Ann Coulter: ' McConnell Schools Obama on Debt'

Well, here's another prominent conservative backing the Senate Minority Leader ... Ann Couter at Human Events:

Democrats don't want to cut any government spending programs, not now, not ever. The country is on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy (the only kind of bullets liberals approve of), and the Democrats' motto is: Spend! Spend! Spend!

Democrats are at an advantage in the "should the U.S. go bankrupt or not?" debate because, based on their economic policies so far, they obviously favor bankruptcy.

This allows them to sit back and demand that Republicans propose all the spending cuts and then turn around and scream that Republicans have declared war on the poor and disadvantaged.

It's a nice trick, especially considering Republicans control only the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats control all other branches of our government: the Senate, the White House, and The New York Times op/ed page. What's their plan?

Their plan is to keep spending, while blaming tax breaks for corporate jets for the entire $14.3 trillion deficit. The Democrats will never suggest any cuts to a budget that has put the country another $4 trillion in debt only since Obama became president.

She's funny. More here.

Postal Workers Union Won't Take Down 'Misleading' Ad

At Daily Caller, "Issa calls on Postal Workers Union to stop running ‘misleading ad’ about USPS financial situation," and Fox News, "Postal Union Refuses to Pull Ad After Issa Calls Funding Claim 'Misleading'":

USPS is sometimes thought of as a "government corporation," but it's more accurately a gargantuan bureaucratic organization that can't go out of business. See CNS, "U.S. Postal Service Lost Record $8.5 Billion in 2010."

RELATED: "Rural America feels the sting of post office closings." And "Small Spokane County town fighting for post office‎," and "Aldermen opposed to losing downtown post office."

No More Mister Nice Guy: Can Tim Pawlenty Make the Sale to Voters?

From Kim Strassel, at Wall Street Journal, "Beyond Minnesota Nice":

Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty brags that as governor he stared down Democrats on taxes and spending, but can he sell it to conservative voters?

Ask Mitt Romney to opine about his time managing a blue state, and the former Massachusetts governor will mostly take a pass. Ask Tim Pawlenty about his recent tenure governing liberal Minnesota, and you could be listening for hours.

If Mr. Pawlenty sees a path to the Republican presidential nomination, it's increasingly through the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Running in a highly conservative primary as the former head of a proudly liberal state—one perpetually beset by economic woes—certainly holds its downsides. But Mr. Pawlenty isn't shying away from that past. He's intent on turning his own feisty leadership of Minnesota into his main selling point for the nomination.
This has become all the more clear this past week, as the Minnesota government shut down over a budget impasse. The focus instantly turned to Mr. Pawlenty, highlighting the risks his time as governor (which ended earlier this year) holds for his run.

Conservative critics jumped to suggest the shutdown shows Mr. Pawlenty is far from the fiscal hawk he claims to be—that he instead papered over Minnesota's budget woes. Democrats piled on, with Walter Mondale emerging to lay the entire "mess" of a shutdown at Mr. Pawlenty's feet. All this is the last way Mr. Pawlenty wants to be defined to primary voters who are only now becoming familiar with candidates.

And Mr. Pawlenty's response? Far from going on defense, this week he aired a spot on Iowa television feting . . . the Minnesota shutdown. To be precise, the ad is highlighting a 2005 Minnesota shutdown, bragging that it happened because Mr. Pawlenty refused "to accept Democrats' massive tax and spending plans." The ad also references a 2004 transit strike (caused by a fight over pension cuts), in which Mr. Pawlenty "refused to cave in to government unions." The ad's moderator notes that both situations ended with one result: "Pawlenty won."

And:

Still, Mr. Pawlenty has been playing off variations of the tough-guy-from-a-purple-state theme since he first started contemplating a run, and he has yet to get traction. The RealClearPolitics average of polls has him pulling 4.5% of voters—significantly less than Republicans who haven't even declared. This helps explain why the Pawlenty team is embracing, not running from, the Minnesota shutdown. They are happy for the headlines.

More at the link.

I like Pawlenty. He seems like a nice guy. I just don't see him getting traction, and I expect a loss in Iowa could be the end of the line for the former governor --- at least for now.

RELATED: At New York Times, "Will Republican Race’s First In Be the First Out?" (via Memeorandum).

A New Constitutional Understanding of War Powers?

Bruce Kesler takes Charles Krauthammer to task, quite effectively, at Maggie's Farm, "Krauthammer Goes From Frying Pan to Fire, and Misses the Point."

Gloria Molina, L.A. County Supervisor, Said She'd Like to 'Cut the Testicles Off' Agency Executive Under Her Authority

Los Angeles County government is a lot like the Cook County political machine. A bastion of Democrat Party power, top officials run government like fiefs, and they wield power in the style of the big city party bosses of yore.

In an article today, the Los Angeles Times reports that the Los Angeles County board of supervisors has sought to kneecap County Chief Executive William T. Fujioka. He is CEO for the County, in charge of managing a $23 billion budget and over 100,000 employees. Apparently Fujioka, whose grandparents were sent to internment camps during World War II, is a hard-knuckled administrator, having honed his political skins navigating the rough and tumble of L.A.'s east side gang scene growing up. On the job as County CEO since 2007, Fujioka initiated an administrative reorganization that worked to take power from the hands of the elected board:

The county plan to centralize authority was the brainchild of Fujioka's highly respected predecessor, David Janssen. The new chief executive was to have increased responsibility over the department heads who guide the delivery of services for 10 million constituents, ranging from housing the skid row homeless to defending exclusive hillside neighborhoods from mudslides.

Fujioka was given more staff, and his office's budget climbed 53% to $43 million in four years. Eventually, Fujioka was to have received greater power to hire and fire most agency chiefs.

Under the new structure, supervisors were to have taken a back seat in day-to-day operations. The structure presumed the high level of respect and openness Fujioka's predecessor enjoyed. But most supervisors and their staffs have served for decades and developed expertise and deep interests in certain issues, and the transfer of trust did not come naturally.

No doubt.

It turns out that board members Michael Antonovich, Gloria Molina, and Zev Yaroslavsky moved "to strip the Children and Family Services and Probation departments from Fujioka's control." There's more to the story at the link, including some ugly politics among members of the board, but this passage really caught my attention, and looks like an abuse of power:

While a majority of Fujioka's elected superiors may be critical, his subordinates praise him. County managers have complained about pointed attacks and contradictory direction from board offices in the past. "It's a very scary thing if you are a lowly department head," said Janice Fukai, the county's alternate public defender. "If you go in with the CEO, you feel a little more insulated and a little more protected."

Fujioka's backers say he has been particularly frustrated by some of the supervisors' interventions in the children's services agency, which has been grappling with child fatalities following errors in handling cases. It is one of the departments being taken away from Fujioka. Molina is especially hands-on, summoning top agency officials to her office to demand explanations. In one instance, she said she would like to cut the testicles off an executive because of problems in the agency, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

Gloria Molina's homepage is here. Clicking her page begins a photographic slide show of her service, beginning with a photo of Molina posing with President Barack Obama and ending with a shot of her posing with Former President Bill Clinton.

Her appearances with Democratic presidents form the bookends of a career in Los Angeles government spanning 20 years. In that time she's clearly developed an authoritarian style, which features crude and threatening accounts of her treatment of administrative subordinates. That Supervisor Molina refused to answer questions about the comment, as the Times indicates, is not surprising:

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

In a time of fiscal austerity, government officials at all levels have been coming under increased attention. But I think it's fair to say that it's especially inappropriate for an L.A. County Supervisor to announce she wants to "cut the testicles" off subordinate agency officials, and when asked about it to further denigrate them as "children."

Progressives would be all over this story if a Republican official has made comparable remarks. But this is the Los Angeles big city machine, and County elected officials obviously feel they can act with impunity.

UPDATE: From Russ, in the comments:

I think when she says "children", she is referring to the children under the protective services that have died while under their authority, NOT the supervisors she threatened with castration.

I also got an e-mail from someone objecting to my comment on Molina's reference to "the children." I won't be surprised if some ASFLs contact my college to complain. Democrats and progressives are evil like that. So let's be clear: "The outcomes" may clearly refer to a purposeful act in the active sense, as in the actions of the administrators who have taken power from the hands of the board. Of course Molina might be referring to "the outcomes" of the children in the passive sense, but then again, considering she's threatening administrative subordinates, maybe not. She's a Democrat. They talk down to people like that. Progressives are losers.

Also, linked at Instapundit, because, you know, no one pays attention to this blog, or something:

THREATS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE FROM A DEMOCRATIC OFFICEHOLDER IN LOS ANGELES ...

I hope the Department Of Justice will investigate this egregious civil rights violation. For that matter, I suspect it’s a violation of California state civil rights law. Gloria Allred, call your office!

Word.

O.C. Grand Jury Questions Officials' Salaries in 3 Cities

At Los Angeles Times.

It's not as bad at the Bell scandal, but there's some big taxpayers money involved:

A first-of-its-kind report by the Orange County Grand Jury questioned whether top officials in three upscale cities — Laguna Hills, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach — are paid too much.

The report was commissioned in the wake of questions over city employee compensation fueled by last year's salary scandal in Bell, where top officials were earning salaries as high as $787,000.

The grand jury found no salaries in the 34 cities surveyed that the panel considered "abusive." The three cities were called out because they appeared to be paying out more than most Orange County cities.

In the case of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the grand jury questions what it said was a large number of employees earning $100,000 or more. Laguna Beach, with a population of about 25,000, had 22 such employees, and Newport Beach, with a population of about 86,000, had 60. The grand jury found that the two cities had more high-paid workers per capita that other cities.

Officials in Laguna Beach and Newport Beach disputed the findings. They said that although their cities' populations may be smaller than others, they are both full-service cities, meaning that they use city employees for services that other cities contract out. Both are also coastal cities with tens of thousands of tourists creating an added demand on city services.

"I think [the report's conclusions] were a bit misleading," said Laguna Beach City Manager John Pietig. "To do an analysis like this without comparing the services is really an apples-to-oranges comparison."

More at the link. Laguna Hills City Manager Bruce Channing makes a total of $378,000 including benefits, which is considered "excessive" if not "abusive."

I wish I was making that kind of money. Sheesh.

Leon Panetta, U.S. Defense Secretary Nominee, Linked to Communist, Anti-Semitic Women's International League for Peace

A really interesting piece, from Aaron Klein, at World Net Daily, "Panetta Keynoted Pro-Soviet Group's Conference".

It turns out that Panetta honored Lucy Haessler, a founder of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).

The WILPF homepage is here. WILPF is a longtime communist front group, with ties to various terror-financing operations: "Not In Our Name and the World Wide Terrorism Web." It's also an anti-Semitic organization: "WILPF Supports Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions for Israel." And "Blood Libel: NIF-Linked Group Blames Israel for Leukemia in Gaza."

See also New Zeal, "Panetta Report 1: Leon Panetta Paid Tribute to Two Longtime Communists," and "Panetta Report 2: Leon Panetta Paid Tribute to Pro-Communist Peace Activist."

Plus, at Anti-Liberal Zone, "LEON PANETTA LEFTIST STOOGE IN THE PENTAGON."

Presidential War Powers

Harry Reid's a blithering idiot. I have no idea how he was ever elected to public office. It's not so much his position on the War Powers Resolution, but that it's at odds with his claim that the public wants the troops home from Afghanistan. Frankly, Americans are weary of overseas commitments altogether, but at least the Afghan deployment enjoyed broad bipartisan support to begin with, back in the day. With Libya, the administration took the easiest route to do something --- anything --- in North Africa and the Middle East amid the wave of revolutions taking place in the "Arab Spring." And there's been little public consensus on major U.S. role in Libya.

This guy sucks:

Unfortunately, a Ron Paul wing in the GOP is joining with the Dennis Kucinich Demo-nuts to push for action on the Resolution. A lot of folks in the right blogosphere have made something out of this as well, and it goes to the lack of vital national interests at stake, and that's understandable. That said, John Yoo's got a new piece up on the Commander-in-Chief's authority on the use of force, "The GOP Plays Politics With the War Powers Resolution," and Yoo's the man:

Congressional Republicans should not try to outdo Mr. Obama in a game of unprincipled one-upmanship. But that's precisely what key GOP leaders have done. Earlier this week, House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to the White House accusing Mr. Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution. "The Constitution requires the president to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" he wrote, quoting the president's responsibilities under Article II of the Constitution. "And one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation."

Mr. Boehner's claim ignores the Constitution's fundamental nature as supreme law. As Chief Justice John Marshall declared in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Constitution is "a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means," and any act of Congress "contrary to the constitution is not law." If the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to use force abroad, Congress cannot take it away. Surely Mr. Boehner agreed with this proposition before the current president took office. He, for instance, never claimed that President George W. Bush's exercise of broad executive powers in the war on terror violated the Constitution. Nor does he appear to have thought that legislative authorization of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was constitutionally necessary in 2001 and 2002.

Not to be outdone, House Republicans Roscoe Bartlett, Dan Burton, Howard Coble, John Duncan, Tim Johnson, Walter Jones and Ron Paul joined with Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats this week and filed suit in a D.C. federal court seeking to halt U.S. military operations in Libya. They may see themselves as purists, but they are not demonstrating fidelity to the Constitution by launching a legal effort that they know to be utterly futile ....

RTWT.

Added: See Allahpundit's write up on the New York Times' story, "NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers" (via Memeorandum). And check JustOneMinute, "Obama Goes Shopping For Legal Advice." It's the hypocrisy that's stunning.

Bush White House Sought CIA Probe for 'Damaging Personal Information' on Leftist Professor Juan Cole?

Wow.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Honestly, though, arrest him if there's evidence of aiding and abetting terrorism. But don't just smear the guy using the CIA. Sounds like something from the Nixon years.

At New York Times, "Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic":

WASHINGTON — A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him.

Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.

In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.

It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies ever provided any information or spied on him. Mr. Carle said that a memorandum written by his supervisor included derogatory details about Professor Cole, but that it may have been deleted before reaching the White House. Mr. Carle also said he did not know the origins of that information or who at the White House had requested it.

Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.

“We’ve thoroughly researched our records, and any allegation that the C.I.A. provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to anyone is simply wrong,” said George Little, an agency spokesman.

More at that link at top.

And what the heck? Check over at Juan Cole's, the freak: "Ret’d. CIA Official Alleges Bush White House Used Agency to “Get” Cole," and "Cole on Goodman & CIA Surveillance."

And, "Repeal the PATRIOT Act is the Lesson of Bush White House Spying."

Nope, not going that far. Patriot Act does not authorize CIA spying domestically. It simply allows coordination of intelligence gathering activities. Longstanding bureaucratic norms would still drive domestic surveillance operations, and frankly, the legacy of the 1960s and 1970s still contributes to a culture of legal safeguards that obviously make cases of spying --- like that alleged against Professor Juan Cole --- beyond the pale. Bust him if he's a treasonous dirtbag. Otherwise, let him spew his bilious hatred. No doubt he's earned some enemies on that basis alone.

L.A. Times: California GOP Must Reinvent Itself to Survive

See, "To Survive, State GOP Must Reinvent Itself":

With the unveiling of the state's new political boundaries last week, California Republicans are contemplating their very survival: Without a course correction, they could be headed for the wilderness.

Drawn for the first time by an independent commission instead of Sacramento insiders, the proposed new voting maps suggest the GOP could lose as many as five seats in Congress. Moreover, Democrats may be positioned to win two-thirds of the state Legislature, potentially robbing the minority party of its ability to block tax increases, the last vestige of its governing power in the state Capitol.

Between now and next year's elections, Republicans must scramble to reinvent themselves, recruit more moderate candidates and find common ground with more Californians if they are to be at all relevant in Golden State politics, according to independent experts and partisan analysts alike. Then voters in the considerable number of new swing districts that the maps show could opt to elect moderate Republicans just as easily as centrist Democrats.

There's more, but you get the drift.

It's almost comical. Here's the Los Angeles Times, still a respectable paper, but hopelessly left-wing, arguing that the state's GOP should be moving left, becoming more moderate than it already is. And that's after 7 years of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who did virtually nothing to repair the state's battered fiscal existence. And for decades we've had surging immigration, especially illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America, that has formed a steady supply of future Democratic Party voters. And for what? Much of California is run down and governed like a Third World kleptocracy. Recall that I was briefly in a funk after last November's election. I spoke semi-seriously about relocating out of state. And I might be dropping the "semi" over the next few years as I approach retirement. Communists are everywhere. Moral bankruptcy and rampant corruption fill the schools, and unions are fiscally bankrupting that state. That's not to say there aren't lots of conservatives, but as the Times points out, they won't have much of a voice in government if trends continue. I'll have more on this. My sense is that right-wing activists have to keep doing what they're doing, and work on mobilizing newcomers to the state, and young people, to conservative values. And then encourage these people to hold the state's GOP accountable to limited government principles. There's no other way, really, short of pulling up the drawbridge to stem the tide of illegal immigration's revolving door and the permanent radical voting block that's consolidating. It's ridiculous.

RELATED: At New York Times, "Redistricting Offers Republicans Few Gains in 2012."

MediCare: Too Good to Last

From Charlie Cook, at National Journal:

“Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits Over a Lifetime,” a study by C. Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane for the Urban Institute that was released in January, demonstrates quite vividly why senior citizens like Medicare so much. A single man earning the average wage, $43,100 in 2010 dollars, who retired in 2010 will pay an average of $55,000 in Medicare taxes over his lifetime and will receive $161,000 in Medicare benefits. A similarly situated woman will pay the same $55,000 in Medicare taxes but will get $181,000 in Medicare benefits (because women live longer than men). A one-earner couple in that situation, again paying $55,000 in Medicare taxes, would receive $342,000 in benefits. If you’re a Medicare recipient, why wouldn’t you think that the program as we know it is a great deal?

But, obviously, it’s not sustainable. With federal budget deficits soaring and worries about a national-debt crisis in our future rising, how is it possible to keep Medicare as we know it? If the federal government, over the long haul, isn’t in a position to make up the gap between what people are paying and the benefits they’re receiving, Medicare taxes have to go up, benefits have to be cut, or deductibles have to be raised on high-income retirees.

That's the key nugget, but read it all. Democrats are getting a free ride on this politically, despite the fact that the GOP's got the honest approach to policy. As usual.

RELATED: See also Andrew McCarthy, "Not Entitled."