“…there will be boots on the ground if there’s to be any hope of success in the strategy. And I think that by continuing to repeat that [there won’t be troops on the ground], the president in effect traps himself,” Gates said on CBS This Morning.
“I’m also concerned that the goal has been stated as ‘degrade and destroy’ or ‘degrade and defeat’ ISIS,” because it sets an “unattainable” goal.
Gates is speaking from experience. As Defense Secretary for both Obama and George W. Bush, he saw the United States military inflict “some terrible blows” against al Qaeda – including the killing of Osama bin Laden. But even after 13 years of warfare, al Qaeda hasn’t been destroyed or completely defeated.
Ironically, Gates indicated that the bluster of Joe Biden may come closer to the mark. In a speech earlier this month in New Hampshire, the vice president said that ISIS terrorists should know that the United States “will follow them to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice…”
Meting out some measure of justice – be it death on the battlefield or convictions for war crimes – to specific ISIS members is a realistic goal, if ground troops are used.
The confusing aspect about Obama’s current ISIS policy is that it is both too little (no ground forces) and too much (complete destruction). Untethered from reality, it’s a strategy that looks like it is set up to fail.
The explosive allegation came to light when House Oversight Committee investigators uncovered an email from a mid-level official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) saying she is “tired of the cover-ups,” and that she intended to give “a truthful update of exactly what was going on” in a status report she was tasked to write.
CMS is the federal agency responsible for overseeing the development, launch and maintenance of Healthcare.gov.
Investigative reporter Sharyl Atkisson broke the story for The Daily Signal.
The timing is particularly bad for CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner who is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee today.
Previous reporting documented specific instances where CMS officials in charge of the website’s security were either mislead or kept in the dark about the portal’s “limitless” security risks.
This new revelation will only increase the suspicion that the integrity of Americans’ private information takes a backseat to whatever saves face for the Obama administration.
Earlier today PreferredOne – an insurance company that covered 59 percent of Minnesota’s ObamaCare population – announced that it will not offer health care plans next year paid for with ObamaCare subsidies.
Apparently, the decision is being driven by high administrative costs associated with doing business with MNsure. Even after hiring an additional 50 workers to handle the exchange’s post-launch fixes and tweaks, PreferredOne says continuing to participate is financially unsustainable.
“One of the things she always worked on was advancing this concept, this idea that health care should be a right and not a privilege in this country,” said Harkin. “So, Hillary was not there when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, she was of course secretary of state, but I want you all to know that her fingerprints are all over that legislation. It would not have happened without her strenuous advocacy in that committee all those years.”
Any hopes Clinton had of distancing herself from a law that only gets more unpopular is gone. All opponents have to do is show her smiling behind a gushing Harkin to make the connection.
The Obama administration prefers “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL), while almost everyone else uses “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” (ISIS). At first blush, some commentators think they detect a subtle framing effect to blur any possible links between the rise of this group with Obama’s blundering Syria policy.
Pipes isn’t one of them. According to him, “both translations are accurate, both are correct, and both have deficiencies – one refers to a state, the other has an archaic ring.” Pipes should know since he wrote a book about the underlying history that gives rise to the translation difficulty.
Whatever one calls ISIS/ISIL, Pipes rightly focuses on the most important issue: “…ridding the world of this barbaric menace.”
As ObamaCare’s next open enrollment period draws near, some of the controversial law’s biggest backers are cheering a seven city survey claiming that health insurance premiums associated with it are dropping.
This leads liberal health policy expert Ezra Klein of Vox to say that “Obama’s signature accomplishment is succeeding beyond all reasonable expectation.”
But not if you get your health insurance from your employer, however.
“Employees are on the hook for more and more of their health care costs. Premiums are increasing so slowly in part because employers are continuing to shift toward higher deductibles, requiring employees to pay more out of their own pockets before their health care plans kick in,” explains Sam Baker in National Journal.
Comparing monthly premium rates year-to-year makes sense if that’s the best single indicator of how ObamaCare is impacting paychecks. But it isn’t. For employees working in the real economy the shift to high deductible plans means more out-of-pocket spending every time they visit the doctor.
Translation: ObamaCare makes health insurance for workers more expensive.
When it comes to measuring ObamaCare’s success, we need to make sure we’re looking at the most relevant data. Otherwise, we risk scoring political points at the expense of the truth.
Just days ago, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which Reid and Obama had packed after ending the Senate filibuster, voted to rehear en banc the Halbig v. Burwell decision from earlier this year… The full court’s unjustified decision to rehear the case en banc not only unnecessarily obstructs and delays Supreme Court resolution, it appears to be a transparently politicized decision to rescue ObamaCare. On that note, Harry Reid openly congratulated himself when asked whether his Senate tactics underlie this turn of events by saying, ‘If you look at simple math, it sure does.’”
Going into the 2016 election, you can count on Republicans to stay ‘positive,’ to emphasize policy, and above all, not to hit the Democrats where it hurts. You can also count on Democrats to do just the opposite. Because they always do…
Democrats have a massive punch in the mouth for Republicans, and it’s always the same punch. Republicans are painted as racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-poor, selfish and uncaring. Note that this is a moral indictment. It defames the character of Republicans like the corporate predator and dog-abuser Mitt Romney. The only answer to an attack like this is to attack Democrats with an equally potent indictment of their moral character…
How difficult is it to understand this: If you are perceived by voters as racist or even just selfish and uncaring, they are not going to have the same interest in your policy advice, as Mitt Romney found out in 2012. Here is what Republicans need to understand to win: Politics is street war, and there are no referees to maintain the rules – and the ones that infrequently pop up (such as CNN’s Candy Crowley during one of the last presidential debates) are there to bury you. Attack your opponents before they attack you. Attack them with a moral indictment; if well-executed, it will win the day.
And remember that even if you fail to do this to them, they will certainly do it to you. You can count on that.”
Americans can determine for themselves whether Horowitz’s advice is wise. But they must also acknowledge that Republican presidential campaigns in recent decades have been more notable for their moderation than their tenacity, whereas the opposite is true of Democratic campaigns. And which party has won five of the past six popular presidential votes, after the landslide Reagan and Bush victories of the 1980s?
Two of the five worked in the agency’s Cincinnati office where most of the bad behavior took place. The others include Lerner’s technical adviser, a group manager in the tax-exempt division and a tax law specialist, reports Fox News.
The IRS says all five permanently lost access to emails sought by congressional investigators when their hard drives crashed. The agency’s Inspector General is testing the drives to see if any emails can still be recovered.
Republicans in Congress are not amused.
“The IRS’s ever-changing story is practically impossible to follow at this point, as they modify it each time to accommodate new facts,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said. “This pattern must stop.”
In an interview with CFIF, Bradley Smith, Founder of the Center for Competitive Politics and former Federal Elections Commission Chairman, discusses the numerous flaws of the so-called DISCLOSE Act of 2014.
Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:
4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT: Ambassador Francis Rooney, former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See and author of The Global Vatican — Persecution of Christians in the Middle East;
4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT: Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty — Local Choice Broadcast Reform;
5:00 CST/6:00 pm EDT: Nan Swift, Federal Affairs Manager for the National Taxpayers Union — “No-Brainer” Bills Congress Should Pass; and
5:30 CDT/6:30 pm EDT: Marita Noon, Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great — What President Obama Hasn’t Done for American Energy Workers.
Listen live on the Internet here. Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.
In an interview with CFIF, Bart Hinkle, Editor and Columnist with the Richmond Times-Dispatch, compares the ideological shifts in the two major political parties and the legal challenges facing Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
In my column this week, I explain how not every Medicaid expansion through ObamaCare is necessarily a bad thing. The crux of my argument is that states that use the extra money to move the program in a more market-friendly direction – and as a consequence, make it more cost-conscious and consumer-driven – should be given a chance to test their ideas.
This means that Republican governors in Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania – and now perhaps Wyoming – should be given some space before conservatives conflate them with other GOP leaders who simply expanded Medicaid without bothering to wring any reforms from the Obama administration.
Every state is already in the business of participating in Medicaid. If conservatives are willing to consider Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform a step in the right direction, then we should extend the same courtesy to Republican governors who are trying to do something similar with Medicaid.
Last Friday, Tennessee Republican Governor Bill Haslam joined Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett, Indiana’s Mike Pence and others in trying to carve out a middle ground between a straight yes or no on expansion.
Haslam hasn’t committed himself to specifics, saying only that “sometime this fall” his administration will submit an alternative plan to federal regulators.
States like Wisconsin, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Iowa have won various levels of approval to use ObamaCare’s increased Medicaid funding to provide subsidized health insurance plans to some of the poorest members of their populations.
Expanding Medicaid is a tempting offer because the federal government pays for about half of every dollar spent on the state’s program. ObamaCare makes taking the plunge almost irresistible since it pays for every dollar of expansion until 2017, and 90 percent of all new spending until 2020. For sitting governors with term limits, that translates into an opportunity to get lots of credit for helping poor people before most of the bill comes due.
The politics of ObamaCare are constantly evolving, and the lesson for conservatives about the law’s Medicaid expansion is this: Unless there is a credible alternative to growing government, many politicians will opt for good press and worry about the policy implications later.
Heading into the 2016 presidential cycle, there needs to be a way to determine which ideas adhere to constitutional principles, preserve the free market and bolster human flourishing – which includes access to health care.
If at first you don’t succeed, pivot to the next best alternative.
That seems to be the strategy used by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) as he positions himself for a potential White House run in 2016.
Rubio, once the darling of conservatives and a top GOP presidential contender, quickly fell out of favor with the grassroots when he supported a version of comprehensive immigration reform championed by the Obama administration and some of the most liberal members of Congress.
After the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” bill was pronounced dead-on-arrival in the House of Representatives, Rubio has since modified his position on how to pursue immigration reform. Unsurprisingly, it now aligns with what conservatives have said all along: secure the border first, build trust in the federal government’s commitment to the rule of law and national sovereignty, and only then discuss how to integrate illegal immigrants into American society.
Last week, Rubio sent a letter to President Barack Obama warning against a unilateral executive action that would grant some kind of legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants. In Rubio’s words, such an act “will increase the perception of ambiguity in our laws, incentivize more people to immigrate here illegally, and significantly set back the prospects of real reform.”
It’s too early to tell whether Rubio’s repositioning will be enough to convince conservatives that he’s changed his principles instead of just his tactics. Until he can give a convincing explanation of why next time will be different, skepticism about his true beliefs will remain.