a result, DHS could not reliably report overstay rates. In February 2013, the Secretary of Homeland Security testified that DHS plans to report overstay rates by December 2013.

Note: A version of this article appeared first at The Weekly Standard.

For $221k, July 4th Fireworks Show on National Mall in Washington Will Go On

2013-05-22T06:00:00.000-04:00

The show will go on. Sequestration may have cost Washington D.C. tourists a chance to tour the White House, but the Independence Day fireworks will go off as planned. A contract was awarded today to Garden State Fireworks of Millington, NJ for $221,819.77. The listing for bids on the typically business-like fbo.gov website contained this somewhat colorful solicitation:

Provide supervision, labor, materials, supplies and equipment necessary to present an innovative, bounteous, dynamic and attractive fireworks display for Independence Day on the Grounds of the Washington Monument, Washington, D.C. on July 4, 2013.

The National Park Service that puts on the fireworks show each year offers several suggestions for enjoying the show which is scheduled to begin at 9:10 on the evening of the 4th:

Consider wearing hearing protection. These fireworks are BIG and LOUD.
Consider wearing eye protection to protect yourself from falling debris.
Consider not bringing pets.

Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

NARAL Uses Kermit Gosnell's Photo in Pro-Abortion Push

2013-05-21T21:20:00.002-04:00

Via J.D. Mullane, the Philadelphia-area reporter who did much of the work exposing the Kermit Gosnell murder trial to much of the nation: A May 16th blog post on the NARAL Pro-Choice America website included this graphic:

Incredibly, in describing the horrors of Gosnell, not once does NARAL even allude to the babies he killed. The post refers to "[a]ll the women whose lives were affected" and "what Gosnell inflicted on women." It reads in part:

This week, a jury returned a guilty verdict in the case against Kermit Gosnell.

This man will pay the price for the horrible acts he committed. All the women whose lives were affected deserve at least this much.

The Gosnell tragedy should serve as a wakeup call that we need to work even harder to ensure that all women have access to safe and legal abortion care. We can't let anti-choice politicians use the Gosnell trial to make it even more difficult for women to access abortion care.

Planned Parenthood issued a similar yet shorter statement on the Gosnell verdict:

“The jury has punished Kermit Gosnell for his appalling crimes. This verdict will ensure that no woman is victimized by Kermit Gosnell ever again.

“This case has made clear that we must have and enforce laws that protect access to safe and legal abortion, and we must reject misguided laws that would limit women's options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell.”

Planned Parenthood made no reference to Gosnell's baby-killing convictions either.

U.S. Dedicates New $133M "Green" Embassy in Burundi

2013-05-21T21:13:00.001-04:00

Many Americans might be hard pressed to pick out Burundi on a map, but (as Daniel Halper noted at The Weekly Standard) the United States just dedicted a brand new "green" embassy complex in the city of Kigobe in the African nation. The State Department press release calls the embassy complex "an important symbol of America’s commitment to an enduring friendship with the Republic of Burundi." Two Washington D.C. architectural firms, Perkins + Will and Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, designed the buildings and Caddell Construction of Montgomery, Alabama did the construction. A significant part of the announcement touts the green credentials of the new embassy compound, pictured below:

The new facility incorporates numerous sustainable features to reduce operating costs and conserve resources, most notably an extensive system of over 950 photovoltaic panels; a white “cool” roof and the use of architectural shading of the building to reduce solar heat gain and energy cooling costs; and on-site treatment of wastewater that is reused for irrigation. An estimated 95% of construction waste was diverted from landfills for reuse by the local community. The facility has been registered with the U.S. Green Building Council for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) certification.

While the U.S. has had diplomatic relations with the country for 40 years, the CIA Factbook entry for Burundi spells out its troubled past and challenged for the future:

Burundi's first democratically elected president was assassinated in October 1993 after only 100 days in office, triggering widespread ethnic violence between Hutu and Tutsi factions. More than 200,000 Burundians perished during the conflict that spanned almost a dozen years. Hundreds of thousands of Burundians were internally displaced or became refugees in neighboring countries. An internationally brokered power-sharing agreement between the Tutsi-dominated government and the Hutu rebels in 2003 paved the way for a transition process that led to an integrated defense force, established a new constitution in 2005, and elected a majority Hutu government in 2005. The government of President Pierre NKURUNZIZA, who was reelected in 2010, continues to face many political and economic challenges.

Although the embassy complex was just dedicated this week, the new location actually opened for business in October 2012. The ambassador to Burundi is Dawn M. Liberi, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, who was nominated for the position in July 2012 and confirmed by the Senate in October. Most recently, Ms. Liberi had functioned as the Senior Assistance Coordinator at U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya in 2012.

IRS in Its Own Words: "Disburse Social Benefits to Target Populations"

2013-05-20T23:48:00.001-04:00

The Internal Revenue Service has been in the headlines for more than a week now as details of its targeting of conservative non-profits have trickled out. Senate hearings this week (via Politico) on Apple's tax strategies have indirectly referenced the IRS as well as Democrats decried the huge tech company's efforts to avoid turning over any more of its money than necessary to Uncle Sam's tax collector. But a 2011 Annual Report from the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) of the IRS suggests that Apple is simply following the counsel that the TAS offers.
The section of the report in question is called Introduction to Diversity Issues: The IRS Should Do More to Accommodate Changing Taxpayer Demographics. The document begins with some history of the IRS and its mission:

When the federal individual income tax was enacted in 1913, it applied to high-income taxpayers. At that time, the predecessor to the IRS began as a hands-on collector of various excise and other taxes. In 1942, Congress enacted the “greatest tax bill in american history” largely to fund the U.S. effort in World War II, expanding the income tax to the middle class. At this juncture, the Treasury made an historic effort to popularize the income tax, and employed tactics such as famously deploying the Disney cartoon character Donald Duck as a mascot of the public fisc. Since then, however, the IRS has not made a parallel effort to popularize the income tax to an increasingly diverse population.

It is almost unimaginable that the IRS could even contemplate how it might "popularize the income tax", and yet the report proceeds to, if not popularize the income tax itself, attempt to revive the image of the IRS in the eyes of an "increasingly diverse population." One of the recommendations is titled "Conduct Targeted Outreach to Increase Take-up Rate for Special Tax Provisions." [emphasis added]

Develop a pilot program to better communicate about special tax beneits in which participation is key, e.g., health-care provisions under the patient protection and affordable care act of 2010. While the traditional mission of the IRS was to collect tax, now the IRS administers several special tax breaks that effectively disburse social benefits to target populations (e.g., small businesses or low income taxpayers). A measure of success for such programs is their take-up rate, which means that the IRS must not only counsel compliance with the tax law but also encourage participation by taxpayers, many of whom may not otherwise have to file returns.

This admission of the IRS's role in the government's social engineering is focused on low income taxpayers and small businesses, and yet the high-income taxpayers, such as Apple, would seem to have just as much right to take advantage of what the tax code has to offer as the former groups. As the Politico article noted, "lawmakers behind the inquiry did not describe Apple’s tax conduct as illegal." Apple says that "the company “pays all its required taxes, both in this country and abroad.” And Apple stressed it does not use “tax gimmicks.”"
It certainly speaks to the social engineering aspirations of those in Congress who are critical of companies that pump billions of dollars into the economy and provide thousands of jobs for using tax law to keep as much of their own money as possible while on the other hand using the IRS to "disburse social benefits to target populations." Certainly both Republicans and Democrats have used the tax code over the years for various social engineering schemes, or at the very least have shaped the tax code to influence certain behaviors. And with the discovery of the targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny, apparently the IRS itself has an agenda of its own.
The income tax marks its centennial this year. While through the 1940s, the "traditional mission of the IRS was to collect tax," these two episodes are just further examples of how intrusive government has become thanks to the 16th Amendment. Further Congressional hearings, investigations and reforms in the coming months may reveal if there is hope for reform, or if the genie is out of the bottle for good.

Veterans Administration Spends $378K on Signs for Civil War-Era Cemeteries

2013-05-20T23:21:00.004-04:00

Last week, a contract totaling more than $378,000 was awarded to develop and manufacture signs for Civil War-era cemeteries, including "18 unique interpretive signs for Confederate lots." The contract was awarded by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The "interpretive signs" provide context and analysis of the information presented as opposed to strictly informational or directional signs.

In the original solicitation for bids, the project is described this way:

The scope of work for this project includes, but is not limited to providing all labor, material and design services needed to analyze and distill into one to three interpretive signs to be placed in 79 Civil War-era National Cemeteries and 24 other NCA-managed cemeteries. The purpose of this contract is to procure one generic interpretive sign for 79 National Cemeteries and 18 unique interpretive signs for Confederate lots; with up to 90 unique interpretive signs for the same National Cemeteries. The content of generic interpretive signs to be produced has been developed in draft by NCA; the content for the other signage to be produced will require research, development and design by the contractor.

Care of the cemeteries falls under the National Cemetery Administration, which is a division of the VA.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) largely escaped the automatic budget cuts, widely known as sequestration, that hit in March. As the Washington Post reported at the time, a bipartisan consensus spared the VA's $140 billion budget from the legislation.

The new signage may relate to the Civil War Sesquicentennial, which runs from 2011 through 2015.

Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

CBO on ObamaCare: Uninsured Remain Above 30 Million Through 2023

2013-05-18T23:33:00.002-04:00

When the most recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Affordable Care Act came out last week, most media outlets, particularly conservative ones like the Washington Examiner, focused on the doubling of the costs of the program since it was first scored in 2010. Philip Klein writes:

When President Obama was selling his health care legislation to Congress, he declared that “the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.” But with the law’s major provisions set to kick in next year, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office projects that the law will cost double that, or $1.8 trillion.

While the cost increase is certainly noteworthy and was predicted by the opponents of the legislation, the CBO report includes a second aspect of the effects of ObamaCare, or perhaps more appropriately the lack of effect. Besides the promise that ObamaCare would help control costs, the elimination of barriers to obtaining health insurance to the current uninsured was one of its largest selling points. It is interesting to note then that under CBO projections, the number of uninsured in the country never drops below 30 million. Under the heading "Uninsured Under the Affordable Care Act", here are the projections for next decade for "Number of Uninsured Nonelderly People":

2013 - 55,000,000
2014 - 44,000,000
2015 - 37,000,000
2016 - 31,000,000
2017 - 30,000,000
2018 - 30,000,000
2019 - 30,000,000
2020 - 30,000,000
2021 - 31,000,000
2022 - 31,000,000
2023 - 31,000,000

Also according to CBO projections, this level of uninsured persons persists despite the increase of those on Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) from 36,000,000 in 2013 to 47,000,000 in 2023. Not even the heavily subsidized exchanges will apparently be able to shrink the uninsured population. By 2023, the number of subsidized exchange enrollees is projected at 20,000,000 with an average subsidy of $7,900 for a total of $158 billion.
It is unclear from the CBO report exactly who these continued uninsured are and how they will obtain healthcare. But assuming the CBO's projections are accurate, it seems fair to speculate that when the number of uninsured plateaus at 30,000,000 for several years or even begins to increase again, calls will begin afresh for healthcare reform that will provide insurance to those chronically uninsured. And if ObamaCare's detractors are correct that the law will not lower costs and improve healthcare in the ways promised, the same reasons may be resurrected to push for ObamaCare II: the uninsured clogging emergency rooms, neglecting preventive care, and driving up costs for the rest who are "playing by the rules."
The reviews coming in so far on ObamaCare are decidedly mixed, and full implementation is still seven months off. It will be years before the story plays out. If the Democrats still control the White House after 2016, those uninsured will be on display as 30,000,000 reasons to "finish what we started." And as everyone knows, the sequel is never as good as the original.

Commerce Department: $3.4M "Disaster Recovery" Grant to School for Chefs

2013-05-17T18:02:00.001-04:00

The Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration announced on Monday the awarding of $7.8 million in grants to "Support Disaster Recovery" in several states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Acting Secretary Rebecca Blank said the money was for:

...economic recovery in Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands following natural disasters in 2011.
“The Obama administration is committed to helping communities impacted by natural disasters rebound and rebuild stronger than ever,” said Acting Secretary Blank. “The EDA grants announced today will strengthen local capacities in Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands by rebuilding their infrastructure, supporting local industry, creating jobs, and enhancing their ability to respond to future disasters.”

Some of the projects included the rehabilitation of a pumping station in Stamford, CT; a new wastewater treatment plant in Savannah, IL; and a $2 million revolving loan fund for small to medium enterprises in the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, more than one-third of the money is being directed to a school for chefs in Hyde Park, NY. The press release explains:

In New York, a $3.4 million EDA grant to the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, New York, will support the Hudson Valley Food and Beverage Alliance, which will operate a new training facility for agribusinesses located in the Hudson Valley. The region’s agriculture-based economy suffered severe damage from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee in 2011. According to grantee estimates, the new facility will generate up to $5.1 million in new revenue in the Hudson Valley and will support 32 full-time jobs.

The grant is reminiscent of the projects funded by the 2009 stimulus bill from the president's first term, but the Commerce Department notes that funds are "part of a $200 million appropriation made by Congress to EDA to help communities that received a major disaster designation in fiscal year 2011 with long-term economic recovery and infrastructure support." The press release did not indicate if the $5.1 million in revenue is an annual estimate, nor did it indicate how long those 32 full-time jobs would be supported. However, for the northeast region of the country still reeling from monster storm Sandy's hit in October 2012, a $3.4 million grant to a culinary school (tuition is about $27,000/year) might seem better directed towards more concrete infrastructure restoration.

AG Holder's Non-Answer on Warrants for Email

2013-05-17T08:54:00.001-04:00

At a Congressional hearing on May 15, Attorney General Eric Holder faced some rather hostile questions from lawmakers regarding recent Obama administration scandals, such as the IRS targeting of conservative non-profits, the Justice Department acquisition of Associated Press phone records, and Benghazi. However, about three hours into the hearing, a relatively friendly questioner, Susan DelBene (D-WA), inquired about a recent report from the ACLU concerning FBI documents that suggest that the FBI does not need a warrant to obtain access to at least some private emails. The attorney general's answer was barely an answer at all, despite The Hill's assertion that "Holder backs warrant requirement for most email searches":

Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the Justice Department will likely support legislation requiring law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before accessing private online messages, such as emails or Facebook messages.
"It is something that I think the Department will support," Holder said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
He urged Congress to exempt "certain very limited circumstances" such as civil investigations.
"But the more general notion of having a warrant to obtain the content of communications from a service provider is something that we support," Holder said.

However, The Hill's article actually reports Holder's answer to DelBene's follow up question. Here is the full exchange, beginning with DelBene's original question regarding obtaining certain emails without a warrant:

Perhaps The Hill was simply being kind to the attorney general by not printing his initial answer given the lack of coherence. Whatever enthusiasm Mr. Holder showed for updating legislation, he was clearly not anxious to surrender the freedom the FBI and the Justice Department currently assume the right to exercise. This non-answer combined with the non-apology for the seizure of AP phone records

cannot give privacy advocates a good feeling about this administration's view of government's limits on its investigative powers.

White House: Million, Billion, Whatever

2013-05-15T14:49:00.003-04:00

The White House briefly confused millions and billions today in a tweet about the money seniors have saved on prescriptions due to ObamaCare:

The tweet was deleted within minutes and replaced with the adjusted figure:

FACT: Since 2010, health care reform has saved 6.3 million seniors more than $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs. #Obamacares
— The White House (@whitehouse) May 15, 2013

Instead of the usual #ObamaCare hashtag, the White House used one with a more personal feel: #Obamacares.

The Seeds of the Benghazi Talking Points

2013-05-14T22:14:00.003-04:00

Last week, the Benghazi talking points took center stage in the ongoing investigation of the 9/11 anniversary attacks in Libya. Jay Carney came under intense questioning at Friday's White House press briefing as he struggled to justify the dozen iterations of talking points before Susan Rice used the final version for her now-infamous five Sunday talk show appearances on September 16, 2012. However, a background briefing by the State Department four days before Rice's appearances provides the earliest extended look at the information used to prepare those talking points.
On September 12, in the evening following the attacks, three unnamed Senior Administration* officials briefed journalists via teleconference on the rapidly developing story. Although President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had already made some public statements, this briefing contained far more detail than any previous remarks. As the teleconference commenced, the most striking part about it was is the complete absence of any mention of "protests" or "demonstrations":

So let me give you a little bit of the chronology to the best of our knowledge. Again, the times are likely to change as it becomes a little bit more precise, but this is how we’ve been able to reconstruct what we have from yesterday.
At approximately 4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time yesterday, which was about 10 p.m. in Libya, the compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists. By about 4:15, the attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire...

Later in the briefing, a journalist asks a question about protests [emphasis added]:

QUESTION: ...[T]he larger question is, you didn’t talk at all about the protests. You started your timeline with that the firing began. Can you talk about the timeline of when the protests started, how that fit in with it, and your sense of whether or not the protestors and the assailants were the same?...
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: ...With regard to the protests – I assume you’re not talking about protests in Cairo, are you? You’re talking about protests in Benghazi?... We frankly don’t have a full picture of what may have been going on outside of the compound walls before the firing began. So I really just don’t have any specifics on that at the moment. I apologize.

It is apparent that the idea of protests at Benghazi had not yet even entered into the discussion at the State Department. The official in fact clarifies that the questioner is not referring to the protests outside the Cairo Embassy which of course had dominated the news the previous day. Another journalist raised the Cairo protests again later in the briefing:

QUESTION: ...Do you believe that this attack was in any way related to the incident in Cairo? You suggested this attack in Benghazi was more complex; so is it safe to rule out that this was a reaction to the inflammatory internet video?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: ...With regard to whether there is any connection between this internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi, frankly, we just don’t know. We’re not going to know until we have a chance to investigate. And I’m sorry that it is frustrating for you that so many of our answers are “We don’t know,” but they are truthful in that.

Again, when given the opportunity to connect the Cairo protests with Benghazi and the anti-Muhammad video, the State Department official referred to the lack of "any connection between this internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi," not "the protests in Benghazi." This complete absence of "protests" or "demonstrations" in the State Department's discussion of Benghazi makes the revision in the talking points (via Foreign Policy) changing "attacks" in the first version to "demonstrations" in the third version even more curious.
A second point of contention regarding the talking point revisions relates to the spontaneous versus planned nature of the attacks and the participation of al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda affiliates. Andrea Mitchell raised this question early in the briefing:

QUESTION: ...there’s a lot of reporting now on this being linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack – possibly al-Qaida sympathetic or al-Qaida linked. Can you speak to that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: ... Frankly, we are not in a position to speak any further to the perpetrators of this attack. It was clearly a complex attack. We’re going to have to do a full investigation. We are committed to working with the Libyans both on the investigation and to ensure that we bring the perpetrators to justice. The FBI is already committed to assisting in that, but I just – we’re – it’s just too early to speak to who they were and if they might have been otherwise affiliated beyond Libya.

As the administration has stressed in defense of the early statements, the official declined to confirm or deny the suspected participation of al-Qaeda groups. In fact, Mitchell's question contains the only reference to al-Qaeda or "terror" in the entire briefing, and yet the first version of the talking points prepared by the CIA included multiple references to al-Qaeda and its affiliates. This is perhaps an early indication of the differences between the State Department and the CIA that would eventually lead to the twelve revisions in the following days.
Regardless, the State Department official did note that "[i]t was clearly a complex attack." In fact, "attack" or "attackers" is used twelve times throughout the briefing. By contrast, in reference to Benghazi, "protest", "demonstration", and "spontaneous" are not used at all.
A third and final point raised over the talking point revisions was the removal of references to prior attacks in Libya in the months leading up to September 11. A questioner raised the issue of prior security incidents at the briefing:

QUESTION: ...Listen, there’ve been troubles in Benghazi for some time now. I understand the Consulate was attacked or bombed two, three months ago. The British have put out threat warnings about Benghazi. Was there any consideration before the attack yesterday of beefing up security there?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Well, again, I’m not going to get into the specifics of how we were postured in terms of security at our mission in Benghazi beyond what I said. So – because we don’t ever talk about the details of those kinds of things.
What I would say, though, is that we did, as we did in missions around the world, review the security there in the context of preparing for the anniversary of September 11th. And at that point, there was no information and there were no threat streams to indicate that we were insufficiently postured.

Although the official stated that "we did, as we did in missions around the world, review the security there in the context of preparing for the anniversary of September 11th," an overview of State Department warnings and alerts shows a clear drop off between 2011 and 2012 in 9/11 anniversary warnings.
After the background briefing on September 12 and over the next three days, the information the administration had presented in this briefing was combined with new information that continued to be gathered by intelligence and other agencies and ultimately led to the talking points used by Susan Rice. It was also during this time, as reported this week by The Weekly Standard, that the Overseas Security Advisory Council withdrew a report that had been issued on September 6, five days before the attack, entitled "Terrorism and Important Dates." The report downplayed the likelihood of a 9/11 anniversary-date attack by al-Qaeda or other terror groups, noting that concerns over such attacks are often due to "increased media attention to the issue." A State Department official contacted via email said the report was withdrawn because "the content had expired," and did not respond to requests for further clarification.
The removal of references to prior security incidents from the talking points and the withdrawal of the Terrorism and Important Dates report suggests that the administration was not inclined to draw attention to its pre-Benghazi posture on diplomatic security and preparedness. Indeed, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland wrote in an email, such reminders "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"
Clearly the information during the first few days and even weeks after the Benghazi attacks was incomplete and even contradictory. But in retrospect, it is clear that the Obama administration understood almost from the beginning the politically vulnerable position it was in due to its actions (and inaction) before, during, and as soon became apparent, after the attacks. The clear frustration of the White House press corps during Friday's press briefing with Jay Carney may be another sign that the concerns over the last eight months of mainly conservatives and Republicans are beginning to spread. Even Democrats at the Benghazi congressional hearings on Wednesday were openly calling for additional hearings to resolve the many remaining unanswered questions of Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans. The coming weeks and months will be a strong test of the sincerity of an administration that has claimed on many occasions to be the most transparent in history. The continuing obfuscation on Benghazi by administration officials up to and including the president is casting further doubt on that claim.

*Post originally said "State Department"

Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

W.H. Retweets Article on Rising Insurance Costs

2013-05-13T22:41:00.003-04:00

Today, the White House retweeted a link to an OregonLive.com story on competition among healthcare insurers purportedly instigated by ObamaCare:

Worth a RT. Obamacare beginning to work the way it was intended. Insurers lowering rates because of competition. oregonlive.com/health/index.s…
— David Simas (@Simas44) May 11, 2013

The story is entitled "Two Oregon insurers rethink 2014 premiums as state posts first-ever rate comparison" and begins as follows:

This is what competition looks like: One health insurer wants to charge $169 a month next year to cover a 40-year-old Portland-area non-smoker. Another wants $422 a month for the same standard plan.
The new health insurance marketplace envisioned by federal health reforms doesn't formally kick in until fall. But it already is taking shape – and consumers for the first time can compare, premium by premium, identical plans by different insurers.

Some of the insurance players in Oregon give at least partial credit to the new "marketplace" instituted by ObamaCare for lowering the projected 2014 rates for Oregon health insurance consumers:

"Posting rate comparisons company-by-company is a taste of what is to come," says Cheryl Martinis of the Oregon Insurance Division.

Judging by the reaction, there's already an impact.

Providence Health Plan on Wednesday asked to lower its requested rates by 15 percent. Gary Walker, a Providence spokesman, says the "primary driver" was a realization that the plan's cost projections were incorrect. But he conceded a desire to be competitive was part of it.

However, one gets the idea that perhaps the White House retweeted the link without reading the entire article. Further in the story comes this [emphasis added]:

The easy rate comparison is only one of the changes consumers who buy their own insurance can expect in 2014.

Another is higher premiums in the 2014 individual market, though for many people they'll be offset by tax credits. The higher rates are because people with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage. Also, plans have to offer stronger benefits than they used to, leading to higher premiums.

The changes have spawned much speculation, with some predicting "rate shock" for people who buy their own policies. Now consumers can see for themselves what premiums could be available, at least for certain plans.

This might appear to be a classic case of burying the lead. Competition, yes, but higher rates? And due to the Affordable Care Act? However, the article quickly adds the saving grace that may have tipped the scales in the White House retweet decision. Federal government income-based subsidies of the higher rates :

Meanwhile, at least half the potential customers who buy their own insurance will qualify for a sliding scale of income-based tax credits that could more than-eliminate any price hikes. Nearly 400,000 Oregonians are expected to purchase their own insurance as tax credits lure previously uninsured consumers.

In addition to comparing insurance plans, Cover Oregon can enroll people and qualify them for tax credits.

So, the Obama administration pushed through a 2,800 page piece of legislation that cut consumer choice (I mean "simplified the health insurance system") and raised rates by forcing companies to accept sick customers (I mean "eliminated unfair exclusions for pre-existing conditions") and to offer benefits that not everyone wants or needs (I mean "offer stronger benefits".) But not to worry. The government will kick in the difference. And lower the deficit. And improve health outcomes.

What could possibly go wrong?

Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Presidential Rank Awards in the "Era of Federal Austerity"

2013-05-10T21:30:00.000-04:00

On April 25th, a black-tie dinner was held at the State Department to recognize the 2012 winners of the Presidential Rank Awards. Each year, according to guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, the president awards the "ranks of Distinguished Executive and Meritorious Executive on a select group of career senior executives who have provided exceptional service to the American people over an extended period of time."
In addition to a framed certificate from the president, the two ranks of awards come with a bonus equal to 35% of base pay and 20% of base pay respectively. (The pay freeze currently in place for federal workers did not apply to these awards.) This year, according to Government Executive, the Distinguished Executive awards totaled 54, and Meritorious Executive awards totaled 78.
While it was noted that together the winners had saved the federal government $94 billion, "SEA [Senior Executives Association] President Carol A. Bonosaro, the banquet’s master of ceremonies, told Government Executive she was disappointed that the number of winners has shrunk in the current era of federal austerity." Bonosaro noted there were no winners from the intelligence agencies because the White House had not responded in time:

Bonosaro said the hold-up on intelligence agency winners comes from the White House. She also worried the administration was behind schedule in setting in motion the process for selecting the 2013 Distinguished Rank winners. That months-long process usually starts in November, Bonosaro said, and involves agency nominations, OPM vetting, and further review by panels and the White House. There’s also the banquet preparations, she added. “We can’t give a party like this overnight.”

Oddly, given the absence of any winners from the intelligence agencies, the keynote speaker for the evening was General James Clapper, director of national intelligence. Several other high ranking administration official attended also. Government Executive inquired of the White House about the delay in declaring intelligence agency winners, but had not received a response by the time the article was published.
As a footnote: Although Carol Bonosaro referenced "current era of federal austerity," the austerity did not extend to the framing of the award certificates. A contract for 135 custom made "mahogany stained poplar wood frames with gold leaf liner" was awarded to Artline Wholesalers. At $28,464.75, the total contract breaks down to $210.85 per frame. Although one can carry austerity only so far, a similar frame may be had at Wal-Mart for the everyday low price of $22.97, although it is not clear if glass is included. And no sales tax! At least for now...

White House: Nothing Says Happy Mother's Day Like Free Birth Control

2013-05-10T15:13:00.001-04:00

As part of the White House campaign to push the Affordable Care Act by linking it with Mother's Day, the White House tweeted this today:

Thanks to the #ACA, 1 in 3 women under 65 gained access to preventive care—like birth control—with no out-of-pocket costs. #HappyMothersDay
— The White House (@whitehouse) May 10, 2013

And kids, you don't even have to wrap it.

The Federal Government's "Death Master File" (I Am Not Making That Up)

2013-05-09T22:47:00.002-04:00

While I certainly would not dispute the reasons for maintaining such a record, does it strike anyone else as just a little creepy that the government has a database called the Death Master File? The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is currently conducting a review of the Social Security Administration's Death Master File to determine weaknesses and irregularities and recommend improvements to prevent improper payments. The review is still in process, but the GAO issued a preliminary report this week. Apparently this review is a long time in coming. In a run-through of some 98,000,000 records, the GAO found a few peculiarities:

Specifically, we identified:
• 130 records where the date of death was recorded to occur before the date of birth;
• 1,295 records where the recorded age at death was between 111 and 129; and
• 1,791 records where the recorded death preceded 1936, the year SSNs were first issued, although the decedents had SSNs assigned to them.

SSA officials said some of these anomalies were likely associated with records added prior to the mid-1970s that were manually processed.

Obviously the government's interest in knowing when U.S. citizens die is not so it knows when to send flowers. The report noted the real reason: money.

Federal benefit-paying agencies generally can access the information in this file and match it against data in their files to alert them to deceased benefit recipients, and therefore help reduce improper benefit payments. As the steward of taxpayer dollars, the federal government must guard against improper payments. Yet for fiscal year 2012, the Office of Management and Budget reported federal agency improper payment estimates totaling almost $108 billion.

If it is true that the only two things certain in life are death and taxes, then I think there's plenty of evidence that the government has got the certainty of the latter handled. With the help of the GAO, the government should be able to nail down the former, too.

W.H. Touts $30 Million Award for Technology that Led to 3D Gun

2013-05-09T21:32:00.001-04:00

Just this week, news broke that the "world’s first entirely 3D-printed gun" was successfully built and test-fired by an engineer in Texas. The technology involves a special printer that uses melted polymers to generate plastic components for a variety of uses, now including working firearms. Today, in a press release announcing a $200 million program for a "Competition for Three New Manufacturing Innovation Institutes," the White House also touted a $30 million award in a similar competition in August 2012 for the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute. President Obama mentioned the new institute in his February State of the Union speech. The purpose of the institute is to help develop the very 3D technology used to produce the newly revealed 3D gun:

Pilot Institute

In August 2012, the Administration announced the winner of an initial $30 million Federal award to create a pilot institute, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (NAMII). Headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio, NAMII consists of a consortium of manufacturing firms, universities, community colleges, and non-profit organizations primarily from the Ohio-Pennsylvania-West Virginia ‘Tech Belt’. NAMII was selected from amongst twelve teams from around the country that applied for the award. The members of NAMII will co-invest $40 million against the initial Federal award.

Additive manufacturing, often referred to as 3D printing, is a new way of making products and components from a digital model, and will have implications in a wide range of industries including defense, aerospace, automotive, and metals manufacturing. Like an office printer that puts 2D digital files on a piece of paper, a 3D printer creates components by depositing thin layers of material one after another using a digital blueprint until the exact component required has been created. The Department of Defense envisions customizing parts on site for operational systems that would otherwise be expensive to make or ship. The Department of Energy anticipates that additive processes would be able to save more than 50% energy use compared to today’s ‘subtractive’ manufacturing processes.

This announcement comes in the midst of the ongoing gun-control debate led by the White House and spearheaded by Vice President Joe Biden. Some lawmakers, including New York Senator Chuck Schumer, have already called for legislation to ban the plastic guns and regulate the technology involved. Rep. Steve Israel, D-NY, renewed a call to pass his recently introduced Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act which renews the current ban on undetectable weapons that expires this year.

Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Two Hours After Learning of Benghazi Attacks, White House Tweets About "A Safer World"

2013-05-09T08:46:00.001-04:00

The congressional hearings on Benghazi this week have once again refocused attention on the events of September 11, 2012. On that day, news of the attack on the Benghazi Consulate reached the White House Situation Room at 4:05 PM Eastern Time (ET). CBS News prepared a timeline of the events and the actions of administration officials:

10:05 p.m. (4:05 p.m. ET): An alert from the State Department Operations Center is issued to ... the White House Situation Room... "US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" -- "approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well...

Around 10:30 p.m. (4:30 p.m. ET): Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his top military adviser learn of the incident...

11 p.m. (5 p.m. ET): ...White House National Security Advisor Tom Donilon tells President Obama of the attack and the fire at the main villa...

Midnight (6 p.m. ET) ... Over the next two hours, Sec. Panetta holds a series of meetings and issues several orders...

Missing from the timeline is this, at 6:02 p.m. ET:

President Obama: "The true legacy of 9/11...will be a safer world; a stronger nation & a people more united" twitter.com/whitehouse/sta…
— The White House (@whitehouse) September 11, 2012

In retrospect, the timing for this message could hardly have been worse. And along with President Obama's fund raising trip to Las Vegas the following day, it does little to dispel the notion that the White House did not take the events in Benghazi as seriously as it should have.

Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks in Same Building as ARB in October [corrected]

2013-05-07T23:08:00.001-04:00

Correction: Gregory Hicks was interviewed by the ARB as he stated in his testimony at the congressional hearing on May 8th.

Gregory Hicks is one of the so-called whistleblowers due to testify at congressional hearings on the Benghazi attacks on Wednesday. He is prepared to give some of the most explosive testimony at the hearings, reportedly telling congressional investigators that "if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives." Despite having been on the phone with Ambassador Chris Stevens as the Benghazi attacks were beginning, Hicks ~~was not interviewed by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and~~ was not even mentioned in the report that the ARB produced.
The ARB was convened on October 4, 2012. Three weeks later, on October 25, 2012, Hicks was listed on a State Department schedule as meeting with Rick Barton, the Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations at the State Department.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONFLICT AND STABILIZATION OPERATIONS RICK BARTON
9:00 a.m. Assistant Secretary Barton meets with Deputy Chief of Mission for Embassy Tripoli Greg Hicks, at the Department of State.
(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

According to State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, the ARB's meeting place was in the State Department building in Washington, D.C., the same place Hicks met with Barton.
There is no public record of what transpired at the meeting between Hicks and Barton, ~~and it is not clear why Hicks would not have been interviewed by the ARB given his presence in the same building as the investigators~~. Perhaps Hicks's testimony this week will shed some light on this and other questions about why the American public has had to wait eight months to hear Hicks's version of the events surrounding the Benghazi fiasco.

State Dept. Official: 'The Content Had Expired' in Withdrawn Pre-Benghazi Terrorism Report

2013-05-07T22:14:00.001-04:00

The Congressional hearings on the 9/11 Benghazi attacks this week will likely focus on the classic questions often asked on such occasions: what did those involved know and when did they know it. Not only will the post-attack words and actions of government officials come under scrutiny, but those preceding the September 11, 2012 attacks on the Benghazi consulate, as well. One largely overlooked aspect of the investigations thus far involves a report issued by the State Department's Overseas Security Advisory Council on September 6, 2012, just five days before the attack. That report was removed from the OSAC website on September 14, just three days after the attacks because, in the words of a State Department official, "the content had expired." The report was removed the same day that the now infamous "talking points" were undergoing extensive revision. The report begins as follows (the text of the entire report is included at the end of this article):

Terrorism and Important Dates
9/6/2012
Summary
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

This apparent downplaying of the likelihood of an anniversary-date attack is repeated in the conclusion of the report:

As highlighted throughout the report, al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups are unlikely to conduct large-scale attacks on significant dates or holidays due to the heightened security levels. However, U.S. private sector organizations operating abroad in countries that have not raised their overall security levels may want to consider their vigilance and guard against complacency.

The Overseas Security Advisory Council is part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State. The mission of the council is "to promote security cooperation between American private sector interests worldwide (Private Sector) and the U.S. Department of State." Part of its function is to issue Travel Warnings, Travel Alerts, Emergency Messages to U.S. Citizens, and the like. Many of the reports issued by the OSAC are available in full only to registered "constituents." However, there is a publicly accessible menu of reports, some requiring a login to access, some freely available to all. Originally, the Terrorism and Important Dates report was listed in the public menu with the others. Here is a screencap from September 8, 2012:

Hundreds of such reports are listed on the OSAC website going back years. However, three days after the Benghazi attacks, the Terrorism and Important Dates report disappeared from the menu. A current search of the OSAC website for it still fails to turn up any evidence of its existence. A source with subscriber access confirmed back on September 29, 2012 that as of that date, the report was behind the subscriber wall, accessible only with a login.
When asked this week about the current status of the report and for an explanation of its disappearance, a State Department official replied via email, "A report was posted on September 6 and was removed on September 14, after the content had expired." When pressed for clarification on what "expired" meant and who made the determination that it had "expired," the official did not respond. The "expired" comment is curious since dozens of reports whose content has arguably "expired" are still listed on the site.
Although the missing report received a substantial amount of attention on conservative blogs and news sites in the weeks following the attacks, the story was not reported in the wider media. Additionally, it was not mentioned in either the State Department's Accountability Review Board report or the report issued by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. (The latter report does mention a February 2012 OSAC report, see footnote on page 11, but not the September 6, 2012 report.)
The OSAC's reports are prepared within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security of the State Department specifically for the private sector interests serviced by the Council. However, the reports presumably draw upon the same intelligence available to the State Department as a whole and reflect the attitudes and posture of the larger department. Indeed, at an August 29, 2012 press briefing, in response to a question about a State Department travel warning about Pakistan, spokesperson Victoria Nuland disavowed any connection of the travel warning to the upcoming anniversary, stating, "It doesn’t have anything to do with September 11th."
Congress will have an opportunity this week to delve further into the decisions that led to the initial issuance of the Terrorism and Important Dates report, as well as the decision to remove the report after it "expired." The answers to who made those decisions and for what reasons may help Congress get to the bottom of this disastrous episode.

------

Full text of Terrorism and Important Dates report:
The apparent full text of the OSAC report, as posted on September 6, 2012 on the website of an OSAC constituent, reads as follows:

Terrorism and Important Dates
9/6/2012
Summary
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.
While it is true that In the aftermath of the May 2, 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abottabad, Pakistan, several media sources reported on various documents recovered during the raid that suggested al-Qa’ida was seeking to conduct significant attacks on major holidays and anniversaries, there are no indications that any of these plans were ever operational. OSAC constituents should review their local emergency action plans and security protocols ahead of major U.S. holidays and anniversary dates.
Terrorism and Holidays/Anniversary Dates
Historically, al-Qa’ida and other transnational terrorist groups have not conducted successful attacks on major U.S. holidays and anniversary dates. One possible explanation for this lack of activity is due to the increase in security on major dates because of a perceived vulnerability. A terrorist group that has spent a significant amount of time monitoring a potential target, training operatives, and acquiring the weapons necessary for a major attack would be less likely to attack when security is at a heightened level.
Terrorist groups are predisposed to conduct the attack first and justify the reasoning subsequently. One recent example of this predisposition was the June 28. 2011 attack on the InterContinental Hotel in Kabul. The attackers primary motivation was to kill as many Westerners and Afghan officials as possible; however, after media reports began erroneously claiming that an important Transition Conference was going to take place at the hotel the next day, the terrorists responsible for the attack claimed that they were in fact targeting that conference. Although specific dates may be important symbolically to terrorist groups, a near-term successful attack will likely be painted as both revenge for the death of bin Laden and a blow against the United States.
Implications
An international terrorist attack around a major international date or holiday would likely fall into one of the three following scenarios.
1) Attacks abroad on significant U.S. holidays, such as July 4 – while U.S. Missions abroad have likely increased their security profile during major U.S. government holidays, host nation security forces are unlikely to elevate their security levels.
2) Attacks following a drawdown of security after a major date – foreign countries will often increase their security posture during a major event such as the Olympics or World Cup, effectively deterring major attacks during the event. However, following the conclusion of the event, security is often reduced. Terrorist groups may wait for security levels to decrease before launching an attack.
3) Lone wolf attacks by independently radicalized individuals on significant dates – while terrorists operating as part of an established cell or network may prefer to bide their time and wait for an opportune moment to strike, individual sympathizers with no formal training or connection to a terrorist group could be inspired to conduct an attack on a significant date despite heightened levels of security. Lone wolves are less likely to attract the attention of host nation counter-terrorism officials.
Conclusion
At this time, OSAC is aware of no specific or credible threats against the U.S. private sector on September 11. As highlighted throughout the report, al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups are unlikely to conduct large-scale attacks on significant dates or holidays due to the heightened security levels. However, U.S. private sector organizations operating abroad in countries that have not raised their overall security levels may want to consider their vigilance and guard against complacency. OSAC continues to monitor trends and emerging issues that may have a significant security impact on U.S. private sector operations overseas.

Note: A version of this article appeared first at The Weekly Standard.

President Obama's $2.5M Hotel and 'Vehicle Rental' Tab on Last Mexico Trip

2013-05-01T20:20:00.002-04:00

As the White House first announced in March, Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Mexico and Costa Rica later this week. The trip is billed as "an important opportunity to reinforce the deep cultural, familial, and economic ties that so many Americans share with Mexico and Central America." And at yesterday’s White House press conference, the president stated that he is "very much looking forward to taking the trip down to Mexico" this week.

But the trip won’t exactly be cheap for taxpayers, assuming the costs mirror those incurred by the American taxpayers for President Obama's last trip to Mexico, for the G-20 summit in June 2012. According to recently discovered documents relating to the costs of that trip, taxpayers paid nearly $2.5 million for hotel and “vehicle rental.”

The first government document is a contract with a travel agent for the hotels required for the president's delegation and entourage for the conference:

The accompanying Justification and Approval (J&A) document estimates the total cost at $1,889,388.60, with a maximum payout of $2,078,327.46. The document does not give details concerning the number of rooms or other special requirements. It notes the usual security concerns and time constraints that apply to such VIP trips, but also lists this additional restriction imposed by the Mexican government:

The second document relates to transportation needs for the presidential delegation for the G-20 visit. The J&A accompanying this contract estimates the cost of transportation-vehicle rental at $630,760.00 with a maximum of $693,836.00, and also notes that the same company, Operadora Transtur, which had been contracted for an earlier visit to Los Cabos by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was the best value:

Both contracts were approved in late May 2012, a few weeks before the trip, but were not posted on the fbo.gov website until more recently. Although members of the president's travel party arrived in advance of the president and departed later, President Obama himself stayed in Mexico two nights.

Regarding the president's upcoming trip, the Washington Examiner reported that there has been some speculation that the true motives for the trip may revolve more around the president's push for immigration reform. And at a White House meeting on Monday with Latino leaders, President Obama discussed his upcoming trip to Mexico and Costa Rica. The readout of the meeting provided by the White House concluded with, "At the meeting, the President made clear that immigration reform continues to be a top legislative priority this year."

Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

A Proposal: Tying Voter Registration to Firearm Background Checks

2013-04-28T21:19:00.001-04:00

Republicans have long expressed skepticism about the extraordinary efforts to register as many people to vote as possible. The 1993 Motor-Voter law mandated offering voter registration at DMV offices, and applications for welfare and other government benefits are often accompanied by solicitations to register to vote as well. More recently, voter registration popped up in the draft version of an Obamacare application. While the (mainly) Democrats who propose such ideas contend they are simply trying to make sure the franchise is not denied to any citizen, the GOP has often accused the Democrats of mostly trying to pad their own voter rolls.
Recent gun control legislation, however, could provide an opportunity to test the sincerity of the Democrats' professed altruistic motives. The recent push in Congress for universal background checks has been primarily a Democratic party idea. The GOP should propose an amendment requiring that all background checks also include an opportunity to register to vote. Since 1998, even with all the current exceptions, over 167 million background checks have been run. The Democrats should be thrilled at this opportunity to broaden participation in our democratic process. As Jay Carney said in March defending the inclusion of voter registration in the Obamacare application, “I'm not sure that it's such a terrible thing that people might want to register to vote.”
From the Republican perspective, according to a 2008 election exit poll, gun ownership among Democratic voters was less than half of that of Republican voters, so the GOP has nothing to lose by offering this amendment. If the Democrats reject the amendment, they expose their hypocrisy on voter registration. If the amendment passes and Democrats ultimately win passage of the legislation, at least the GOP could find consolation in the two-to-one advantage in new voter registration solicitations. Sometimes, clouds need a little help with a silver lining.

Six Miles of National Park Highway to be Repaved at $400 per Foot

2013-04-27T21:15:00.002-04:00

This photo of Newfound Gap Road is courtesy of TripAdvisor

A search for the words "crumbling roads" turns up so many hits on White House website that it's a wonder Americans have not been forced to resort to pack mules and wagon trains to travel from place to place. Throw "bridges" into the mix, and one might think the word "ford" will become less familiar as a car brand and more common as a way to cross rivers. The President and his administration have been talking about repairing this country's infrastructure for half a decade now, but apparently we haven't gotten very far.
A contract recently awarded to repave a six mile stretch of two-lane highway in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee sheds some light on at least one reason. It's expensive. How expensive? Try $408.52 per foot. That's $34 per inch.
To be fair, the work goes a little beyond paving. Here's how the project was described when first put out for bids in October 2012:

The project consists of the rehabilitation and resurfacing of approximately 6.1 miles of Newfound Gap Road from TN Milepost 6.3 to TN Milepost 12.4, including roadside pullouts and parking areas. The work includes asphalt pavement milling, full-depth pavement patching, shoulder stabilization, Superpave asphalt concrete pavement overlay, stone masonry and guardwall repairs, steel-backed timber guardrail, drainage, and other miscellaneous work.

Initially, and somewhat optimistically it appears, "the cost of the entire project expected to fall within the price range of greater than $10,000,000." In the end, the contract award was for $13,157,725.58. And although the cost of projects I researched vary greatly, this contract is by no means out of line.
While $13 million sounds like a lot, consider this: The US Highway system consists of 160,000 miles of highway. While not all highways are two lanes, using the 160,000 miles as a base number and the $408.52 per foot price tag for the Great Smoky Mountains job, the entire highway system could be repaved for a mere $345 billion. Again, sounds like a lot; but on the other hand, the entire federal government currently blows through $345 billion every month. For taxpayers tired of spending trillions with little to show for it, at least fixing the highways would yield concrete results. (Pun definitely intended.)

Does President Obama's Red Line for Syrian Chemical Weapons Only Cover "Civilian Populations"?

2013-04-26T21:23:00.001-04:00

Is President Obama creating some wiggle room on the “red line” for Syria? Both John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have indicated that the Syrian forces under control of President Assad may have used chemical weapons. Today, President Obama acknowledged that currently intelligence is being gathered and analyzed to determine if that indeed is the case. But he framed his remarks and his answers to reporters' questions in such a way that might indicate that the use of chemical weapons would have to violate a yet unstated prohibition in order to be considered crossing the red line.
The president made an appearance with King Abdullah II of Jordan for bilateral talks, and briefly addressed reporters.

[Y]esterday, some of you saw that I asked my people to brief Congress about the fact that we now have some evidence that chemical weapons have been used on the populations in Syria. Now, these are preliminary assessments; they’re based on our intelligence gathering. We have varying degrees of confidence about the actual use, but there are a range of questions around how, when, where these weapons may have been used...

We have to act prudently. We have to make these assessments deliberately. But I think all of us, not just in the United States but around the world, recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations...

...knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used...

What is unclear is what the president intended by "civilian populations." Does he mean the line has not been crossed if chemical weapons were used on armed militants? Otherwise, why would it matter “how they were used”? Is there a distinction between dropping chemical weapons on a neighborhood of private homes and launching them in a battle directly against an active fighting force? What actually constitutes a "game chang[ing]" use of chemical weapons?

The president went on to say:

...for the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues...

Again, "on its people" could mean civilians, or could be interpreted more broadly to mean any Syrian people whether or not they have taken up arms. Congress will likely be pressing the administration for answers as the credibility of the United States is at stake, not only in Syria, but in North Korea and Iran as well, where other "red lines" have been drawn. A world already on edge due to North Korea recent saber-rattling and Iran's nuclear ambitions will be anxiously waiting and watching.

Who is Responsible for the "Mess" Now?

2013-04-26T09:36:00.001-04:00

President Obama attended the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas this week. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal attended the ceremony and recorded his observations is an article entitled "The Difference Between 43 and 44? Not So Much." While making the case that more parallels exist between our last two presidents than President Obama would care to admit, Taranto recalls one of the talking points from the current president's first term:

The Bush-was-the-worst myth served a political purpose for Mr. Obama, enabling him to excuse his own shortcomings of leadership by blaming them on the "mess" he had "inherited." (Never mind that Mr. Obama was not some crown prince but an elected politician who aggressively pursued the office he now holds.)

During the 2012 presidential campaign, I noted (as did Taranto) the stark contrast in the president's willingness to take responsibility versus his penchant for pointing his finger at others. On October 16, 2012, I wrote:

The president already suffers from a reputation for blame-shifting that from an analysis of his words as recorded on the White House website seems well earned. The last time the words "I take responsibility" appear on the website is July 6, 2011, in the transcript of the president's Twitter Town Hall. By contrast, during that same time period, the phrase "got us into this mess in the first place" appears 86 times, referring almost exclusively to the previous administration. Even when the president speaks of "fault," it is often in the context of placing the word in the mouths of his critics, as in "They say the economy is bad and it's Obama's fault."

It is interesting to note that the phrase "got us into this mess" has completely vanished from the president's vernacular. The last time the phrase appears on the White House website is November 2, 2012... just before the election. In nearly six months, the president and the White House press office have not used the phrase once. One must conclude either we are not in a “mess” anymore, or, if we still are, the president recognizes at this point in his second term who bears the responsibility for keeping us there.

By the way, the last use of "I take responsibility" on the White House website? Still July 6, 2011, almost 22 months. However, in a debate with Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign, the president did say relative to the Benghazi, Libya terror attacks, "I'm the president. And I'm always responsible." The date of his statement? October 17, 2012, the day after Taranto and I published our articles. Coincidence? Let's just say I'm willing to take responsibility.