Fox News poll: 67 percent would vote out all current lawmakers

Most voters would oust all current members of Congress -- including their own senators and representative -- if given the opportunity, the latest Fox News poll finds.
By a 67-26 percent margin, voters would kick everybody on Capitol Hill to the curb and replace them with new people. That includes two-thirds of Democrats, Republicans and independents.
The result is perhaps not so surprising, given how voters feel about lawmakers these days: just 12 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, while 78 percent disapprove.
READ THE FULL POLL RESULTS
Congress received a record-low 9 percent approval rating in October 2013.
Democratic candidates hold a slim two-percentage point advantage when voters are asked about their preference for Congress this year.
Forty percent of voters would back the Democratic candidate in their House district if the election were held today, versus 38 percent who would vote for the Republican.
"I don't want to go all Jimmy Carter on everyone, but there does seem to be a general malaise amongst the electorate," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News poll with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson. "This may help Republicans in the fall, but based on the economic evaluations, the generic ballot, and ratings of prominent Republicans, right now voters give both President Obama and the GOP the thumbs down."
The parties have been close on this generic ballot test in recent months. Republicans had a two-point edge in January, and in December it was tied.
The small Democratic advantage of the moment does not include a coat-tails effect from Obama. Overall, 44 percent of voters say they would be less likely to support a candidate if Obama campaigns for them, while 31 percent would be more likely to back him or her.
Independents are more than twice as likely to vote against (45 percent) a candidate Obama campaigns for rather than support that candidate (18 percent).
It’s the same story for former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate he supports by 14 points (41-27 percent).
Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, is also no vote magnet: by an 8-point margin voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate he backs (26-18 percent), while 38 percent say it wouldn’t matter to their vote.
The only person tested who would do more good than harm for a candidate is former President Bill Clinton. Forty percent of voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate he backed, while 31 percent say less likely.
When it comes to issues, 43 percent of voters say they would be less likely to support a candidate who backs the health care law, while 30 percent would be more likely. Another 25 percent say it wouldn’t matter to their vote.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,002 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from March 2 to March 4, 2014. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for the total sample.

GOP lawmakers fight Dem push to punish Issa for IRS hearing actions

House Republicans are fending off aggressive efforts by Democrats to punish Rep. Darrell Issa for cutting off Dem. Rep. Elijah Cummings during a heated hearing on the IRS targeting scandal.
House Republicans are fending off aggressive efforts by Democrats to punish Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for cutting off a Democratic congressman during a heated hearing on the IRS targeting scandal.
The House voted Thursday afternoon to block a resolution that would formally chastise the chairman of the House oversight committee for his conduct at Wednesday's hearing.
The vote was along party lines, 211-186, with 10 members voting present. Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, had offered the resolution, which called Issa's behavior "offensive and disrespectful."
Fudge also penned a letter to House Speaker John Boehner urging the speaker to strip Issa of his chairmanship "immediately."
"Congressman Darrell Issa of California abused his authority and therefore must be reprimanded to ensure the dignity of the House of Representatives is preserved," Fudge wrote, calling him a "disgrace."
Boehner, though, brushed off the Democratic complaints.
"Mr. Issa was within his rights to adjourn the hearing when he did," Boehner said.
Issa shut down the committee hearing on Wednesday when the IRS official at the center of the scandal involving targeting of conservative groups, Lois Lerner, again invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked a series of questions.
In doing so, Issa cut off Maryland Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings' microphone as Cummings, the panel's top Democrat, continued to speak.
"You cannot just have a one-sided investigation," Cummings shouted. "There is absolutely something wrong with that. That is absolutely un-American."
Issa, though, defended his actions and told reporters after the hearing: "He was not directing questions toward the witness and the committee [had] already adjourned."
He later told Fox News that Cummings "was simply endlessly slandering the efforts of the committee."
Members of both parties, though, have apparently criticized Issa's actions.
During a press conference on Thursday, Cummings said several Republicans on the committee apologized to him for Issa's actions.
A senior House Republican aide told Fox News that "Issa needs to learn self-control. Now all of our members have to defend his poor actions."
Some of the Democratic criticism, though, has become increasingly personal.   
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz linked cutting the microphone to oppression in Venezuela and Ukraine.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson called Issa's behavior "crude, wrong, racist and mean."
Issa and Cummings are not yet back on speaking terms.

Congressional investigators to probe troubled state ObamaCare exchanges

The investigative arm of Congress on Wednesday agreed to look into problems with state health exchange websites around the country.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office accepted an initial request from a group of House Republicans seeking an audit on how $304 million in federal grants were spent on the Cover Oregon website, which has yet to enroll a single person online without special assistance.
The agency said due to similar requests from several members of Congress and congressional committees related to the rollout of online health care exchanges, it would broaden the investigation and issue several separate reports on its findings.
GAO spokesman Charles Young said just which states will be included with Oregon will be determined as the investigation goes forward. But 14 states and the District of Columbia opted to create their own exchanges and accepted federal funding to do so.
Republicans have been stepping up their attacks on troubled health exchanges during this election year, but Rep. Greg. Walden, R-Ore., said it was a non-partisan issue.
He noted Oregon Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley made their own requests for the GAO to investigate a day after the Republicans -- Walden, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan, and Reps. Joe Pitts and Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania -- filed theirs last month.
"The politics will play out where they may, good or bad," Walden said. "That doesn't mean you don't ask questions. We need to get answers."
Merkley said in a statement that he looked forward to the GAO's recommendations "about how to fix the system and avoid this happening in the future."
Cover Oregon spokesman Michael Cox said, "We will participate fully with the GAO as they conduct their work."
Walden added that the probe of state websites would "piggyback nicely" on another GAO look at the federal health exchange website, which has already begun.
Separately, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has asked for an inspector general's investigation into problems with the rollout of the health care law.
Some of the state exchanges have outperformed the federal exchange website, but others have trailed behind and faced significant challenges, including expensive fixes to glitches and lower projected enrollments.
In addition to Oregon, where residents on their own still can't sign up for coverage in one sitting, the exchanges in Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Minnesota have faced major problems.
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, called the investigation a political stunt.
"With House Republicans voting today for the 50th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act, it is disappointing but not surprising that Republicans are now using federal government resources to investigate state health exchanges instead of finding a productive way to help Americans access health care," Schatz said in an emailed comment.
States with successful exchanges include Connecticut, Rhode Island, Kentucky and New York. Connecticut, which has far exceeded its enrollment goals for the open enrollment period, is setting up a consulting business and marketing an "exchange in a box" to other states.
Cover Oregon's online enrollment system was supposed to launch in October, allowing individuals and small businesses to compare insurance plans and qualify for federal tax credits to subsidize the premiums. It wasn't ready, however, forcing people to fill out a lengthy paper application that would have to be processed by hand. Pieces of the website are now working and some portions of the processing are automated, but significant problems still exist.
Republicans have contended problems were known for months before the launch. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, has acknowledged mistakes were made but denies having prior knowledge of problems that kept the website from launching on time.
Other questions raised by the Republican request, crafted in consultation with the GAO, include:
-- What capability does the federal government have to reclaim those funds if Oregon abandons the state-run exchange and joins the federal one?
-- What other costs has Oregon incurred because of the website's failure?
-- Did Cover Oregon's status as a state organization play a role in its failure?
-- What steps could federal agencies have taken to assure state and federal oversight of projects like this in the future.
The Wyden-Merkley request asks more questions:
-- How were the federal funds used, including job creation, public and private contractors, software developers, and consumer education?
-- What efforts to enroll people outside the website have been successful, and what can be done to expand enrollment ahead of the March 31 deadline?
-- If taxpayer funds were mismanaged, can the federal government reclaim grant funds from contractors?
-- Was there anything in the Affordable Care Act that Cover Oregon did not respond to in its creation?
-- What can Oregon do to most quickly and efficiently overcome Cover Oregon's problems and enroll more people?

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.