The Homeland Security Impasse

 Minnesota's Mall of America was named this past weekend as a possible target of a terrorist attack in a one-hour video released by the militant Somali group al-Shabaab.   Concern about such an attack could not be higher, especially following on the heels of terrorist attacks in France and Denmark.  But that has not deterred congressional Republicans from playing games with America's security.

Republicans promised things would get better if they were put in charge of Congress.  Yet, due to a lack of leadership and seemingly irresolvable differences among their members, they are holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which is set to run out this Friday. 

What kind of game is this?  Well, House Republicans, unhappy with President Barack Obama's executive order on immigration, have attached an amendment to the DHS funding bill that would stop the president's immigration action, which they consider illegal.  The strategy was to have the DHS funding bill pass with the immigration amendment attached.  If the president subsequently vetoed the measure he would be attacked for failing to protect the nation. 

But the Republican measure has not been able to clear the Senate because Republicans do not have enough votes to avoid a filibuster.   Democrats in Congress want a "clean bill" to fund DHS, one without any amendments.  Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.  If DHS funding runs out thousands of its employees will be furloughed, while 170,000 essential personal will have to work without pay.  "We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Monday evening, "We cannot shut down the Department of Homeland Security." 

With Republicans facing increased criticism and blame for the impasse, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposed an alternative strategy.  He would allow a clean vote on the DHS funding bill, which is for one year, and then have a separate vote on a bill that would stop President Obama's executive actions on immigration.  His goal would be to make Democrats, who did not favor the president's executive action, have to vote on the record.

But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was more concerned that House Republicans would not go along with the proposal.  This is because House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) cannot control his own caucus.  And, sure enough, with McConnell's proposal only hours old, conservative House members spoke out against the gambit.   Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) issued a statement saying, "The Senate Majority Leader’s plan to divorce the funding bill from the unlawful actions it is restricting is tantamount to surrender, and won’t meet with support in the People’s House."

Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the man responsible for the 2013 government shutdown, issued a statement of his own.   "Leadership's current plan -- to pass clean DHS funding and separate legislation barring executive amnesty -- is a mistake," Cruz said. "Congress is obliged to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in President Obama's lawlessness, and that includes both our confirmation authority over nominees and the power of the purse."

Last week a Texas federal judge halted implementation of the president's executive order on immigration.  The case is likely to take some time to work its way through the courts.  This has led many observers to wonder why Republicans just don't go ahead with a clean DHS funding bill and let the courts deal with the legality of the president's action on immigration.  

That would seem like common sense, especially considering the increased terrorist threats.  But common sense does not apply in Washington, least of all for congressional Republicans. 

Immigration Man

President Barack Obama took a historic step in announcing he would take far-reaching executive actions to change immigration policy.  He spoke with the confidence of a man who believed he was doing the right thing.  But his actions have set up a major confrontation with Republicans who have accused the president of an abuse of power.

The president's actions, which will go into effect in the new year, will provide relief for up to five million people living illegally in this country.   “The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half-century,” Mr. Obama said. “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

At the heart of the president's announcement is a new program for undocumented people who have been in the United States for at least five years and are parents of children who are citizens.  Most of them would be eligible for a new temporary legal status that would allow them to work in the country for three years.  However, they must pass criminal background checks and pay taxes.  "I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it's not," the president said in his prime time address from the White House.  "Amnesty is the immigration system we have today -- millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time."

The president also said he would "build on our progress at the border" with additional resources to help further stem with the flow of illegal immigrants.   He added that deportations of criminals are up 80% over the past six years.  "That's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day."

The president also responded to many business leaders by announcing relief for some immigrant workers with special skills.  "I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed. "

The president did not propose a pathway to citizenship.  Instead, in announcing his actions, the president called upon Congress to act on immigration.   The Senate passed a bi-partisan immigration bill eighteen months ago, but the Republican controlled House has refused to vote on the measure because of divisions within the GOP House membership.  Speaker John Boehner has attempted to cobble together a piecemeal approach to immigration, but his members have refused to act.

It is clear, despite all their outrage, the Republican controlled Congress is not going to pass immigration reform.  Pragmatic members of the party know that Latinos are a large and growing segment of the U.S. population that will play an important role in deciding who is elected president in 2016.  But a large faction of the party has been opposed to a larger solution, instead focusing their efforts on border security.  There are currently more than eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.  About 40% of them entered through airports and overstayed the visas, according to Congressmen Luis Gutiérrez (D-Il), who is elated with the president's actions.

Republican leaders are not so eleated.  Speaker John Boehner released a video response, "The president has said before that 'he's not the king' and 'he's not an emperor," but he is sure acting like one."  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who helped write the Senate immigration bill, said, "The president's actions now make all of this harder and are unfair to people in our immigration system who are doing things the right way."  Senate Rand Paul (R-Ky) said he would "not sit idly by and let the president bypass Congress and our Constitution."  Earlier, soon to be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell threatened to act, saying, "We're considering a variety of options."

Latinos gathered at the White House, and in cities around the country, to express their support for the president's actions.  Millions of them will soon be able to come out of the shadows of our society and live in peace.  One of them told the Los Angeles Times, "We're going to leave the darkness -- we're going to stop being scared."

The dilemma for Republicans is that if they undo what the president has done they will alienate millions of Latinos and other immigrants.  But that has never stopped them before.
   

Immigration Crisis

President Barack Obama should take executive action on immigration in an effort to ease the current humanitarian crisis along the border, even though some House Republicans have threatened to attempt to impeach him for exceeding his authority.   With the midterm elections just three months away, a Republican impeachment effort would energize Democrats to increase their turnout in key races throughout the country.

There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.  But over that past two years there has been an explosion of undocumented children caught crossing the border without parents or guardians.  The bulk of the children come from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, where crime, gangs and violence are rampant.  U.S. authorities have struggled with how to handle the surge.  Those coming from Mexico are immediately returned.  Those coming from Central America must be referred to the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement by law and placed in temporary shelters to await their deportation proceedings.  But the surge has overwhelmed the system.  According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 57,525 unaccompanied alien children were apprehended along the Southwest Border region in fiscal 2014. 

The president recently asked Congress to authorize $3.7 billion to deal with the crisis.  Instead the House approved two bills that would provide the administration with $694 million but end a program that protects some young immigrants from deportation for two years.  The president said Republican lawmakers are "not even trying to solve the problem."  Meanwhile, the Senate did not act, and Congress adjourned for its five week summer break.  

At a news conference Wednesday, the president was asked about Republican accusations that he is an "imperial president."  Obama responded, saying, "I promise you the American people don’t want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done. Even as we take these executive actions, I’m going to continue to reach out to Democrats and Republicans."  As to immigration, the president said, "So if I’m going to, for example, send more immigration judges down to the border to process some of these unaccompanied children that have arrived at the border, then that’s coming from someplace else, and we’re going to have to prioritize. That’s well within our authorities and prosecutorial discretion."

Under prosecutorial discretion the government could prioritize what cases it wants to pursue.  For instance, the president could authorize prosecutors to focus only on individuals with ties to organized crime or who are convicted of serious criminal offenses.  The president could also expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for children who were brought into the country illegally.  Under the program, individuals apply for a renewable, two-year work permit and temporary reprieve from deportation proceedings.  This would be controversial and give Republicans a chance to charge that illegals are taking jobs away from citizens, even though that would not be true.

In June 2013, the Senate passed an immigration reform bill by a bipartisan vote of 68 to 32.  But the House has refused to take the measure up because of Republican opposition in its chamber.  Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio said last month that the bill would not have stopped the surge of illegal children.  “What I think would have prevented that from happening is sufficient border security on the ground that would have discouraged people from making that journey in the first place,” he told the Washington Times.
Nonetheless, the president is urging passage of the Senate bill.  "My preference would be an actual comprehensive immigration law. And we already have a bipartisan law that would solve a whole bunch of these problems," he said at his news conference.  "Until that happens, I’m going to have to make a choice. That’s what I was elected to do."

Now, while the do-nothing Congress is on its long summer break, the humanitarian crisis along the border worsens.   For sure, some Republicans will go back to their districts and rail at the president for inaction on immigration.  At the same time, House Speaker, and hypocrite, John Boehner is suing the president for exceeding his authority by delaying the employer mandate in the healthcare law that Boehner so vehemently opposes.  Should the president take executive action on immigration, Boehner may decide to raise the ante.

In the near future, Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson will present the president with options for changing deportation policies.  The president should move quickly on their recommendations and do what he was elected to do.    

A Country Divided

A recent CNN/ORC national poll indicates that if the 2012 presidential election were held today Governor Mitt Romney would beat President Barack Obama by a margin of 53% to 44%.  But a slew of recent national polls show that three-quarters of all Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing.  

Together these polls reflect enormous dissatisfaction with Washington.  Nonetheless, Republicans, even those in Congress, have been unrelenting in their attacks on President Obama.  Since Obama's first day in office in January 2009 Congressional Republicans have done all they can to block President Obama.  Worse, they have consistently done all they can to delegitimize the Obama presidency at all costs.  They have put party politics ahead of the well being of the American people.

Politics in America has always been a rough and tumble profession.  But, with the emergence of powerful conservative media outlets, the country has become more divided.  Calls for presidential impeachment have cast a shadow over most modern day presidents.  However, the chorus of impeachers seems louder in the past year.  A recent poll by CNN/ORC found that 57% of Republicans support impeaching Obama, while just 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats support such an action. 

The United States Constitution states, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."  Some Republicans point to Benghazi and the failure to secure America's southern border as reasons to impeach Obama.  Others cite Obama's use of executive orders as an abuse of power.  But President George W. Bush issued an executive order every 10 days, President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order every 7 days, and President Jimmy Carter issued one every 5 days.  In fact, Obama's rate of executive orders is the lowest since President Grover Cleveland.  

In the near future, President Obama will likely take action to change immigration laws, a hot button issue for Republicans who have blocked all efforts for meaningful reform.  White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, speaking at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast last week, said, “It would be foolish to discount the possibility that Republicans would think about going down that path."  But many Republicans think it would be foolish to pursue impeachment.  They remember that right after the House voted to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998, for perjury and obstruction of justice, his approval rating surged 10 points to 73% in a Gallup Poll. 

In mid July Republican House Judiciary Committee chairman Robert Goodlatte of Virginia said on ABC's This Week, “We are not working on or drawing up articles of impeachment.” He added, “The Constitution is very clear as to what constitutes grounds for impeachment of the president of the United States. He (Obama) has not committed the kind of criminal acts that call for that.” Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner, who has said he disagrees with impeachment, has moved ahead with plans to sue the president over his use of executive powers.  Specifically, Boehner is suing the president for failing to execute the health care law by delaying the law's employer mandates.  This is the same healthcare law House Republicans have voted more than 50 times to repeal.  

The Boehner lawsuit and talk of impeachment have given Democrats an opportunity to increase fundraising efforts.  Last week House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi emailed supporters, "Yesterday, for the first time in history, Congress voted to sue a sitting president. Today, the White House alerted us that they believe 'Speaker Boehner … has opened the door to impeachment.'"  Democrats face many difficult midterm elections this November, and may lose control of the Senate.  

Ten years ago then Senator Barack Obama made a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention that would win him broad acclaim.  "Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes." Obama said.  "Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America."

Sadly for America, those who embrace the politics of anything goes are winning. 

The Politics of Benghazi

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.  It has become the battle cry of congressional Republicans as they continue to politicize a human tragedy in order to energize their base and tarnish the reputation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Republicans accuse the administration of a cover-up and negligence for failing to provide adequate security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi.  Democrats accuse Republicans of playing politics with Benghazi and for irresponsibly cutting the budget for State Department security.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, in an attack by armed militants on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, and later a nearby CIA annex.   The incident took place on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, and two months before the 2012 Presidential Election.  President Obama had frequently touted his anti-terrorism record during the campaign.

On September 12, President Obama called the attacks an outrageous act, "No acts of terror will shake the resolve of this great nation…Today we mourn four Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."  He continued, "We shall not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done."   

The following Sunday, Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five network public affairs programs.  Ambassador Rice said that the administration had no evidence that the attack was preplanned but it was investigating.  "Based on the best information we have to date…what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where…there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by a hateful video…(In Benghazi) We believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons."  

Rice's explanation immediately came under fire from leading Republicans, who said the attack was preplanned by extremists with links to al Qaeda.  They accused Rice of misleading the American public in order to protect the president's image of being strong on terror.   They also criticized the administration's response during the attack, and the lack of security that had been in place prior to the assault.  

Following the attack, the administration increased security at its diplomatic missions, announced that the FBI would investigate, and increased surveillance to hunt for the attackers.  The State Department's Accountability Review Board released findings in December 2012.  It found, "Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department…resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took pace."  

While she quickly implemented corrective measures, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come under continuous criticism for Benghazi.  In January 2013, she told a congressional hearing, "I take responsibility.  Nobody is more committed to getting this right.  I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger and more secure."  

In the 18 months following Benghazi, Politico reports congress held 13 hearings and 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been turned over to congressional investigators.  The New York Times conducted an exhaustive investigation and reported, "The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs."  As to the hateful video, entitled Innocence of Muslims, the Times reported that the attack was "fueled in part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." 

Meanwhile, last month the conservative group Judicial Watch released 100 pages of documents it had obtained from its Freedom of Information Act request.  They included an email from White House advisor Ben Rhodes that spelled out talking points to be used at the time by administration spokespersons.  He wrote in part, "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader policy failure."  While every administration has issued talking points, especially during a crisis, Republicans saw this as a smoking gun.  

As a result, House Speaker John Boehner has said he will create a special select committee to investigate the attacks.  Now some Democrats are talking about boycotting the committee, but House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said she is open to the suggestion.  "If this review is to be fair, it must truly be bipartisan," meaning an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans, she said in a written statement.    

As Republicans hope to win control of both houses of congress in the midterm elections this November, they see Benghazi as an issue that will mobilize their voters to the polls.  They have intensified their attacks on the administration to a fever pitch in part to damage Secretary Clinton, who is likely run for president in 2016.  

Benghazi has turned into an investigation about talking points.  It has become a political rallying cry for Republicans, who see it as the gift that will keep on giving to 2016, while overlooking similar such incidents under Republican presidents.

Lost in their vitriol is the memory of four Americans who gave their lives in service of their country. Benghazi was a terrible tragedy.   But its brave victims deserve to be treated with more respect.  

GOP Shutdown Politics

"This isn't a damn game!" House Speaker John Boehner said Friday at a news conference on the budget stalemate that has led to the government shutdown.  Really Mr. Speaker?  The government shutdown is, in fact, a direct result of political gamesmanship by the Republicans. 

Let's start with Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the Narcissus of Capitol Hill.  No one loves Senator Ted Cruz more than, well, Ted Cruz.  And it is no wonder.  This man holds himself in the highest esteem, walks with swagger, and drips with ambition.   Throughout his lifetime, all of his actions, associations and alliances have been undertaken solely for the advancement of Ted Cruz. 

He is clearly far smarter than your average Tea-Party Congressmen, so he is leading them around by their noses on his little ego trip.  And they love it because they each get to fulfill their lifelong dream of destroying the federal government, which they believe is at the root of all this country's problems.  They are elected from gerrymandered districts that are filled with white hyper-conservative citizens who can be mobilized at the drop of an anti-Obama epithet.   

Meanwhile, Cruz has the admiring backing of Fox News and conservative radio talk show hosts, who are promulgating lies and distortions about the shutdown to rally their rabid Republican base.  The more outlandish the criticism on these right-wing outlets, the more the audience loves it.  (Just don't try to take their federal benefits away!)

Tea-Party Republicans are downright giddy that they have forced the federal government to shut down.  "We’re very excited," said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Mn). "It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it."   Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Ks) observed, "America's been a little astonished by us doing the right thing in the last few days here in the House."  

Nonetheless, the wiser Republican leadership has been flummoxed to by the negative public perception of the party as a result of the Cruz-driven strategy to shut the government down unless the Affordable Care Law, or Obamacare, is defunded.  Word of dissension in the party ranks has only added to the party's image problems.  Leaders have been scrambling to change the optics, to shift blame to President Obama and the Democrats. 

So it was particularly noteworthy when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand Paul, both Kentucky Republicans, were caught in an embarrassing conversation on the senate floor by a Kentucky TV station.   They were talking about messaging strategy; neither man wanted the government shutdown.

Paul approached McConnell on the floor following his CNN interview.  McConnell began by warning Paul he was "wired up here."  But that didn't stop Paul, who was eager to share a powerful revelation that had come to him.  "I just did CNN and I just go over and over again 'We're (Republicans) willing to compromise.  'We're willing to negotiate.'  I think... I don't think they (Democrats) poll tested we won't negotiate.  I think it's awful for them to say that over and over again," Paul said.
McConnell responded, "Yeah, I do too and I, and I just came back from that two hour meeting with them and that, and that was basically the same view privately as it was publicly."  McConnell was apparently referring to the meeting between President Obama and the Congressional leadership.

 
Paul added, "I think if we keep saying 'We wanted to defund it (Obamacare).  We fought for that and that we're willing to compromise on this', I think they can't, we're gonna, I think... well I know we don't want to be here, but we're gonna win this I think."  So neither Congressmen wants the shutdown, but they are now both think they will "win" this debate by shifting blame to the Democrats, whose position they can summarize as "they don't want to negotiate" on the budget or debt ceiling.  

This, of course, assumes that most Americans won't understand that that Democrats have already agreed to huge cuts, basically continuing the "sequester" levels that have already been disruptive to government agencies and services.  Or that Democrats have consistently said they will negotiate after a budget bill is passed and the debt ceiling is raised; or that Democrats have said they are willing to make some adjustments in the Affordable Care Act.  

Meanwhile, Republicans have consistently said they will never agree to a new budget, or to raise the debt ceiling, unless Obamacare is defunded. The lower house has voted 42 times along party lines to defund Obamacare.   Republicans have wasted precious time and valuable taxpayer dollars trying to eliminate a law that was passed by congress, signed by the president, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that President Obama was reelected on.

Instead of passing even a short-term budget, so 800,000 federal employees can go back to work, and services can be restored to the poor and needy of all ages, Republicans have focused on winning the battle in the court of public opinion.  Instead of agreeing not to let this country's credit rating be destroyed, which will be devastating for the global economy, Republicans are trying to win the perception game.

Speaker Boehner, your protestations about this not being a game are empty because of the actions of you and your party.  All American can see the games Republicans are playing.  It is time for you to do the right thing for the country -- bring the senate-approved budget to the floor for a vote.  

And don't forget what happened to Narcissus.

 

Growing Republican Irrelevance

The Republican Party's refusal to accept the fact that the United States is evolving socially and demographically will drive the party to irrelevance on the national political scene.    

The debate over immigration reform is the latest example of how the party is seems to be out of step with the nation.  Hispanics make up the largest minority in America.  They voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, by a margin of 71% to 27% for Governor Mitt Romney.  In 2012, Asians became the fastest growing minority population in the U.S., edging out Hispanics.   President Obama also got 71% of the Asian vote last November.

While only 39% of the white vote went for President Obama in 2012, the white population is declining as a share of the country's total population.  The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that whites will become the minority by 2043.    

There are currently more than 50 million Hispanics in the United States.  According to the Census Bureau, that number will grow to 132 million by 2050, or about 30% of the projected U.S. population.  

Faced with the stark reality of these numbers, many leading Republicans have spoken out in favor of immigration reform.  Earlier this week, former President George W. Bush said, “I do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate.”  He added, "At its core, immigration is a sign of a confident and successful nation.”  Bush's relatively strong showing among Hispanic voters in 2004, about 44%, helped him win reelection.  

But many Republicans in the House of Representatives don't care; especially those who occupy gerrymandered districts with small minority populations.  None has been more outspoken that Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).  Speaking of the Senate's comprehensive immigration plan, he said, “It would hurt Republicans, and I don’t think you can make an argument otherwise.”  Why?  “Two out of every three of the new citizens would be Democrats,” he said.  

King's candid reasoning is exactly why House Republicans are trying to kill immigration reform. Instead, they are proposing a piecemeal approach to immigration that will leave out a pathway to citizenship.  Their first priority is securing the border because there has been a recent increase in illegal immigration in some Southwestern states.

There are 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States.   The Senate's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, which includes a "border surge" to secure the Southwest border with Mexico, would decrease illegal immigration by up to 50% according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The CBO further projected that the bill would cut federal deficits by $158 billion over the first ten years after enactment.

It would seem that the Senate bill would at least be worthy of consideration by the House.  But House Speaker John Boehner refuses to do so citing the Hastert rule, which means a majority of the majority House Republicans must agree.  So the Senate bill appears dead.

Following the Republican's disappointing results in the 2012 elections, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, "When Republicans lost in November, it was a wakeup call."  He issued a report that included the following recommendation: "We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only." 

Apparently House Republicans didn't get the message.  

A.P. and the A.G.

The U.S. Justice Department's secret seizure of two months of phone records for reporters and editors of the Associated Press is a reckless violation of the First Amendment.  So egregious is this violation of the U.S. Constitution that Attorney General Eric Holder must be held accountable.

On Monday, the president and chief executive of A.P., Gary Pruitt, sent a stinging letter to Attorney General Holder condemning the department's “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into its organization.  Pruit wrote, “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the news gathering activities undertaken by The A.P. during a two-month period, provide a road map to A.P.’s news gathering operations, and disclose information about A.P.’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.” 

Last June, Mr. Holder assigned Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, to lead one of two investigations into government leaks of national security information to the media.  The leak investigations were in response to demands from Congress for a crackdown following pre-election disclosures about a bomb plot, cyber warfare against Iran and details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.  Republicans accused the Obama administration of intentionally leaking the information to news organizations, including the A.P., to make the president look strong on national security.  The White House denied the charge.

Mr. Machen's spokesperson told The New York Times, “We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”  He further explained, “Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.”

But news organizations are outraged.  For instance, the Newspaper Association of America called the seizure unprecedented.  "These actions shock the American conscience and violate the critical freedom of the press protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” it said in a statement.  And Republicans in Congress have criticized the Justice Department's actions.  House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman said, “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.”

The controversy over the seizure of the A.P. phone records comes as the administration is struggling to explain why the Internal Revenue Service secretly targeted conservative and Tea Party tax-exempt groups for extra scrutiny.  Further, the White House is embroiled in a dispute over "scrubbed" talking points used following a terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound at Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans died, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.  Together these issues raise questions about the president's leadership.

There is nothing more sacred in the American democracy than freedom of the press.  Independent news organizations serve a critical role in monitoring government for crimes and abuses of power.  At times, confidential sources are essential for the disclosure of wrongdoings.  Most news organizations do not grant confidentiality unless the information provided is vital to the public interest.  Journalists seriously weigh an individual's motives for giving information against the need for the public to know.  But disclosure of confidential sources to the government can have a chilling effect on the free flow of critical information, and can lead to retribution.     

The freedoms enjoyed by the American press are the envy of the world.   Freedom of the press is one of the founding principles upon which the country was built.  Any attempt to undermine this principle is an attack on America.   It seems unlikely that Attorney General Holder was not informed of these unusual actions of his department's special investigation into government leaks.  Nonetheless, the seizure of phone records from the A.P.,  a non-profit global news organization owned by American newspaper and broadcast companies, is an outrageous abuse of power by his Justice Department.  

Attorney General Holdermust take this breach of an essential right seriously in order to send a wake up call to all government agencies, and to the world.

Sequester Insanity

It is doubtful that Congress and the White House will reach a budget agreement in time to avoid the deep mandatory cuts, known as the "sequester", from going into effect at the end of next week.  The consequences, according to many economists, could be disastrous for the already anemic American economy. 

Conventional wisdom currently is that the sequester deadline will pass and then Washington will come up with some sort of compromise solution.  Perhaps just in time for the next self-inflicted crisis, the threat of a federal government shutdown on March 27 if Congress does not approve funding. 

At the heart of this crisis is the debate over how to reduce the annual deficits that Washington continues to rack up. The national debt is currently $16.5 trillion, or about $50,000 for each citizen.

On Tuesday, Erskine Bowles and former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson released their new deficit reduction plan, which they say splits the difference between President Barack Obama and House Republicans. Their plan would reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Bowles worked in the Clinton administration, and Simpson was a highly respected Republican Senator.  They served as co-chairmen of the White House's 2010 deficit-reduction panel, which put together a bipartisan package of tax and spending changes that was rejected by both the administration and Congressional Republicans.

The Bowles-Simpson plan includes $600 billion in cuts from Medicare and Medicaid, $600 billion in new tax revenue from ending or reducing deductions and breaks, and $1.2 trillion in cuts to discretionary spending, along with cuts in cost-of-living increases for Social Security, the farm program and civilian and defense retirement programs.  Bowles-Simpson 2.0, as it is being called, sharply reduced tax revenues from their original plan, perhaps in an effort to win over some Republicans.

In the current deficit debate, the White House favors a $1.5 trillion package that includes smaller cuts in social programs, investments in education, new technologies and infrastructure, and additional revenues achieved by closing tax loopholes.   Republicans say they will propose a $4 trillion package of cuts that they claim will result in a balanced budget in 10 years, although they have not provided details.  But Republicans have ruled out any further tax revenues. 

Meanwhile, some economists question making deep cuts in federal spending at a time when the nation's economic recovery is so weak.  They point to failed austerity measures in European countries, like England, which slipped back into another recession.

A compromise like the Bowles-Simpson plan seems appropriate for the country to avoid further calamity.  "Our plan is not perfect, but it can serve, we believe, as a mark for a bipartisan deal," Mr. Bowles told reporters Tuesday morning.  However, it is unlikely that the plan will receive any traction in Washington.

So, at the end of next week, the sequester is likely to go into effect.  It calls for $85 billion in across the board cuts, and gives the government little discretion in how to enact them.  The president called it a "meat cleaver" approach, warning that national security and vital services will be reduced, resulting in furloughs for border patrol agents, first responders, teachers and air traffic controllers. 

With Congress on a break, no negotiations are underway.  Instead, Congressional leaders are pointing fingers and playing the blame game.  On Tuesday, House Speaker John Boehner said, "Words alone won't avert it. Replacing the president's sequester will require a plan to cut spending that will put us on the path to a budget that is balanced in 10 years.  To keep these first responders on the job, what other spending is the president willing to cut?"

No wonder a recent Quinnipiac poll showed that 72% of American registered voters disapprove of the way Congressional Republicans are doing their job.  And now Republicans are ready to bring the country to its knees rather than compromise on a more balanced budget deal to avert the latest Washington manufactured crisis.  This is insanity.
  

Obama's Inaugural Address

“As times change, so must we,” President Barack Obama said in his eloquent and inspiring inaugural address, delivered to several hundred thousand witnesses gathered in front of the U.S. Capitol.  He continued, “Fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

Mr. Obama’s address marked the beginning of his second term as president.  The remarks fell on Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and focused heavily on civil rights, equality and fairness for all.  “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal,” he said, “just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall.”   

The president, citing and end of a decade of war, and the nascent economic recovery, said, “America’s possibilities are limitless.”  He then gave the nation a clarion call, “My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it – so long as we seize it together. “

House Speaker John Boehner and Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who were seated on the platform near President Obama, showed no emotion during the address.  But the president delivered a message intended for his opposition.  “The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us.  They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. “

And, in reference to the partisan divisiveness that has created great turmoil in the halls of Congress for the past four years, Mr. Obama said, “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.”

Yet some of the issues the president highlighted, in his nineteen-minute address, are sure to meet resistance from Republicans in Congress.  Mr. Obama devoted a paragraph to climate change, which wasn’t even debated during the presidential campaign.    Speaking of gun control, the president said, “Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.” 

Mr. Obama took on criticism of his handling of Iran’s nuclear program, “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”

In many ways, President Obama’s speech was a continuation of his campaign to engage women, gays, immigrants and the middle class.  “For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.  We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.”  But he warned of tough choices ahead to reduce health care costs and the deficits.  Nonetheless, he said,  “But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

The president spoke confidently, with clarity and purpose.  His speech laid out a progressive agenda, yet it was grounded in the values and intentions of America’s Founding Fathers.  “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life,” he said, “Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.”

As President Barack Obama entered the Capitol building, following his address, he turned and looked out at the crowd, and the Washington Monument in the distance.  He then smiled.

Be Not Afraid--Do What's Right

The holiday season is already upon us, but Congressional Republicans are not in a holiday mood.  Because of their recalcitrance in the ongoing negotiations surrounding the pending fiscal crisis, they are on the verge of becoming the Grinch that stole America's economic recovery. 

President Barack Obama, who won November's presidential election decisively, campaigned for raising tax rates on the wealthy, individuals making more than $200,000, and couples making more than $250,000.  One month later, A Washington Post and Pew Research Center poll shows a majority of Americans still supports that position.  The poll also finds that 53 percent of the respondents will blame Republicans in Congress if the two parties fail to reach a budget deal.

But national opinion polls do not influence GOP Congressmen elected in heavily Republican districts.  Many of these members are under the firm control of the Tea Party and Grover Norquist, the conservative founder of Americans for Tax Reform.  They have both threatened to defeat any Republican members who do not toe the less "government-less taxes" party line by supporting more conservative candidates against them in the primaries.   

Republicans have a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, and conservatives have a strangle hold on these members and their leadership.  So tight is their grip on House Speaker John Boehner that if he were to act against their wishes he may lose his Speakership. 

Bah Humbug! This is just the right time for Speaker Boehner to compromise, and show the majority of Americans that a smoothly and smartly functioning government is possible.  A compromise on the “fiscal cliff” would be a wonderful gift for most Americans, businesses and the global economy.  Such a compromise would also polish up the tarnished image of the Republican Party, except among Tea-Party members.  But even they would benefit from a healthier economy and a more robust recovery.

The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a bill in July that would extend many of the expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts for middle-income families, while not doing so for wealthy income earners.  Speaker Boehner should call this bill up for a House vote and deliver the two-dozen Republican votes needed to pass it.  The president has repeatedly said he will sign this bill, which would mean certainty and relief for 98 percent of all Americans. 

Subsequently, Republicans can continue to the debate with Democrats the merits of extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, entitlement reform, budget reductions and changes in the federal tax laws.  Each of these are difficult and complicated issues that will take more time to get right.  But why make the middle-class suffer any more hardship; why use them as a political chip in a effort to score political points with a vocal minority of Americans?

Republicans and Democrats both reminisce about how President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill worked together to move America forward.  This relationship, built on mutual respect, was historic.  Both men risked the wrath of their base supporters, but were not afraid to do so.  

Speaker Boehner, you too can make history.  And you can make this a happy holiday season for a majority of Americans. 

  

Be Bold Mr. President

The din of Democracy, which ebbs and flows according to election cycles, has calmed as most Americans now focus on their normal lives. They had witnessed a historic amount of campaign spending, about $6 billion, more than one million political ads, and seemingly endless news coverage. After all the shouting was over, and the ballots were counted, the political balance of power did not change in Washington.

Yet one could conclude that the 2012 presidential election had two outcomes. President Obama was given a second chance to fix entitlements, tax policy, the economy, deficits and immigration. The American people empowered the president to stand up to the extremes of both parties, if necessary, to come up with reasonable and balanced solutions to these daunting problems. The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was knocked back on its heels.  So it is time for the president to be bold and use an "all hands on deck" approach in order to galvanize Congressional support around solutions. The president should also be transparent with the American people, in effect, "crowdsource" ideas, and include them in the process.

President Obama has a small window in which to act before the midterm campaign begins. He should first start building momentum by working out a balanced solution to the so-called fiscal cliff. Congress must have a budget agreement by the end of the year or the Bush tax reductions will expire and deep cuts will be made to the defense budget. It is time for a grand bargain, a compromise, that includes budget cuts AND some revenues.

Meanwhile, for Republicans, it is mourning in America. The party of Lincoln failed to recognize that the country is a melting pot with diverse voices and evolving needs. Instead, the GOP is hanging on to a Norman Rockwell vision of America.  Republican members of Congress have been unwilling to budge on tax increases for the wealthy because they fear of losing the Tea Party's support.

Now Republicans have a chance to show all Americans that they are willing to compromise.  Reaching an agreement on the fiscal cliff will be an important first step for them to reach out to all segments of the population. Republican House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday, "I think the members understand that the fiscal cliff... is unacceptable."  And earlier this week he said, "The issue here is the president wants revenue. I'm willing to put revenue on the table."  But the speaker will not agree to rate hikes for high-income earners, rather just closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.  The Democrats don't agree with his approach.

If the president and Congress do not make a deal on the fiscal cliff by the end of the year, the U.S. economy will likely spiral into another recession. With so much at stake, the stock market has been sharply lower out of concern for what Washington will do. A solution requires compromise from both parties, and compromise will send a strong message to all Americans that both parties agree their country comes first.

One final note, President Obama received 9 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, while Mitt Romney received about 2 million fewer votes than Senator John McCain did when President Obama defeated him. It is likely they were turned off by the negative campaigns waged by both candidates, their misleading claims, and the sheer magnitude of the political advertising.

Among the losers this election year were billionaires David and Charles Koch, and Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate. They spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the president and failed.

Perhaps the biggest loser was Fox News contributor and GOP strategist Karl Rove.  His political groups, American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS, spent about $325 million of other people's money trying to elect Romney and other Republicans to office with little success. He also had an embarrassing meltdown on television when Fox News called Ohio for the president.

Rove was unapologetic about his dismal campaign results, explaining in a conference call to donors Thursday, according to one press report, that the Republican losses would have been bigger without him. No doubt his financial supporters believe him.

And no doubt Rove is laughing all the way to the bank.

Ebenezer Boehner

"Bah! Humbug!" might as well have been the words of House Speaker John Boehner, who may seem like Ebenezer Scrooge to millions of Americans now facing a year-end payroll tax increase.

On Tuesday the Republican controlled House of Representatives rejected a Senate approved bill that would have extended payroll tax cuts for two months and allowed the unemployed to continue receiving jobless benefits. The House instead voted 229 to 193 to establish a negotiating committee so the two chambers can resolve their differences. But the Senate, having Saturday passed the payroll tax extension measure 89-to-10, is in recess until after the holidays and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he would not call them back.

If the payroll tax cuts are not extended salaries will be taxed an additional 2%, or about $1,000 per year for the average American. The Senate bill would extend the payroll tax cuts for two months and it would also prevent a large drop in fees paid to doctors who accept Medicare. It appears that House Speaker Boehner refused to bring the Senate bill directly to the floor for an up or down vote because it would have passed with the necessary Republican support.

Many Republicans who face difficult reelection campaigns were critical of their own leadership. Among them Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who issued a statement after the vote that House Republicans, "would rather continue playing politics than find solutions." He added, "Their actions will hurt American families and be detrimental to our fragile economy."

The devil is in the details of the debate. Most members of Congress agree that the payroll tax cut should be extended for another year. But Republicans and Democrats, including the president, disagree on how to make up for the $150 billion shortfall to Social Security. The president proposed raising the taxes of the wealthiest Americans by about 3%. Republicans objected to any tax increase instead offering cuts in social programs. The president agreed to drop his tax proposal.

Meanwhile the Senate went ahead and passed a two-month extension to buy time for further negotiations over funding. It passed the Senate by a 9 to 1 margin, including a majority of its Republican members. The two-month extension would cost about $33 billion which would be funded by an increase in the fees that new homeowners with federally backed mortgages would pay to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration. The Congressional Budget Office reports the bill would reduce the deficit by $3 billion.

But House Republicans, primarily Tea-Partiers, oppose the Senate bill because they are said to be concerned with the uncertainty caused by just a two-month extension, as well as the political benefit the White House could gain in the national dialogue over taxes. It appears that they forced Speaker Boehner to take a hard line on the measure. The Speaker sent a letter to President Obama, which said, "I ask you to call on the Senate to return to appoint negotiators so that we can provide the American people the economic certainty they need."

Speaker Boehner changed positions on the Senate bill, after earlier indicating in a party conference call he would support the Senate compromise. To many it appeared that Majority Leader and aspiring Speaker Eric Cantor pressured Boehner to change his position. However, Boehner said he only praised a provision in the Senate bill requiring presidential action on the Keystone pipeline.

So as Christmas approaches, millions of Americans face a tax increase because Republicans want to defeat President Obama more than they want to help the middle class. And when they want to know how the Grinch stole Christmas, they can ask Ebenezer Boehner. Bah Humbug!

Obama's Leadership

As Americans try to enjoy Labor Day weekend this year too many find themselves without a job and with little hope of finding employment in the near future. This is because Washington remains embroiled in a partisan battle over what steps to take to get the economy growing again.

The latest unemployment statistics released Friday were dismal. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the official jobless rate for August held at 9.1%, for the first time since World War II there were no new jobs added to the economy. Black unemployment hit 16.7%, the highest it has been in three decades, and 11.3% of Hispanics are out of work. Equally depressing was the fact that on Thursday the White House forecast the unemployment rate will be 9.1% for 2011 and only slightly better in 2012, 9.0%.

In response, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called President Barack Obama's economic policies "abysmal." In a written statement he continued, "The President’s policies have failed to deliver on his promises of job creation, deficit reduction, and much-needed economic growth.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh) simply Tweeted, "Where are the jobs?"

Over the past three months the U.S. economy has added an anemic average of 35,000 jobs. It takes an addition of 150,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. Meanwhile companies are hoarding $2 trillion dollars, primarily due to the lack of consumer demand, that could be invested in their businesses. And many Americans, suffering the the adverse effects of a terrible housing market, are reluctant to spend.

There is plenty of blame to go around for this country's economic woes. But Americans are tired of Washington's "blame game." Most of them understand that President Obama inherited an economy in free fall and he took important steps to avert a second Great Depression. But the president has been in office for forty months and it appears nothing has changed when it comes to the economy.

Enormous pressure is focused on the president, who will address the nation next Thursday. The president is expected to announce several initiatives to get people working again. The New York Times reports that they will include a tax credit for businesses to increase their payrolls, an extension of the payroll tax credit for individuals and an infrastructure bank targeted at fixing roads and railways. Congressional Republicans will likely be able to block or delay implementation of all the president's proposals. And even if Congress passed an infrastructure bank, it will take months to begin feeling the impact.

The November 2012 presidential election will most likely be decided on who voters think can get America back to work again. Republicans will turn the election into a referendum on President Obama's handling of the economy. For political reasons they will do all they can to forestall any progress over the next year. Instead they will proffer their own pro-business, deficit-reducing initiatives.

In order to make a strong case for his reelection the president must be able to demonstrate that he has this country on the right track to a sounder economy. The president must make big bold proposals to reduce unemployment in his speech next week and then follow it up with a fierce and well-executed campaign against Republicans to get his agenda passed.

President Obama must give Americans a reason to vote for him. To do so the president must now show, in a two words, unrelenting leadership.

Stalemate Standoff

President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner held dueling prime time addresses to the nation and even disagreed on whether there was a stalemate over the debt ceiling. That is the problem in a nutshell.

President Obama, for the most part, was cordial while speaking from the White House East Room. He laid out the debt ceiling crisis facing our nation's economy and called for compromise and a balanced approach. His position is to take on government deficit spending through budget cuts and some increased revenues.

But Republicans have adamantly refused to raise revenues. "Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach," President Obama said. He pointed out that there is a lot at stake, "If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -- bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses."

For his part, Speaker Boehner was partisan and forceful in his remarks from his ceremonial Capitol Hill office. "The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today," Boehner said. "That is just not going to happen."

Six months ago the president wanted a clean extension of the debt ceiling. But Republicans and some conservative critics refused saying that passage must be linked to cuts in future government spending. The debt ceiling is now $14.3 billion dollars, so 40 cents of every tax dollar collected goes to service the debt.

Just a decade ago the U.S. government had a surplus. But President George W. Bush enacted huge tax cuts, including for wealthy Americans, initiated two costly wars, and passed a huge prescription drug program that were all unfunded. The recession, which increased costs and decreased revenues due to high unemployment, added to the red ink.

In the face of GOP resistance to pass a clean debt ceiling bill, the president then shifted his position by agreeing to consider cuts, including in entitlement programs, as long as some revenues were included. Revenues would come from closing tax loopholes and placing more of a burden on the nation's wealthiest income earners. Progressive Democrats howled over possible cuts in entitlements, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But Tea Party Republicans howled over any possible revenue increases.

At one point last week the two sides were close to a deal, with Speaker Boehner apparently agreeing to $800 billion in revenues. But when the president asked for $400 billion more in revenues Speaker Boehner broke off talks with the White House. Instead, House Republicans worked over the weekend to craft their own proposal, which calls for a two-step plan for $2.5 trillion in budget cuts with another debt ceiling vote in six months contingent on Congress agreeing to further deep budget cuts. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrats crafted their own proposal which calls for $4 trillion in cuts over the next ten years, no revenue increases and extension of the debt ceiling until after the 2012 presidential election.

Of course, President Obama opposes the latest Republican proposal because it has no revenues and would mean the government would face another budget crisis early next year--before the 2012 presidential election. And there is a report that the Boehner proposal would lead to a downgrade in America's credit. Meanwhile, Republicans oppose Reid's proposal because they say it relies heavily on gimmicks. Stalemate anyone?

In his speech Monday night the president decried the "partisan three-ring circus" in the nation's capital. He said, "The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government." He even cited the fact that Republican icon President Ronald raised the debt limit eighteen times during his presidency, and President George W. Bush did so seven times.

President Barack Obama has made major concessions throughout the negotiations. And Senate Leader Reid has now made a major concession on revenues in his latest proposal, which the president today indicated he will support. But Republicans are likely to hold their ground against the Reid bill, even though failure to past the debt ceiling may have devastating consequences on the already struggling U.S. economy.

President Obama called the crisis a stalemate. Speaker Boehner said there is no stalemate because Republicans have a plan. Perhaps Republicans are counting on failure to pass the debt ceiling as the best way to assure President Barack Obama will be a one-term president.

It's Not My Default

Republicans and Democrats are on a collision course over raising the nation's debt ceiling. Failure to do so will have dire consequences on all Americans and the global economy. Regretfully, it is politics as usual in Washington.

Most experts agree that failure to raise the debt ceiling will cause the United States to default. The consequences of a default will be catastrophic on the already frail American economy. Government payrolls and entitlement programs will not be funded. Interest rates on loans will increase. More people will be thrown out of work. And such a failure will send a tsunami through world economic markets, which are already teetering because of Greece, Italy and Ireland. The global standing of America will be rocked and confidence in the U.S. economy will be severely shaken across the world.

Up to now raising the debt ceiling has been more or less a routine matter. Most Republicans did not blink when it came to casting their annual approval during the deficit-riddled administration of President George Bush. President Bush ran up huge deficits due in large part to his unfunded tax cuts and two wars. What has changed?

Republicans have seized on the debt ceiling crisis to gain deep cuts in the U.S. budget, perhaps following the axiom, "Never let a crisis go to waste." They see an opportunity to scale back future government spending in order, they say, to achieve long-term financial stability and grow more jobs. But so far recent government cuts on the national and state level have resulted in thousands of layoffs as well as reductions in education and critical services.

While President Barack Obama and most Democrats agree that some cuts are in order they have argued for a "balanced" approach. That means addressing the problem by raising some revenues, for instance by closing corporate loopholes and increasing taxes on the wealthiest individuals. Not to do so will put the burden on those least able to afford it. And, according to a recent poll, a large majority of Americans agree with this approach. However, Republicans firmly proclaim that raising any taxes will kill jobs. Never mind that there is no historical evidence to back their claim up.

So the two sides have dug in. Negotiations have reached a boiling point. Republican Speaker John Boehner is struggling to keep his caucus in line, with many of its members willing to let the nation to go into default. Most of them say that the impact of a default will not be too severe a price to pay if it results in deep spending cuts. Many have signed a no new taxes pledge. Republican Majority leader Eric Cantor is leading the hardliners, and may be positioning himself for the Speakership.

Meanwhile, negotiations at the White House to end the impasse continue. Accounts of these meetings vary depending on the party spinning the story. Did Rep. Cantor interrupt the president several times? Did a frustrated president abruptly walk out of the meeting? Who cares? Republicans say the debt is President Obama's problem. Democrats say it is the Republicans who are putting the country at peril.

It is time for all parties grow up. It is time to act in the best interest of the nation. It is time for our elected officials to cast partisan politics and petty rivalries aside and to put America first. Either pass a clean debt ceiling bill or compromise on managing future deficits with a mixture of budget cuts and some revenue enhancements. And then let the voters decide in 2012 which side it supports.

The Golf Summit

Ask any gentleman who has spent considerable time on the links, there's rarely problem too big that can't be hashed out over a round of golf. But Saturday's "Golf Summit" is very unlikely to result in any breakthroughs on matters of debt and taxes.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are going to tee off with House Speaker John Boehner and Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich at an undisclosed Washington golf course Saturday. Details are still pretty hush hush. For instance, will the foursome be paired? Say President Obama and Speaker Boehner play against the vice president and the governor--a truly bipartisan contest. Or will it be partisan--Democrats against Republicans?

President Obama is a relative novice at golf, but he has managed to work in more than seventy rounds since he took office. Speaker Boehner is an avid golfer, but his supporters have warned he hasn't been able to play a lot lately because "he is trying to solve the nation's unemployment problem." Interestingly, he swings right-handed, but putts left-handed. The vice president is rated twenty-ninth among Washington's top golfers according to Golf Digest, fourteen places ahead of the speaker. The governor is also a very good golfer.

If the Republicans are paired together it appears they will have a clear advantage over the Democrats. There is certain to be some wagering, a friendly bet or two. Since the typical round of golf can take four hours, there will be plenty of time for discussion.

Perhaps the vice president will discuss some of the ideas being considered by his deficit commission, which hopes to reach an agreement by July 4. That could make it possible to link a deficit reduction package with Congressional passage of the debt ceiling. The vice president's commission is made up of prominent Democrats and Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip John Kyle. Senator Kyle has said that Republicans are seeking at least $2.4 trillion in cuts over 10 years in order to vote for increasing the debt ceiling by that amount.

The debate over budget cuts and revenue increases (i.e. taxes) has been heated with many Republicans threatening to vote against increasing the debt ceiling unless there are structural changes to government spending. Economists and financial experts have warned that failure to pass the debt ceiling would have devastating effects on the American economy, including higher interest rates and more unemployment, and it would cripple the fragile global recovery.

So America faces perilous deficits (both parties are complicit), a debt ceiling crisis, stubborn high unemployment, two and a half costly wars (in lives and dollars), that our government has authorized, and dozens of other important issues our elected officials have been debating forever. Given the severity of Americas problems, it seems a little silly that our leaders feel a round of golf will somehow pave the way for more harmony and less partisan rancor.

But, make no mistake about it, these men are certain to have a good time on their round Saturday. This is the way Washington works. This is par for the course.