Tag Archives: White House

Uncategorized

Hey … about those Nigerian girls

3 Comments

World crises seems to cascade all around us so rapidly that they yank our attention from, um, previous world crises.

Well, several crises ago, the world was aghast at the kidnapping of 300 or so Nigerian girls by yet another terrorist organization, Boko Haram. Remember that story?

The girls were taken into the forest where they’re reportedly being held hostage. Boko Haram had been demanding some sort of ransom. U.S. intelligence and special operations forces had joined the Nigerians and other international organizations in the hunt for the girls.

What’s happened to that story? Where are the girls? What has become of the urgency that was being expressed from places like the United Nations, the Oval Office of the White House, from the State Department, from capitals around the world?

I shudder to think that we can handle only one crisis at a time. Syria once was the crisis du jour; then came Ukraine; next up was Gaza and the Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli neighborhoods. The world is now fixated on Iraq, ISIS and the attempted overthrow of a government that the United States helped install.

Meanwhile, those Nigerian girls are still being held somewhere, by someone, for some reason.

Please, someone tell me the world still cares about those girls.

Uncategorized

Gov. Perry overreaching?

Texas lawmakers think Gov. Rick Perry might be overreaching his own self with regard to the planned deployment of National Guard forces to protect Texans against the influx of … children.

Seems that the governor is using his executive authority to spend $75 million in public money for this deployment, which some lawmakers think is an overreach.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/08/some-lawmakers-question-perrys-border-funding-move/

Interesting, eh?

I don’t know enough about the details of what kind of power the governor has in these matters, but it does intrigue me that this governor, who’s been so critical of federal overreach by the White House might be getting into a bit of a jam at home over the very same issue.

“The Legislative Budget Board has authority to move money around the budget in between legislative sessions. Perry, however, bypassed formal board action to free $38 million to pay for the Guard in the early stages of its deployment and to help fund a DPS border surge,” the San Antonio Express-News reported in its blog.

State Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, says the deployment doesn’t make sense in the first place.

He’s right. It doesn’t. The Guard can do little to stop the flow of children fleeing Central America.

The lame-duck governor, though, says he’s doing it for symbolic reasons.

Whatever. It now might against state law for him to just spend the money willy-nilly.

The irony is fairly rich, don’t you think?

 

Uncategorized

Go for it, Mr. President

Congress had a chance to act on the border crisis in Texas and other states bordering Mexico.

It didn’t.

Now it appears President Obama is going — get ready for it — to take executive action to at least put an immediate, if temporary, fix on the crisis.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/08/texas-businessmen-obama-executive-action-on-immigration-appears-imminent/

Holy cow! Will the Congress sue him over that one, too?

I rather doubt it. Indeed, the speaker of the House of Representatives — which did pass a version of a bill to deal with the problem — has invited the president to use his power to act.

He surely should, given that Congress choked on the issue.

I’m no longer going to refer to this as an “immigration” crisis. It clearly is a “refugee” matter, given that the young people who have flooded to the country are fleeing repression, corruption, enslavement, even death. Those individuals are refugees by anyone’s definition.

They should be treated as refugees, not criminals, which is how many in Congress and around the country continue to view them.

What’s the president going to do — reportedly — to solve this issue by himself?

Obama met with some Texas business executives to discuss the problem, according to the San Antonio Express-News. They indicate that the president is looking at all legal options available to him. “The businessmen said they voiced their support for expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which pushes back deportations of young immigrants who aren’t legally in the country,” the Express-News reported on its blog.

So, does the president take action where the legislative branch has failed so far? Absolutely. Will the House of Reps take issue on this action, should it come, by adding it to its list of gripes against the president?

Pardon me while I laugh.

Uncategorized

Dysfunction reigns in U.S. House

How much more chaotic can it get in the People’s House?

Probably a lot more than what we’re witnessing, but we we’re getting now is a sideshow worthy of a circus barker.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/politics/congress-immigration/index.html

The House of Representatives canceled a planned vote on a border security/immigration bill after leaders failed to get enough support among rank-and-file members to support it. It would cost about $659 million, far less than the $3.7 billion President Obama requested when the child refugee crisis erupted on the nation’s southern border.

Meanwhile, the Senate is wondering what to do with a larger bill.

What happens now? Well, Congress is about to take a five-week summer recess, which means that, all of a sudden, the border crisis isn’t quite as “urgent” as House leadership proclaimed it to be.

As I recall, they were yammering at the White House to do something about it. The president responded with his emergency spending request, but the persistent critics said, “Not so fast, Mr. President. We aren’t going to write a blank check here.”

Now the House has come apart at the seams yet again over a possible solution proposed by that guy who lives down the street in the White House.

This is effective governance? I think not.

Uncategorized

POTUS never off the clock

Wait for it. The critics are sure to climb all over this one: President Obama is going to raise money for Democratic Senate candidate while he’s vacationing with his family at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

They’ll raise a serious ruckus about (a) the president taking a vacation at all and (b) taking part in political fundraisers while the world is exploding all around us.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-fundraiser-marthas-vineyard-109346.html?hp=r14

I’ll make this point until I run out of proverbial breath: Presidents of the United States are never — ever — off the clock. They are entitled some time away from the Oval Office with their family.

Does that mean they’re shutting themselves off from the world? Hardly. They get national security briefings daily. They are told immediately when crises erupt. They are able to talk immediately to any world leader of American politician as events warrant. They aren’t sealed away in a vacuum chamber.

As for the fundraising part, well, I need to remind y’all that Republican politicians will take part in these kinds of activities as well when they take their summer break. Presidents and lawmakers do share a common theme: They’re all politicians, which by definition compels them to raise money for other politicians. It goes with the territory.

And just so we’re clear, I’m not sticking up for this president because I happen to agree with most of his policies. I’ve said many times over many years about many presidents of both political parties that they deserve time away.

And so damn what if they raise money? That’s part of the job as well.

Uncategorized

Take ownership, not possession

Every now and then a politician and/or a pundit with whom I disagree offers a nugget of perspective that I find, well, agreeable.

Such was the case recently in a commentary written for CNN by a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives who raked President Obama over the coals for what he called the president’s constant trip to “fantasyland.”

I refer to Newt Gingrich, one of the smarter conservatives around – but also one of the more bombastic.

I’ll stipulate up front that I disagree with Gingrich’s wholesale analysis that Obama is a failed president.

But then he offered this tidbit of “truth” as he sees it, and frankly, so do I.

He referred to a recent speech in which the president used the first-person pronoun – “I,” “my” and “me” – 207 times. That was 207 times in a single speech, according to Newtie.

Bingo, Mr. Speaker. The president’s use of that personal pronoun annoys the daylights out of me as well.

I’ve noticed almost from the day the president took office in January 2009.

At the very beginning, it was an impressive display of ownership that the young president had demonstrated as he took office to tackle the horrible economic crisis that threatened to swallow up the nation’s financial infrastructure.

Nearly six years into his presidency, and after a stunning re-election victory in 2012, I am finding the use of the first-person pronoun a bit of a distraction.

Listen to the president’s speeches or off-the-cuff public comments. He refers to “my administration,” “my vice president,” “my attorney general,” “my national security team,” “my economic advisers,” etc., etc., etc.

Let’s not draw any inaccurate conclusions here. I continue to believe that Barack Obama has done a good job in fixing the economic crisis he inherited. I also believe he is correct in relying more heavily on diplomacy than military action whenever crises erupt.

However, I do not believe taking ownership of the responsibilities of a high public office means that you can take possession of the office itself.

The government belongs to us, citizens who take the time to vote on those who seek to operate the government on our behalf. Yes, I mean those who actually vote, although I certainly recognize that non-voters’ tax money is just as important to funding the government as those who have cast ballots.

Therefore, it would seem more appropriate for the president to perhaps use the second-person pronoun – “your” attorney general, “your” vice president and so on – when referring to the tough issues that face those who run “your” government.

All these folks work for us – you and me – not the guy who sits in that big Oval Office.

Uncategorized

Divide over border crisis? Shocking!

Imagine my fake surprise at news that Republicans and Democrats are divided over how to solve the immigration/refugee crisis on our nation’s southern border.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/immigration-reform-congress-closed-door-briefing-109027.html?hp=l1

Republicans who control the House of Representatives are trying to slash President Obama’s $3.7 billion emergency spending request to deal with the flood of young people fleeing Central America.

Democrats who control the Senate are trying to preserve most of what Obama has asked.

My take? If Republicans think the immigration crisis has reached some sort of critical mass, why are they scaling back so much of what the president is asking?

They want more border security? They want speedier repatriation of the immigrants? They want to hold the families and governments sending these young people to the United States accountable for their actions?

I believe the request does all of that. What in the world am I missing?

Yes, this crisis of serious national concern. There once was a time when leaders of the two major parties would lock arms and hammer out solutions — together. Those days appear to have vanished in the dust bin of recrimination that has become a way of life on Capitol Hill.

This is a disgraceful example of representative democracy failing to do what the people it represents want it to do.

Fix the problem.

Uncategorized

Boehner lawsuit comes into focus

2 Comments

So, now we know the basis for Speaker John Boehner’s desire to sue the president of the United States.

He is angry because the president unilaterally postponed the employer mandate provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans want to eliminate altogether, but they’re mad because they didn’t the chance to do it.

I believe that’s what I heard Boehner say today.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/211912-boehner-to-sue-over-obamacare-delay

It’s not that Barack Obama has used executive authority excessively. He hasn’t. Boehner wants to sue the president because of a single act that he had the authority to perform as chief executive of the United States of America.

This foolishness is going to proceed while:

* Veterans health care issues remain unresolved.

* Highway infrastructure plans remain unattended.

* Immigration reform is stuck in the mud.

* The president’s $3.7 billion request for emergency spending on the border crisis remains in limbo.

I’m sure I’m missing some other issues, but you get my drift.

Instead, the speaker of the House wants to ask for permission from his colleagues to sue the president because of action he took that seeks to give employers some flexibility in following through on the ACA.

This is baffling in the extreme.

Here is what former White House press secretary Jay Carney said: “The ability to postpone the deadline is clear,” Carney said. He urged reporters to “read the Federal Register,” the official docket for federal regulations, to survey similar examples of delays.

“The fact of the matter is this is not unusual, and it is evidence of the kind of flexibility and deference to the concerns and interests of, in this case, a small percentage of American businesses with more than 50 employees that you would think Republicans would support,” Carney said.

I concur with Barack Obama’s assertion that Congress wants to sue him for doing his job while the legislative branch dawdles.

Uncategorized

VA scandal: worse than we thought

You’re probably wondering: Will the bad news ever stop piling up on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs?

I know this: I’m wondering when it’ll stop.

CNN uncovered a major scoop this week with revelations that the Phoenix, Ariz., VA clinic had covered up the number of veterans who died because of too-long wait times to obtain health care.

The number of deaths is worse than we thought!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/us/phoenix-va-deaths-new-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Until the Veterans Affairs Department, the White House and the president of the United States himself get to the bottom of this mess and fix it, I am going to be leery whenever I go to the Amarillo VA hospital and clinic for my routine checkups.

The Thomas Creek Veterans Medical Center in Amarillo hasn’t been fingered specifically in any of this investigation. The problems with wait times, though, appear to run throughout the vast VA health care network.

Whistleblower Pauline DeWenter told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that “deceased” notes on patients were removed from files to make the clinic’s job performance look better. As CNN.com reports: “DeWenter should know. DeWenter is the actual scheduling clerk at the Phoenix VA who said for the better part of a year she was ordered by supervisors to manage and handle the so-called ‘secret waiting list,’ where veterans’ names of those seeking medical care were often placed, sometimes left for months with no care at all.”

The government has said for decades that veterans deserve the best medical care possible. They’re not getting it. Even though I, too, am a veteran I’ve been blessed with good health, so I’ll refer to the vets in jeopardy as “they” or “them.”

Until we get this situation repaired to everyone’s satisfaction, I am going to pray for the good health of all veterans who seek medical care every one of our VA clinics. That includes the Thomas Creek VA Medical Center right here in good ol’ Amarillo, Texas.

Uncategorized

Not 'truly well off,' Mme. Secretary?

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s book tour has hit another pot hole on the road to her probable 2016 presidential candidacy.

The former U.S. senator, first lady and secretary state now says she and her family aren’t like the “truly well off.” She means that even though she has lots of money now, she somehow doesn’t qualify as rich the way, well, the really rich people would define the term.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/06/22/hillary-clinton-says-shes-not-truly-well-off/

Here’s where Clinton might get into trouble.

Suppose she announces her campaign for president and starts hitting the trail. She runs into her political base of voters, which traditionally comprises working-class, lower- to middle-income, possibly union-affiliated and ethnic minority voters. How is she going to explain to them that she’s not “truly well off”?

For that matter, how is she going to explain that to other Americans of means who believe they’ve done well for themselves and consider their lot in life to be one of relative privilege?

First she said she and her husband, President Clinton, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in January 2001. All they did after that was buy a significant home in New York, where Hillary Clinton was elected to represent in the U.S. Senate. How does a “dead broke” couple secure the financing to make such a purchase?

Poor choice of words there, Mme. Secretary.

Now she’s saying she’s not “well off” the way the mega-rich are?

The Independent newspaper reported: “A CNN analysis found that Bill Clinton earned more than $106 million in speaking fees since the end of his presidency in 2001 through January 2013. Since leaving the State Department early last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton earned as much as $200,000 per event through speaking engagements before trade groups and businesses.”

By my definition of the term “well off,” the Bill and Hillary Clinton fit the bill.