Friendly fire: Dems challenge Obama agenda

President Obama, for all the flak he took from Republicans over his combative State of the Union address, now is running into turbulence from members of his own party – who could prove an even bigger barrier to his agenda.
Democrats from across the political spectrum spent Wednesday taking aim at parts of the president’s platform. Though in the minority, they hold sway because Democratic defectors – particularly in the Senate – could make the difference in helping Republicans pass key legislation, and even override a presidential veto.
Already, a top-ranking Senate Democrat has renewed pressure on Obama to slow his diplomatic outreach to Cuba and to Iran. House and Senate Democrats also convened a press conference on Wednesday to blast his push for new free-trade deals. Meanwhile, Democrats are likely to play a big role in advancing a bill in the Senate approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
On Wednesday, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., leveled some of the toughest Democratic criticism to date regarding the president’s foreign policy.  
On the day the U.S. opened historic talks with the Cuban government in Havana, Menendez, who is Cuban-American and is the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry warning about the Castro regime’s intentions.
“Mr. Secretary, after five decades of authoritarian, one-party rule, we must recognize that the Castros will never relax their iron-fisted control over Cuba unless compelled to do so,” he wrote. “As the Administration pursues further engagement with Cuba, I urge you to link the pace of changes in U.S. policy to reciprocal action from the Castro regime.”
Menendez voiced concern that a few of the political prisoners released by Cuba as part of the deal were rearrested, and about U.S. fugitives hiding out in Cuba, among other issues. He said all these matters must be addressed before re-establishing diplomatic ties.
Shortly afterward, the senator scorched administration officials at a Senate committee hearing over their pushback on lawmakers’ effort to set up new potential sanctions against Iran. The legislation would provide for sanctions if Iran does not strike a deal with the U.S. and other nations curbing its nuclear enrichment program.
Obama, in his State of the Union address, said this legislation would "all but guarantee that diplomacy fails,” and threatened to veto.
Antony Blinken, deputy secretary of state, also said at the Senate hearing that “new sanctions at this time are both unnecessary and, far from enhancing the prospects of negotiations, risk fatally undermining our diplomacy.”
But Menendez scolded the administration witnesses. “Iran is clearly taking steps that can only be interpreted as provocative,” he said. “Yet the administration appears willing to excuse away any connection between these developments and signs of Iran's bad faith in negotiations.”
He also said the more he hears from the administration, “the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran. And it feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization.”
Not only could Menendez and his fellow Democrats help pass the Iran sanctions legislation out of Congress, but they potentially could provide Republicans enough votes to override the threatened presidential veto.
On another front, liberal House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday spoke out against Obama’s call for authority to fast-track pending trade deals with Europe and Asia.
In the State of the Union speech, the president said he wants the authority to “protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are also fair.”
“It’s the right thing to do,” Obama said. “I’m the first one to admit that past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype, and that’s why we’ve gone after countries that break the rules at our expense. But 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside our borders. We can’t close ourselves off from those opportunities.”
But many Democrats, and union leaders, say these kinds of deals cost U.S. jobs, and point to the Clinton-era NAFTA deal.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., on Wednesday vowed to fight the proposal “tooth and nail.” She and other Democrats argued the push would hurt American workers.

New York State Assembly speaker reportedly to be arrested on corruption charges

Sheldon Silver, the powerful longtime speaker of the New York State Assembly, is facing arrest on federal corruption charges, according to a published report. 

The New York Times reported that the charges stemmed from payments that Silver, a Democrat, received from a small New York City law firm, Goldberg & Iryami, that specializes in seeking reductions in New York City real estate taxes. It was not immediately clear how much Silver was paid by the firm, but the paper reported that the amounts were "substantial" and the payments were made over several years. Silver reportedly failed to disclose the payments as required in his annual financial filings with the state. 
The Times reports that the federal investigation of Silver began after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo abruptly shut down an anticorruption commission he created in March of 2013. That inquiry had focused on outside income earned by state legislators with part-time jobs. 
Silver earns $121,000 per year as Assembly speaker and reported a $650,000 income from legal work on his financial disclosure form for 2013, the most recent year available.
Under New York law, officeholders can continue to serve after being arrested, but must leave office upon conviction for a felony offense. 
Silver, 70, was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1976, representing a district comprising much of lower Manhattan, including the site of the newly opened Freedom Tower. He has served as Assembly Speaker since 1994.

Woman showcased by Obama in State of the Union is a former Democratic campaign staffer

The woman whose story of economic recovery was showcased by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address is a former Democratic campaign staffer and has been used by Obama for political events in the past.
Rebekah Erler has been presented by the White House as a woman who was discovered by the president after she wrote to him last March about her economic hardships. She was showcased in the speech as proof that middle class Americans are coming forward to say that Obama’s policies are working.
Unmentioned in the White House bio of Erler is that she is a former Democratic campaign operative, working as a field organizer for Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.).
This also wasn’t the first time the White House used the former Democratic campaign staffer as a political prop. Obama spent a “day in the life” of Erler in June so that he could have “an opportunity to communicate directly with the people he’s working for every day.”
Reuters revealed Erler’s Democratic affiliations following that June event, and the Minnesota Republican Party attacked Obama for being “so out of touch with reality that he thinks a former Democrat campaign staffer speaks for every Minnesotan.”

House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary

House Republicans on Wednesday dropped a bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks, ending legislation that at one time seemed certain to pass but fell victim to inter-party disputes over concerns that the law would alienate women voters.
The failure of the bill, which was intended to be Congress' first anti-abortion legislation of the new session, reflects divides in the GOP just weeks after it assumed control of both houses for the first time in eight years.
Instead, the House will vote Thursday -- the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision -- on a bill that would ban the use of tax dollars for abortions, the same law that was passed by the House nearly one year ago but died in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats.
The substitute bill would make permanent the so-called Hyde amendment, which bans all federal money for abortion services. Currently, Congress simply renews the amendment each year, which it has done since the mid-1970s. Voting on the bill Thursday would provide Republicans with a symbolic act on the same day that the anti-abortion March for Life is scheduled to begin in Washington.
The failed bill, which reflected the idea that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, would have criminalized virtually all abortions for pregnancies of 20 weeks or longer. It would offer some exceptions, including for victims of rape that have already been reported to authorities.
But some Republicans, including female members of Congress, objected to that requirement, saying that many women feel too distressed to report rapes and should not be penalized. A 2013 Justice Department report calculated that just 35 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to police.
"The issue becomes, we're questioning the woman's word," Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., said earlier Wednesday. "We have to be compassionate to women when they're in a crisis situation."
There were also objections to the bill's exemption for minors who are victims of incest and have reported the incident.
"So the exception would apply to a 16-year-old but not a 19-year-old?" said Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa. "I mean, incest is incest."
There was concern that the bill would have looked bad for the Republican Party as it struggles to court female voters in the 2016 presidential and congressional elections, and primary and general election candidates could have turned the vote around on the Republicans. The GOP also wants to demonstrate that it can focus on issues that matter to voters and not get bogged down in gridlock.
But members who backed the 20-week bill were furious that those who shied away didn't raise their objections until essentially the last minute.
“We’ve been working on this for two years. Where were they?” a source who is close to the process told Fox News on Wednesday afternoon.
The source added that it was expected that the abortion bill would be one of the new Congress's first votes of the session, and that any members suggesting otherwise are “being dishonest.”  
Thursday's debate was timed to coincide with the annual march on Washington by abortion foes marking the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 legalizing abortion.
In a statement, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said he was disappointed by the failure of the 20-week measure, but said he was encouraged that Congress would vote on banning taxpayer funding of abortions.
"Americans have been forced to violate their conscience and religious convictions long enough by being made to fund President Obama's massive abortion scheme," Perkins said.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., a chief sponsor of the 20-week bill, called it "a sincere effort" to protect women and "their unborn, pain-capable child from the atrocity of late-term abortion." He had also said GOP leaders "want to try to create as much unity as we can."
The White House had threatened to veto the legislation, calling it "an assault on a woman's right to choose."
Democrats were strongly against the legislation and said the measure was nothing more than a political gesture.
"This is not only insulting to the women of this country, but it's just another pointless exercise in political posturing," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "It will never become law."
The GOP rift on the issue was discussed Wednesday at a private meeting of House Republicans, who by a large majority are strongly anti-abortion.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said in a brief interview earlier Wednesday that he believed the House would debate the bill as planned. But he did not rule out changes.
"We're moving forward," he said earlier Wednesday. "There's a discussion and we're continuing to have discussions."
The legislation would have allowed an exception where an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.
Under the bill, those performing the outlawed abortions could face fines or imprisonment of up to five years.
A report this week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office cited estimates by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that about 10,000 abortions in the U.S. are performed annually 20 weeks or later into pregnancies. The budget office estimated that if the bill became law, three-fourths of those abortions would end up occurring before the 20th week.
The House approved a similar version of the bill in 2013, but the measure was never considered in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. Its fate remains uncertain in the Senate, where anti-abortion sentiment is less strong than in the House.

State of the Union Peachy Cartoon

Obama undermines Hillary Clinton in State of the Union address

Is President Obama trying to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run? That’s one take-away from his feisty State of the Union address, in which Mr. Obama did three things: first, he moved the Democratic agenda far to the left, where Hillary is not entirely comfortable; second, he rebuffed the clear preference of voters that he work with Congress, by making the cornerstone of his address proposals unacceptable to the GOP and third, he assured the country that our foreign policy (Hillary’s foreign policy) is working. 
Americans are not at all convinced, 13 days after the vicious attacks on Charlie Hedbo in Paris, that Obama’s “broader strategy” is leading to “a safer, more prosperous world.”  Obama says he believes in a “smarter kind of American leadership”; for many in the country, the assertion borders on arrogance.
None of these messages works for Hillary.

Hillary is a successful, wealthy woman who pretends otherwise and stubs her toe on money issues, such as when she described herself and her husband as “dead broke” upon leaving the White House.

Mr. Obama’s focus on the middle class is unsurprising. Lagging income growth for the average American has emerged as the likely debate in 2016, for good reason. The numbers show that during the Obama recovery, the middle class has, as Joe Biden put it, been “left behind.”
The issue is valid; Mr. Obama’s progressive approach to helping average Americans – relying on more taxation and more government programs -- is not. 
Despite Americans listing job creation as their number one concern for the past six years, putting people to work has never been President Obama’s priority. He has not encouraged businesses to hire, either through reducing tax rates on employers or by expanding business opportunities – through trade, or reduced regulations, for instance.
On the contrary, his economic prescriptions have raised costs for employers through the onerous provisions of Obamacare and his efforts to raise the minimum wage. 
As of this SOTU address, he has doubled down, since many of the suggested tax hikes will land on small companies that pay taxes as individuals, and as his proposed sick pay and maternity leave will raise the costs of hiring. Such policies have led to labor participation rates that are still bumping along historical lows, a crisis in our disability program, and stagnant wages. A short course in economics might help the White House: a tighter jobs market will raise wages. The government raising wages will put people out of work. It’s that simple.
Obama revisited his familiar theme of making sure all Americans have a “fair shot”; he wants to raise taxes to make sure the rich do “their fair share.” He has never laid out what that share should be, but he has tried hard to convince Americans that the wealthy don’t play “by the same set of rules.”  
It’s a tired song, and Americans have never bought the program. 
A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 60% of Americans think the country is “fair” and “decent.” They don’t believe that income distribution is the answer. They believe in growth, in optimism, in everyone getting ahead.
The tax proposals outlined by President Obama are old school, and dead on arrival in the Republican Congress, as he well knows. Congress has indicated an eagerness to work with the president on tax reform, but has prioritized changing the dysfunctional corporate tax code. 
The president understands that by placing individual tax hikes first in the queue, he has just undermined any chance for bipartisan agreement. And, by adopting the priorities of the left, which emphasize wealth redistribution and also embrace further exploiting the financial sector, he is drafting behind liberal icon Senator Elizabeth Warren.
This is a slap at Hillary, for two reasons. First, Hillary is unquestionably uncomfortable putting on a progressive cloak. 
In the fall campaigns she awkwardly mimicked Liz Warren’s rhetoric, embarrassing herself with the head-scratcher “Don’t let anyone tell you that it’s businesses and corporations that create jobs.” 
Hillary is a successful, wealthy woman who pretends otherwise and stubs her toe on money issues, such as when she described herself and her husband as “dead broke” upon leaving the White House. Also, Hillary has difficulty distancing herself from Wall Street; the Wall Street Journal has reported that she and her husband have raised nearly $5 million from Goldman Sachs alone.  
It’s also awkward for Mrs. Clinton that the president has burned relations with Republicans…again. In his speech, while talking about “A better politics” in which “we debate without demonizing each other,” the president also threatened to veto a number of GOP initiatives.  
Voters have shown they want the government to function – to repair our infrastructure, reform our dreadful tax code, to compete more effectively with our trading rivals, to streamline our outdated government agencies. 
For six years Mr. Obama has blamed the GOP for standing in the way of his programs; now he will be the obstructer-in-chief. From his State of the Union address, it is clear that he is not interested in partnering with Republicans. His aggressive executive actions over the past several weeks on preventing deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants and unilaterally overhauling our Cuba policy were the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Obama is not into compromise.  
Voters do not like the president’s “go it alone” program; they understand why the nation’s founders included those pesky checks and balances. Obama will make it more difficult for any Democrat trying to succeed him to convince voters that he or she will “work across the aisle” – a claim that Hillary might actually credibly make. 
Finally, Obama’s insufficient resolve against the threat of Islamic terrorism, and conviction that his efforts overseas are bearing fruit, are alarming.  Like Muggles fearful of naming the fearsome Voldemort, Obama seems to think if he just doesn’t say “Islamic terrorism” out loud, the menace will pass him by. 
His embarrassing absence in Paris, his waffle on Syria, his underestimation of ISIS – it all speaks to his pretense that we have won the War on Terror. 
That our president can be so misled and so misleading on a matter of such grave importance is horrifying. That Hillary Clinton was the enabler of his clueless foreign policy is a serious problem for the former first lady. And, for the country, should she be elected.

Dems praise Obama's economic proposals while Republicans call him 'out of touch'

Democrats praised President Obama for the aggressive economic proposals in his State of Union address to help the middle class, while Republicans dismissed the president as continuously "out of touch" and suggested his agenda is doomed in Congress. 
Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, a potential 2016 candidate, said he was disappointed in Obama's speech, considering voters in November overwhelmingly rejected his policies along with those of other Democrats.
"He could ... be focusing on jobs and economic opportunity," Cruz said on Fox News' "The Kelley File." "But instead he doubled down on taxes and spending. I was really disappointed."
Cruz said he was pleased to see the president interested in bipartisan efforts to pass free-trade legislation but disappointed to hear him mention a veto threat at least four times, particularly on Iran sanctions and the Keystone XL oil pipeline, each of which has support from Democrats and Republicans. 
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said, "Tonight President Obama sent one resounding message: He remains wholly out of touch with the priorities of the American people." 
He suggested that Obama, in his roughly 60-minute address, focused too much on recent economic gains as a means to support a tax-and-spend agenda before addressing plans to thwart terrorism abroad and on American soil.
The Republican response was expected since Obama and the White House over the past several weeks have signaled what the president would propose -- particularly the plan to tax the country’s highest wage-earners to pay for middle-class tax break.
Democrats praised Obama for putting forth what they called a bold agenda, which comes amid his recent surge in popularity, after months of low approval ratings and Democrats suffering big losses in the November elections.
"Under President Obama’s leadership, we ... restored an emphasis on middle class economics," said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. "Now ... we need to ensure that middle-class families have their shot at the American dream."
Obama in his pitch to help the middle-class argued his polices helped the United States out of an economic recession and that the country's unemployment rate is now below where it was before the recession, which started roughly seven years ago.
"The president made it clear he is on the side of the middle class," said Hawaii Democratic Rep. Mazie Hirono. "The president’s forward-thinking initiative to fund two years of community college will be a game changer for families I’ve met in Hawaii and across the country. ... Tonight the president laid out how we must invest in our middle class families, which means investing in our infrastructure."
But Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., who delivered the Tea Party response, said, "further burdening the American economy with even higher taxes is wrong, just as more debt and more unfunded programs are wrong,".
In the days before the speech, Republicans dismissed the plan as a “non-starter,” particularly in the GOP-led Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a potential 2016 presidential candidate, struck a more conciliatory tone after the address, saying, "I’ll work with the president, Democrats, Independents and anyone who wants to get people back to work and alleviate poverty in our country."
However, he added, “We need real jobs created in the real world, not more empty government promises.”
Obama said during his address, his sixth, that he would deliver his full fiscal 2016 budget to Congress in two weeks.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., another potential 2016 White House candidate, questioned Obama's sincerity when championing his economic record, saying he takes credit for the country's recent prosperity while wages remain stagnant and the unemployment rate for blacks remains twice that of most other Americans.
He also criticized what he called Obama's tax-and-spend policies.
"I heard a lot about free stuff," he said on "The Kelley File." "But I didn't hear much about how we're going to pay for it. ... I have to wonder about the guy's sincerity."

Republican response: GOP Congress ready to champion middle class

Sen. Joni Ernst hammered home the idea of a new Republican Congress ready to champion the middle class in America as well as go after terrorists abroad in the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night.
In contrast to Obama's optimistic tone on the economy, Ernst spoke of the struggle that still exists.
“Americans have been hurting,” she said, and cited concerns over stagnant wages, lost jobs and higher monthly insurance bills.
The freshman senator from Iowa, with less than a month of experience, in Washington, told Americans during her 9-minute rebuttal that the GOP is “working hard to pass the kind of serious job-creation ideas you deserve” that she said includes building the controversial Keystone pipeline.
Ernst also said Republicans will prioritize American concerns and called on Obama to work with her party to simplify the tax code by lowering rates and eliminating unspecified loopholes. She also called on him to ease trade barriers with Europe and Asia.
Obama, who gave the annual speech before a Republican-controlled Congress, focused on the state of the economy and its impact on the middle class. He also took on climate change, cyber threats and terrorism abroad.
Ernst also cited the recent terror attacks in France, Nigeria, Canada and Australia in her rebuttal and said lawmakers need to come up with a “comprehensive plan” to defeat terror groups like  Al Qaeda and the Islamic State as well as those radicalized by them.
“We know threats like these can’t just be wished away,” she said. 
Ernst, a former colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, won one of the toughest election challenges last year, beating Democrat Bruce Braley. She is the first woman elected to the office from Iowa and the first combat veteran to serve in the Senate. 
Ernst has served 21 years between the Army Reserve and National Guard. She spent 14 months in Kuwait in 2002-2003 as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In a nod to her military roots, she wore camouflage pumps.
She also said veterans deserve better care and “nothing less than the benefits they were promised and a quality of care we can all be proud of.”
Ernst, who ran on a promise of bringing change to Washington as well as an attention-grabbing campaign ad where she said she “grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm” and vowed to cut the pork in Washington if elected, said lawmakers have too often “responded with the same stale mindset that led to failed policies like ObamaCare.”
“It’s a mindset that gave us political talking points, not serious solutions,” she added.
But not everyone bought Ernst’s message. 
Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, said  it was Republicans who are blocking efforts to pass legislation in Washington.  
“Ernst decried ‘stagnant wages and lost jobs’ but made no apologies for her fellow Republicans in Congress who have blocked all Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage, to create millions of jobs rebuilding America’s crumbling roads and bridges, and to stop rewarding corporations that outsource U.S. jobs with tax breaks,” he said in a written statement. 
Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., delivered the official Tea Party response to Obama’s State of the Union speech from the National Press Club in D.C.
Clawson, who won a special election seven months ago by marketing himself as “the outsider for Congress,” drew on his strong conservative grassroots base during his response. He stressed that people were key to achieving the American dream, not the government. 
Florida freshman Rep. Carlos Curbelo delivered the Republicans’ Spanish-language response.