Stymied by a GOP House, Obama looks ahead to 2014 to cement his legacy

President Obama, now facing the consequences of automatic spending cuts and the complications they raise for his broader domestic agenda, is taking the most specific steps of his administration in an attempt to ensure the election of a Democratic­controlled Congress in two years.

“What I can’t do is force Congress to do the right thing,” Obama told reporters at the White House on Friday after a fruitless meeting with Republican leaders to avert the country’s latest fiscal crisis, known as the sequester. “The American people may have the capacity to do that.”

Obama, fresh off his November reelection, began almost at once executing plans to win back the House in 2014, which he and his advisers believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president. He is doing so by trying to articulate for the American electorate his own feelings — an exasperation with an opposition party that blocks even the most politically popular elements of his agenda.

Obama has committed to raising money for fellow Democrats, agreed to help recruit viable candidates, and launched a political nonprofit group dedicated to furthering his agenda and that of his congressional allies. The goal is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama’s thinking.

“The president understands that to get anything done, he needs a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “To have a legacy in 2016, he will need a House majority in 2014, and that work has to start now.”

An evolution in strategy

This approach marks a significant shift in the way Obama has worked with a divided Congress. He has compromised and badgered, but rarely — and never so early — campaigned to change its composition.

Democrats would have to gain 17 House seats to win back the majority they lost in 2010, and their challenge involves developing a persuasive argument for why the party deserves another chance controlling both Congress and the presidency. In the last election, American voters reaffirmed the political status quo in Washington, choosing to retain a divided government.

Of all the presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt, only Bill Clinton picked up House seats for his party in the midterm election of his second term
. His approval rating on the eve of the 1998 contest was 65 percent, 14 points above Obama’s current public standing.

The specific steps Obama is taking to win back the House for his party mark an evolution for a president long consumed by the independence of his political brand.

Obama has committed to eight fundraisers for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee this year, compared with just two events in 2009. The Democrats lost the House the following year, and Obama’s legislative agenda has largely stalled since then.

Read More..

Obama to refocus attention on immigration, gun control

President Obama signaled Friday a desire to refocus his attention on second-term priorities, such as immigration and gun control, after weeks of fruitless wrangling with Republicans over his fiscal agenda.

“What I want to try to do is make sure that we’re constantly focused . . . on how are we helping American families succeed,” Obama said at a news conference after failing to strike a deal with congressional leaders to avert $85 billion in mandatory budget cuts.

“Deficit reduction is part of that agenda, and an important part, but it’s not the only part,” he said. “And I don’t want us to be paralyzed on everything just because we disagree on this one thing.”

For a president who has bemoaned Washington’s penchant for lurching between self-manufactured political crises over the past two years, the inability to compromise with Republicans appeared to leave him simultaneously exasperated and emboldened.

Though he had run out of ideas on how to get Congress to support his plan on taxes and spending — “What more do you think I should do?” he asked a reporter — Obama sounded an upbeat note on other initiatives, including raising the minimum wage, expanding preschool programs and changing voting laws.

“There are other areas where we can make progress,” he said. “This is the agenda that the American people voted for. These are America’s priorities. They’re too important to go unaddressed.”

The president’s tone came as a relief to advocates who have fretted that the ongoing fight over the deficit would drain attention and critical momentum from Obama’s promise to champion reforms to gun control and immigration laws.

Though Obama touched on both during his State of the Union address Feb. 12, the last event he dedicated solely to gun control was a Feb. 4 appearance at a Minneapolis police station, and on immigration it was a Jan. 29 speech at a Las Vegas high school.

In the meantime, the administration has tried to remain engaged via less high-profile means. Vice President Biden made policy speeches and met with advocates on gun control, and Obama used phone calls to Capitol Hill and a private Oval Office meeting with two Republican senators to push quietly on immigration.

“There are plenty of issues Congress needs to be getting to,” said David Leopold, an executive committee member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Manufactured crises like the ‘fiscal cliff’ or sequester do not advance anyone’s agenda, least of all the American people’s agenda.”

Advocates acknowledged that the White House’s decision to focus on the economy made sense in light of polls showing Americans overwhelmingly believe that jobs and growth should be Obama’s top priority. But they have learned from experience that momentum for their causes can disappear quickly.

Obama promised comprehensive immigration reform in his first term but pursued a major health-care overhaul that ate up his political capital and the administration’s attention. He gave a much-heralded speech about gun violence after the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in January 2011 that wounded former representative Gabby Giffords (D), but no changes to gun laws followed.

Obama has “got to be an effective spokesperson on [gun violence] to do a good job, but the minute he changes focus from the economy, everybody goes bananas,” said Matt Bennett, a senior vice president at Third Way, a think tank that supports stricter gun control. “That puts him in a bit of a bind.”

On Capitol Hill, a bipartisan coalition of senators is working on legislation that would require mandatory background checks for all private gun sales, closing a long-standing loophole. The bill hit a snag after Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) opposed adding language to the bill that would require gun owners to keep transactional records of private firearms sales.

Another bipartisan Senate group is drafting a comprehensive immigration bill that would likely include a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants. Senators said they hope to produce a draft in March, but the bill could be delayed until after the Easter recess, which runs through April 5, several sources said.

In a pointed reminder of the difficulty of engaging on more than one issue at a time, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) were late to a meeting with the bipartisan immigration group last week because they were on the Senate floor blasting Democrats over the mandatory budget cuts. Only after their floor speeches ended did the pair join their colleagues for more cordial discussions.

On Friday, even as he bemoaned the lack of GOP cooperation on the spending cuts, Obama made a point to praise the Republican-led House for approving a renewed Violence Against Women Act this week.

“What I’m going to keep on trying to do is to make sure that we push on those things that are important to families,” Obama said. “We won’t get everything done all at once, but we can get a lot done.”

Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

Read More..

Deadline for benefits e-payments is here

It took 17 years, but Friday marks the deadline to switch federal benefit checks to electronic payments, an initiative Treasury Department officials say will save up to $1 billion over a decade.

In 1996, Congress enacted a law that required all federal payments except tax refunds to be issued electronically by 1999. By December 1998, 75 percent of Social Security payments were being made through direct deposit. Today, 94 percent of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income recipients use direct deposit, said Walt Henderson, director of the Treasury’s electronic fund transfer strategy.

As of May 2011, all new applicants for federal benefits are required to choose an electronic payment method. Those receiving Social Security payments, supplemental security income and veterans benefits have the option of receiving funds by direct deposit to a bank or credit union or on a pre-loaded debit card.

But those who haven’t gone digital won’t be kicked off the rolls, Henderson said, noting they will continue to receive paper checks in the mail. There’s also a chance to apply for a waiver to the paperless requirement if circumstances require it, he said.

The Treasury has not set a date for the permanent termination of paper checks, he said.

The agency didn’t reach its near 100 percent compliance without resistance from members of the check-cashing industry.

People without bank accounts who use check-cashing services may also be hesitant to make the switch, said Edward D’Alessio, general counsel for the Financial Service Centers of America, a trade organization that represents financial-service-center providers.

“The population in this country that is un-banked has concentrations in racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly,” he said. “These are people who may have never been into a bank before. We’re in the neighborhoods, we speak the languages and we’re open extended hours.”

The industry will take a financial hit as paper checks disappear.

“There’s not much that can be done,” said Robert Frimet, the president of a money-service business-consulting firm in Las Vegas. “We’re slowly working our way to a check-free society.”

A check-free society might pose problems for seniors uncomfortable with technology, D’Alessio said, though there has not been much outcry from seniors.

Cristina Martin Firvida, the director of financial security and consumer affairs at AARP, said, “To date, we have not yet heard from a lot of our members that this is a big area of concern or that they want more information or guidance.”

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare agreed.

“Irrespective of age, it’s so much more secure than delivery of a paper check,” said Web Phillips, the senior legislative representative for the advocacy group. “If a problem comes up . . . it’s much easier to fix than if a check is lost in the mail.”

Beneficiaries are 125 times as likely to have a problem with a paper check as with an electronic payment, according to written testimony from the Treasury at a Ways and Means Committee hearing in September.

Some exemptions are automatic, Henderson said. People over 90 will automatically continue to receive paper checks without requesting a waiver.

Others eligible for waivers include the mentally incapacitated, people in remote locations without access to banks or ATMs and people who cannot receive electronic payments for religious reasons.

Check recipients can sign up for direct deposit or the Direct Express debit card by calling 800-333-1795.

The Direct Express card was specifically designed for un-banked federal benefit recipients, Henderson said. There is no application or monthly fee. The card can be used to pay bills, make purchases and receive cash back. It is accepted anywhere MasterCard is taken.

“These are benefit payments people depend on, and we want to make sure we deliver them in the safest manner possible,” Henderson said. “Now it’s all about compliance and getting people switched over. It’s about getting them to take the action.”

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

Read More..

House to vote on Violence Against Women Act measures

Seeking to avoid a protracted and politically damaging fight over reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, Republican leaders are prepared to allow the House to vote Thursday on a version of the bill favored by Democrats, an unusual move that acknowledges GOP divisions on the touchy issue.

The House will vote first on a Republican version of the bill, which authorizes funding for programs to aid prosecution of domestic violence and sexual assault cases and assist victims.

But with Democrats unified in opposition and Republicans divided, the GOP’s alternative appears likely to fail.

The House would then move to a vote on a version adopted by the Senate this month on a broadly bipartisan 78 to 22 vote. It broadens the bill’s protections to gays and lesbians and expands the authority of tribal courts to prosecute non-native Americans accused in domestic violence cases on Indian reservations. It is supported by the White House and domestic violence advocates.

That bill is expected to pass on the strength of votes from Democrats and some Republicans — and over objections from a bloc of conservatives, an increasingly common pathway for successful legislation in a House roiled by divisions inside the GOP majority.

The outcome would send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature, reauthorizing the landmark measure which has been credited with raising awareness of the problems of violence against women since it was first enacted in 1994.

“The majority of the country feels strongly this is something we ought to do,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a Native American. He prefers the Senate bill because of how it would deal with crimes committed on Indian reservations. “It’s better to resolve this and move on, rather than be hung up on the issue.”

VAWA has been reauthorized on noncontroversial and bipartisan votes twice.

But a third reauthorization stumbled on a partisan dispute last year after the House adopted a Republican bill in response to opposition expansions in VAWA’s protections that had been adopted by the Senate.

The two chambers could not work out differences in their bill before it expired with the end of the last Congress.

But after a campaign season marred by GOP missteps on the sensitive issue of rape and an election won by Democrats in part because of women’s support, Republican leaders are now eager to find a resolution on the issue.

When the Senate took up a bill similar to one that passed last year with 15 Republican Senate votes, its GOP support grew to 23 senators. A bloc of House Republicans then began urging their leaders to allow the bipartisan version to receive a vote.

“Elections have consequences,” said Terri O’Neal, president of the National Organization for Women, which is part of a broad coalition pushing the Senate version, explaining the shift.

“House Republicans look increasingly out of touch with the American public if they’re the place where these bipartisan bills come to die. I think wiser heads among their leadership recognize that,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

Read More..

GOP pushes back on Obama sequester warnings, says he should seek deal

Republicans on Monday rejected President Obama’s high-pressure push to avert a series of budget cuts called the “sequester,” saying that Obama was engaged in scare tactics and political campaigning when he should be seeking a deal.

“This is not time for a road-show president,” Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said at a news conference with other House Republicans. “This is time to look for someone who will lead and work with us, because we’re willing to work with them to solve America’s problems.”

The lawmakers criticized Obama for a planned trip Tuesday to Newport News, where Obama will highlight the impact of the cuts on the a military-driven local economy.

A trio of GOP governors also said Obama was hyping the problem.

“I think he’s trying to scare the American people,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

With just days left before $1.2 trillion in budget cuts begin to take effect, that argument was the closest thing to progress Monday. There was a new round of grim political theater — including new warnings from Cabinet secretaries about the potential impact of the cuts — but no deal or substantive negotiations.

A new Washington Post-Pew Research poll shows that the standoff has risks for both sides, but more so for the GOP. Among respondents, 45 percent said they would blame Republicans if the cuts took effect and 32 percent said they would blame Obama. An additional 13 percent said they would blame both sides equally.

Obama, for his part, has insisted that any sequester replacement must balance spending cuts with new measures to raise tax revenue. Republicans have insisted that it should not. On Monday, Obama urged a visiting group of state governors to lobby their congressional delegations.

“Here’s the thing — these cuts do not have to happen,” Obama said Monday, speaking to a gathering of the nation’s governors. “Congress can turn them off any time with just a little bit of compromise.”

The sequester is a package of spending cuts worth $85 billion for the current fiscal year and $1.2 trillion over the next decade. It was designed as a poison pill, not a real-world policy. The idea, back in 2011, was that broad cuts would be so unappealing that Washington lawmakers would be motivated to replace them with new and less-disruptive reductions.

“I don’t think the public realizes how stupid these cuts are,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said in an interview Monday with “CBS This Morning.”

“Limping from one budget crisis to another doesn’t do anything for this economy,” he added.

One reason for the lack of progress is that, on Capitol Hill, the deadline doesn’t quite feel like a deadline. In other recent budgetary showdowns, such as the debt-ceiling fight in 2011 and the “fiscal cliff” crisis this winter, there were hard deadlines with immediate, unpleasant consequences. Miss them, and Congress risked a national default or large tax hikes.

This deadline is different. Even if the sequester takes effect as scheduled on Friday, it could be weeks before the first employees are furloughed and the first effects are felt by the public. That could leave plenty of time for Congress to reverse or modify the cuts.

Read More..

Legislative branch prepares for spending cuts

Lawmakers will return to work Monday after a week-long break, with $85 billion in automatic spending cuts set to take effect in four days.

Congressional offices and agencies have remained largely quiet on the issue compared with the executive branch, where top officials — from President Obama to Cabinet members such as Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta — have warned against the budget cuts known as sequestration, in speeches and with testimonies before congressional committees.

But that doesn’t mean the legislative branch would escape cuts.

The sequester would not affect lawmaker salaries, since their pay does not come from discretionary spending. But the reductions would hit their individual offices, as well as all legislative-branch agencies such as the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office and U.S. Capitol Police.

Agencies that have sent letters to employees have noted similar strategies: imposing hiring freezes, reducing travel expenses, trimming funding for technology upgrades and reworking some contracts.

Furloughs stand out as one of the greatest concerns among federal workers, because they mean less pay for the year and fewer days for employees to do their jobs.

Some congressional agencies have said they expect to avoid unpaid leave if the sequester happens, while others have said they may resort to the measure for a few days.

The Government Accountability Office told employees in a memo last week that furloughs probably wouldn’t be necessary for the agency, based on the latest estimates for a reduction target.

“We have been allocating our funds since the start of the fiscal year in a very conservative manner, recognizing that sequestration might go into effect,” Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro said in the memo.

“We project that we would no longer require furloughs at GAO this year to absorb the potential reduction associated with sequestration,” Dodaro added.

Likewise, a spokesman for the Architect of the Capitol said in an e-mail last week that the organization doesn’t think furloughs will be necessary to meet the reduction target.

What remains to be seen is just what the reduction targets would be. The latest estimate from the White House budget office said the sequester would require across-the-board cuts of “roughly 5 percent for non-Defense programs.”

The Congressional Budget Office calculated 5.3 percent for the same category.

Even based on those estimates, some legislative agencies don’t think they can avoid furloughs under the sequester.

The Library of Congress last week warned its employees that the cuts would probably require four days of unpaid leave, with individual workers scheduling one of those days in coordination with supervisors, while the other three would come during library closings at times when the facilities would normally be open.

The Government Printing Office wasn’t so specific, saying by e-mail that “furloughs may also have to be implemented” in addition to plans for a hiring freeze, limits on overtime and reductions in travel and training.

Although the sequester could have an impact on lawmakers’ local and Capitol Hill offices, it remains unclear how many members of Congress would impose layoffs, furloughs or pay cuts to meet the reduction targets. Only those who expect to avoid such measures commented for this report.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said his office prepared for the sequester during the past year by stopping pay raises, reducing travel, eliminating its staff retreat and cutting back on mailings — resorting to more cost-effective digital communications instead.

“We’ve kept awfully lean this year just on the assumption that this might happen,” Cole said. “We’ll make the adjustments, but we won’t have to furlough and we won’t reduce services in terms of case work or answering constituent questions.”

The automatic cuts were established with the intent that they would be so undesirable that lawmakers would be motivated to reach a budget compromise. But with the cuts days away and Democrats and Republicans as far apart as ever, observers say the reductions appear to be inevitable.

Read More..

Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales

A bipartisan group of senators is on the verge of a deal that would expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions, but significant disagreements remain on the issue of keeping records of private gun sales, according to aides familiar with the talks.

An agreement would be a bold first step toward consideration of legislation to limit gun violence in the wake of the mass shootings at a Connecticut elementary school in December and comes as the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected this week to begin considering new proposals to limit gun violence.

The talks, led by two Democrats and two Republicans, are expected to earn more GOP support in the coming days and likely enough to move the bill through the Senate, according to senior aides of both parties who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

“These negotiations are challenging, as you’d expect on an issue as complicated as guns,” the chief negotiator, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), said in a statement Saturday. “But all of the senators involved are approaching this in good faith. We are all serious about wanting to get something done, and we are going to keep trying.”

Resolution of whether to keep records of private sales is key to earning the support of one of the Republicans involved in the talks, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who has a solid A-rating from the influential National Rifle Association and could provide political cover for lawmakers of both parties who are wary of supporting the plan.

Coburn has declined to comment on the talks, saying recently that “I don’t negotiate through the press.”

Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records. Records of private sales also would help law enforcement trace back the history of a gun used in a crime, according to Democratic aides. Republicans, however, believe that records of private sales could put an undue burden on gun owners or could be perceived by gun rights advocates as a precursor to a national gun registry.

Coburn and Schumer are joined in their talks by Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), while aides in both parties anticipate that Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Susan Collins (Maine) could also endorse the plan soon. McCain and Collins have said they generally support legislation expanding background checks, while a Flake spokeswoman said Saturday that he is still reviewing the proposal.

More Republican support is anticipated in part because the four senators involved in the talks have agreed that any new background check program would exempt private transactions between family members or people who completed a background check in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit, according to aides.

But the four senators are grappling with how to make the process of obtaining a background check as seamless as possible for private dealers while also ensuring that someone keeps a record of the transaction.

Read More..

With campaign, Mark Sanford goes from Appalachian Trail to comeback trail

BLUFFTON, S.C. — In the annals of political redemption stories, it is hard to top the one that former governor Mark Sanford (R) is attempting to write in South Carolina.

After a spectacular 2009 scandal that destroyed his marriage, spawned impeachment proceedings and saddled him with the biggest ethics fine in state history, Sanford is making a new start right back where he started his once-promising political career two decades ago — running for Congress in South Carolina’s 1st District.

The most amazing part: He’s got a good chance of winning.

“For all the obvious reasons, I thought politics was forever over for me,” Sanford said in an interview.

But in December, Jim DeMint shocked the state by leaving the Senate for a job running the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Then, Rep. Tim Scott (R) was named to fill DeMint’s seat, leaving an opening in Sanford’s old House district.

“It’s sort of a generational event. It never happens in South Carolina politics. A U.S. senator retires, and then a governor appoints, and then my phone lines light up,” Sanford said.

At the moment, Sanford is still one of 16 who are seeking the Republican nomination in a special election to fill the seat.

That means the man once touted as a GOP presidential prospect is spending his evenings in places like the Golden Corral family buffet here, where 13 of the contenders were making their cases at a Beaufort County Republican Party candidate forum Thursday night.

With each of them allotted only five minutes, Sanford, the first to speak, had an advantage that few of his rivals had, which is that people in the audience actually knew who he was.

Among his opponents was a high school economics teacher from Mount Pleasant, S.C., named Teddy Turner. He devoted his presentation to convincing the conservative audience that he had nothing in common with his father, CNN founder Ted Turner, or his former stepmother Jane Fonda, whom the younger Turner referred to as “Hanoi Jane.”

“How many of you get to pick your parents?” Turner lamented.

A few candidates later into the program, Tim Larkin, an engineer, looked around the room and declared: “I think the only folks I know here are my competitors.”

Even his opponents concede the former governor is all but certain to come in first in the March 19 primary, after which he will face the second-place finisher in a runoff two weeks later.

In a district that went nearly 60 percent for Mitt Romney in the last presidential contest, the winner of the GOP primary will have a big advantage in the May 7 special election. But that race, too, has a splash of excitement, given that the Democratic nominee is expected to be Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert.

As he acknowledged, Sanford is the beneficiary of a unique set of circumstances — a short race, a big field, a hefty campaign treasury (including more than $120,000 in leftover funds from his congressional races, and, with some restrictions, more than $1 million donated to his gubernatorial campaigns) and the fact that pretty much everyone in the district has seen his name on the ballot five times before.

Read More..

Group releases list of 90 medical ‘don’ts’

Don’t use feeding tubes in patients with advanced dementia. Don’t use drugs to aggressively treat diabetes in those older than 65. Don’t automati­cally use imaging technology for minor head injuries in children and headaches in adults. And don’t give antacids to babies with reflux.

Those are among the 90 medical “don’ts” on a list being released Thursday by a coalition of doctor and consumer groups. They are trying to discourage the use of tests and treatments that have become common practice but may cause harm to patients or unnecessarily drive up the cost of health care.

It is the second set of recommendations from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s “Choosing Wisely” campaign, which launched last year amid nationwide efforts to improve medical care in the United States while making it more affordable.

The recommendations run the gamut, from geriatrics to opthalmology to maternal health. Together, they are meant to convey the message that in medicine, “sometimes less is better,” said Daniel Wolfson, executive vice president of the foundation, which funded the effort.

“Sometimes, it’s easier [for a physician] to just order the test rather than to explain to the patient why the test is not necessary,” Wolfson said. But “this is a new era. People are looking at quality and safety and real outcomes in different ways.”

The guidelines were penned by more than a dozen medical professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and ­Gynecologists.

The groups discourage the use of antibiotics in a number of instances in which they are commonly prescribed, such as for sinus infections and pink eye. They caution against using certain sedatives in the elderly and cold medicines in the very young.

In some cases, studies show that the test or treatment is costly but does not improve the quality of care for the patient, according to the groups.

But in many cases, the groups contend, the intervention could cause pain, discomfort or even death. For example, feeding tubes are often used to provide sustenance to dementia patients who cannot feed themselves, even though oral feeding is more effective and humane. And CT scans that are commonly used when children suffer minor head trauma may expose them to cancer-causing radiation.

While the recommendations are aimed in large part at physicians, they are also designed to arm patients with more information in the exam room.

“If you’re a healthy person and you’re having a straightforward surgery, and you get a list of multiple tests you need to have, we want you to sit down and talk with your doctor about whether you need to do these things,” said John Santa, director of the health ratings center at Consumer Reports, which is part of the coalition that created the guidelines.

Health-care spending in the United States has reached 17.9 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product and continues to rise, despite efforts to contain costs. U.S. health-care spending grew 3.9 percent in 2011, reaching $2.7 trillion, according to the journal Health Affairs.

Read More..

John McCain, Republican senator is still raising questions and hackles

John McCain was excited.

It was late January, and the following day, he and a group of bipartisan senators were set to announce their framework for comprehensive immigration reform. He picked up the phone and called an old friend in Arizona.

“We got it yep, yep,” McCain said, according to Grant Woods, who detected a long-lost measure of energy in the Republican’s voice.

The next morning McCain called Woods again: “We’re going over there,” the senior senator from Arizona said, referring to the Capitol Hill unveiling. “It’s going to be good.”

His optimism was warranted. The bipartisan effort was generally well-received across the country and across ideological lines. And McCain’s participation — as well as that of rising Republican star Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — gave the plan a level of legitimacy and a promise of success not seen since the 2007 McCain-led effort to reform the immigration system, which ultimately failed.

The reception back home was not nearly as positive, as McCain has learned in often-hostile town hall meetings over the past two days. And it’s not surprising.

In 2010, in the heat of a close race for reelection, McCain boiled down his stance on immigration reform into one memorable phrase: “Complete the danged fence,” a reference to tightening border security. Now, in light of his enthusiasm for broad reforms that could include a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, critics have accused McCain of flip-flopping and selling out.

McCain’s 2010 primary opponent, J.D. Hayworth, called McCain’s often-stated belief that immigration reform could benefit Republicans “misguided and false.”

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose office phone hold message includes the prompt, “If you are aware of any illegal immigration activity, call the hotline to report it,” said: “I don’t think this is the first time on an issue that he’s changed. Check his records.”

McCain has dismissed his critics with characteristic vehemence, even calling one town hall attendee a “jerk.”

The long search for the Real John McCain continues.

McCain in 2013

The 76-year-old will be 80 when he is again up for reelection in Arizona in 2016. “I have seen a number of occasions around here where people have stayed too long,” McCain said during a recent interview in his Russell Senate Building office. “I have seen people who were real giants in this institution deteriorate, and unfortunately, we remember them at the end.”

Endings matter in politics. If McCain is approaching the exit, this term could determine how he will be remembered. (“In the way people think of him,” former GOP Arizona senator Jon Kyl said, “in the near term, it matters a great deal.”)

Right now, like it or not, the five-term senator is stuck in “get off my lawn” territory, lashing out at his friend-turned-foe Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary; incessantly tugging at what McCain is convinced is a coverup of the September attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya; lambasting the president; and railing against indiscriminate defense cuts. If hard-core conservatives feel burned by McCain’s resurgent reform spirit, the media that he once called his “base” have essentially written him off as an angry and sour loser who once went through a maverick phase but has, in the words of “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart, gone on a “seven-year quest to negate every good thing he’d ever done.”

Read More..

Sequester just over a week away, but blame game has already begun

The fight between President Obama and congressional Republicans over the automatic spending cuts that start next week is shifting from one about stopping them to one about assigning blame if they happen.

Obama on Tuesday surrounded himself with firefighters and other first responders at the White House, where he said Republicans would be at fault if the spending reductions take effect and cost the jobs of emergency personnel. The campaign-style event marked the beginning of what aides described as an intensifying push to pressure Congress to postpone the cuts — or to blame Republicans in Congress if it doesn’t.

Republicans fought back by seeking to portray Obama as the mastermind of the spending reductions, known as the sequester, thereby making him responsible for any damage they cause to the military and the economy.

The escalating efforts are a reflection of how crucial the sequester has become in the long-running debate over the size and scope of the federal government.

No matter how the idea came about, the $1.2 trillion in cuts to defense and domestic spending will nevertheless serve as a high-profile test of the deep reductions in federal spending that have been a hallmark of Republican economic thinking for years.

If the cuts are instituted and Americans do not see them as a major problem, that could serve as an affirmation of the GOP view that the government is unnecessarily big and a hindrance to private-sector growth. If there is a significant backlash, public sentiment is likely to shift toward the Democrats, who generally see the government as a positive force.

The sequester is the result of a summer 2011 deal between Obama and Congress that was designed to be so distasteful that it would compel lawmakers to agree on a broader framework to tame federal borrowing.

That hasn’t happened. And with no recent communication between the White House and congressional Republicans, much of Washington seems resigned to the cuts taking effect March 1.

The deal requires the government to dramatically trim spending on a wide range of domestic programs, including education as well as research and development. It would lead to the furlough of thousands of workers, officials say. And it would also sharply reduce spending at the Pentagon — a prospect that would help stabilize the federal debt over the next decade but that also creates deep anxiety among military leaders.

Macroeconomic Advisers, an independent economic group, said Tuesday that sequestration would cost 700,000 jobs and push the unemployment rate a quarter of a percentage point higher than it otherwise would have been.

The group said in its analysis that the cuts would be a significant economic hit, given that taxes have already gone up this year and “with the economy still struggling to overcome the legacy of the Great Recession.”

Obama said he prefers to delay the sequester through the end of the year by trimming other spending, such as farm subsidies, and raising more money by limiting breaks and loopholes that favor top earners and select industries, such as oil and gas companies.

Read More..

President’s Day, by George

Did you enjoy that relaxing three-day weekend? Caught up on sleep, maybe sneaked in a movie or a few errands?

That’s no thanks to Rep. Frank Wolf
(R-Va.), who’s playing the role of the Grinch Who Wants to Steal Presidents’ Day.

Wolf recently reintroduced a bill that would do away with the congressionally established Monday holiday (it’s set for the third Monday of the month) and instead designate it as Feb. 22 — George Washington’s actual birthday. This year, that date falls on a Friday, which means we’d still have a three-day weekend. But that won’t happen every year.

Wolf thinks that by celebrating on an arbitrary Monday, the American people are missing out on the chance to truly remember the life and legacy of our first president (who, like Wolf, hails from the Commonwealth).

He bemoaned many schoolkids’ ignorance on the subject. “Congress has unwittingly contributed to this lack of historical understanding by relegating Washington’s Birthday to the third Monday of February to take advantage of a three-day weekend,” Wolf said in a statement entered into the Congressional Record. “We need to change the focus from celebrating sales at the mall to celebrating the significance of President Washington’s birth to the birth of our nation.”

Wolf even trotted out endorsements of the idea from presidential scholar and author
David McCullough
and from Jim Rees, the executive director of Mount Vernon.

But what would happen to all those great Presidents’ Day deals on mattresses?

New blood

As key members of Team Obama move on, a new study finds that President Obama is beginning his second term with fewer than a third of the senior staff members who made up his original team — a level of turnover that’s pretty typical among modern second terms.

The report from the Brookings Institution shows that 71 percent of Obama’s “A-team” has left, compared with 78 percent for Ronald Reagan, 74 percent for Bill Clinton and 63 percent for George W. Bush.

The paper also examines the importance of senior staff to the president and the toll that turnover takes: “a loss of institutional memory, time lost hiring and orienting a successor, the disappearance of unique networking contacts.”

Most companies in the private sector would consider the typical White House turnover rates “unthinkable.”

But there’s a silver lining here, the author suggests. Second-term hiring affords the White House the chance to bring in new blood and fresh ideas. And it could assuage “disgruntled” constituencies by hiring from their ranks. “Repaying political debts could advance the president’s efforts to pursue a vigorous legislative agenda,” they write.

And finally, a bit of advice: in Obama’s second term, the paper assesses the president’s agenda and suggests that Team Obama recruit from Capitol Hill, which could “provide necessary expertise for the legislative battles that lie ahead. ”

Out of Africa, and back in

Democratic National Committee Executive Director
Patrick Gaspard
, former political director in the Obama White House, appears to be the administration’s pick to be the next ambassador to South Africa.

Gaspard, a major player in New York City politics — he was a campaign staffer for former mayor David Dinkins, for example — was a top operative of the Service Employees International Union and a political organizer.

He also was actively involved in organizing efforts in the 1980s and ’90s to topple South Africa’s apartheid regime. While in the White House, Gaspard, a Haitian American, was also a key player in U.S. relief efforts in Haiti after a powerful earthquake devastated the country three years ago.

Although he grew up in New York City, Gaspard was born in Zaire, now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, after his Haitian-born parents moved there for his father’s teaching job. The family moved to New York when he was 3.

Kerry on

Another longtime aide to Secretary of State John F. Kerry is taking a senior post at the State Department. David McKean is to be director of policy planning, a plum position created in 1947 by George F. Kennan and held in later years by foreign policy heavy hitters such as Paul H. Nitze, Mort Halperin and Richard N. Haass.

McKean became the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s staff director when Kerry took over the committee in 2009 and was his Senate office chief of staff from 1999 to 2008. He left the committee in early 2011.

McKean was also CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston and has written three books on U.S. political history.

Last April, McKean become a senior adviser to then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, assessing State Department operations. Ought to come in handy as Kerry takes over. And his long relationship with Kerry should enable him to provide candid advice — a valuable commodity in this town.

With Emily Heil

The blog: washingtonpost.com/
intheloop. Twitter: @InTheLoopWP.

Read More..

Congressional staffers often travel on tabs of foreign governments

About a dozen congressional staffers flew business class on a trip to China last summer and stayed at luxury hotels while touring the Great Wall and the Forbidden City and receiving a “briefing on ancient artifacts and dynasties” at the Shanghai Museum.

The all-expenses-paid visit came courtesy of China. The Chinese government hosted a day of meetings with officials in Beijing followed by eight days packed with outings to destinations often frequented by tourists along with a stop at a missile frigate and two others related to national security — the official theme of the trip.

More and more foreign governments are sponsoring such excursions for lawmakers and their staffs, though an overhaul of ethics rules adopted by Congress five years ago banned them from going on most other types of free trips. This overseas travel is often arranged by lobbyists for foreign governments, though lobbyists were barred from organizing other types of congressional trips out of concern that the trips could be used to buy favor.

The overseas travel is covered by an exemption Congress granted itself for trips deemed to be cultural exchanges.

A Washington Post examination of congressional disclosures revealed the extent of this congressional travel for the first time, finding that Hill staffers had reported taking 803 such trips in the six years ending in 2011. Lawmakers themselves are increasingly participating, disclosing 21 trips in 2011, more than double the figure in prior years.

The number of congressional trips could be far higher, because only lawmakers and senior congressional staff members are required to disclose the travel. A former senior aide on a congressional committee said that junior staffers were usually sent on the trips because they rarely had the chance to take official trips paid for by the U.S. government.

Some Hill employees have gone on repeated trips to the same country, and others chain them together, traveling directly from one expenses-paid visit to another.

China is by far the biggest sponsor of these trips, with senior staffers reporting more than 200 trips there over the six-year period, according to The Post’s review of 130,000 pages of disclosures collected by the Web site Legi­Storm. Taiwan accounts for an additional 100 trips.

But other regions of the world are also well represented.

On a trip to Jordan, for instance, congressional staffers stayed at the Four Seasons in Amman, where they received an audience with the king. The group also visited the Dead Sea and the famed mosaics in Madaba and spent spent two days at the ancient cities of Petra and Jerash, according to an itinerary for the trip.

In Switzerland, staffers took a helicopter ride through the Alps to Monte Bre, hiking up the mountain for coffee at a summit cafe overlooking a lake, according to another itinerary.

Organizers of the trips say they’re an important way for U.S. government staff members to learn about the world with no cost to taxpayers. The trips are supposed to include visits to historical and cultural sites, including those frequented by tourists, to foster international understanding.

Read More..

Dominican Republic port contract scrutinized, along with senator, eye doctor’s relationship

SANTO DOMINGO — When the U.S. Embassy set out to press the Dominican government over a long-stalled contract to provide port security, American officials took on some tough opponents. The deal had languished for more than a decade amid stiff resistance from the American Chamber of Commerce, which represents the interests of American and local businessmen in the Dominican Republic, and the country’s customs authorities.

Ambassador Raul Yzaguirre’s team pushed the government to enforce the contract — which calls for operating X-ray scanners to screen cargo at the country’s ports — despite objections over its merits and its price tag.

The port deal has come under heightened scrutiny in the United States in recent weeks because of its chief investor, a wealthy Florida eye doctor named Salomon Melgen who stood to gain a windfall if the contract was enforced, and his close friend Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

Menendez, whose relationship with Melgen is the subject of a Senate ethics inquiry, was a major beneficiary of the doctor’s generosity, repeatedly flying on his private plane to the Dominican Republic, staying as a guest at his seaside mansion and receiving large campaign contributions. Melgen donated $700,000 to Menendez and other Senate Democrats last year. The senator was also the most powerful champion of the port deal, publicly urging U.S. officials to pressure Dominican authorities to enforce the contract.

Menendez pointed to the port security deal at Yzaguirre’s confirmation hearing to become ambassador, an aide to the senator said, asking him to put a priority on security efforts aimed at countering drug trafficking through the Dominican Republic. Melgen, too, sought Yzaguirre’s help in enforcing the contract.

Yzaguirre, for his part, received help from both men in becoming ambassador. They had provided a crucial boost to his nomination when it ran into trouble.

The details of efforts by Yza­guirre and embassy staff on behalf of the port security contract remain sketchy. But the ambassador spoke approvingly of stepping up drug interdiction measures when Dominican reporters specifically asked him about the port deal. And embassy officials told the American Chamber of Commerce that they were seeking a resolution of the contract favorable to an American investor, according to William Malamud, the chamber’s executive vice president.

Though it was unusual for a U.S. Embassy to cross swords with the local American chamber, embassy officials said they were doing what U.S. diplomats around the world do when American investors get ensnared in legal or bureaucratic problems.

But this was no routine case because of the relationship among the three men: the senator, the eye doctor and the envoy.

When Yzaguirre’s nomination in 2009 to become ambassador to the Dominican Republic was held up by Republicans in Congress over other disputes with the State Department, Melgen and Menendez came to his aid. At the time, Menendez chaired the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that handled Caribbean affairs. With the nomination stalled, Melgen spoke with the senator and registered once again his support for Yzaguirre being confirmed, according to Melgen’s lawyer.

Read More..

House passes bill to block federal-worker pay raise

The House on Friday approved legislation to stop a 0.5 percent pay raise for federal workers from taking effect in April.

Under a presidential order, the pay increase will kick in after the government’s last temporary spending plan expires, unless lawmakers agree to block the salary bump.

The vote on the House bill was 261 to 154, with only 10 Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it. The measure faces questionable prospects in the Senate, where similar House-approved measures died last year.

The bill’s sponsors argued that the pay increase would cost $11 billion over 10 years, and it comes at a time when automatic cuts are threatening the federal workforce. The so-called sequester could force unpaid furloughs for federal employees.

The White House on Wednesday issued a statement opposing the House measure, saying a raise would help the government recruit and retain quality public workers.

Unions and professional associations representing federal employees also opposed the bill, pointing out that the government hasn’t provided its usual annual raises for more than two years and that new hires have to pay more toward their retirement benefits.

“Federal workers — the same federal workers who care for our veterans and secure our borders and regulate our drug supply — have already contributed more than $100 billion toward reducing the deficit,” Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a floor statement. “No other group of Americans has contributed more to reducing the deficit.”

In contrast, committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said the president’s executive order on federal pay was a “cynical ploy to curry political favor with one of the largest unionized workforces in America.” His office released a statement Friday saying federal employees are compensated 16 percent more on average than their private-sector counterparts.

Issa’s number comes from a 2012 Congressional Budget Office report that compared pay and benefits. A recent government comparison looking at salaries alone found that federal employees are underpaid by 35 percent on average compared with their cohorts in the private sector.

Despite the freeze on annual salary increases in recent years, many federal workers have received individual raises for performance, promotions and moving up in grade.

The president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association said the House bill amounted to little more than a political statement. “Instead of pushing political messaging bills, Congress should focus on the real issues lawmakers need to address in the next two months, including the threat of sequestration and furloughs.”

Read More..

Obama urges a move away from narrow focus on politics of austerity

Just about every argument in Washington since the 2010 midterm elections, which returned control of the House to Republicans, has centered on reducing the federal deficit. On Tuesday night, President Obama leaned into his second term by declaring that a single-minded focus on deficit reduction would jeopardize the nation’s future. And he sounded an urgent call to rebuild.

Reelected by an ascendent coalition, the president spoke from a position of strength in his fourth State of the Union address. The economy is improving. The Republican Party is in disarray. The time has come, Obama indicated, to pivot away from the politics of austerity.

“Most of us agree that a plan to reduce the deficit must be part of the agenda,” he said. “But let’s be clear: Deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan. A growing economy that creates good middle-class jobs — that must be the North Star that guides our efforts.”

The president rejected the fiscal brinkmanship that defined the past two years. Instead, he framed future fiscal debates as opportunities to shape a “smarter government” — one with new investments in science and innovation, with a rising minimum wage, with tax reform that eliminates loopholes and deductions for what the president labeled “the well-off and well-connected.”

Second-term presidents have a narrow window of time to enact significant change before they become lame ducks, and Obama, while echoing campaign themes of reinforcing the middle class, made an urgent case for a more pragmatic version of populism, one that emphasizes economic prosperity as the cornerstone of a fair society.

Over and over, he noted that the time to rebuild is now.

The “Fix-It-First” program that Obama outlined to put people to work on “urgent repairs,” such as structurally deficient bridges, bore echoes of President Bill Clinton’s call in his 1999 State of the Union address to “save Social Security first.” Clinton’s was an effective line, one that stopped — at least until President George W. Bush took office two years later — a Republican drive to use the budget surplus to cut taxes.

Although Obama’s speech lacked the conciliatory notes of some of his earlier State of the Union addresses, he did make overtures to Republicans and cited Mitt Romney, his presidential challenger, by name.

He combined tough talk about securing the border, which brought Republicans to their feet, with a pledge to entertain reasonable reforms to Medicare, the federal entitlement program that fellow Democrats are fighting to protect.

“Those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms,” he said.

Obama also pledged to cut U.S. dependence on energy imports by expanding oil and gas development. And he singled out one area where he and Romney found agreement in last year’s campaign: linking increases in the minimum wage to the cost of living.

Obama set a bipartisan tone at the start of his speech, quoting from President John F. Kennedy’s address to Congress 51 years earlier when he said, “The Constitution makes us not rivals for power, but partners for progress.”

Read More..

Impact of State of Union speeches isn’t very lasting

When President Obama delivers his fourth State of the Union speech Tuesday night, he is a guaranteed an audience of millions of viewers, the rapt of attention of Beltway reporters and issues advocates, and for at least an hour, the undivided attention of Congress.

What isn’t guaranteed is any lasting impact.

Rarely have State of the Union addresses moved public opinion and rarely have they led to the kind of broad legislative accomplishments that presidents propose. For all the ritual and attention surrounding these speeches, the State of the Union is, well, sort of lame.

“Most of the speeches can be summarized in three words: boring, boring, boring,” said Allan Lichtman, author of “The 13 Keys to the Presidency.” “They tend to be laundry lists. But sometimes they rise above that.”

Mandated by the Constitution, the State of the Union, for much of its history, was not a speech at all, but a written list of policy recommendations handed to Congress. Now, the addresses are grand political theater and provide rare chance for a president to make an unfiltered argument and lay out policy ambitions from the biggest bully pulpit he will have all year.

Billed as a coda to his second inauguration, Obama’s speech will focus on the economy and the middle class — he is set to propose spending public money on education, research and infrastructure — as well as touch on immigration and gun control.

He will spend the remainder of the week giving repackaged versions of his address, looking to capi­tal­ize on the moment and further underscore his priorities.

“The State of the Union is a Super Bowl-like political event. The key to fully leveraging it is to make sure that it doesn’t become a one-off, but contains a big idea thematic animated by some specific proposals,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who worked for President Bill Clinton. “If the speech is not approached like that, it risks becoming a pupu platter moment — lots of tasty dishes but you won’t be filled up for the long term.”

Although interest groups and lobbyists, inside and outside the administration, spend time trying to get the briefest of mentions of their pet causes in the speech before an audience of about 40 million, there are few legislative payoffs to show for all of their efforts.

President George W. Bush used the first State of the Union speech of his second term to call for privatizing Social Security, an effort that hit a brick wall in Congress and nationwide.

In his 2012 speech, Obama proposed that every state require that students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18, a recommendation that also fell flat.

Obama used that address to make his argument for reelection, touching on themes of fairness and economic equality that would undergird his campaign stump speeches. But there have been few memorable lines and themes from Obama’s addresses on par with Clinton’s 1996 pronouncement that “the era of big government is over,” or Bush’s “axis of evil” reference from 2002.

Read More..

Being first lady’s guest at speech can yield positive and sometimes unexpected results

As President Obama delivers his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, the first lady’s guests will be on their best behavior.

White House staffers will have coached those sitting in the gallery with Michelle Obama that at any moment the cameras might pan from the president’s podium to where they sit in the balcony. So they will watch their posture, stifle yawns and skip the chewing gum.

The everyday Americans invited to accompany the first lady as she watches her husband address Congress and the nation are essentially given roles by the White House. They are the human faces of the messages the president delivers, whether about the ingenuity of small business or the plight of returning troops.

This year, the president will focus on the economy and discuss issues such as gun control and immigration. A White House official said that victims of gun violence will be seated with the first lady, as will members of the middle class who would benefit from policy proposals that Obama will unveil, military families, and people working on immigration issues.

The speech will probably run an hour or so, and the next day, most guests will find themselves, Cinderella-like, back at their jobs and in schools and homes across the country.

Previous guests have found that the effects of the evening linger — in positive and sometimes tough or unexpected ways.

Attending the 2010 speech was a “game-changer” for Trevor Ya­ger. The founder of TrendyMinds, an Indianapolis-based advertising and public relations firm, Yager was invited, he says, to represent gay business owners thriving in a tough economy.

The attention he received — the local TV interviews, the national stories — caused a rift with a business partner. Soon after his return from Washington, the partnership dissolved, he said.

“There were jealousy issues,” Yager said. “When you have something like this come along, you do see people’s true colors.”

There were major benefits, too. He credits the exposure from attending the speech with the growth in his business. Trendy­Minds has grown from six or seven employees to 29. “All the coverage and attention helped attract clients and opened doors for us,” he said.

For Julia Frost, being a guest in 2010 complicated an already difficult relationship with her Republican father. The two are estranged, and although politics isn’t their only source of conflict, she says it contributes to the rift.

Growing up in a family of conservatives, Frost — who attended the speech as a veteran, a community college student and the wife of an active-duty Marine — says she’d always considered herself to be a Republican. But her visit to Washington made her question that.

She heard things from the president that she liked, about college and health care, and she was impressed by Obama’s demeanor.

“For a long time, I had been blindly following my family, but I saw that there was sense on both sides,” said Frost, who does not label herself a Democrat.

Another result of that night? She has a famous pen pal. Jill Biden, the wife of Vice President Biden, regularly corresponds with Frost. The women were seated together for the speech.

Read More..

Many 2011 federal budget cuts had little real-world effect

Late on the night of April 8, 2011, Washington’s leaders announced that they’d just done something extraordinary. They had agreed to cut the federal budget — and cut it big.

“The largest annual spending cut in our history,” President Obama called it in a televised speech. To prevent a government shutdown, the parties had agreed to slash $37.8 billion: more than the budgets of the Labor and Commerce departments, combined.

At the Capitol, Republicans savored a win for austerity. There would be “deep, but responsible, reductions in virtually all areas of government,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.)
promised a few days later, before the deal passed.

Nearly two years later, however, these landmark budget cuts have fallen far short of their promises.

In some areas, they did bring significant cutbacks in federal spending. Grants for clean water dried up. Cities got less money for affordable housing.

But the bill also turned out to be an epic kind of Washington illusion. It was stuffed with gimmicks that made the cuts seem far bigger — and the politicians far bolder — than they actually were.

In the real world, in fact, many of their “cuts” cut nothing at all. The Transportation Department got credit for “cutting” a $280 million tunnel that had been canceled six months earlier. It also “cut” a $375,000 road project that had been created by a legislative typo, on a road that did not exist.

At the Census Bureau, officials got credit for a whopping $6 billion cut, simply for obeying the calendar. They promised not to hold the expensive 2010 census again in 2011.

Today, an examination of 12 of the largest cuts shows that, thanks in part to these gimmicks, federal agencies absorbed $23 billion in reductions without losing a single employee.

“Many of the cuts we put in were smoke and mirrors,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a hard-line conservative now in his second term. “That’s the lesson from April 2011: that when Washington says it cuts spending, it doesn’t mean the same thing that normal people mean.”

Now the failures of that 2011 bill have come back to haunt the leaders who crafted it. Disillusionment with that bill has persuaded many conservatives to reject a line-by-line, program-by-program approach to cutting the budget.

Instead, many have embraced the sequester, a looming $85 billion across-the-board cut set to take effect March 1. Obama and GOP leaders have said they don’t like the idea: the sequester is a “dumb cut,” in Washington parlance, which would cut the government’s best ideas along with its worst without regard to merit.

But at least, conservatives say, you can trust that this one is for real.

“There has been a shift in resolve. They have been burned in these fictional cuts. And so the sequester is like real cuts,” said Chris Chocola, a former congressman who now heads the Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy group. “So I think that there is a willingness to say, ‘We’ve really got to cut stuff, and [the cuts] have got to be real.”

Read More..

Postmaster general ‘damaged his reputation’ with five-day mail-delivery plan, Reid says

If Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe didn’t understand the risky nature of his decision to implement five-day mail delivery without congressional approval, Sen. Harry M. Reid made it plain:

“The postmaster general’s actions have damaged his reputation with congressional leaders and further complicates congressional efforts to pass comprehensive postal reform legislation in the future.”

With all of the help the U.S. Postal Service requires to close a $20 billion gap, Donahoe doesn’t need to anger Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader.

Donahoe’s surprise move, announced Wednesday, to shore up Postal Service finances by cutting Saturday mail delivery was bold, aggressive, perhaps even audacious. Those can be admirable characteristics in an executive when his actions work.

If they don’t work, those same actions look foolish, panicky and self-defeating.

Time will tell whether Donahoe gets away with his end run around Congress, but it is already apparent that he has alienated some forces whose help he desperately can use. A move to five-day mail delivery would save $2 billion annually, but Donahoe needs congressional support for reform legislation that would help dig the Postal Service out of a much deeper hole.

Donahoe also needs union cooperation for his proposal to move USPS employees to a health insurance program run by the Postal Service. But his unilateral five-day move has so upset labor leaders that two unions have called for his dismissal.

He wants to impose five-day mail delivery beginning in August. Package delivery would continue on Saturdays and post offices would be open. Once a temporary budget funding measure expires March 27, there will be no congressional restriction against five-day delivery.

In fact, postal officials say there is nothing in the temporary measure that prohibits five-day delivery. “We think we could move to five-day now,” said Mary Anne Gibbons, the USPS general counsel.

But the restriction has been repeatedly imposed by Congress since 1983, so there is no doubt about what the will of lawmakers has been.

“The fact is that for 30 years we’ve had this,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.). “ I think the intent is clear.”

Donahoe may be counting on polls showing popular support for five-day delivery and indications from Congress and the White House that they are ready to abandon three decades of past practice. With everything on their legislative agenda, lawmakers might not take time to reimpose the six-day mandate before Donahoe can make it a done deal.

But even if they don’t, and even if his action is within the letter of the law, members of Congress don’t like outsiders messing with their prerogatives. While five-day delivery certainly is a legislative possibility, preemptive agency moves to undermine years of legislative history are not appreciated on Capitol Hill.

“Given the importance of the post office to communities in Nevada and across our nation, such a drastic policy change cannot be enacted without approval from Congress,” Reid said. “Instead, the postmaster general relied on flawed legal guidance to claim that he can circumvent Congress’ s authority on the matter.”

Read More..