Tag Archives: White House

VA boss Shinseki on his way out?

Maybe I’m reading too much into things at this moment, but my trick knee is throbbing and it’s telling me Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki’s time in public life might be nearing an end.

Congressional Democrats have joined their Republican colleagues in urging his ouster in light of the veterans’ health care scandal that is mushrooming across the country. Vets have died while waiting for health care; VA officials reportedly have doctored waiting times to make themselves look good.

All this has been done on Shinseki’s watch.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/206869-dems-break-with-obama-call-for-shinsekis-sacking

President Obama made a strong statement Wednesday in which he condemned the activities about which we already know. He called them “disgraceful” and said they “will not be tolerated.”

He had met with Shinseki privately at the White House and, as The Hill notes, the former Army general was not at the president’s side when he lowered the boom on the agency Shinseki runs.

I refuse to accept the criticism that Obama was too timid in his response. He is looking for all the facts before making any firm decisions. Congressional Republicans, therefore, need to zip it before popping off about what the president should do.

It’s the call for Shinseki’s ouster from congressional Democrats, though, that should have the president’s ear. He did say Wednesday that the outrage spans political partisanship and that all Americans should be angry over the deaths of veterans who were awaiting health care from an agency that made a vow to provide them the best care possible.

This controversy won’t go away until the president gets all the answers he demands — and then acts on the recommendations he receives.

It’s looking to me, though, as if one recommendation — to show the Vets Affairs secretary the door — already is on the table.

'W' surprises us with records release

George W. Bush presided over one of the more secretive administrations of the past century.

Thus, it is a pleasant surprise to see him prepare to release many of his previously classified presidential papers so openly and quickly after his two terms as president have concluded.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/george-w-bush-white-house-records-105851.html?hp=t1

President Bush is drawing deservedly high praise for this impending document release.

Politico sought the information about the Bush papers in a Freedom of Information request. The papers will reveal plenty of information and “talking points” used by the president and his chief aides.

Why is this important? Because it helps historians gain a fuller picture of a two-term presidency that — during its very first year — was jolted into a war by terrorists who flew those jetliners into buildings in New York and Washington. The war framed the rest of the Bush presidency and created a political climate the likes of which never had been seen in this country.

Observers note that President Bush is planning to be much more forthcoming in the document release than his immediate predecessor, President Bill Clinton. Some have concluded that Bush feels he has little to lose and much to gain by releasing the documents. Whatever the motivation, it is a welcome change from the manner in which the Bush administration at times conducted the affairs of state and government.

As Politico reports, “The high marks Bush is receiving for his letter are startling, since historians and a media coalition complained loudly and bitterly in 2001 about an executive order he issued ceding additional power to former presidents to prevent disclosure of their records. A judge struck down part of the order in 2007.”

The change of heart is welcome. A curious nation will look forward to seeing what’s in the record.

Booker, Cruz talk; who listens?

U.S. Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ted Cruz of Texas recently had what was described as a three-hour private lunch.

It struck me when I heard this about two of the Senate’s more garrulous members: Who listens when the two of them get together?

Booker, a Democrat, and Cruz, a Republican, both are known to be two of the least camera-shy members of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. They both seem to love the sound of their own voices, particularly when they’re positioned in front of a microphone. So when Booker said he and his fellow junior member of that august body met, I was intrigued by the idea of the two of them sitting down to hear each other out.

In a larger sense, though, the meeting was good for an important reason. It apparently was Booker’s idea. He said he intends to share private meals with every one of the Senate’s Republican members. Why? He wants to search for common ground with them. He wants to restore some level of collegiality to a body that’s been missing it since, oh, about the time Barack Hussein Obama became president of the United States of America.

I won’t get into who’s to blame for this lack of collegiality. It disappeared between Republicans and Democrats within the Senate. It surely vanished between the Senate and the White House, particularly among the GOP senators and the White House.

I hope Booker goes through with his pledge to meet with all of his Republican colleagues. If he can restore some decency among them, so much the better for Senate and for the cause of good government.

As for meeting with Cruz, I have to salute both men presumably for keeping their big mouths shut long enough to hear what the other guy had to say.

Worst Congress ever?

Great day in the morning! I think we have an area where congressional Democrats and Republicans actually agree.

They all seem to agree that this is the worst-performing Congress in history.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/200295-worst-congress-ever

Of course, that’s where the consensus ends. They’re blaming each other for the dysfunction that that ails the legislative branch of the federal government.

I’ve long been a good-government kind of guy. I like government to work for the country and believe government has a role to play in helping those who need a hand. Thus, I tend to lean to the left. No surprise, probably.

The Republicans who have run the House of Representatives since 2011 have a different view. Many of them believe Congress shouldn’t do nearly as much as it’s allowed to do. So, when the president has proposed legislation and ideas to help folks, Congress has been prone to resist disposing of those ideas.

“I tell people, we’re not getting anything done and that’s good,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who intends to leave the Senate at the end of 2014.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who has served in Congress since The Flood, recently announced his intention to retire at the end of the year. He said the place no longer is fun, no longer productive and no longer worth his time and effort.

Dingell is not alone.

Does the president deserve some of the blame for this dysfunction? Sure. Governing is a shared responsibility, which is why I get so annoyed at those who blame the president for all that ails the nation’s political system. Barack Obama promised to break the gridlock loose. He hasn’t delivered on that promise. One of the common criticisms of the president is that he isn’t fond of schmoozing with legislators the way, oh, Lyndon Johnson would do. Thus, when he proposes an idea, Obama prefers to let the merits of the idea win the day, without actually working with legislators to persuade them to push the idea into law.

It seems, though, that whenever he reaches out, his “friends” on the other side slap his hand away.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Republicans blame Democrats for Congress’s failure to deliver … and vice versa.

At least they agree that the legislative branch is a loser.

Minimum wage hike not really a killer

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner is on record as saying he’d rather kill himself than vote for an increase in the federal minimum wage.

Now that he’s gotten that off his chest, I surely hope he was just being melodramatic, trying to make some rhetorical point.

However, now the issue ought to turn to whether the House should vote on it. I say, “Why not?”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/198856-boehner-id-rather-kill-myself-than-raise-the-minimum-wage

At issue is a proposal to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. President Obama wants it, as do congressional Democrats. So might a majority of congressional Republicans. Polling indicates most rank-and-file Americans support an increase from the current rate of $7.25 per hour.

Who’s opposed to it? As my late mother would say, I’ll give you three guesses — but the first two don’t count.

It’s the tea party cabal within the Republican Party congressional caucus, the individuals who have whipsawed Boehner and other establishment Republicans into backing much of their agenda.

Boehner isn’t likely to allow a vote to increase the minimum wage because he’s been buffaloed.

Therein lies the question of leadership. Is the speaker the Man of the House or isn’t he?

As speaker, he isn’t beholden just to a minority within his own caucus. He ought to be looking out for the interests of the entire body, all 435 members — and that includes Democrats as well as Republicans.

I’m not necessarily arguing here for a “clean” minimum wage bill, one that doesn’t have some sweeteners, such as spending cuts or tax breaks. Indeed, White House brass and congressional Democrats ought to be stop digging in their heels by insisting on a clean bill.

What’s more, economic data differ on whether a minimum wage increase is going to cause mass layoffs because employers cannot afford to pay employee wages.

I do know, though, that families cannot rely on minimum-wage income to sustain themselves. They need a boost.

So, Mr. Speaker, allow a vote. It won’t kill you.

Politics shows nasty side once again

Once upon a time I thought of politics as a noble profession. I subscribed to the Robert F. Kennedy view that politics should be a force for positive change and reform of what we think is broken in our society.

I continue to believe politics has the potential for nobility.

Then we hear the carping that arose from the U.S. Labor Department’s jobs report for January.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/07/republicans-slam-president-over-jobs-report/?hpt=hp_bn3

Republicans were quick to pounce on the numbers, which weren’t as good as the White House had thought would come out. The nation added “only” 113,000 jobs in January, down from the expected 178,000. The jobless rate ticked down a bit, to 6.6 percent. It’s down from its high of 10 percent in 2009, but still too high to suit the loyal opposition.

“Today’s jobs report underscores that there remains a real crisis for the chronically unemployed in this country. It’s too hard for many to find good jobs, wages are stagnant, and it’s harder to get ahead,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

I guess the most annoying aspect of the reactions to these jobs numbers is that the “other side” is quiet when they’re good, as they were in November and December. The labor market added about 400,000 jobs at the end of 2013. Did we hear anything then from Cantor and his congressional Republican colleagues? Their silence was deafening.

Yes, I am acutely aware that Democrats do the same thing to Republican presidents. George W. Bush couldn’t buy a break from congressional Democrats whenever his administration welcomed good economic news.

The nobility of politics has been replaced by something far less high-minded. It’s become a game of who can get the better of the other guy. It goes on and on.

I’m going to talk today to U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, who’s running for his 10th term in the House. I intend to ask him what he’s going to do to restore some sense of comity in Congress and repair its relations with the White House.

Let’s hope he can offer a noble answer.

‘Compromise’ not such a dirty word

It turns out that compromise indeed is possible in the 113th Congress.

When it shows itself, we learn that things actually can get done, such as approving a federal budget that keeps the government running through September. The House of Representatives approved the deal overwhelmingly and has sent it back to the Senate hopefully for final approval.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/house-spending-bill/index.html

The $1.1 trillion budget deal marks a departure from recent history, where Republicans and Democrats have fought over every big and little thing in the budget. It has produced gridlock, made a lot of people angry, shut down part of the government for a time, forced public opinion of Congress into a sinkhole and redefined the term “political dysfunction.”

Does this signal a new day on Capitol Hill? Probably not. However, one can hope.

Tomorrow might bring a new set of hassles and disagreements, particularly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives that seems to have declared its intention to block everything House Democrats and the Democrat in chief in the White House want to do.

The bill reduces funds for the Internal Revenue Service, gives federal workers a 1 percent pay increase and gives money to the Environmental Protection Agency. These measures make Republicans happy. Meanwhile, Democrats got something for themselves, such as funding for Head Start, which helps early childhood education efforts.

No one is entirely happy with the deal, nor are they entirely unhappy.

That’s the spirit of compromise. Things can get done. It’s how you legislate. It’s how good government is supposed to work.

What’s more, it doesn’t inflict nearly the pain that stubborn intransigence can produce.

Congress sees ‘spike’ in approval rating

What gives here?

Congress’s approval ratings, which had been languishing in the single digits for months on end, suddenly have taken a “spike” upward. According to the RealClearPolitics.com poll average — the one that takes in all the major polls’ findings and averages them out — shows congressional approval at 12.4 percent, as of Dec. 9.

I think we’re going to see even more improvement in the days and weeks ahead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

On what do I base that bold prediction? It’s the budget deal hammered out by Democrats and Republicans, actually working together to avoid a government shutdown that has done the trick.

I’ve noted already that the deal announced by committee chairs Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray — a Republican and Democrat, respectively — is far from perfect. But the bigger point is that legislation rarely satisfies everyone. Good government almost always is the product of compromise, which by definition means both sides have to give a little to get something done.

If you track congressional approval ratings on the link attached to this blog back to when the government shut down in October, you’ll notice a decided tanking of public approval of Congress. Republicans leaders who run the House of Representatives took it on the chin the hardest from Americans fed up with the obstruction, the posturing and the do-nothing approach taken by the GOP.

It goes without saying — but I’ll say it anyway — that both chambers of Congress are populated by politicians … even those who say they “aren’t politicians.” Therefore, politicians depend on the people’s feelings about the job they’re doing if they want to stay in office.

All 535 members of the House and Senate should take heed at this “spike” in approval ratings. I think Americans are sending them a message: Do something — for a change.

Health care rollout no ‘mission accomplished’

ABC News correspondent Jon Karl sought to pin White House spokesman Jay Carney down on whether the tinkering of the once-crashed health care website produced a “mission accomplished” moment.

Carney didn’t take the bait.

Nor should he.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/02/abcs_jon_karl_to_carney_is_it_mission_accomplished_for_obamacare_website.html

The reference, of course, is to the famous photo op of President George W. Bush landing aboard the aircraft carrier in 2003 after the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been captured. Then the president stood before the world — and in front of a banner hung across the conning tower of the carrier — that declared “Mission Accomplished.”

It turned out the mission was far from accomplished. Many more Americans would die in battle before the Iraq War came to an end. Anyone with half a memory of that event knows the folly of declaring victory too quickly.

I’m quite sure the current president, Barack Obama, is aware as well.

The Affordable Care Act rollout was a disaster for the White House. The computer program meant to handle all those applications for health insurance crashed and burned. The White House took it down. Health officials throughout the administration began feeling intense pressure. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius could have done an honorable thing by resigning, given that it all happened on her watch. She has stayed.

The healthcare.gov website has been updated, tweaked, nipped-and-tucked and is working a lot better than before. Is it perfect? Has the administration accomplished its mission? No on both counts.

But the administration is making strides, which is about as good as it can get when you take on such a huge enterprise as trying to fix a broken health care system.

The mission is not accomplished — at least not yet.

There you have it: Health care website is fixed

OK. The verdict now appears to be in on the effort to repair what troubled the launch of the Affordable Care Act.

That website, the one that crashed when Americans tried to sign on for health insurance, appears to be repaired. It’s working. It’s working pretty well. It can handle as many as 50,000 applications at once.

Is that the end of the debate over the ACA? Hardly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/health-care-website-enrollment-obamacare-november-2013-100528.html

Some Republican luminaries, such as U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, say the healthcare.gov difficulties were the “least” of the troubles relating to the ACA.

Here’s my take.

The health insurance system was broken before Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The ACA is intended to bring insurance to an estimated 30 million Americans who don’t have it now. The website snafu was a big deal, hardly “the least” of the problems afflicting the system. Now it’s repaired. The Obama administration says more work needs to be done to make it work with maximum efficiency.

The administration pledged to fix the system when it crashed and burned at the beginning of October. It delivered on the pledge.

Now … let’s allow the program to take root.