The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly True | Rand Paul mocks federally funded study on menus for astronauts A Hawaii research project to choose cuisine for astronauts? Count us in! During a speech to the conservative CPAC conference, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., made fun of a number of scientific research projects funded by the federal government, suggesting that they were a waste of taxpayer money. Here’s one of them: "For any of you college students looking for jobs, Uncle Sam’s got a job for you," said Paul during the March 14, 2013, speech. "The pay’s $5,000, all expenses paid. The study is in Hawaii. But the requirements are onerous. Only ... >> More

Sen. Rob Portman, Columbus DispatchI have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married. That isn't how I've always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.

Carl Schramm, ForbesMayor Michael Bloomberg's private foundation has announced the winners of its competition for mayors to develop innovative ideas "to solve major challenges and improve city life."  Hundreds of cities applied and twenty finalists were asked to submit applications in writing, and, smartly, asked to include a video that could be crowd-judged on the internet.  Houston not only won a $1 million prize for its idea of "one bin for all" (a smart unified recycling idea), it also won "fan favorite" for its video presentation.

Thomas Hibbs, Wall Street JournalAmid the many firsts represented in the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Catholic pontiff"”the first pope from South America and the first to take the name Francis"”he is also the first Jesuit.From its founding in the 16th century to contemporary times, the Jesuit order has had a remarkable and tumultuous history. Alone among religious orders, the Jesuits take a fourth vow: Over and above the standard vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, they also take a vow of obedience to the pope. Yet, in the post-Vatican II era since the mid 1960s, Jesuits...

Jonathan Chait, NY MagRob Portman’s dual revelations that his son is gay and that he has decided to support gay marriage are both a touching story of familial love and another signpost in the astonishingly rapid success of the gay-rights revolution. Just over eight years ago, when Republicans gleefully seized on the gay-marriage issue to mobilize their base in Portman’s own state, it was inconceivable that a statewide Democrat would endorse gay marriage, let alone a Republican. The triumph of the issue relies upon the changing of minds — some thanks to force of argument, others to...

Mike Rosen, Denver PostPresident Obama apparently believes that the younger generation and his low-information voter base have never heard of the time-dishonored Washington Monument Gambit. It has its roots in 1969, when President Richard Nixon sought to cut the budget of the National Park Service. Rather than cutting any fat or non-essential activities, Park Service director George Hertzog, protecting his rice bowl, threatened to restrict tourist visits to the Washington Monument (and the Grand Canyon). In the face of such intolerable sacrifice, Congress restored the cuts. 

Juliet Lapidos, NY TimesNot since Benghazi — no, not since Fast and Furious has the G.O.P. seemed this intent on second-guessing the Obama administration. I refer, of course, to the matter of White House public tours. After the administration announced that the White House would temporarily close its doors to tourists as a sequester-induced belt-tightening measure, Senator John Thune, along with a number of his colleagues, sent a letter expressing “concern.”

Eugene Robinson, Washington PostWASHINGTON -- They are impolite questions, but they must be asked: What did Jorge Mario Bergoglio know, and when did he know it, about Argentina's brutal "Dirty War" against suspected leftists in which thousands were tortured and killed? More important, what did the newly chosen Pope Francis do?When a military junta seized power in 1976, Bergoglio -- elected Wednesday by the College of Cardinals as the first Latin American to become pope -- was the head of the Jesuit order in Argentina. His elevation to the papacy occasioned great joy and national pride in his homeland -- but...

On March 11, 2013, I was privileged to join hundreds of my fellow citizens for Equality Texas Lobby Day in Austin. I wore several hats that day -- member of the Religion & Faith Council for the Human Rights Campaign, Executive Director of Soulforce, licensed clergy fourth-generation Texan and, I like to believe, a disciple of Jesus. Our lobby group came from around the state, encouraged to join the effort by Chuck Smith, Executive Director of Equality Texas. Lobby Day has happened before but this one was the largest in attendance ever 550-plus. Chuck and his team did an extraordinary job communicating the issues to all of us and lighting a fire under us as voters and concerned citizens. Thank you, Chuck! We arrived on the first day of Spring Break. It seemed particularly fitting that the Capitol Rotunda was filled with families with children and teachers because we were there to visit with legislators about inclusive policies that protect all children, end discrimination and strengthen relationships. In advance of our arrival, I called six legislative offices of Republicans and made an appointment for my team of five colleagues to discuss House Bill 1300 (sponsored by Rep. Lon Burnam in Fort Worth). This bill will repeal language added to the family code in 2003 that prohibits the freedom to marry for same-gender loving couples. The history of this bill is that in 2003, the Texas Legislature passed the Texas Defense of Marriage Act eliminating the freedom to marry for lesbian, gay, bisexual Texans in same-gender relationships. In 2005, the Texas Constitution was similarly amended. HB 1300 will also add language to the family code to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of marriage are available to every committed couple. Less than 50 words must change in the current code to release LGBT families from overt discrimination under the law in Texas. We all took time off work to travel to Austin because we wanted to ensure that our representatives knew this bill was in committee since they have to sort through thousands of bills. We wanted them to know that the most recent study of baseline registered voters in Texas indicates that 69 percent of Texans believe that there should be some form of legal recognition for same-gender couples. And we wanted to stand with the bill's sponsor Rep. Burnam and echo his words: "Texans have long valued personal freedom (and) it is time to apply that value to this issue. And, the nation and the people of Texas have evolved on the issue of marriage since the Constitutional amendment was approved by voters in 2005. Attitudes are changing." As we made our rounds, we heard a recurring concern about the ability of our representatives to truly represent us. They talked about report cards or score cards being used to rate them by ultra conservative groups within the Republican party and external funders of the party. Bottom-line, these groups are holding our representatives "hostage" to voting blocs or covenants that exclude justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Many of our representatives seem more focused on getting an "A" from these groups than on representing us. Our legislators talked about the "difficult environment" in which they were trying to work. It made me think about a movie i just saw -- Lincoln. He seemed to manage in a tough environment, to keep his commitment to liberty and justice for all citizens at the center of his understanding. No doubt his report card from his opponents was often failing. I shudder to think where we would be today if his grade from them had been an A. As we neared the end of our meetings, a siren began to sound in the offices and hallways of the Capitol. It was a loud, unpleasant and persistent reminder that roll call was underway for legislators due on the floor to vet and vote on the bills before them. It was a shrill reminder that they can't hide from their responsibilities as our elected officials even if our current environment might encourage them to do so. They have to show up. Their job is to ensure that every citizen of Texas has a voice and, I believe, we elect them to face lines of resistance to full equality and try to break through. In spite of my ideological differences with my Republican representatives, I had a moment of understanding and empathy as the roll call siren continued to blare. There must be moments when they would rather hide under their desks than enter a room full of people set to disagree and disavow equal protection under the law. They are engaged in a game they cannot win, a gridlock of mindsets and power brokers. If they "break" with the master plan of the most conservative factions in their party, they lose. If they don't vote for true equality and justice for all of their constituents, they lose. They have to decide where they want to stand. I want to thank each of these representatives for meeting with us and for listening to our stories and our requests. I felt respected and heard. I hope they will remember us and see our faces and hear our stories when they deliberate about what it means to be equal under the laws of Texas and our nation. I hope each of of them will vote according to his or her conscience and in accordance with the people they represent, not the people they fear. I plan to pray for each of the six representatives whose offices we visited. If you pray, I hope you will join me. If you set positive intentions and affirmations for the world, I hope you will set them. If you want to join me in thanking them for hearing us and/or write them your wishes and dreams about justice, their names are: Senator Robert F. Deuell. His Legislative Director is Scot Kibbe. scot.kibbe@senate.state.tx.us Representative Pat Fallon District 106 His Administrative Assistant is Megan Titford. megan.titford@house.state.tx.us Representative Joe Farias District 118. His Legislative Director is Ana Ramon. ana.ramon@house.state.tx.us. Representative Larry Phillips District 62. His Legislative Aide is Matt Ashley. matt.ashley@house.state.tx.us Representative Van Taylor District 66. His Scheduler is Rachel Pace. rachel.pace@house.state.tx.us Representative Craig Eiland. District 23. His Legislative Aide is Anne Drescher. anne.drescher@house.state.tx.us When the thumb of fear lifts, we are so alive. -- Mary Oliver

WASHINGTON -- A former top executive for JPMorgan Chase is blaming last year's $6.2 billion trading loss on other executives at the firm, telling a Senate panel Friday that they undermined her authority at the firm. Ina Drew, the firm's former chief investment officer overseeing trading strategy, says the other executives failed to control risk out of the London office and that prevented her from controlling the losses. Drew resigned last spring after the trading loss came to light. The comments to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations were her first since the resignation. The hearing occurred a day after the Senate panel issued a report that ascribed widespread blame to key executives at the firm. The report said they ignored growing risks and hid losses from investors and federal regulators Executives at JPMorgan understated the trading losses to federal examiners by hundreds of millions of dollars and dismissed questions raised about the trading risks, according to the report. The report also suggested that key executives, including CEO Jamie Dimon, were aware of huge losses at the bank, even while they were downplaying the risks publicly. On Thursday, JPMorgan acknowledged it made mistakes but rejected any assertions that it concealed losses or risks. A spokesman declined to comment directly on the accusation that Dimon knew of the trading loss in April. In April, news reports said a trader in JPMorgan's London office known as "the whale" had taken huge risks that were roiling the markets. Dimon immediately dismissed the reports as a "tempest in a teapot" during a conference call with analysts. But in May, Dimon acknowledged that the bank had lost roughly $2 billon. And during testimony to a separate Senate panel in June, Dimon said the bank showed "bad judgment," was "stupid" and "took far too much risk." The figure was later revised to more than $6 billion. The loss came less than four years after the 2008 financial crisis and hurt the reputation of a bank that had come through the crisis known for taking fewer risks than its competitors. Three employees in the London office were fired – two senior managers and a trader. It also led to Drew's resignation.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- It's like the November election didn't even happen. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Friday gave a speech to GOP activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest annual gathering of conservatives. Instead of taking a step back from the daily grind of politics and laying out a new path for the movement based on the lessons learned from his and Mitt Romney's loss in November, Ryan stuck to the same sharp fiscal promises that he and Romney ran on -- and which voters largely rejected -- in the 2012 election. "Our debt is a threat to this country. We have to tackle this problem before it tackles us. So today, I want to make the case for balance. That case, in a nutshell, is that a balanced budget will promote a healthier economy," said Ryan. The audience was certainly sympathetic to Ryan's governing philosophy. He's still a star in the Republican Party, and most likely, he didn't have to make the case for a balanced budget to them; they were already on board. But while some sessions at CPAC have offered introspection on the election losses suffered by Republicans, Ryan chose to keep the focus on his budget, which he unveiled this week. The plan by Ryan, who is the House Budget Committee chairman, includes $4.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade. It plans to balance the budget in 10 years by slashing Medicare, Medicaid and programs to aid the poor, including food stamps. It would also repeal Obamacare -- a position that Romney and Ryan promoted heavily in the 2012 campaign as well. "The president says we're in a recovery," said Ryan. "I say we're in critical care. ... We are on the verge of a debt crisis." "We don't hide behind our beliefs," Ryan added. "We argue for them, because a budget is more than just a list of numbers; it's an expression of our governing philosophy. And our budget draws a very sharp contrast with the left. It says to the people in unmistakable terms: 'They are the party of shared hardship, we are the part of equal opportunity.'" On Tuesday, Ryan told reporters on Capitol Hill that the election outcome essentially didn't matter. "The election didn't go our way. Believe me, I know what that feels like," he said. "That means we surrender our principles? That means we stop believing what we believe in? Look, whether the country intended it or not, we have divided government. We have the second largest House majority we've had since World War II. And what we believe in this divided government era, we need to put up our vision." He also suggested that maybe most voters did agree with the GOP after all. "Are a lot of these solutions very popular, and did we win these arguments in the campaign? Some of us think so," Ryan said. Romney is scheduled to give a speech at CPAC on Friday afternoon. Below, a liveblog of the latest updates from CPAC:

The Illinois Senate has approved legislation that will legalize marriage between same-sex couples in Illinois. The Illinois House Executive Committee has recommended passage of the legislation. Governor Quinn has said that he supports that legislation and will enthusiastically sign it into law. All that remains now is for the Illinois House to approve the legislation to make Illinois the tenth state in the nation to legalize marriage between same-sex couples. Now is the time for Illinois to take this step. It is demanded by our nation's commitment to fairness, justice and equality. Now is the time for us all to leave behind a long and sorrowful history of hateful discrimination, fear, hostility and ignorance. Now is the time for us to live up to our own highest aspirations as Americans. There was a time, not that long ago, when gays and lesbians in our state and in our nation were ostracized, humiliated, scorned, fired, castrated, sterilized, and jailed. They were treated as morally corrupt, mentally degenerate and genetically deformed. The only way to survive in that environment was to hide one's own identity, to pretend to be what one was not, and to find shelter deep in the closet. Inspired by the civil rights movement, some homosexuals found the courage to claim their own identities publicly and to assert their rights to dignity, respect and equality. This met with violent reprisals, unemployment, and gross discrimination. But they persevered and set an example for others. And so we came gradually to know, initially to our shock, that our friends and neighbors, our cousins and uncles, our sons and daughters -- people we'd loved and respected -- were themselves gays and lesbians. It took extraordinary courage for them to come out and to tell us the truth, because the truth was and too often still is colored by shame and dismay. But we have changed as a society. We have come to understand that people around us -- good, kind, decent, loving people -- are themselves gays and lesbians. And with that awareness of individual gays and lesbians, the social view of homosexuals generally has gradually changed. We have come to understand that, whatever the cause of their difference, gay men and women are good, kind, decent and loving people who deserve our love and respect. The people of Illinois have already recognized that same-sex couples deserve the right to enter into civil unions that are, in theory, equal to marriages in all respects - except in name. Except in name. And there's the rub. Imagine if African-Americans could enter into civil unions but not marriages. Imagine if Catholics could legally enter into civil unions but not marriages. Imagine if mixed-race couples could enter into civil unions but not marriages. The insult, the indignity, the discrimination would be apparent to all. The same is true for same-sex couples. And why would one object to same-sex couples marrying? At this point in time, the objections are entirely religious. "The marriage of same-sex couples offends my religion's understanding of marriage." "It is a travesty, an abomination, a sacrilege." "It offends everything my religion holds sacred." In the words of Pope Francis, "It is a destructive pretension against the plan of God." But in these United States such arguments are not a legitimate reason to deny other citizens their fundamental right to equal treatment under the law. In a nation committed to the separation of church and state, the government can never deny rights to some in order to appease the religious beliefs of others. During the civil rights struggle, for example, segregationists frequently invoked biblical authority for the separation of the races. The Rev. James E. Burks of Bayview Baptist Church in Norfolk, Virginia, for example, insisted that God had separated the races and that "when man sets aside the plain teachings" of the Bible and "disregards the boundary lines God Himself has drawn, man assumes a prerogative that belongs to God alone." Similarly, discrimination against women was often justified by reference to "divine ordinance." Such arguments have no place in the American constitutional system. I understand and respect the strong and sincere feelings of those who think that the marriage of same-sex couples is incompatible with their religious beliefs. But they cannot legitimately or with a proper respect for the American system of law and justice attempt to impose those beliefs on those who disagree. They have every right not to marry a person of the same-sex and they have every right not to officiate at the marriage of a same-sex couple, but they have no right -- no right -- to attempt to prevent the government from recognizing such marriages because they offend their religious beliefs. As the character of Abraham Lincoln said in the recent film, "Now is the time. Now!" It was time to end slavery, once and for all. I would say the same today about our continuing discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who wish nothing more than to marry. Now is the time. Now!

Jonathan Weil, BloombergDennis Lerner, a former taxdirector at Commerzbank AG (CBK) in New York, isn't too big to jail. But the bank he once worked for may well be, along with theother executives there who made his crimes possible.Lerner, 60, pleaded guilty this week to public-corruptioncharges. Commerzbank hired him from the Internal Revenue Servicein 2011 while he was an examiner responsible for negotiating atax-fraud settlement with the bank, according to the criminalcomplaint that prosecutors filed in September. Commerzbank paidthe IRS $210 million one day before offering Lerner the job,which he accepted...

Chris finally made his big decision on "Parks & Recreation." He was incredibly anxious about the proposal of fathering a child with Ann, but after mentoring Tom for the episode, he decided he was ready. He came to this conclusion despite the fact that his mentoring didn't turn out great. Rather than fire his terrible employee, played by Jenny Slate, Tom started a dysfunctional relationship with her. But Tom was realisiting about what was happening and just looking to have a good time. Plus, he was appreciative of Chris' help. And that was enough to convince him that he was ready to bring a child into the world. "I guess your uter-u, and my uter-me are now our uter-us," Chris told Ann. "Don't make me change my mind," she responded. The AV Club loved the "unexpectedly sweet" moment, but HitFix was left wondering if that was what she wanted. Chris had told Ann he was ready to be a parent, but a few episodes ago, she was just wanting a sperm donor. Is she looking for an active participant in raising the child? Find out as the plot moves forward on "Parks & Recreation," Thursdays at 8:30 p.m. ET on NBC. TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has reversed his stance on same-sex marriage two years after learning that his son is gay, several Ohio news outlets, including the Columbus Dispatch and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, reported Friday. In an interview with Ohio reporters in his Senate office, Portman said that his son, Will, came out to the senator and his wife in February 2011. "It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," Portman said. Portman said that his son, who is now a junior at Yale University, inspired him to reassess his position on same-sex unions. The senator also consulted clergy on the matter, as well as friends such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is openly gay. According to Portman, Cheney told the senator to "follow [his] heart" on the matter. "The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," Portman said. Portman's announcement comes just days before the Supreme Court hears arguments on the Defense Of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriage. Portman co-sponsored the measure as a member of the U.S. House in 1996. And in 2009, Portman voted for a measure prohibiting same-sex couples in Washington state from adopting children. In 2011, Portman's "openly hostile" record on gay rights led to hundreds of students at the University of Michigan objecting to the senator speaking at the school's graduation ceremony. "Rob believes marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman," a Portman spokesman told the Plain Dealer at the time of the protest. Portman, who was considered by 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as a potential running mate, says that he informed Romney about his son's sexual orientation. "I told Mitt Romney everything," Portman told CNN. "That process is, intrusive would be one way to put it. But, no, yeah, I told him everything." The senator also said that Romney's campaign told him that his son's sexuality was not part of the decision to select Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) over Portman.

Roger Simon, PJ MediaWhen, over a decade ago now, I first veered away from the liberal-progressive orthodoxy, I lived in dread (okay, that's too strong a word "” maybe trepidation) that I would be branded a "conservative."Who wanted to be that?

Ruth Marcus, Washington PostWhen it comes to Republicans, President Obama sees himself as a kind of reverse Sally Field: They don't like him. They really, really, don't like him.

Last night I returned from a nearly month-long trip to Africa. It's profoundly unsettling to suddenly find oneself immersed in a primitive and superstitious culture - a culture dominated by taboos and rituals, a culture whose primitive beliefs could lead to its downfall, a culture whose members inhabit a flickering and illusory world of light and shadows. I'm speaking, of course, about my return to the States. I'd been tracking the budget debate and other events from the other side of the world but, aside from one or two YouTube clips, I hadn't seen any television for nearly four weeks.  As I caught up on my viewing, it was downright jarring to be confronted by so many people so deeply disconnected from reality. Liberals in Limbo Paul Ryan's turgid recycling of failed economic Flat Earth-ism is surreal enough, but it's equally unsettling to see the budget plan from the Congressional Progressive Caucus - which is the only practical proposal out there - given a shunning worthy of a witch-haunted New England village from the 18th Century. You'll barely find a mention of the CPC budget in any mainstream news outlet, even though this budget represented the views of 75 House members. By contrast, statements from the House's Tea Party Caucus receive much broader coverage even though it includes only 49 Representatives. Maybe it would help if the CPC took another name to give it the centrist sheen that passes for depth in the Beltway crowd these days. I propose that it be renamed "The Dwight D. Eisenhower Institute for Fiscal Responsibility." Eisenhower's Ghost Eisenhower would be a good choice. The Republican Ike expanded Social Security, built the Federal highway system, and boasted of the increase in union membership that took place during his Presidency.  (They don't make Republicans like they used to.) On the rare occasions when it has received coverage, the CPC budget has quickly been dismissed as "marginal." That's false, both politically and economically. The vast majority of economists, include the austerity-minded economic team at the International Monetary Fund, believes we need short-term stimulus spending to create economic growth. The CPC budget provides that spending, at a more meaningful level than can be found in "pre-compromised" proposals from the White House and Senate Democrats. What's more, polls show that most Americans want the government to do more to create jobs and increase middle-class prosperity. The CPC budget does create jobs - nearly seven million of them, according to some analyses - while the Ryan budget would devastate the economy. So why the shunning? That topic's worthy of an anthropologist's Ph.D. thesis. Common Sense Economist Dean Baker calls the CPC budget "a serious budget that serious people won't take seriously." The ritualized rules of Washington demand that politicians, especially Democratic ones, prove their "seriousness" by gutting popular and practical programs on the altar of 'fiscal responsibility.' That's shortsighted, misguided, and - with any sort of reasonable perspective - downright primitive.  What's more, it's tragic.   Behind the false bravado over jobs numbers, this country is still mired in a long-term jobs crisis with no end in sight.  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the CPC budget would create 6.9 million jobs - jobs which are desperately needed. Increased employment would tighten the labor market, too, which would help alleviate the wage stagnation which is slowly crippling and killing the American middle class. Baker notes that the CPC budget would "stimulate now, cut later, and result in a deficit that is just over 1.0 percent of GDP by the middle of the decade and a debt to GDP ratio that is on a clear downward track." Ike would be proud. Taboo Nevertheless, the CPC budget isn't being covered in the mainstream press. Part of the problem is cognitive dissonance - the plan doesn't echo DC's conventional (and deeply misguided) 'wisdom,' so for many political journalists it simply doesn't compute. The other reason it's not receiving coverage is because nobody believes it could ever get passed. As Slate's Matt Yglesias notes,"Obviously this isn't going to be enacted and it's in that sense not a 'serious' budget. But people should take it seriously." He's right. The horse-race approach to policymaking strangles the chance for change. And it's indefensible for news outlets to ignore a voting bloc that could spell victory or defeat for any budget deal. Democrat vs. Democrat Ezra Klein broke the media near-blackout to report on the CPC budget, but some good analysis is burdened by the contagious effects of false equivalence. Klein labels their effort a "fantasyland, no-compromise effort is the illustrative position of a group of minority progressives," without noting that many of its positions are popular across the political spectrum.  What's more, it's too easy to dismiss House progressives as irrelevant. In a budget showdown, their votes could hypothetically make or break any deal. Klein's argument about multipliers (bear with us here) assumes a healthier economy than the evidence warrants. It's true that government spending creates less growth in a more robust economy, but this economy is only robust for a very few - and not in a way that's creating jobs or growth.  He also relies too heavily on the thinking of economists like Larry Summers, whose past track record is, shall we say, spotty on stimulus as well as regulation. In papers like the Washington Post, however, that's as good as it gets.  After all, in Washington's self-reinforcing culture, logic dictates that the CPC budget can't pass and therefore isn't "serious." But Seriously, Folks And yet the GOP's radical Ryan budget is taken seriously by many observers, even though it will never pass either. That's how political perceptions are changed, slowly but surely, from what works for the economy to what works for wealthy and powerful interests: lower taxes, less regulation, and devastating austerity cuts. As conservative economist Peter Morici

Charles Krauthammer, Washington PostIn choice of both topic and foil, Rand Paul’s now legendary Senate filibuster was a stroke of political genius.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Robert Menendez is being investigated by a Miami federal grand jury for his role in advocating for the business interests of a wealthy donor and friend, The Washington Post reported Thursday. A story on the newspaper's website said that as part of the probe federal agents have questioned witnesses about the interactions between Menendez, D-N.J., and Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen. The newspaper said the grand jury also issued subpoenas for Melgen's business and financial records. The newspaper cited unidentified people it said were familiar with the probe. Federal agents have not contacted Menendez, one person told the newspaper. The Post said Melgen declined to say Thursday whether he knew anything about the investigation, but he said any probe would find no wrongdoing. Melgen attorney Kirk Ogrosky said the eye doctor is proud of his relationship with the senator and had no worries about any federal investigation. Menendez and Melgen's overlapping interests have repeatedly raised questions in recent months. Menendez was compelled to reimburse $58,000 for two flights to the Dominican Republic aboard Melgen's private jet for personal trips in 2010 that he previously had failed to report, prompting scrutiny by the Senate Ethics Committee. Menendez also has acknowledged contacting U.S. health agencies to question their billing practices and policies amid a dispute between Melgen and federal authorities. And Menendez was a key sponsor of a natural gas bill that could have aided a Melgen investment in a Florida company that markets a conversion system for natural gas truck engines. Melgen has given more than $14,000 directly to Menendez's political campaigns since the late 1990s and, through his eye clinic, donated $700,000 last year to a "super" political committee that supported Democratic Senate candidates. The committee, in turn, spent $582,000 to back Menendez's re-election effort. The investigation began with two disparate issues, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke with the Post. First, auditors had been reviewing allegations that Melgen was fraudulently overbilling Medicare for treating his patients. Melgen's attorney has said the doctor's billing was completely appropriate. Then, in the fall, the FBI began looking into an anonymous tipster's allegations that Melgen had arranged prostitutes for Menendez in the Dominican Republic. Such an arrangement could constitute providing a favor or gift under the bribery statute that investigators have been reviewing, the Post said. Lawyers for Menendez and Melgen have said the allegations involving prostitutes, which also were made by the conservative website the Daily Caller, were absurd. Menendez has said the allegations, which first surfaced during his re-election campaign last year, were part of a Republican smear campaign.

I still remember one of my first job interviews on Wall Street. The interviewer asked me where I got my business sense. Like the other thousand male applicants before me, I was about to say my father who was the bread winner in the family, when it hit me for the first time in my life that I got it all from my mother. While my mother was a full-time housewife, I realized my inheriting a small part of her innate ability to quickly judge people's character, find creative solutions to problems, organize complex efforts and manage money and investments would serve me well in my business career. Whenever my mother, Agnes, was asked if she worked, she always got a kick out of saying, "No, I'm a housewife." Somehow, with no assistance from either hired help, her husband or the children, she managed every day to clean the house, make the beds, prepare our meals, drive us to school, manage the family's investments, run a house on a tight budget and supervise any plumbing, electrical, roofing or yard work required. And she managed to do it and leave her afternoons free for golf at which she became a course champion shooting in the high 70s. She also raised three children who all went to Harvard and me. Before she was married and barely 20 years old, Agnes left tradition-bound Kentucky for New York City where she became a top model. Not just a pretty face, she became close friends with Bernard Baruch who always sat next to her at dinner parties simply because he enjoyed the conversation. When World War II broke out, Agnes joined the first class of women officer training for the Navy (WAVES), was stationed in Hawaii and ended up working on the Japanese code. After the war, she returned to New York and became a vice president of a small 20-person startup called Dannon Yogurt. In New York, she met the president of Macy's who asked her to work undercover in his cosmetics department to find out who was stealing from the firm. At the end of the month assignment, she was called in to report to the president. She told him she knew who the thief was, but refused to disclose her name as she had become close friends with all the female employees in the cosmetics department. Instead, she took an hour of the president's time and walked him through an analysis of how Macy's might do a better job in selling cosmetics to women. Before the term even existed, Agnes had completed a strategic plan for the entire business unit. Like all of us, the list of things that our parents taught us is much too long to be inclusive. But, here are a few things that I remember Agnes sharing with me. Never lie. While many people believe that lying is a victimless crime, Agnes impressed upon me that small lies turn into big lies and a life full of lies is vacuous and unfulfilled. It is no coincidence that my business website is entitled www.stopthelying.com. Keep a sense of humor. When my parents were in their seventies and attending a family reunion in Kentucky, my uncle got up in front of everyone to brag about how much money he had made selling some of his antique furniture. My father jumped up and said he wished Agnes would unload some of her antiques. Without missing a beat, from the back of the room, my mother shouted out to my father, "If I start unloading antiques, you'll be the first to go." Never be discourteous to someone working for you. I took my mother on a tennis vacation when she turned 80 and when the flight attendant brought the wrong drink for her I got up and started to give the woman holy hell. My mother shut me down quickly. I can't recall her ever being that mad at me. Having grown up in the South with black maids and nannies, she understood the importance of treating everyone with dignity. Stock picking. Agnes was a great stock picker, and in a related note, a great horse handicapper. She found Starbucks when it was a small outfit with only twelve stores while visiting my brother in Seattle. She wanted to buy the stock, but her only mistake was she asked my opinion knowing that I had recently landed a job on Wall Street. I talked her out of it. I explained that there were no barriers to entry for making coffee and so their margins would come under pressure from increased competition, at least that is the kind of thing we had learned to say in business school. As an aside, when Agnes was 91 years old and confined to a nursing home because my siblings were convinced that mentally she couldn't manage her affairs, her nurse's father visited and took them both out to the racetrack for the day. After Agnes picked the winners in 8 out of 9 races, he told her, "Agnes, there's nothing wrong with your mind." All Agnes said to me about the day was that she could have had one more winner but they were late getting to the track and missed the first race. And you wonder where I get my Type A personality from. The least among us. 10 years before John Rawls developed his veil of ignorance theory at Harvard, my mother had already figured out what he would conclude. If you are struggling to answer the question, "What should I do with my life?," my mother had an answer for you. She understood that as long as there was suffering in the world we should do our best to ease it. And, like Rawls, she understood that it was the poorest among us who suffered the most. Life was not just about having fun and being entertained. We each had a duty, a responsibility to live up to. For Agnes, that meant helping the poorest among us. We weren't meant to live just for ourselves, we were a collective part of a bigger community. I went to work at Goldman Sachs because of a love of financial markets I somehow inherited from my mother. But I left the firm because I realized that all my good work was only making rich people richer, something my mother would never stand for. In 2003, when I wrote a book predicting a coming housing crash, her first reaction was that the book was a waste because it would only help rich people. I assured her that, like all financial crises, it would be the poorest who would bear the brunt of the housing collapse and ensuing recession so she finally gave her blessing. The color of the curtains. Maybe the most important lesson I learned from my mother resulted from a five-minute conversation we once had. Funny, we spent 50 years together and yet it is a five-minute conversation that I recall most vividly like it was yesterday. My father was a career military officer so we moved often. Agnes had to buy, renovate and sell probably 30 different homes in her lifetime. On this occasion, we were sitting in the living room and I must have been voicing some frustration with a problem from work that I was wrestling with. My mother said it was just like the curtains. In each house that we bought, Agnes had to decide what color the curtains should be. She told me that sometimes it didn't come to her immediately. But that was okay. If you had to wait a couple of weeks, eventually, the right color for the curtains would make itself known. And, this is the important point, waiting for two weeks was not a waste of time, nor were you being lazy. Your mind was working on the problem even if you weren't. I often think of this advice today. For you see, in my Wall Street job I used to work 80 hours a week on 20 different projects at a time. Now, as an author, I can take up to three years to write a single book. And, much of that time, even before the writing starts, is just time spent thinking, sometimes at my desk, sometimes in the shower and often with the dogs walking on the beach. What's incredible, is that while I was very productive on Wall Street, I believe I am 10 times more productive today. Responding to e-mails, answering cell phone calls, surfing the Internet, social networking and watching television keeps us so busy that we don't even have time to think. We can go all day, sometimes all week or even all month without a single creative thought. Anybody can push paper. What creates real value is creative thinking and creative problem solving. Somehow, we have gotten so busy we don't have time to do the thing that is most important, think. So, the next time you want to increase your productivity, turn off the computer, turn off the television and turn off the cell phone, find a nice quiet relaxing place and ask yourself what color the curtains should be. I know that would make Agnes happy. John R. Talbott is a bestselling author and financial consultant to families whose books predicted the housing crash, the banking crisis and the global economic collapse. You can read more about his books, the accuracy of his predictions and his financial consulting activities at www.stopthelying.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will return to the campaign trail next month, heading to California for a pair of fundraisers for Democratic congressional candidates. The April 3 events will kick off what is expected to be a robust effort by Obama to support Democrats in next year's midterm elections. For Obama, winning back Democratic control of the House of Representatives and holding his party's majority in the Senate in 2014 would give him more opportunities to pass legislation Republicans oppose. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will also attend next month's San Francisco fundraisers, according to an invitation obtained by The Associated Press. The two events will raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Congressional Republicans have criticized Obama for being more focused on getting Democrats elected than on seeking bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems. Obama sought to dispel that notion this week during private meetings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, though he is unlikely to have changed many minds — particularly given that he has made no secret of his desire to see Democrats overtake Republicans in the House. "I would expect that Nancy Pelosi is going to be Speaker again pretty soon," he told House Democrats during their party retreat last month. Democratic officials have said the president plans to headline at least 14 fundraisers this year for the party's House and Senate candidates. Some of the events will be in Washington, but most will be held around the country. Vice President Joe Biden and first lady Michelle Obama are also expected to hold campaign events for Democrats in the coming months. During Obama's first term, some Democrats griped that the president didn't do enough to help the party's congressional candidates, particularly ahead of the 2010 midterms. Those elections saw Republicans win control of the House, an advantage they have used to stymie Obama's agenda. ___ Follow Julie Pace on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jpaceDC