White House says Obama will ask Congress to authorize military force against ISIS

President Obama is expected to formally ask Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State terror group in the coming days, even as lawmakers said crafting and passing such a measure would be a challenge.
The U.S. has been carrying out airstrikes against the terrorists, most commonly known as ISIS, in Iraq and Syria since August and September, respectively. In doing so, Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critics have called the White House's use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations a legal stretch, though Obama has previously argued that a new authorization isn't legally necessary. 
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the administration is dedicated to getting a new authorization with bipartisian support. He declined to comment on specific provisions, including how long the authorization will last, what geographical areas it will cover and whether it will allow for the possibility of ground troops. Earnest said those details were still being worked out. 
"When it comes to fighting a war, the Congress should not tie the president's hands, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday morning. However, Boehner later added, "It's also incumbent on the president to make the case to the American people on why we need to fight this fight. This is not going to be an easy lift."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said talks with the administration are focusing on an authorization time frame of three years, while the other issues are still being worked out. Pelosi added that she ultimately expects a compromise on the outstanding issues to be reached and added that she hopes Congress will repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the war in Iraq while retaining the 2001 authorization for military action in Afghanistan.
"I'm not saying anybody's come to an agreement on it," Pelosi said. "I think it's going to be a challenge, but we will have it."
The developments come after Islamic militants released a grisly video of the murder of a Jordanian Air Force pilot by burning him alive. Pelosi also said that the U.S. should "move quickly" to steer military aid to Jordan, which has begun a stepped-up campaign against the militants, including a series of air strikes in Syria.
Republicans generally want a broader authorization of military action against the militants, who have overrun wide swaths of Iraq and Syria, than Democrats have been willing to consider. Obama has said he does not intend to have U.S. "boots on the ground" in combat roles, while many Republicans believe that option ought to be available to the military.
Secretary of State John Kerry has testified that any new authorization should not limit U.S. military action to just Iraq and Syria or prevent the president from deploying ground troops if he later deems them necessary. Kerry also said that if the new authorization has a time limit, there should be a provision for it to be renewed.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House intelligence panel, has already introduced legislation rather than wait for Obama's version. His bill would authorize the use of force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria for three years, but prohibit the use of ground forces in a combat mission in either nation. He has said if the president later decided to deploy ground troops, he could return to Congress to ask for new authority.
"It is my hope that the administration will be willing to accept important limits in a new authorization as well as the sunset or repeal of the old [authorizations], as this will be necessary to ensure strong bipartisan support and meet the goals the president set last summer of refining and repealing the prior authorizations," Schiff said in a statement Thursday, using the acronym for authorization for use of military force.

Overreact Cartoon

Republicans warn EPA plan would give feds ‘free reign’ to regulate almost all waterways

Republican lawmakers warned Wednesday that a complex EPA proposal in the works would give the federal government "free reign" to regulate virtually any waterway or wetland in the country. 
In a rare joint House-Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was called to explain the plan, which has prompted complaints from farmers and agriculture groups, as well as local environmental officials who worry the EPA is claiming authority that should be left to the states. 
House transportation committee chairman Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said that if the policy takes effect, "It will open the door for the federal government to regulate just about any place where water collects." 
Shuster claimed the proposal would "trample the rights" of state governments and hurt the middle class by driving up prices through additional regulation. 
"This rule is an end-run around Congress and another example of overreach by the administration," he said.   
Since 2013, the EPA has floated new rules that would define what kinds of waterways fall under its jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act already gives the EPA the ability to regulate "U.S. waters," but Supreme Court rulings have left the specifics unclear when it comes to waters that flow only part of the year. 
To address that, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers want to define that authority -- and are eyeing waterways deemed to have some significant connection to major rivers, lakes and other systems. This would include, according to the EPA, "most seasonal and rain-dependent streams" as well as wetlands near rivers and streams. The EPA has assured, though, that most farming activity would not require a permit. 
The EPA is planning to release a final rule in the spring of this year. 
McCarthy said Wednesday that the point is to make the rules "easier to understand" and more "consistent." She said the EPA is working to address the concerns of farmers and others, and stressed that the final rule "will not change in any way" those who are already exempted from the Clean Water Act. Speaking to farmers' concerns, she said the new plan would even reduce the law's jurisdiction over features like ditches. 
"We are in fact narrowing the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act," McCarthy said. EPA officials clarified at Wednesday's hearing that groundwater would not be covered under the new rule, potentially allaying some concerns. 
But several GOP lawmakers were not convinced, worried that the new EPA language would be used to force people and businesses to obtain "costly permits" for their land. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. -- citing the case of a Wyoming family that was threatened with $75,000 a day in fines over a stock pond built on their property without a federal permit -- said he would introduce legislation along with Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to "stop this bureaucratic overreach."
Republicans, as well as farmers and other groups, say the plan could endanger private property rights by giving the EPA a say over temporary waterways like seasonal streams, under the Clean Water Act. Critics warn this could create more red tape for property owners and businesses if they happen to have even small streams on their land. 
The EPA claims, though, this does not expand its authority, and only clarifies it. 
"Let's set aside fact from fiction," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said at the hearing. She rejected the notion that the regulation might allow the government to claim jurisdiction over miniscule water bodies. 
"Puddles, swimming pools, stock ponds are not regulated," she stressed.

CEO of Gallup calls jobless rate 'big lie' created by White House, Wall Street, media

The chairman of the venerable Gallup research and polling firm says the official U.S. unemployment rate is really an underestimation and a “big lie" perpetuated by the White House, Wall Street and the media.
What CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton revealed in his blog Tuesday about how the Labor Department arrives at the monthly unemployment rate is no secret -- including that Americans who have quit looking for work after four weeks are not included in the survey.
The department's current rate of 5.6 percent unemployment is the lowest since June 2008, with President Obama using his State of the Union address and campaign-style stops across the country to tout an economic recovery.
“Our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999,” Obama said in the opening lines of his January 20 address before Congress.“Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis.”
Clifton says the “cheerleading” for the 5.6 number is “deafening.”
“The media loves a comeback story,” he writes. “The White House wants to score political points, and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.”
Since the start of the Great Recession, which economists largely agree began in late 2007, the unemployment rate peaked at 10 percent in October 2009 and finally got under 6 percent in September 2014.
Clifton says Americans out of work for at least four weeks are “as unemployed as one can possibly be” and argues that as many as 30 million of them are now either out of work or severely underemployed.
He points out that an out-of-work engineer, for example, performing a minimum of one hour of work a week, even mowing a lawn for $20, also is not officially counted as unemployed.
In addition, those working part time but wanting full-time work -- the so-called “severely underemployed” -- also are not counted.
“There's no other way to say this,” Clifton says. “The official unemployment rate … amounts to a big lie.”
His arguments are similar to those made by Washington Republicans after the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the rate each month during the height of the recession. However, Gallup is an 80-year-old, nonpartisan firm.
The bureau did not return a request for comment.
Clifton suggests the biggest misconception about the official rate is that it doesn’t denote “good” full-time jobs.
“When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't ‘feeling’ something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class,” he said.

Republicans unveil new ObamaCare replacement plan

Congressional Republicans are unveiling what they say is a new plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare, but the ‘blueprint,’ as they call it, looks an awful lot like what’s been floated before.
The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment – or CARE – Act was crafted by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.
The first bicameral proposal of the 114^th Congress calls for the outright repeal of President Obama’s signature health care law, and with that, the individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine.
It provides for targeted tax credits to individuals and families up to 300 percent above the poverty line to encourage people to buy plans in the market place.
It also allows insurers to sell plans across state lines and caps the amount of monetary damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice litigation. 
Like the Affordable Care Act, dependents are able to stay on their parents’ healthcare plans until they’re 26, and no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions - although this plan calls for a specific ‘continuous coverage’ protection where individuals moving from one plan to another cannot be denied.
Gone, however, are age-rating ratios banning insurance companies from charging older Americans more than three times what they charge younger individuals. The new federal baseline would be five-to-one, essentially lowering costs for younger, lower risk consumers.
To pay for it, Burr, Hatch and Upton propose taxing the value of health insurance plans above $30,000 a year as regular income. 
If these proposals sound familiar it’s because most of them are. Many are based on an outline pitched last year by Burr, Hatch, and former Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
“One of the reasons that you don't see massive changes is we thought we had a decent product last year based on feedback as we've talked with governors, with industry,” an aide familiar with the plan said. “A lot of industry frankly thinks this is a very durable sustainable, credible alternative from a market perspective, and they think it's operationally viable.”
Even if it’s viable don’t expect a vote - in either chamber - anytime soon. Aides are very quick to point out that this should not be hailed as the “GOP Plan.” 
“It’s just one plan,” as one adviser put it, and more input from governors and legislators will be needed before anything moves forward. Even hearings haven’t yet been discussed.
Same old song and dance we've been seeing for years, critics say.
Still pressure for viable alternatives is increasing.  
There currently is a case about to come before the Supreme Court challenging ObamaCare’s subsidies for private insurance for people who don’t have access to it through their jobs. If that provision is struck down, millions of consumers could drop coverage.
“As soon as we get feedback we are going to keep updating our proposal because now there is a different sense of urgency being in the majority to try to put something together, especially as we are headed to 2017," one Republican aide said.  “Not to mention what the Supreme Court may decide on June 30th.”
A larger bill will almost certainly wait until there is a new occupant in the White House.
“Let's all be realistic, the president, who the law is named after, he's not repealing his bill. So what we are doing is putting a very credible idea out there because what our bosses were sick and tired of hearing is the Republicans have no ideas," one aide said.  
“Will this whole thing happen before 2017, I find that hard to believe, but we're going to prepare for 2017.”

Shocked Jordanians rally behind king, against ISIS after video of pilot's killing

The shocking images of a Jordanian Air Force pilot being burned alive in an outdoor cage by ISIS terrorists have galvanized the country, once seen as possible fertile recruitment ground for the group, behind King Abdullah II's calls for a stepped-up military campaign.
Jordan's monarch has vowed to wage a "harsh" war against ISIS after consulting with his military chiefs Wednesday. Abdullah cut short his scheduled trip to the U.S. after the video showing the killing of Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh was released Tuesday.
In a statement, the king said Jordan is waging a war of principles against the militants. He said that Jordan's response to the killing of the pilot "will be harsh because this terrorist organization is not only fighting us, but also fighting Islam and its pure values."
Abdullah pledged to hit the militants "hard in the very center of their strongholds."
Jordanian officials have not presented details of their response, but said they would be working closely with their allies in the anti-IS coalition.
The New York Times reported that the king was greeted warmly upon his return Wednesday by thousands of people who lined the main roads to and from the airport. The paper reported that many waved flags and displayed pictures of both the king and the pilot.
The Guardian reported that radio and television station played patriotic songs and F-16 jets performed flyovers over the capital and al-Kaseasbeh's hometown. 
"I swear to God we will kill all those pigs," one man said of the terror group. "Whatever it takes to finish them is what we will do."
"We are all Hashemites and we are following the government with no reservations in this fight against these godless terrorists," a cafe patron, Yousf Majid al-Zarbi, told the paper. "Have you seen that video? I mean really, how in humanity could this be a just punishment for any person?"
Jordan had previously been thought to be home to thousands of supporters of ISIS. The kingdom is beset by several social problems, including a sharp economic down turn that has led to high unemployment among young men, who are typically a reservoir of potential ISIS recruits. Adding to a potentially destabilizing mix are the presence of hundreds of thousands of war refugees from Iraq and Syria who have poured across the border in the preceding decade. 
In recent months, Jordanian authorities have rounded up dozens of suspected ISIS supporters. In an early response to the grisly video, Jordan executed two Iraqi Al Qaeda prisoners, Sajida al-Rishawi and Zaid al-Karbouly, before sunrise Wednesday.
In Washington, lawmakers from both parties have called on the Obama administration to speed up deliveries of aircraft parts, night-vision equipment and other weapons to Jordan.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expected his panel to swiftly approve legislation calling for increased aid. He repeated his criticism that the Obama administration has "no strategy" for dealing with the Islamic State group, and said he hoped the video of al-Kaseasbeh's death will galvanize not only U.S. leadership but "the Arab world."
All 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel that Jordan's situation and the unanimity of the coalition battling the extremists "demands that we move with speed to ensure they receive the military materiel they require."
At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration would consider any aid package put forward by Congress, but that the White House would be looking for a specific request from Jordan's government.

TaxPayer Cartoon

Pro-Palestinian students heckle Cal-Davis opponents with cries of 'Allahu Akbar!'

I thought that the University of California was located in America, guess I was mistaken!

Anti-Israel activists at the University of California, Davis heckled Jewish students and shouted “Allahu Akbar” at them during a vote last week on a resolution endorsing a boycott of the Jewish state, according to video of the event obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The commotion erupted late Thursday evening as pro-Israel students attempted to counter a student government resolution to divest from Israel as part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Activists waving Palestinian flags shouted at the Jewish and pro-Israel students as they left the meeting room ahead of an eight to two vote in favor of the divestment resolution, which is part of a larger movement by anti-Israel groups to attack Israel and pro-Israel students on campus.
“Allahu Akhbar!” a large group of activists shouted in unison as the pro-Israel students filed out of U.C. Davis’ meeting room, according to video provided by a member of Aggies for Israel, a pro-Israel student group at Davis.
Following the vote, which was championed by the pro-Hamas group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), unknown vandals spray-painted swastikas on a fraternity house belonging to the Jewish AEPi organization.
Additionally, Azka Fayyaz, a member of the U.C. Davis student senate, posted on her Facebook page a triumphant message following the vote: “Hamas & Sharia law have taken over UC Davis.”

GOP-led House votes to repeal ObamaCare

WASHINGTON –  The House voted Tuesday to repeal the Affordable Care Act, getting Republicans on record in favor of overturning the law for the first time since the party took control of Congress.
The bill passed on a 239-186 vote. 
President Obama already has threatened to veto the legislation -- and like past bills to repeal ObamaCare, it is unlikely to go far under the current administration, despite Republicans now controlling the Senate and having a bigger majority in the House.
But the vote serves as an opening shot in the 114^th Congress’ efforts to chip away at the law. Several lawmakers have introduced bills to change or undo parts of the Affordable Care Act, and some could garner bipartisan support. 
"We need health care reform that makes the system more responsive to patients, families and doctors -- reforms that preserve and protect the doctor-patient relationship. Right now, ObamaCare is moving our health care system in the exact opposite direction where the American people are paying more and getting less," Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said in a statement after the vote. "In the House of Representatives, we are saying we need to get rid of this law that's not working and focus on solutions that will embrace the principles of affordability, accessibility, quality, innovation, choices, and responsiveness." 
Prior to the vote, Obama questioned the logic behind it.
“So my understanding is the House scheduled yet another vote today to take health care away from folks around this table,” Obama said during a meeting with 10 people who have written him letters about how the ACA has helped them.
He added, “I’ve asked this question before. Why is it that this would be at the top of their agenda? It was maybe plausible to be against the Affordable Care Act before it was implemented. But now it has been implemented and it is working.”
The House has voted more than 50 times in the past two years to repeal all or parts of the law.
The legislation would go next to the Republican-controlled Senate.
While some say the vote is a symbolic gesture, the push to repeal ObamaCare comes as the Supreme Court weighs the King v. Burwell case, which challenges the legality of some subsidies offered through the president’s signature health care law. If the Supreme Court upholds a lower court’s verdict, it could severely undermine the law and fuel GOP efforts to at least change it. 
Republicans, as their next major step, are planning to draft legislation offering an alternative to the ACA. The bill approved Tuesday also directs House committees to begin work on an alternative plan, in case the Supreme Court rules against the law.

Secretary of Defense nominee Ashton Carter says he'll focus on ISIS, may expand counterterror operations

Ashton Carter, President Obama's nominee to replace Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, will tell Senators at his confirmation hearing Wednesday that counterterror operations may need to be expanded to stem the tide of foreign fighters joining up with the ISIS terror group. 
"I believe foreign fighters pose a threat to the U.S., and that this threat is exacerbated by the ongoing political and security instability in Libya," Carter says in remarks prepared for testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and obtained by The Washington Times. "If confirmed, I will focus attention on the foreign fighter flow as the department works with regional partners in North Africa to address the challenge posed by the terrorist safe haven in Libya and broader counterterrorism issues."
Carter will face the panel one day after the terror group released a grisly video showing a captured Jordanian Air Force pilot being burned alive. In response to written questions from the committee, Carter said that he is aware of reports that ISIS may try to expand into Afghanistan, and that he will work with NATO coalition partners to ensure that does not happen. 
Carter also said he would consider changing plans for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 if security conditions worsen. About 10,600 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan.
Wednesday's hearing is likely to focus as much on Obama's foreign policy as on Carter's own vision for the Defense Department, with the 60-year-old likely to face questions on Russian actions in Ukraine, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and Obama's push to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, among other issues.
Another thorny issue Carter faces is an uncertain outlook for the defense budget. In his remarks, Carter is expected to acknowledge that the Pentagon must end wasteful practices that undermine public confidence even as he criticizes the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration.
  "I cannot suggest support and stability for the defense budget without at the same time frankly noting that not every defense dollar is spent as well as it should be," Carter says in his remarks. "The taxpayer cannot comprehend, let alone support, the defense budget when they read of cost overruns, lack of accounting and accountability, needless overhead and the like."
If confirmed, Carter would be the fourth Secretary of Defense to serve under Obama, after Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, and Hagel. The relationship between the White House and the Pentagon has often been strained, with some officials in the department saying Obama views the military skeptically and centralizes decision making in the West Wing. Hagel, in particular, is said to to have grown particularly frustrated with the policymaking process overseen by national security adviser Susan Rice. Gates and Panetta have publicly aired their grievances with what they saw as White House micromanagement.
Carter served twice previously in Obama's Pentagon, most recently as deputy defense secretary from 2011 to 2013. He was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the administration of President Bill Clinton.
Carter would be the first defense secretary who has not served in the military or Congress since Harold Brown, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter and led the Pentagon from 1977 to 1981.

Jordan hangs 2 Al Qaeda prisoners after ISIS video shows Jordanian pilot burned alive

Jordan executed two Al Qaeda prisoners early Wednesday in response to a graphic video released by the ISIS terror group that showed a captured Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a cage. 
The release of the video sparked outrage and anti-ISIS demonstrations in Jordan, while Syrian activists reported that the terrorists gleefully played the grisly footage on big-screen televisions in their de facto capital, Raqqa.
Government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani confirmed to the Associated Press that Jordan had executed Sajida al-Rishawi and Ziad al-Karbouly, two Iraqis linked to Al Qaeda. Another official told the AP that both prisoners had been hanged. The executions took place at Swaqa prison about 50 miles south of the Jordanian capital of Amman. At sunrise, two ambulances carrying the bodies of al-Rishawi and al-Karbouly drove away from the prison with security escorts.
Jordan had previously expressed willingness to trade al Rishawi for the pilot, Lt. Muath Al-Kaseasbeh, but froze the swap after failing to receive any proof that he was still alive. Jordanian TV reported that al-Kaseasbeh was killed as early as Jan. 3, though that could not be immediately confirmed. 
Al-Rishawi had been sentenced to death after her 2005 role in a triple hotel bombing that killed 60 people in Amman orchestrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of the Islamic State group. Al-Karbouly, a former aide to top Al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was sent to death row in 2008 for plotting terror attacks on Jordanians in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006. 
In the video, viewed by Fox News, al-Kaseasbeh, showing signs of having been beaten and clad in an orange jumpsuit, speaks under clear duress. A narrator speaking in Arabic blasts Arab nations, including Jordan, for taking part in U.S.-led airstrikes against ISIS. The final five minutes of the video show the caged pilot, his clothing apparently doused in gasoline as the fuel is lit. His screams are audible as he collapses to his knees. After being killed, the burned man and the cage are buried by a bulldozer. The video ends with ISIS offering "100 golden Dinars" for any Muslims in Jordan who kill other Jordanian pilots, whose names, pictures and hometowns are shown.
Sources told Fox News it demonstrated the highest production values of any tape to date, suggesting it took considerable time to shoot and produce.
In Washington, President Obama spoke with Jordan's King Abdullah II in a hastily arranged meeting at the White House. Jordan is a member of the U.S.-led coalition that has been striking ISIS in Syria since this past September. 
"It's just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization," Obama said. "And I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated.”
In a statement before his meeting with Abdullah, Obama vowed the pilot's death would "redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of our global coalition to make sure they are degraded and ultimately defeated."
"Lieutenant al-Kaseasbeh's dedication, courage and service to his country and family represent universal human values that stand in opposition to the cowardice and depravity of ISIL, which has been so broadly rejected around the globe," Obama said, using another acronym for the terror group.
Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr., R-Ca., said after a meeting with congressional lawmakers and King Abdullah that the Jordanian monarch had been visibly angry and promised swift and certain retaliation against Islamic State group militants.
"They're starting more sorties tomorrow than they've ever had. They're starting tomorrow," Hunter told the Washington Examiner in an interview published online Tuesday night.
Hunter added the king also said: "The only problem we're going to have is running out of fuel and bullets." 
Jordan faces increasing threats from the militants. Jordan borders areas of the group's self-declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq, while there are have been signs of greater support for the group's militant ideas among Jordan's young and poor.
After word spread that the pilot had been killed, dozens of people chanting slogans against the Islamic State group marched toward the royal palace to express their anger. Waving a Jordanian flag, they chanted, "Damn you, Daesh!"  -- using the Arabic acronym of the group -- and "We will avenge, we will avenge our son's blood."
"There is no religion [that] accepts such act," Amman resident Hassan Abu Ali said. "Islam is a religion of tolerance. (ISIS) have nothing to do with Islam. This is [a] criminal act."
Jordanian Army spokesman Mamdouh al-Ameri said the country would strike back hard. "Our punishment and revenge will be as huge as the loss of the Jordanians," he said.
Protesters marched in the pilot's home village of Ai and set a local government office on fire. Witnesses said the atmosphere was tense and that riot police patrolled the streets.
The pilot's father, Safi Yousef al-Kaseasbeh, was attending a tribal meeting in Amman when news of the video surfaced, and he was seen being led from the session. Other men were seen outside, overcome with emotion.
The Islamic State group has released a series of gruesome videos showing the beheading of captives, including two American journalists, an American aid worker and two British aid workers. Tuesday's was the first to show a captive being burned alive.
David L. Phillips, a former State Department adviser on the Middle East, said he believes the pilot's killing could backfire, antagonizing Sunnis against the extremists, including Sunni tribes in Iraq.
"They need to have a welcome from Sunni Arabs in Anbar Province (in Iraq) to maintain their operations," said Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University.
He said the extremist group's recent military setbacks may have fueled the killings. "They need to compensate for that with increasingly gruesome killings of prisoners," he said.
The latest video was released three days after another video showed the purported beheading of a Japanese journalist, Kenji Goto, who was captured by the Islamic State group in October.
The militants had linked the fates of the pilot and the journalist. A second Japanese hostage was apparently killed earlier last month.
The U.N. Security Council in a statement condemned the "brutality of ISIL, which is responsible for thousands of crimes and abuses against people from all faiths, ethnicities and nationalities, and without regard to any basic value of humanity."

Debt Cartoon

GAS PAINS? Union strike could spell end of $2 gas

Just when gas prices began slipping below $2 a gallon, a new issue is threatening to bring back pain at the pump.
Members of the United Steelworkers Union at refineries that produce nearly 10 percent of U.S. gasoline, diesel and other fuels, were on strike for a second day on Monday as they pushed for a new national contract with oil companies covering laborers at 63 plants, The Wall Street Journal reported. If a new deal isn't reached and the strikes continue, drivers at the pump could take a hard hit.
"You can forget about $2 gasoline," Carl Larry, director of oil and gas at consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, told the newspaper. "It’s going to be a big deal. People are going to be freaked out."

"You can forget about $2 gasoline."- Carl Larry, director of oil and gas at consulting firm Frost & Sullivan

After contract negotiations broke down over salaries and safety, USW told its members at nine refineries and chemical plants to walk out until a new deal is settled, according to the newspaper. The strike, which affects 3,800 workers, began on Sunday.
Reuters reported that the walkouts were the first in support of a nationwide pact since 1980 and targeted plants with a combined 10 percent of U.S. refining capacity. 
Companies affected by the strike, including Royal Dutch Shell, Tesoro, Marathon and LyondellBasell Industries, vowed to keep plants operating under contingency plans such as using nonunion labor, according to The Journal.
One refinery, however, was being shut down. Tesoro's Martinez, Calif., refinery, was being closed during the strikes because of planned maintenance work, Reuters reported.
Gas prices had been falling for more than six months, as the price of a barrel of oil plunged from more than $100 to about $40. A variety of factors were credited for the price drop, including a huge rise in U.S. production and Saudi Arabia's refusal to lower production to boost prices.
Bloomberg reported that oil was poised to rise again Monday, after surging more than 8 percent on Friday. It had previously fallen to its lowest point in almost six years.

Obama budget includes $2T in tax hikes

President Obama has packed more than 20 new tax increases into his proposed 2016 budget, which Republicans roundly blasted Monday as a tax-and-spend agenda that won't get their support. 
Together, the tax increases total more than $2 trillion over the next decade. The president plans to use much of that to fund new middle-class tax cuts, as well as ambitious spending programs for highway construction, education benefits and more. 
The biggest money-maker for the federal government would be a change allowing top earners to take tax deductions at the 28 percent rate, even if their income is taxed at the top 39.6 percent rate. This is projected to bring in $603.2 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. 
In addition, top earners would see an increase in capital gains rates -- to 28 percent, up from the current 24.2 percent rate. The change would raise nearly $208 billion. 
Some of the biggest tax hikes in the budget also include a 14 percent, one-time tax on previously untaxed foreign income (raising $268.1 billion); a 19 percent minimum tax on foreign income (raising $206 billion); and a fraction-of-a-percent fee on the 100 financial firms with assets of over $50 billion (raising $111.8 billion). 
The budget plan, while gearing tax hikes toward the wealthy and tax benefits toward the middle class, wouldn't exclusively hit the top tier. It would also hit smokers of all kinds, who under the president's plan would see the per-pack tax rise from $1.01 to $1.95, bringing in an additional $95 billion in revenue. 
In a message accompanying the massive budget books, Obama said his proposals are "practical, not partisan." But even before the books were delivered, Republicans found plenty to criticize. 
"The president is advocating more spending, more taxes and more debt," said House Speaker John Boehner. "A proposal that never balances is not a serious plan for America's fiscal future." 
Boehner and other GOP leaders said that the budget they produce this spring will achieve balance within 10 years, curb the explosive growth of government benefit programs and reform the loophole-cluttered tax code. 
Of Obama's $4 trillion proposal, Boehner said: "Like the president's previous budgets, this plan never balances -- ever." 
The budget shows a $474 billion deficit for fiscal 2016. Obama's budget plan never reaches balance over the next decade and projects the deficit would rise to $687 billion in 2025. Administration officials say their goal is to hold the deficit to a small percentage of the total U.S. economy -- but not necessarily to eliminate it. 
"President Obama promised in the State of the Union to deliver a budget filled with 'ideas that are practical, not partisan.' Unfortunately, what we saw this morning was another top-down, backward-looking document that caters to powerful political bosses on the Left and never balances-ever," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. "We're asking the President to abandon the tax-and-spend ways of yesterday and join us in this practical and future-oriented approach." 
As part of his budget, Obama is proposing a six-year, $478 billion public-works program for highway, bridge and transit upgrades, with half of it to be financed with the one-time, 14 percent tax on U.S. companies' overseas profits. 
The tax would be due immediately. Under current law, those profits are subject only to federal taxes if they are returned, or repatriated, to the U.S., where they face a top rate of 35 percent. Many companies avoid U.S. taxes on those earnings by simply leaving them overseas. 
The tax is part of a broader administration plan to cut corporate tax breaks and increase taxes on the country's highest wage-earners to pay for projects to help the middle class. 
Members of the GOP-controlled Congress and other fiscal conservatives have dismissed the overall plan since elements of it were announced several weeks ago. 
The administration contends that various spending cuts and tax increases would trim the deficits by about $1.8 trillion over the next decade, leaving the red ink at manageable levels. Congressional Republicans say the budgets they produce will achieve balance and will attack costly benefit program like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 
Obama's budget emphasizes the same themes as his State of the Union address last month, when he challenged Congress to work with him on narrowing the income gap between the very wealthy and everyone else. 
Higher taxes on top earners and on fees paid by the largest financial institutions would help raise $320 billion over 10 years which Obama would use to provide low- and middle-class tax breaks. 
His proposals: a credit of up to $500 for two-income families, a boost in the child care tax credit to up to $3,000 per child under age 5, and overhauling breaks that help pay for college. Obama also is calling for a $60 billion program for free community college for an estimated 9 million students if all states participate. It also proposes expanding child care to more than 1.1 million additional children under the age of 4 by 2025 and seeks to implement universal pre-school. 
Obama's budget also proposes easing painful, automatic "sequester" cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies with a 7 percent increase in annual appropriations, providing an additional $74 billion in 2016, divided between the military and domestic programs. 
Many Republicans support the extra military spending but oppose increased domestic spending.

UN official says North Korean regime must be 'dismantled' for human rights to thrive

A campaign within the United Nations to haul North Korean leader Kim Jong Un before an international court for crimes against humanity has touched off a defensive fury in Pyongyang, where it's being treated like a diplomatic declaration of war -- an aggressive act aimed not only at shutting down prison camps but also at removing Kim and dismantling his family's three-generation cult of personality.
More paranoia?
Actually, according to the U.N.'s point man on human rights in North Korea, that is not too far off the mark, though he stressed no one is advocating a military option to force regime change.
"It would be, I think, the first order of the day to get these 80,000 to 100,000 (prisoners) immediately released and these camps disbanded," Marzuki Darusman, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But that can only happen if this cult leadership system is completely dismantled. And the only way to do that is if the Kim family is effectively displaced, is effectively removed from the scene, and a new leadership comes into place."
Such blunt words from a high-ranking U.N. official are unusual, although common among American officials.
Darusman said previous proposals submitted to the U.N. trying to persuade or force North Korea to improve its human rights record were mostly "rhetorical" exercises.
But he said this resolution, passed by the General Assembly in December, is more significant because it holds Kim responsible based on a 372-page report of findings presented last year by the U.N.-backed Commission of Inquiry that detailed arbitrary detention, torture, executions and political prison camps.
"This is a sea change in the position of the international community," Darusman said during a recent visit to Tokyo. The North Koreans "are in their most vulnerable position at this stage, whenever the culpability and responsibility of the supreme leader is brought out in full glare of the international public scrutiny."
North Korea's intense response has included threats of more nuclear tests, mass rallies across the country, a bitter smear campaign against defectors who cooperated in the U.N. report and repeated allegations that Washington orchestrated the whole thing in an attempt at speeding a regime change. Its state media last week railed yet again against the U.N. findings, saying "those who cooked up the `report' are all bribed political swindlers and despicable human scum." It called Darusman, the former attorney general of Indonesia, an "opportunist."
In a rare flurry of talks, North Korean diplomats at the U.N. lobbied frenetically to get Kim's culpability out of the resolution without success. The proposal is now on the agenda of the Security Council, which is expected this year to make a decision on whether the issue should be referred to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
Just before the resolution passed the General Assembly, the North Korean diplomatic mission to the U.N. sought a meeting with Darusman to get the wording deleted. During the meeting with Ri Hung Sik, North Korea's ambassador-at-large, the North Koreans indicated their future was at stake, Darusman said.
"They said that other people will take over, and the hardliners will be taking over," Darusman said, suggesting a schism may already be forming between factions scrambling to prove themselves more loyal and more effective in protecting the leadership. "They wouldn't have to mention that to us, but I don't know. I'm taking it at face value."
But here's the reality check about the resolution: The likelihood of criminal proceedings against Kim is minuscule. It would likely be shot down by China or Russia, which have veto power on the Security Council. Also, while more than 120 countries support the International Criminal Court, the United States isn't one of them, so it is somewhat awkward for Washington to push that option too hard.
But even without bringing Kim to court, Darusman said, the placement of North Korean human rights on the Security Council agenda means Pyongyang will face increasing scrutiny from the international community. He said ally China will be under pressure to either distance itself from Pyongyang or lose credibility.
"It may seem remote, but at some stage it is conceivable that China cannot afford to be continuously associated with a regime that is universally sanctioned by the international community," he said. "Something will give."
Washington, meanwhile, is turning up the heat following the massive cyberattack on Sony Pictures.
"We are under no illusions about the DPRK's willingness to abandon its illicit weapons, provocations, and human rights abuses on its own. We will apply pressure both multilaterally and unilaterally," Sung Kim, Washington's special representative for North Korea policy, testified in Congress last month. "The leadership in Pyongyang faces ever-sharper choices."
North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Extricating North Korea from the personality cult of the Kim family would be a genuine challenge under any circumstances.
The country's founder, Kim Il Sung, and his son and successor, Kim Jong Il, permeate every facet of daily life. Citizens wear Kim lapel pins everywhere they go. Portraits and statuary of the father and son are everywhere. In Pyongyang at midnight every night, a ghostly dirge commemorating the elder Kim blares from loudspeakers through the darkness.
According to the U.N. commission's findings and the testimony of many defectors, North Koreans who dare criticize the Kim family are punished severely and face horrific treatment in prison camps around the country. North Korea says that isn't true, and routinely accuses defectors of being "human scum" and criminals.
Officials vociferously deny speculation of disunity within their ranks.
In an interview with the AP in Pyongyang in October, two North Korean legal experts attempted to discredit the U.N. campaign and its findings -- which they called an "anti-DPRK plot" -- and defended the prison system that has long been the core area of concern.
"In a word, the political camps do not exist in our country," said Ri Kyong Chol, director of the international law department at Pyongyang's Academy of Social Sciences. "The difference between the common and the anti-state criminals is that the anti-state criminals get more severe punishment than the common criminals."
But Ri said common and anti-state inmates are not segregated.
"I think every country has prisons to imprison those criminals who have committed crimes against the state," he said. But in North Korea, "there are no different prisons for that."

Chris Christie, Rand Paul under fire for vaccine remarks

Two potential candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 came under heavy criticism late Monday for stating that parents should have input about whether to vaccinate their children.
The remarks by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul were not a departure from previously stated positions, but drew widespread attention as public health officials try to cope with a major measles outbreak that has infected over 100 people in several states.
Christie, who spoke Monday after making a tour of a biomedical research lab in Cambridge, England, said that he and his wife had vaccinated their children. However, the governor added, "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that's the balance that the government has to decide."
Later Monday, Paul said in a radio interview that he believed most vaccines should be voluntary. 
"I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul, an eye doctor, said in a subsequent interview while suggesting vaccines were "a good thing." ''But I think the parents should have some input. The state doesn't own your children."
Both men's staffs later sent out statements clarifying their remarks. Christie's spokesman said the governor believed that "with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated." The statement from Paul's office pointed out that the senator's children have all been vaccinated and added that Paul "believes that vaccines have saved lives, and should be administered to children.
Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender for the party nomination in 2016, couldn't resist taking a dig at the GOP hopefuls on Twitter.
"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest."
Medical experts and political consultants from both sides joined in the criticism.
"When you see educated people or elected officials giving credence to things that have been completely debunked, an idea that’s been shown to be responsible for multiple measles and pertussis outbreaks in recent years, it’s very concerning," Amesh Adalja, an an infectious-disease physician at the Center for Health Security at the University of Pittsburgh, told The Washington Post.
GOP operative Rick Wilson told the paper that he thought Christie's remarks could have been a clumsy play to win over conservative voters suspicious of government mandates.
"There’s only one of two options," Wilson said of Christie. "Either he’s so tone-deaf that he doesn’t understand why saying this is bad for him, or this is a considered political strategy. And that would be even more troubling."
In fact, Christie pledged to fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions during his first campaign for New Jersey governor in 2009. 
All states now require children to get certain vaccinations to enroll in school, although California and New Jersey are among 20 states that let parents opt out by obtaining a waiver. Parents in New Jersey seeking such a waiver for medical reasons must submit a written statement from their doctor or registered nurse.
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly urges parents to get their children vaccinated against measles and other childhood diseases. The New Jersey health department's guidelines on vaccines say that objections "based on grounds which are not medical or religious in nature and which are of a philosophical, moral, secular, or more general nature continue to be unacceptable."
Concerns about autism and vaccinations are often traced to a 1998 study in the British journal Lancet. While the research was later discredited and retracted by the journal, legions of parents abandoned the vaccine, leading to a resurgence of measles in Western countries where it had been mostly stamped out. Last year, there were more than 4,100 cases in Europe, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
Measles is a highly contagious disease that spreads through the air, with symptoms that include fever, runny nose and a blotchy rash. The measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is 97 percent effective at preventing measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Choosing not to vaccinate your child could also endanger the health of other children in your community," CDC director Tom Frieden said Monday.
New Jersey requires the vaccine for children between 12 months and 15 months old, and then a second dose between ages 4 and 6. Such mandated vaccinations are a point of irritation among some conservatives, notable in the early voting state of Iowa, where Christian home-school advocates constitute an influential bloc of voters who take part in the Republican presidential caucuses.
Barb Heki, a leader in Iowa's home-school advocacy network, said such parents "adhere to the idea that it's the parents' right to make the decision on vaccinations.
"More important than a candidate's stance on vaccinations, I'm more concerned for parents' rights to make decisions about their own children, period," she said. "That's paramount."
Louise Kuo Habakus, a radio host who runs a nonprofit group opposed to state-required vaccinations, said she helped arrange a meeting between parents and Christie on the issue in 2009 and saluted him for standing up for the "rights of parents to direct the health, welfare and upbringing of their children."
"He's been absolutely constant and I believe courageous and principled on this issue," she said.

Nuclear Cartoon

Why does the GOP have a problem with conservatives?

Establishment Republicans want our votes, not our values.
That's the topic of Friday's "Todd's American Dispatch," as Todd Starnes reacted to the National Review accusing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of trying to emulate Larry the Cable Guy.
"The fact is, the down-home values of the gun-toting, Bible-clinging, cast-iron skillet cooking crowd are just not welcome in the hoity-toity world of martini-sipping, country club Republican rubes," Starnes said.

In midst of measles outbreak, Obama tells parents to get their kids vaccinated

WASHINGTON –  In the midst of a measles outbreak, President Obama is telling parents to get their kids vaccinated.
Obama says those who don't get their shots can pose a risk to infants and other people who can't get vaccinated.
The president spoke in an interview with NBC Sunday. The interview is airing Monday on The Today Show but the network released excerpts in advance.
More than 100 cases of the measles have been reported in the U.S. since last month. Many cases have been traced directly or indirectly to Disneyland in Southern California.
Obama says measles outbreaks are preventable. He says he understands that some families are concerned about vaccinations, but the science on them is "pretty indisputable."
Obama says a major success of civilization is the ability to prevent diseases that have been devastating in the past.

Walker, eyeing 2016 White House bid, says he's open to sending US troops to fight ISIS

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday he is open to sending U.S. troops to the Middle East to defeat Islamic State fighters -- a bold foreign policy statement in contrast with the Obama administration’s position.
Walker told ABC’s “This Week” that he wouldn’t rule out sending troops, as Islamic State appears to grow and strengthen despite U.S.-led efforts to destroy the radical Islamic group.
“I wouldn't rule out anything,” Walker said. “When you have the lives of Americans at stake ... we have to be prepared to do things that don't allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores."
In a wide-ranging interview in which Walker also made a case for a potential 2016 run, he suggested an Islamic State attack on U.S. soil is "a matter of when .. not if."
And he suggested that the administration, which has U.S. troops helping to train government-backed forces in Iraq, is not doing enough.
Secretary of State John Kerry and other top U.S. officials said last week that coalition forces have launched 2,000 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria that have killed Islamic State leaders and thousands of its fighters. However, Walker suggested the U.S. must do more.
“We must take the fight to ISIS and other radical Islamic groups,” he told ABC.
The administration is reluctant to send troops to the Middle East to fight the militant group, considering the move would be unpopular among Americans, after recent U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Walker leads all potential GOP candidates, according to a Bloomberg Politics/ Des Moines Register Iowa Poll released this weekend. He has 15 percent of the vote, with Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul in second with 14 percent, following Walker's rousing speech last weekend at the Iowa Freedom Summit.
“You can make all of the speeches you want,” Walker also told ABC. “But people want new, fresh leadership.”
He also suggested that he or perhaps Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, another potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, could beat presumptive Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton because they each are a “name for the future.”
He suggested the Clinton name is now synonymous with 20th century ideas and Washington, top-down government.
"Former Secretary of State Clinton embodies all the things that we think of Washington," Walker said. "She lives here, she's worked here, she's been part of the Washington structure for years, not just as a Democrat, but across the spectrum."
Walker has won three elections in the past four years, but Wisconsin has not voted for a Republican president in the past three decades.
On the issue of immigration, Walker said Sunday he opposed “amnesty” for people who have entered the U.S. illegally, but appeared to suggest that deporting the millions now in this country is not a practical solution.
Walker was in Washington this weekend meeting with potential campaign aides and donors. And last week, he announced the formation of a political nonprofit group ahead of a potential White House bid.

In new budget, Obama proposing 14 percent tax on overseas profits to fund infrastructure projects

President Obama will on Monday give Congress his $4 trillion spending plan for fiscal 2016 that includes a request for billions of dollars in much-needed public works projects -- an idea that has bipartisan support but little backing for the proposed tax increases to fund such efforts.
Obama will propose a six-year, $478 billion public-works program for highway, bridge and transit upgrades, with half of it to be financed with a one-time, 14 percent tax on U.S. companies’ overseas profits.
The tax would be due immediately. Under current law, those profits are subject only to federal taxes if they are returned, or repatriated, to the U.S., where they face a top rate of 35 percent. Many companies avoid U.S. taxes on those earnings by simply leaving them overseas.
The tax is part of a broader administration plan to cut corporate tax breaks and increase taxes on the country’s highest wage-earners to pay for projects to help the middle class.
Members of the GOP-controlled Congress and other fiscal conservatives have dismissed the overall plan since elements of it were announced several weeks ago -- part of a White House strategy to win support prior to the president's State of the Union address, in which more details were released, and a campaign-style tour in several states ahead of Monday’s release.
Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan, the new chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told NBC's "Meet the Press,” as he has said in recent weeks, that he was willing to work with the administration to see if both sides can “find common ground on certain aspects of tax reform."
However, he disapproved on the president’s budget plan.
"What I think the president is trying to do here is to, again, exploit envy economics," Ryan said. "This top-down redistribution doesn't work."
Obama's budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 will offer an array of spending programs and tax increases that Republicans now running Congress have already dismissed as nonstarters.
White House officials were not authorized, by name, to discuss the budget, but described the proposal to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.
The proposal improves on an idea that the administration has pushed since the summer of 2013. The administration's budget last year proposed a smaller four-year bridge-and-highway fund. While it paid for it by taxing accumulated foreign earnings, it did not specify a formula.
This time, the budget will call for the one-time tax on the up to $2 trillion in estimated U.S. corporate earnings that have accumulated overseas. That would generate about $238 billion, by White House calculations. The remaining $240 billion would come from the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is financed with a gasoline tax.
The former chairman of the House Ways and Means, now-retired Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., proposed a similar idea last year with a lower mandatory tax, but the plan did not make headway in Congress.
At issue is how to get companies to bring back some of their foreign earnings to invest in the United States. The current 35 percent top tax rate for corporations in the United States, the highest among major economies, serves as a disincentive and many U.S. companies with overseas holdings simply keep their foreign earnings abroad and avoid the U.S. tax.
Under Obama's plan, the top corporate tax rate for company profits earned in the U.S. would drop to 28 percent. While past foreign profits would be taxed immediately at the 14 percent rate, going forward new foreign profits would be taxed immediately at 19 percent, with companies getting a credit for foreign taxes paid.
Most U.S. companies and Republican lawmakers prefer a "territorial" tax system employed by most developed countries, in which companies are taxed only on income earned within a country's borders. That difference could be a major hurdle to a broad overhaul of corporate taxes.
Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., have proposed paying for highway and bridge fixes by letting companies voluntarily pay taxes on foreign earnings at a one-time low rate of 6.5 percent. The White House opposes such voluntary "tax holidays," however, and critics say that without broader tax fixes, such holidays simply encourage companies to park their foreign profits overseas.
Other lawmakers have proposed boosting the Highway Trust Fund with a higher gasoline tax, an idea considered more palatable now that gas prices are low. However, the president is opposed to that idea.
The Obama plan proposes a 75 percent increase in funding for projects such as light rail and other public transportation systems. It also would nearly double spending on grants for local road, rail, transit and port projects. Since 2009, Congress has approved more than $4.1 billion for the competitive grants; the budget asks for $7.5 billion over six years.
Obama is releasing his budget as the federal deficit drops and his poll numbers inch higher. Though Republicans will march ahead on their own, they ultimately must come to terms with the president, who wields a veto pen and has threatened to use it.
Obama is proposing to ease painful, automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies with a 7 percent increase in annual appropriations. He wants a $38 billion increase for the Pentagon that Republicans probably also will want to match. But his demand for a nearly equal amount for domestic programs sets up a showdown that may not be resolved until late in the year.
Another centerpiece of the president's tax proposal is an increase in the capital gains rate on couples making more than $500,000 per year. Obama wants to require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they are inherited. He also wants to impose a fee on the roughly 100 U.S. financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion.
Obama would take the $320 billion that those tax increases would generate over 10 years and funnel them into middle-class tax breaks, expanded child care and a free community college program.
Altogether, the White House calculates that Obama's tax increases and spending cuts would cut the deficit by about $1.8 trillion over the next decade, according to people briefed on the basics of the plan. For 2016, the Obama budget promises a $474 billion deficit, about equal to this year. The deficit would remain less than $500 billion through 2018, but would rise to $687 billion by 2025 -- though such deficits would remain manageable when measured against the size of the economy.

Pipsqueak Cartoon

Veto, filibuster threats ahead of vote next week to fund Homeland Security, roll back executive actions

The GOP-led Senate is expected to vote next week on legislation that keeps the Department of Homeland Security fully operational through February, but parts of the bill that attempt to reverse President Obama’s immigration policy set up a major showdown with Democrats.
The expected political battle started before Republicans took control of the upper chamber, when the parties agreed on a temporary spending bill that essentially funded the entire federal government through the fiscal year, with the exception of the homeland security department.
It was a defiant move by the GOP-led House, in response to Obama’s recent executive actions on illegal immigration, which Democrats accepted as part of the larger budget deal and that also included significant compromises on both sides.
The House has already passed the bill, which will keep the department fully operational past Feb. 27.
But passage in the Senate will be more difficult, with Democrats vowing strong opposition and Republicans unlikely to not get the 60 votes needed to overcome the Democrats’ filibuster.
Obama and fellow party members also have urged Republicans to pass a funding bill for the agency “clean” of any language attempting to roll back the executive actions. And the president has also threatened to veto such legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated the first vote on the House bill will be Tuesday. But whether the Kentucky Republican allows amendments, like he did with the Keystone XL Pipeline legislation, remains unclear. 
‘It’s a debate that will challenge our colleagues on the other side with a simple proposition: Do they think presidents of either party should have the power to simply ignore laws that they don’t like?” McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor.
“Will our Democratic colleagues work with us to defend key democratic ideals like separation of powers and the rule of law? … The House bill does two things -- funds the Department of Homeland Security and reigns in executive overreach. That’s it. It’s that simple.” 
The House-passed bill provides $39.7 billion to finance the department through the rest of the budget year for counterterrorism, cybersecurity and other priorities at a time when attacks in Paris and elsewhere are fresh in the public's mind. Unaffected by the measure is additional money the agency receives from fees.
As passed in the House, the legislation would also reverse Obama's decision last fall to provide temporary deportation relief and work permits to an estimated 4 million immigrants in the country illegally, mostly people who have children who are citizens or legal permanent residents.
The bill also would eliminate a 2012 directive that has granted work permits and stays of deportation to more than 600,000 immigrants who arrived illegally in the U.S. under the age of 16.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure would increase the federal deficit by $7.5 billion over a decade.

GOP House to vote next week to repeal ObamaCare, after attacking law piece by piece

The Republican-led House is set to begin February with a vote to repeal ObamaCare, making clear that trying to dismantle the health-care law remains a top priority.
The scheduled vote next week was announced in a new memo from House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy to fellow GOP House members in which he said the effort to repeal the legislation will give them an opportunity to tell voters that health care decisions “should be made by patients and their doctors, not by Washington.”
The California lawmaker also stated that members should remind Americans that the country needs solutions that reduce costs and give them access to “21st Century cures and treatments” -- an often repeated message at congressional Republicans’ policy retreat earlier this month.
“First, we will consider (a bill) to protect individuals from government-imposed cost increases and reduced access to care and coverage by repealing ObamaCare,” McCarthy said in the memo obtain Thursday by Fox News.
GOP House and Senate leaders emerged from the retreat saying they intend to fix problems associated with ObamaCare but with no clear plan on whether they would focus on a full repeal or just change parts.
The House has already voted this year to redefine full-time work under the law -- an attempt to keep businesses from hiring part-time workers to avoid having to offer insurance.
And chamber leaders also want to repeal the law’s tax on medical-device makers, which they say is hurting businesses and has bipartisan support.
Last week, leaders of the now GOP-controlled Senate introduced legislation to eliminate the law’s so-called employer mandate, arguing that companies with 50 or more workers should not be required to pay for employee health insurance.
However, President Obama has made clear he will veto any legislation that he thinks scales back access to health care that his law now provides to millions of previously uninsured Americans.
The president and fellow Democrats have also been critical about Republicans’ repeated attempts to repeal the law without party leaders presenting a viable alternative.
The repeal vote next week will be the first for newly elected members to show where they stand on the issue.
McCarthy, in his memo, instructed relevant House committees to “develop our patient-centered health care reforms."
Congressional Republicans have acknowledged that a Supreme Court case on ObamaCare tax subsidies for customers will impact their strategy.
If the subsidies are rules unconstitutional, the law could unravel on its own, say some observers. The ruling is expected by June. 

New video purportedly shows beheading of Japanese journalist by ISIS

Japan reacted with shock and anger Sunday after an online video was released that appeared to show Islamic State executing Japanese journalist Kenji Goto -- the apparent end to a frantic past couple of days in which officials tried negotiating to save Goto’s life.
The video, called "A Message to the Government of Japan," featured a militant who looked and sounded like a militant with a British accent who has taken part in other beheading videos by the Islamic State group. 
Goto, kneeling in an orange prison jumpsuit, said nothing in the roughly one-minute-long video.
"Abe," the militant says in the video, referring to the Japanese prime minister, "because of your reckless decision to take part in an unwinnable war, this knife will not only slaughter Kenji, but will also carry on and cause carnage wherever your people are found. So let the nightmare for Japan begin."
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed outrage at the video that was released on militant websites.
"I feel indignation over this immoral and heinous act of terrorism," Abe told reporters after convening an emergency Cabinet meeting.
"When I think of the grief of his family, I am left without words," he said. "The government has been doing its utmost in responding to win his release, and we are filled with deep regrets."
He vowed that Japan will not give in to terrorism and will continue to provide humanitarian aid to countries fighting the Islamic State extremists.
The country was mourning a man who according to friends and family braved hardship and peril to convey through his work the plight of refugees, children and other victims of war and poverty.
"Kenji has died, and my heart is broken. Facing such a tragic death, I'm just speechless," Goto's mother Junko Ishido told reporters.
"I was hoping Keji might be able to come home," said Goto's brother, Junichi Goto. "I was hoping he would return and thank everyone for his rescue, but that's impossible, and I'm bitterly disappointed."
Ishido earlier told NHK TV her son's death showed he was a kind, gentle man, trying to save another hostage. That hostage, Haruna Yukawa, was shown as purportedly killed in an earlier video.
The White House released a statement late Saturday condemning what it called q "heinous murder."
"Our thoughts are with Mr. Goto’s family and loved ones, and we stand today in solidarity with Prime Minister Abe and the Japanese people in denouncing this barbaric act," the statement said. 
The White House’s National Security Council issued a statement minutes after the release of the video stating intelligence officials are, as with similar recent videos, trying to verify its authenticity.
The hostage drama began last week after Islamic State threatened to kill Goto and fellow Japanese hostage Haruna Yukawa in 72 hours unless Japan paid $200 million.
A purported militant message released Jan. 24 claimed Yukawa had been killed.
The militants later demanded the release of Sajida al-Rishawi, who is on death row in Jordan for her role in a 2005 al Qaeda attack on hotels in Amman that killed 60 people.
Within hours, the militant group said it instead wanted al-Rishawi, 44, released in exchange for the life of hostage Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, a Jordanian fighter pilot.
Late Friday, after the deadline for a deal had passed, Japan's deputy foreign minister, Yasuhide Nakayama, said that efforts to free Goto were "in a state of deadlock."
The 26-year-old al Kaseasbeh's plane went down in December over an Islamic State-controlled area of northeastern Syria.
He is the first foreign pilot to be captured by the group since a U.S.-led military coalition began carrying out airstrikes against the extremists in September. Jordan is part of the coalition.
Kaseasbeh's family said late Friday there has been no word about the 26-year-old pilot’s fate.
Goto was captured in October, after he traveled to Syria to try to win the release of Yukawa.
Jordan and Japan are reportedly conducting indirect negotiations with the militants through Iraqi tribal leaders.

Confirmation hearings set to begin for Carter as next defense secretary amid daunting global challenges

Senate hearings on whether to confirm Ashton Carter as President Obama’s pick to be the new defense secretary are set to begin next week, amid widespread, military-related challenges around the globe.
The hearings are scheduled to begin Wednesday in the Senate Armed Services Committee. If confirmed, Carter would replace Secretary Chuck Hagel, who announced in December 2014 that he would resign from the post when a replacement is confirmed.
Carter faces an array of challenges, with the unexpected problems emerging as among the most challenging.
U.S. troops are now back in Iraq, after the U.S. ended the war on terrorism in the Middle East country in 2011, this time trying to help the local militia defeat The Islamic State.
The violent extremist group has recently flourished in Iraq and has taken control of parts of the country.
In addition, the recent outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in West Africa has required the unexpected and urgent deployment of U.S. troops.
Even predictable challenges, such as pursuing and killing terrorists in the Middle East and Afghanistan, can be harder than they seemed on the outside, even for an experienced national security practitioner like Carter.
The 60-year-old Carter is a seasoned but relatively obscure Washington national security expert. He was the country’s deputy defense secretary from October 2011 to December 2013, a role that is essential the agency’s chief operating officer.
If confirmed by the Senate, Carter would be Obama's fourth Pentagon chief in his roughly six-year administration.
The president nominated Carter in early December, just eight days after Hagel abruptly resigned under White House pressure, after less than two years on the job.
Carter also has extensive experience in the national security arena. Before he served as deputy defense secretary from October 2011 to December 2013 he was the Pentagon's technology and weapons-buying chief for more than two years.
During the administration of President Bill Clinton he was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. Before that he was director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School.
He has bachelor's degrees in physics and medieval history from Yale University and received his doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He has served on the advisory boards of MIT's Lincoln Laboratories and the Draper Laboratory. He has extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
In national security circles Carter is closely associated with a concept he and former Secretary of Defense William Perry championed in the 1990s. They called it "preventive defense." Its basic premise is that in the aftermath of the Cold War the U.S. could forestall major new security threats by using defense diplomacy — forging and strengthening security partnerships with China, Russia and others.
Carter's view of U.S. defense priorities appears to fit well with the Obama agenda, including better minding of defense alliances and partnerships in Asia and the Pacific, as well as more attention on cyber-defense and countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction.