Want jobs? Nebraska reforms have more people working, fewer on welfare and food stamps

Pete Ricketts has said his parents taught him a simple truth: Every job is important, so whatever you do, be the best you can be at it. As governor of Nebraska, Ricketts is living that lesson by setting a standard for governors around the country with policies that make it easier for Nebraskans to get back to work.
Under Ricketts’ leadership, Nebraska has made giant strides in removing barriers to work and entrepreneurship. He’s made it easier for more people to find jobs, and he’s made it easier for businesses to create lots of good jobs. The results have been undeniable – Forbes recently ranked the state as the fourth-best place to do business.
Why should you care about this if you don’t live in Nebraska? Because Ricketts’ success in Nebraska can serve as a roadmap that other states can follow to get people working by moving them more quickly from unemployment to reemployment, transitioning able-bodied adults from welfare to work, and removing unnecessary barriers to work by recognizing the needs of employers.
By focusing on re-employment rather than unemployment, Nebraska has gotten so many people back to work that the state has its lowest unemployment rate since 1999, and boasts one of the nation’s lowest unemployment rates.
Better still, the number of workers who exhaust their unemployment benefits has dropped by 30 percent – even during times when the state’s unemployment rate has increased. That’s a powerful sign that the system is working as it should, serving as a temporary safety net for workers who are actively looking for – and finding – new jobs.
Workers finding jobs faster means fewer unemployment claims. In fact, the total number of benefit weeks claimed dropped by a fifth between 2015 and 2016 alone.
As a result of this commonsense approach, Nebraska saved nearly $14 million in 2016 by reducing the number of unemployment benefit payments it handed out – just from getting people back to work faster.
And because the state government is spending less money, it can take less from taxpayers. This is why Nebraska is cutting its unemployment insurance tax, a move that will generate over $17 million more for businesses to spend on even more hiring, plant expansions, research and development spending, and creating future jobs.
The state’s focus on re-employment extends to welfare programs, as well – a welcome change from the course of dependence that so many states have chosen in the past.
Nebraska requires able-bodied childless adults on food stamps to work, train, or volunteer at least part-time. And a new pilot initiative connects able-bodied adults on food stamps with job training from the Department of Labor to help them find jobs with higher wages and benefits.
Participating families were able to increase their annual income by more than $10,000 on average, and half were able to end their dependence on food stamps entirely. The benefits are threefold: families move off welfare and become self-sufficient, taxpayer resources are preserved for the truly needy, and newly available workers are able to fill open jobs.
The governor and the Nebraska Legislature have also tackled barriers to work created by occupational licensing. Nearly 25 percent of Nebraskans need the government’s permission to do their jobs – from barbers to nurses. Ricketts saw another way that provides a pathway to work, not a roadblock. Last year, Nebraska enacted a law allowing spouses of active military service members who are stationed in the state to ensure their nursing licenses are honored.
In addition, the state has considered other measures that would make Nebraska more competitive for workers and businesses alike by reducing red tape surrounding work.
All work has dignity – and work is the best way to lift a family out of dependence and poverty. In Nebraska, thousands more are living their own American Dream because of the leadership and results of Gov. Ricketts.

Hollywood's blatant discrimination -- no conservatives nor Christians need apply

Lost in all the recent “Rosanne loves Trump” television frenzy is the much larger and much more dangerous issue of unethical and illegal discrimination practiced by liberals in Hollywood.
It is pervasive and growing.
When asked about Rosanne’s character being a Trump supporter, one of the executive producers of the show spoke about the dread it was creating in the writer’s room.  “Most writers – including me – are more liberal…I’m no fan of Trump at all.  Some people (liberal writers) were new to the show.  We had to keep reminding them that this is not how we feel.”
Last year, Disney-owned ABC cancelled the still widely popular show titled “Last Man Standing.”
Tim Allen, who played the very likeable and very conservative Mike Baxter on the hit show believed that one of the reasons Disney and ABC wanted the show off the air was because:  “There is nothing more dangerous now than a likable conservative.”
What is of real interest is that ABC cancelled the show despite the fact that, as Allen confirmed, the writing staff was – no surprise -- “Very Liberal.”
Allen spoke of the real pain caused to the one hundred and ninety staff members and their families when the show was cancelled.

He then pointed towards the children section of the bookstore. “It starts there,” he said. “While publishers will never admit there is a ‘liberal-litmus’ test, they know the background and beliefs of the authors they sign as well as…the ones they no longer sign.”

One could easily surmise that Disney-ABC would rather put fellow liberals out of work than have a “likable conservative” on the air in the era of Donald Trump.  
What must not get glossed over in all of this is that Hollywood – like much of the mainstream media and academia – blatantly discriminates against conservatives, Republicans and even Christians with impunity.
They break the law on a regular basis and there is never any accountability.
Why?  Because liberals have gained a strangle-hold on the three major megaphones of our nation – the media, entertainment and academia -- through years of illegal and unethical discrimination and now work overtime to cover it up.
As history has taught us, totalitarian domination of any government, institution or medium only leads to the immoral, inexcusable, and often criminal treatment of those being shut out or persecuted.
With the continued vile attacks against First Lady Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah, Second Lady Karen Pence, HUD Secretary Ben Carson, Vice President Mike Pence and President Donald Trump, we see merely snippets of this unchecked and abusive power.
Not only are liberals allowed to discriminate against Republicans, conservatives and Christians without fear of accountability, but they smear those they oppose with misogynistic, bigoted, racist and bigoted terms.
As part of the larger “entertainment” world, book publishing is also coming to be monopolized by the left.
On a recent trip to London, I sat down with the owner and manager of a book store who previously worked for a major publisher.  By his own admission, he described himself as “very liberal.”
As we talked, I asked him if he felt that conservative and Christian authors were being discriminated against by certain publishers?
“Unfortunately, yes,” was his answer.  “Maybe not in a deliberate and overt way, but more as a result of human nature.”
He then went on to explain that over the last couple of decades more and more liberals had risen to the top of the publishing world both in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States.  He further stated that while few in publishing would want to admit it, “Human nature dictates that we tend to hire people who think like us, look like us and then act like us.”
Hence, discrimination.
As we were having coffee, I asked him if there were any conservatives or supporters of Prime Minister Theresa May working in his bookstore?
“No,” he said in a somewhat embarrassed way.  “And I dare say, not in other bookstores as well.  It’s that ‘discrimination by human nature’ thing again.  The owners and managers are liberal, therefore we tend to hire liberal staff.”
He then stressed, “The trend now in publishing, at least in the minds of those who control it, to level the playing field and publish minority, female, minority-female, and politically-correct authors.  All liberal and all I am sorry to say, at the expense of conservative and Christian authors.”
He then pointed towards the children section of the bookstore.
“It starts there,” he said.  “If you look at the authors of most new children’s books, you will notice the trend right away.  While publishers will never admit there is a ‘liberal-litmus’ test, they know the background and beliefs of the authors they sign as well as…the ones they no longer sign.”
“Meaning conservatives and Christians?”  I asked.
 “Precisely.”
As one of those “conservative and Christians,” I denounce discrimination of any type.  Period.  If you are liberal, a non-Christian, an atheist, a Democrat, or a minority from any category and want to contribute to the public arena in a civil way, I will fight as hard as anyone for your right to do so.
None of us are infallible.  All of us can be wrong.  All of us should have an open mind to thoughts and positions counter to our own.
Discrimination and blacklisting against conservative and Christian thought in Hollywood, in music, in the mainstream media, and in academia has gone well beyond anything seen in the “McCarthy Era.”
Which liberals in those fields will have the honesty to admit it and the courage to condemn it?

Has the California backlash against liberal craziness finally begun?

California's red-leaning areas may be rising up against the state's longstanding liberalism.

In a state consumed by conservation and environmental issues, one highly endangered species has long gone unnoticed and unprotected – the California Conservative.  Is it still possible to rescue them from the brink of extinction?  Can their numbers be revived?  And can they thrive here once again?
While the nation continues to view California as a homogeneous voting block of individuals in lock step with an increasingly progressive liberal agenda, for Common Sense Californians up and down the left coast state, there’s a sense that a different tide is rising.
The ripple began in Los Alamitos where the city council voted to opt out of California’s sanctuary law.  And it was followed by Orange County who voted to join the U.S. Department of Justice in challenging the state’s sanctuary city laws.  This decision was echoed by the city of Escondido and later this month San Diego County will also vote to join their ranks in this federal lawsuit.  Other municipalities are lining up to consider doing the same.
California has always been the tip of the spear.  Often the genesis of art, influence, ideas, style and entertainment, we also take the lead in ways that are less admirable with high state tax, high gas tax, high costs of living and housing, an out of control homeless problem in our urban areas, declining test scores in schools, increasingly inaccessible and cost-prohibitive health care, and many of our major cities often appear on lists of the least-livable cities in the U.S.
A supermajority of Democrats at the state level has presided over a tragic decline in virtually every statistic and has championed expensive and detrimental ideas such as the multi-state tax, a failing high speed rail project and of course the most recent sanctuary state status.  These consequential endeavors are concocted in the cocoon of Sacramento, isolated and unconnected to the effect those decisions have on everyone else who lives in the state. They spend money as if it’s theirs.  It’s not.  It’s mine and every other taxpayer’s in California.  Yet we have no voice and many of our representatives no longer represent us, if they ever did.

Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State.

For those of us who don’t make the policies, but must live under them, we feel Sacramento’s presence in our daily lives in ways - and in places - we shouldn’t.  In our grocery stores if you want to take your purchases home in a bag, there’s a per bag fee.  (As my own personal protest, I don’t pay for bags and just throw all the items back in my cart and loose into the back of my car.)  And in the most ridiculous and egregious example of overreach, the state legislature says it will arrest any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw if they don’t ask for one.  With all the problems in our state, I don’t think that jailing unsolicited straw distributors in restaurants should be a top priority. 
But common sense has not prevailed here for a long time.  Nor has democracy.  With a jungle primary system in our elections, the top two candidates in the primary go on to the general election – regardless of party.  So what this meant in the 2016 election is that nearly 800,000 Californians only had one Republican on their entire ballot to vote for – Donald Trump.  Is the left so afraid of democracy that they must tip the scales in their own favor to prevent a different view point or ideology?  And how surprised would people across the nation be to see what the 2016 electoral map of California looked like when broken down by county, not just painted with one big coat of blue from top to bottom?
Surprising, but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.
It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand.  And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight.  In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy.
For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status.  This is not a partisan issue.  This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here – and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.
When over 1 million Californians who are here illegally now have California driver’s licenses, and when Californians have paid into the state’s higher education system and have a difficult time accessing it, and then when they do, they pay fees that illegals don’t pay, it’s no wonder why Common Sense Californians are outraged.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party.  When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me.”  That seems to be a sentiment being echoed by Common Sense Californians up and down the state as many blue blood Democrats and Reagan Democrats feel like their party no longer reflects their values or priorities.  Though it’s unlikely that a singular candidate or issue will fully unite the state, California would be smart to put forth common sense candidates who are talking to – and listening to – common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle.  Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State – not in Sacramento – but in cities and counties where common sense Californians still reside.
Peggy Grande is author of "The President Will See You Now", a keynote speaker and a specialty project consultant. She was the executive assistant to president Ronald Reagan from 1989 – 1999.

Russia blames Israel for deadly airstrike on Assad base after alleged chemical attack

Russia on Monday blamed the Israeli Air Force for the deadly airstrike on a Bashar al-Assad air base after a suspected chemical attack killed at least 40 in a Damascus suburb over the weekend.
Russia's Defense Ministry said two Israeli fighter jets launched the attack on the T4 air base in central Syria from Lebanon's air space.
Syria shot down five out of the eight missiles that targeted the base, the ministry said. It said the other three landed in the western part of the T4 base.
The airstrikes reportedly killed 14 people, including Iranians, at a military airport near the city of Homs.
A Syrian military official also said Israel was behind the attack.
Israel has struck inside Syria in recent years. No country has taken credit for the airstrike.
Saturday's chemical attack unfolded in a rebel-held town near Damascus amid a resumed offensive by Syrian government forces after the collapse of a truce.
Syrian activists, rescuers and medics said a poison gas attack in Douma killed at least 40 people, with families found suffocated in their houses and shelters. The reports could not immediately be independently verified.
Images released by the Syrian Civil Defense White Helmets, a volunteer organization, showed children lying on the ground motionless and foaming at the mouth. The Assad government denied responsibility.
On Sunday morning, Trump condemned the latest attack as "mindless," referred to Assad as an "animal" and said Russian President Vladimir Putin was "responsible" for enabling the carnage.
The president also warned Russia and Iran that there would be a "big price to pay" for backing the Assad regime and slammed former President Barack Obama, who vowed in 2012 that such actions would cross a “red line,” but later failed to enforce the promise a year later when hundreds of Syrians were killed by sarin gas. Instead, Obama brokered a multi-nation deal in which Assad pledged to remove his chemical-weapons stockpile.
Trump was to meet with his senior military leadership on Monday, the same day his new national security adviser, John Bolton, assumes his post. Bolton has previously advocated significant airstrikes against Syria.

Al Gore Global Warming Cartoons

Trump's shoot-first style, panned by the press, may not be so crazy

President Trump has been making some dramatic moves lately, leaving his out-of-the-loop aides scrambling to either catch up or change his mind.
And the mainstream media take is clear: This is a crazy way to run a government!
Well, it can certainly be erratic. But I'm going to float a theory that perhaps there's a method to the madness.
First, let's look at the dizzying pace of action. Just the other day, the president stunned his staff by saying at a news conference that he wanted to pull U.S. troops out of Syria. But after consulting with Pentagon chief Jim Mattis and others—in what CNN says was a testy meeting--he agreed to hold off for now.
The White House was also caught off guard when Trump invited Vladimir Putin to the White House—only to have the Russians leak the news. And even his secretary of State—the now-departed Rex Tillerson—didn't know about his offer to meet with Kim Jong-un.
Nor, for that matter, did most of Trump’s inner circle know he was going to hire John Bolton and Larry Kudlow.
The "DACA is dead" tweet, seemingly out of nowhere, cast a shadow on the stalled congressional efforts to strike a deal on immigration.
And then there are the tariffs, announced over Gary Cohn’s objections, which have prompted retaliation by China and sparked heavy losses in the stock market.
But then Kudlow seemed to tap on the brakes, telling Bloomberg: "None of the tariffs have been put in place yet, these are all proposals. We’re putting it out for comment."
Aha.
Now Washington has never seen a president operate like this. This seat-of-the-pants style makes him hard to cover, hard to work for and hard to negotiate with.
But here's the contrarian view: Trump is extremely frustrated with the slow pace of government. Having rid himself of some of his more cautious aides, he's more determined than ever to trust his instincts and shake things up.
And he does this by announcing, or tweeting, "decisions" that land with explosive impact in the media and political world. That forces everyone else to react. He moves the debate onto his turf.
The tariffs aren't final. The Syrian pullout is delayed. Maybe DACA isn't dead. And who knows if the Kim meeting will actually come off?
In other words, Trump's pronouncements are actually just a negotiating position, as he would do as a Manhattan businessman. He dominates the media coverage, which he loves, and then the details are worked out—or not.
But the media are far more critical. Axios' Mike Allen says that "checks are being ignored or have been eliminated, and critics purged as the president is filling time by watching Fox, and by eating dinner with people who feed his ego and conspiracy theories, and who drink in his rants ...
"Trump's closest confidants speak with an unusual level of concern, even alarm, and admit to being confused about what the president will do next — and why."
The Washington Post says Trump's campaign promises are colliding with the complexities of governing, "creating backlash among allies, frustrating supporters and threatening the pocketbooks of many farming communities that helped get him elected."
And even among Trump's own allies, the paper says, "immigration hawks have been infuriated by his inability to build the border wall with funding from either Mexico or U.S. taxpayers. Many military leaders and foreign policy strategists have been alarmed by his promise to remove troops from Syria. And Republicans on Capitol Hill have protested the rising signs of a trade war with China."
Maybe Trump's shoot-first style will ultimately pan out and maybe it won't. But given the Beltway's bureaucratic obstacles, it's not as crazy as it seems.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Trump should confront Qatar on its support for Hamas in upcoming White House meeting

Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani talks at the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, February 16, 2018.

As Qatar’s leader – Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani – prepares for a White House meeting with President Trump on Tuesday, Qatar’s lobbyists are warning Congress not to pass a sanctions bill that targets the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and its supporters, including Qatar.
Yet despite their lobbying campaign against the bill, the Qataris continue to insist they do not support Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip with an iron fist.
The bill in Congress that the Qataris oppose, titled the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act, won unanimous approval in the House Foreign Affairs Committee in November. Qatar is working hard to prevent a vote in the full House because Qatari officials know the bill could have major consequences for the emirate if it became law.
The evidence of massive financial and other support by Qatar for Hamas is overwhelming and beyond dispute. In 2012, during former Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani’s historic visit to the Gaza Strip, Qatar pledged $400 million to the terrorist group.
Two years later, Qatar attempted to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to the Jordan-based Arab Bank to cover Hamas employees’ salaries – a transaction ultimately blocked by the U.S.
Last year the emir announced Qatar would pay an additional $100 million to the Hamas government that rules Gaza. He later pledged $9 million more in urgent aid this year.
Qatar has also hosted Hamas’ Politburo for years. Khaled Meshaal, the former leader of Hamas, has called Qatar’s capital of Doha home since 2012.
On top of all this, Qatari Emir Tamim called Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas’ Political Bureau, only days after the U.S. Treasury Department placed Haniyeh on its terrorist blacklist early this year. The call to Haniyeh was doubly surprising, since the Qataris are in the midst of a charm offensive designed to repair their tarnished reputation in Washington.
In January, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis hosted their Qatari counterparts in Washington for the first-ever U.S.-Qatari strategic dialogue. As the dialogue drew to a close, Qatar – isolated for the past 10 months by a blockade by its Arab neighbors – seemed triumphant and reassured of its position in Washington.
Tillerson – since fired by President Trump – described Qatar as a “strong partner and a longtime friend” and the two governments signed a number of agreements.
The mood on Capitol Hill, however, is different. Late last year the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously approved legislation that would require the Trump administration to act against governments, organizations and people if it determined they were supporting Hamas. This is the measure the Qataris are now lobbying furiously to kill.
Under the bill, governments that support Hamas could be denied defense support by the U.S. and be barred from buying weapons from America. Such governments could also be denied U.S. loans of more than $10 million and their U.S. property could be seized.
The legislation has not come up for a vote in the full House. It enjoys backing from both the Republican chairman and the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Its text identifies Qatar as a potential target, citing the 2014 remarks of a senior U.S. Treasury Department  official, in which he stated that the emirate “has for many years openly financed Hamas.”
Qatar’s lobbyists warn that efforts to pass the bill could “jeopardize” the emirate’s $6.2 billion contract to buy 36 F-15 fighter jets.
Qatar’s rhetorical support for Hamas is likewise robust. When Tamim acceded the throne, hopes were high that the new, younger emir would break from his father’s detrimental regional policies. But in his first interview as the emir of Qatar, Tamim signaled the emirate’s continuing support for Hamas under his rule.
“Hamas are more realistic now,” the new emir said, contending that its members “believe in peace and want peace.” The emir made this claim while Qatar was hosting Saleh al-Arouri – the terrorist behind the June 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers.
Just days after the blockade of Qatar began in June, Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani continued to insist that while the U.S. may see Hamas as a terrorist organization, “to the rest of the Arab nations it is a legitimate resistance movement.” The minister dismissed allegations that Qatar supported Hamas, arguing instead that “we support the Palestinian people.”
The emirate apparently expelled certain Hamas figures, including al-Arouri, as the blockade wore on. Qatari officials purportedly apologized for expelling them and cited “external pressures” as the reason. Al-Arouri was kicked out of Doha last August.
But the apology is explicit proof that any moderation of Qatar’s support for Hamas over the past eight months has not come about because the emirate wanted to take that step. Small concessions the emirate has made were prompted by the blockade’s external leverage rather than to any genuine change of heart in Doha about its destabilizing regional policies.
Concessions Qatar has made include its recent moves on combatting terrorism financing. But Qatar’s bid to block sanctions on Hamas supporters casts doubt on Doha’s commitment to enforcing an agreement it signed with the U.S. in July to toughen its stance on illicit financing. The contents of that agreement, however, have not been made public.
Qatar did agree to further curbs on terror financing during Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s visit to the emirate last October, stipulating an increased level of information sharing and a heightened focus on suspicious charities and money service businesses in Qatar. Tillerson’s remarks at the opening session of the strategic dialogue praised Qatar for its “significant progress to improve efforts to combat terrorism.”
But Qatar’s recent public support for Hamas suggests it has yet to materially give up its lenient perspective. Further engagement with the U.S. will be of limited value unless Doha cleans up its act, a message the emir should keep in mind when he visits Washington in just a few days. President Trump should make clear to the emir that support for Hamas must not continue.
In addition, the Trump administration should not be too hasty to convene the next iteration of the annual U.S.-Qatar strategic dialogue before the emirate proves it is on our side in the fight against terrorism.

EPA says 'unprecedented' number of death threats against Pruitt

EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has faced an "unprecedented" number of death threats, according to an agency spokesman.
His statement follows reports Pruitt has spent millions on security despite no proof his life was in danger.
“According to EPA’s Assistant Inspector General, Scott Pruitt has faced an unprecedented amount of death threats against him and his family,” agency spokesman Jahan Wilcox said late Friday. “Americans should all agree that members of the president’s Cabinet should be kept safe from these violent threats.”
The statement was obtained Saturday by Fox News and included a list of several published reports about such incidents.
President Trump tweeted his support for Pruitt on Saturday evening. “While Security spending was somewhat more than his predecessor, Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at EPA. Record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars. Rent was about market rate, travel expenses OK. Scott is doing a great job!”
A nationwide search of state and federal court records by the Associated Press found no case in which anyone was arrested or charged with threatening Pruitt, the wire service said Friday.
The agency has spent millions of dollars for a 20-member, full-time detail for Pruitt, which is roughly three times the size of his predecessor's part-time security contingent.
New details in Pruitt's expansive spending for security and travel emerged from agency sources and documents reviewed by the wire service. They come as Pruitt fends off allegations of profligate spending and ethical missteps.
Pruitt's domestic and international travel led to rapidly escalating costs, with the security detail racking up so much overtime that many hit annual salary caps of about $160,000. The demands of providing 24-hour coverage even meant taking some investigators away from field work, such as when Pruitt traveled to California for a family vacation.
Total security costs reportedly are nearly $3 million when pay is added to travel expenses.
Pruitt has said his use of first-class airfare was initiated following unpleasant interactions with other travelers. In one incident, someone yelled a profanity as he walked through the airport.
The EPA administrator also has come under intense scrutiny for big raises for two of closest aides and his rental of a Capitol Hill condo tied to a lobbyist who represents fossil fuel clients.
“This was like an Airbnb situation,” Pruitt told Fox News on Wednesday, in an exclusive interview in which he defended his actions amid allegations of questionable spending. “When I was not there, the landlord, they had access to the entirety of the facility. When I was there, I only had access to a room.”
At least three congressional Republicans and a chorus of Democrats have called for Pruitt's ouster. But Trump is so far standing by him.
A review of Pruitt's ethical conduct by White House officials is underway, adding to probes by congressional oversight committees and the EPA's inspector general.
Pruitt, 49, was closely aligned with the oil and gas industry as Oklahoma's state attorney general before being tapped by Trump, who has praised Pruitt's relentless efforts to scrap, delay or rewrite Obama-era environmental regulations.
Pruitt also has championed budget cuts and staff reductions at the agency so deep that even Republican budget hawks in Congress won’t implement them.
EPA's press office has not disclosed the cost of Pruitt's security or the size of his protective detail, saying doing so could imperil his personal safety.
But other sources within EPA and documents released through public information requests help provide a window into the ballooning costs.
Pruitt's predecessor, Gina McCarthy, had a security detail that numbered about a half dozen, less than a third the size of Pruitt's. She flew coach and was not accompanied by security during her off hours.
The EPA spent nearly $9,000 last year on increased counter-surveillance precautions for Pruitt, including hiring a private contractor to sweep his office for hidden listening devices and installing sophisticated biometric locks for the doors. The payment for the bug sweep went to a vice president at Perrotta's security company.
The EPA official who spoke to AP said Perrotta also arranged the installation of a $43,000 soundproof phone booth for Pruitt's office.
At least five EPA officials were placed on leave, reassigned or demoted after pushing back against spending requests such as a $100,000-a-month private jet membership, a bulletproof vehicle and $70,000 for furniture such as a bulletproof desk for the armed security officer always stationed inside the administrator's office suite.
Those purchases were not approved.