Sunday, August 11, 2013

Oregon Study Throws a Stop Sign in Front of ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion

Today, the nation’s top health economists released a study that throws a huge “STOP” sign in front of ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.

The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, or OHIE, may be the most important study ever conducted on health insurance. Oregon officials randomly assigned thousands of low-income Medicaid applicants – basically, the most vulnerable portion of the group that would receive coverage under ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion – either to receive Medicaid coverage, or nothing. Health economists then compared the people who got Medicaid to the people who didn’t. The OHIE is the only randomized, controlled study ever conducted on the effects of having health insurance versus no health insurance. Randomized, controlled studies are the gold standard of such research.

Consistent with lackluster results from the first year, the OHIE’s second-year results found no evidence that Medicaid improves the physical health of enrollees. There were some modest improvements in depression and financial strain–but it is likely those gains could be achieved at a much lower cost than through an extremely expensive program like Medicaid. Here are the study’s results and conclusions:

We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression [by 30 percent], increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures…

This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.

As one of the study’s authors explained to me, it did not find any effect on mortality because the sample size is too small. Mortality rates among the targeted population – able-bodied adults 19-64 below 100 percent of poverty who aren’t already eligible for government health insurance programs – are already very low. So even if expanding Medicaid reduces mortality among this group, and there is ample room for doubt, the effect would be so small that this study would be unable to detect it. That too is reason not to implement the Medicaid expansion. This is not a population that is going to start dying in droves if states decline to participate.

There is no way to spin these results as anything but a rebuke to those who are pushing states to expand Medicaid. The Obama administration has been trying to convince states to throw more than a trillion additional taxpayer dollars at Medicaid by participating in the expansion, when the best-designed research available cannot find any evidence that it improves the physical health of enrollees. The OHIE even studied the most vulnerable part of the Medicaid-expansion population – those below 100 percent of the federal poverty level – yet still found no improvements in physical health.

If Medicaid partisans are still determined to do something, the only responsible route is to launch similar experiments in other states, with an even larger sample size, to determine if there is anything the OHIE might have missed. Or they could design smaller, lower-cost, more targeted efforts to reduce depression and financial strain among the poor. (I propose deregulating health care.) This study shows there is absolutely no warrant to expand Medicaid at all.


View the original article here

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

• Danny Russel – Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State
• Rick Metsger – Member, National Credit Union Administration Board

The President also announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to key Administration posts:

• Michael G. Whitaker – Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
• Alphonso Maldon, Jr. – Member and Chair, Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
• Mary C. Pete – Member, Arctic Research Commission

President Obama said, “These fine public servants both bring a depth of experience and tremendous dedication to their new roles.  Our nation will be well-served by these men and women, and I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come.”

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Danny Russel, Nominee for Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State
Danny Russel, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, is Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian Affairs on the White House National Security Staff (NSS).  From 2009 to 2011, he was the NSS Director for Japan, South Korea, and North Korea.  Before joining the NSS, Mr. Russel was Director of the Office of Japanese Affairs at the Department of State.  From 2005 to 2008, he was U.S. Consul General in Osaka-Kobe, Japan.  Previously, he served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in The Hague from 2002 to 2005, and as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia, Cyprus from 1999 to 2002.  From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Russel was Chief of Staff to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.  Earlier assignments included posts at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, Korea and with the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.  Before joining the Foreign Service in 1985, Mr. Russel was a manager for an international firm based in New York City.

Rick Metsger, Nominee for Member, National Credit Union Administration Board
Rick Metsger is President of Parakletos Strategic Public Affairs LLC, a position he has held since 2010.  Prior to this, Mr. Metsger served in the Oregon State Senate from 1999 to 2011, and as Senate President Pro Tempore  from 2009 to 2011.  From 2004 to 2007, Mr. Metsger worked as a Principal at Metsger Forbes LLC.  He was Principal of NewsMedia Dynamics Inc. from 1992 to 1999.  Mr. Metsger was a news anchor and reporter for KOIN-TV in Portland, Oregon from 1977 to 1992.  He served on the State Treasury Debt Policy Advisory Commission from 2001 to 2011 and was on the Board of Directors of Portland Teachers Credit Union from 1993 to 2001.  Mr. Metsger received a B.S. and an M.A.T. from Lewis & Clark College.
President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Michael G. Whitaker, Appointee for Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation
Michael G. Whitaker most recently served as a Board Member and Business Development Consultant for InterGlobe Enterprises from 2011 to 2012.  Prior to this, Mr. Whitaker was a Group Chief Executive Officer within InterGlobe Enterprises from 2009 to 2011.  From 1994 to 2009, he served at United Airlines, most recently as Senior Vice President for Alliances, International, and Regulatory Affairs.  Prior to that, he served at Trans World Airlines from 1991 to 1994, most recently as Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory and International Affairs.  Mr. Whitaker received a B.A. from the University of Louisville and a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center. 

Alphonso Maldon, Jr., Appointee for Member and Chair, Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
Alphonso Maldon, Jr. is Founder, President, and CEO of Partnership Strategies Consulting in Virginia.  He is also part-owner of the Washington Nationals Baseball Club.  Before launching Partnership Strategies Consulting in 2009, Mr. Maldon was Senior Vice President for External Affairs for the Washington Nationals and President of the Dream Foundation, the Washington Nationals’ philanthropic arm.  Before joining the Washington Nationals Baseball Club, Mr. Maldon was Senior Vice President and Senior Relationship Management Officer for Government Banking Services for PNC Financial Services Group in Washington, D.C.  Previously, he was Executive Vice President with Fleet Boston Financial and Bank of America.  From 1999 to 2001, Mr. Maldon served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy.  Prior to that, he served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs at the White House and White House Congressional Liaison to the United States Senate and House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999.  From 1994 to 1995, he was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Military Office.  Mr. Maldon served in the U.S. Army from 1973 to 1993 and retired with the rank of Colonel.  He received a B.S. from Florida A&M and an M.A. from the University of Oklahoma.

Mary C. Pete, Appointee for Member, Arctic Research Commission
Mary C. Pete is the Director of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks Kuskokwim Campus in Bethel, Alaska, a position she has held since 2005.  She was first appointed to the Artic Research Commission by President Obama in 2010.  Prior to that, from 1996 to 2005, she served as the Director of the Division of Subsistence for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.  From 1993 to 1996, Ms. Pete was an instructor in the Department of Rural Development at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks and a Subsistence Resource Specialist from 1984 to 1993.  From 2005 to 2009 she served as a member of the North Pacific Research Board Science Panel.  Ms. Pete received a B.A. and an M.A. from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

The President and the Department of Defense are taking unprecedented steps to protect our environment, achieve significant cost savings, and give our military better energy options.

Today at the White House, we convened the 10th annual meeting of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

User:ErwinBene


View the original article here

NBC Ignores Todd Grilling President Over ObamaCare 'Train Wreck' to Hit From the Left on Gitmo

While NBC's chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd pressed President Obama during a Tuesday news conference on the possibility of ObamaCare being a "train wreck," the network coverage of the presser completely avoided any mention of the question, instead seizing on Obama being pressured from the left to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Anchor Brian Williams lead off Tuesday's Nightly News by declaring: "The hunger strike at Guantanamo that's now gotten so bad prisoners are being force fed, as the President faces tough questions." Introducing a report on the topic, Williams lectured: "We don't get to see them or know their names, and most Americans actually prefer not to spend a whole lot of time thinking about the men who've been rounded up as enemy combatants and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba."

Williams sympathetically added: "And tonight those prisoners are back in the news because a hundred of them are on a hunger strike, apparently preferring to take their own lives and do it slowly to the life they have under heavy guard at Guantanamo Bay." Correspondent Andrea Mitchell explained: "Their lawyers say they're protesting years of detention, most without being charged, and no release in sight."

After Mitchell's Nightly News report on the terror detainees, Williams did speak with Todd, noting: "Those Guantanamo comments you just saw, part of a wide-ranging news conference today." However, the only other topic Todd spoke to was Obama's statement on the conflict in Syria.

Mitchell laid the blame for Obama failing to close the prison on Congress: "The President promised to close Guantanamo as soon as he took office, but years later he has been blocked by Congress, the military court system, and now facing that hunger strike by the prisoners, he's clearly frustrated."

During a report on Wednesday's Today, Mitchell included a sound bite of Lieutenant Colonel David Frakt of the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General Reserves Corps fretting: "The fact that we have kept these men at Guantanamo for years makes them essentially political prisoners. And there's no place for political prisoners in the United States."

7:00PM ET TEASE:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: The hunger strike at Guantanamo that's now gotten so bad prisoners are being force fed, as the President faces tough questions.

7:01PM ET SEGMENT:

WILLIAMS: We don't get to see them or know their names, and most Americans actually prefer not to spend a whole lot of time thinking about the men who've been rounded up as enemy combatants and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. We think of them when they become an issue, like when candidate Obama vowed to close the facility. And tonight those prisoners are back in the news because a hundred of them are on a hunger strike, apparently preferring to take their own lives and do it slowly to the life they have under heavy guard at Guantanamo Bay.

Some of them are being force fed now, and now the President is facing some tough questions about what to do. Our chief foreign affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, watching it all from our D.C. newsroom today. Andrea, good evening.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Good evening, Brian. The President promised to close Guantanamo as soon as he took office, but years later he has been blocked by Congress, the military court system, and now facing that hunger strike by the prisoners, he's clearly frustrated.

Guantanamo Bay, where 100 of 166 prisoners are on a hunger strike, some since February. Their lawyers say they're protesting years of detention, most without being charged, and no release in sight. Today President Obama agreed the prison needs to be closed.

BARACK OBAMA: The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.

MITCHELL: Extra doctors and nurses arrived today to help force feed 21 of the detainees. This despite the American Medical Association's protest to Defense Secretary Hagel, that force feeding, quote, "violates core ethical values of the medical profession" once a prisoner makes a rational decision to refuse food.

LT. COL. DAVID FRAKT [U.S. AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL CORPS RESERVE]: The administration seems to be more worried about the bad publicity from a detainee dying than they are from the bad publicity of force feeding the detainees.

OBAMA: I don't want these individuals to die. Obviously, the Pentagon is trying to manage the situation as best as they can. But I think all of us should reflect on why exactly are we doing this?

MITCHELL: The military says dozens of prisoners clashed with guards two weeks ago and were hiding makeshift weapons.

COL. JOHN BOGDAN [U.S. ARMY]: We hit the point where, you know, I felt we were accepting too much risk, and it was time to take action.

OBAMA: By the authority vested in me as president.
MITCHELL: The President tried to close Guantanamo two days after he took office. What happened? Congress fought him at every turn, blocking a plan to build a supermax prison in Illinois, or try prisoners, like alleged 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in lower Manhattan, or send them home. Eighty six prisoners, low-level detainees, mostly from Yemen, were cleared to be sent back three years ago, but either Yemen won't take them or can't satisfy U.S. security demands for their transfer. Guantanamo costs taxpayers $800 million a year, with no solution for the prisoners or for the President. Brian.

WILLIAMS: Andrea Mitchell starting us off from D.C. tonight. Andrea, thanks.


View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

(Difference between revisions):I disagree with this proposal.  I think one of the things that makes wikis so successful is that people can jump in by creating an account and instantly contribute by improving pages.  To be honest, I think that there are enough blockers to handle the spam efficiently, but if there needs to be a solution, I would recommend [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:03, 9 June 2013 (EDT):I disagree with this proposal.  I think one of the things that makes wikis so successful is that people can jump in by creating an account and instantly contribute by improving pages.  To be honest, I think that there are enough blockers to handle the spam efficiently, but if there needs to be a solution, I would recommend [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha QuestyCaptcha].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:03, 9 June 2013 (EDT)It keeps on coming up everytime I add a link to references, is there any way that you can turn it off for my user? I clearly am not a bot or spammer so if you can it would be much appreciated. [[User:JAnderson|JAnderson]] 20:51, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

See this edit. Clear case of incivility. Considering his previous record I'd say he should be banned for at least a week if not more. I would have given him a lifetime ban but unfortunately there are too many editors with blocking rights who seem to be determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules. Interestingly enough, many of those editors are also in cordial relations with the RW userbase. - Markman 15:42, 6 June 2013 (EDT) You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist. As per "determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules", I would suggest that you re-read the rules. I still haven't forgotten your bullying of AlanE. brenden 15:48, 6 June 2013 (EDT) "You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist." Come on darling, don't be afraid to call the parodist by his name - Dvergne. The same Dvergne who sided with you and with AlanE against me. So you're basically admitting to both associating with a liberal website and with parodists. - Markman 15:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT) As far as I understand, User:Dvergne, Karajou, and myself were chastising you for spamming {{uncited}} specifically on AlanE's contributions. Are you insinuating that Karajou is "associating with a parodist"?? Furthermore, once again, you have shown yourself unwilling to read that userpage, that explains my goals on that website specifically. In case you can't see that website, I have the words reproduced below:

==Wat?== *Why are you here? :I'd rather not be impersonated, and I would like a word in this place. *What are you doing at Conservapedia? :I do enjoy thought exercises. While Conservapedia does go in a little overboard at times, I still have faith in it. I feel that the only reason that Conservapedia's problems are so famous, are because of the inordinate amount of trolls and parodists, trying their best to write something so ridiculous, that their comrades might congratulate them. That, and the continued threats by [[user:naca|certain]] [[user:Umichcynic|people]] [[user:Proxima Centauri|at]] [[Liberapedia|certain websites]], to (blocked by spam filter), and harrass the precarious community at Conservapedia, have not helped the situation. One of my goals there is to rectify that. brenden 16:00, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Your other edits on that website reveal a different story. Your cordial relations with the RW userbase shows that you're one of them. - Markman 16:04, 6 June 2013 (EDT) In the days of TK your admiting you are even reading that site would have earnt you a ban. Davidspencer 16:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT) On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. brenden 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - Markman 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. brenden 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you've taken interest in voter ID just as I have, and I found out this week that the Arkansas Secretary of State has proposed rules to implement Arkansas' new voter ID law. [2]. I'm planning on writing up and submitting comments to fix several issues with the rules, and I was wondering whether you were planning on submitting comments or wanted to see what I am writing. Hopefully, if the rules are fixed as I suggest, the voter ID law should survive federal and state court challenges. Thanks, GregG 13:24, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

That's interesting. I wasn't planning on submitting any comments, but I'd be curious to see what you submit. My own view is that voter ID laws are not as significant as early voting laws.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Andy, I think if Conservapedians could spend more time creating content rather than fighting spammers that they would do so if given the opportunity.

Why don't you add the feature to the wiki that fights spammers that Brenden says works great at his wiki?

Here is the informmation:

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. Here is the information for this extention: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

I hope this helps. Conservative 10:30, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

User:Conservative reverted my recent edits without explanation and protected the page. Since there is no way to contact U:C and I don't see it likely that there will be fruitful discussion about improving the article about the logical fallacy of quote mining, I would request that the page be unprotected and that U:C work in collegiality with me to improve the page. Thanks, GregG 11:21, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

There is nothing wrong about quoting the other side and using those quotes to disprove and discredit their position. Some evolutionists pretend there is something wrong with this, yet politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does this frequently.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT) I'm glad you are offering your input, and I should probably explain my changes fully on the talk page. Science, law, theology, politics, mathematics, and philosophy are all different systems for answering questions about our world. Each system has its own rules, so what may be a valid argument in law (citing to binding precedent or quoting an authority) is not necessarily valid in science or math. Likewise, logical deduction from axioms is the main way mathematical results are proven, but it has less utility in the other systems of answering questions. In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article. Thanks, GregG 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does [sic] this frequently." I trust you are familiar with Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. GregG 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Try this:

$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true; $wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes

I disagree with this proposal. I think one of the things that makes wikis so successful is that people can jump in by creating an account and instantly contribute by improving pages. To be honest, I think that there are enough blockers to handle the spam efficiently, but if there needs to be a solution, I would recommend QuestyCaptcha. GregG 17:03, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

It keeps on coming up everytime I add a link to references, is there any way that you can turn it off for my user? I clearly am not a bot or spammer so if you can it would be much appreciated. JAnderson 20:51, 10 June 2013 (EDT)


View the original article here

As Even Dems Fret, NYT Finds GOP 'Misinformation' to Blame for Public Unease With Obama-Care

The New York Times has long excused the continuing unpopularity of Obamacare by arguing that people just don't understand it or that it's been unfairly caricatured by political opponents. The latest entry was John Harwood's "Political Memo" Tuesday, "The Next Big Challenge for Obama's Health Care Law: Carrying It Out." The text box fretted: "Misinformation and complex imperatives could cause trouble."

This month, a political organization aligned with House Republicans sent an e-mail to reporters attacking President Obama’s health care law.

“Young adults on parents’ plan pay more,” said the organization, the YG Network, citing a new employee benefits study. The e-mail’s subject line read “So Much for Popularity.”

Actually, the study did not show those young adults were paying more. It showed insurance companies were, because they had begun providing health coverage to those young adults, as called for under the law.

The missive, inaccurate though it was, illustrates the immense challenge facing the Obama administration as it puts in place the most significant parts of the 2010 law. Few government initiatives reach so many corners of the American economy and society -- and have as much potential to generate trouble for the party in the White House.

Harwood kept downplaying Obama-care related woes, even though Obama supporter and journalist Joe Klein found plenty to complain about in his April 2 column "Obamacare Incompetence," including those vaunted health-care exchanges: "...the key incentive for small businesses to support Obamacare was that they would be able to shop for the best deals in health care superstores -- called exchanges. The Administration has had three years to set up these exchanges. It has failed to do so."

Harwood even dismissed a Politico news report faulting Obama-care, while admitting to "modest potential headaches" for the economy. No mention of Obama-care architect and retiring Sen. Max Baucus calling the legislation's implementation a "train-wreck."

A new example popped up last week, to the delight of Republican opponents of the law. An article by Politico reported “high-level confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides” from the health law.

In fact, lawmakers said, the talks the article referred to concerned preserving the same kind of employer-subsidized health coverage for Congressional employees that workers at private companies can receive under the law. Yet the article sent White House aides and other Democrats scrambling to avoid the appearance of special treatment.

The law poses some modest potential headaches for the overall economy.

It requires, for example, that businesses with 50 or more full-time workers either offer insurance coverage or pay a penalty. Mr. Goolsbee said he would be watching whether companies around that threshold either defer hiring or shift some full-time workers to part-time jobs.

But the number of such companies is small. A vast majority of American workers are employed by larger companies that already offer coverage.

Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times. Click here to follow Clay Waters on Twitter.

View the original article here

Template:Mainpageleft


Conservapedia: Over 450 million Views & 1,000,000+ Edits. Free courses are here. Or join our discussion of the Origination Clause.

Loving Day commemorates the date when the Supreme Court of America ruled to disband all anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 (laws that made mixed race marriages illegal); Celebrations happen around June 12th.

101 evidences for a young earth

Comprehensive resource to refute the claims of evolutionists

Question evolution! campaign - worldwide anti-evolution campaign featuring 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]

The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[1] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE.

It's June of 2013. And 2013 is the WORST year in the history of Darwinism - just like we predicted!

June-calendar-md.png

10 reasons why 2013 will be a BAD year for Darwinism

January-blue-calendar.jpg

5 strategies to collapse Darwinism

Five.pngChina location.png

Can social unrest in Europe lead to a change of their religious landscape? Are creationists poised and in a position to take advantage of this unrest to further grow biblical creation belief in Europe? [2][3]

Europe map.png

Essays on atheism and evolution

Good person test

"I do not seek. I find."

Pablo Picasso

If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past.

Baruch Spinoza

Kind words do not cost much. Yet they accomplish much.

Blaise Pascal

Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through logical arguments. The term comes from the Greek word apologia, which means "defense".

"To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven." - Ecclesiastes 3:1 (NKJ)

“when the wicked perish, there is song,’’ but later warns, “If your enemy falls, do not rejoice.” - The Book of Proverbs.

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, But the righteous are bold as a lion." - Proverbs 28:1 (NASB)

Though translation of the New Testament is complete, improvements and ideas are always welcome, and much work remains in the Old Testament.

Find your favorite verses and join the Best of the Public in translating a few!


View the original article here

Presidential Memorandum -- Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

May 17, 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures

Reliable, safe, and resilient infrastructure is the backbone of an economy built to last. Investing in our Nation's infrastructure serves as an engine for job creation and economic growth, while bringing immediate and long-term economic benefits to communities across the country. The quality of our infrastructure is critical to maintaining our Nation's competitive edge in a global economy and to securing our path to energy independence. In taking steps to improve our infrastructure, we must remember that the protection and continued enjoyment of our Nation's environmental, historical, and cultural resources remain an equally important driver of economic opportunity, resiliency, and quality of life.

Through the implementation of Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects), executive departments and agencies (agencies) have achieved better outcomes for communities and the environment and realized substantial time savings in review and permitting by prioritizing the deployment of resources to specific sectors and projects, and by implementing best-management practices.

These best-management practices include: integrating project reviews among agencies with permitting responsibilities; ensuring early coordination with other Federal agencies, as well as with State, local, and tribal governments; strategically engaging with, and conducting outreach to, stakeholders; employing project-planning processes and individual project designs that consider local and regional ecological planning goals; utilizing landscape- and watershed-level mitigation practices; promoting the sharing of scientific and environmental data in open-data formats to minimize redundancy, facilitate informed project planning, and identify data gaps early in the review and permitting process; promoting performance-based permitting and regulatory approaches; expanding the use of general permits where appropriate; improving transparency and accountability through the electronic tracking of review and permitting schedules; and applying best environmental and cultural practices as set forth in existing statutes and policies.

Based on the process and policy improvements that are already being implemented across the Federal Government, we can continue to modernize the Federal Government's review and permitting of infrastructure projects and reduce aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects by half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment by institutionalizing these best-management practices, and by making additional improvements to enhance efficiencies in the application of regulations and processes involving multiple agencies -- including expanding the use of web-based techniques for sharing project-related information, facilitating targeted and relevant environmental reviews, and providing meaningful opportunities for public input through stakeholder engagement.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to advance the goal of cutting aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects in half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Modernization of Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures. (a)      The Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement (Steering Committee), established by Executive Order 13604, shall work with the Chief Performance Officer (CPO), in coordination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to modernize Federal infrastructure review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures to significantly reduce the aggregate time required by the Federal Government to make decisions in the review and permitting of infrastructure projects, while improving environmental and community outcomes.

This modernization shall build upon and incorporate reforms identified by agencies pursuant to Executive Order 13604 and Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review).

(b)      Through an interagency process, coordinated by the CPO and working closely with CEQ and OIRA, the Steering Committee shall conduct the following modernization efforts:

(i)      Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Steering Committee shall identify and prioritize opportunities to modernize key regulations, policies, and procedures -- both agency-specific and those involving multiple agencies -- to reduce the aggregate project review and permitting time, while improving environmental and community outcomes.

(ii)      Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Steering Committee shall prepare a plan for a comprehensive modernization of Federal review and permitting for infrastructure projects based on the analysis required by subsection (b)(i)      of this section that outlines specific steps for re-engineering both the intra- and inter-agency review and approval processes based on experience implementing Executive Order 13604. The plan shall identify proposed actions and associated timelines to:

(1)      institutionalize or expand best practices or process improvements that agencies are already implementing to improve the efficiency of reviews, while improving outcomes for communities and the environment;

(2)      revise key review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures (both agency-specific and Government-wide);

(3)      identify high-performance attributes of infrastructure projects that demonstrate how the projects seek to advance existing statutory and policy objectives and how they lead to improved outcomes for communities and the environment, thereby facilitating a faster and more efficient review and permitting process;

(4)      create process efficiencies, including additional use of concurrent and integrated reviews;

(5)      identify opportunities to use existing share-in-cost authorities and other non-appropriated funding sources to support early coordination and project review;

(6)      effectively engage the public and interested stakeholders;

(7)      expand coordination with State, local, and tribal governments;

(8)      strategically expand the use of information technology (IT) tools and identify priority areas for IT investment to replace paperwork processes, enhance effective project siting decisions, enhance interagency collaboration, and improve the monitoring of project impacts and mitigation commitments; and

(9)      identify improvements to mitigation policies to provide project developers with added predictability, facilitate landscape-scale mitigation based on conservation plans and regional environmental assessments, facilitate interagency mitigation plans where appropriate, ensure accountability and the long-term effectiveness of mitigation activities, and utilize innovative mechanisms where appropriate.

The modernization plan prepared pursuant to this section shall take into account funding and resource constraints and shall prioritize implementation accordingly.

(c)      Infrastructure sectors covered by the modernization effort include: surface transportation, such as roadways, bridges, railroads, and transit; aviation; ports and related infrastructure, including navigational channels; water resources projects; renewable energy generation; conventional energy production in high-demand areas; electricity transmission; broadband; pipelines; storm water infrastructure; and other sectors as determined by the Steering Committee.

(d)      The following agencies or offices and their relevant sub-divisions shall engage in the modernization effort:

(i)      the Department of Defense;

(ii)      the Department of the Interior;

(iii)      the Department of Agriculture;

(iv)      the Department of Commerce;

(v)      the Department of Transportation;

(vi)      the Department of Energy;

(vii)      the Department of Homeland Security;

(viii)      the Environmental Protection Agency;

(ix)      the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;

(x)      the Department of the Army;

(xi)      the Council on Environmental Quality; and

(xii)      such other agencies or offices as the CPO may invite to participate.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a)      Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)      the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)      the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals, or the regulatory review process.

(b)      This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)      This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and my memorandum of November 5, 2009 (Tribal Consultation).

(d)      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.

(e)      The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

The President and the Department of Defense are taking unprecedented steps to protect our environment, achieve significant cost savings, and give our military better energy options.

Today at the White House, we convened the 10th annual meeting of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Universe

(Difference between revisions)According to the [[Big Bang theory]], the universe erupted into existence from a highly compact singularityDiscover magazine, in introducing the ideas of [[Alan Guth]], said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.[http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/] The creation of the universe came from a [[singularity]], not "nothing" approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. This is the current [[scientific consensus]] and is agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific communityhttp://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx.According to the [[Big Bang theory]], the universe erupted into existence from a highly compact [[singularity]]Discover magazine, in introducing the ideas of [[Alan Guth]], said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.[http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/] The creation of the universe came from a [[singularity]], not "nothing" approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been [[expanding universe|expanding]] ever since. This is the current [[scientific consensus]] and is agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific communityhttp://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx.Ancient Christian Biblical accounts disagree with contemporary science, and adherents to such are known as young Earth Creationists. Bishop [[James Ussher]] calculated the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC.  While this is not the only biblical chronology which has been developed, almost all chronologies give a creation date near 4000 BC{{citation needed}}.Ancient Christian Biblical accounts disagree with contemporary science, and adherents to such are known as young Earth Creationists. Bishop [[James Ussher]] calculated the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC.  While this is not the only biblical chronology which has been developed, almost all chronologies give a creation date near 4000 BC{{citation needed}}.*[[Ultimate fate of the universe]]*[[Ultimate fate of the universe]]

The universe is, in principle, all of material existence or natural things (matter and energy). Therefore, everything outside of the universe is not natural or material, but supernatural (things going beyond nature). However, in order to solve problems with naturalistic explanations of the the origin of the universe, some speculate that there are other universes.

There have been and continue to be a number of competing ideas about the universe, but most agree that the universe is expanding. The size, shape, and age of the universe, as well as how it began, are, however, all points of contention.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The common view among cosmologists is that the universe is a four dimensional Riemannian manifold whose spatial part of the metric is increasing over time. This is interpreted as an expansion of the universe.

Imagine you are at a random spot on a spotted balloon, when someone inflates the balloon you'll see the spots moving away from you, so it would seem you are at the center of the expansion. Furthermore, the further away the spots are the faster they move away from you. This is also true for the universe: the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it moves away from us.

Further imagine that you are a creature that only exists in two dimensions. That is, you have width and depth, but no height. So living on the surface of the balloon, you cannot see the shape of the balloon itself. If you went for a walk in a straight line, you would actually go around the balloon and end up where you started, despite not being aware that you were travelling in a circle.

The theory goes that the three dimensions of our universe that we can see are like the two dimensions of the surface of the balloon, which wraps around on itself in another dimension, so that if we travelled through space in a straight line, we would eventually return to our starting point. The fourth dimension is time and String theory holds the universe exists right up to ten dimensions.

One consequence of this idea is that the universe therefore has no edge (just like there is no edge to the surface of a balloon) and therefore no center. Thus for any location in space, it would appear that that location is at the center of the expansion of the universe.

If we were really at the center of the universe, this would support the idea that the Earth occupies a "special place" in the universe, which would support the biblical idea of creation, even though the Bible does not claim that the Earth is physically in the center of the universe. So many scientists find the idea that it only looks like we are at the center of the universe an attractive one.

In the mid 1970s the astronomer William Tifft put forward the idea that red shift distances were quantized and possibly organized into spheres. If the observations were accurate, then it would suggest that the Earth is at or close to the centre of these spheres. While this centre is not necessarily the same thing as the centre of universe, it would certainly put Earth in a "special place".[1] However, Tifft's original data involved a relatively small sample of around 200 bodies. Later observations have revealed that there is red shift clumping, due to structures such as supercluster complexes, it is random in terms of direction and does indicate any symmetrical pattern[2][3].

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe erupted into existence from a highly compact singularity[4][5] approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. This is the current scientific consensus and is agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific community[6].

Ancient Christian Biblical accounts disagree with contemporary science, and adherents to such are known as young Earth Creationists. Bishop James Ussher calculated the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC. While this is not the only biblical chronology which has been developed, almost all chronologies give a creation date near 4000 BC[Citation Needed].

This gives rise to the "starlight problem" for some Christians, although there is nothing inherently illogical about the creation of light in situ to inform humanity of the existence of objects farther away than 6000 light-years. Believers in relativity have constructed a number of models which explain the age of the universe as being affected by the time-warping effects of gravity as predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, so that the age of the universe as measured by a hypothetical observer at the edge of the universe might be 14 billion years, but as measured by an observer on Earth is only 6,000 years.[7]

A recent calculation placed the visible universe at about 156 billion light years across.[8] This creates a dilemma of faster than light movement, but it is speculated that the expansion of space itself can exceed the speed of light even if the objects within it moving on their own can not.[8] As an analogy, imagine ants (galaxies), that can't walk faster than 20 centimetres per second, sitting on an elastic cord. Normally two ants moving away from each other could not exceed a speed of 40cm/s relative to each other (speed of light). However, if the cord is stretched while the ants are moving (expansion of space), the ants' speed relative to each other can be greater.

Current theories on the universe means that scientists are only able to account for 4% of the matter in the universe, so new theories of dark matter (unseen matter) have been developed to explain this.[9]

? Humphreys, Russell, Our galaxy is the center of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show, Journal of Creation 16(2):95–104, 2002.? Tang, S. M.; Zhang, S. N. (2005). "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data". Astrophysical Journal 633 (1): 41.? Schneider, et al. (2007). "The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog. IV. Fifth Data Release". The Astrophysical Journal 134 (1): 102–117.? Discover magazine, in introducing the ideas of Alan Guth, said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.? [1] The creation of the universe came from a singularity, not "nothing"? http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx? Batten, Don, et. al., How can we see distant stars in a young universe?, chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book, 2007.? 8.0 8.1 Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide! (Space.com)? Where is the rest of the universe?

View the original article here

Jimmy Carter, in apparent reversal, voices opposition to pot legalization

President Carter issued a statement Friday proclaiming that he does not favor marijuana legalization, despite previous statements that appeared to indicate that he favored state laws that allowed the possession and use of the drug.

“I do not favor legalization. We must do everything we can to discourage marijuana use, as we do now with tobacco and excessive drinking,” Carter said, according to a release from Project SAM. "We have to prevent making marijuana smoking from becoming attractive to young people, which is, I’m sure, what the producers of marijuana … are going to try and do.”

The group, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, opposes legalizing the drug, but instead believes those arrested for marijuana use should be sent to treatment facilities rather than jails. According to the group, Carter believes those caught with the drug should be given a warning hearing and screened for future use, but not have a permanent record kept.

“I said this 35 years ago … that I didn’t want to make it so that a person could possess … or smoke marijuana with impunity, but that they could be chastised, offered treatment, etc.," Carter said. The statement seemed to contradict a response Carter gave last year in Georgia, when he was asked if he favored legalization.

“I’m in favor of it. I think it’s OK,” Carter said during a forum. “I don’t think it’s going to happen in Georgia yet, but I think we can watch and see what happens in the state of Washington, for instance around Seattle, and let the American government and let the American people see does it cause a serious problem or not.”

But in his more recent comments, Carter said he was concerned with the potential implementation of laws legalizing pot use passed in November.

“I hope that Colorado and Washington, as you authorize the use of marijuana, will set up very strict experiments to ascertain how we can avoid the use of marijuana,” Carter said. “There should be no advertising for marijuana in any circumstances and no driving under the influence. We need to avoid the use of marijuana, particularly among young people.”

Project SAM was created by former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and conservative author David Frum.

View Comments

View the original article here

Hospitals twist prescription assistance program for their own benefit

By Adam J. Fein, president, Pembroke Consulting, Philadelphia - 04/29/13 03:00 PM ET

In 1992, Congress acted to help indigent and uninsured patients gain better access to prescription drugs. It authorized the 340B drug discount program, which lets eligible hospitals and other providers purchase outpatient drugs and receive discounts from pharmaceutical manufacturers.

But today, 340B discounts have left needy patients behind. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the government agency that oversees the 340B program, has developed the program with a tangle of regulations, non-public private letters, clarifications, and “Frequently Asked Questions.” Aggressive hospital strategies, all technically legal, have stretched the program’s goals beyond recognition. Hidden rebates from pharmaceutical manufacturers are instead subsidizing the operations of highly profitable, multi-billion dollar health systems.

The limited government oversight and foggy regulations let a 340B hospital profit from everyday outpatient prescriptions — drugs that are dispensed by your local pharmacy and are already fully paid by your insurance company. Thus, economic status and degree of need are irrelevant to a hospital’s ability to profit from a 340B prescription.

Hospitals grab these 340B rebates through a convoluted process. First, the hospital and its software vendors secretly match personal information from your retail prescription to their internal patient databases. If it is profitable, they convert the prescription to a 340B claim. Then, the retail pharmacy turns over its third-party and consumer payments to a 340B hospital. The hospital pays a fee to the pharmacy and submits a rebate claim for the retail prescription.

What’s more, the hospital benefits without your or your payer’s knowledge. Under existing regulations, the process is entirely permissible. However, it certainly wasn’t considered or intended in the original legislation.

This behavior sharply accelerated after a 2010 regulatory change, which lets hospitals build external networks of community pharmacies. HRSA projects that nearly one-quarter of the country’s 60,000 retail community pharmacies will be part of a 340B network. The biggest player is Walgreens. More than 4,000 of its drugstores act as 340B contract pharmacies.

Unfortunately, we can’t even detect the full scope of this practice. The National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP), which set electronic communication standards for pharmacy care, allows easy identification of an individual prescription’s status under the 340B drug pricing program. This voluntary standard is purposely ignored by most hospitals and pharmacies.

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has requested that the largest North Carolina hospitals provide details about their use of the 340B program. His work has exposed the small fraction of hospital 340B profits that now target indigent and uninsured patients.

Consider Duke University Health System, which has annual revenues of $2.5 billion and operating profits (revenues minus expenses) exceeding $500 million. Responding to Senator Grassley, Duke disclosed 340B pharmacy profits of $292 million — a 53 percent gross profit margin. Without these discounts, Duke's pharmacy profit margin would drop to 24 percent — comparable to that of a typical outpatient pharmacy. Only 1 in 20 patients served by Duke’s 340B pharmacy is uninsured. The remaining 95% have prescription costs paid by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance.

Today’s Congress should improve oversight and tighten 340B participation requirements.

To ensure that the program’s funds are being used appropriately, Congress should require that hospitals fully disclose how they use their 340B pharmacy profits. By allowing hospital’s to retain and then spend all 340B pharmacy profits, neither Medicare nor patients benefit from 340B drug discounts.

To limit abuse and increase transparency, hospitals and pharmacies should also be required to comply with established industry standards for identifying 340B prescription claims. Hospitals’ use of contract pharmacy networks should be scrutinized to be consistent with the program’s true intent.

It’s time to modernize the 340B program and help the neediest patients access valuable medicines.

Fein is president of Philadelphia-based Pembroke Consulting, Inc. He blogs at Drug Channels.

View Comments

View the original article here

PRISM

(Difference between revisions)It has long been known that any cell phone conversation containing key words like "bomb" or "airplane" triggered NSA surveillance programs.It has long been known that any cell phone conversation containing key words like "bomb" or "airplane" triggered NSA surveillance programs.The documents detailing this leak were released by [[Edward J. Snowden]], a former defense contractor, and IT specialist on June 6th, 2013, after the whistle blower informed [[The Guardian]] newspaper of the UK. The documents leaked included a 41 slide PowerPoint presentation on the mechanisms and morally questionable motives of PRISM. The documents also revealed the identities of the various companies actively releasing user information to the United States government. The leak of PRISM resulted almost immediately in outrage from various countries. From the Netherlands, Sophie in 't Veld, MeP, called it a violation of International Law. Sharp criticisms of hypocrisy came from the People's Republic of China, claiming that while the United States accused China of espionage, the United States was conducting global espionage on a massive scale. The German Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information has decried the program as "monstrous", and even the United Kingdom has stated it has concerns about the legality, and scope of Prism.

PRISM is a (formerly secret) program of the National Security Agency and the FBI to "tap directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs".[1] Discovery of the program, intended to track foreign targets, dismayed some Americans concerned that it might be used for domestic political advantage. Some others worried that its effectiveness in countering anti-US espionage or terrorism, might be diminished.

It has long been known that any cell phone conversation containing key words like "bomb" or "airplane" triggered NSA surveillance programs.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The documents detailing this leak were released by Edward J. Snowden, a former defense contractor, and IT specialist on June 6th, 2013, after the whistle blower informed The Guardian newspaper of the UK. The documents leaked included a 41 slide PowerPoint presentation on the mechanisms and morally questionable motives of PRISM. The documents also revealed the identities of the various companies actively releasing user information to the United States government.

The leak of PRISM resulted almost immediately in outrage from various countries. From the Netherlands, Sophie in 't Veld, MeP, called it a violation of International Law. Sharp criticisms of hypocrisy came from the People's Republic of China, claiming that while the United States accused China of espionage, the United States was conducting global espionage on a massive scale. The German Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information has decried the program as "monstrous", and even the United Kingdom has stated it has concerns about the legality, and scope of Prism.

? U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program, Washington Post, June 6-7, 2013

View the original article here

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 4/26/2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

11:56 A.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon -- or good morning -- or good noon to you all.  Thank you for being here.  As you know, we had a long and eventful day yesterday, but it is great to be back with you.  I have no announcements to make, so I will go straight to your questions.

Josh.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  If President Assad sees the White House say we've concluded that they have used chemical weapons and then say, well, but we're not 100 percent sure, we're going to kind of hold off while we figure it out completely -- doesn’t that give Assad reason to doubt that the U.S. is serious when we say, don't cross this line, or else?

MR. CARNEY:  No.  Because what the White House has said is that it has been assessed by our intelligence community with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.  This assessment is based in part on physiological samples.  Now, we are working to establish credible and corroborated facts to build on this intelligence assessment in order to establish a definitive judgment as to whether or not the President's red line has been crossed, and to inform our decision-making about next steps. 

But the President himself raised this issue, raised the profile of this issue, the seriousness of the prospect that the Assad regime would use chemical weapons or transfer them to a terrorist group last year, and the President has made clear from the beginning that this issue is gravely serious.  Now that we have a growing body of evidence that suggests that we can say with varying degrees of confidence that he has in a limited way, or that the regime has in a limited way likely used weapons, we need to build on that. 

It is absolutely the correct thing to do to take the exceptional work that our intelligence community does and continue to build information and put together a credible set of facts that can be corroborated that’s based on firm evidence that can be reviewed.  And that is what we are endeavoring to do. 

We are, of course, very much supportive of a United Nations investigation into this.  The President led -- the United States led in calling for that investigation, and we continue to press for that investigation to proceed unhindered.  We are also working independently and with our allies and with, most importantly, the Syrian opposition to assess credible reports of the use of chemical weapons, and to build evidence to support the assessments that have been made thus far.

Q    And considering the seriousness of the implications, how much urgency do you feel to get to a definitive conclusion?  If this investigation that you were just speaking about, for instance, were to run on for a number of months, is that something that President Obama would be comfortable with?

MR. CARNEY:  The President wants the facts.  And I’m not going to set a timeline because the facts need to be what drives this investigation, not a deadline. 

The situation in Syria is and has been grave.  The Assad regime has the blood of its own people on its hands.  There has been enormous loss of life and enormous disruption.  And you have seen us in a leadership role significantly increase our aid to the Syrian people through humanitarian assistance; significantly step up our assistance to the opposition, including nonlethal assistance directly to the Syrian military council as part of the opposition.  And that is in reaction what we have seen in Syria.

But it is I think instructive to look at the past for guidance when it comes to the need to be very serious about gathering all the facts, establishing chain of custody, linking evidence of the use of chemical weapons to specific incidents and actions taken by the regime.  And that’s, of course, what we will do because that’s the responsible thing to do.

Q    And on Tuesday, from the podium you said that the U.S. had “not come to the conclusion” that there had been one of these attacks.  But we’ve since learned that the White House has -- the administration has known about this for a number of weeks.  So how do you square those two statements?

MR. CARNEY:  What I said -- you’re talking about conclusion versus varying degrees of confidence that weapons were used.  I talked about conclusion in the context of crossing the red line. And what I’m saying today, and what the White House said in the letters that were sent by the Director of our Office of Legislative Affairs to two senators on Capitol Hill, is that we are continuing to work to build on the assessments made by the intelligence community; that the degrees of confidence here are varying; that this is not an airtight case. 

And that is entirely the responsible thing to do, as I think many observers of this, with a little historical perspective, have made clear in the last 24 hours.

Q    Jay, yesterday a senior administration official told reporters on a call that all options remained on the table, which I think you’ve said before, too.  What does that mean now in the context of these letters?  And how far away would the United States be from making a decision regarding military force?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the second part of your question goes to timelines, and I'm not going to set any because we need to be about the business of assembling a credible set of facts -- assembling the evidence, assembling corroborative information.  And that is what we're doing.  And we are pressing for a United Nations investigation into this as well.

On the first part, all options remain on the table.  The President has been clear about this.  I have, as you noted.  And that remains the case.  I'm not going to speculate about what action we might take should we firmly establish that the red line has been crossed, but it is absolutely the case that all options remain on the table.

Q    So what are the next steps then as you work on getting more information?  Will there be more outreach to Russia and China about this in terms of diplomacy and getting them on board? What does the United States do next as you're looking for this evidence?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we work with our allies who have been working on this issue.  We work with the Syrian opposition, who have obviously been helpful and can be helpful in providing evidence of chemical weapons use.  We work with the United Nations and press for a thorough United Nations investigation.  We also continue to provide significant assistance to the opposition and to the Syrian people who have been displaced and are in need of humanitarian aid because of the violence in Syria. 

So it's a multifaceted approach that is obviously focused in one sense on this issue of chemical weapons use, but is also, more broadly, about our policy of helping the Syrian people rid themselves of the Assad regime and put themselves in a position for a better future.

Q    And on one other topic, what does the White House think of the FAA legislation?  And when will the President sign it?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously it has to arrive here before he can sign it, so I don't have a timetable for that.  The President would sign this if it's passed.  And it will be good news for America's traveling public if Congress spares them the unnecessary delays that we've seen that resulted directly -- as the Secretary of Transportation warned two months ago from this podium, would take place if the sequester were implemented. 

The furloughs were unavoidable.  And you had a lot of Republicans in particular who insisted that flexibility existed, that this administration and the FAA itself could implement, and we made clear that that's not what the law said.  And as I said the other day, you had members of Congress who collectively wrote the law, voted for the law, but had not read the law.  And what the action taken by Congress now -- an act of Congress that is underway to fix this specific and narrow problem with the FAA -- proves is that it requires Congress to act to deal with this. 

The problem is that this is just a Band-Aid solution.  The funding associated with the furloughs at the FAA is I think $253 million.  That's one-half of 1 percent -- one-half of 1 percent of the sequester.  And it would be a welcome development if members of Congress, if Republicans who celebrated the sequester as a political victory -- a home run, a tea party victory -- would show even a portion of the concern they showed about these real problems with flight delays for the families whose children have been kicked off of Head Start, for the seniors who have lost access to the Meals on Wheels program, for communities hard hit by the cuts across the board -- mindless cuts in our defense budget, communities that depend on defense industries and on military spending. 

We haven’t seen that.  It would be welcome if we did, because the point of the sequester was that it was mindless, it was written in a way never to become law, written by and agreed to by both parties so that it would never become law because it would have these effects.  It was designed to be terrible and onerous.  And lo and behold, whether it was a tactical political victory for the tea party or not to embrace it, these effects are happening.

Step back and look at the big picture and you still see the CBO estimate of 750,000 jobs that would be lost if the sequester were to run its full course, the fully half a percentage point of GDP that would be cut from our growth. 

Congress has the power, as it did in this narrow case -- Congress has the power to do the responsible thing, work with the President towards a balanced deficit reduction plan that invests in our economy, helps it grow, eliminates the sequester entirely, replaces it with sensible deficit reduction, which was always the plan, and then we can move forward together as a nation.  That remains within Congress’s power to do.  And that’s why the President has been engaged with lawmakers of both parties in conversation about how we can find common ground and move forward on these specific budget issues.

Q    Jay, how is it fair or right or just that these kids on Head Start get their cuts, that these cuts go into effect at the Defense Department, and it’s tough luck, but when a bunch of business travelers start belly-aching because their flights are delayed because of these furloughs at the FAA, that they get one of the fastest pieces of legislation to move through Washington in recent memory?  How is -- why doesn’t the President take a stand against that?

MR. CARNEY:  You could have thrown in members of Congress who need flights home also.  But the fact is the delays --

Q    Why doesn’t the President stand up against that?

MR. CARNEY:  The delays are a problem for not just business travelers and members of Congress, but for many Americans, and that’s a real negative consequence of the sequester.  But your point is excellent.  And we call on Congress to show as much concern for others who are being harmed by -- other Americans, hardworking, middle-class families   who are being hurt by this; hardworking communities that depend on defense industries and should not have been dealt this blow of arbitrary cuts that cause furloughs and layoffs and job terminations because Congress decided -- the Republicans decided -- and they said it publicly, you know what, everything we said about how terrible this sequester is going to, never mind; it’s a victory; it’s a tea party victory.

Q    So why is the President making an exception, then, for the air travelers?

MR. CARNEY:  The President believes it’s good news to eliminate this problem.  But as I’ve said and he believes, this is a Band-Aid covering a massive wound to the economy.  This is $253 million out of an $80-plus billion-over-seven-months problem.  And Congress should do the responsible thing and stop dealing with these issues from crisis to crisis, and simply engage in a discussion about how we can eliminate the sequester entirely through balanced deficit reduction. 

In the end, this is a choice between special interest tax breaks, closing loopholes in the tax code that the well-off and well-connected enjoy but average Americans can’t and don’t, on the one hand, versus these harmful and unnecessary cuts on the other.  And if they would move forward with the kind of balanced deficit reduction that was under discussion late last year that includes revenue earned through tax reform along the lines that Speaker Boehner openly talked about late last year, and couple that with tough choices and entitlement reforms that also produce savings, we can get somewhere productive here for the economy and for the American middle class.

Q    And just to follow up on Syria.  Yesterday White House officials said on that conference call with reporters that there is a need to be careful, because look what happened with Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist in Iraq.  But in Syria, you do have some evidence that chemical weapons were used on the people there.  Isn’t there a concern that you might be showing leniency when it comes to the use of weapons of mass destruction?

MR. CARNEY:  Absolutely not.  And the fact is that we do have some evidence and we need to build on that.  We do have varying degrees of confidence that -- in the assessments that are being made that chemical weapons were used in a limited way, but we need to build on that.  And the precedent you cite I think is a significant one, and it simply stands to reason that the assessments that we make, the intelligence community makes, are extraordinarily valuable and they do excellent work, but they are building blocks towards a broader objective here, which is the accumulation of concrete evidence -- evidence that can be corroborated, evidence that can be presented and reviewed, and then acted on if the conclusion is that a red line has been crossed.

I want to move around a little bit because I noticed that for several times in the last few weeks, we’ve spent about 45 minutes in the front row here.  Yes.

Q    On Syria, just to follow up -- first of all, what exactly does “varying degree of confidence” mean?  And second is, there are several claims on the ground that the chemical weapons were used.  Has the U.S. government in any way been able to investigate any of these claims on the ground with the rebels?  And the last question is, just yesterday, again, there were some senators who started calling for a no-fly zone in the country. Have these new developments changed enough your views to take additional steps?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'd say a few things.  We are, of course, working with the Syrian opposition on this effort.  I'm not going to get into specific reports and our assessments of the specific reports of instances of use -- the use of chemical weapons, but simply to say that the Syrian opposition is a key component in an effort to gather more information and establish facts and answer questions about chain of custody and things like that.

Secondly, I think the comments that you refer to coming from Capitol Hill go to the question of responses.  And we're in the process here of gathering evidence to establish whether or not a red line has, in fact, been crossed -- establish in a way that is corroborated and verifiable and reviewable.  And that’s a very important task.

We are not in a static position here.  We, as I mentioned earlier, have been significantly increasing and broadening the scope of our assistance to the opposition, as well as, as you know, committing significant resources to the humanitarian effort for the Syrian people.  And we are working both with the United Nations but with friends and allies and partners who are concerned about the Syrian problem to help bring about a change there that allows the Syrian people a chance at a better future  -- a future that obviously has to exclude a tyrant who has been killing his own people now for two years. 

Ari.

Q    In the wake of the Texas and Boston explosions, some Democrats have been making an argument about the role of government, and the President hasn't.  And I wonder if he believes that more regulations could prevent what happened in Texas; that more funding for first responders would make it easier to deal with things like what happened in Boston.  And if he does, why hasn't he made that argument?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that we have to step back for a moment and note that, regarding the tragic explosions in West, Texas, that’s a matter under investigation.  We do not know concretely what the cause was.  That is under investigation.  The response by first responders in Boston I think has been noted to have been remarkable, and justifiably so.  So I'm sure that a lot of evaluations, as is wholly appropriate, will be made as time passes about lessons we can learn in each instance -- obviously very distinct events -- but in each instance.  And that’s the way it should work.

But I don’t think we’re at the stage yet that your question suggests in terms of making those judgments.  The President is focused on, as he was yesterday, grieving with the families of victims of the fertilizer plant explosion.  That was an incredibly powerful service that he attended, and if you didn’t join us or didn’t watch it, it really is worth doing because it was incredibly powerful.  And not least because of the remarkable bravery and commitment to community that these almost entirely voluntary first responders demonstrated by running towards a situation that all of them had to know was one that would put them at great risk on behalf of their fellow citizens.  And he met with families, and he met with local and state officials to talk about that. 

And we’re obviously in still the early phases of investigating everything around the Boston incident.  So the questions are certainly valid, but I don’t have specific responses for you now.

Q    Do you think it’s somehow inappropriate or distasteful to use these tragedies to make an argument about the role of government?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean, I haven’t had that discussion with him. I just think that the focus now is on the areas that I just discussed.

Jon.

Q    Jay, did the President mean it when he said use of chemical weapons would be a game changer in Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, he did.

Q    So what does that mean?  And what’s a red line?  What are we talking about here?

MR. CARNEY:  The President made clear that the use of or the transfer to terrorist groups of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be crossing a red line.  And he retains all options to respond to that.

Q    Including military force, including military strikes in Syria?

MR. CARNEY:  All options.  All options.  And there are many tools that a President has available to him in this kind of situation.  So they include all options, including the ones you mentioned, but there are many other options. 

And that’s not to suggest one direction or the other; simply to say that often the discussion -- when people mention all options are on the table, everyone just talks about military force.  And it’s important to remember that there are options available to a Commander-in-Chief in a situation like this that include but are not exclusive to that option.

Secondly, I'm not going to speculate about actions the United States may take should it be firmly established that a red line was crossed, but I will confirm that he was very serious about that.  He obviously went out of his way to make that point from this very podium because of the seriousness of it, and I think it demonstrates the fact that the United States is focused in particular on this issue, and appropriately so.

Q    Given that he got here in the first place as somebody who questioned intelligence and called for resisting the clamor to go to war over intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in this same region, does it make him a little more skeptical about the intelligence he's receiving now, a little less likely to take it at face value?

MR. CARNEY:  He has enormous faith in our intelligence community, but he also believes that the proper use of intelligence in a case like this is to have it be a component of, but not the only source, of your decision-making process.  It's not -- as I was saying before, this is an important building block towards gathering the evidence that needs to be gathered in a situation like this. 

And the precedent you mentioned is a significant one, but it's simply -- setting aside that one precedent, it's important just to acknowledge that assessments are not -- they're based in part on facts, but they're not solely facts.  They're the judgments of professionals.  They are not in and of themselves policy decisions.  And that is what the President -- a President makes the kind of decisions that are made in this situation, and he or she makes them based on -- should make them based on a broad array of information. 

Major.

Q    To continue that conversation, I know you believe, and you said the President believes, that the red line is a reasonable standard and that factual evidence must be behind it to support it.  I'd like you to address some concerns that the Syrian opposition has expressed, that some in Congress have expressed, that the volatility and the chaos in the civil war itself may make it practically impossible to obtain that kind of definitive proof, making the red line more rhetorical than practical.

MR. CARNEY:  The fact is we have some evidence.  That is what is reflected in the letter that was sent to two senators, reflected in the conversations that some of you had with government officials yesterday.  And we have been able to gather some evidence that undergird the assessments that are being made. But we are not done with the process by any means.  We are building on that.  And we are able to not just press for a United Nations investigation, which is essential, but to work with our friends and allies and the Syrian opposition to procure, share, and evaluate additional information associated with reports of the use of chemical weapons so that we can establish the facts.

So the answer to your question is the concerns that you've mentioned are real, but it’s also the case that we are able to work with our friends and allies and the Syrian opposition to gather more facts to help establish a set of facts and evidence that can be corroborated.  And that’s what we're setting about to do.

Q    Will the President commit to, if, in fact, the red line is crossed, whatever happens will be done multilaterally, not unilaterally?

MR. CARNEY:  I will not speculate about what action he might decide to take in the event that that assessment is made.  That’s too many steps forward.  I will simply say that he will --

Q    He won't commit to doing it in concert with allies?  The United States may act unilaterally?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously, as a general principle -- the United States retains the ability to act unilaterally as a general principle.  But on this case, I'm not going to make a speculative judgment about what decision he might make should that assessment and that decision or conclusion be reached. 

Q    Is the FAA legislation -- now that the administration has endorsed and looked at this process that seemed to take some unexpected turns -- a model for resolving other issues related to sequestration?

MR. CARNEY:  No, because of the point --

Q    How many --

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to attach a number, how many times you can do it.  But the fact is it's a drop in the bucket. It's a Band-Aid over -- I think it's kind of a gross metaphor -- but a big wound.

The fact is this is a small amount of funding compared to the overall sequester.  It's $253 million.  There was an ability, because of unobligated funds available, that could be transferred only through an act of Congress -- not through administrative action, because it was not legal otherwise.  And this is a one-off case, if you will.  And the question points to the overall problem here, which is that the sequester itself cannot be finessed.  It is having negative consequences around the country.

Q    I understand the practical, governmental curiosity that people who are feeling the effects of sequestration might have.  If someone were to present to the administration something that could deal with access to cancer funding, as an example -- as an illustrative example only -- that found money or that was a one-time Band-Aid thing, would the administration be open to that?  I'm saying there will be creative people in Congress who will try to find ways to deal with individual things, and I'm trying to figure out if that's a worthwhile endeavor for them.

MR. CARNEY:  A worthwhile endeavor would be a decision to eliminate the sequester entirely.  The effort expended --

Q    But absent that?

MR. CARNEY:  -- should be expended on that because that would deal with the whole problem and the broader impact of the sequester on our economy and on job creation. 

Given how Congress deliberates and the disagreements that exist on a variety of narrow, specific issues, you can imagine how little would be accomplished if that were the path that were chosen.  The right path is simply to come to the agreement on principle that everybody used to agree on, which is that the sequester should never be implemented and we need to eliminate it, and we need to eliminate it through balanced deficit reduction.  That was the way it was designed.  That was the charge given to the super committee -- avoid this terrible thing by coming up with a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction.

Q    But related to Jim's question, if someone were to come to the administration with a solution for food stamps, for example, or Meals on Wheels, the administration would say, forget about it? 

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going to speculate about that because it's not remotely practical.  I would certainly welcome and be pleasantly surprised by concern on the part of Republicans for kids who have been thrown off of their Head Start programs, or seniors who aren't receiving their Meals on Wheels.  That would be a positive step.  But the fact is the way to deal with this problem is to rid ourselves of it entirely through responsible governing.  And that is what's been absent on Capitol Hill of late.

Q    But given Congress's willingness to pass this FAA bill, is there concern in the White House that this is the approach Congress is going to take going forward, just slicing off these individual pieces?

MR. CARNEY:  I think I've tried to address this.  It is not credible to imagine that you can mitigate the damage done to our economy in a piecemeal, Band-Aid fashion.  We are pleased that we can take this action to alleviate the problems caused for Americans traveling at our airports.  But this is a Band-Aid solution.  It does not solve the bigger problem.  And it is impractical to expect that all of the negative consequences of sequester can be solved this way. 

The right way to do it, the responsible way to do it, the way that I think Americans across the country when they have time to even consider this issue in their busy lives would want Congress to take is to simply eliminate the sequester, to go about deficit reduction in a responsible way; to concede that when you called it -- “you” being random Republican member of the House -- a tea party victory, you weren’t really thinking about how it hurt average Americans.  You were thinking about politics inside the Beltway.  You were thinking about whether or not you’re going to have a primary, or how this would affect your stature in the leadership.

And that’s not what the American people sent you here to do. They sent you here to solve problems in a common-sense way.  And instead, by allowing the sequester to be implemented, Congress has caused problems for average Americans -- at airports, in the homes of middle-class folks who are struggling to get by, in military communities around the country -- Congress has caused problems, made things worse unnecessarily by adopting a policy they themselves decried only a few months ago.

Q    How soon after the President signs the bill will the controllers and the FAA be back -- controllers be back at work?

MR. CARNEY:  I would have to ask you to check with the FAA. I’m not sure how that process will work.

Bill.

Q    At the risk of piling on, I think the problem you're having is that aren’t you contradicting yourselves and aren’t -- and sending the wrong message by saying the sequester is bad, we’ve got to address it across the board, but we’ll sign this one bill carving out this one exception?  And aren’t you inviting more exceptions?

MR. CARNEY:  Bill, I appreciate the question, but there is no way for this practically to be done except in a broad action by Congress to eliminate the sequester.

Q    Why would he sign this bill?  That’s my question.

MR. CARNEY:  Because this is causing unnecessary harm to travelers around the country, and this is a specific case where an act of Congress could take unobligated funds from one account and apply them, a relatively small amount compared to the size of the sequester, to address these furloughs.

But it is exactly what I’ve been saying -- a Band-Aid solution that does not solve the bigger problem.

Q    But don’t you accept that somebody is going to come down the road tomorrow with another -- it could be small business, it could be farmers, it could be, as Major said, cancer patients -- somebody else is going to come up with another -- the same argument.

MR. CARNEY:  Bill, they may.  What I’m saying is that this is not the answer.  We’re very concerned about the effects that these furloughs would have on air travelers, so much so that the Secretary of Transportation came here two months ago and warned the American people about it.  It was very amusing to me to hear members of Congress say, the administration blindsided us, they didn’t say this was happening -- and then, fortunately, some very worthy producers at television stations found the video of the Cabinet Secretary telling the American people, and Congress, and you that this would happen.  And it behooves the members of Congress to read the laws they pass -- preferably before they pass them, but sometimes after.

Wendell.

Q    Some analysts think that the limited use of chemical weapons in Syria were -- two occasions last month suggest that perhaps it was ordered by one of Assad's generals, not Assad himself.  And that suggests that all of the chemical weapon stocks may not be in Assad's control.  Is that, too, a red line? 

MR. CARNEY:  I'll say two things about that.  One is we still believe, based on the information that we have, that the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria are under the control of the Syrian regime.

Two, because of that, Assad is responsible for the disposition of those chemical weapons.  And it is his responsibility, first and foremost, not to use them or to transfer them to terrorist groups, but to secure them and make sure that they are not used by anybody else.

So that’s all I can really say about it.  That’s our assessment at this time.

Q    Senator McCain says that this push for proof may be an excuse not to act at all.  How do you respond to that?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that it is the responsible thing to do. It is what the American people want and expect their leaders in Washington to do on a matter of such seriousness, to ensure that we have gathered all the facts; that we build on the quality work done by our intelligence community, and work with our allies and the Syrian opposition as well as the United Nations to assemble a credible set of facts that can be corroborated and can be reviewed before we make decisions about whether a red line has, in fact, been crossed, and before we make decisions about what action to take if that’s the case.

Q    Jay, there are bipartisan calls for action on -- Senator Dianne Feinstein has said the red line has clearly been crossed.  They seem to think that this intelligence is more reliable than the White House at this point.  Why is there a discrepancy?  Why can Senator Dianne Feinstein say with such clarity that she believes a red line has been crossed, and yet the White House --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think you can ask individual lawmakers for their assessments and what they're based on.  What I can tell you is that our intelligence community, which is providing the same information to members of Congress, assesses with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin, and this assessment is based in part on physiological samples, as we talked about yesterday.

Now, we are working to establish credible and corroborated facts to build on this intelligence assessment.  That is the right and responsible thing to do.  That is what we should and I think the American people would expect us to do in a circumstance like this.

Q    Just to go back to Major's point -- Syria hasn't even let U.N. inspectors in, so how do you expect to get this answer?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, we call on the Assad regime to cooperate with the United Nations investigation that they said they wanted, but we are not relying on the United Nations alone.  We are working with our allies and our partners, and we are working with the Syrian opposition to gather information and facts to assess credible reports of the use of chemical weapons, and we will continue to do that.  That is, again, the right path forward.

Q    Where does Russia factor into this?  I know you were asked about this, but is that part of the strategy moving forward, to try to get Russia engaged at this point so the United States doesn’t have to get engaged?

MR. CARNEY:  We have made clear in the past about our disagreements with Russia on the matter here and on Syria in general.  There have been Security Council votes that reflect our profound disagreements with the Russians on this.  But we continue to discuss with the Russians and others the nature of the Assad regime, the brutal assault that Assad has waged against his own people, the massive harm done to the Syrian people, and the issue --

Q    Well, is Russia the last, best option? 

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not going -- again, we will continue to work with the United Nations and members of the Security Council, but we will also proceed, as I just described, with allies and partners and the Syrian Opposition in our investigation here into the reports of -- the credible reports of chemical weapons use.

Q    And just one on immigration, Jay.  Representative Goodlatte has said he plans to introduce immigration reform in pieces.  Would the President support that approach?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not going to speculate about bills that haven’t been written or submitted.  I will say that the President has made clear for quite some time that we need to reform our immigration system in a comprehensive way, and that includes enhanced border enforcement.  It includes improving our legal immigration system.  It includes holding businesses accountable. And it includes a clear path to citizenship.  And those are sort of the four corners of what a comprehensive immigration reform bill would look like.  It is also reflected in the legislation proposed by the Gang of Eight in the Senate. 

These principles are very important.  And I think that it -- we have seen this effort for a while here now in Washington, and we have seen it move forward but not succeed yet.  But I think what has become abundantly clear to everyone here who has followed it or worked on it, it will only get done if it is done in a broad, comprehensive, and bipartisan way.

The President spoke about this yesterday at the ceremony at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum.  He credited, appropriately, President George W. Bush for his support for comprehensive immigration reform.  And I think that reflects the fact that a consensus or a bipartisan consensus was building, and at this time is growing even more in Washington and across the country behind the need to do this.  And the President will continue to work with the Congress to try to get this done.

Zach, and then Donovan.

Q    Jay, it’s true that many Americans are affected by the flight delays.  It seems that people of means -- businessmen, members of Congress -- will be most affected, traveling all the time.  So what I don’t understand is why the President didn’t say, okay, Republicans are agreeing to this, but you’re going to have to do something for the very poor being affected by the sequester.  If you’re going to fix this for people who fly, we’re going to demand that something be done for Head Start, for seniors, for -- something for the most vulnerable who are affected, too.

MR. CARNEY:  The President does insist that Congress take action to eliminate the harm by the sequester.  And the harm -- so you’re suggesting we should hold hostage American travelers to Congress’s refusal to act?

Q    Well, I want to know why you’re not using that leverage.

MR. CARNEY:  The fact is, Zach, we support an effort here underway in Congress to take care of this problem.  And we are highlighting, as I am today, the fact that it is a Band-Aid solution that deals with one-half of 1 percent not even, of the sequester, and that the responsible and right thing to do by Congress is to address the entire sequester and the harm that it’s doing to families across the country and communities that depend on defense industries by eliminating -- by reversing themselves and their folly when they declared it a -- they, the Republicans, in this case -- declared it a victory, a great thing for them politically and the tea party.

I don’t think Americans who have suffered under this, either because they’ve been laid off or furloughed, feel that way.  And I’m sure that families who have been dealing with the fact that their child is no longer in Head Start [don’t] feel that way.  I’m sure that Americans who have been delayed in airports for hours [don’t] feel that way -- unless they’re just devoted tea party members, so even as they’re sitting on the tarmac for three hours they can say, well, this feels like victory.  I doubt it. 

So the Congress needs to do something about it.  They need to take action.

Q    Why not wait a week or two more and see -- and say to Congress, we’re not going to sign this bill unless you do something that really protects the most vulnerable ones in society and then we can deal with people who are --

MR. CARNEY:  We’re calling on Congress to do that.  We’re not going to -- I think you’re imagining leverage here, Zach, that is about political gamesmanship.  We’re about trying to get stuff -- getting things done here on behalf of the American people.

Donovan.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Two quick questions on Syria, following on -- you said earlier that the administration really is trying now to build a case that --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me clarify.  We’re trying to find out if there is, in fact, a credible, verifiable case.

Q    Right.  And so who would that case be presented to?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, you’re getting -- you’re taking me beyond where we are, speculating about what the next steps would be.  Most importantly, we have to take the evidence that we have and the varying degrees of confidence that we have about the assessment that chemical weapons have been used, and build on that.  And that’s what we’re going to do.  And that’s what we’re going to do not just alone, but working with our allies and partners and the Syrian opposition, and as we, in concert with that action, work to press the United Nations’ investigation forward.  What happens after that obviously depends on what conclusions are made and what facts are gathered. 

Q    Okay.  And then you said also that the administration believes that Assad has custody and full responsibility for the weapons.  So any verified use of the weapons, no matter who used them would be -- he would be the responsible party.  Is that correct?

MR. CARNEY:  Without getting into a specific instance that is speculation at this point, it is a fact that he is responsible for the stocks of chemical weapons that are under control of his regime.  But, again, I don’t want to speculate about the judgments we would make based on verified use of chemical weapons that we’ve been able to verify and have a set of credible facts to back up because we’re still in the process of gathering those facts.

Q    But you’ve done physical tests --

MR. CARNEY:  We have said that we have physiological samples.  But we do not have all the information we need to be more than -- to have more than just varying degrees of confidence that this has happened.  And we need to be able to have a credible set of facts that are corroborated and that are reviewable, and that is obviously what we’re trying to establish now.

Q    Thanks, Jay.

MR. CARNEY:  Victoria, one more in the back.

Q    There are about 100 detainees in Guantanamo on a hunger strike now.  It’s a bit of a mess.  Senator Dianne Feinstein is saying that the low-level Yemenis should be repatriated.  Do you agree with that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that we continue to monitor the hunger strikers at Guantanamo closely.  And this is something obviously that the Defense Department has the most specific information on.

Here at the White House, the President remains committed to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.  Some progress has been made under this administration and under the previous administration.  However, Congress has enacted and renewed legislation in order to foreclose our ability to close the detention facility -- legislation which restricts our experienced counterterrorism professionals from exercising their best judgment as to what the most appropriate disposition is for the individuals held there. 

We, as you know, have been -- there was a process and continues to be a process that assesses the detainees at Guantanamo, and that process is ongoing.  But a fundamental obstacle here to closing this detention facility -- which is so clearly, the President believes and his predecessor and numerous others, including military leaders, believe is in our national security interest to do -- the obstacle remains at Congress.  But we’re going to continue to press forward in trying to deal with this problem.

Q    Well, Senator Feinstein is saying that with the change in leadership in Yemen, it would be okay now to send those Yemenis back to that country because there is much stronger leadership against al Qaeda.  How do you feel about that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think those are assessments that are made by professionals who look at both the situation in Yemen and at the detainees.  But I don’t have any new information or announcements to make regarding those detainees.

Q    Jay, any week ahead?

MR. CARNEY:  I do have a week ahead -- thanks.  The schedule for the week of April 29th, 2013 is as follows:  On Monday, the President will deliver remarks at the National Academy of Science’s 150th anniversary. 

On Tuesday, as part of the Joining Forces initiative, President Obama, Vice President Biden, First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden will make a significant employment announcement for veterans and military spouses.  This event will take place here at the White House. 

On Wednesday, the President will attend meetings at the White House. 

On Thursday morning, the President will depart Washington, D.C. for his visit to Mexico and Costa Rica.  This trip is an important opportunity to reinforce the deep cultural, familial and economic ties that so many Americans share with Mexico and Central America.  While in Mexico, the President looks forward to meeting with President Peña Nieto.  The President welcomes the opportunity to discuss ways to deepen our economic and commercial partnership and further our engagement on the broad array of bilateral, regional and global issues that connect our two countries.

On Friday afternoon, the President will depart Mexico for Costa Rica.  While in Costa Rica, the President looks forward to the opportunity to meet with President Chinchilla as well as heads of state of the other Central American countries and the Dominican Republic who the President has graciously offered to host.  The trip will be an important chance to discuss our collective efforts to promote economic growth and development in Central America and our ongoing collaboration on citizen security. 

On Saturday afternoon, the President will depart Costa Rica and return to Washington, D.C. 

On Sunday, the President will deliver the commencement address at the Ohio State University.  He will return to Washington, D.C. later that day. 

Thanks, all.

Q    Jay, can I get a quick follow?

MR. CARNEY:  Sorry, all done.

END  
12:45 P.M. EDT

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

The IT Training and Certification Partnership will enable thousands of service members to earn industry-recognized information technology (IT) certifications before they transition from military service.

President Obama announces Anthony Foxx as his nominee for the next Secretary of Transportation.

The President praised advances in science, engineering, infrastructure, innovation, education and environmental protection that can be attributed to the 150 years of work by the brilliant and committed scientists who have been elected and volunteered to serve their country.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here