Obama Care: Mar 18, 2013

Monday, March 18, 2013

Presidential Memorandum -- Designation of Officers of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to Act as Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Presidential Memorandum -- Designation of Officers of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to Act as Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email Updates Contact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Jack Lew Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2012 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Presidential Actions • Presidential Memoranda The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release February 01, 2013 Presidential Memorandum -- Designation of Officers of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to Act as Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation February 1, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION SUBJECT: Designation of Officers of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to Act as Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq. (the "Act"), it is hereby ordered that: Section 1. Order of Succession. Subject to the provisions of section 2 of this memorandum, and to the limitations set forth in the Act, the following officials of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, in the order listed, shall act as and perform the functions and duties of the office of Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (Director) during any period in which the Director has died, resigned, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office of Director: (a) Chief Management Officer; (b) Chief Operating Officer; (c) Chief Financial Officer; and (d) General Counsel. Sec. 2. Exceptions. (a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 1 of this memorandum in an acting capacity, by virtue of so serving, shall act as the Director pursuant to this memorandum. (b) No individual listed in section 1 of this memorandum shall act as Director unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the Act. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this memorandum, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum in designating an acting Director. Sec. 3. Prior Memorandum Superseded. This memorandum supersedes the President's Memorandum of December 9, 2008 (Designation of Officers of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to Act as Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). Sec. 4. Judicial Review. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Sec. 5. Publication. You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. BARACK OBAMA

Blog posts on this issue February 05, 2013 3:00 PM ESTPresident Obama Makes a Statement on the Sequester

President Obama explains that while our economy is headed in the right direction, looming automatic budget cuts will cost jobs and slow down our recovery.

February 05, 2013 12:48 PM ESTAnnouncing the State of the Union White House Social

Apply today for a chance to join the White House social media team for the State of the Union.

February 05, 2013 10:58 AM ESTAnnouncing We the People 2.0 and a White House Hackathon

We're working towards Petitions 2.0, releasing an API, and inviting a small group to join us on February 22, 2013 for the White House Open Data Day Hackathon.

En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Pennsylvania GOP Senator: Rigging The Presidential Election Is What The Framers Would Have Done

Shortly after the Democratic presidential candidate won the White House last November, Pennsylvania state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) announced a plan to keep that from happening again in the future. Under Pileggi’s plan, the blue state of Pennsylvania would award electoral votes proportionally according to the popular vote, so that a percentage of it electors will go to the Republican candidate even if a majority of Pennsylvania’s voters prefer the Democrat. Meanwhile, red states would continue to award all of their electors to the Republican.

In response to an inquiry from ThinkProgress, state Sen. Mike Folmer’s (R) office explained that he supports this plan to rig the next presidential race because he believes it to be more consistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision. Seriously:

Senator Folmer believes such changes would be consistent with how electoral votes were originally awarded under our constitutional republic.
When the Electoral College was established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the individual states were empowered to determine how their electors would be chosen. The Founding Fathers rejected the idea of a national popular vote because they feared the rights and interests of the minority could be trampled by the majority. This is why the term “democracy” does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution.
From the first Presidential election of 1788 – 1789 through the election of 1800, the states’ electoral votes were awarded proportionally. After the bitter election of 1800, states began to move to a winner take all system – even though the citizens of that era considered such a change to be blatantly political. By 1836, all states had moved to a winner take all system.

Folmer is correct that Pileggi’s plan is more like the anti-democratic methods used to pick our first presidents, although he is wrong about many of the details of how early elections were run. In the first presidential election in 1788-89, just six states used some form of a popular vote to select the members of the Electoral College. Three states delegated this power entirely to their legislatures, although only about 30 percent of South Carolina’s lawmakers even bothered to show up to choose the first president. New Jersey’s governor unilaterally selected the electors in his state.

Moreover, this pattern of cutting the people out of the presidential election was common in early American elections. Six states held a popular election in 1792; eight held one in 1796; and just five held a popular vote in 1800. And the “popular” elections from this era cannot even vaguely be described as democratic. Just over 13,000 people voted in the 1792 election that reelected President George Washington — out of a nation of 3.9 million people. Needless to say, the 700,000 persons held in bondage at this point in American history did not cast a ballot.

So Folmer is right that Pileggi’s effort to cut the American people out of the opportunity to choose their own president is more like the system that elected our first presidents than our current system. The real question is why he thinks moving back to the anti-democratic days of the past is a good thing.

Sen. Folmer’s full statement is copied below the fold:

Senator Folmer has previously cosponsored Senator Pileggi’s proposed changes to Pennsylvania’s Electoral College voting because Senator Folmer believes such changes would be consistent with how electoral votes were originally awarded under our constitutional republic.
When the Electoral College was established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the individual states were empowered to determine how their electors would be chosen. The Founding Fathers rejected the idea of a national popular vote because they feared the rights and interests of the minority could be trampled by the majority. This is why the term “democracy” does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution.
From the first Presidential election of 1788 – 1789 through the election of 1800, the states’ electoral votes were awarded proportionally. After the bitter election of 1800, states began to move to a winner take all system – even though the citizens of that era considered such a change to be blatantly political. By 1836, all states had moved to a winner take all system.
In 1991, Nebraska’s nonpartisan legislature returned to proportional awarding of Electoral College votes to increase interest among that state’s voters. In 2008, Maine followed suit. According to Reuters, the law “was instrumental in getting Nebraskans excited about the 2008 presidential election” and the same was true in Maine.
Of course, Senator Folmer believes any changes to the current system should be publicly deliberated to ensure all viewpoints are given proper consideration.

View the original article here

Establishment Republicans plan to perpetuate losing formula

Establishment Republicans plan to perpetuate losing formula - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('

');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('

');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('

');}

Follow!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

Advanced Search Options »

Home/News Senate House Administration Campaign Polls Business & Lobbying Sunday Talk Shows Campaign Business & Lobbying K Street Insiders Lobbying Contracts Lobbying Hires Lobbying Revenue Opinion Columnists Editorials Letters Op-Ed Weyants World Capital Living Cover Stories Food & Drink New Member of the Week 20 Questions My 5 Min. W/Obama Announcements Meet the Lawmaker Jobs Video Gossip: In The Know

Briefing Room RegWatch Hillicon Valley E2-Wire Floor Action On The Money Healthwatch Transportation DEFCON Hill Global Affairs Congress Ballot Box GOP12 In The Know Pundits Twitter Room

Home Senate House Administration Campaign Polls Business & Lobbying Sunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing Room RegWatch Hillicon Valley E2-Wire Floor Action On The Money Healthwatch Transportation DEFCON Hill Global Affairs Congress Ballot Box GOP12 In The Know Pundits Twitter RoomOpinionA.B. Stoddard Brent Budowsky Lanny Davis David Hill Cheri Jacobus Mark Mellman Dick Morris Markos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin Bronk Editorials Letters Op-Eds Juan Williams Judd Gregg Christian Heinze Karen Finney John FeeheryCapital LivingCover Stories Food & Drink Announcements New Member of the Week My 5 Min. W/Obama All Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobs ClassifiedsResourcesMobile Site iPhone Android iPad Lawmaker Ratings White Papers Order Reprints Last 6 Issues Outside Links RSS FeedsContact UsAdvertise Reach Us Submitting Letters Submitting Op-eds Subscriptions

Establishment Republicans plan to perpetuate losing formulaBy Sal Russo, co-founder and chief strategist, Tea Party Express-02/05/13 03:05 PM ET !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

The Tea Party movement is a major force in American politics because people are sick and tired of the tax-and-spend policies and crony capitalism of both political parties. Now we learn of the newly launched Conservative Victory Project that wants to push the Tea Party out and replace them with the failed strategies of 2008 and 2012.

After Election Night 2012, even some Tea Party members bought into the false narrative of devastating losses in the Tea Party’s conservative ranks. However, the Tea Party grew in Congress with the election of 27 new Tea Party conservatives to the House and three new Tea Party Senators. The movement again exhibited electoral strength even while the GOP establishment stumbled badly.

If the inappropriately named Conservative Victory Project were actually interested in victories and in conservatives, they would be pushing Republicans to embrace the pro-growth,fiscally economic messages of Tea Party leaders like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and others, who not only won impressive election victories, but also continue to articulate a conservative message that appeals to all Americans. The Conservative Victory Project would have likely supported the opponents of all of these great U.S. Senators.

If these establishment big donors want to see a real disaster, then all they have to do is push Tea Party conservatives into supporting alternative third candidates in competitive races or even tempt them to form a third party. In the general elections, responsible Tea Party leaders have supported establishment Republicans consistently after primaries, while moderates have been spotty at best in being loyal to conservative primary victors.

Establishment Republicans seem to prefer candidates like Florida’s ex-Governor who ran as an independent when he lost the primary. They thought highly of former Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana who refused to support the Republican nominee that defeated him. These are the same big donors in 1980 who rejected Ronald Reagan as a loser, while they supported John Connally, George H.W. Bush and Howard Baker instead. When Reagan won the nomination, many then supported third party candidate, liberal Republican Congressman John Anderson. Reagan defeated Anderson along with President Jimmy Carter in a landslide election.

They just need to look at the record in 2012 and see where their problems really reside. In the Senate, the Republicans drastically underperformed, even though eight of the nine new Senate Democrats faced the establishment-anointed candidates. In comparison, the three incoming Republicans – Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake, and Deb Fischer - are not only strong fiscal conservatives, they are Tea Party darlings that have garnered national attention. So while the Republicans squandered an opportunity for a majority, the Tea Party amplified its voice and influence in the Upper Chamber.

What these big donors are unable to realize is that the people elect the candidates, not their flashy million dollar television advertisements. They wasted money on million dollar advertisements without resulting in a single noteworthy victory. If you don’t have a candidate that represents the electorate with a strong Tea Party message of economic growth and fiscal responsibility, it won’t matter how much you have to spend, because they won’t win.

Just look at the 2012 results in the House of Representatives we see an overwhelming success for Tea Party-backed candidates. The incoming freshman class includes 35 republicans, 27 of which are Tea Party conservatives. Though five replaced outgoing Tea Party members like Mike Pence and Ron Paul, the other 21 are brand new additions to the lower chamber’s Tea Party members.

The Tea Party movement’s success continues because it has been clear in its desire to restore economic sanity by curbing excessive spending and encouraging economic growth. Some Republicans, notably newly elected Senator Ted Cruz and 2010-elected Senator Marco Rubio, have been admirably trying to yank the Republican Party to a more inclusive political posture that is consistent with Tea Party ideas.

GOP insiders should stop pointing the finger at the Tea Party movement for the Republican’s own shortcomings, and instead listen to the likes of Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio for a message that will appeal to 100 percent of Americans – instead of just 53 percent that were targeted in 2012. Not only will their message continue to see success at the ballot box, but their policies will move the country in the right direction.

Russo is the co-founder and chief strategist of Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest Tea Party political action committee.

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/281225-establishment-republicans-plan-to-perpetuate-losing-formulaThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

Congress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedCome clean on rendition, detention and torture Immigration reform should include safe haven for persecuted Beware of moving goal posts on border security enforcement FMLA 20 years on: A disconnect that's hurting families A family-based approach to immigration reformEmailedA family-based approach to immigration reform Hearing was not Hagel's or Senate's finest hour VAWA must be reformed for domestic violence rates to come down Stricter penalties needed for HSBC Sequestration deadline offers politicians teachable momentDiscussedAs tensions over Iran increase, protecting American troops remains paramount VAWA must be reformed for domestic violence rates to come down FDA needs to ban BPA in all food containers Blog Home »

Most Viewed RSS Feed » More Campaign HeadlinesObama lays out liberal vision for America; Now for the follow-up The case for independence - from two-party system Don't let foreign aid fall off the fiscal cliff More Campaign Headlines »

Campaign News RSS feed »

Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »

Briefing Room Obama congratulates Ravens on winning Super Bowl DAY'S END ROUNDUP Obama to award posthumous medals to slain Newtown teachers
More Briefing Room »Congress Blog The next step in strategic arms control Establishment Republicans plan to perpetuate losing formula Come clean on rendition, detention and torture
More Congress Blog »Pundits Blog Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and the Democratic future of Texas A make-or-break speech Continuing struggle for equality
More Pundits Blog »Twitter Room Former Rep. Walsh forming super-PAC to counter Rove Rand Paul issues supportive statement of sniper after father's critical tweet President George H.W. Bush spotted after hospital release
More Twitter Room »Hillicon Valley OVERNIGHT TECH: Tech leaders call for high-skilled immigration reform Ruppersberger: House Intelligence Committee to re-introduce CISPA this year Facebook to alert users of ad tracking
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House climate votes, gas export push loom EPA: Power plants accounted for two-thirds of industrial emissions in 2011 Waxman to push for climate hearings
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot Box Poll: King leads primary challengers but weak in Iowa Senate general Broun to announce Senate decision on Wednesday First Massachusetts Republican announces interest in special election
More Ballot Box »On The Money OVERNIGHT MONEY: Housing examination House liberals release plan to replace cuts Waters pressing for hearing on end of foreclosure review program
More On The Money »Healthwatch OVERNIGHT HEALTH: CBO adjusts health law projections CBO: Medicare spending slowing faster than expected Cantor: Repeal 'ObamaCare' taxes
More Healthwatch »Floor Action Dem bill requires schools to tell the government how many girls are playing sports Senators ask Obama to justify his authority to kill US citizens Ryan: Obama failed to meet legal, moral obligations on budget
More Floor Action »Transportation Hometown newspaper looks at NTSB chief Hersman's DOT candidacy Airline suspending flights to Libya Boeing asking FAA to allow 787 'Dreamliner' test flights
More Transportation »DEFCON Hill OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Obama moves on sequester delay Pentagon providing intelligence support to Nigeria Report: Pentagon to extend same-sex spousal benefits
More DEFCON Hill »Global Affairs Rep. Turner: N. Korea attack video previews missile threat to US Obama to make first visit to Israel as president in the spring Obama ups pressure on EU to list Hezbollah as terror group
More Global Affairs »In The Know Dominique Dawes brings Olympic spirit to Capitol Hill Courtney: Spielberg puts Connecticut on 'wrong side of history'Kanye West, Coldplay, Tupac on Rubio's Spotify list
More In The Know »RegWatch Obama administration targets Mexican drug cartel figure Occupy DC can sue feds over destruction of ‘tent city’GOP lawmaker threatens battle over EPA regulation
More RegWatch »

Blogs News Feed

Congress Blog RollCapital Games Daily Kos DCCC DNC Drudge Report DSCC Judicial Watch NRCC NRSC Political Animal RNC The ChamberPost The Corner The Huffington Post The Note The Plank

COLUMNISTSKaren Finney

Follow the money John Feehery

Selling immigration deal More Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/News News by Subject Blogs Business & Lobbying Opinion Capital Living Special Reports Jobs Video

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

View the original article here

Poll: Plurality see NRA endorsement as a negative

A plurality of voters say that the endorsement of the National Rifle Association would make them less likely to vote for a political candidate, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

In the survey, from Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling, 39 percent say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate with the backing of the NRA. Just over a quarter — 26 percent — say an NRA endorsement would increase the odds they lodge a vote for a politician. Of those surveyed, 32 percent say it wouldn't matter either way.

The figures come in the midst of a polarizing battle between the gun lobby and the Obama administration, which has called for increased gun regulations in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting. The president has said Congress should institute a renewed assault weapons ban and universal background checks on all weapons purchases.

"The vast majority of Americans, including a majority of gun owners, support requiring criminal background checks for anyone trying to buy a gun," Obama said Monday in Minneapolis, at an event with law enforcement officials. But the National Rifle Association has argued against the practice, saying that the expansion of background checks would place a burden on legal gun owners and be ignored by criminals.

“If I want to sell you a shotgun or something like that ... we'll have to go find a dealer or walk into a police station. Who's going to do the check? There's going to be fees. There's going to be paperwork. There's going to be law-abiding people caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare," NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre told Fox News last month.

The PPP poll released Tuesday showed a majority — 53 percent — of voters say they support stricter gun laws, while 39 percent stand in opposition. Those numbers are virtually identical to a month ago, showing little deterioration with distance from the December Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. More than half — 51 percent — say they support an assault weapons ban.

The survey also showed broad support for a number of President Obama's other second-term goals. A plurality of voters (39-33 percent) support the confirmation of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as secretary of Defense, despite a widely panned performance at last week's Senate confirmation hearing. A large majority of voters (64 percent) and even a plurality of Republicans (44-41 percent) support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a major tentpole of the president's proposed immigration reforms.

Still, there were encouraging signs for Republicans. Congressional Republicans now field a 22 percent approval rating — up from just 15 percent a month ago. The party's base seems primed to rally after a tough Election Day, with 89 percent of self-identified Republicans saying they would support their party's candidate in an election held today. That's up from 81 percent a month ago.

Obama's approval rating has also slipped below 50 percent, according to the survey. While the president still maintains a 49-48 percent advantage, the president falls below the psychologically important 50 percent threshold.

View Comments

View the original article here

Denial River: Conspiracy Thinking In The Climate Blogosphere In Response To Research On Conspiracy Thinking

By Prof. Stephan Lewandowsky via Shaping Tomorrow’s World

There is growing evidence that conspiratorial thinking, also known as conspiracist ideation, is often involved in the rejection of scientific propositions. Conspiracist ideations tend to invoke alternative explanations for the nature or source of the scientific evidence. For example, among people who reject the link between HIV and AIDS, common ideations involve the beliefs that AIDS was created by the U.S. Government.

My colleagues and I published a paper recently that found evidence for the involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions—from climate change to the link between tobacco and lung cancer, and between HIV and AIDS—among visitors to climate blogs. This was a fairly unsurprising result because it meshed well with previous research and the existing literature on the rejection of science. Indeed, it would have been far more surprising, from a scientific perspective, if the article had not found a link between conspiracist ideation and rejection of science.

Nonetheless, as some readers of this blog may remember, this article engendered considerable controversy.

The article also generated data.

Data, because for social scientists, public statements and publically-expressed ideas constitute data for further research. Cognitive scientists sometimes apply something called “narrative analysis” to understand how people, groups, or societies are organized and how they think.

In the case of the response to our earlier paper, we were struck by the way in which some of the accusations leveled against our paper were, well, somewhat conspiratorial in nature. We therefore decided to analyze the public response to our first paper with the hypothesis in mind that this response might also involve conspiracist ideation. We systematically collected utterances by bloggers and commenters, and we sought to classify them into various hypotheses leveled against our earlier paper. For each hypothesis, we then compared the public statements against a list of criteria for conspiracist ideation that was taken from the previous literature.

This follow-up paper was accepted a few days ago by Frontiers in Psychology, and a preliminary version of the paper is already available, for open access, here.

The title of the paper is Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, and it is authored by myself, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Marriott.

I enclose the abstract below:

Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.

– Stephan Lewandowskyos Winthrop Professor at the School of Psychology, University of Western Australia. He has published nearly 140 papers, chapters, and scholarly books on how people remember and think. He received a “Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award” from the Australian Research Council in 2011.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Remarks to the Press by the Vice President and French President Hollande

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Palace
Paris, France

3:00 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT HOLLANDE: (In progress as translated) -- this President here.

France will continue its mission allowing Mali to regain its territorial integrity, and then leave the African troops to deal with it. And tomorrow, it will be an operation for -- a peacekeeping operation.

We also talked about Syria. I noted that we shared the same views. We are noting that the situation is worsening day after day with a number of civilian casualties. And what should be the settlement of that crisis is in a deadlock. We consider that Bashar al-Assad should go, and we are doing our utmost for a transition conditional solution to be found. So this is the reason why we have been supporting the Syrian National Coalition, like the United States.

We also talked about Iran. And here again, we regret to note that, notwithstanding all of the efforts, Iran is still rejecting transparency and compliance with its international obligations. There is yet another appointment that’s been taken very soon for negotiations to resume. So until the end, we will exert pressure for the negotiations to succeed.

We also share the same willingness to revive the peace process in the Middle East. Now that the elections in Israel are behind us, the Palestinian authorities are willing to commit themselves, we shall make sure that both the United States and Europe can support the revival of negotiations that can lead to a two-state solution.

Then we also discussed the economy. Both the American administration and the French presidency have the same approach. We want our public accounts to be improved, rebalanced. We all inherited debts from the previous majorities. But beyond sorting out the debt and reducing the deficit, we both want to support growth. And I do not forget that the first international meeting I attended was the G8, and on that occasion, Barack Obama was hosting the foreign leaders, and he kept telling us that growth should be at the heart of our decisions. Fiscal seriousness and growth are not incompatible, and both the United States and France can prove it.

The last topic we discussed at a great length is climate. The duty that we have to bring to the next generations a planet that shall not be facing major disasters. So we have to make sure that in the context of the climate conference, we have to reach some tangible results.

This is what I can say about our meeting today. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs will soon be traveling to the U.S. in order to meet his counterpart, Mr. John Kerry. And there will be elsewhere -- many exchanges between myself and President Obama to discuss the many topics I just mentioned.

But the visit today of Mr. Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, yet again an opportunity for us to say how strong the friendship between our two countries is.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Mr. President, it is always a great pleasure -- and I mean that literally, a pleasure -- to visit France. And it was particularly nice to get a chance to have such a leisurely but informative lunch with you. Your hospitality is unmatched in the world, and I want to thank you for that.

And without saying -- it went without saying today that our agenda, our mutual agenda is global. It is not confined to any single issue or any single part of the world. It spans the globe.

And as the President indicated, we discussed an array of issues starting and including Mali and North Africa more broadly. And let me say again on behalf of the President, the people of the United States, we applaud your decisiveness and I might add the incredible competence and capability of your French military forces.

I often tell the story -- I’ve been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq an awful lot, several dozen times; and I remember the first time I was in a forward operating base up in the hills above the Kunar Valley, the mountains. And I asked early on in the campaign, before I was Vice President -- I asked my -- the six Americans who I was standing with who they enjoyed standing most together with. And one young man said, “the Tricolors, the French.” And “they know how to shoot straight” was his expression. You have a brave and competent -- and I say to the Minister of Defense -- competent military. And your decisive action is not only in the interest of France, but quite frankly the United States and everyone.

The President shared his insights of his recent trip to Bamako and to Timbuktu, and we agreed on the need to as quickly as reasonably possible establish -- the establishment of an African-led international mission to Mali, and to as quickly as is prudent transition that mission to the United Nations.

We also support the political process that France is leading to restore a democratic government in Mali. The President indicated as well that we discussed the importance of working with our regional partners to counter terrorism across North Africa and beyond. We spent no little time discussing how terrorist organizations metastasized and why additional strategies will be necessary going into the future to deal with this new threat.

I emphasized the importance of working with the new government of Libya and building an -- effective security institutions, as well as I commended France once again on its leading role.

On Syria, as the President mentioned, we discussed what more can be done to address the situation and also briefly discussed the humanitarian crisis affecting Syria and its neighbors. We both fully support the Syrian opposition coalition, the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. And I recounted my meetings on Saturday in Germany with President al-Khatib, as well as a long meeting I had with the U.N.-Arab League Joint Special Representative Mr. Brahimi. And I filled the President in on the detail of those discussions.

Our conversation also ventured into Afghanistan where we have stood together in a stalwart way. We reviewed our strategic vision, how to secure and stabilize Afghanistan.

President Hollande and I also reminded one another of the firm commitments of all NATO leaders in Chicago to both sustain NATO’s mission in Afghan post-2014 and to remain in incredibly close contact as to how to proceed.

And finally, we did discuss -- we also discussed Iran. I complimented the President and his predecessor on the strong stand that France has taken to make it clear to Iran that we mean business. These are the most consequential sanctions in no small part because of France’s leadership that have been imposed in the, oh, 40 years that I’ve been involved in international affairs. And they are -- and this next phase which kicks in now, this month is -- must be followed through.

We are prepared, the President asked me about the statement made in Munich, and I just pointed out, I reiterated what has been our position: When and if the Supreme Leader and the Iranians are prepared to discuss the essence of what is at the core of this -- of these embargos, we’re prepared to discuss. We never -- and we’re prepared to meet with them individually after consultation with our partners the P5-plus-1, or as we say in Europe, the E3-plus-3. And we did discuss that. But we also share the view that there has been no real evidence of any movement thus far by the Iranians.

But as I said, we discussed economic issues as well, and I think the President summed it up very clearly. The President -- President Obama believes there is nothing inconsistent with dealing with putting our long-term debt in perspective and bringing it under control and generating economic growth. They should not be inconsistent. We know they’re not inconsistent objectives. And we're hopeful that Europe and the entire EU will be more inclined to share your view, Mr. President.

And we also pointed out that too many families -- too many families in France, the United States, Europe as a whole, are still suffering from underemployment as well as unemployment. And again, we must speak to that.

I was impressed in the discussion we had relative to climate change -- and I mean this sincerely, Mr. President -- I could have been sitting in a private meeting with President Obama. He would have not said it in French, he’d say it in English, but you said the same thing. The President pointed out that there is an obligation here that extends way beyond these administrations. There is a need -- there is a need to set out a vision for the young people in both our countries that we understand -- we understand. It’s a rallying cry that can be a call for a united effort and support in both our countries to deal with global warming.

The President is committed to do that. And as I pointed out to the Foreign Minister, he is going to have an interlocutor in John Kerry. There is no one in my country who has been, over the period of time he’s been in the Senate, more concerned with or knowledgeable about the issues relating to global warming. And so the President is -- President Obama is committed as well.

With regard to the -- back to the economy for just a moment. As I said in Europe -- I mean, excuse me, in Munich, Europe is our largest economic partner. Over $600 billion in annual trade and $5 trillion -- $5 trillion in overall commercial relationships, creating literally millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. So the United States has a profound interest -- a profound interest in Europe’s success, in Europe securing the foundations of its monetary union. It’s overwhelmingly in our naked self-interest.

As you can see, we had a very full discussion of a number of issues. And I fear that both of our delegations were probably thankful that the dessert had come, because I'm afraid we could have gone on much longer. But I found it extremely helpful.

And, again, let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying on behalf of President Obama how much he looks forward -- how much he looks forward to working with you and France, because there’s not a single issue that affects us on the international -- in the international arena that does not -- where our interests do not intersect. And we look forward to a very, very close relationship between our administrations.

And, again, thank you for the hospitality. I appreciate it very, very much. Thank you.

END
3:12 P.M. (Local)

President Obama explains that while our economy is headed in the right direction, looming automatic budget cuts will cost jobs and slow down our recovery.

February 05, 2013 12:48 PM EST

Apply today for a chance to join the White House social media team for the State of the Union.

February 05, 2013 10:58 AM EST

We're working towards Petitions 2.0, releasing an API, and inviting a small group to join us on February 22, 2013 for the White House Open Data Day Hackathon.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

White House ‘Very Confident’ Senate Will Confirm Hagel

An unnamed senior Obama administration official told the National Journal that the White House is “very confident” the Senate will confirm Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.

According to the report, the administration’s whip count currently stands at 57 votes in favor of confirmation, with a few others opposed to the 60-vote threshold. The official said that the total tally in favor of Hagel could be as high as 72 votes.

Hagel’s neocon detractors see the filibuster as the last option in their anti-Hagel arsenal (which began by trying to smear the former GOP senator from Nebraska as an “anti-Semite”). Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, threw cold water on that idea last week. Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) briefly revived the idea on Monday when he wouldn’t rule it out during a local radio interview.

But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who appears unlikely to vote in favor of Hagel’s confirmation, said later on Monday that he would not support a filibuster. And with the 55-seat Democratic majority, two Republican senators saying they supported Hagel’s nomination, and two others saying they’d also oppose the filibuster, the New York Times noted that, barring any unforeseen circumstances, “Hagel will almost certainly head the Defense Department.”

“[T]here appears to be enough GOP opposition to an unprecedented filibuster of a Cabinet nominee to, if necessary, generate the 60 votes required for cloture,” Roll Call reported on Tuesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that President Obama “reconsider” Hagel’s nomination but when asked about McCain’s new position, the South Carolina Republican seemed unaware. “Did he say that? I didn’t see that. I’m not there yet. But filibustering is something I do very reluctantly,” he said, adding, “Time will tell what we should do.”

If the Republicans decide to filibuster, as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted on Monday, “that means that the Republicans would have to do something historically unprecedented and truly radical if they are going to stop Chuck Hagel`s nomination.”

CNN reports that “there are now at least five Republican senators who would oppose a filibuster of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense, all but ensuring the embattled nominee will be confirmed in the coming days.”

View the original article here

Reimagining America’s energy policy

By Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) - 02/05/13 05:33 PM ET

America has an opportunity to reimagine how we think about energy. The possibilities of abundance are very different from the trappings of scarcity, and the facts underpinning the nation’s bright energy outlook to 2020 and beyond are still struggling to make themselves known.

We have enough natural gas buried underground in the United States to meet our current levels of consumption for more than 90 years, according to the Energy Information Administration. Our technically recoverable reserves of oil are large enough to offset a century’s worth of imports from OPEC, and exciting frontiers in geothermal energy, oil shale, methane hydrates and other sources are held back only by technology.

Meanwhile, as domestic energy production booms, the American economy is becoming more efficient and less intensive in its use of energy. The Paris-based International Energy Agency recently highlighted the United States for its improvement in this area. We face the real prospect of tapping our enormous energy potential even as we provide better protection for the environment.

Sound policy can help make all this happen. But foolish policy is certain to derail us.

Too often, energy is seen as a necessary evil. While every form of energy has its consequences, affordable and abundant energy is a fundamentally positive force. It’s what makes modern life and our high standard of living possible.

I released a document this week, titled Energy 20/20: A Vision for America’s Energy, to begin a conversation about where energy and natural-resource policies should go over the next few years. It is intended as a blueprint for discussion. The work of renewing these policies requires cooperation between the president and a new Congress. We should strive to do this together, starting today, through discrete bills and targeted oversight.

I believe there’s a consensus that it’s in our national interest to make energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse and secure. Our challenge is to align federal policy with that consensus. Energy 20/20 includes ideas to do so under seven headings: producing more, consuming less, clean-energy technology, energy delivery infrastructure, effective government, environmental responsibility and “an energy policy that pays for itself.”

As we rethink our nation’s energy policies, it is important to face questions about the risks of energy and resource development, including questions about climate change. We need to discuss these questions openly and find common ground on prudent steps to take in the face of uncertainty. What is certain is that we can best address environmental challenges if we are prosperous and secure.

Abundant energy is possible, and there are already many signs of it becoming a reality as technological breakthroughs lower the cost of producing previously uneconomic resources. Affordable energy is vital to our economic well-being, and a prudent balancing of energy production with proper standards for environmental regulation is more pressing than ever. Our nation is too often hamstrung by burdensome regulations, delayed permits and overzealous litigation. This can render projects uneconomic by attrition and prevent timely, efficient and urgently needed investments.

Nevertheless, the future is bright. New technologies are making clean energy — those sources with less environmental impact than their most likely alternatives — increasingly competitive and enabling energy efficiency to continue to improve. Throughout the economy, diversification of energy and natural-resource supplies is apparent. As alternative fuels like electricity and natural gas take hold in the transportation sector, we can expect this trend to continue. And the need for more secure supplies is beginning to influence consensus about additional steps needed to renew our energy and natural-resource policies.

Modern federal energy and natural-resource policies will add to these trends, in part by removing roadblocks erected by the outdated approaches they can replace. And we must continue to fund and consider increasing funding for the scientific research critical to continued progress. Only basic and rigorous research will produce the dramatic breakthroughs we need to reach a future in which clean energy and energy independence are more than just slogans.

If we make the right choices today and accomplish by 2020 the goals I’ve proposed, we can secure a future in which energy and natural resources are affordable and abundant from secure and diverse sources; ensure the air and water are cleaner in our own country and around the world; and enable Americans to enjoy a healthy economy and preserve their ability to live and “to pursue happiness.”

Murkowski is Alaska’s senior senator and the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittee.

View Comments

View the original article here

Anti-Choice Activists Push To Ban Abortion For Rape Victims, But They Admit It’s A ‘Tough Sell’

The 2012 election season was largely dominated by Republican men making insensitive and medically inaccurate comments about rape — so much so that the GOP caucus actually received professional advice to stop talking about rape at a retreat last month. But the anti-choice community is pressuring Republicans to do exactly the opposite, even though they admit it’s not exactly the most popular message.

Personhood USA, the group that advocates for endowing zygotes with the full rights of U.S. citizens, recently launched a new “Save the 1? campaign with the goal of limiting abortion access for women who have become pregnant following a sexual assault. And at the recent March to Life event protesting the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion activists emphasized the issue that “even pro-lifers have a hard time embracing” — pregnancies that result from rape:

Standing before the throngs at the March for Life on Jan. 25, Ryan Bomberger admitted that he was the poster child for one of the most difficult aspects of the abortion debate: his mother had been raped.
“I’m the fringe case that even pro-lifers have a hard time embracing,” said Bomberger, an anti-abortion activist whose mother chose to continue the pregnancy and put him up for adoption. [...]
Bomberger, an evangelical Christian, said his inclusion at the January rally — and increased chatter on social media — are signs this issue is getting more attention. His Virginia-based Radiance Foundation aims to “shatter the myth of the unwanted” through campaigns that focus on adopted children, including those who were products of rape. [...]
“These are the tough sells in the public,” said [Susan Wills], assistant director for education and outreach at the [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop's] Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. “It’s very easy for us to convince people that partial-birth abortion or other gruesome late-term procedures ought not to be happening, but when we talk about rape and incest, it’s not a sound-bite issue.”

Obviously, like Bomberger’s mother, not every woman who becomes pregnant from rape chooses to have an abortion. But some certainly do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that women who become pregnant from rape or incest contribute to about 10,000 to 15,000 abortions each year. The group also reports that 22,000 pregnancies resulting from rape could be prevented each year if female survivors had better access to emergency contraception — another women’s health resource that abortion opponents often attempt to restrict.

And polling shows that, just as abortion opponents suspect, they haven’t had much success “convincing people” that abortion “ought not to be happening” in the cases of rape and incest. A full 75 percent of the Americans who describe themselves as anti-abortion still want rape survivors to have legal access to abortion services so they can make their own reproductive choices.

View the original article here

British House Of Commons Advances Marriage Equality Bill

After a long day of debate, the United Kingdon’s House of Commons voted to approve marriage equality legislation with a vote of 400-175. Today’s vote was the second reading of the bill, which means it still has committee work and a vote in the House of Lords ahead of it. Still, this is a monumental sign that Britain will soon offer the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. Read through the Guardian’s liveblog for a glimpse at today’s debate and the protests outside it.

View the original article here

More Than 75 Percent Of Americans Delayed Their Retirement To Avoid Losing Health Benefits

Tying health insurance benefits directly to employment is forcing most Americans to work longer than they would have otherwise, a new study from the Employee Benefits Research Institute finds.

According to the study’s results, more than three fourths of retired Americans ended up working longer than they initially planned because they didn’t want to lose access to their employer-based health benefits. And a majority of the Americans who are currently in the workforce are also planning to delay their retirement in order to keep the insurance plans they have through their employer:

This builds upon previous research that shows the Great Recession has seriously impacted older Americans’ ability to retire. An estimated 62 percent of working Americans now report they’re planning to put off their retirement — up from 42 percent in 2010 — largely due to job losses and financial insecurity. These issues go hand-in-hand particularly because, as health care costs continue to rise, Americans are increasingly worried about being able to afford their insurance coverage.

And the United States’ primarily employer-based health insurance system doesn’t just impact Americans’ retirement decisions. It has also contributed to the “job lock” phenomenon, which prevents Americans from switching jobs or changing career paths because they’re too worried about losing access to their health benefits. “Job lock” ultimately creates an inefficient labor market, since workers may not take better jobs because they’re concerned about having a gap in health coverage.

Fortunately, Obamacare will take steps to address these dynamics by making health care more affordable to low- and middle-income Americans, as well as preventing insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. The health reform law “completely changes the playing field,” one of the study’s authors told Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff. “If everything goes as planned, you’ve got guaranteed issue next year. You don’t need the employer to fill the gap.”

View the original article here

Obama Care

Donations Are Always Welcome and Appreciated

Translate

Monday, March 18, 2013

Presidential Memorandum -- Designation of Officers of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to Act as Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Pennsylvania GOP Senator: Rigging The Presidential Election Is What The Framers Would Have Done

Establishment Republicans plan to perpetuate losing formula

Poll: Plurality see NRA endorsement as a negative

Denial River: Conspiracy Thinking In The Climate Blogosphere In Response To Research On Conspiracy Thinking

Remarks to the Press by the Vice President and French President Hollande

White House ‘Very Confident’ Senate Will Confirm Hagel

Reimagining America’s energy policy

Anti-Choice Activists Push To Ban Abortion For Rape Victims, But They Admit It’s A ‘Tough Sell’

British House Of Commons Advances Marriage Equality Bill

More Than 75 Percent Of Americans Delayed Their Retirement To Avoid Losing Health Benefits

About Me

Blog Archive