Sunday, March 31, 2013

Remarks by the President in Presentation of the Medal of Honor to Staff Sergeant Clinton L. Romesha

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

East Room

1:40 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  And on behalf of Michelle and myself, welcome to the White House.

Every day at the White House we receive thousands of letters from folks all across America.  And at night, upstairs in my study, I read a few.  About three years ago, I received a letter from a mom in West Virginia.  Her son, Stephan, a Specialist in the Army, just 21 years old, had given his life in Afghanistan.  She had received the condolence letter that I’d sent to her family, as I send to every family of the fallen.  And she wrote me back.  “Mr. President,” she said, “you wrote me a letter telling me that my son was a hero.  I just wanted you to know what kind of hero he was.”

“My son was a great soldier,” she wrote.  “As far back as I can remember, Stephan wanted to serve his country.”  She spoke of how he “loved his brothers in B Troop.”  How he “would do anything for them.”  And of the brave actions that would cost Stephan his life, she wrote, “His sacrifice was driven by pure love.”

Today, we are honored to be joined by Stephan’s mother Vanessa and his father Larry.  Please stand, Vanessa and Larry. (Applause.)  We're joined by the families of the seven other patriots who also gave their lives that day.  Can we please have them stand so we can acknowledge them as well.  (Applause.)  We're joined by members of Bravo Troop whose courage that day was driven by pure love.  And we gather to present the Medal of Honor to one of these soldiers -- Staff Sergeant Clinton L. Romesha.

Clint, this is our nation’s highest military decoration.  It reflects the gratitude of our entire country.  So we’re joined by members of Congress; leaders from across our Armed Forces, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marty Dempsey, Army Secretary John McHugh, and Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno.  We are especially honored to be joined by Clint’s 4th Infantry Division -- “Iron Horse” -- soldiers, and members of the Medal of Honor Society, who today welcome you into their ranks.

Now, despite all this attention, you may already have a sense that Clint is a pretty humble guy.  We just spent some time together in the Oval Office.  He grew up in Lake City, California -- population less than a hundred.  We welcome his family, including mom and dad, Tish and Gary.  Clint -- I hope he doesn’t mind if I share that Clint was actually born at home. These days, Clint works in the oilfields of North Dakota.  He is a man of faith, and after more than a decade in uniform, he says the thing he looks forward to the most is just being a husband and a father. 

In fact, this is not even the biggest event for Clint this week, because tomorrow, he and his wife Tammy will celebrate their 13th wedding anniversary.  Clint and Tammy, this is probably not the kind of intimate anniversary you planned.  (Laughter.)  But we’re so glad that you’re here, along with your three beautiful children -- Dessi, Gwen and Colin.  Colin is not as shy as Clint.  (Laughter.)  He was in the Oval Office, and he was racing around pretty good.  (Laughter.)  And sampled a number of the apples before he found the one that was just right.  (Laughter.)  

Now, to truly understand the extraordinary actions for which Clint is being honored, you need to understand the almost unbelievable conditions under which he and B Troop served.  This was a time, in 2009, when many of our troops still served in small, rugged outposts, even as our commanders were shifting their focus to larger towns and cities.

So Combat Outpost Keating was a collection of buildings of concrete and plywood with trenches and sandbags.  Of all the outposts in Afghanistan, Keating was among the most remote.  It sat at the bottom of a steep valley, surrounded by mountains -- terrain that a later investigation said gave “ideal” cover for insurgents to attack.  COP Keating, the investigation found, was “tactically indefensible.”  But that’s what these soldiers were asked to do -- defend the indefensible.

The attack came in the morning, just as the sun rose.  Some of our guys were standing guard; most, like Clint, were still sleeping.  The explosions shook them out of their beds and sent them rushing for their weapons.  And soon, the awful odds became clear:  These 53 Americans were surrounded by more than 300 Taliban fighters. 

What happened next has been described as one of the most intense battles of the entire war in Afghanistan.  The attackers had the advantage -- the high ground, the mountains above.  And they were unleashing everything they had -- rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns, mortars; snipers taking aim.  To those Americans down below, the fire was coming in from every single direction.  They’d never seen anything like it. 

With gunfire impacting all around him, Clint raced to one of the barracks and grabbed a machine gun.  He took aim at one of the enemy machine teams and took it out.  A rocket-propelled grenade exploded, sending shrapnel into his hip, his arm, and his neck.  But he kept fighting, disregarding his own wounds, and tending to an injured comrade instead.

Then, over the radio, came words no soldier ever wants to hear -- “enemy in the wire.”  The Taliban had penetrated the camp.  They were taking over buildings.  The combat was close; at times, as close as 10 feet.  When Clint took aim at three of them, they never took another step.

But still, the enemy advanced.  So the Americans pulled back, to buildings that were easier to defend, to make one last stand.  One of them was later compared to the Alamo -- one of them later compared it to the Alamo.  Keating, it seemed, was going to be overrun.  And that’s when Clint Romesha decided to retake that camp.

Clint gathered up his guys, and they began to fight their way back.  Storming one building, then another.  Pushing the enemy back.  Having to actually shoot up -- at the enemy in the mountains above.  By now, most of the camp was on fire.  Amid the flames and smoke, Clint stood in a doorway, calling in airstrikes that shook the earth all around them.  

Over the radio, they heard comrades who were pinned down in a Humvee.  So Clint and his team unloaded everything they had into the enemy positions.  And with that cover, three wounded Americans made their escape -- including a grievously injured Stephan Mace.

But more Americans, their bodies, were still out there.  And Clint Romesha lives the Soldier’s Creed -- “I will never leave a fallen comrade.”  So he and his team started charging, as enemy fire poured down.  And they kept charging -- 50 meters; 80 meters -- ultimately, a 100-meter run through a hail of bullets.  They reached their fallen friends and they brought them home. 
Throughout history, the question has often been asked, why? Why do those in uniform take such extraordinary risks?  And what compels them to such courage? You ask Clint and any of these soldiers who are here today, and they’ll tell you.  Yes, they fight for their country, and they fight for our freedom.  Yes, they fight to come home to their families.  But most of all, they fight for each other, to keep each other safe and to have each other's backs. 

When I called Clint to tell him that he would receive this medal, he said he was honored, but he also said, it wasn't just me out there, it was a team effort.  And so today we also honor this American team, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice -- Private First Class Kevin Thomson, who would have turned 26 years old today; Sergeant Michael Scusa; Sergeant Joshua Kirk; Sergeant Christopher Griffin; Staff Sergeant Justin Gallegos; Staff Sergeant Vernon Martin; Sergeant Joshua Hardt; and Specialist Stephan Mace.

Each of these patriots gave their lives looking out for each other.  In a battle that raged all day, that brand of selflessness was displayed again and again and again -- soldiers exposing themselves to enemy fire to pull a comrade to safety, tending to each other’s wounds, performing “buddy transfusions” -- giving each other their own blood.

And if you seek a measure of that day, you need to look no further than the medals and ribbons that grace their chests -- for their sustained heroism, 37 Army Commendation Medals; for their wounds, 27 Purple Hearts; for their valor, 18 Bronze Stars; for their gallantry, 9 Silver Stars. 

These men were outnumbered, outgunned and almost overrun.  Looking back, one of them said, “I’m surprised any of us made it out.”  But they are here today.  And I would ask these soldiers -- this band of brothers -- to stand and accept the gratitude of our entire nation.  (Applause.)

There were many lessons from COP Keating.  One of them is that our troops should never, ever, be put in a position where they have to defend the indefensible.  But that’s what these soldiers did -- for each other, in sacrifice driven by pure love.  And because they did, eight grieving families were at least able to welcome their soldiers home one last time.  And more than 40 American soldiers are alive today to carry on, to keep alive the memory of their fallen brothers, to help make sure that this country that we love so much remains strong and free. 

What was it that turned the tide that day?  How was it that so few Americans prevailed against so many?  As we prepare for the reading of the citation, I leave you with the words of Clint himself, because they say something about our Army and they say something about America; they say something about our spirit, which will never be broken:  “We weren't going to be beat that day,” Clint said. “You're not going to back down in the face of adversity like that.  We were just going to win, plain and simple.”

God bless you, Clint Romesha, and all of your team.  God bless all who serve.  And God bless the United States of America.

With that, I’d like the citation to be read.

MILITARY AIDE:  The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3rd, 1863, has awarded in the name of Congress the Medal of Honor to
Staff Sergeant Clinton L. Romesha, United States Army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Staff Sergeant Clinton L. Romesha distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Section Leader with Bravo Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, during combat operations against an armed enemy at Combat Outpost Keating, Kamdesh District, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan on October 3rd, 2009. 

On that morning, Staff Sergeant Romesha and his comrades awakened to an attack by an estimated 300 enemy fighters occupying the high ground on all four sides of the complex, employing concentrated fire from recoilless rifles, rocket propelled grenades, anti-aircraft machine guns, mortars and small-arms fire.  Staff Sergeant Romesha moved uncovered under intense enemy fire to conduct a reconnaissance of the battlefield and seek reinforcements from the barracks before returning to action with the support of an assistant gunner. 

Staff Sergeant Romesha took out an enemy machine gun team, and, while engaging a second, the generator he was using for cover was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade, inflicting him with shrapnel wounds.  Undeterred by his injuries, Staff Sergeant Romesha continued to fight, and upon the arrival of another soldier to aid him and the assistant gunner, he again rushed through the exposed avenue to assemble additional soldiers. 

Staff Sergeant Romesha then mobilized a five-man team and returned to the fight equipped with a sniper rifle.  With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Romesha continually exposed himself to heavy enemy fire, as he moved confidently about the battlefield engaging and destroying multiple enemy targets, including three Taliban fighters who had breached the combat outpost’s perimeter. 

While orchestrating a successful plan to secure and reinforce key points of the battlefield, Staff Sergeant Romesha maintained radio communication with the tactical operations center.  As the enemy forces attacked with even greater ferocity, unleashing a barrage of rocket-propelled grenades and recoilless rifle rounds, Staff Sergeant Romesha identified the point of attack and directed air support to destroy over 30 enemy fighters. 

After receiving reports that seriously injured soldiers were at a distant battle position, Staff Sergeant Romesha and his team provided covering fire to allow the injured Soldiers to safely reach the aid station. Upon receipt of orders to proceed to the next objective, his team pushed forward 100 meters under overwhelming enemy fire to recover and prevent the enemy fighters from taking the bodies of their fallen comrades. 

Staff Sergeant Romesha’s heroic actions throughout the day-long battle were critical in suppressing an enemy that had far greater numbers.  His extraordinary efforts gave Bravo Troop the opportunity to regroup, reorganize and prepare for the counterattack that allowed the Troop to account for its personnel and secure Combat Outpost Keating. 

Staff Sergeant Romesha’s discipline and extraordinary heroism above and beyond the call of duty reflect great credit upon himself, Bravo Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division and the United States Army.

(The Medal of Honor is awarded.)  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you, everybody.  Most of all, thank you for Clint and the entire team for their extraordinary service and devotion to our country. 

We're going to have an opportunity to celebrate and there’s going to be a wonderful reception -- I hear the food around here is pretty good.  (Laughter.)  I know the band is good.  And Colin really needs to get down.  (Laughter.) 

So, enjoy, everybody.  Give our newest recipient of the Medal of Honor a big round of applause once again.  (Applause.)

END 
2:10 P.M. EST

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Check out all the ways you can get involved with President Obama's State of the Union Address.

With less than three weeks before devastating, across the board cuts - the so-called "sequester" - are slated to hit, affecting our national security, job creation and economic growth, we must make sure we are having a debate over how to deal with these looming deadlines that is based on facts- not myths being spread by some Congressional Republicans who would rather see these cuts hit than ask the wealthiest and big corporations to pay a little bit more.

President Obama urges Congress to act to avoid a series of harmful and automatic cuts—called a sequester—from going into effect that would hurt our economy and the middle class and threaten thousands of American jobs.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

How Ohio’s Plan To Privatize Prison Food Could Lead To Deadly Riots

In an effort to cut costs, Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) is planning to hire a private food vendor to feed 50,179 inmates in the Ohio prison system. The administration argues the decision to outsource prison food will save as much as $16 million a year.

Motivated by a huge state deficit, Ohio has become a laboratory in prison reform — with mixed results. The state sold a prison to Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison company, in 2011, only to discover abysmal conditions far below state standards in sanitation, food quality, hygiene, and health care. However, Ohio’s new sentencing reforms are saving the state millions while diverting nonviolent offenders away from prison and into educational and rehabilitative programs.

Ohio’s taste for privatization is likely to make prison food even less appetizing than it already is. Private vendors can skimp on food quality, quantity, and staff in order to make a profit. Unlike state-run cafeterias, private vendors servicing juvenile detention facilities can skip the federal nutrition guidelines for school lunches:

The state Department of Youth Services, which has 469 youths at four detention facilities, spends $6.18 million a year, or $27.60 per inmate per day for food service, said spokeswoman Kim Parsell. The costs are higher because youths don’t help with food prep or cooking, the meals adhere to federal guidelines for school lunches and the teen-aged detainees have higher caloric needs, she said. The state receives $5.51 per day per youth as reimbursement from the national school lunch program. Switching to a private vendor is expected to save DYS about $1.2 million a year, she said.

The Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, the union that represents some 10,000 prison workers, warns that a contractor will pay lower wages, hire fewer people and dish out less food to make a profit. Roughly, 450 state workers in DYS and DRC could end up losing their jobs, though some could apply for other state jobs or perhaps be hired by the contractor.

Tim Shafer, OCSEA operations director, said complaints about inmate food may sound like whining but they contribute to the safety and security of a prison.
“As a former corrections officer, I can tell you one of the best things in the world is a full inmate. They want to sit down and chill out,” Shafer said. Inmates are fed a heart healthy diet that features a rotating menu of dinners such as sloppy joes, fajitas, and chicken and biscuits.

Poor food quality and sanitation have sparked multiple deadly riots at private prisons run by corporations like CCA and GEO Group. In one prison, inmates were fed soup filled with worms, while other prisons served burritos and brownies contaminated with human feces.

The cost-saving claim of the plan is also dubious; Ohio’s last flirtation with Aramark in 1998 ended because the company insisted on being paid by daily inmate count rather than by actual meals served, which drove up costs by $2 million.


View the original article here

NBA Star Calls Out Homophobia On Twitter

One of the most famous players in the National Basketball Association, Kobe Bryant, took to Twitter on Sunday to tell a fan to stop using ‘gay’ as an insult.

After a man identifying as Michael on Twitter tweeted “you’re gay” at another person, the LA Lakers shooting guard called them both out on Twitter — in a tweet that elicited over 3,000 retweets and 2,000 favorites:

Bryant has clearly come a long way from a few years ago, when he called the referee at a game a “fucking fag.” That action incurred a $100,000 fine from the NBA, and actually prompted the association to run a series of PSAs from famous basketball players encouraging fans to stop “using gay to mean dumb or stupid.” Someone on Twitter called Bryant out on that during Sunday’s interraction, and Bryant jumped to point out how that experience informed his opinion:

Compared to the hostility toward gay people in other sports, the NBA has been relatively progressive about LGBT issues. Just last week, Denver Nuggets player Kenneth Faried came out for marriage equality in his team’s state of Colorado, and major NBA figureheads, such as former All-Star Charles Barkley, have voiced support for same-sex marriage, acknowledging that, “I had gay teammates.”


View the original article here

7 States Cut Unemployment Insurance, Costing Jobless Workers Federal Benefits Too

A combination of federal and state unemployment insurance programs kept 2.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2011, mitigating some of the negative effects the Great Recession had on jobless workers. But even as unemployment remains stubbornly high, several states are taking the axe to their unemployment programs, and the result is that recipients are losing federal unemployment insurance too.

Seven states have reduced the length of their unemployment programs from 26 weeks, the standard since the 1950s, by as much as 14 weeks, according to a new policy paper from the National Employment Law Project. But because federal benefits depend on the number of weeks offered at the state level, those cuts are also costing workers access to the federal program. In those states, five of which have unemployment rates higher than the federal level, those cuts are costing individual recipients as much as $5,000, according to NELP:

The average jobless worker has been unemployed for 35 weeks, and 40 percent of unemployed workers have been out of a job for at least 27 weeks, meaning the cuts will hammer large numbers of the unemployed in these states. While opponents of unemployment insurance decry the “culture of dependency” the program creates, research shows that recipients work harder to find a new job than those who don’t have access to the program.

America’s unemployment program, stingy as it is, also has benefits for the economy: the Congressional Budget Office estimated that failure to extend the federal program at the beginning of the year would have cost the country 300,000 jobs.


View the original article here

As George Tiller’s Wichita Clinic Reopens, ‘After Tiller’ Reframes The Abortion Debate

In Mother Jones today, Kate Sheppard has the news that Dr. George Tiller’s abortion clinic in Wichita, shuttered after he was murdered at his church in 2009, will be reopening under the leadership of Julie Burkhart, who worked with Tiller when he was alive. In Burkhart’s conversation with Sheppard, she says that she decided to reopen the clinic in part because no one else would do it, and because she wants to reframe the debate about abortion care. “I think abortion is about motherhood,” she said. “Abortion is about motherhood because by and large women coming in to have abortions are concerned about the kind of life and the future for their children. Women are thinking in a very responsible manner when choosing that.”

These are important points, and ones made at greater length in one of the best documentaries I saw at the Sundance Film Festival in January, After Tiller. By first-time directors Martha Shane and Lana Wilson, After Tiller spends time not just with the four remaining doctors in the United States who are willing to perform late-term abortions—Burkhart’s clinic will not—but with many of their patients. It’s a set of perspectives that rarely enters the national debate about the legality of abortion procedures. The testimony of women and men who badly wanted children who have grown too sick to survive, and of doctors who help them when almost no one else will, may not convince the people who protest outside the four doctors’ clinics, and for whom the questions involved have simple and obvious answers.

But for anyone else watching the film, it will be clear, as Dr. Susan Robinson says, that no one ever wants an abortion, particularly not the kind that she and her colleagues provide. And the doctors in After Tiller are providing their services not out of some sort of attraction to the procedure that’s become their calling card, but out of a conviction that women shouldn’t be abandoned in their decision-making processes. After Tiller is a powerful reminder that abortion in America is less about desire than about need, and a matter not of carelessness, but the result of dreadful deliberations.

Many of the patients who agreed to have their consultations with the doctors filmed in After Tiller are facing the prospect of aborting children they planned to have, but whose pregnancies have gone terribly awry along the way. “It just didn’t seem fair to her,” say the parents of one child who would live in agonizing pain if she were born. Another describes a dreadful dilemma, saying “It’s guilt because we’re doing what we’re doing and guilt because if we brought him into this world he wouldn’t have any quality of life.” Monica, a patient whose child was diagnosed at 25 weeks with a debilitating illness that would cause his certain death if he were born, ultimately chooses to have an abortion rather than delay an inevitable decision to end her child’s life—better now, she ultimately decides, than to make him suffer before turning off his respirator so she can have had the experience of his brief, agonizing life. “It is hurtful because it was a planned pregnancy, and I did want this,” another patient explains.

Much of the focus of the consultations and on the planning for these families’ abortions is focused on giving them dignity and helping them process their emotions, both before and after their procedures. “The only time they get to say hello to their baby is when they have to say goodbye to it, too,” Dr. Robinson explains. As she runs through a checklist to help a couple prepare for their abortion and the burial arrangements for their child, I started to cry in the theater when the shot showed that “blanket requested” was one of the options on the list. There’s an incredible cruelty to the genetic lottery that forces parents to convert receiving blankets to burial shrouds, and an incredible courage to those parents who have their only time with a child after that child has died. Dr. Shelley Sella counsels two couples with ill children together, telling them “Both of you have babies who are really sick, and both of you have babies who would suffer a lot,” and giving them an opportunity to see that their experience is neither solitary nor shameful.

Even beyond the difficulty of the decision to have a late-term abortion itself, the procedure is daunting. Susan, a counselor who does intake at Dr. Robinson and Dr. Sella’s clinic in Albequerque, talks one patient through the fact that she’s going to have go through an actual labor and delivery. There’s no question that process is draining. But as Susan explains it, it’s necessary precisely to preserve the patients’ childbearing ability for future, unclouded pregnancies. “We want to make sure you can make a family when you cant to have a family,” she says. There’s none of the horribly stereotypical glee—much less moral distance—anti-abortion protestors ascribe to the doctors and patients whose lives they make difficult. “The woman delivers a baby. And it’s a stillborn. And that’s hard to deal with,” Dr. Sella reflects. “I think the reason that I’ve struggled is I think of them as babies. I don’t think of it as a fetus. That’s a way to distance myself from what I do.”

After Tiller also does something interesting in making clear that there are abortions the doctors won’t perform, or that they truly struggle with performing. Dr. Robinson turns down a patient from France who is 35 weeks pregnant, but has no fetal abnormalities—the woman essentially had delayed dealing with her pregnancy while traveling—and Susan counsels her to consider adoption as an alternative instead. The two women also debate whether or not Dr. Robinson should perform a procedure for a 16-year-old, pro-life Catholic who was afraid to tell her mother she was pregnant, in part because Susan is worried that the girl’s mind truly isn’t made up about having an abortion, and that her regret later could be psychologically damaging. Dr. Robinson only decides to go forward when the patient convinces her that she is determined to have an abortion.

But it’s an illustration of the challenges that stem both from respecting a woman’s decision-making process when she, herself, may not have made up her mind, and from legal requirements in some states that patients convince doctors that their pregnancies threaten them. “Kansas law required the patient to present you with a story that compelled you to believe that this pregnancy would threaten her life…I found myself being faced with patients who didn’t have the compelling reasons they had in Kansas…Where does it come from that I get to say, ‘well, why?’” Dr. Robinson asks. “What if you’re just not a good storyteller?…What I believe is that women are able to struggle with complex ethical issues and make the best decisions for themselves and their families.”

In After Tiller, there are real costs to helping women make some of the worst decisions any of us could ever be faced with, and to helping them see those choices through with compassion. Some of the doctors have paid prices in blood, whether it’s the loss of Tiller, a friend and mentor to all of them, the threats that have become sharper to Dr. Hern as he’s started his second family later in life, the stable owned by Dr. Leroy Carhart, which was burned down in 1991, killing 21 horses who were borded there, or simply the lost prospect of retirement in a world where no one appears willing to replace them.

But they persist, telling rape victims they deserve justice, telling families who are shattered by the loss of a wanted child that they owe it to themselves to be kind and to avoid self-recrimination, and performing medical procedures that echo the work many of them did bringing life into the world. Without ever needing to state it directly, After Tiller makes a forceful point that’s too easily forgotten or obscured in political debates about abortion. It’s easy to “pray for healing” for women who are having late-term abortions. But it’s abortion doctors who provide these women and their partners real physical and mental care.


View the original article here

Regulatory reform necessary for economic growth

By Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Dan Danner, president and CEO, National Federation of Independent Business - 02/11/13 02:30 PM ET

As we survey the horizon and consider the issues that lawmakers today are faced with, the natural conclusion is that the 113th Congress will be another challenging period for our political leaders.

Eleventh-hour deal-cutting, once a rare occurrence, is now standard operating procedure for a broken legislative process. This new regular order of brinksmanship provides little in the way of certainty to job creators; instead, it guarantees that just a few months down the road, Congress will once again return to dramatic 11th bickering, posturing and legislative clashes.

Unfortunately, even the most successful fiscal compromise is no match for the long-term recuperative impact of substantive economic growth on our nation’s budget and deficit issues.

No partisan divide exists when it comes to the question of whether lawmakers should pursue policy that facilitates growth. And one of the surest paths to facilitating growth – and encouraging the stability that investors and job creators need to build that growth – is to reform our arcane and inefficient regulatory system.

Inefficient, redundant and excessive regulations have had a pronounced destabilizing effect on job growth and recovery. The system is grossly outdated, and it is laden with too many regulations that were put in place and long ago forgotten.
Despite this, a tidal wave of new rules are being advanced.  Since Election Day alone, Washington has issued over 800 new rules – that is over 8 new regulations daily.
Unfortunately, many of these proposed new regulations aren’t fully thought through and poorly structured. According to a recent George Washington University and Washington University analysis, in 2012 there were 283,615 full-time government employees dedicated to drafting and enforcing regulations, while fewer than 50 employees at the Office of Management and Budget were responsible for reviewing the new regulatory mandates to ensure they are justified and accurate prior to implementation.
It should not surprise anyone, then, that employers large and small are choosing not to invest, expand and hire because of the uncertainty surrounding the current regulatory system.

Additionally, NFIB’s January Small Business Economic Trends report shows red tape to be the second most important issue facing small business owners today; while a recent NAM NFIB Poll found that two-thirds of respondents say economic uncertainty in the market makes it hard for them to grow and hire more workers causing economic stagnation.

And while sweeping last-minute deals like the one passed as a solution to the fiscal cliff generate headlines, rapidly shifting, unpredictable promulgation of regulations represent a destabilizing factor that have hung over our economy for decades.

Fortunately, the goal of modernizing and improving this system is both politically attainable and broadly supported by the public.

In order to better meet the goals of both preserving and protecting safety and the environment and stabilizing the economic landscape, our regulatory system should be adapted for the 21st Century and seek to be efficient, accountable, and fair:
· Improved risk assessment, for instance, would ensure that the best available scientific data was at the heart of every regulatory push.
· Commonsense cost-benefit analysis can and should be incorporated into the rulemaking process so that regulations strike the right balance between the benefits they bring to society and he costs they impose.
· Regulatory reform should also include an honest and transparent peer review process that ensures objective experts have the ability to shape rules before they are enshrined into law.
· Every rule should be subjected to ongoing review – through the courts and Congressional oversight – in order to ensure that the system functions in a way that is responsive to both needed improvements.
· Federal agencies should prioritize compliance over enforcement and place greater emphasis on promoting compliance than they do on issuing harsh penalties, particularly on small businesses.

?Reforms that meet these goals are within reach.
Political theater, no matter how compelling, will not fix what ails our economy. Growth, driven by small businesses around the nation, will necessarily be the engine that carries our economy beyond the periodic fiscal catastrophes that have defined our recent experience. ??Washington can help spur economic growth today by putting in place a regulatory system that not only allows, but also encourages, a new economic expansion.
Lincoln, a former Democratic Senator from Arkansas, chairs the Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations Coalition. Danner is president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's leading small business association.

View Comments

View the original article here

How Dental Coverage Falls Short For Low-Income Americans

Four-year-old Torrie Smith, a little girl in a low-income Colorado household, suffers from devastating dental health issues. Her plight could have been avoided with regular preventative dentist check ups, which would have been free for Torrie under Medicaid — but her mother Wendie didn’t know about the dental health benefits afforded to Torrie under the public insurance program until it was far too late.

Torrie’s issues underscore the considerable gaps in America’s dental health coverage system. Dental insurance remains elusive even for many who have employer-sponsored health coverage — some estimates peg the number of Americans forgoing dental care at over 100 million, with children and the poor being disproportionately affected. That’s particularly bad news considering that dental problems are lifelong problems, and poor dental health early on in life leads to a status quo in which over a quarter of elderly Americans over the age of 65 lose all of their teeth.

And as the Coloradoan reports, even Medicaid beneficiaries face a dearth of coverage due to low reimbursement rates for dentists accepting Medicaid patients:

State Medicaid data reported to the federal government show that less than half of the 453,000 Coloradans under age 21 who were eligible for benefits in federal fiscal year 2011 received some kind of dental service. Only a quarter of Colorado counties met a 2010 state goal of getting at least 44 percent of Medicaid-eligible residents under age 19 to visit a dentist, according to an I-News analysis of state records.

“Dental disease is not self-resolving,” says Diane Brunson, director of public health for the University of Colorado’s School of Dental Medicine. “It’s not like catching a cold and you put up with it for a week or 10 days and you’re fine. You have to get treatment. And it’s so much more beneficial all the way around — to the child, to their family, to taxpayers — if dental problems can be prevented.”

While the state appears to be making strides in improving its numbers, part of the problem is the paucity of dentists willing to see Medicaid children. Only 10 percent of Colorado’s 3,500 or so dentists are considered “significant” Medicaid providers, meaning that they are reimbursed for at least 100 visits per year. Moreover, 20 of Colorado’s 64 counties do not have a dentist who accepts Medicaid.

A large part of the problem has to do with a lack of knowledge regarding essential health care benefits, which leads to the vast majority of Americans not claiming preventative dental care that they are eligible for. “When she came along,” Wendie said of Torrie, “they gave me a (Medicaid) card and said it was for her doctor visits. They didn’t say dental or anything like that.” That’s nothing new when it comes to Americans and their preventative care benefits — only one in five Americans in high-deductible insurance plans know that much of their preventative care is free.

But as the Coloradoan’s article points out, it also has to do with Medicaid’s historically low reimbursements for doctors. Since states share a considerable amount of authority along with the federal government when it comes to determining Medicaid’s budget, the program is often an easy target for budget cuts. But those cuts carry with them a considerable human cost for some of America’s poorest residents. As ThinkProgress has consistently reported, that makes implementing Obamacare’s optional Medicaid expansion a medical imperative for the American poor — but as Torrie’s story shows, educating families about the care that they are eligible for is just as important.


View the original article here

Novo Nordisk Shares Plunge on US Blow to Insulin Drug

U.S. regulators refused to approve Novo Nordisk's new long-acting insulin Tresiba until it conducts extra tests for potential heart risks, dealing a major blow to a key product for the Danish drugmaker.

Shares in Novo, the world's leading insulin maker and the most valuable company in the Nordic region, slumped 12.5 percent as it said the decision would make it harder to meet long-term financial targets. Rival insulin producer Sanofi rose 4.5 percent.

At one stage, Novo shares were down as much as 17 percent on Monday, their biggest daily decline since 2002.

As the world suffers from an epidemic of type 2 diabetes tied to over-eating and lack of exercise, demand for treatments has snowballed. Novo has benefited more than any other company because it is so focused on diabetes, lifting its shares to a lofty premium over other European drugmakers.

Novo said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had requested additional data from a trial focused on cardiovascular effects before it would consider approving Tresiba and related product Ryzodeg.

The drugmaker, which is banking on Tresiba to keep it in the lead in diabetes care, said late on Sunday it could not provide the data in 2013 and Chief Scientific Officer Mads Thomsen later told Reuters it would not be ready in 2014 either.

"It is a really bad situation," said Sydbank analyst Soren Hansen, who expects a delay of two or three years.

Tim Anderson of Bernstein said the best that Novo could now hope for was that Tresiba made it to market in 2015, assuming the new trial enrolls patients quickly and the FDA requires only partial data and not full completion.

Waiting for all the data could delay approval to 2017 or 2018, he said, and if the study reveals new risks it may never be approved.

Thomsen said he hoped to start talks with the FDA this week to find out exactly what data it required and how long a new study might take.

The setback for Tresiba, also known as degludec, is good news for rival makers of insulin medicines, notably France's Sanofi, whose Lantus product is threatened by Novo's newer ultra-long-lasting treatment.

Most investors had expected a green light from the U.S. watchdog, following a positive recommendation from an advisory panel to the FDA last November, despite earlier signals that there might be heart issues with the medicine.

Optimism about Tresiba and Ryzodeg - which combines degludec with another formulation of insulin - was further boosted by approval in Europe, where both drugs won a final go-ahead last month. They have also been approved in Japan.

Confounds Expectations

Analysts had been expecting Tresiba and Ryzodeg to sell some $2.8 billion annually by 2017, according to consensus forecasts compiled by Thomson Reuters Pharma. Those numbers look set to fall sharply, since the lucrative U.S. market was seen making up more than half of the total.

Novo Chief Executive Lars Sorensen said the U.S. setback would have no impact on the group's plans for the roll-out or pricing of the drugs in Europe and Japan.

The FDA's decision to issue Novo with a so-called "complete response letter" confounded expectations. Such letters are issued when the U.S. agency determines that an application cannot be approved in its existing form.

"We are surprised and disappointed to receive this letter, but we acknowledge this decision by the FDA and will work with the agency to determine the best path forward to completing the review," Sorensen said.

Novo received the letter on Feb. 8 but only made it public on Sunday. In fact, concerns about the cardiovascular safety of Tresiba are not a complete surprise, although Novo and most analysts had thought the issue had been resolved.

The FDA advisers' meeting last year expressed concern about a trend toward higher incidence of adverse heart events with the new insulin than with older ones. However, the differences seen in 16 large clinical trials were not statistically significant.

In addition to calling for new trials on Tresiba's heart safety, the FDA said approval for Tresiba and Ryzodeg could not be granted until violations cited in a Dec. 12 warning letter had been resolved.

The FDA is very cautious about the safety profile of new diabetes treatments, following controversy over GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia pill, which was linked to serious heart problems after being on the market for years.

Novo said the FDA's decision not to grant approval at the present time was not expected to impact its financial forecasts significantly for the current year.

The big concern of investors, though, is that a lengthy delay in getting Tresiba launched in the world's biggest drugs market will seriously undermine Novo's ability to stay ahead of rivals such as Sanofi and Eli Lilly.

Mark Clark of Deutsche Bank said the setback would be seen as "unequivocally good news" for Sanofi's long-acting insulin Lantus, which is the French company's biggest-selling product, with sales this year expected to reach some $6.6 billion, 62 percent of which will come from the United States.


View the original article here

The 10 NRA-Funded Senators Hoping To Block Gun Regulations

The National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC has distributed more than $1 million in career donations to current members of the United States Senate. And, like their House counterparts, the Senators who have received the most are also among the most vocal opponents of any new gun violence prevention legislation advanced in the aftermath of the school shooting at Newton, Connecticut.

A ThinkProgress analysis of data from Political MoneyLine reveals that the top 10 Senate beneficiaries of NRA money are all Republicans. Each has already indicated his opposition to President Obama’s gun violence proposals and each has received an “A” or “A+” rating from the NRA. They are:

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK) — AT LEAST $64,900

Inhofe said last month, “I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. … The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO) — AT LEAST $60,550

Blunt said last month, “Unfortunately, the president’s proposals today fundamentally fail to address ways that we can prevent tragic events like Sandy Hook, and instead, he’s attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.” Last week, he expressed doubt that the Senate would even expand background checks.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA) — AT LEAST $56,950

Chambliss said last month, “While I am certain that the president’s proposal is well-intentioned, it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected.”

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD) — AT LEAST $48,605

Thune said last month, “There is a lot of emotion driving this debate. We need to prevent this in the future, and make the schools and our kids safer. And frankly, I don’t think it has to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) — AT LEAST $46,600

Graham said last month, “One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal. As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.”

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL) — AT LEAST $43,755

Shelby said on his Congressional website, “We all mourn the victims of shocking tragedies that have resulted from senseless acts of violence perpetrated by seriously disturbed individuals. However, such tragedies should not be viewed as an indictment of America’s precious Second Amendment rights. Thus, we should not react in a manner that would unnecessarily and improperly infringe upon the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners. Unfortunately, it seems that some zealous gun rights opponents are seeking to leverage tragedies to further their long-held agenda of unduly restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID) — AT LEAST $43,700

Crapo said last month, “The President’s proposal on gun control is very disappointing. Any discussion about restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans deserves, at minimum, a full and public debate in Congress. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) — AT LEAST $41,750

Hatch said last month that even passage of universal background checks would be “the way reductions in liberty occur.” He added, “When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who’s who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty,” noting that gun rights are “an express provision in the Constitution, unlike the penumbras and other conjured-up provisions that aren’t there that the court has come up with over the years. This is express, and many people are very, very concerned about any infringement on it, and I’m one of them.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) — AT LEAST $41,200

Grassley said last month, “The Second Amendment is more than just words on paper. It’s a fundamental right that ensures citizens the ability to protect themselves against the government. Unfortunately, the President seems to think that the Second Amendment can be tossed aside. Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment is a power grab along the same pattern we’ve seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people. Some of these directives clearly run afoul of limitations Congress has placed on federal spending bringing the President’s actions in direct conflict with federal law. More importantly, it’s hard to see how any of these executive actions would have prevented the tragedies that precipitated this effort.”

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS) — AT LEAST $36,750

Wicker said last month, “The President’s proposals would violate the Constitution and have been proven not to be effective in preventing gun violence, I will be part of a bipartisan coalition opposing this legislation and looking for real solutions such as school safety guards, mental health care, and addressing the culture of violence in the media. The Second Amendment rights of Americans must be preserved.”

The 10 have received more than $480,000 combined in career NRA PAC money.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine proposals to reduce gun violence. The four Republicans on the nine-person panel are Graham, Hatch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Cruz (at least $9900) has blasted the President for “trying to exploit the tragic murder of children as an excuse to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda,” and Cornyn ($17,850) has said we must enforce existing gun laws before we consider any new ones.


View the original article here

The great absentee on immigration

The great absentee on immigration - 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('Download TheHill.com iPhone App Free!');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('Download TheHill.com iPad App Free!');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('The Hill Android App Now Available');} The Hill Newspaper !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");Google+Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxGOP12In The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxGOP12In The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions THE HILL  commentE-mailPrintshare The great absentee on immigrationBy Alfonso Aguilar, executive director, Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles-02/11/13 11:15 AM 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");

During his second inaugural speech, the president proclaimed that "[o]ur journey is complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity.” Powerful words, indeed. The problem is that, coming from him, they ring hollow.
 
The president loves to pontificate about immigration, but the reality is that since his administration began, he hasn’t done anything to advance the discussion of immigration and help forge the bipartisan consensus necessary to address this important issue. He’s only made promises that he hasn’t kept.

As a candidate back in 2008, he told Univision’s Jorge Ramos that “[w]hat I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year [of the presidency] an immigration bill that I strongly support.” Yet, he didn’t lift a finger to keep what Ramos called “la promesa de Obama”–Obama’s promise.
 
The president went at it again a few days ago in Las Vegas where he outlined his immigration reform plan and basically restated “la promesa,” saying, "I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform.”
 
Yet, the president has done nothing to reach across the aisle to discuss his ideas on how to solve this tough issue. Since the election, in fact, he hasn't called one Republican member to talk about immigration.
 
When asked in an interview why he hadn’t pro-actively reached out to Republicans, he seemed to indicate that the leadership has to come from Capitol Hill and not from him. “I am happy to meet with anybody, anytime, anywhere to make sure that this thing happens,” he said. “You know, the truth is oftentimes what happens is members of Congress prefer meeting among themselves to build trust between Democrats and Republicans there.”
 
The question then is: how exactly is he leading and "working on the issue" if he's not talking to anyone on the other side? After all, the most important role of a president is of consensus builder. Presidents outline a vision to resolve specific problems the nation is facing and then work to bring legislators from both parties together. That’s what presidents have always done. A president doesn't lead or govern just by giving speeches.
 
Congressman Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat from Illinois, and an unquestioned leader on immigration reform, just last month vented his frustration with the president in an interview with The Hill: “Who’s missing from these conversations is the president of the United States. When senators from both parties and members of the House are talking, when you have the Senate majority leader and Speaker Boehner both saying that this is an important priority. Who’s the one missing? The president.”
 
Nonetheless, as Congressman Gutierrez mentioned, the good news is that congressional Democrats and Republicans early on, right after the elections, began working together on the issue and have achieved considerable progress. Just recently, after weeks of tough negotiations and discussions, a bipartisan group of senators came out with a framework that fully addresses the immigration challenges that our nation is facing, and that strikes an appropriate balance between the legitimate security concerns of the country and our tradition of being a welcoming nation. And a bipartisan working group in the House is expected to announce a similar blueprint in the next few weeks. The only party that has not been involved in these historic and productive conversations has been the White House.
 
If the president is really being honest about wanting to get immigration reform done, then it would be better for him to quit for now the speaking tour, follow the example of congressional Democrats and Republicans, and work in earnest to expand the bipartisan consensus that has been achieved so far.
 
Many are concerned, though, that the president will only use immigration for political advantage; that he will call on Americans to mobilize and express their support for immigration reform, but won’t do anything himself to engage congressional leaders in a serious conversation about the issue. If the president chooses this path, he will surely disrupt the great progress that has been achieved so far by both parties in Congress.
 
Americans elected Barack Obama to be president. They didn’t elect him to be an activist or community organizer. It’s time for him to overcome his social anxiety over talking to politicians who think differently from him, and begin developing the working relationships with individual Republican members that are vital to building the trust and respect needed to reach a deal on such a complex issue as immigration.
 
Aguilar is the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles and former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship in the George W. Bush administration.

!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/homeland-security/282219-the-great-absentee-on-immigrationThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog Twitter - Click to followCongress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedThe great absentee on immigrationDon't ease up on exportsKarl Rove: The biggest loserRegulatory reform necessary for economic growthTax hikes you may have forgotten aboutEmailedTax hikes you may have forgotten aboutKarl Rove: The biggest loserDiscussedKarl Rove: The biggest loserTax hikes you may have forgotten aboutBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More Homeland Security HeadlinesImmigration reform is not about semanticsCome clean on rendition, detention and tortureBeware of moving goal posts on border security enforcementMore Homeland Security Headlines » Homeland Security 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 »bloglogoBriefing RoomBiden says gun lobby’s depiction of Obama plan ‘a bunch of malarkey’Carney: ‘President believes we have a spending problem’Biden to field gun questions from Field & Stream magazine
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogFHA and the future role of government in housingThe sky isn't falling on the PentagonRegulatory reform necessary for economic growth
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogDr. Ben Carson's tithing wisdomDoc who 'diagnosed' Christie also heard Clinton's anguished cry after Lewinsky scandal brokePointless makework
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomGOP looks to link Obama to cuts with social media pushAxelrod to former WH doctor: Leave Christie alone!Magic Johnson huddles with Obama on HIV/AIDS at White House
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyGovernment Printing Office joins PinterestSources: White House to issue cybersecurity order WednesdayObama to hang out on Google
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Obama cybersecurity order would create program for power grid, other networksGOP pressures Obama to build pipeline with new 'Keystone Clock'Alec Baldwin, Morgan Freeman press Obama to fight climate change
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxSecond Republican makes Massachusetts Senate bid officialNRCC announces regional political team for 2014Openly gay state lawmaker announces bid for Markey's seat
More Ballot Box »On The MoneySenate Dems aim to have sequester bill ready by ThursdayBaucus: No reason to hold up LewWall Street survey: Sequester likely, will take stock market toll
More On The Money »HealthwatchTributes to pope highlight abortion stanceCarney: Obama won't back higher Medicare ageReport: SEAL who shot bin Laden left military, lost health coverage
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionTwo Senate Dems introduce sequester replacements targeting tax loopholesMcConnell rejects idea of replacing sequester with tax hikesReid: After VAWA, Senate will vote on Hagel confirmation
More Floor Action »TransportationBoeing reports safe 787 'Dreamliner' test flightThis week in Transportation: Shuster tries to carve out space for spendingRetailers forecast 8.5 percent importing increase after East Coast port labor deal
More Transportation »DEFCON HillReport: First batch of US equipment begins filtering out of Afghanistan Senate Dems move to clear Hagel nomination by end of the weekObama awards Afghanistan veteran the Medal of Honor
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsObama OKs $50 million to support French operation in MaliCarney: No proposal to cut nuclear arsenal in State of the Union Catholic lawmakers praise pope for having 'courage' to resign
More Global Affairs »In The KnowLawmaker invites Ted Nugent to Obama's State of the Union address on TuesdayClint Eastwood: Leaders in Washington 'don't give a damn'Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton lose out at Grammy Awards
More In The Know »RegWatchWatchdog: Former SEC employees helping shield corporations from regulationsHealth law rule on ‘essential benefits’ sent to White House for final reviewNews bites: Obama weighing several executive actions
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSJuan WilliamsGOP toxic to HispanicsJudd GreggSequester opportunityMore Columnists »

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

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

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

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.


View the original article here