Budget proposal won’t tame debt, interest would soon exceed military spending

President Obama's latest budget proposal paints a troubling picture of America's fiscal future. 
Here's a startling snapshot:   
-- By 2024, the total national debt would rise from $17.4 trillion to nearly $25 trillion.
-- By 2020, U.S. taxpayers would be paying more in interest on the debt than they would on the entire Defense budget.
-- By 2017, those interest payments would be bigger than the budget for Medicaid.
Despite Democratic claims that President Obama has tackled the deficit, the numbers give a sense of what fiscal hawks -- who have not given up their fight despite an election-year aversion to dealing with the debt -- are so worried about.
"We can't let election-year malaise be an excuse for inaction on such an important issue," Maya MacGuineas, of the Fix the Debt Campaign, said in a statement.
White House officials appear to be declaring a victory of sorts over the deficit -- which is the annual budget shortfall. A White House statement touted the fact that "the deficit has been cut in half as a share of the economy" under Obama.
It is true that under the budget blueprint, the 2015 deficit would shrink to $564 billion from $649 billion this year. That's a sharp fall from year after year of $1 trillion-plus deficits during Obama's first term.
But even when the deficit shrinks, the national debt -- which basically is the nation's ultra-platinum credit card tab -- will continue to grow. A lot.
And every year the debt grows, the interest on that debt also grows, crowding out needed funding for everything from the military to education to infrastructure to entitlements.
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said he's concerned that the fastest-growing part of the budget may actually be the interest.
"We are not going to be able to sustain the safety net that we have in this country with this kind of debt," he told Fox News, warning of a "super-sized" government whose budget "will never balance."
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said the president's proposal will continue to inflict "an excruciating financial toll."
According to White House budget documents, the proposal shows the interest on the debt rising from $223 billion this year to more than $800 billion a decade from now.
What startles lawmakers is how that rapid rise compares with other parts of the budget.
The proposal shows the Defense budget shrinking from $612 billion today to $583 billion in 2020. That same year, the interest on the debt would soar past $600 billion. Soon, it would begin to crowd out other vital areas of the budget as well.
In arguing that the budget plan represents "fiscal responsibility," Obama administration officials point to a select stat -- the percentage the deficit or debt represents as a share of the economy. The White House budget documents show that percentage, in both cases, dipping over the next decade. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, director of the Office of Management and Budget, referred to this as "stabilizing our debt-to-GDP ratio."
But that assumes the economy will not fall victim to another recession. And even when the percentage drops, the debt total keeps rising.
"Although debt would decline as a share of GDP under the president's budget, it will be far too high and could be even higher if the economy doesn't grow as the president hopes or other assumptions in the budget prove to be too optimistic," MacGuineas said.
Many members of Congress, though, have been just as reluctant as members of the administration to take on tough long-term talks about tackling the debt. Past talks between Obama and Republican leaders like House Speaker John Boehner failed to produce a so-called "grand bargain," leaving both sides feeling burned by the effort. Republicans blame Democrats for pursuing tax increases and shielding some entitlement spending, while Democrats blame Republicans for their stalwart opposition to most tax hikes.
The White House says that it will nevertheless push for some savings in the budget plan, including $402 billion in "health savings" and $650 billion from proposed tax reform over the next decade.
Congress is likely to go its own way on the budget all the same, but the current fiscal trajectory is not much different than the one Obama proposes.

Red Line

Megyn Kelly: “Why Hasn’t Obama Been Impeached?”

In what could prove to be a major turning point in the mainstream media, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly is now the first TV anchor to openly suggest that President Barack Obama should be impeached.
Her comments came during an interview with Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in which they were discussing Obama’s presidential power grab and selective application of the law.

100 Years A Slave

Kerry says West will respond to Putin's 'aggression,' will travel to Kiev for talks

Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday outlined the far-reaching responses the United States and Western allies are considering for Russian President Vladimir Putin's “incredible act of aggression" in Ukraine, including economic sanctions and efforts to reduce Russia’s status as a world power.
“It’s an incredible act of aggression,” Kerry told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country.”
Kerry announced Sunday that he's traveling to Kiev on Tuesday for diplomatic talks. The United States’ top diplomat added that Western powers are fully prepared to isolate Russia for its military incursion into Ukraine. Among the potential responses he outlined were bans on visas, freezing assets, penalties on trade and investment, and a boycott of the Russian-hosted, G-8  economic summit in June.
He even hinted at the removal of Russia from the list of powerful G-8 countries -- the U.S., Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia.
Putin is "not going to have a Sochi G-8,” Kerry told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “He may not even remain in the G-8 if this continues. … He’s going to lose on the international stage.”
Kerry’s response follows Russia on Friday sending troops into Ukraine’s Crimea region, amid months of political upheaval in that country that included residents in late February ousting President Viktor Yanukovych.
Kerry said Putin should respect the democratic process through which the Ukrainian people ousted the pro-Russian president and assembled a new government.
President Obama said Friday that the U.S. “will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.”
He pressed his case the next day in a 90-minute phone call with Putin, calling Russia's actions "a clear violation" of Ukraine's sovereignty and asking for his forces to pull back, according to the White House.
However, the situation appeared to worsen by Sunday with Ukraine's new prime minister warning his country is "on the brink of disaster," as hundreds of armed men in trucks and armored vehicles surrounded a Ukrainian military base in Crimea.
Despite Kerry’ strong words Sunday, the Obama administration faces a difficult challenge in finding a response that might deter Putin, who argues the turmoil in neighboring Ukraine poses real threats to the life and health of Russian citizens living there and that Moscow has the right to protect them.
Still, Kerry suggested Putin’s stated motive is a "trumped-up pretext." 
He also said he spoke on Saturday with foreign ministers from the Group of Eight countries and a few other nations, and "every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia" because of the invasion.
And he suggested American companies "may well want to start thinking twice about whether they want to do business with a country that behaves like this."
Kerry also said the administration was ready to provide economic assistance "of a major sort" to Ukraine.
He made clear that a military response to counter Russia's action was unlikely.
"The last thing anybody wants is a military option," said Kerry, who was also interviewed on ABC's "This Week." "We want a peaceful resolution through the normal processes of international relations."
The U.S. and Europe are not obligated to come to Ukraine's defense because it does not have full-member status in NATO. Broader international action through the United Nations seems all but impossible because of Russia's veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Kerry tried to frame the crisis as broader than U.S. versus Russia or East versus West. "We're not trying to make this a Cold War," he said. It's about Ukrainians "fighting against the tyranny of having political opposition put in jail."
The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Issa, House GOP investigative committee say Lerner will testify in IRS scandal hearing

Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner, a central figure in the IRS scandal, will appear before Congress on Wednesday after refusing to testify last year on the matter, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Sunday.
Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told “Fox News Sunday” that Lerner’s lawyers have indicated she will testify before his committee, after saying last week that she would not.
“It’s going to be a good, fact-finding hearing,” he said.
Issa said he didn’t know why Lerner’s lawyers changed their mind, but suggested Lerner testifying was “in her best interest,” considering the recent evidence the committee had gathered.
Later in the day, Lerner attorney William W. Taylor disputed Issa’s claim, saying his client would not testify.
“As of now, she intends to continue to assert her Fifth Amendment rights,” Taylor told Politico. “I do not know why Issa said what he said.”
Taylor’s statement was follow by a release from the oversight committee that stated Taylor had confirmed in writing that his client is willing to testify but wants to delay the hearing by one week.
“We have informed Mr. Taylor that Ms. Lerner may make her request for a delay on Wednesday when she appears for the hearing,” said committee spokesman Frederick Hill.
Issa and Lerner’s attorneys also have argued about whether she is protected under the Fifth Amendment from having to testify.
In May 2013, Lerner invoked the amendment right during her first-and-only appearance before the House committee, but only after she said during an opening statement that she broke no laws.
Lerner resigned last year from her post as the agency’s director of tax-exempt organizations.
The House committee continues to investigate the IRS in its 2012 targeting of Tea Party groups and other politically conservative organizations trying to get tax-exempt status.
Congressional investigators are trying to determine who exactly gave the orders for IRS agents to target the groups.
Issa said Sunday that Lerner was “in a powerful position and could have been acting alone.” Congressional documents also suggest that she was under political pressure to orchestrate the targeting.
However, safeguards against such situations should have been in place and Congress should work to put in “more checks and balances,” he also said.
Last week, Lerner attorney William Taylor said his client would testify on Capitol Hill only if compelled by a federal court or if given immunity for the testimony.
Taylor stated his position in a letter to Issa. He was responding to a letter Tuesday from Issa saying, in part, that Lerner’s testimony remains “critical to the committee’s investigation.”

Disincentivizing Work and Hurting Seniors: The Reality of Obama's Agenda

As we enter March, the nightmare that is Obamacare continues to seek and destroy the pocketbooks of hardworking Americans.
Just recently, Americans have learned that the law will "reduce the American workforce by the equivalent of 2 million full-time workers in 2017," according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.
The Obama Administration, quick to dismiss the CBO's report, said it is "subject to misinterpretation." However, President Obama has previously cited the CBO to generate support for his healthcare bill, and subsequently warned about those who "now suddenly are ignoring what the CBO says."
Strange how the Obama Administration's support for the non-partisan office simply vanished once it was determined that Obamacare "creates a disincentive to work."
We have also learned other ways that Obamacare negatively impacts the employment outlook in this country. For starters, a small business owner recently profiled in The Wall Street Journal said that "she doesn't plan to hire more workers since it would create an administrative burden for eventually complying with the law."
Additionally, The New York Times reported last week that "Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say."
These stories offer a glimpse into how the Affordable Care Act is really affecting everyday Americans' employment opportunities; even if Harry Reid thinks these stories are "untrue."
These data have demonstrated that the Obama Administration does not deserve the American people's trust when it comes to healthcare, and this dupery is found in their policies towards America's seniors as well.
As former CBO Director (there's that pesky CBO again!) Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently chronicled, "Obamacare financed its assault on existing insurance arrangements in part by $156 billion over 10 years in direct cuts to Medicare Advantage plans."
This is bad news for America's seniors.
Per Holtz-Eakin's group, the American Action Forum, millions of seniors will be subject to plan cancellations, fewer plan options, higher premiums, reduced doctor networks and higher overall out-of-pocket costs for Medicare benefits as a result of these cuts.
Seniors will be exposed to even more risk from the disruption caused by President Obama to Medicare Part D. Milliman recently calculated that "Up to 50% of Part D plan choices may be eliminated or materially changed during 2015 and 2016 based on provisions in the Proposed Rule using assumptions derived from survey responses."
It's not fair to American seniors that their healthcare is raided by the Left in order to help pay for the failed program that is Obamacare. The disastrous policy ideas from liberals have shown that they don't work in real life. Here we have a great opportunity for conservatives to show the American people smart policy that helps lowers costs, improves access and actually helps their everyday lives.
Follow John Murray on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jmurraydc

Key vote postponed for controversial Justice nominee Adegbile

The Senate has postponed a key vote Monday on the controversial nominee to head the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, Fox News has learned.
Supporters of nominee Debo Adegbile would have needed a simple majority of 51 votes Monday to clear the way for a final vote. But the procedural vote was canceled because of a snowstorm forecast for Monday, the same day most Capitol Hill lawmakers return from their home states.
The vote has been rescheduled for midday Tuesday. If Adegbile clears the procedural vote then, after another short debate, a final vote in which he would again only need a simple majority of 51 votes to be confirmed will take place.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., joined others in his concern about Adegbile’s support for convicted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Adegbile is facing criticism for his role in 2009 in getting Abu-Jamal's 1981 death sentence overturned during his time as acting director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 
“The vicious murder of Officer [Daniel] Faulkner in the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his death has left open wounds,” Casey said Friday. “After carefully considering this nomination and having met with both Mr. Adegbile as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, I will not vote to confirm the nominee.”
Adegbile's death sentence has been commuted but he remains in prison.
Widow Maureen Faulkner told Fox News she is gratified at the decision by Casey to vote against the nomination of Adegbile and that she plans to continue to lobby members of the Senate to take a similar stand.
Among the others who have expressed their objection to the nomination is GOP Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey.
“The murder was not a random street crime,” Toomey and Philadelphia District Attorney R. Seth Williams recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. “Abu-Jamal was an ardent supporter of the "MOVE" organization -- a racist, anarchist group founded in Philadelphia in 1972. The group's radical positions included encouraging violence against police.”