Surveyors to announce Washington Monument's new official, shorter height

Government surveyors will announce on Monday that the official height of the Washington Monument on the capital's National Mall has been revised downward by nearly ten inches. 
The new measurement puts the obelisk's height at 554 feet, 7 and 11/32 inches, as measured from the floor of the main entrance to the top. Since the monument's completion in 1884, however, the official height has been recorded as 555 feet, 5 and 1/8 inches. 
Dru Smith, chief geodesist with the National Geodetic Survey, tells the Associated Press that modern international standards from the Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat call for a different base point than what was likely used in the 1880s. The new standards call for measurements to be taken from the lowest open-air pedestrian entrance to the building.
"The building didn't change height because of anything; it is just where you start from," Smith said.
The original measurement conducted in 1884 by Lt. Col. Thomas Casey is believed to have used four brass markers as a base for measurement. Those markers remain in place 9 inches below ground off each corner of the monument. It's possible the markers were at ground level in the past. A new plaza was installed around the monument more recently, and "it's clear that what was ground level has changed over the years," Smith said.
Measurements from the brass markers to the top in 1999 and 2014 essentially reconfirmed the original measurement, showing the 1884 measurement was done with "incredible accuracy."
The only observable height change was the pyramid-shaped tip had been rounded off over time. Surveyors in 1934 also noticed the peak had been rounded and believed it was due to frequent lightning strikes that melted the aluminum tip.
"Well, this time around, we took very careful measurements," Smith said. "We were able to determine about 3/8 of an inch had been melted off from the very top."
That means the original 1884 measurement, completed with much less sophisticated equipment, was within 3/4 of an inch of the findings from the newest survey, using the original brass markers as a base point.
"It's remarkable, quite honestly, that they had the ability to get such an accurate measurement back in that time," Smith said.
When the monument was completed in 1884, it was the world's tallest structure until 1889 when the Eiffel Tower was built. It remains by far the tallest structure in the nation's capital, which strictly restricts building heights. Most buildings are shorter than the U.S. Capitol dome, which rises 288 feet.
The new survey was conducted while the monument was wrapped in scaffolding for restoration work following a 2011 earthquake. Earlier survey results showed the monument did not sink any further into the ground as a result of the 5.8-magnitude earthquake. The monument was built on land that used to be underwater, and it has sunk about 2.2 inches since 1901.
Lest anyone be confused by the changing measurements, the National Park Service as caretaker of the monument has no intention of changing its brochures or description of the height to reflect the new numbers.
"For our purposes we'll still use the historic height rather than the architectural height, since they're measured from different places," said spokeswoman Jenny Anzelmo-Sarles.
The extensive survey will give the Park Service new data as a baseline to track any changes in the monument's height, tilt or compression in the future. The National Geodetic Survey and National Park Service revealed the survey results on President's Day, which also celebrates Washington's birthday.
"I think we can all agree the significance of the Washington Monument is really far greater than the architectural qualities or even its height," said Mike Commisso, a cultural resources specialist for the National Mall. "It continues to serve as a memorial to one of the most influential and prominent public figures in our nation's history."

Obama administration proposes regulations on commercial drones amid security, privacy concerns

President Obama on Sunday announced plans to regulate the use of small, commercial drones -- attempting to get ahead of safety, privacy and economic issues as the unmanned aircraft quickly become more a part of everyday American life.
Obama said in a presidential memorandum that drones are already a more flexible and less-expensive alternative to piloted aircraft for public and private users. And they could play “a transformative role” in urban infrastructure management, farming, public safety, coastal security, military training, search and rescue and disaster response.
The president has given federal agencies at least 90 days to start drafting guidelines, but the Federal Aviation Administration on Sunday released preliminary rules in conjunction with the memorandum.
Among the chores that federal officials envision drones performing are aerial photography and mapping, crop monitoring and inspecting cell towers, bridges and other tall structures.
However, the proposal includes safety restrictions such as keeping drones within sight of operators at all times and no nighttime flights, which could mean no pizza or Amazon package deliveries by drone.
Commercial operators, for example, will have to take an FAA-administered knowledge test and pass a Transportation Security Administration security check to fly small drones, defined as weighing less than 55 pounds, according to the proposal.
The final rules still could be two or three years away.
Even if the White House approves the FAA's proposal, the agency must offer a public comment period, and tens of thousands of comments are anticipated and must be addressed before final regulations are issued.
The FAA currently bans all commercial drone flights except for those by a small number of companies that have been granted waivers. Congress has been leaning on the agency to move faster on regulations that would allow a wide variety of companies to employ drones.  
Under a law passed in 2012, the FAA was to issue final regulations by September 2015, but that appears unlikely.
"We have tried to be flexible in writing these rules," said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. "We want to maintain today's outstanding level of aviation safety without placing an undue regulatory burden on an emerging industry."  He said the agency intends to issue final rules as quickly as it can.
Brian Wynne, president and chief executive officer of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group, called the proposed rules "a good first step" toward bringing the United States closer to realizing the benefits of drone technology.
The memorandum also lays out measures federal agencies must follow to guard against abuse of data collected in drone flights and states they must have polices that “prohibit the collection, use, retention or dissemination of data in any manner that would violate the First Amendment or in any manner that would discriminate against persons based upon their ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The FAA analysis suggests drones -- officially known as Unmanned Aircraft Systems -- would be safer than heavier, manned aircraft in such operations as cell-tower and other high-tower monitoring, citing 95 fatalities involving climbers from 2004 to 2012.      
Officials have not made public an estimate of the total annual economic benefit of regulations but say it would exceed $100 million a year.
For example, about 45,000 annual bridge inspections could be conducted with small drones, they say.
The document indicates the agency has dropped its insistence that drone operators have the same licenses and medical certificates required for pilots of manned aircraft. Industry officials complained that obtaining a private pilot license or medical certificate would be unnecessarily burdensome. The agency estimates the cost to operators of obtaining certificate at about $300.
A private pilot license can cost thousands of dollars because it requires many hours of experience flying a plane.
Operators would have to fly drones at less than 500 feet, which is below where most manned aircraft fly. That's 100 feet higher than the agency typically has approved in waivers to commercial operators.
The line-of-sight requirement would preclude delivery drone of the type envisioned by Amazon. Google is also experimenting with such drones.
Industry officials have chafed at both restrictions, saying they significantly reduce the usefulness of unmanned aircraft. The FAA's concern is that with no pilot on board, the operator on the ground is best able to prevent a collision with another aircraft by keep the drone in sight at all times.
The FAA analysis was first reported by Forbes on Saturday.

Egypt hits ISIS-affiliated terrorists in Libya after video showing mass beheading of Christians appears

Egypt's military said Monday that it had launched airstrikes against ISIS-affiliated militants in Libya after a video purporting to show the mass beheading of Coptic Christian hostages surfaced Sunday.
A spokesman for the Armed Forces General Command announced the strikes on state radio Monday, marking the first time Cairo has publicly acknowledged taking military action in neighboring Libya, where extremist groups seen as a threat to both countries have taken root in recent years.
The statement said the warplanes targeted weapons caches and training camps before returning safely. It said the strikes were "to avenge the bloodshed and to seek retribution from the killers."
"Let those far and near know that Egyptians have a shield that protects them," it said.
Egypt is already battling a burgeoning Islamist insurgency centered in the strategic Sinai Peninsula, where militants have recently declared their allegiance to ISIS and rely heavily on arms smuggled across the porous desert border between Egypt and Libya.
The strikes also come just a month before Egypt is scheduled to host a major donor's conference at a Sinai resort to attract foreign investment needed to revive the economy after more than four years of turmoil.
The Egyptian government had previously declared a seven-day period of mourning and President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi addressed the nation late Sunday night, saying that his government reserved the right to seek retaliation for the killings.
"These cowardly actions will not undermine our determination" said el-Sissi, who also banned all travel to Libya by Egyptian citizens. "Egypt and the whole world are in a fierce battle with extremist groups carrying extremist ideology and sharing the same goals."
Libya's air force commander, Saqr al-Joroushi, told Egyptian state TV that the airstrikes were coordinated with the Libyan side and that they killed about 50 militants. Libya's air force also announced it had launched strikes in the eastern city of Darna, which was taken over by an ISIS affiliate last year. The announcement, on the Facebook page of the Air Force Chief of Staff, did not provide further details. Two Libyan security officials told the Associated Press civilians, including three children and two women, were killed in the strikes. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
The video was released late Sunday by militants in Libya affiliated with the Islamic State group. The militants had been holding 21 Egyptian Coptic Christian laborers rounded up from the city of Sirte in December and January. It was not clear from the video whether all 21 hostages were killed.
The killings raise the possibility that the extremist group -- which controls about a third of Syria and Iraq in a self-declared caliphate -- has established a direct affiliate less than 500 miles from the southern tip of Italy, Libya's former colonial master. One of the militants in the video makes direct reference to that possibility, saying the group now plans to "conquer Rome."
In Washington, the White House released a statement calling the beheadings "despicable" and "cowardly", but made no mention of the victims' religion, referring to them only as "Egyptian citizens" or "innocents". White House press secretary Josh Earnest added in the statement that the terror group's "barbarity knows no bounds."
Also Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry called Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. He offered his condolences on behalf of the American people and strongly condemned the killings. Kerry and the foreign minister agreed to keep in close touch as Egyptians deliberated on a response, according to a release from the State Department. 
On Monday, el-Sissi visited the main Coptic Cathedral of St. Mark in Cairo to offer his condolences on the Egyptians killed in Libya, according to state TV.
The U.N. Security Council meanwhile strongly condemned what it called "the heinous and cowardly apparent murder in Libya of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by an affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant," using another name for the terror group.
The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, also condemned the mass killing, calling it an "ugly crime."
"The United Arab Emirates is devoting all its resources to support the efforts of Egypt to eradicate terrorism and the violence directed against its citizens," he said.
Sheikh Abdullah added that the killing highlights the need to help the Libyan government "extend its sovereign authority over all of Libya's territory."
The oil-rich Emirates, along with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, has given billions of dollars in aid to Egypt since el-Sissi, who was then military chief, overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in July 2013 amid massive protests against his yearlong rule.
Egypt has since waged a sweeping crackdown against Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood group, which it has officially branded a terrorist organization. El-Sissi has insisted the crackdown in Egypt, as well as support for the government in Libya, is part of a larger war on terror.
Libya in recent months has seen the worst unrest since the 2011 uprising that toppled and killed longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi, which will complicate any efforts to combat the country's many Islamic extremist groups.
The internationally recognized government has been confined to the country's far east since Islamist-allied militias seized the capital Tripoli last year, and Islamist politicians have reconstituted a previous government and parliament.
Egypt has strongly backed the internationally recognized government, and U.S. officials have said both Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have taken part in a series of mysterious airstrikes targeting Islamist-allied forces.

Impeach Cartoon

ObamaCare sign-ups hit snag on big weekend

WASHINGTON –  Consumers trying to sign up for health insurance ahead of a looming deadline are getting snagged by technical difficulties, the Obama administration said Saturday.
Administration spokeswoman Katie Hill said some people trying to get coverage under President Barack Obama's health care law haven't been able to get their income information electronically verified.
That's crucial because the amount of financial assistance to help pay premiums is based on people's income. The health care law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have coverage on the job. More than 8 in 10 of those who apply qualify for help. Without it, most can't afford the coverage.
The Internal Revenue Service handles income verification for the HealthCare.gov website. In a statement, Hill said the problem was due to issues with "external verification sources."
The glitch seemed to be affecting people with new applications.
People who previously submitted their income details -- but hadn't completed the final step of picking a plan -- were still able to do so.
The technical problems tied up some consumers who'd come out Saturday to an enrollment event in the central Illinois city of Jacksonville.
"They were frustrated, but they were nice about it," said Miranda Clark, who was helping people sign up. "They can come back tomorrow or call ... or log back into their account and do it on their own."
Officials posted an advisory on the home page of the HealthCare.gov website.
It reassured consumers that they would still be able to get coverage once the glitch is resolved. "Keep checking back for updates," it said.
The official deadline in the 37 states served by HealthCare.gov is 2:59 a.m. Eastern time Monday.
Last year, HealthCare.gov stumbled at the start. Numerous technical problems with the website were a huge headache for consumers, and an embarrassment for the tech-savvy White House. This year, the process had worked fairly smoothly.
The administration has set a goal of 9.1 million people signed up and paying their premiums in 2015.

Fool of the Week: MSNBC's Melissa Harris Perry

The thing about this honor (“Fool of the Week”) is that it can be awarded for a single comment stemming from a momentary lapse in judgment. We’ve all been there.
Or it can be given to a repeat offender. A “fool trail” that they’ve left behind over a longer span of time.
That said, this week again provided me with a full docket  of potential Fools of the Week…
Here are some of this week’s nominees:
President Obama for using selfie sticks.
Howard Dean for attacking Scott Walker’s education.
The radical Girl Scouts of Oakland, California
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for admitting she was not 100% sober during the recent State of the Union address.  (Actually, I would have needed a few vodka clubs to sit through that, too. So she was immediately crossed off the list)
But this week’s awardee was so foolish,  she crushed her competition for the Fool of the Week:
With just a few minutes to interview high profile political guests, television hosts usually ask questions Americans want answers to.
With that in mind, here’s what MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry  asked outgoing attorney general Eric Holder:
 “Will you quack like a duck” for the MSNBC viewers?”
Wow. From the host who once hung feminine hygiene products from her ears. On air!!
Melissa Harris Perry… you are the Fool of the Week!
And by the way, MSNBC viewers, if that’s your idea of good TV, well, knock yourselves out. We will be bringing the truth to our “Cashin in” viewers on Fox News this weekend which airs simultaneously opposite Ms. Perry’s hard-hitting interviews.
Have a great weekend everybody!

As Supreme Court case on ObamaCare nears, focus is on plaintiffs and GOP's post-decision plan

The simmering debate about ObamaCare reemerged in Washington this week amid questions about the plaintiffs in the upcoming Supreme Court case on the health law and Republicans sounding more urgent about preparing for the ruling.
The high court will hear arguments in early March over whether the health-care law allows people in states without their own insurance markets to receive federal tax credits that reduce coverage costs.
The number of uninsured could rise by 8 million if the subsidies disappear, two independent think tanks have estimated.
“We have to have a contingency plan,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Friday.
Republicans and Democrats agree that a ruling for the plaintiffs could wipe out subsidies for millions of Americans, in three-fourths of U.S. states, and result in the law being rewritten.
A ruling is not expected until at least June. Ryan did not say Friday when a contingency plan would be finished but made clear it would not be fixes to the law.
“The idea is not to make ObamaCare work better or actually authorize ObamaCare,” he said.
Republicans, who control Congress after having won the Senate in November, say dismantling ObamaCare remains a priority. But they appear to think their best chance of undoing the 2010 law is the court case. And they have so far taken a wait-and-see approach, instead of trying to immediately repeal the law or dismantle it in parts.
Questions are being asked about the four challengers’ legal right to bring their lawsuit, though experts don’t think court will be deterred in deciding King v. Burwell, referring to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell. 
The challengers, who live in Virginia, object to being forced to get insurance or pay a penalty. If the subsidies were not available, they would not pay a penalty for failing to be insured because even the cheapest health plan would be too costly, according to sworn statements they filed in 2013.
But the Wall Street Journal reported that two are Vietnam veterans who probably could obtain health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, meaning they would not be affected by the subsidies issue. The newspaper and Mother Jones reported that a third plaintiff lived in a motel at the time that her address and age were used to calculate the cost of insurance. She now lives elsewhere in the state.
The fourth is a substitute school teacher in Richmond who said she could not recall how she became involved in the case.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulatory group, is paying for the legal challenges and recruited the four.
The right to get into court on an issue is known as standing.
"The important thing is there has to be someone in the case who is actually injured by the law," said Tara Grove, a law professor at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. "That is what determines whether the court has jurisdiction." It takes just one person who has been harmed to keep a lawsuit alive, Grove said.
The Obama administration or the justices could ask lawyers for the challengers to address the questions that have been raised about the four. The Justice Department contended that two would have earned too little to be subject to the penalty, but lower courts rejected that argument. The administration did not challenge the presence of any of the four at the Supreme Court.
The court could raise the topic on its own. But given its decision to take up the health law even in the absence of the usual requirement that lower courts be divided on an issue, several legal experts doubted the plaintiffs' situations would derail the case.
"For a test case, these are not the best people one could put forward. It's hard for them to demonstrate that they've had an actual injury," said Robert Dudley, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
But the court creates its own rules on whether it can reach a decision in a case, Dudley said. "I can cite the rules, but it's up to the court and the court will often take some very shaky cases because an issue is important. I honestly think this won't affect the court much," he said.
Questions about a party's standing seem to become important at the Supreme Court only when a majority is unwilling to settle an issue or the court is unable to produce five votes for any particular outcome. In 2013, the challenge to California's Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban foundered on the issue of standing. The result left in place a lower court ruling holding that the ban was constitutional.
Jonathan Adler, a law professor who helped formulate the challenge to the subsidies, said efforts to sink the case over questions about the plaintiffs fit with the desire of the administration and health law supporters to delay a resolution of this case. Adler said they believe that it becomes harder to undo the tax credits the longer people receive them.  "It would surprise me if the information in the affidavits wasn't true and there was suddenly any problem for all the plaintiffs in this case," Adler said.
Supporters of the law said questions about the plaintiffs make a broader point about the case.
"To me, what all this confirms is that people who weren't really affected by the statute are bringing ideologically and politically based claims that will substantially affect millions of other people. This is the use of the courts as a political forum," said Robert Weiner, a former Justice Department official who was deeply involved in the 2012 Supreme Court case that upheld the law.
There's nothing unusual about interest groups on the right and the left driving suits and seeking plaintiffs willing to be the faces of a court fight, Grove said. "You know courts are influenced to some degree by the facts of the case," she said. "It's just good lawyering to make sure you have clients who are sympathetic."

Police kill man believed to be gunman behind 2 Copenhagen shootings

Danish police killed a man early Sunday suspected of carrying out the shooting attacks at a free speech event and at a Copenhagen synagogue that left two men dead and five police officers wounded.
Officials said it is possible he was imitating the terror attacks that took place in Paris last month carried out by Islamic radicals at the Charlie Hebdo newsroom and at a kosher grocery store that left 17 dead.
"Denmark has been hit by terror," Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said on Sunday. "We do not know the motive for the alleged perpetrator's actions, but we know that there are forces that want to hurt Denmark. They want to rebuke our freedom of speech."
Denmark’s Jewish Community identified the victim of the attack at the synagogue as 37-year-old Jewish man Dan Uzan. He was guarding the building during a bar mitzvah when he was shot in the head. He later died from the injuries sustained in the attack.
The foot shooting occurred Saturday evening at 4 p.m. Police said a gunman used an automatic weapon and shot through the windows of the Krudttoenden cultural center during a discussion on freedom of expression which featured controversial Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. Vilks had been threatened previously about his caricatures featuring the Prophet Muhammad.
Three officers were injured in the attack, but a 55-year-old man died from the injuries he sustained, authorities said.
Minutes after midnight Sunday, the Jewish man was killed and two officers were wounded in the second shooting outside the synagogue.
Investigator Joergen Skov said the shooter was confronted by police as he returned to an address that authorities were keeping under surveillance. Investigators have not identified the man, but described him as 25 to 30 years old with an athletic build carrying a black automatic weapon. A blurred image was released of his face earlier Saturday.
Vilks, a 68-year-old artist who has faced numerous death threats for depicting Muhammad as a dog in 2007, told The Associated Press he believed he was the intended target of the first shooting, which happened at a panel discussion titled "Art, blasphemy and freedom of expression."
"What other motive could there be? It's possible it was inspired by Charlie Hebdo," he said, referring to the Jan. 7 attack by Islamic extremists on the French newspaper that had angered Muslims by lampooning Muhammad.
Police said it was possible the gunman had planned the "same scenario" as in the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Leaders across Europe condemned the violence and expressed support for Denmark. Sweden’s security service said it was sharing information with its Danish counterpart, while U.S. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said U.S. officials were ready to help with the investigation.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu decried the attack and is planning to encourage a “massive immigration” of Jews from Europe.
"Again, Jews were murdered on European soil just because they were Jews," Netanyahu said at the start of his Cabinet meeting Sunday. "This wave of attacks is expected to continue, as well as murderous anti-Semitic attacks. Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home."
Vilks has faced numerous death threats and attempted attacks on his life. He depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a dog in 2007. A Pennsylvania woman received a 10-year prison sentence last year for planning to kill Vilks.
The depiction of the prophet is deemed insulting to many followers of Islam. According to mainstream Islamic tradition, any physical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad — even a respectful one — is considered blasphemous.

While many Muslims have expressed disgust at the deadly assault on the Charlie Hebdo employees, many were also deeply offended by its cartoons lampooning Muhammad.

Valentine Cartoon

Cornell students erupt over health care fee

                                                      Welcome to Obama's World.

Students at vaunted Cornell University are plenty smart enough to know they should not have to pay a penalty for not buying the school's health insurance if they already have coverage, but that's exactly what a new policy at the Ivy League school requires.
The $350 "health fee" for opting out of the school’s insurance plan was announced in a memo school President David Skorton posted on Cornell’s website last week, according to higher education blog The College Fix. But it is just setting in with the student body, and many attending the Ithaca, N.Y., school are not pleased. Under the Affordable Care Act, students must have insurance, but making those already covered pay an extra fee to skip the school's plan is not sitting well.
“Effective next academic year, 2015-16, we will be introducing a student health fee for those not enrolled in the Cornell Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP),” read the memo. “As a physician, parent and president, I am proud of our university's long history of providing quality medical, mental health, education and prevention services on campus. These essential services play a critical role in student well-being and, therefore, success. Yet funding these services — and creating access to them for all students — has been a growing fiscal challenge, and a personal concern of mine.”
The announcement sent students into a fervor, leading to a series of rallies on campus and hashtag activism, with #FightTheFee trending on the social media website.



Students who do not opt in to the $2,352 per year plan must pay the $350 fee, which “most likely” won’t be covered by financial aid, according to campus newspaper The Cornell Review. The newspaper also said the university plan is run through Aetna, whose CEO, Mark Bertolini, is a Cornell MBA grad. In addition the fee, students will have to pay a $10 co-pay fee when visiting the school’s health center.
The recent announcements prompted 150 students to storm the school’s main administrative building as well as Skorton’s office. Reports from the review suggest that the president had gotten into several “testy exchanges” with several students regarding their issue with the new policy.
Despite heavy opposition from the student body, it appears that Cornell is doubling down on the new policy. Cornell Vice President for Student and Academic Services Susan Murphy said in her own statement on Wednesday that “the fee is necessary to create a sustainable model for health services while also increasing accessibility and protecting student privacy.
“It is our responsibility to work together, to make sure everyone in our community who needs help gets it. That is a burden, and a benefit, we all share,” She said.

Pols warn Obama actions could let illegal immigrants who paid no taxes get gov’t payouts

Lawmakers are warning that President Obama's immigration executive actions could open the door for millions of illegal immigrants to qualify for hefty tax "credits" regardless of whether they've filed or paid taxes in the past.
All they need is a Social Security number.
Obama's November announcement paves the way for up to 4 million illegal immigrants to obtain Social Security numbers and work permits. After some initial confusion, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress this week that this would make them eligible for what's known as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) providing they've been working.
"If you get a Social Security number, you can then file for this year if you're working, and if you earned income in the three years before that and filed, you'll be eligible," Koskinen told a House oversight committee hearing.
Further, he said, they would likely be able to get that credit even if they hadn't filed for three years. According to some estimates, the tax credit combined with others could add up to billions over the next decade.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is what's known as a refundable tax credit, intended for working people who have low to moderate incomes. The average credit varies based on their number of children, but can be worth over $6,000 per year.
For critics of Obama's immigration plan, the potential for illegal immigrants to claim this once they're in the program represents another problem. 
"These are not tax 'refunds' but direct, free cash payments from the U.S. treasury to low-income illegal immigrants who owe no taxes," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement. "It is a dramatic cash transfer from lawful residents to unlawful residents, required by the president's imperial amnesty.
"There can be no legal or moral justification for rewarding illegal entrants in this way. Not only is it unfair to strapped taxpayers, but it will encourage countless more to enter the U.S. illegally or to illegally overstay their visas."
During a Senate Finance Committee hearing earlier this month, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, noted that a top IRS official determined as far back as 2000 that individuals granted what's known as "deferred action" -- which is the term for what Obama is using -- would "be able to amend returns for the previous years to claim the EITC for years they worked illegally in the United States once they obtain their Social Security number."
In other words, illegal immigrants granted de facto legal status by the Obama administration in the coming months could qualify for credits this year, and even retroactively for past years, whether they paid taxes or not.
In a letter sent last week to Treasury inspector general, Sens. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., noted that "under EITC rules, anyone eligible for the program can also ask for payments to cover the three prior years as well. This means that an illegal alien with a new Social Security Number can get a payment of more than $24,000 for years they were working illegally."
This issue comes to light as Republicans in Congress aim to the undo Obama's executive actions. House Republicans recently passed a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that includes a rider reversing Obama's immigration actions. The bill is currently stuck in the Senate.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, giving a sense of what these credits are worth, recently released an estimate showing the passage of the 2015 DHS funding bill would decrease government payouts for the EITC, as well as child tax credits, by $10.2 billion over the next 10 years. 
Presuming Obama's immigration actions go forward as planned, they could be adding to an already growing taxpayer tab for illegal immigrant credits and benefits. A 2011 inspector general report found taxpayer money paid to illegal immigrants claiming the separate child tax credit had quadrupled over a five-year period to $4.2 billion in 2010.

Embattled Oregon Gov. Kitzhaber announces resignation

Crying cause her Sugar Daddy lost his job?

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber announced Friday he would resign amid a mounting ethics scandal involving him and his fiancée -- even as he remained defiant, lashing out at the media and former allies. 
“I am announcing today that I will resign as governor of the state of Oregon,” Kitzhaber said in a written statement. 
The resignation, which will go into effect Wednesday, marks the end of one of the longest political careers in Oregon’s history. Last month, Kitzhaber was sworn in to serve an unprecedented fourth term as the state's governor. 
But the rapidly accelerating political pressure to resign, coupled with various investigations and intense media scrutiny, proved too much to withstand. The governor took a few parting shots at his critics in his statement on Friday, calling it "deeply troubling to me to realize that we have come to a place in the history of this great state of ours where a person can be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by the media with no due process and no independent verification of the allegations involved."
He added: "But even more troubling -- and on a very personal level as someone who has given 35 years of public service to Oregon -- is that so many of my former allies in common cause have been willing to simply accept this judgment at its face value. It is something that is hard for me to comprehend -- something we might expect in Washington, D.C. but surely not in Oregon.” 
Two days ago, Kitzhaber had said he had no intention of resigning, despite growing pressure from almost every single top lawmaker in Oregon, including his friends and one-time political allies.
“It is not in my nature to walk away from a job I have undertaken — it is to stand and fight for the cause,” he wrote in his lengthy statement Friday. Kitzhaber maintained he has broken no laws but understands he has “become a liability to the very institutions and policies to which I have dedicated my career and, indeed, my entire adult life.”
The decision capped a wild week in which Kitzhaber seemed poised to step down, then changed his mind, but ultimately bowed to calls from legislative leaders that he quit the state's top job. 
Secretary of State Kate Brown, a Democrat like Kitzhaber, was expected to assume the office and become the first openly bisexual governor in the country. Unlike most states, Oregon does not have a lieutenant governor, and the state Constitution puts the secretary of state next in line.
Kitzhaber has been embroiled in a series of controversies involving his fiancee Cylvia Hayes. The pressure mounted earlier this week. First, the state attorney general, who is also a Democrat, confirmed she had opened a criminal investigation. Then, the governor summoned the secretary of state from Washington, D.C., to meet with him, only to inform her he would not resign -- the governor, according to the Associated Press, briefly decided to resign, and then changed his mind while the secretary of state was en route to Oregon.
Then on Thursday, the two top-ranking Democrats in the legislature called on Kitzhaber to step down.
Kitzhaber had hired prominent Portland criminal defense attorney Janet Hoffman amid the drama. Investigations, including another reportedly launched by the FBI, center around Hayes, who has pocketed more than $200,000 as a consultant during the same time she was the acting first lady as well as an adviser to the governor.
On Thursday, Oregon’s Senate President Peter Courtney said he and House Speaker Tina Kotek both asked Kitzhaber to step down.
“I finally said, ‘This has got to stop,’” Courtney said after he and Kotek met with the governor. “I don’t know what else to do right now. It seems to be escalating. It seems to be getting worse and worse.”
The spiral marks a remarkable fall for a politician in his fourth term as governor, and who has been an elected leader in Oregon for 37 years.

In close vote, Utah House OKs firing-squad proposal

A hotly contested proposal that resurrects Utah's use of firing squads to carry out executions narrowly passed a key vote Friday in the state's Legislature after three missing lawmakers were summoned to break a tie vote.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 39-34 Friday morning to approve the measure, sending it to an uncertain fate in the state's GOP-controlled Senate. Leaders in that chamber have thus far declined to say if they'll support it, and Utah's Republican Gov. Gary Herbert won't say if he'll sign it.
Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, a Republican from Sandy, again declined to tell reporters on Friday if he'd support it.
Rep. Paul Ray, a Republican from Clearfield who is sponsoring the measure, said after the vote Friday that he thinks it will be just as close in the Senate, and he hasn't started trying to press his case in that chamber.
Lawmakers in House of Representatives initially voted 35-35 on the proposal Friday morning. But Ray asked for three missing lawmakers to be summoned to the floor, where they all voted in favor.
During that time, Riverton Republican Rep. Dan McCay switched to vote in favor, allowing the measure to pass 39-34. When asked later by The Associated Press about the switch, McCay smiled and walked away without commenting.
Ray argues that a team of trained marksmen is faster and more humane than the drawn-out deaths that have occurred in botched lethal injections. His bill would call for a firing squad if Utah cannot get lethal injection drugs 30 days before an execution.
Critics say the firing squad is a gruesome relic of Utah's Wild West past and would bring international condemnation upon the state. That criticism and excessive media attention was one of the reasons many lawmakers voted in 2004 to stop allowing condemned prisoners to choose death by firing squad.
A handful of inmates on Utah's death row were sentenced before the law changed and still have the option of going before a firing squad in a few years once they have exhausted any appeals. It was last used in 2010 when Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by five police officers with .30-caliber Winchester rifles.
For years, states used a three-drug combination to execute inmates. But European drug makers have refused to sell the drugs to prisons and corrections departments out of opposition to the death penalty.
Drug shortages and troubles with administering lethal injections have led several states to begin revisiting alternatives during the past year
A bill to allow firing squad executions is working its way through Wyoming's Legislature, while lawmakers in Oklahoma are considering legislation that would allow that state to use nitrogen gas to execute inmates.
Ray has argued the firing squad is the fastest, most reliable method and the most humane way to kill someone.
The Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment, says that a firing squad is not a foolproof method because the inmate could move or shooters could miss the heart, causing a slower, more painful death. One such case appears to have happened in Utah's territorial days back in 1879, when a firing squad missed Wallace Wilkerson's heart and it took him 27 minutes to die, according to newspaper accounts.
Several opponents of the firing squad bill and the death penalty in general said they were disappointed by Friday's vote but encouraged that it passed on such a slim margin.
"The fact that it was so close in our state is really exciting," said Anna Brower with the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah. "I think there are legislators who, while they may have complicated feelings about the death penalty, understand that this particular method is not good advertising for Utah."

Iran's supreme leader wrote letter to Obama, report says

Iran’s supreme leader reportedly sent a secret letter to President Obama responding to his calls to improve relations between the two countries.
The Wall Street Journal reports Iran’s top political figure Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote to Obama in recent weeks responding to the president raising the possibility of cooperation in fighting the Islamic State terror group if a nuclear deal is secured.
However, the Iranian cleric’s response was “respectful,” but noncommittal, an Iranian diplomat told the journal. A senior White House official declined to confirm the existence of the letter.
U.S. officials told the paper that a letter sent in Obama’s first term outlined 60 years of abuses the supreme leader says the U.S. committed against the people of Iran. 
One White House official confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that Obama received the letter in 2009.
The letter signified the thawing of frozen ties between the U.S. and Iran. However, the effort to knock the wall down between the two counties comes at a crossroads as the U.S. set a deadline to yield an agreement in its nuclear negotiations or Washington will take steps to deny the country any possibility of making a nuclear bomb.
Obama has said the breakdown in negotiations could fuel even more instability in the Middle East and undercut U.S. efforts to combat ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria, whom Iran is also waging war against.
Iran and the U.S. have previously failed to reach an agreement in the nuclear discussions. When talks broke down last, Khamenei said he would not approve a “bad deal.”

Obama Cartoon

Taxpayers getting an education? Obama student loan forgiveness program swells by $22B

The cost of President Obama's student loan forgiveness program has ballooned by nearly $22 billion over initial projections, raising alarm among budget hawks -- even as the government promises taxpayers eventually will come out ahead. 
The figure was included in Obama's recently released budget proposal. 
In budget-speak, the Department of Education summary said: "The 2015 amount includes a net upward reestimate of $21.8 billion, primarily related to revised interest rates and increased participation in income-driven repayment plans." 
In other words, swelling enrollment due to looser loan rules is driving up costs -- a lot. 
Critics point to recent changes in the program. Among them was the PAYE, or Pay As You Earn, program allowing students to cap loan payments at 10 percent of their incomes. It was the result of legislation Congress passed and Obama signed in 2010. The law also allows for loan forgiveness after 20 years of payments, and after 10 years for those in "public service" -- a broad category that includes government and nonprofit workers. 
"They didn't account for the market risk in making these loans," said Romina Boccia, a budget fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 
In 2013, 124,000 people enrolled in the PAYE plan. A year later, Obama directed the secretary of education to propose regulations to potentially cap loans for another 5 million people. The loan program changes and expansions tacked on the extra $22 billion to the price tag. 
The number pales in comparison to total student debt. All told, Americans have $1.13 trillion in student loans outstanding, according to the most recent data from The Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
A White House Office of Management and Budget official told FoxNews.com that "revisions are not uncommon." The office countered claims that there is a "shortfall," as some other media outlets have reported. Essentially, the program expanded and the budget office accounted for that expansion over the entire life of the program. 
The official touted benefits to taxpayers, claiming the changes help students avoid default and even strengthen the economy. 
OMB and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office maintain that the federal government will make money over the life of the loans. That's because, they say, even after accounting for anticipated defaults, the government borrows money at a much cheaper rate than the interest it charges to borrowers of student loans. 
Others aren't so confident taxpayers will come out ahead. 
It's "hard to see how this is going to come out as a net positive as the administration predicts," said Steve Ellis, with Taxpayers for Common Sense. 
The budget watchdog group has welcomed past reforms the government has made regarding student loans, but is watching this situation closely to see whether it is a one-time budget hit, as the OMB contends, or an ongoing problem. 
Ellis wants to make sure the loan forgiveness program meets Americans' priorities. 
"Is it too generous?" Ellis asks. "Is it hitting the right people?" 
Boccia contends the government should view risk the way private lenders would, something known as Fair Value Accounting. 
The government doesn't use Fair Value Accounting, but rather follows the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, or FCRA, when making projections. It has found those numbers more accurate, because unlike a bank, the federal government doesn't need to turn a profit and is better able to diversify. 
Lindsey Burke, an education fellow at the Heritage Foundation, sees a problem. 
"Somebody pays for that loan forgiveness," Burke said. "And that is the three-quarters of Americans who don't have bachelor's degrees themselves." 
The subsidies also may be driving up the cost of education, a concept known as The Bennett Hypothesis (after President Reagan's Education Secretary William Bennett), which Burke believes drives "the vicious lending and spending cycle." It's evident that education costs have risen, but studies on the effects of subsidies are tougher to tease out. 
The Obama administration has promised it is working on slowing the soaring costs, for instance, by showing prospective borrowers what they're getting for their money.

'Tragedy': Hunter accidentally killed famed 'Grand Canyon' gray wolf

Hundred of miles from its Wyoming home, "914F" wandered to the rocky North Rim of the Grand Canyon last fall—the first gray wolf spotted there in 70 years, the Arizona Republic notes—before heading into Utah, likely searching for food or a mate.
But in December, the wolf's journey came to an end after a hunter there mistook her for a coyote and shot her dead, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.
Using DNA testing, the US Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed the 3-year-old collared animal was the same one seen at the Grand Canyon, the Republic notes.
"It is nothing short of a tragedy that this wolf's journey across the west was cut short," Eva Sargent, a director for Defenders of Wildlife, tells the Chronicle.
"This brave and ambitious female gray wolf … had already become a symbol of what gray wolf recovery should look like: animals naturally dispersing to find suitable habitat." Gray wolves weren't always isolated to certain parts of the country: All of North America used to be their home, Defenders of Wildlife notes, but they were killed off throughout much the US in the 1930s.
What's worrying some animal advocates is that the federal government is considering removing endangered-species status from gray wolves in all regions: When they were delisted from the Northern Rockies, mass killings of the creatures took place in multiple states, including Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
"Sadly, with the US Fish and Wildlife Service preparing to remove all protections for gray wolves, except for Mexican gray wolves, in the near future, it will become harder and harder for wolves to travel safely, and less … likely that we will hear their howls echo through places like the Grand Canyon," Sargent tells the Chronicle.

Dems urge Oregon governor to resign, top official reveals ‘strange’ behavior

Embattled Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber faced stiff pressure from top-ranking fellow Democrats to resign on Thursday, shortly after the state's No. 2 official issued a statement describing the governor's recent behavior as "strange" and contradictory. 
The latest calls to resign -- in the wake of influence-peddling allegations involving his fiancee Cylvia Hayes, a green-energy consultant -- came from the upper echelons of Oregon's government. Senate President Peter Courtney told reporters Thursday afternoon that he and House Speaker Tina Kotek have asked for Kitzhaber to step down. 
"I finally said, `This has got to stop,"' Courtney said after he and Kotek met with the governor. "I don't know what else to do right now. It seems to be escalating. It seems to be getting worse and worse." 
His remarks came after Secretary of State Kate Brown, who would be in line to succeed Kitzhaber should he step down, issued a statement calling this a "bizarre and unprecedented situation." 
Brown had been summoned back to Oregon by the governor on Wednesday while she was attending a conference in Washington. Her abrupt return to Oregon fueled speculation that the governor was planning to resign. 
Sources told The Associated Press that, in fact, he had decided to step down amid the ethics controversy involving his fiancée but changed his mind while Brown was en route back to Oregon. 
In her statement, Brown described how Kitzhaber gave her conflicting messages. 
She said she first heard from the governor late Tuesday afternoon. "He asked me to come back to Oregon as soon as possible to speak with him in person and alone," Brown said. 
But when she arrived for the meeting with the governor on Wednesday, Brown said, "He asked me why I came back early from Washington, D.C., which I found strange." 
According to Brown, he also sent conflicting signals about his future plans when she asked what he wanted to talk about. 
"The Governor told me he was not resigning, after which, he began a discussion about transition," she said, adding that she told the governor she would be ready "should he resign." 
Pressure to do so grew significantly on Thursday. The state treasurer also joined in the call for Kitzhaber to step down. "Unfortunately, the current situation has become untenable, and I cannot imagine any scenario by which things improve," said Treasurer Ted Wheeler, another Democrat. "Oregon deserves a governor who is fully focused on the duties of state." 
Until Thursday's statement, Brown also had avoided weighing in on the controversy surrounding Kitzhaber. Her move further isolates him from other senior Democrats, none of whom have come to his aid. 
It's not clear why Kitzhaber, a four-term governor who handily won re-election in November, decided he would stay put despite the mounting criticism. He issued a vague statement on Wednesday explaining he was not resigning. 
"I was elected to do a job for the people of this great state, and I intend to continue to do so," Kitzhaber said, repeating a refrain he's uttered at least twice in the past two weeks. 
Newspaper editorial boards and Republicans have called on him to leave office over allegations involving his fiancee, who has been under increasing scrutiny since October, when a series of reports chronicled her work for organizations with an interest in Oregon public policy. That work came about when she was serving as an unpaid adviser in the governor's office. 
Amid the attention, Hayes revealed that she accepted about $5,000 to illegally marry an immigrant seeking immigration benefits in the 1990s. Later, she acknowledged purchasing a remote property with the intent to illegally grow marijuana. 
Kitzhaber has denied any wrongdoing, saying he and Hayes took steps to avoid conflicts of interest. Though questions about Hayes have swirled for months, the pressure on Kitzhaber intensified in recent weeks after newspapers raised questions about whether Hayes reported all her income to on her tax returns. 
In early February, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said she was launching a criminal investigation. 
A fiercely private person, Kitzhaber has been forced to answer embarrassing and personal questions about his relationship. In response to questions at a news conference last month, Kitzhaber told reporters that he's in love with Hayes, but he's not blinded by it.

US reportedly increases secret raids against Afghanistan insurgents

U.S. Special Forces soldiers and their Afghan allies have undertaken an increasing number of night raids targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants, despite Washington formally declaring an end to combat operations late last year, according to a published report. 
The New York Times reports that the increased raids are partially the result of intelligence seized in October of last year, when U.S. and Afghan commandos came upon a laptop computer with files detailing terror operations in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Military officials tell the paper that the information in the files could be as significant as what was found on a computer in Usama bin Laden's Pakistan compound after the terror leader was killed by Navy SEALs in 2011. 
The officials also said that another factor playing the role in the increased raids were loosened restrictions on nighttime operations put in place by the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani. Ghani has previously called for a slower withdrawal of U.S. troops from his country. Current plans call for the U.S. to go from about 10,800 troops there now to 5,500 by the end of this year.
The U.S. and its NATO allies formally announced the end of their combat mission in Afghanistan in December and trumpeted the withdrawal of most combat troops. However, under the terms of a security agreement with the Afghan government, just over 13,000 troops, most of them American, were to stay on in an advisory role. 
However, American and Afghan officials tell The Times that U.S. troops are taking a lead role in the latest counterterror raids, and not merely going along as advisers. The raids are also unusual in that they are coming during the winter, which is traditionally the season where the fighting is lightest. 
"It’s all in the shadows now," said a former Afghan security official told the paper. "The official war for the Americans — the part of the war that you could go see — that’s over. It’s only the secret war that’s still going. But it’s going hard."
News of the increased raids comes one day after the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he wants greater flexibility in in how quickly he pulls troops out of Afghanistan and where he can position them around the country in the coming months.
Gen. John Campbell said that by keeping more than 5,500 troops in Afghanistan through the end of the year, Campbell would be able to maintain forces in other locations around the country, both training the Afghan forces and providing support for more counterterrorism missions.
"I'm particularly concerned about the summer of 2015," Campbell said. "The Afghans — this is the very first fighting season completely on their own."

License Cartoon

Fox News Poll: Despite economic gains, many Americans just getting by

Sure, things are much better. Just not for me. 
That’s how many American voters view the economy, according to the latest Fox News poll. 
The number saying the country is still in a recession is down more than 20 percentage points since 2010. Yet the number saying their family is “falling behind” financially is the same. And while more people are getting ahead -- the largest portion is still just getting by.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
In 2010, an overwhelming 88 percent felt the country was in a recession. That’s down to 65 percent in the new poll, released Wednesday. That includes 37 percent who also think things are getting better and 28 percent who say things could get worse. 
The one-third (33 percent) who says the recession is over includes 18 percent who feel another could be coming. An optimistic 15 percent believe both the recession is completely over and the economy is recovering. That was three percent in 2010.
Republicans (42 percent) are much more likely than Democrats (13 percent) to think the country is still in a recession and things could get worse. 
When asked about their family’s finances, 31 percent say they are getting ahead. While still a minority, that’s up from 24 percent in 2013 and 27 percent in September 2009 (in the first year of President Obama’s first term).
Today about half -- 49 percent -- say they are “just able to pay most bills,” down from 54 percent in 2009.
Eighteen percent say they’re “falling behind.” It was 17 percent in 2009. 
Voters living in households with annual income over $50,000 are twice as likely as those with lower incomes to say they are getting ahead (42 percent vs. 20 percent).
Meanwhile, more voters are giving President Obama a thumbs-up on the economy: 46 percent approve of the job he’s doing, while 50 percent disapprove. In December, just two months ago, he was underwater by 12 points (43-55 percent). His all-time low rating on the economy came in August 2011 when 34 percent of voters approved and 62 percent disapproved. 
The president’s overall rating stands at 45 percent approval vs. 49 percent disapproval. This is the first time since August disapproval of Obama’s job performance has been below 50 percent. It was 42-52 percent a month ago (January 11-13, 2015). 
Obama’s recently-proposed federal budget includes new spending on infrastructure as well as domestic programs -- plus a pay raise for federal workers. People like that idea -- as long as someone else pays for it.
By a 61-38 percent margin, voters oppose Obama’s proposal if their taxes would go up. However, if taxes only go up on “people who earn more” than they do, voters reverse and support it by 53-44 percent. 
All in all, do people want the government to do more? Not really. Forty-nine percent think the government is providing too many services for too many people. That’s down from 54 percent in 2014. 
About one in four (23 percent) believes the government is doing too little for too few. That’s mostly unchanged from last year (24 percent) and up a touch from 20 percent in 2012.
Another 22 percent of voters feel services are being provided at the right level, up from 19 percent (2014).
The poll also asks voters what the federal government should be doing right now -- cutting or spending. A 56-percent majority thinks the government should be cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reducing regulations, while 40 percent prioritize expanding domestic programs and increasing spending on infrastructure.
Republicans think Uncle Sam should be cutting taxes and reducing regulations by a wide 54-point margin (75-21 percent). Democrats go for expanding programs and increasing spending -- but by a much smaller 18-point margin (58-40 percent).
Pollpourri
A whopping 21 percent of voters approve of the job Congress is doing. The last time approval of Congress was above the teens was June 2011. Seventy-two percent still disapprove. 
The Fox News poll is conducted by telephone with live interviewers under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). The 1,044 registered voters were reached via landline and cell phone numbers randomly selected for inclusion in this nationwide survey from February 8-10, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Oregon governor reportedly changed his mind about resigning over ethics controversy

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber decided to resign over the weekend amid an ethics scandal involving his fiancée, but later changed his mind for reasons that remain unclear, according to a published report. 
The Associated Press reported late Wednesday that Kitzhaber, a Democrat, informed some of his aides on Sunday that he was going to step down. On Tuesday, Kitzhaber asked Oregon secretary of state Kate Brown to return from a conference in Washington D.C. Since Oregon does not have a lieutenant governor, Brown would taken Kitzhaber's place until a special election could be held. 
However, on Wednesday, Kitzhaber's office issued a two-sentence statement saying he would remain in office. 
"Let me be as clear as I was last week, that I have no intention of resigning as Governor of the state of Oregon," Kitzhaber said. "I was elected to do a job for the people of this great state and I intend to continue to do so."
Kitzhaber, who was re-elected to a second consecutive term as governor in November, has faced calls to resign after a series of newspaper reports revealed that his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, did paid consulting work for organizations with an interest in Oregon public policy. During the same period, she worked as an unpaid adviser in the governor's office on some of the same issues. Kitzhaber has said repeatedly that he and Hayes took care to avoid conflicts, and a state ethics commission will decide whether conflict-of-interest laws were broken.
State Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has launched in an investigation into the allegations, which she has previously called "very serious" and "troubling."
Earlier this month, The Oregonian, the state's largest newspaper, called for Kitzhaber to step down in an editorial.
Emails released to the paper last week by the Department of Administrative Services showed Hayes instructed state officials to help implement a policy known as the genuine progress indicator, which she was being paid to promote.
The genuine progress indicator is an alternative to the gross domestic product, which uses health and environmental data to help measure economic success. Hayes was paid by Demos, a New York-based nonprofit, to promote the policy.
The records also show that Kitzhaber himself intervened to urge Jordan to hire a former Maryland official who worked on the genuine progress indicator in that state, the newspaper reported. He was eventually hired on a yearlong contract worth about $65,000.

VA secretary asks Iraq War veteran: 'What have you done?'

WASHINGTON –  Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald on Wednesday asked a Republican lawmaker who served in both Iraq wars, "What have you done?" as the two men sparred over huge cost overruns at a troubled Denver VA hospital.
McDonald was defending the VA's budget at a hearing when he and Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman tussled over construction delays and cost increases at the long-delayed hospital project.
After a few minutes of arguing, McDonald snapped at Coffman: "I've run a large company, sir. What have you done?"
Coffman, an Army veteran, did not respond at the hearing. But the four-term lawmaker said in a statement later that he could tell McDonald a few things he hasn't done.
"I have never run a federal agency that tolerates corruption the way the VA has. I've never built a hospital that's years behind schedule and hundreds of millions over budget. And I've never been a shill for inept bureaucrats who allowed American heroes to die on a medical waiting list," he said.
The last comment was a reference to a wait-time scandal that cost former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki his job. McDonald, a former Procter & Gamble CEO, took over as VA secretary in July. He has vowed to improve VA's delivery of services such as health care and disability benefits and make it a "model" for other government agencies.
The dust-up started when Coffman criticized the VA for citing its legal efforts to defend the Denver hospital project as a major accomplishment.
"How is that a success?" Coffman asked. "You lost that case on every single point for the hospital in my district that is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule."
"I think that that's just characteristic of your glossing over the extraordinary problems confronted by your department," Coffman added. "This is a department mired in bureaucratic incompetence and corruption."
McDonald said he was offended by Coffman's remarks and noted that he had only been on the job for six months.
"You've been here longer than I have. If there's a problem in Denver, I think you own it more than I do," he told Coffman.
McDonald then offered to give Coffman his cellphone, "and you can answer some of the calls and see if I'm making a difference for veterans."

Intel officials tight-lipped on American militant fighters back in US, admit tracking is difficult

U.S. intelligence officials declined to say Wednesday exactly how many Americans who went overseas to fight with foreign militant groups have returned to U.S. soil to pose a terror threat -- but acknowledged difficulties in identifying them and noted some have likely returned undetected.
“We know what we know, but we understand there is intelligence we don’t have,” Nicholas Rasmussen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testified on Capitol Hill. “But it’s possible there are great numbers.”
He was joined before the GOP-led House Committee on Homeland Security by Michael Steinbach, an FBI counterterrorism expert, who told members: “This is a number we don’t know about,” regardless of the best intelligence.
Officials testified that roughly 20,000 people from around the world -- including at least 3,400 from Western countries -- have flocked to join the Islamic State and other extremist groups.
Rasmussen said the rate is “without precedent” and far exceeds anything similar in the past 20 years.
Officials think as many as 150 Americans have tried to reach the Syrian war zone. FBI Director James Comey said a few months ago that “about a dozen” had reached the zone and were actually fighting.
One known person is Douglas McAuthur McCain. The 33-year-old Californian died in August while fighting with the Islamic State near Aleppo, Syria.
However, the number identified as having returned to the United States is classified.
Committee Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, called Islamic State fighters “barbaric terrorists” whom U.S. officials “must keep out of the homeland to protect the American people.”
Officials said that foreign fighters with the Islamic State pose a particularly dangerous threat of returning to the West and carrying out deadly terror strikes, considering they return with battle-ground experience, explosives training and access to a network of terror-related groups.
At least one of the men responsible for the attack last month on a satirical magazine in Paris had spent time with Islamic extremists in Yemen.
Rasmussen and Steinbeck were also joined at the hearing -- titled “The Urgent Threat of Foreign Fighters and Homegrown Terror” -- by Francis Taylor, a Homeland Security Department under secretary. He said officials have no information right now about any imminent, credible domestic terror threat.
The State Department did not send a witness, which McCaul called “very disappointing.”
McCaul also expressed concern about the Obama administration not having one federal agency in charge of countering the increasingly successful efforts by radical Islamic groups to convert Americans via social media without their having to leave U.S. soil. He also argued that none of the key federal departments or agencies have dedicated -- or “line item” -- spending for such efforts.
The intelligence officials also testified that a major problem in tracking foreign fighters overseas is that the U.S. Embassy in Syria is closed and the CIA has no permanent presence on the ground in that country.
"Once in Syria, it is very difficult to discern what happens there," Steinbach said. "This lack of clarity remains troubling."
The officials repeatedly said U.S. agencies continue to share information and work together on counterterrorism efforts.
However, they identified two other major concerns -- the need to improve information sharing with European countries and tracking foreign fighters engaged in what they called “broken travel” or hopscotching between countries by different modes of transportation to avoid detection.
“The volume and diversity of recruits flowing to and from the conflict areas make disruption especially challenging,” Rasmussen said. “There is no single pipeline for foreign fighter travel into and out of Syria. Violent extremists take different routes, including land, air, and sea.”
He also said most go through neighboring Turkey, which has signed visa, free-travel agreements with more than 69 governments. But he acknowledged the country has stepped up its efforts to deny entry to potential foreign fighters.
Another major concern was the State Department’s interest in resettling tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in the U.S.
McCaul called the idea a potentially “federally funded jihadi pipeline.”
Taylor said he also was “concerned” and that the State Department would need to look at watch lists to see if there was a connection to terrorist groups.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Relics Cartoon