Issa subpoenas ATF over 'mismanaged' gun operation

Rep. Darrell Issa has subpoenaed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for information about what he calls a "dangerously mismanaged" program, which originally was launched to get crime guns off the street. 
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Issa chairs, has been looking into complaints about the program for months. Under the operation, ATF agents set up storefronts in multiple cities to try and entice criminals to sell their crime guns, unwittingly, to the government so they could be traced. But their tactics and missteps, including using mentally disabled people, drew criticism.   

ADVERTISEMENT

Issa, R-Calif., claimed this week that the ATF has stonewalled him by withholding documents and shown a "complete lack of cooperation." 
"I have no choice today but to issue the enclosed subpoena," he wrote to ATF Director B. Todd Jones. "... The time for hollow promises is over." 
Details on problems with the program first emerged last January, when The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported on missteps in Milwaukee under the program known as Operation Fearless. In that operation, thousands of dollars in merchandise, as well as several guns, were reportedly stolen from ATF agents. 
Details of other similar operations in other cities later emerged, including claims that one operation was located across the street from a middle school. House committees are now investigating, on the heels of the controversy over the botched anti-gun trafficking Operation Fast and Furious. 
ATF agents, though, have defended the storefront program, saying lawmakers overstate the problem. 
"Putting this into context, there were deficiencies with the storefront operations, but there have been many successes and it still remains a viable technique when managed well," ATF Deputy Director Tom Brandon told lawmakers recently. 
The operation in Milwaukee, despite its flaws, resulted in dozens of arrests.

notorious fraudster was behind costly EPA regulations

Another Democrat ??

John Beale, the former EPA official who fooled his bosses into believing he worked for the CIA, was deeply involved in crafting costly environmental standards which still are having an impact today -- though he came into the job with little, if any, environmental experience. 
The details were included in a 67-page report from Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which claims the fraudster's role should now throw those rules into question. 
The report is the product of months of research into the case of Beale, a top official in the Office of Air and Radiation, who was sentenced to prison in December for defrauding the agency with his CIA lie. It details Beale's role in crafting an aggressive regulatory approach which the report dubs the "EPA Playbook." 
"Ultimately, the guiding [principle] behind the Playbook is the Machiavellian [principle] that the ends will justify the means," the report says. 
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., top Republican on the committee, said in a statement that the study "connects the dots between John Beale and the numerous air regulations that he's responsible for." 
The EPA already has come under scrutiny for failing to act earlier on warning signs about Beale's behavior and fraudulent activity. But the report also calls into question the regulatory work Beale had done over an EPA career that began in the late '80s -- and its lingering impact on businesses today. 
"The product of his labors have remained intact and have been shielded from any meaningful scrutiny, much the same way Beale was protected by an inner circle of career staff who unwittingly aided in his fraud," the report says. "Accordingly, it appears that the Agency is content to let the American people pay the price for Beale and EPA's scientific insularity, a price EPA is still trying to hide almost twenty years later." 
Beale was first brought on as a career employee by his friend Robert Brenner in 1989, after a stint working as a consultant for the agency. According to the Senate GOP report, he had no environmental experience, and his federal legislative experience was limited to an unpaid internship for a senator. Yet he was brought on at the maximum pay level for an employee of his kind -- at a level typically reserved for people with 20 years' experience, according to the report. 
In 1995, Beale and Brenner apparently began working on what are known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and Particulate Matter (PM). This was a far-reaching process to regulate pollutants in the air -- the push to regulate Particulate Matter covered small particles ranging from smoke to soot to fumes to dust. According to the report, Beale and the rest of the agency ran with the project. 
"Under Beale's leadership EPA took the unprecedented action of proposing standards for the two pollutants in tandem and aggressively tightened the standards to controversial levels," the report said. 
The report goes on to argue that the 1997 standards that resulted "set in motion" the way the EPA issues regulations under the Clean Air Act. The report alleges that this included "inflating benefits while underestimating costs." 
Asked for comment on the Republican report, EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson acknowledged Beale's role in the air quality rules but noted he was among many people involved in that process. 
"While Mr. Beale did work on the rules mentioned in the report, he was just one of a large number of people from a number of disciplines across the Agency who provided input on those rules," she said in an email. Those rules, she noted, for the most part were upheld by the courts. 
"Since that time, both standards have been re-reviewed and re-issued by the EPA," Johnson said. "The standards followed the routine open, transparent and public process, providing opportunities for public and interagency review and comment prior to their finalization." 
Despite Republican accusations, the agency defends its air quality standards as firmly grounded in science. 
The Senate GOP study details specific regulations that relied on these standards, including the EPA's controversial regulations on coal-fired power plants. Amid these and other rules, dozens of power plants have been slated for retirement in recent years. 
The report says the air quality standards have also been used to defend 32 major rules since 1997, which together account for billions of dollars in costs to U.S. businesses. 
The so-called "playbook" for implementing EPA rules began during the 1997 process, and allegedly included inflating benefits of proposed rules, as well as using a controversial tactic known as "sue-and-settle" -- where a "friendly" group sues the agency and settles on "mutually agreeable terms." The report says Brenner and Beale were behind that "playbook." 
Republicans argue in the study that Beale reached the "pinnacle of his career" during that 1997 process, and used that status to defraud the agency for years. 
The inspector general's investigation, which later uncovered the fraud, found Beale received improper bonuses until 2013 -- the improper bonuses ended up totaling about $500,000.  This, while he was taking off time supposedly to work for the CIA. 
Since the fraud was made public, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has been credited by some with initially flagging Beale's activities and expenses. EPA bosses say they were duped by his CIA story, despite the warning signs. 
An EPA spokeswoman said earlier that Beale "went to great lengths to deceive and defraud the U.S. government over the span of more than a decade" and the agency has "put in place additional safeguards to help protect against fraud and abuse related to employee time and attendance." 
Brenner retired from the agency in 2011.

Medical group that backed ObamaCare warns obscure rule could hurt doctors

The largest doctors group in the country is raising alarm that an obscure ObamaCare rule could stick them with the tab for patients who skip out on paying their premiums. 
The American Medical Association, which originally supported the Affordable Care Act, warned the rule could pose a "significant financial risk" for doctors and hospitals, and on Wednesday blasted out guidelines to help members try and avoid those costs. 
At issue is a 90-day "grace period" which lets patients who are not paying their premiums keep coverage for 90 days before it can be canceled. 
Under the rule, insurers are responsible for paying any claims during the first month of that period -- but not necessarily for any claims during the final 60 days. 
"Managing risk is typically a role for insurers, but the grace period rule transfers two-thirds of that risk from the insurers to physicians and health care providers," AMA President Ardis Dee Hoven said in a statement. 
The concern from physicians comes on top of widespread concerns from the insurance industry about the mix of new customers being signed up for coverage under the newly launched health insurance exchanges. The deadline for that coverage is March 31, and so far the Obama administration is lagging behind its enrollment projections. 
But while insurance companies worry about having to take on costlier patients, medical practices are worried what happens when those patients stop paying their insurers. 
The AMA has been urging the Obama administration to tweak the rules so that insurers are at least required to notify doctors as soon as a patient falls behind on insurance payments. In the interim, the guidelines sent out Wednesday were meant to help doctors and hospitals "minimize" those risks -- by, among other things, closely tracking grace-period notifications and checking whether state laws allow insurers to deny claims during these periods. 
The main concern is that insurers could be allowed to place all claims incurred during the last 60 days in a "pending status" -- and then deny them if coverage ultimately is canceled. 
But the administration argues that the grace-period rule is limited. It only applies to people who already have paid one month's premium, and requires insurers to tell doctors "as soon as practicable" when a customer is falling behind. 
"Grace periods are important to ensure that consumers aren't dropped from coverage, especially for those experiencing economic challenges," said Alicia Hartinger, spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "It is also important to us that providers know in a timely fashion whether their patients are in a grace period or not." 
One possible -- and controversial -- solution for hospitals is for them to help struggling patients pay their premiums. But, as the AMA guidelines noted, the Department of Health and Human Services has strongly advised against this and threatened to take action if necessary.   
The AMA said doctors "should exercise extreme caution" before even discussing that possibility with patients.

California city approves highest-in-state $12.30 minimum wage

RICHMOND, Calif. –  A San Francisco Bay Area city is on track to have the highest minimum wage in California.
The Richmond City Council voted 6-1 on Tuesday in favor of an ordinance that would raise minimum hourly pay in the city to $12.30 an hour by 2017.
That would be nearly $2 more than San Francisco's current minimum wage, which is the highest in the region.
The state minimum wage is set to increase to $10 an hour in January 2016.
The Contra Costa Times reports that most of the 30 or so residents who spoke at the Richmond council meeting were in favor of raising the minimum wage.
But at least one business owner said it would make it difficult for him to add jobs.

(Bailey) Is this going to be for the legals or illegals ?

Russia

White House backs off surgeon general nominee push amid Dem resistance

With the midterm elections looming, vulnerable Democrats may be moving even further from the White House by refusing to support yet another of President Obama's hand-picked nominees. 
The latest nominee facing trouble with Senate confirmation is Dr. Vivek Murthy, a Harvard Medical School physician and a strong political ally, tapped for the post of U.S. surgeon general.
The White House is still backing its controversial nominee but acknowledges that officials are “recalibrating” their strategy -- amid vocal GOP opposition, waning support from Senate Democrats and concern about back-to-back defeats. Earlier this month, the administration failed to win Senate support for its nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division, Debo Adegbile.
Like Adegbile, Murthy is facing strong opposition on several fronts. The nominee is being targeted by the National Rifle Association for his support for gun control. Such opposition has created a tough situation for Senate Democrats facing re-election a year after the NRA led efforts to defeat Obama’s push for new firearms restrictions. 
As a result, the White House doesn’t want to create more problems for vulnerable Democrats by asking them to take a hard vote now. 
“Dr. Murthy is a dynamic, entrepreneurial practitioner who had dedicated a lot of time, energy and passion to health and wellness,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday. “But after the confirmation vote of Debo Adegbile, we are recalibrating the strategy around Dr. Murthy’s floor vote.” 
Adegbile had strong Democratic support before the vote earlier this month. But seven Senate Democrats joined all 44 Republicans in blocking the nomination, angering the White House.
The National Fraternal Order of Police led the effort to block the Adegbile nomination, mounting a campaign against him over his advocacy on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer.
There reportedly are 10 Senate Democrats who will not vote for Murthy because of the NRA opposition. 
Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, a lifetime NRA member seeking re-election this year, is on the record about his position.
"While the Senate has not yet scheduled a vote on Dr. Murthy, I have already told the White House I will very likely vote no on his nomination if it comes to the floor," Begich wrote constituents, according to his office.
Begich has also expressed concerns about the 36-year-old Murthy's political advocacy and inexperience as a practicing physician.
Murthy is backed by a long list of medical groups and if nominated would be the country’s first Indian-American surgeon general.
However, the NRA says his support for gun control, including a letter he sent to Congress last year following the fatal Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, raised questions about whether he is motivated by science or politics.
Murthy sent the letter as president of Doctors for America, a group he co-founded and that supported Obama's plans for health care reform.
Whether the White House will postpone the vote until after the November elections remains unclear.
“We will make assessments about how and when to move forward accordingly,” Carney said.

New York Senate rejects 'Dream Act' for illegal immigrant students

ALBANY, N.Y. –  The New York Senate rejected a bill Monday that would open up state tuition assistance to students in the country illegally, dashing long-held hopes of immigration advocates and prompting finger-pointing among rival Democrats.
The 30-29 vote was short of the 32 votes needed to pass, a rare defeat for a bill on the floor of the Senate. There are 63 seats, two are vacant, and two senators did not vote.
The Senate's ruling coalition of Republicans and breakaway Democrats brought the closely watched bill to the floor late in the day with little notice. Supporters of the measure said that was intentional.
"It certainly seems that it was bought up to fail, given the outcome," said Sen. Michael Gianaris, a Queens Democrat. He said the vote "made a mockery of a very important issue."
No Republicans voted for the measure, though all five of their coalition partners in the Independent Democratic Conference voted for it. All but one of the mainline Democrats in the minority voted for the measure.
The proposal includes a budget appropriation of $25 million to open up Tuition Assistance Program money for students who are in the country illegally but attend public or private colleges, paying up to $5,000 a year for undergraduates at four-year institutions.
Exactly how many would be eligible for the need-based assistance is unclear, but according to a report issued by state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, 8,300 such students in the CUNY and SUNY systems would qualify.
Since it was first introduced three years ago, opponents have argued that using taxpayer money to fund tuition assistance for people in the country illegally takes opportunity and funds away from students who are citizens. New York is among 16 states that already allow those students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges.
The Assembly passed the Dream Act last month. After the vote, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has indicated support for the bill, released a statement saying he was disappointed that the Senate had failed to pass the measure.
Opponents said the bill amounted to an improper use of taxpayer funds.
"I simply cannot justify spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars annually to pay for tuition for illegal immigrants when so many law-abiding families are struggling to meet the ever-increasing costs of higher education for their own children," said Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Republican from the Buffalo area.
Sen. Ted O'Brien, a Democrat from the Rochester area, was the only member in his conference to vote no on the bill. Advocates had looked across the aisle to Long Island Republican Sens. Jack Martins and Phil Boyle, both with a sizable Hispanic constituency. Martins voted against the bill and Boyle was not present to vote.
After the vote, Sen. Jeff Klein, co-sponsor of the bill and co-president of the chamber, said he was disappointed in the outcome.
"I think it's very difficult to not have a united Democratic conference, all Democrats, IDC and regular Democrats on such an important issue and then expect Republicans to support that piece of legislation," Klein said.
Texas, New Mexico, California and Washington state allow students who are in the country illegally access to state financial aid.

Scott Brown leaves Fox after bristling at questions about launching campaign

It’s been obvious for some time that Scott Brown is running for the Senate, even as he grew annoyed with speculation that he was doing just that.

Fox News announced Friday that it has terminated its contract with the former senator, right after he formed an exploratory committee to run in New Hampshire. And that was inevitable: you can’t be a candidate for office and a paid television pundit at the same time.

What’s odd is that Brown kept getting annoyed when journalists suggested he was moving in this direction. Even if he hadn’t made up his mind, he was clearly moving in that direction.
I happened to bump into him at Fox a couple of weeks ago, and he was still steamed over a Feb. 18 Boston Globe story that began like this:
“Former US senator Scott Brown, a frequent presence on Fox News, is no longer under contract with the widely watched cable station, a development sure to fan flames of speculation about his potential US Senate bid in New Hampshire.”
The piece seemed fair to me, because it quoted a Fox spokesman as saying: “He is currently out of contract with the network."
Brown felt it was irresponsible for the Globe to publish without checking with him, though the story said he did not respond to a voicemail seeking comment. Soon afterward, Fox renewed Brown’s briefly lapsed contract.
Early in March, Brown clashed with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren over the same issue. Greta had tweeted: “I am told this is certain: Scott Brown is going to run for US Senate in NH.”
Brown promptly gave this statement to Politico: “I am not sure who she talked to, but it was not me. I know what the timelines are and when I need to make a decision, one way or the other. I will make my decisions in due course. Until I announce or file with the FEC, it is all just speculation.”
Well, maybe, but it was informed speculation. Senate campaigns don’t materialize out of thin air.
Once Brown got serious about challenging Jeanne Shaheen, he had to lay the groundwork for hiring staff and courting support in New Hampshire. It was not unreasonable for journalists to report on this.
Brown did not respond to my request for comment. But he tweeted that “I’ve enjoyed being a part of the Fox family. Their analysis & insight has helped hold politicians accountable for their actions, especially on Obamacare.”
Fox has been a good platform for Brown since his 2012 defeat in Massachusetts, just as many aspiring and temporarily sidelined pols use cable news deals to maintain their visibility. But he sure waited till the last minute to cut the cord.
Palin’s new media venture
Speaking of Fox folks, Sarah Palin appears to have lined up a new gig. Fresh off her CPAC speech and before her reality show starts, she has found a new way to stay in the public eye.
Says Capital New York: “Fox News contributor and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin will be launching her own digital video channel, tentatively called ‘Rogue TV,’ a source familiar with the project told Capital.
“The channel will be available through Tapp, the digital video service founded by former CNN chief Jon Klein and former NBC Universal entertainment executive Jeff Gaspin.”