Iranian Foreign Minister Cartoons

McConnell scolds Reid over threat to vote on Trump proposals

BALTIMORE –  The Republican leaders of the House and Senate took time out Thursday from laying out their 2016 agenda to warn they won’t stand for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to drag the presidential campaign onto the Senate floor.
Earlier Thursday, the Nevada senator had threatened to seek votes on GOP candidate Donald Trump’s proposals. "If Republicans are afraid to bring their standard-bearer's policies up for votes, Democrats will hold Republicans accountable by seeking floor votes on Trump's policies ourselves,” Reid said.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested lawmakers could, in the same vein, call up amendments related to the Democratic candidates’ proposals.
But, he said, “I’m trying to avoid turning the Senate into a [TV] studio” for the campaign.
“Let’s let the candidates run their race, and we’ll try to do the people’s business,” McConnell said.
He and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., spoke as they laid out their ambitious 2016 agenda at their annual retreat, vowing to help their party win the White House while cautiously avoiding the fiery campaign battles.
Looking forward, McConnell said he’s set a goal of passing all 12 appropriations -- or spending – bills this year, something Congress has struggled to do year after year, contributing to the periodic budget chaos on the Hill.
“It’s not going to be titillating,” he acknowledged.
Ryan, standing next to McConnell during a press conference at the retreat in Baltimore, also said his chamber would work on the budget early.
The leaders acknowledged their respective chambers, by design, have different missions and rhythms but insisted they are united in the effort to pass bills and set a “pro-growth” agenda to help Americans, while the candidates wrangle for their votes.
“We’re asking ourselves, ‘What could we do if we had a Republican in the White House?’” Ryan added.
A major debate at the retreat is whether Reid will make good on a comment he made last month about changing the chamber’s filibuster rules to get spending bills passed more easily.
“At least Democrats are saying the right things,” McConnell said.
Those at the retreat acknowledged discussions about rule changes to restore so-called “regular order” but made clear that key committee leaders have made no formal efforts in that direction.
Ryan and others said they plan to start the appropriations process early in this election year, perhaps in February or early March to allow for the extra month or so this summer that Congress will be out for the conventions.
However, Ryan made clear he had no idea when the bills will be completed and sent to the Senate, because as the new speaker he’s committed to letting members “have their say.”

Iranian foreign minister confident nuke deal will be completed Saturday

He's thinking "Dumb Ass Americans".

 Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said a historic nuclear deal reached last summer between Iran and six world powers would go into effect on Saturday, according to Iran’s semiofficial ISNA news agency.
“Today is a good day for the Iranian people, and the sanctions will be annulled today,” Mr. Zarif told reporters after arriving in Vienna to conclude the implementation, according to the agency.
The deal is expected to take effect following the release of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency verifying that Iran completed a number of preliminary commitments, including shutting down thousands of uranium-enrichment centrifuges and removing the reactor core at its Arak heavy-water facility near Tehran.
Mr. Zarif said he would meet with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini following an expected joint statement announcing the implementation of the deal, ISNA reported.
Mr. Zarif said the meetings would “make sure the [nuclear deal] is carried out appropriately.”
Under the July deal, Iran agreed to curtail its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Conn. gov, state Dems under fire as GE ships up to Boston

They might be breaking out the bubbly in Boston, but the mood in Connecticut is anything but celebratory.
Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy: Photo below

is facing growing criticism from lawmakers, business leaders and residents after General Electric, one of the state’s largest employers, announced it would relocate to neighboring Massachusetts.
State Republicans were quick to blame Malloy and the Democratic-led legislature for playing – and losing – what came down to an expensive game of chicken with the Dow titan.
“This is proof positive that the Democrat majority’s fiscal plans are failures,” Connecticut Senate Minority Leader Leonard Fasano said in a statement, blaming the state's tax policies and warning "many more businesses" could follow in GE's footsteps.
GE announced Wednesday it would move its global headquarters to Boston after four decades in Fairfield, Conn., as part of an effort to transform itself into a dominant player in the digital era. With it, the company will take hundreds of jobs.

'We win some, we lose some. This hurts'
- Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy

The company moved in part because the business-friendly relationship it had with Connecticut had started to sour in recent years. GE’s decision to relocate came after two of the largest corporate tax hikes in Connecticut history were passed by state lawmakers in 2011 and 2015. GE had hinted it would to leave but some state leaders believed the company was bluffing.
They were not.
Massachusetts beat out other “competitive” bids in New York and Rhode Island to lure GE to the state by offering $120 million in grants and other financial incentives, while the city of Boston threw in an extra $25 million in tax relief. GE also is eligible for $1 million in workforce training grants.
Fasano said Connecticut residents “deserve an apology from every Democrat lawmaker whose disrespectful comments mocked companies like GE when they raised legitimate concerns about the state budget."
Democrats tried to downplay the move, while Malloy told reporters at a press event in Middletown, Conn., “We win some, we lose some. This hurts.”
However, he maintained the state was still “highly competitive.”
“You’re not going to turn Connecticut around on a dime.”
But others fear GE’s move could have lasting effects on the community that will be difficult to reverse.
“A move like this is a seismic event,” David Lewis, president of Operations Inc., a human resources consulting company based in Connecticut, told FoxNews.com.
“It sends a message about whether or not this county is still a viable place to do business,” he said. “That I think is one of the biggest concerns.”
State Sen. Tony Hwang, who represents the town of Fairfield, said for now, the plan is to move forward.
“I know our community is strong,” Hwang said in a written statement. “I know we will all work hard with one another to build back what we are losing.”
Boston was among 40 potential sites formally considered in a process that began in June but had been in the works for more than three years.
“In addition to adding hundreds of high-paying jobs to our state, we look forward to partnering with GE to achieve further grown across a spectrum of industries and are confident GE will flourish in the Commonwealth’s inventive economy,” Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said in a statement announcing the deal.
GE said it would employ around 800 people in Boston: 200 for its corporate staff and 600 designers, developers and industrial project managers. The company has roughly the same number of employees at its Fairfield location.
The move to Boston -- aside from allowing the company to reap the massive financial incentives offered by Massachusetts – also allows GE to tap new talent from a cluster of tech and research universities in the area including Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Obama administration announces halt on new coal leases

The King has Spoken.

WASHINGTON –  The Obama administration announced Friday it will temporarily halt new coal leases on federal lands until it completes a comprehensive review to determine whether fees charged to mining companies provide a “fair return” to taxpayers. 
The decision immediately triggered accusations from business groups and Republican lawmakers of a renewed "war on coal."
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, on a conference call, stressed that the move “is not a pause on coal production” entirely -- but will give the government time to study the benefits of coal as well as its impact on the environment.
Jewell told reporters she is “confident” the pause on new leases will not disrupt the country’s ability to meet production needs.
Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, slammed the decision. Herbert called the move “a foolish crusade” that strips America of one of its “diverse mix of energy sources.”
"Another day, another front on the war on coal from this administration,” she said in a statement following the announcement. “At this point, it is obvious that the president and his administration won't be satisfied until coal is completely eradicated from our energy mix.”
Roughly 40 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands. The vast majority of that mining takes place in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.
It's unclear what impact the moratorium will have on many coal companies given the declining domestic demand for coal and the closure of numerous coal-fired power plants around the country. Coal companies have already stockpiled billions of tons of coal on existing leases.
But the announcement will no doubt please environmental groups that have long said the government's fee rates encouraged production of a product that contributed to global warming.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called Friday's announcement the "latest front in an ideological war on coal that has contributed to devastation in communities in Eastern Kentucky and to the loss of thousands of jobs across the commonwealth."
The administration held a handful of public hearings last year to get feedback on the adequacy of the fees charged companies for coal mined on federal lands. The government collects a 12.5 percent royalty on the sale price of strip-mined coal. The rate was established in 1976. The money is then split between the federal government and the state where the coal was mined. Coal companies also pay a $3 fee annually for each acre of land leased.
Government auditors have in the past questioned whether the rate provided an appropriate return, though they did not make specific recommendations to raise it. Industry groups counter that any increase in royalty rates will hurt consumers and threaten high-paying jobs.
President Obama said during the State of the Union address Tuesday that he would push to change the way the federal government manages its oil and coal resources.
The review will look at such issues as how, when and where to lease, how to account for the public health impacts of coal, and how to ensure American taxpayers earn a fair return on their resources.  An administration official noted that reviews of the federal coal program have occurred twice before, once in the 1970s and again in the 1980s, and pauses on the approval of new mining leases accompanied each review.
Jewell said some exceptions to the moratorium will be allowed, most notably for small lease modifications. And while the federal government will proceed with environmental reviews for pending lease applications, no final decision will be made.
The administration held hearings in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico last year on the federal coal program. Several people representing tribes, local ranchers and environmental groups spoke in favor of increasing royalty rates, saying it would hasten the transition to cleaner energy sources.
Several GOP lawmakers sent staff to relay their concerns about the Interior Department's efforts.
For example, Penny Pew, a district director for Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, said that "President Obama and his agency minions are trying to put the coal industry out of business by imposing a flurry of draconian mandates not based in reality."
Industry officials also voiced concerns.
Meanwhile, David J. Hayes, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, said Thursday the current rules for coal mining on federal lands were written when people could still smoke on planes and dump sewage in the ocean.
"President Obama and (Interior) Secretary (Sally) Jewell are absolutely right to launch this comprehensive review and to set the federal coal program in a more fiscally and environmentally responsible direction," Hayes said.

Sanders gaining ground on Clinton, in echoes of 2008

New national polling is showing Bernie Sanders gaining ground on Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, casting into doubt Clinton as the inevitable nominee for the party, and recalling the 2008 race where Clinton was eventually beaten by underdog Barack Obama.
Despite a 30 percent-plus lead over Sanders in the summer in many polls, Clinton's lead has shrunk drastically in recent months as she continues to be dogged by doubts about her candidacy, while Sanders continues to gain strength in key states and across the U.S.
With key votes in Iowa and New Hampshire just weeks away, Clinton's apparent firm hold on the nomination seems to be slipping away.
Polls now show Sanders with a comfortable lead in New Hampshire. A Fox News Poll released last week showed Sanders with a commanding 13 point lead in the Granite State, with a 50-37 point margin. The poll shows a stunning increase for Sanders, who was only one point ahead in a similar poll in November.
Meanwhile in Iowa, Clinton's once solid lead is dwindling and it seems the Hawkeye State is up for grabs. The Real Clear Politics average shows Clinton with a four point lead, with some polls showing the two tied and a recent Quinnipiac poll actually showing Sanders with a five point lead.
Should Sanders win the coveted prizes of both Iowa and New Hampshire, it would hand him momentum going into trickier states such as South Carolina, and would raise serious questions about Clinton's ability to secure the nomination.
It isn’t just in the vital states of Iowa and New Hampshire where Clinton’s lead is narrowing – polls are showing Sanders gaining ground nationally.
The latest Fox News Poll showed Clinton with a 15 point lead nationally. That’s down from a 25 point advantage as recently as two months ago, suggesting the race is tightening and that Sanders may be a serious concern for the Clinton camp.
Clinton’s troubles sealing the nomination despite being labeled by many as the inevitable nominee has echoes of the 2008 Democratic primary, in which she held a similar status but was beaten in Iowa by then-Sen. Barack Obama. Obama gained enormous momentum from the win in Iowa and eventually went on to win the nomination.
The Washington Post’s Philip Bump compared the 2016 and 2008 races and concluded that Clinton was actually doing better in 2008 than she is now.
“Nationally, she was doing much better in 2008 than she is right now, perhaps in part because the anti-Clinton vote in 2008 was still split between two people -- Barack Obama and John Edwards -- instead of just one. But that recent trend line, a function of two new national polls that were close after a bit of a lull, is not very good news [for Clinton],” Bump wrote.
The narrowing of the race comes as Sanders and Clinton have ratcheted up the rhetoric at each other.  Clinton has called for Sanders to be more specific about his proposals and how he would pay for proposals such as a single-payer health care system.
"I wish that we could elect a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, 'We shall do this, and we shall do that,' " Clinton said this week in Iowa. "That ain't the real world we're living in!"
Sanders for his part has also turned up the heat on the former Secretary of State and released a TV spot Thursday that appeared to take a shot at Hillary Clinton’s record on Wall Street.