House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers’ jobs.
“I don’t think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “I think it’s necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/283341-pelosi-congressional-pay-cut-undermines-dignity-of-the-job-#ixzz2KynxRBV2
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Dont they realize that the 2nd ammendment is not about hunting?  The Founding fathers put that in to protect us agains the Government so if we ever get into a scrap with the Gov I think it would be difficult if we only had handguns.  What a dip sh_t

Now, now. Calm down. Yes, I know you voted for Obama, but didn’t you ever stop to think that he’d tax you, too? You didn’t? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Disillusioned Obama voters are waking up to face the reality that Obama didn’t exempt them in his quest to steal money from all Americans to pay for his expanding government. It turns out that those making $30,000 a year will pay more taxes than those making $500,000 because of the deal Obama pushed for after the fiscal cliff debacle. Obama voters, the joke’s on you. Oh, one other little tidbit. The Democrats want to find $1 trillion more in taxes in 2013. The message is sinking in. Here are some tweets from Obama voters: @CZebari22 Damn the taxes killed me. I should have voted Romney @crushonchrissy I’m starting to regret voting for Obama. @gekka_88 I have a friend who voted for Obama publicly complaining about the new #SS tax raise. I would just like to say: You did this to yourself. @VAisforlovas But really how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama One comment on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. whined:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/08/Obama-Voters-Furious-About-Tax-Hikes

Lawmakers aghast over report of lavish conference footed by taxpayers

Lawmakers are voicing outrage following a government report that found the General Services Administration held a blowout $820,000 conference near Las Vegas which grossly exceeded what the planners were allowed to spend.   The employees dropped thousands of dollars on luxury items and convention giveaways — including more than $6,000 on commemorative coins, $8,000 on a “yearbook,” and $3,200 for an in-house mind reader.

“It’s unbelievable that red flags didn’t immediately go up well before this junket,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said.   In the wake of the report, the White House accepted the resignation of General Services Administration chief Martha Johnson. Johnson also dismissed two deputies and suspended other career employees over the affair.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/lawmakers-aghast-over-report-lavish-conference-footed-by-taxpayers/#ixzz1r0UEjJTW

NEW YORK –  In a  bizarre case of political correctness run wild, New York educrats banned  references to “dinosaurs,” “birthdays,” “Halloween” and dozens of other topics  on city-issued tests.

That is because they fear such topics “could evoke  unpleasant emotions in the students.”

Dinosaurs, for example, call to mind evolution,  which might upset fundamentalists; birthdays are not celebrated by Jehovah’s  Witnesses; and Halloween suggests paganism.

Even “dancing” is taboo, because some sects object.  But the city did make an exception for ballet.

The forbidden topics were recently spelled out in a  request for proposals provided to companies competing to revamp New York City’s  English, math, science and social studies tests given several times a year to  measure student progress.

“Some of these topics may be perfectly acceptable in  other contexts but do not belong in a city- or state-wide assessment,” the  request reads.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-dinosaurs-dancing-and-more-on-student-progress-tests/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qEMxLKMb

How did America become broke and insolvent? How did  we build up an unimaginable $115 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities? How  did we allow the American Dream to become a nightmare?

All we need do is look at the primary demand the  Eurozone and IMF  are placing on hopelessly bankrupt Greece  to get their new $170 Billion bailout — Greece has agreed to cut 150,000  government employees. Even Cuba’s leader Raul  Castro recognizes government employees are at the root of economic  destruction, as he is cutting over 2 million of them to save Cuba from  bankruptcy.

The truth is that government employees are the true  1%. We have far too many of them (21 million), many of them are paid too much,  and their union demands are straining taxpayers to the breaking point.

They have become a privileged class that expects to  be treated superior to the taxpayers — the same folks who pay their salaries  and pensions. But it is their obscene pensions that  are the big problem moving forward for America.

How would you like to retire with $6 million? $8  million? $10 million? All you have to do is become a government employee to hit  the jackpot.

You don’t believe me? Do the math.

I recently talked with a retired New York City toll  taker. His salary averaged about $70,000 per year over 20 years. But in his last  few years he worked loads of overtime and added in accumulated sick days to get  his salary in those final years up to $150,000.

His pension is based on his final years’ salary.  This is a common pension-padding ploy.

He bragged that he will now get a taxpayer funded  pension of $120,000 a year for the rest of his life. He’s only 50 years  old.

The average 50-year old male has a life expectancy  of almost 80. With automatic cost of living increases, that’s a bill to  taxpayers of $5 million for the next 30 years –for not working. THREE TIMES  WHAT HE EARNED WHILE WORKING.

And, of course, we’re also paying his medical  bills.

No country, no budget, and no taxpayers anywhere in  the world can afford this. Ask Greece.

But here’s a frightening question- what if he lives  to 90? Or 100? His pension could rise to $8 million or higher.

Multiply this times 21 million government employees  (on the federal, state and local level) and you now get a sense of what is  bankrupting America.

Are these stories the exception, rather than the  rule? Over 77,000 federal government employees earned more than the governor of their  state.

On the federal level, it was just reported by USA  Today that the average federal civil servant compensation is $123,049 per  year.

That’s more than double what private sector workers  earn (average of $61,051). Since 2000, federal government employee compensation  has grown by 36.9% versus 8.8% for private sector employees.

In Las Vegas (Clark County) the average firefighter earns $199,678 per year.

When he retires at age 45 or 50, we owe his pension  based on that obscene salary. But here’s the clincher –when he finally dies,  the taxpayer has to continue paying the pension to his spouse. Add up the damage  to the economy. It is catastrophic. Talk about a 1 per center — a single  firefighter could retire with $8 to $10 million for not working for the rest of  his life.

This is madness.

Now it’s true that policemen and firefighters are  heroes. But they make up a small portion of government employees.

Recent studies prove the average janitor that works  for government makes over $600,000 more in his career than a private sector  janitor. Are janitors heroes too?

Again, this is madness.

Three stories on the same day in this past Sunday’s  Las Vegas newspapers sum up this national outrage.

Let’s start with the Las Vegas teachers union. It was reported that more than a  third of the union’s entire $4.1 million annual budget went to pay just nine  union leaders.

The Teachers Union Executive Director received  $632,546, while the CEO of the union-created Teachers Health Trust was paid  $546,133.

So next time you hear educators scream that we must  spend more money on education, because “it’s for the kids,” you’ll know the  truth. It’s for the unions.

It’s always been for the unions.

Bernie Madoff has nothing on the government employee  union scam.

Article number two in Sunday’s Las Vegas Review  Journal was about those highly paid Las Vegas firefighters.

It turns out they weren’t satisfied with making  almost $200,000 per year. They also abused sick leave, rigged work schedules to  pump up their pensions, and appear to have engaged in widespread disability fraud.

About half of all Clark County firefighters retired  with work-related injuries in recent years- garnering bonus payments averaging $320,000 apiece. That’s in  addition to their obscene pensions for life.

Is this also “for the kids?”

Article number three in Sunday’s paper was about a  now retired Las Vegas homicide detective and possible police  brutality. It had nothing to do with pensions. But interestingly, the  retired homicide detective they quote in the story is 47 years old.

He’s 47 and already retired?

Want to bet that you and I are on the hook for $5 to  $10 million in pension and health benefits from now until the day he dies- for  not working. Is this also “for the kids?”

I’ll say it one more time… this is madness.

These aren’t CEO types. These are average government  employees retiring with the equivalent of $5 to $10 million. These are the true  1% privileged class that are bankrupting our country and destroying the once  great U.S. economy.

Something is very wrong here.

No one has a right to complain about the high  incomes of business owners in the private sector (the 1%). We rarely have  pensions and our compensation doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime. We risk our own  money to start our businesses and often work 16 hour days, weekends and  holidays.

Yet for all that risk and hard work, do you know any  small business owners who retire with $5 to $10 million? They  are few and far between. But that’s exactly what a private sector employee would  need in the bank on the day of his or her retirement to match the $100,000 per  year pensions (plus health care benefits and cost of living increases) of  government employees paid out over 30 to 50 years.

Keep in mind that government employees never risk a  dollar of their own money. They have lifetime job security. And they rarely work  beyond 9 to 5, let alone weekends or holidays.

Yet government employees are paid millions by  taxpayers to retire early, often on pensions fattened by gaming the corrupt  system.

They are the true 1%.

This is a national disgrace that is bankrupting  America. The gall of this scam would make Bernie Madoff blush.

But hey…”It’s for the kids!”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/government-employees-true-1-percent/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1pC3Kt3GI

Yesterday, we explored the Obama campaign’s ad against Sarah Palin featuring heavy selective editing to take her comments about President Obama out of context. As we pointed out, the ad cut out all discussion of both Bill Maher’s nasty language about Gov. Palin and President Obama’s association with Derrick Bell. And last night, Gov. Palin commented on the ad herself, writing:

The far Left continues to believe American voters are not smart enough to grasp the diversionary tactics it employs to distract us from the issues our President just doesn’t want to talk about – issues that affect us all every day and must be addressed. Exhibit A in these diversionary tactics is an absurd new attack ad President Obama has released taking my comments out of context ….

This latest ad is quite odd, but also quite telling. It shows that our President sure seems fearful of discussing the economy, energy prices, and all the other problems people need addressed. And intended or not, now that his ad opens up the discussion of Barack Obama’s radical past associations and the radical philosophy that shaped his ideas about his promised “fundamental transformation” of our country, I welcome the media to join ordinary Americans in finally vetting Barack Obama.

Today, Politico reported on the controversy, and in doing so, presented “the full comments from Palin’s March 8 interview with Hannity.” The only problem: the remarks they present aren’t close to full. In fact, they don’t mention either Bill Maher or Derrick Bell either. So Politico, even when covering the controversy, refused to give the context. Leave it to the liberal media to cover a story about selective editing … and selectively edit in the process to protect President Obama. This is why we have to vet the media as well as the president.

INDIANAPOLIS – A report released today during national Sunshine Week by the Society of Professional Journalists found that reporters who cover federal government agencies say they face impediments to getting information to the public because of interference from public affairs officers.
An online survey of 146 Washington, D.C.-area reporters in February indicated overwhelming frustration from journalists trying to interview federal employees or get basic information for the public.
Download the full report here.
The survey was conducted by the Freedom of Information Committee of SPJ. Key highlights of the study include:
• Pre-approval: Three-quarters of the working journalists reported that they have to get approval from public affairs officers before interviewing agency employees.
• Prohibition: Two-thirds of reporters said agencies outright prohibit reporters from interviewing agency employees some or most of the time.
• Monitoring: About 84 percent said their interviews have been monitored in person or over the phone by government public information officers. “They sit right next to the person I am interviewing and often times jump in to make a comment or interfere with the conversation,” one respondent stated.
• Censorship: Seven out of 10 reporters agreed with the statement, “I consider government agency controls over who I interview a form of censorship.”
• Public hurt: About 85 percent of the journalists agreed with the statement, “The public is not getting the information it needs because of barriers agencies are imposing on journalists’ reporting practices.”
Carolyn S. Carlson, a former SPJ president and lead author of the study, said the results were alarming. “Reporters in Washington are struggling to give the public an objective view of the federal government, but are running into interference rather than assistance from the very people hired by the government to help them. Public affairs officers need to facilitate media coverage, not interfere or block it,” she said.
SPJ President John Ensslin agreed, saying, “The findings in this report, while not surprising, are a dismaying trend. Government works best when there’s a free flow of information at all levels. The strategy of spokespeople acting as the spigots of that information inevitably backfires by fostering leaks and intrigue instead of the sunshine of full disclosure.”
On a good note, about 70 percent of the surveyed journalists said they had a positive relationship with the public information officers with whom they work, and most reported that officers quickly respond to their queries most of the time.
However, overwhelmingly, comments from the surveyed journalists indicated increasing frustration at what they perceive as efforts by agencies to control the message to the public. “PAOs tend to make up information,” stated one respondent. “You can never trust the information they provide. They make our jobs almost impossible and they treat journalists with barely any professionalism.”
Another respondent: “They act as gatekeepers. And they are very rarely completely helpful or forthcoming.”
The survey was conducted online Jan. 23 through Feb. 24. A sample of 776 journalists identified by SPJ as covering federal agencies were contacted, and 146 responded (19 percent). Most (91 percent) were reporters and worked for wire services (32 percent) or large newspapers (32 percent). The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percent.
The survey was conducted by Carolyn S. Carlson, an assistant professor of communication at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Ga., and David Cuillier, director of the School of Journalism at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Ariz., on behalf of the SPJ Freedom of Information Committee, of which both are members. Carlson is a former national SPJ president. Cuillier is a former chairman of the FOI Committee and is currently secretary-treasurer of SPJ’s national board of directors. They were assisted by Kennesaw journalism student Lindsay Tulkoff.
For more details, see the study report at http://spj.org/pdf/reporters-survey-on-federal-PAOs.pdf. For further information, contact Carlson at ccarls10@kennesaw.edu or Cuillier at cuillier@email.arizona.edu.
Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta Chi, SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press. For more information about SPJ, please visit www.spj.org.

The company that sells ground beef treated with ammonia proclaims their meat mixture is good for America’s schoolchildren, even though parents across the country are seriously questioning the safety of what has been dubbed “pink slime.”

Beef Products Inc. (BPI) made the declaration about its “lean finely textured beef” or LFTB over the weekend to The Daily, which broke the news that the federal government plans to buy ground beef that contains 7 million pounds of the product in the coming year. After the report, “pink slime” became the most searched topic on the internet.

“Including LFTB in the national school lunch program’s beef products accomplishes three important goals on behalf of 32 million kids,” BPI spokesman Rich Jochum said. “It 1) improves the nutritional profile, 2) increases the safety of the products and 3) meets the budget parameters that allow the school lunch program to feed kids nationwide every day.”

Extracting beef remnants from fat and trimmings, where pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella are found in markedly higher concentrations, is a cost effective way to increase overall yields — shaving an estimated three cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef.

Critics, though, contend South Dakota-based BPI has made millions off “pink slime” over the past decade, and that its safety and nutritional claims about the treated beef are dubious at best.

“Not only is this product a potential source of killer pathogens if the ammonia levels are not controlled properly, but that the overall protein quality of the beef hamburger is compromised by the inclusion of LFTB,” former US Department of Agriculture microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein said.

Zirnstein, who worked in the agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, coined the term “pink slime” after touring a BPI production plant.

The former director of food safety for BPI, Kit Foshee, maintains that the company’s CEO routinely told fast-food companies that the inclusion of treated beef would help kill pathogens when mixed with other ground beef.

“BPI is marketing themselves as a pinnacle of safety,” Foshee said. “It’s all lies. It’s all marketing.”

In less than a week, Houston food columnist and mother Bettina Siegel collected 200,000 petition signatures, mostly of parents, who object to the meat mixture being served to children. She plans to present the petition to the USDA.

A chunk of an $11 million stimulus grant meant to provide low-income Detroit residents with clothing for job interviews reportedly aided just two people — far short of the 400 job-seekers the money was meant to help.

The findings were part of a new audit on the city’s Department of Human Services, according to The Detroit News.

The 2009 grant in question was used to start a service center — which included among other features a call center for families in need and a clothing boutique.

However, the audit reportedly found the department did not safeguard the funding for that boutique, which was run by a contractor. According to the report, the contractor advanced nearly $150,000 to a city clothing store without involving the city government.

While the department was supposed to help 400 job-seekers with clothing between the fall of 2010 and 2011, the boutique instead came up with two documented cases where clients received clothing.

“The potential loss of thousands of dollars exists because controls have not been established for the boutique,” the audit said, according to The Detroit News.

The department reportedly has undergone heavy scrutiny since an internal probe was launched last year

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/stimulus-money-meant-to-help-400-detroit-job-seekers-reportedly-helped-2/?test=latestnews#ixzz1oXQKG8Ta

Ronald Ratner is the president and chief executive of Cleveland-based real estate giant Forest City Enterprises. His cousin, Deborah Ratner Salzberg, is the president of the company’s Washington D.C. office. Together, the two bundled between $200,000 and $500,000 for the 2008 Obama campaign. They’ve bundled another $200-500,000 for his reelection campaign as well, as of the fourth quarter of last year.

Since Obama took office, the Ratners have seen millions in taxpayer money funneled to the real estate company at which they are top executives. They are the latest in a long line of Obama supporters who have received taxpayer money, been appointed to federal posts, or enjoyed significant access to administration officials.

Ron Ratner hosted a fundraiser for the 2008 campaign featuring then-Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden. He also hosted Obama at his home for a meeting with Jewish leaders of Ohio.

The fundraisers have continued this election cycle: in September, Ratner again hosted Biden at his home for a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee’s Obama Victory Fund. Tickets to the event cost between $1,000 and $5,000.

Barely two weeks after Ratner hosted Biden for the DNC event, Forest City announced that it had signed a 50-year privatization deal with the Air Force “for the development and management of 2,185 family homes at four U.S. Air Force bases in the Southeast.”

The developments are valued at more than $300 million. Forest City “will also earn an on-going fee,” the company said, though it declined to specify what the fee would be.

The Air Force contract was not the first time Forest City received taxpayer dollars. According to data obtained through USAspending.gov, the company and its subsidiaries have received at least $4.9 million in 40 different federal grants, contracts, and other payments since fiscal year 2010.

The Ratners are not the only high-profile Obama supporters to receive federal money in one form or another. The Center for Public Integrity documented that nearly 200 Obama bundlers had received direct payments from the federal government, access to federal officials, or appointments to key administration positions.

In addition to Forest City’s federal payments, Ron Ratner was also appointed by President Obama to the council of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

As lawmakers across the Capitol hear appeals Tuesday from Obama  administration secretaries pleading for their budgets, duplication and overlap  in dozens of areas of government is wasting “tens of billions of dollars  annually,” a new government report shows.

According to the Government Accountability Agency’s 2012 annual report,  nearly every department of the Executive Branch has room for improvement.

The report, which gives 51 areas and recommends 130 actions, follows a  2011 GAO report that showed 81 areas and 176 actions to be taken to “reduce or  eliminate unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation or achieve other  potential financial benefits.”

“Collectively, these reports show that, if the actions are implemented, the  government could potentially save tens of billions of dollars annually,” Gene  Dodaro, comptroller general for the U.S., said in remarks prepared for Tuesday’s  hearing in the House Oversight and Government Relations Committee.

Sen. Tom  Coburn, R-Okla., also a witness Tuesday, estimated that waste and  duplication costs taxpayers more like $100 billion per year.

“Not one corner of our daily life remains untouched by a government program  or federal effort,” Coburn said in testimony being delivered Tuesday. “From what  we eat and drink, to where we live, work, and socialize, nearly every aspect of  human behavior and American society are addressed by multiple government  programs.”

Coburn said last year’s report listed more than 100 surface transportation  programs; 88 economic development programs;  82 teacher quality programs;  56 financial literacy programs; 47 job training programs; 20 homelessness  prevention and assistance programs; 18 food for the hungry programs; and 17  disaster response and preparedness programs.

He said government’s duplication in nutritional programs alone — worth $62.5  billion in 2008, according to GAO — have burned taxpayers over items as simple  as potato chips.

“While many of these programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance  Program (SNAP) allow federal funds to purchase potato chips, dozens of other  government-wide initiatives, are aimed at keeping Americans healthy,  specifically suggesting food like potato chips should be limited in intake, and  perhaps even taken out of public schools all together,” he said.

“At the same time, just this year the Department of Agriculture announced a  nearly $50,000 federal grant was being doled out to a private potato chip  company in New York. According the proposal, this money would be used to  overhaul their media strategy and raise brand awareness and consumer  knowledge — essentially encouraging people to buy and consume potato chips,” he  said, noting that potato chips sales in the United States exceed $6 billion  annually.

Coburn said that sales level “begs the question why the taxpayers are now  asked to subsidize promotion and marketing for the industry.”

Click here to read Dodaro’s testimony.

Click here to read the GAO report.

Click here to read Coburn’s testimony.

GAO categorizes the areas for improvement into a dozen specialty areas. For  the Justice  Department, for instance, GAO says $3.9 billion is offered in 11,000 grant  awards where there is a “risk of potential unnecessary duplication.”

The Defense Department, he said, needs a department-wide strategy for  spending $37.5 billion on unmanned aircraft over the next five years. Dodaro  offered the example of the Navy spending $3 billion to create its own version of  an Air Force surveillance program that is already operational.

“According to program officials, no analysis was conducted to determine the  cost effectiveness of developing the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAS to  meet the Navy’s requirements versus buying more (Air Force) Global Hawks,”  Dodaro said.

GAO also lists areas for improvement in science, engineering, transportation,  food safety and security clearances, among others.

On housing, Dodaro said the Treasury and Federal Reserve invested more than  $1.67 trillion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2010, while GAO identified  “20 different entities that administer 160 programs, tax expenditures and other  tools” designed to  support home ownership and rental housing while  another “39 programs, tax expenditures, and other tools” offered help in buying,  selling or financing a home. Eight more programs and tax expenditures were  designed for rental property owners.

Meanwhile, Dodaro noted, 56 percent of Rural Housing Service loan guarantees  were for urban properties in 2009 while the Federal Housing Administration  insured eight times as many single-family loans in rural counties as RHS  did.

Writing on the White House blog on Tuesday, Danny Werfel, controller of the  Office of Federal Financial Management, said that GAO’s 2012 report was finished  before the release of President Obama’s 2013 budget, which includes additional  measures to those already taken by the administration since the prior GAO  report.

Werfel said consolidation is already taking place without Congress’ sign-off,  including the merger of six business and trade agencies into one, consolidation  of 1,200 data centers by 2015 — 100 of which have already closed and 500 of  which are already slated to close — and the reduction of agency real estate  costs by $3 billion by the end of the year.

Werfel wrote that “nearly 80 percent of the issue areas for which GAO  recommended action last year, and more than three-quarters of the  recommendations for Executive Branch actions associated with those areas (76  percent) were addressed in some way.”

He said Congress, which addressed less than 40 percent of the recommendations  requiring congressional action in some way, could do more by passing the  president’s budget as well as the Reforming and Consolidating Government Act,  which he said the administration sent to Capitol Hill earlier this year as a  plan to set up an expedited process to review government consolidation  proposals.

Dodaro said much of the the low-hanging fruit outlined in last year’s report  has been addressed in the latest budget but there “needs to be more assertive  action” from the Office of Management and Budget.

He said one easy fix would be to eliminate differences in the coding  practices for Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare.

Diagnostic coding for Medicare Advantage estimated a 3.41 percent higher risk  scores for beneficiaries, totaling about $2.7 billion in greater payments. The  reason for that, he said, is because Medicare Advantage providers get paid by  the diagnostic code while traditional Medicare providers are paid by the  services rendered.

“We estimated that a revised methodology that addressed these shortcomings  could have saved Medicare between $1.2 billion and $3.1 billion in 2010 in  addition to the $2.7 billion in savings that CMS’s 3.41 percent adjustment  produced,” he said.

Committee Chairman Darrell  Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement before the hearing that taxpayers  deserve more “modern, efficient and cost-effective operations” in government,  especially in times of fiscal crisis.

“I have always said that the enemy isn’t the Democrats, the enemy isn’t the  Republicans — it’s the bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that inherently resists  change and adaptation,” he said.

But while Issa said the hearing was not convened to cast blame, Coburn said  “Congress is the main offender” allowing runaway spending.

“We set the budget, we pass the appropriations bills and we authorize new  activities at the federal agencies. We refuse to apply metrics and standards to  the programs we create. We ignore our duty to conduct oversight. And we choose  to remain uninformed about existing efforts before creating new ones,” he  said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/report-government-wasting-tens-billions-dollars-annually-on-duplication-overlap/print#ixzz1nmchD61n

(CNN) – A protester who ridiculed the Muslim prophet Mohammed claims he was assaulted by a Muslim who was offended by the stunt, but a judge has sympathized with the alleged perpetrator, in a case that has drawn national attention.

Self-proclaimed atheist Ernie Perce marched in a Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania last October, dressed in a costume mocking Mohammed.

In a YouTube video he posted, Perce can be seen wearing a long fake beard, a white turban and green face paint, calling out provocative phrases like: “I am the prophet Mohammed! Zombie from the dead!” Perce and someone else in a zombie-themed pope costume are carrying a banner that reads “The Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania / Ghoulish – Godless – God-Awful.”

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Then a man who is not seen on the video can be heard saying, “Take it down.” Amid sounds of a scuffle, Perce can be heard saying “Hey, he’s attacking me!”

Perce told CNN affiliate WHTM that the man “grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around, to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck.”

Based on Perce’s complaint, a Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harassment. But on December 6, District Judge Mark Martin dismissed the case, saying it was one person’s word against another’s, and that there was no other evidence or eyewitness testimony to prove that Elbayomy had harassed or touched the alleged victim.

The judge also scolded Perce, saying he’d been needlessly provocative on an issue sensitive with Muslims.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“You have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds of First Amendment rights,” Martin said, according to a recording Perce made of the court hearing. “I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.”

The judge went on to point out that in many Muslim countries, ridiculing Mohammed could warrant the death penalty under Islamic law.

Critics say Martin’s lecture shows he used Muslim cultural grounds to excuse a deplorable assault, and failed to defend an atheist’s First Amendment rights.

“That’s greatly disturbing to people that believe in free speech,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “You can say things that are hurtful to others. We hope that you don’t, but you most certainly can be protected. People like Thomas Paine spent his entire life ticking off people across the colonies.”

Former terrorism prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, writing on the blog of National Review, accused the judge of allowing the Muslim suspect to invoke a “Sharia defense – what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed.”

And Perce said of Judge Martin, “He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free, from an attack.”

The judge, in a phone interview with CNN, defended his ruling.

“The commonwealth didn’t present enough evidence to show me that this person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” Martin said. “That’s why I dismissed the case. Nothing as nefarious as what everyone’s thinking, that I’m a Muslim or I’m biased. I’m actually a Lutheran.”

Martin added that he has served three tours of duty, totaling more than two years, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he learned more about Muslim culture.

“It just amazes me that people think that I’m biased towards Islam,” he added. “I got sniped at once, I got ambushed once, I got attacked by a mob once… I’ve served close to 27 years in the military – and have gone overseas – exactly to preserve that right [freedom of speech.]”

But Martin also repeated his criticism of the atheist protester. “With rights come responsibilities. The more people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them,” he said. ” We need to start policing up our own actions, using common sense, in how we deal with others.”

Attorney R. Mark Thomas, who represented the Muslim suspect, blamed Perce for the Halloween altercation. “The so-called victim was the antagonist,” he told WHTM. “I think this was a good dressing down by the judge.”

A blog post by the group American Atheists disagrees. “That a Muslim immigrant can assault a United States citizen,” it says, “in defense of his religious beliefs and walk away a free man, while the victim is chastised and insulted… is a horrible abrogation.”

OMAHA, Nebraska –  A federal judge has thrown out most of a Nebraska city’s  controversial ordinance that sought to ban hiring illegal immigrants or renting  property to them.

U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued  her ruling Monday in a lawsuit the Mexican American Legal Defense &  Educational Fund and American  Civil Liberties Union filed challenging Fremont’s 2010 ordinance.

Attorney Shirley Mora James, who worked with MALDEF,  says the judge effectively gutted the ordinance. The law has been on hold while  the lawsuits were decided.

The Fremont ordinance was approved by voters in the  eastern Nebraska city of 25,000. It would have required employers to check  whether a person is permitted to work in the U.S. Anyone seeking to rent  property would have had to apply for a $5 city permit.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/20/judge-rules-against-us-citys-immigration-plan/#content#ixzz1n2HKmJbf

As Americans sit down to file their federal tax  returns, a simple question comes to mind — what’s a “fair share” to give the  federal government in taxes?

For half the working population, fair means paying  almost no income taxes at all.

“The top 10 percent income earners pay about 70  percent of federal income taxes,” says Will McBride of the Tax Foundation. “The  bottom 50 percent of tax filers have, they pay almost no federal income  tax. They pay about 3 percent of federal income taxes.”

President  Obama’s phrase that everyone should “pay our fair share of taxes” has become  something of a political mantra. He has used the expression in dozens of  speeches, beginning back in his State of Union address in January. More  recently, he told University students in Virginia, “we do expect everyone to do  their fair share.”

But for many of the people who pay no taxes, the  government also allows tax credits, which end up providing refunds.

“Close to a hundred billion in checks sent out by  the IRS (go) to folks who have no tax liability,” McBride said. “So the IRS is  becoming a spending agency.”

Arthur Brooks, head of the American Enterprise  Institute, put it this way: “Half of the people who don’t pay anything in  federal income taxes — about half of them pay less than zero.”

But Brooks says the system is tilted even more  toward those in the middle class and below because they also get services from  the federal government. As a result the per capita value of government spending  exceeds what those individuals pay in federal taxes.

“Right now about 70 percent of Americans take more  out of the tax system than they put into it, according to the Tax Foundation,” Brooks said.”That’s something that  should really alarm a lot of Americans.”

The policies that left so many people paying no  income taxes have been supported by presidents of both parties, and despite what  Americans tell pollsters they believe is fair, that’s not how it shakes out.

“The interesting thing is that about two-thirds of  Americans think that everybody should pay something,” Brooks said, “so they  remember that our government isn’t free.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/20/analysis-fair-share-in-taxes-not-by-numbers/#ixzz1n22ejgav

Authorities have arrested a man allegedly on his way to the U.S. Capitol for what he thought would be a suicide attack on one of the nation’s most symbolic landmarks, Fox News has learned exclusively.

The man, in his 30s and of Moroccan descent, was nabbed following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, initiated after he expressed interest in conducting an attack. It’s unclear how the FBI learned of his aspirations.
The man thought undercover FBI agents assisting him in his plot were associates of Al Qaeda.

When he was arrested Friday in Washington, he was carrying with him a vest supposedly packed with explosives, but the material inside was not actually dangerous, Fox News was told.

A short time earlier, he had been praying at a mosque in the Washington area. His destination was Capitol Hill.

The public was never in danger, as he had been under constant surveillance for some time, officials said.

In a statement that did not get into the details of the alleged plot, the U.S. Capitol Police said the suspect was “closely and carefully monitored.” Capitol Police confirmed the suspect was arrested on Friday.

“At no time was the public or congressional community in any danger,” the department said.

A senior source involved with law enforcement at the Capitol also told Fox News the investigation was “all very controlled.” The source said the U.S. Capitol Police was involved with the FBI and other agencies in tracking the suspect “not more than a year.”

An arrest usually indicates charges have been filed in some form, but it’s unclear when or how charges would have been filed in this case. It’s also unclear if the suspect will be appearing in court Friday. In similar past cases, suspects have made their initial court appearance within hours of their arrest.

Sites in Washington have long been a target for terrorists, especially self-radicalized extremists caught in FBI stings.

In September, a Massachusetts man was arrested for allegedly plotting to fly bomb-laden model planes into the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol. FBI agents claiming to be associates of Al Qaeda provided 26-year-old Rezwan Ferdaus with what he thought was explosive material for the remote-controlled planes.

Nearly a year earlier, a Virginia man was arrested for trying to help Al Qaeda plan multiple bombings against Washington’s Metrorail system. For months, 34-year-old Farooque Ahmed of Ashburn, Va., had been meeting and discussing “jihad” with individuals he thought were affiliated with Al Qaeda, but in fact he was meeting with FBI agents.

In the past year alone, at least 20 people have been arrested in the United States on terrorism-related charges, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“Most of the arrests” have involved “lone wolves,” radicalized online and able to use the Internet to build bombs, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate committee last month.

At the time of Ahmed’s arrest in October 2010, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Neil MacBride, said the case showcases “our ability to find those seeking to harm U.S. citizens and neutralize them before they can act.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/feds-arrest-man-heading-to-us-capitol-for-suicide-mission/

A mother is outraged after school officials told her 4-year-old daughter that her home-packed lunch was not healthy enough to eat. What was so unhealthy about her lunch? Trace Gallagher reported that a lunch inspector at the school told the girl she couldn’t eat her turkey sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice. Instead providing the girl with a USDA-approved lunch with the following guidelines: one serving of meat, one serving of grains, and two servings of fruit or vegetables.

When the girl returned home from school, her unopened lunch contained a note from the school saying that her lunch didn’t meet the guidelines and a $1.25 bill for the replacement lunch. The mom was outraged and anonymously wrote to the local newspaper and called a state representative. The North Carolina representative called the school which apologized, because in fact the lunch did meet all the USDA requirements. _________________________ RELATED LINKS: Ohio Officials Remove 200-Pound Third-Grader From Home, Placed in Foster Care VOTE: Do You Think Smokers Should Have to Pay More for Health Care? _________________________ In her statement to the newspaper, the mother argues that the issue isn’t whether the lunch meets any requirements but rather says, “Don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunchbox properly. I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats.”

Tell us what you think! Do schools have the right to tell parents what is or isn’t healthy enough for their children’s lunches?

Critics of congressional “earmarking” maintain that it’s a mechanism used to haul a lot of pork-barrel spending home to the representatives’ districts.  Defenders of the practice counter with the argument that putting a stop to earmarks would place too much authority over spending in the hands of the executive.

An amendment to eliminate earmarks was proposed for the STOCK Act, which is intended to restore public faith in Congress by cracking down on methods for using congressional power for personal enrichment.  The amendment was defeated, but the controversy surrounding earmarks continues.

The Washington Post added some fuel to the fire Monday, as it published the results of what it bills as “the first systematic effort to examine the alignment of earmarks with lawmakers’ private interests.”  Specifically, the Post discovered that some congressional earmarks have been used to fund public improvements located suspiciously close to property owned by the sponsoring representative:

A U.S. senator from Alabama directed more than $100 million in federal earmarks to renovate downtown Tuscaloosa near his own commercial office building. A congressman from Georgia secured $6.3 million in taxpayer funds to replenish the beach about 900 feet from his island vacation cottage. A representative from Michigan earmarked $486,000 to add a bike lane to a bridge within walking distance of her home.

Thirty-three members of Congress have directed more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed.

The Post put its discoveries into context:

Earmarks are a fraction of the federal budget, and the numbers uncovered by The Post are relatively small in the scheme of the overall Congress, but the behavior by lawmakers from both parties points to a larger issue at a time when confidence in Capitol Hill is at an all-time low.

The congressional financial disclosure system obscures certain relationships. Lawmakers are not required to disclose the addresses of their personal residences or the employment of their children and parents. The lawmakers are also allowed to put properties in holding companies without disclosing the properties’ locations. Current versions of the Stock Act would not change that. To provide a fuller portrait of congressional connections, The Post compared the financial disclosure forms with the public record to track spending on projects near legislators’ properties or on programs employing their relatives.

As the article goes on to note, there isn’t necessarily rank corruption involved in locating a public-works project close to a representative’s home.  Would it make any sense to forbid the expenditure of federal money on any project located near property owned by the local congressperson?

In a similar vein, it’s not always corruption when a federal contract goes to a company that employs relatives of a representative.  What if Congressman Bedfellow’s cousin just happens to work at the best company for the job?  Would it make sense to forbid corporations with even the slightest personal connection to Congress, or the Administration, from accepting government contracts?  Besides putting illogical limits on the pool of contractors available to the government, that would be brutally unfair to the highly-qualified relatives of elected officials (and, if we were to apply this standard vigorously enough, their high-ranking staffers) as they would suddenly find themselves about as welcome as bird flu at large corporations.

What the Post investigation highlights is the intrinsic corruption of Big Government.  As it becomes larger and more remote, the shadow of corruption falls across more of its actions, and infuses a greater portion of the overall economy.

There would be considerably less suspicion surrounding the decision to construct a particular public-works project if the funds were raised locally, and allocated by local government.  You would still have such, suspicions, of course.  The history of my own town is riddled with some epic tales of good-old-boy networking.  Your hometown probably has a few such tales as well.

But when the size, and distance, of government is elevated to the level of Congress parceling out billions of dollars, you end up with people all over the country paying for earmarked projects they have absolutely no control over, and derive no personal benefit from.  There is little chance that individual representatives will be held accountable at the ballot box for particular spending decisions.  In fact, if a voter in Colorado doesn’t like the way a representative from Tennessee is spending federal money for his own personal benefit, or to please his big contributors, the Colorado voter has no electoral recourse at all.

That sense of lost control, and electoral helplessness, probably has more to do with public distrust of Congress than representatives using earmarks to build up the airports located closest to their summer homes.  Who knows what they’re up to on Capitol Hill?  The folks in “flyover country” just know it’s costing them, and their children, a whole lot of money.

A group of Occupy Wall Street protesters disrupted a Right to Life rally and threw condoms on Catholic school girls inside the Rhode Island state capitol building.

GET TODD’S NEW BOOK ON THE CULTURE WAR – “DISPATCHES FROM BITTER AMERICA”

Barth Bracy, executive director of Rhode Island Right to Life, said their rally had to be cut short after the Occupiers began screaming and refused to allow a Catholic priest to deliver a prayer.

“This is their idea of civil speech but we believe it’s an outrage,” Bracy told Fox News & Commentary “They started heckling, chanting and blowing whistles. They shouted down a priest.”

Last week’s rally was held inside the rotunda of the state capitol in Providence. Bracy said the Occupiers, along with some pro-choice demonstrators, infiltrated the crowd of some 150 pro-lifers. He said the pro-life crowd was made up of senior citizens, mothers with young children, Cub Scouts, and school kids.

Bracy said one of the most egregious incidents occurred when an Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on girls from a Catholic school.

“What kind of individual throw condoms at Catholic school girls,” Bracy asked.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK!

Bracy said capitol police were outnumbered and overwhelmed by the protesters. At one point they even attacked State. Rep. Doreen Costa.

“This was one of the most disturbing sights I’ve ever seen,” Costa told Fox News & Commentary. “It was horrendous. “

Costa said a female Occupier hit her on the head with a sign and shoved her “moppy” hair in the lawmaker’s face.

“I told her that she really stunk bad and needed to take a bath,” Costa said.

Costa said she was “speechless” when they showered the young girls with condoms. So was Father Bernard Healey, the executive director of the Rhode Island Catholic Conference.

“It’s disgraceful behavior,” Healey said. “The week before, the pro-abortion people had their rally and no one bothered them. Apparently freedom of speech only applies to those who agree with you.”

Healey called the protesters “mean-spirited” and “ugly.”

He was trying to deliver a blessing to the crowd when the demonstrators shouted him down.

“I led the crowd in singing ‘God Bless America’ to try and down out their awful chants,” he said.

Joseph Little, the chief of the capitol police, told Fox News & Commentary that he did not receive any reports of condoms being dropped on children. He also said to his knowledge, nothing happened to that rose to the level of needing to call in additional support.

Little said no one was arrested.

WASHINGTON – President Obama yesterday rejected for now the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, saying the $7 billion project could not be adequately reviewed by the 60-day deadline set by Congress. While the president’s action does not preclude later approval of the project, it sets up a fight over energy, jobs, and regulation that will likely persist through the November election.

The president said his hand had been forced by Republicans in Congress, who inserted a provision in the temporary payroll tax cut bill passed in December giving the administration 60 days to decide the fate of the 1,700-mile pipeline from oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

The State Department, which has authority over the project because it crosses an international border, said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the potential environmental harm along its path. The agency recommended that the permit be denied, and Obama concurred.

Obama said that his action was not a final judgment on the merits of the project.

The trans-border pipeline has become a political flashpoint, with proponents saying it will create thousands of jobs and help wean the nation off Middle Eastern oil, while opponents charge that it furthers dependence on dirty fuels, contributes to global warming, and threatens ecological disaster.

Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, a strong advocate of the pipeline, told Obama yesterday that he was profoundly disappointed in the decision.

Brendan Buck, the spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, said: “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese. The president won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs.’’

TransCanada, the company proposing to build the pipeline, said that it would quickly apply for a new permit to build along a similar route.

Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has asserted that much of the oil would be exported after being refined in the United States and therefore would not enhance US energy security.

“The United States shouldn’t be used as a middleman between the dirtiest Canadian oil and the thirstiest foreign markets,’’ he said.

Bill McKibben, who has been arrested several times for protests against the pipeline, said that the decision is a rare case in which “scientists have been smiling and Big Oil scowling.’’

“It wasn’t just the right decision by the president, who listened to scientists and average citizens; it was also a brave decision,’’ said McKibben, an author who was born in Lexington, Mass., and lives in Vermont and teaches at Middlebury College.

Michael Bailey of Globe staff contributed to this report