GOP primary ad wars continue GOP primary ad wars continue

In case you missed the Headline item earlier, Mitt Romney came out with a whopper today: Rick Santorum’s light-hearted “Rombo ad,” Romney said, was “the most negative ad” he’s seen.

“He was the first person in the campaign to run negative ads, attacking me,” [Romney said.] “He did that through his campaign in South Carolina, his PAC also ran negative ads against me, and then he’s got the most negative ad I’ve seen, so far — the one attacking me for attacking him.

“Look, it’s not something I’m going to whine about. I know there’s some candidataes that want to whine about the fact that you go back-and-forth and talk about the distinctions between one another.”

Oh, Romney, you’re not fooling anyone. We all know the Florida GOP primary campaign actually was the most negative campaign in history — and that your attacks on Newt Gingrich and his attacks on you were responsible. Santorum stayed completely above that fray. Lately, the Santorum campaign has had the means to message more fiercely — but, at the very least, I’d say his takedown of Newt Gingrich in the ad “Deal” was more hard-hitting than his creative play on “Rambo.” Also, please don’t say, “it’s not something I’m going to whine about” as you whine about it. That’s barely better than saying, “No offense, but …” before you give offense. Just lay off the mitigating remarks entirely.

Meanwhile, Gingrich continues to vent his frustration at Romney’s unaccountable Super PAC. In typical Gingrich fashion, the former Speaker has denounced with plenty of adverbs the PAC’s latest effort:

Newt Gingrich’s campaign sent letters to certain TV stations Friday warning them against airing a commercial paid for by a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney.

According to the letter, the campaign claims the ad is “fundamentally NOT TRUE.”

Produced by the group Restore Our Future, the commercial is set to air in Georgia, a state Gingrich formerly represented as congressman, as well as other Super Tuesday states.

The spot claims Gingrich co-sponsored a 1989 bill with then-Rep. Nancy Pelosi “that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.”

But the former House speaker claimed the ad is “unequivocally false.”

It’s hard to say which is more irritating: The omnipresence of misleading, disheartening, demotivating ads — or the petty reactivity of the candidates, who by their decision to run for president invited scrutiny and now decry it. It all just makes me want to throw my hands in the air and say: Grow up!

A quick reminder to consumers: Don’t count on the candidates to tell the truth about themselves — and that definitely goes for Obama, too. The burden is on us to root out the facts and vote accordingly.

Obama Raises $29M for Campaign, Dem Party

(WASHINGTON) — President Barack Obama raised more than $29 million for his campaign and for the Democratic Party in January, a strong fundraising month that put him ahead of the pace he set in the last quarter of 2011.

In a Twitter message Friday morning, the Obama campaign announced the president raised the money for his re-election effort, for the Democratic National Committee and related committees. The campaign raises money directly from donors or through a Victory Fund that splits proceeds with party efforts devoted to Obama's re-election. (See pictures of Barack Obama on Flickr.)

The month's haul raises Obama's total combined fundraising for this election cycle to about $250 million. In the last three months of 2011, he averaged about $23 million a month.

That fundraising concluded before the campaign's announcement this month that, in a reversal, Obama would embrace the big big-money fundraising groups he once criticized and let them help in his re-election.

The campaign did not immediately provide a breakdown of the fundraising but said 98 percent of the January donations were $250 or less.

Presidential candidates must submit January fundraising reports to the Federal Election Commission on Friday. The Obama campaign's full report is expected later in the day.

The January numbers were being reported as Obama concluded a three-day swing of California and Washington that included eight fundraisers, most of them high-dollar events. All told, the president was expected to raise more than $8 million during the trip.

Three Pieces of Advice Mitt Romney Should Ignore

I’ve always thought that one of the most annoying parts of running for president must involve the amount of unsolicited advice you get. Everyone thinks they’re a political genius who sees the obvious angle no one else “gets.” A story in Thursday’s New York Times featured an anecdote in which the right-wing news mogul Christopher Ruddy complained that Romney showed an obvious “lack of interest” in his advice about how to schmooze other conservative pundits. The story implied that Romney is a bad politician. Or maybe he’s just sick of hearing everyone’s half-baked ideas all the time. Regardless, Romney has never been barraged with more advice than right now, in this moment of crisis for his candidacy. Just flip on any cable talk show. In the new issue of TIME, Mike Murphy chimes in with his own two bits–although, as a seasoned operative and someone who has advised Romney before, he delivers some of the best analysis and counsel I’ve read. Romney would do well to consider it. Much of the other advice coming his way, however isn’t very good. And so my only counsel is that Romney ignore most of it. Here are three things in particular that Romney should not do if he wants to salvage his listing candidacy:

Don’t lurch right!: Conservatives are pressing Romney to adopt more, shall we say, severe issue positions. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has been pressing him to offer a revised tax plan which offers deeper tax cuts on the investments of wealthy Americans. But taxes are a losing issue for Republicans right now, which is one reason House Republicans just caved on the payroll tax cut. Romney’s current tax plan, which offers huge high-end breaks, will already be a hard sell in the fall; he needn’t make it any harder. The same goes for several other issues, from entitlements to immigration, on which he might want to outflank Santorum, but which could make him even less popular with independents. As I’ve argued before, Romney wants to be just conservative enough to win this nomination, so that he stands a chance of getting elected in November.

Don’t roll out a “new Mitt”!: Murphy argues that Romney should “stop thinking and calculating and get stupid.” I take him to mean that Romney should display more heart, spontaneity and authenticity. That’s fine, but it actually has to come from the heart–not some version of his heart that’s displayed to a focus group and then edited and revised for public consumption. It has to seem natural because it is natural. A conspicuous “reinvention” will only make Romney look desperate, and ridiculous, and underscore his existing air of inauthenticity. (Although I’m afraid the “real Mitt” can be pretty silly, too.) No new campaign slogan, wardrobe, theme song, or calculated demonstration of some previously-unknown charming hobby–say, an Angry Birds addiction. Romney should be especially careful about trying to retreat from his established image as a successful businessman, as some people have advised. Competent management is his calling card; if it’s not the right year for it, then too bad. The obvious alternative subjects–governing Massachusetts, serving as a Mormon missionary in France–are hardly the answer.

Don’t stop attacking!: Having witnessed the way Romney pulverized Newt Gingrich with attack ads in Iowa, and then again in Florida, Santorum is trying to turn Romney’s negative tactics back against him. It’s true that Romney’s unfavorables have shot up, one natural side effect of negative campaigning (though there are other potential explanations as well.) But once he’s dispatched his last serious rival, he can recover with a stretch of relentless positivity. And there’s good reason to think that harsh advertising can save him again. Rick Santorum may lack Newt Gingrich’s operatic liabilities. But his record is also less pure than many Republicans must assume. Santorum was rarely criticized in the debates, after all, and has never been the target of a sustained negative ad campaign. He’s also a former Senator, and Senators make for especially fat targets, with their long voting records that are far easier to lampoon than to defend. (For instance, Romney is now ripping Santorum for repeatedly voting to raise the debt limit, something Congress did routinely for years; never mind that Romney himself almost certainly would have wound up doing the same thing if he’d beaten Ted Kennedy in 1994.) And a little damage will go a long way. Romney only trails Santorum by a few points nationally, and by perhaps ten points in the new showdown state of Michigan. Gingrich was at least as strong at his peak. Rombo should use his financial advantage to blast away; he’s sure to damage Santorum far more than himself. And if that doesn’t work, well, don’t ask my advice….

www.xxmoviespop.blogspot.com

Just what you want to hear: Planned Parenthood works around the clock to hook your kids on sex

Recently, American Life League came out with a six-minute exposé of Planned Parenthood that was so appalling that I would have had a hard time believing it was true had it not been about Planned Parenthood. The video included clips and images from PP educational materials — cartoons and the like — and the gist of the clips was that teens should learn to pleasure themselves and each other as soon as possible.

At the time, I was so disgusted that I couldn’t bring myself to post it. Now, I wish I had. Because of a copyright claim, YouTube pulled the video. No worries, though: You can read more about its contents here. As the smallest of samplings, here’s a screenshot:

The cartoon in the corner speaks for itself.

The point of the ALL’s video was simple: Planned Parenthood has a vested interest in hooking the next generation on sex. They’re in the abortion business. They depend upon unwanted pregnancies to stay in business. They know no unwanted pregnancy occurs without sex, so they encourage sex — albeit “safe” sex.

Over at BuzzFeed, BigRedH mocks the American Life League for its concern, writing, “Yes, this is both real and terrible. How dare Planned Parenthood try to educate people?” But pamphlets, coloring books, mascots, banners, outrageously-shaped lollipops … These aren’t the hallmarks of education. They’re the hallmarks of marketing. Fortunately for Planned Parenthood, the product they’re marketing is the easiest in the world to sell — and, when teens buy it and then have need of other products (a.k.a. contraceptives, STD testing, abortions), Planned Parenthood cashes in.

It sounds extreme, but, in the end, isn’t that the foundational idea of Planned Parenthood — that customers should be able to have sex without consequences, unless those “consequences” are “planned”?

If it all still sounds like a stretch to you, consider Planned Parenthood’s latest effort to meet teens where they are:

    Whether they are texting high school students, lecturing in public schools, or coaxing students to their cringeworthy “Teen Information” website, Planned Parenthood relentlessly tries to appeal to the nation’s youth. Their most recent attempt is the newly-launched “HeyPP!” Twitter account. The page is meant to reach teenagers with sexual health information[.]

Sexual health information like, oh, how to have a conversation with your boyfriend about using a condom, how to know when the time is “right” to have sex or how to know if you’re a “cheater” (hint: it depends on your particular relationship’s rules).

The good news is, teens are unimpressed:

    Planned Parenthood’s reputation is fading in popularity as quickly as their choice of words. (Another HeyPP tweet reads, “Sounds like a solid plan!” I’m still watching for the word “groovy.”) Planned Parenthood has been exposed for lying, failing to report statutory rape, and not only concealing, but aiding in the sex trafficking of minors.

    But it isn’t only Planned Parenthood that has a dwindling reputation among teens. Abortion as a whole is becoming increasingly unpopular with our nation’s youth. Unlike generations before, today’s teens are a part of what can be called the “refrigerator generation.” Unborn children are not an abstract “blob of tissue” to us, as we have grown up seeing ultrasound images of our unborn brothers, sisters, and cousins on our refrigerator doors. Combine this with an increase in pro-life activism, and it makes sense that more of our generation reports to be pro-life than pro-choice.

    Abortion and Planned Parenthood are losing popularity among youth, and no excessive use of the words “like” and “totally” is going to change that.

It’s irritating — and a little insulting to the intelligence — that the “experts” at Planned Parenthood really think teens need help figuring out how to follow their natural urges.

But what angers me most about Planned Parenthood’s perpetual attempts to perpetuate knowledge about every last perversion that plagues the human race is that it robs marriage and sex of mystery and romance. If everybody’s business is everybody’s business, then nothing is private. How ironic that the “right to privacy” has made public in a huge way what was once between just two people.

Incidentally, what evidence we have still suggests it’s better when people keep it to themselves. Let’s please bring back the conversational taboo; surely sex was more exciting that way.

Update: A kind Twitter follower supplied me with a link to a still-working version of the video. “Enjoy” isn’t exactly the right word, so … be appalled:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tz8wxW0NbCA?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tz8wxW0NbCA?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

Pelosi: Yes, of course, the Catholic Church should be forced to cover contraception — even if it’s self-insured

Remember, the “compromise” is that insurance companies will foot the bill for contraception themselves so that religious institutions technically aren’t paying for it. That’s a minor concession given that the plan will still cover birth control — and it’s a nonexistent concession if premiums end up rising to pay for the contraception — but that was the compromise. One wrinkle: What happens if the religious institution is the insurance company, i.e. if it self-insures? Surely they get a conscience exemption in that case, right?

Right?

    House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday morning that the government should require self-insured religious institutions, such as the Catholic church in Washington, D.C., to directly pay for contraception and abortifacients.

    At a press conference, Leader Pelosi was asked by THE WEEKLY STANDARD: “The Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., is a self-insured institution. Should the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., be required to pay for these morning-after pills and birth control if they find that morally objectionable?”

    Pelosi talked about the importance of women’s health, and then said, “Yes, I think that all institutions who cover, who give, health insurance should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women.”

That’s from the Standard’s John McCormack, whom you can hear posing the question to Pelosi in the video below of today’s presser (via Breitbart TV). When McCormack asked Dick Durbin about an exemption for self-insurers, he at least struggled with the issue. Not Nancy. When access to the pill collides with what she once eloquently described as “this conscience thing” that Catholics have, religious freedom bows without hesitation. Someone should float this “compromise” for her at the next media availability: What if the Church grandfathered in current employees by providing full coverage but eliminated contraception coverage for future hires? A job applicant could take that deal or leave it; this way, over time, the Church would gradually phase out coverage of birth control as employees retire instead of pulling the rug out from under current personnel. (Whether the bishops would agree to that, I don’t know. They should be asked too.) Everyone else in the world considers the benefits package when deciding whether to accept a job offer, after all. If that means only Catholics end up working for the Church, the Church will have to make do with its newly limited hire pool.

Here’s the clip. Watch to the end to find Pelosi, a Catholic herself, pushing the crapola statistic that 98 percent of Catholic women have used contraception. Exit question via Nick Rizzuto: Is it time to mandate that vegetarian restaurants serve the healthy (and tasty) protein source known as red meat?

In Kansas, a bill to protect religious freedom angers gays

The Department of Health and Human Services has states spooked. At least, legislators in Kansas cited the administration’s contraception mandate as a reason to expedite passage of a bill to protect religious freedoms:

    Supporters of a proposal in Kansas that’s described as an attempt to protect religious freedoms told state legislators Tuesday that President Obama’s ill-fated mandate for insurance coverage of birth control is a compelling example of why the measure is needed. …

    The state House Judiciary Committee had a hearing on the proposed Preservation of Religious Freedom Act and is expected to vote on it by Monday. State Rep. Lance Kinzer, a Republican who is committee chairman, contends the measure simply writes into state law language from past Kansas court decisions for determining when government policies place too much of a burden on practicing religion. …

    The bill would declare that state- and local-government policies shall not “substantially burden” people’s right to exercise their religious beliefs without showing a compelling interest and imposing the burden in the least restrictive way possible. It also would declare that people have the right to sue state and local government agencies if they feel their religious freedoms have been abridged.

Liberal activists in the state are not happy about this statute — but not because they support the president’s mandate (although they probably do). No, they’re worried that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act will be used to nullify local and state laws to prevent bias — not just discrimination, but bias — against gays. The bill specifically says that the prevention of discriminatory practices — as outlined by Kansas state law and the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions — is a compelling interest for which the state might burden the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about local anti-bias ordinances that seek to make up for the fact that Kansas state law does nothing to prevent discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

The response of these gay activists is instructive. It’s a further indication that some gay advocates think the free exercise of religion — when it reveals a bias against gay behavior — should itself be construed as discrimination. It underscores that an overlap exists between the purported rights of gays to marry and the long-acknowledged, constitutionally-enshrined right to religious freedom. Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to gay couples even if they’re religiously opposed to gay behavior? I know a landlord who won’t rent to cohabiting couples because she’s religiously opposed. Should she not have the right to rent her property to whomever she wishes? The battle for state-recognized same-sex marriage is thorny precisely because of the way in which it eventually touches on religious freedom.

Incidentally, this Kansas statute sounds a little like the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives unanimously, passed the Senate by a vote of 97-3 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. That statute says the federal government may “substantially burden” a person’s “exercise of religion” only if it “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering” that interest. The existence of the federal law doesn’t obviate the need for similar laws at a state level, but it is worth noting in this post that the federal law exists — and the HHS contraception mandate is in clear violation of it.

Republicans in Washington need to stop acting like Democrats, says … Mitt Romney

It was a veiled swipe at Rick Santorum and a bit rich coming from him, but Mitt Romney is right: Republicans in Washington do need to stop acting like Democrats.

    At the business roundtable in Monroe, Romney did not mention surging rival Rick Santorum at the roundtable, but his critique echoed the charges he’s been leveling at Santorum in their pitched battle to win the Feb. 28 primary in the state where Romney grew up.

    When the GOP held majorities on Capitol Hill, he said, “Republicans started earmarking like crazy. Republicans spent too much money, way above the rate of inflation. Republicans didn’t send programs back to the states. Republicans didn’t eliminate programs, we added programs. We were doing exactly what the Democrats have done. And we can’t keep doing that.”

He had to ruin it, though, with this:

    By contrast, said Romney, “I’m going to Washington not as the next step in my political career, because I don’t have a political career. My life was spent in the private sector.” He said he would make Midwestern states, including his home state of Michigan and neighboring Ohio, into destinations for entrepreneurship and innovation.

Come again? I knew Mitt Romney was running on his private-sector experience — situational competence and all that — but I didn’t know he now claims he hasn’t had a political career. What was his 2008 campaign then? His run as the governor of Massachusetts? His bid for the Senate?

Yuck. He’d be better off to stick to his reminder to voters that Republicans have betrayed conservatives in the past and they’re liable to do so again. Then again, that also just reminds voters that his all-purpose excuse for his every past misstep is, “But, but — I was the governor of Massachusetts.”

The bigger question (and my exit question) is this: What will it take for Republicans in Washington to act like Republicans — or, better yet, conservatives?

You mean it’s not possible to provide contraception insurance at no cost to … anybody?

Well, duh. What’s crazy is that the administration has ever tried to say otherwise. Fortunately, insurers aren’t afraid to state the obvious. Hidden — or not-so-hidden — in the administration’s insistent mandate that insurers provide coverage for contraception to the employees of religiously-affiliated organizations is a very real cost:

    The administration has said insurers should ultimately make up any initial costs by avoiding expenses associated with unintended pregnancies. But a new survey of 15 large health plans shows they are dubious of such savings.

    Asked what impact the requirement will have on their costs in the year to two years after it goes into effect, 40 percent of the participants said they expect the requirement will increase costs through higher pharmacy expenses.

    The survey of pharmacy directors at the health plans was conducted on Wednesday by Reimbursement Intelligence, which advises pharmaceutical, medical device and other companies on reimbursement issues. The firm did not name the insurance plans it surveyed.

    Of the health plans, 20 percent said costs would even out because they already budget for contraception in the premium, 6.7 percent said it would drive up pharmacy costs but decrease medical costs, while 33.3 percent weren’t sure. None said it would lead to net savings.

Nobody should be surprised by this, not least the president, even if he did recently try to sell the mandate as driven by a desire to lower health care costs. Apparently, the administration actually prohibited the panel of health-care experts commissioned to craft a list of recommended preventive services — the list that ultimately led to the contraception mandate — from considering cost-effectiveness. So, they didn’t — and predictably recommended that the administration mandate coverage of contraception.

Let’s think about this for a minute: Insurers expect this to increase their costs. Will they just swallow that increase or will they — oh, I don’t know — raise premiums? Once again, I’m reminded that it sucks to be a conservative because we have to be the ones to say fun facts like this one: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

The conservative talking point on this issue so far has been this: “This isn’t about contraception. This is about religious liberty.” Let’s take that one step further: “This isn’t about religious liberty. This is about plain ol’ liberty.” Even if I were the biggest proponent of contraception in the world, even if I spent my weekends passing out condoms to college kids, even if I spent my days pleading with my female peers to pop the pill, I would still say no one should be forced to subsidize another person’s contraception.

GOP senators introduce new plan to overhaul Medicare

Republicans Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) today unveiled a plan to revamp Medicare that would accelerate a transition to private insurance, raise the benefit eligibility age and up the premiums paid by middle-class and upper-income seniors. (Avik Roy calls it “the best Medicare reform proposal yet.”)

Coburn said it best when he explained to The Washington Times why they decided to release the plan in an election year, when it’s unlikely to actually go anywhere: “All of us in Congress are running around fixing everything except our biggest problem. If you don’t start fixing Medicare, you can’t save it.”

Overextended entitlement programs are the key drivers of the national debt, and, of the Big Three, Medicare is most in need of reform. Consider: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will consume all tax revenues by 2049, according to The Heritage Foundation’s Budget Chart Book. Medicare spending is adding to future deficits faster than any other program spending.

Yet, politicians continue to avoid the issue. The Senate’s dereliction of duty on a budget matters so much precisely because the appropriations process doesn’t touch entitlements; the yearly budget is the ideal place to take stock of entitlement programs and to make needed adjustments. With no budget in three years, the federal government has operated on autopilot when it comes to entitlements — at a time when it least can afford to do so, as a debt crisis is looming. The Super Committee that grew out of this summer’s debt ceiling showdown also ignored entitlement reform.

Coburn and Burr, then, deserve the respect, praise and attention of their congressional colleagues simply because they had the bravery to bring up an unpopular subject.

They’re not the first to do so, of course; Medicare reform was and is an essential component of Paul Ryan’s Roadmap to Prosperity (although he has subsequently introduced another plan, the Paul-Wyden plan). His Medicare proposal became a key issue in the NY-26 special election, in which Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin. The election featured what Ryan called “scare tactics, distortions [and] demagoguery” to scare seniors into voting against Medicare reform in the person of Jane Corwin.

The backlash to Ryan’s introduction of his own ideas hasn’t deterred him in the least, however. The Washington Examiner even reports that he’s already working with congenial Democrats to lay a foundation for real reform should Republicans take the White House and Senate in November:

He won’t name names, but House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., revealed this morning that he’s meeting with Democrats to chart reforms on Medicare and taxes should President Obama get the boot in November and the GOP take over.
Medicare is his top issue and he said the two sides are “planting the seeds to reap a bipartisan solution after this election because we know it’s not going to happen before.” Pressed to dish on the Democrats, he said, “I’m not going to give you any names to protect the innocent.” He explained that they are “not wiling to cross” Obama or House and Senate Democratic leaders before the election.But he described them as moderates interested in pushing reforms aimed at pegging benefits to income, meaning the poor get more than the rich, rather than imposing price controls on services. “We don’t have much time before a crisis hits us,” said Ryan. “You’ve got about two or three years America.”

At this point, any discussion of Medicare reform is better than no discussion. Tangible action will have to wait until after November — but, to borrow a phrase from the president, can’t wait much longer than that or there’ll be no Medicare to reform.

NATO will emerge stronger from economic crisis: Rasmussen

ATHENS, Feb. 16 (Xinhua) -- Through collaboration, NATO will emerge stronger from the difficult economic conditions, the alliance's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said here on Thursday.

"We all face difficult economic conditions and we have to make difficult choices. But NATO is a family where members help each other and I am certain we will emerge stronger from this crisis," Rasmussen said when addressing an event in Athens to mark the 60th anniversary of Greece's membership in the military bloc.

"We need to address the challenges emerging from this economic environment," the NATO chief said.

In a series of meetings with Greek President Karolos Papoulias, Prime Minister Lucas Papademos and other Greek officials, Rasmussen praised the country's role in NATO operations from Kosovo to Afghanistan to restore peace and stability and in Libya recently.

Speaking of Afghanistan, he expressed confidence that military pressure on Taliban will eventually pave the way for a political solution.

He also said the alliance supports international efforts for a diplomatic resolution of the Iran nuclear issue.

In regards to the Cyprus issue which is of particular concern to Greece, Rasmussen stressed that its non-resolution has negative impact for the divided island and Greek-Turkish relations and for EU-NATO ties as well, calling on all sides to reach an agreement under UN's auspices.

Papoulias asked Rasmussen to contribute to the resolution of another major issue for Greece -- the name dispute with Macedonia.

After the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, the use of the name Macedonia by the neighboring new independent republic has been met with strong reactions by Greece, which says that it implies Macedonia harbors territorial claims over Greece's northern province of the same name.

Under the auspices of the UN, the two sides are involved in lengthy negotiations to reach a settlement of the dispute.

Syrian government, opposition must listen to people’s demands: ambassador

BEIJING, Feb. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- The Syrian government and Syrian opposition must listen to the people’s demands, asserted Syrian ambassador to China Dr. Imad Moustapha, “this can only take place through free elections, only when the Syrian people say their word, then can we move forward. "

In an interview with Xinhuanet Tuesday, the newly-appointed ambassador said his government has amended the constitution and allows the opposition to demonstrate.

"This is the only way for Syria to end this crisis. The Syrian government and Syrian opposition must listen to the people’s demands," he said, noting "The situation in Syria has not worsened; the majority of the Syrian people strongly support the Syrian government. "

"The government of Syria is deeply committed to a political solution. Neither the United States, nor Saudi Arabia and Qatar can dictate to the Syrian people what they want. Even the Syrian government is not trying to tell the Syrian people to do what it wants. The Syrian people will decide what they want for Syria through a referendum on the constitution, and the ballot box in the forthcoming elections, " Imad Moustapha told Xinhuanet.

"We have completed drafting a new constitution; it will be one of the most democratic constitutions in the world," he said, stressing "this can only take place through free elections, only when the Syrian people say their word, then we can move forward, not by listening to opposition groups who carry western passports."

"The direction of the Syrian government is to conduct free elections, allow total freedom of press, total freedom of political parties, and give women their total rights," he said, challenging "Saudi Arabia and Qatar to go in this direction."

"We challenge the United States of America to pressure her allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to do the same. We challenge the United States of America as well to pressure Israel to give the Palestinians their human rights. This is the real problem Syria is facing," he said.

Syria and China are friendly countries, the ambassor said, as the Chinese people are deeply concerned about the situation in Syria. "I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Chinese people for their concern; however, there is no reason to be worried. Concerning the situation in Syria, it is completely different from the way it is presented in the Western media. "

"The two major cities in Syria, Damascus and Aleppo, which house almost half of the Syria population, lead a very normal life. People go to their work, universities, theaters, music concerts, restaurants and cafes; the same applies to other major Syria cities," he noted, "However, in one Syrian city, namely Homs, armed terrorist groups are committing atrocious acts of violence. They follow an extreme Islamist ideology, and they are determined to fight against the secular government of Syria."

On western media's failure to paint a correct picutre of Syria, he said, "If you listen to the Western media, you will hear that the government forces are killing pro democracy activists." But he added, "after the arrival of the Arab League observers, they visited every Syrian city, and wrote their reports. The observers are all experts, and do not carry a Syrian nationality. They confirmed that the opposition groups, not the government, perpetrate most of the violence. This is written in their final report and it is published. This is the true situation in Syria as described by a third party witness. Western media never reported the findings of the Arab League observers."

Talking of the role of the Arab League, he said it "did not play a constructive role in this situation. The influential and big Arab countries, like Egypt and Iraq are not playing any role at all. On the other hand, a very small Arab country, Qatar, with a population of 200.000 people, is attempting to become the leader of the Arab world."

China and Russia vetoed on Feb. 4 a draft resolution in the Security Council. He said, "I think this is very significant. China and Russia are fulfilling their role in the United Nations, of supporting small states; they are standing up to the American hegemony in the Security Council. The Syrian people are very grateful to China, and Russia. "

Facing great pressure from the West, he said Syria has very strong regional and international friends. "We will continue to develop our relations with these countries."

In March 2011, anti government protests erupted in Syria. Since then violence has caused a high toll of casualties. The escalating conflict has attracted the attention and concern of the International Community.

On Feb. 4, a draft resolution was presented to the UN Security Council concerning the crisis in Syria; the resolution was met by a double veto from China and Russia, stemming from their rejection for any intervention in internal affairs of any country.

On Feb. 12, the Arab League ministerial council issued a statement calling the Security Council to send peacekeeping troops to Syria to stop the bloodshed.

Moustapha was named ambassador to China in later January. He has served as Syria’s Ambassador to the United States for a long period before his recent appointment.

N. Korea’s late Kim Jong-il gets military birthday tribute

PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) — Army trucks loaded with artillery rolled by the memorial palace for North Korea’s late leaders as Kim Jong-un presided over a military birthday commemoration for his father Thursday.

Kim Jong-il died of a heart attack in December, and North Koreans marked what would have been his 70th birthday by remembering him and showing support for his young son and successor.

Across Pyongyang, they bowed before Kim Jong-il’s portrait and laid single blossoms in his honor on the holiday now called “Day of the Shining Star.”

The Kim Jong-un ode “Footsteps” reverberated across the capital all day, emphasizing the son’s inheritance of the family legacy bequeathed to him by his father and his grandfather, North Korea founder Kim Il-sung.

The Kims have ruled North Korea since its inception in 1948 following the division of the Korean Peninsula into the communist-backed north and the U.S.-allied south. Kim Il-sung remains the country’s “eternal president” even after his death in 1994.The transition to a third-generation in the Kim family comes at a delicate time for North Korea, which struggles with a chronic food shortage and faces pressure to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

The nation’s leadership has leaned heavily on legacy in building up Kim Jong-un’s credentials, highlighting the similarities to his grandfather in looks and style and to his father in vision and policy.

“We’re very proud to have him as a successor to Kim Jong-il. He’s brimming with energy,” said Jang Ye-song, a guide at a flower exhibition featuring Kim Jong-il’s namesake red kimjongilia begonias. “We were completely charmed at the first sight of him.”

Thursday’s military show outside the Kumsusan Memorial Palace, the mausoleum where Kim Jong-il’s body lay in state, reinforced Kim Jong-un’s vow to uphold the “military first” policy that defined his father’s rule.

Thousands of soldiers goose-stepped past the reviewing stand where Kim Jong-un stood, flanked by top military political leaders, beneath a massive portrait of Kim Jong-il.

As a military brass band played and fireworks exploded, tanks, trucks and jeeps filed by, loaded with artillery guns and rocket launchers. A sea of people waving red and pink plastic flowers blanketed the plaza outside the grandiose mausoleum.

“Bearing guns, we will faithfully uphold the ‘military-first’ leadership of our respected supreme commander and comrade,” Ri Yong-ho, vice marshal of the Korean People's Army and the military’s General Staff chief, said in a speech at the ceremony.

“Let’s dedicate our lives to protect Kim Jong-un!” troops in the plaza roared.

The military show was nowhere near as extravagant as the massive parade at Kim Il-sung Square in October 2010 for the 65th anniversary of the Workers’ Party of Korea, and an even bigger procession is expected for the April 15 celebrations that will mark the centenary of Kim Il-sung’s birth.

But it was believed to be only the second military parade held at the memorial palace that once served as Kim Il-sung’s presidential offices, and it was seen as a fitting tribute to the late leader at a time when the nation is in a semiofficial state of mourning. Kim Il-sung’s body has lain in state at Kumsusan since 1995, and his son’s remains are expected to be displayed there as well.Kim Jong-un was calm and composed as he saluted the troops. At times, he cracked a smile as he chatted with Marshal Ri and Armed Forces Minister Kim Yong-chun. Other key figures present were Kim Yong-nam, the president of the Presidium of North Korea’s parliament; Premier Choe Yong-rim; Kang Sok-ju, a vice premier who was Kim Jong-il’s key foreign policy adviser; and his Kim Jong‘un’s aunt, Kim Kyong-hui.

Later, MR. Kim attended a performance of songs and orchestral music in his father’s honor at the Pyongyang Indoor Stadium that ended with a spirited rendition of “Footsteps” featuring tap-dancing soldiers. Afterward, the orchestra and performers stood to clap and chant “Kim Jong-un, single-hearted unity!” and “Kim Jong-un, defend to the death!” for five minutes, with the audience joining in.

Elsewhere in Pyongyang, at the main plaza at Kim Il-sung Square, the Pyongyang Circus Theater, the stadium and the Mansudae Art Studio grounds where a bronze statue of Kim Jong-il on horseback was unveiled this week, North Koreans paid their respects to KimJong-il by bowing and laying flowers.

Among them was Paek Won-chol, who described himself as a “soldier and disciple” of Kim Jong-il. “I will devote my all for the building of a powerful and prosperous nation” under Kim Jong-un, he said.

Thursday’s memorial could serve as closure to North Korea’s mourning ahead of important nuclear talks next week with the United States, said John Delury, an assistant professor at Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Studies in South Korea.

Kim Jong-il’s death put discussions between Pyongyang and Washington on food aid and nuclear disarmament talks on hold. A U.S. nuclear envoy will meet with North Koreans next week in Beijing, the first such negotiations since Kim Jong-i’s death.

“There were a lot of balls in the air when Kim Jong-il died, so things froze,” Mr. Delury said. “The timing of this public ceremony … allows North Korea to make a last major public expression of grief as part of moving on and getting back to a lot of orders of business.”

Associated Press writers Kim Kwang-hyon in Pyongyang and Hyung-jin Kim and Sam Kim in Seoul contributed to this report.

Three new MI polls show Santorum with lead

National pollsters have already released surveys showing Rick Santorum taking a lead over Mitt Romney in Romney’s native state of Michigan. Today, three state-based polls concur, showing leads from just under four points to ten points in the key battleground state. The Detroit News poll shows the tightest margin (via Politico’s Morning Blast e-mail):

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has a slim lead over Mitt Romney, an indication the Michigan native son has yet to convince state voters he should be the Republican nominee for president, a Detroit News poll shows.

Santorum leads Romney 34 percent to 30.4 percent among likely Republican primary voters, but the gap is within the margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had support from 11.6 percent of respondents, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul had 8.9 percent and 12.4 percent was undecided.

USA Today reports on the other two polls, which show leads of nine and ten points:

The MRG Michigan Poll shows Santorum, a former U.S.senator from Pennsylvania, with 43% of the support to 33% for native son Mitt Romney, who has long been considered the front-runner in Michigan.

In the MRG poll, former House speaker Newt Gingrichcame in at 11% and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas had 8%. …

Mitchell Research, a polling firm in East Lansing, Mich., also has a new survey out showing Santorum with a 9-point lead over Romney in the Feb. 28 presidential primary in Michigan.

The Mitchell poll was done for MIRS, the Michigan Information & Research Service, and shows Santorum at 34% to Romney’s 25%. Less than two weeks ago, Romney was at 31%, with a 15-point lead over former Gingrich (16%), trailed by Santorum (15%) and Paul (15%).

In the new poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.6-percentage points, Paul trails Santorum and Romney with 11% and Gingrich is behind them with 5% of the survey respondents.

The MRG poll was conducted among 800 Republican voters, which might be problematic if USA Today means registered Republicans only. Independents can vote in the GOP primary in Michigan, and the wording implies that the poll was conducted among registered rather than likely Republicans without any independents. The Mitchell poll, however, surveyed 455 likely voters in the primary, which is a better sample — and one that came up with essentially same result. The Detroit News poll surveyed 500 likely voters, similar to the Mitchell poll, but with somewhat more divergent results.

Clearly, Santorum has momentum in Michigan, and as Tina noted yesterday, in Arizona too, although he still trails in the latter. One question that arises is that of timing. Both of these contests are still almost two weeks away, which is plenty of time for Romney to spend a lot of cash to slow Santorumentum down, and possibly reverse it. The danger for Santorum is peaking too soon and raising expectations in Michigan before the Super Tuesday contests. If Santorum ends up losing Michigan after getting leads across the board in all these polls, it will be difficult to regenerate momentum in a single week to take on Romney in ten states.

Santorum’s fundraising has picked up and he’s trying an attack strategy on Romney designed to undercut Romney’s credibility by painting him as a mudslinger, but the effectiveness of that strategy has yet to be tested. The four candidates return for another debate on February 22nd, and Santorum can expect the hot-seat treatment from Romney and perhaps Gingrich as well, a new role for Santorum in these debates. Romney has already gone after Santorum as a big-government, big-spending Washington insider, but the Weekly Standard defends Santorum on those charges:

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

I’ve been seeing a lot of comments and tweets about Santorum’s supposed profligacy as Senator, but that doesn’t match his record vis-a-vis the NTU scoring. People have honest differences with Santorum on the emphasis of social issues (although Santorum himself has emphasized his economic plans in this campaign), and I wrote that I have a few disagreements with Santorum’s positions, DADT among them. He’s not a perfect conservative, to be sure, and questions about how he would stack up against Barack Obama in the general election are legitimate concerns. However, the alternatives are the person who signed an individual health-care mandate into law in Massachusetts, and the man who both backed individual mandates until 2010 and sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to push global-warming alarmism a few years before that, and both of whom also spent three or four weeks sounding more like an Occupier on Bain Capital and Freddie Mac work than a Republican. Those issues occurred more recently than any sins committed by Santorum while in the Senate, which is why I’m not buying the idea that Santorum is the big-government candidate about which I should be worried.

Great news: Deal struck on extending temporary tax cut that hasn’t boosted the economy at all

Yeah, I know I’m supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy about the fact that Democrats and Republicans didn’t play this out to the 11th hour, like they do with every other dispute these days. We’re supposed to cheer because the system worked and it produced a bipartisan result in a year that will see precious few of them. Too bad that it sucks money out of an already-ailing trust fund while delivering none of the economic impact promised when we tried it last year:
Congressional negotiators resolved all differences on an agreement to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits while avoiding a fee cut for Medicare doctors for the rest of the year, leaving only technical issues to sort out.

“It’s good for the country. It’s very good for the country,” Montana’s Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said early Thursday in announcing the deal.

But resolving those technical issues and getting the necessary signatures required to finalize the conference report was expected to take through at least Thursday.

“For the good of the country”? Really? It’s more for the good of incumbents who stepped into a trap in December 201o when they first proposed the supposed stimulus of the payroll-tax holiday. The extra $40 a week average ended up providing such a big stimulus that most people never even noticed it, and the American economy growth rate managed to drop from 2010 to 2011. The only reason Congress was in such a rush to work in bipartisan fashion to extend this temporary, ineffective flop was to avoid having the other party accusing them of hiking taxes on the middle class in an election year.

Chuck Blahous calls the spectacle a lesson on how not to make public policy, and gives seven detailed reasons why. He concludes:

The political dynamic surrounding the payroll tax cut has now evolved in such a way that neither party wants to be blamed for its expiration, so it will likely be extended even though it has now become almost a perfect storm of policy mistakes. Its ultra-temporary nature undoes virtually all of the positive stimulus impact claimed for it, while the adverse effects include high policy uncertainty, undercutting budget transparency, increased fiscal pressure, and lasting damage to Social Security’s financial and political foundation, this last of which may well prove irreparable.

Our public policy process is ever an imperfect one, necessarily producing messy outcomes because of the compromises necessary between conflicting perspectives. But even by these standards, it is rare for policy makers to inflict as much damage as is being done with the payroll tax cut. If lawmakers cannot muster the will to terminate it now, one must hope that they are able to do so before it goes on too much longer.

We need to end the temporary tax gimmicks, especially those that have nothing to do with long-term investment, and instead reform tax codes permanently and reduce regulation so that investors can price risk effectively. Programs like the payroll-tax “holiday” make the investing environment worse by introducing far too much instability and uncertainty into those calculations, as well as accelerating the fiscal time bombs in our entitlement programs. That’s why this is more of a headdesk moment than a celebratory event.

Romney: You know who’d make a good running mate?

Mitt Romney’s campaign and his super-PAC have begun ramping up their ad buys in Michigan to hit Rick Santorum where they believe he is weak — by painting him as an unreliable conservative, a big spender, and too much of a social conservative to win. They need to undermine his credibility in a hurry if they want to reverse his momentum and bring Santorum back down to the second tier. Santorum will have to find a way to defend himself while getting outspent, a task that Newt Gingrich couldn’t manage, and maintain his credibility as a national candidate.

In that, Santorum got some help yesterday from … Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney, whose campaign is preparing a multi-million dollar wave of negative advertising to persuade voters that Rick Santorum should not be president, says he is open to the possibility of choosing Santorum to be his running mate should Romney win the Republican nomination.

Romney appeared on Fox News Wednesday morning and was asked, “You and Rick Santorum, we haven’t seen you go head-to-head yet…In the big picture, could you see a scenario where you two team up?”

“Oh, I think it’s always possible to have people come together in our party, whether it’s Rick and I, or others in the party, who knows?” Romney responded. “It’s a little early to tell something like that, but we have similar views on issues — very different backgrounds.”

Romney’s “very different backgrounds” description of Santorum points to an argument Romney plans to use through the February 28 primaries in Michigan and Arizona and on through Super Tuesday on March 6. Santorum has no executive experience — “hasn’t run anything,” Romney will say — and is not qualified to be president. Romney, on the other hand, has run private businesses, the 2002 Olympics, and the state government in Massachusetts during his one term as governor.

Well, here’s the problem with that argument when made at the same time as suggesting the opponent as a valid running mate. The position of VP/running mate exists for the sole explicit reason of replacing a President in a hurry, should the President die or become unable to carry out his/her duties while in office. (Even the one official duty of the VP, President of the Senate, puts the VP in position to act as the President’s proxy.) If the “different backgrounds” issue is a disqualifier for the top of the ticket, it’s a disqualifier for the bottom of the ticket as well.

In that very real sense, Romney has essentially stepped on his own message. At the same time he’s painting Santorum as unqualified for the Presidency, he’s trying to have it both ways and play to Santorum’s growing voter base by praising him in public by teasing out the possibility of a Romney/Santorum ticket. Romney sees the need to do this because of Santorum’s high favorability ratings, whereas with Newt Gingrich he could just goad the former Speaker into a public fight and drive up his negatives even further. However, this suggestion undermines the message Romney is using in Michigan, and it’s not a good moment for him to do that, considering his polling status in his native state.

Would Romney really consider Santorum for the bottom of the ticket? Possibly, but it wouldn’t make much sense for either man to have the other at the bottom of the ticket. Romney wouldn’t accept it anyway, although Santorum might, but there are other options for both. Santorum won’t gain anything by putting a Northeastern Republican on the bottom of the ticket (unless it were Chris Christie, perhaps); both would do better by picking a Tea Party favorite. Bobby Jindal is probably the best choice for either, although Susana Martinez or Nikki Haley could work.

Video: First campaign ad on HHS mandate in MO Senate race

Sarah Steelman hits the air first in using the HHS mandate on religious organizations as a billy club in the upcoming elections. Steelman will run for the chance to replace Claire McCaskill in a tough Republican primary, one in which she will almost certainly get outspent by John Brunner. With only $84,000 cash on hand at the moment, Steelman rolls the dice by hammering McCaskill over her support for the mandate, and vows to fight for First Amendment rights if she beats McCaskill in the fall:

This is a pitch-perfect ad from Steelman, and one fellow Republicans should study closely for their own ad campaigns. What’s the one word that doesn’t get mentioned in the spot? Contraception:

In the spot, Steelman speaks directly into the camera and accuses the president of trampling on Americans’ constitutional rights.

“It is a slap in the face for religious freedom and is another disastrous byproduct of Obamacare. Worse yet, Claire McCaskill has agreed with them. I don’t,” she says.

The ad never specifically cites contraception and frames the issue as one of “religious freedom,” a pitch that could be received particularly well in the southwest part of the state which is home to many evangelical Christians.

Democrats have to defend a lot of red-state and swing-state Senate seats this year, and this could be a big issue if Republicans keep the focus on this issue as two principles at stake: religious freedom and the abuse of power by the Obama administration through ObamaCare. Steelman doesn’t get derailed into a discussion of the merits of contraception, nor should other Republicans, but in upholding the rights of religious organizations to refrain from facilitating violations of religious doctrines, and more generally of businesses to make their own decisions on what they will subsidize and what they will not — just as they were free to do before the passage of ObamaCare gave the federal government diktat power.

The strange budget priorities of Obama: Subsidizing car purchases for the 1% over poor children and airline safety

In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I remind readers that budgets are statements of priorities. Barack Obama’s budget shows his priorities on many levels, both at the macro and micro level. Given the large amount of new spending and higher taxes, it’s very easy to conclude at the macro level that Obama doesn’t think that spending reductions are a priority at all. How about on the micro level? Changes to three different programs give an even clearer indication of Obama’s priorities:

One is to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that helps poor children opt out of failing public schools in the nation’s capital. In 2011, Republicans in Congress fought to restore funding to the voucher program after Obama cut it in his FY2010 budget, and they managed to restore those funds for five years in the FY2012 compromise package.

Now, Obama has removed the entire $13 million for this program in his FY2013 budget proposal, a move that his union supporters in the National Education Association will cheer, but which will create despair among parents whose children will once again be denied access to school choice in Washington D.C.

Obama’s red line has also cut the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program in half, reducing its funding from an FY2012 level of $25 million to just $12 million in FY2013. At the same time, the budget reduces the federal Air Marshal budget by 4 percent, a reduction of $36.5 million. FFDO trains and provides continuous certification for commercial pilots to arm themselves in the cockpit, and air marshals provide plainclothes security to intervene in any security emergency. …

The cost savings from pushing poor kids out of the voucher program and making commercial flight less safe together add up to about $63 million. On the other side of the ledger: taxpayer subsidies for buying Chevy Volts. …

Obama proposes to boost the subsidy to $10,000 per car and projects at least 10,000 units sold in FY2013, which would be a new cost of $100 million in that year alone just from the taxpayer-funded rebates at the point of sale, far outstripping what was saved by eliminating the DC voucher program and cutting effective airline security.

Who gets these subsidies? According to GM’s CEO Dan Akerson, the average annual salary for a Volt buyer is $170,000 per year. That is about the average income for a BMW owner, about $40,000 a year higher than the average Cadillac buyer, and about $30,000 more than the average Lexus driver. Only a high-income earner could afford to take the financial risk of owning an electric vehicle that will have zero resale value when the batteries fail in five to eight years.

We’ve written at length about Obama’s hostility to the DC voucher program, but the FFDO cuts are something new. The program’s annual operating budget hasn’t increased in years over its current $25 million, which goes to the administrative costs of training and certifying commercial airline pilots to arm themselves in order to protect the cockpit against terrorist attacks. The pilots bear most of the cost of the training; they have to either use vacation time or lose flight pay to spend a week in New Mexico to get their initial certification to carry, and get the routine requalifications on their own time as well.

How effective are these federal flight deck officers (FFDOs)? The president of their association, Marcus Flagg, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in November of last year to emphasize the importance of this relatively inexpensive program. Flagg told the Senate that the FFDO program was “the most cost effective security measure we have to date,” and that FFDOs are “the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense.” However, Flagg also told the Senate that TSA was hostile to the FFDO program from its inception, and that the agency actively “restricted FFDOs as much as possible.”

Interestingly, TSA only got a 3% cut in funding down to $5.1 billion for FY2013 in Obama’s proposal, even though the airline security fee paid by travelers per leg of travel increases from $2.50 to $5 when the budget passes. The air marshal program got a 5% cut, as noted above. How cost effective is the FFDO program? Flagg testified:

Currently, FFDOs provide five times the coverage of the Federal Air Marshal Service at 1/25th the cost. The cost of each Federal Air Marshal is around $3,300 per flight. A pair of FAMs cost roughly $6,600 per flight. FFDOs cost roughly $15 per flight. Comparing the two, the same expenditure allows 440 FFDO missions to the single FAM mission. Which program is more cost effective?

It’s clearly more cost effective than subsidizing Chevy Volts. Just when the FFDO program needs more pilots, as Flagg warned, the nearly 50% cut in the FFDO program budget will ensure fewer new pilots enter the service and fewer of the current FFDOs requalify. If we are going to spend money, why are we spending it to subsidize the purchases of vehicles by people averaging $170,000 a year in salary rather than on commercial flight security, which is an actual federal responsibility?

Spain's economy shrinks 0.3% in fourth quarter

The struggling Spanish economy shrank 0.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011, stoking concerns that a weak first quarter this year will see it back in recession, official data showed Thursday. For 2011 as a whole, the economy expanded a meagre 0.7 percent, according to the figures which confirm initial estimates given January 30.

The slump, in a country where unemployment runs at nearly 23 percent, reflected a continued slowdown in domestic demand which could not be offset by exports, the INE statistics office said.

The 0.3 percent fall in output compared with the third quarter was the same as reported for the wider eurozone on Wednesday but the bloc managed overall 2011 growth of 1.5 percent, compared with Spain's 0.7 percent.

If the Spanish economy shrinks again in the three months to March, it would be in recession, as defined by two consecutive quarters of negative figures.

The government last week said it expected another contraction in the first quarter which would be worse than the fourth.

Spain emerged only at the start of 2010 from an 18-month recession triggered by the global financial crisis and a property bubble collapse that destroyed millions of jobs and left behind huge bad loans and debts.

China jails football referees in graft scandal

A Chinese court on Thursday jailed four referees and an official for their roles in a corruption scandal that brought the country's football league to its knees, the state Xinhua news agency said.

Lu Jun (R) at the 2002 FIFA World Cup. A Chinese court on Thursday jailed four referees, including Lu, and an official for their roles in a corruption scandal that brought the country's football league to its knees, the state Xinhua news agency said.

The four defendants, among them Lu Jun, who officiated at the 2000 Olympic Games and the 2002 World Cup, were the first to be sentenced over the match-fixing and gambling scandal since it was exposed two years ago.

Lu's crimes were linked to domestic league matches, state media has reported.

Gambling, match-fixing, crooked referees and poor performances by the national team have made the sport the laughing stock of increasingly indifferent Chinese fans, and a matter of state concern.

The scandal brought down top Chinese Football Association (CFA) heads Nan Yong and his successor Xie Yalong and several vice heads, including Yang Yimun, who will be sentenced on Saturday.

The court in northeast China's Liaoning province sentenced Lu, China's best-known referee and once dubbed "golden whistle", to five and a half years in jail and confiscated property valued at 100,000 yuan (about $16,000), Xinhua said.

Former referees Huang Junjie, Wan Daxue and Zhou Weixin were jailed for seven years, six years and three and a half years respectively.

The court also sentenced the former head of the China Superleague's commercial arm Lu Feng to six years and a half years in prison. The cases of Nan and Xie have yet to go to trial.

According to state media, CFA officials routinely fixed matches, including national team and league games, by allegedly buying off the teams and referees involved.

Calls to the Dongdong court and to lawyers went unanswered Thursday.

According to state media, up to 24 league and club officials will be sentenced by a court in Liaoning on Saturday.

Pakistan to host Afghan, Iranian leaders

Pakistan on Thursday welcomes the leaders of Afghanistan and Iran for a regional summit at a key juncture in peace efforts with the Taliban and amid rising tensions between Tehran and Israel. Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in Islamabad mid-morning, the Pakistani foreign ministry confirmed, for a series of talks with government and opposition figures on his second visit to the country in nine months.

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to arrive in the afternoon before formal summit talks on Friday, followed by a news conference.

Karzai's office said his talks with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani would focus on expanding relations, economic ties and "enhanced cooperation" on ending 10 years of war in Afghanistan.

Soon after his arrival, Karzai went into talks with Gilani, Pakistan's army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and senior government ministers, officials said. Pakistan, the historic ally of the Taliban, says it will do anything required by Kabul to support an Afghan-led peace process, but there is a wide degree of scepticism in Afghanistan and the United States about its sincerity.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar visited Kabul this month on a fence-mending visit amid reports that Kabul and Islamabad felt isolated by contacts between the United States and the Taliban in the Gulf state of Qatar.

But in an interview published in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Karzai said the Afghan government was part of three-way peace efforts.

The Taliban have refused to talk to Karzai's US-backed government.

"There have been contacts between the US government and the Taliban, there have been contacts between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and there have been some contacts that we have made, all of us together, including the Taliban," Karzai was quoted as saying.

He did not mention any Pakistani involvement, but said cooperation from Islamabad "would make the whole matter easier".

Pakistan says the trilateral summit will focus on cooperation on counter-terrorism and transnational organised crime including drug and human trafficking, border management and trade issues.

Islamabad is moving towards a detente in its own relations with Washington, which took a drastic turn for the worse over last year's covert American raid that killed Osama bin Laden and air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

But despite strong US objections, Pakistan says it is pressing ahead with a multi-billion-dollar project to build a gas pipeline to import fuel from Iran.

"There is no change or shift regarding the gas pipeline project and it is scheduled to be completed by 2014," said the official.

Israel this week accused Iran of targeting its diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand, against a backdrop of speculation that the Jewish state or the United States could be months from launching military strikes against Iran.

On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad unveiled new strides in Tehran's nuclear programme in a defiant blow to US and EU sanctions designed to rein in its atomic activities.

"I don't think so," a senior Pakistani government official told AFP when asked if mounting tensions between Iran and Israel, and the showdown over Iran's nuclear programme, would dominate the summit.

Thai police say Iranian bomb suspects in Bangkok planned to target Israeli diplomats

BANGKOK — Three Iranians detained after accidentally setting off explosives in Bangkok were planning to attack Israeli diplomats, Thailand’s top policeman said Thursday in the first confirmation by local officials that the group was plotting attacks in Thailand.

The allegation came after days of strong accusations by Israel that Iran was behind the botched plot as well as two others in India and the former Soviet republic of Georgia this week. Iran has denied the charges.
Citing the similarity of bombs used in New Delhi and Tbilisi, national police chief Gen. Prewpan Dhamapong said that Thai authorities now “know for certain that (the target) was Israeli diplomats.”

“This issue was about individuals and the targets were specific,” he said. “This was something personal.”

Israel has accused Iran of waging a covert campaign of state terror and has threatened military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran has blamed the Jewish state for the recent killings of Iranian atomic scientists and has denied responsibility for all three bomb plots, including an explosion Monday in New Delhi that tore through an Israeli diplomatic vehicle, wounding the driver and a diplomat’s wife, and a foiled attempt the same day in Georgia.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said Thursday it has stepped up security for diplomats posted overseas.
The plot in Bangkok was discovered Tuesday only by accident, when explosives stored in a house occupied by several Iranian men blew up by mistake.

One of the Iranians, Mohammad Kharzei, was paraded before journalists Thursday wearing a striped short-sleeve shirt, his apparently handcuffed hands covered by a dark sheet.

Prewpan said Kharzei had “partially confessed” and had acknowledged knowing one of the other suspects, Saeid Moradi, whose leg was sheered off by an explosive he was carrying as he fled police in the Thai capital’s busy Sukhumvit Road area.

Surveillance video released by police already links the suspects: it shows them leaving their destroyed house just after the first blast. Moradi was the last to exit, and as he walked out with a heavy backpack over his shoulder, a small crowd that had begun to gather backed away, clearly terrified.

Kharzei, grim-faced, did not speak as he stood before reporters, but Prewpan described him as “stressed out” and another official said he was having trouble eating.

The third Iranian, Masoud Sedaghatzadeh, was detained in Malaysia and the country’s federal police spokesman, Ramli Yoosuf, said he was being investigated for terrorism-related activities linked to the Bangkok blasts. The official could not say whether Sedaghatzadeh would be extradited to Thailand.

A Bangkok court has approved arrest warrants for all three suspects, as well as an Iranian woman named Leila Rohani who rented the destroyed house. However, Rohani has left Thailand and is now in Tehran, according to the top immigration police official, Lt. Gen. Wiboon Bangthamai.

All four now face criminal charges including possession of explosives, attempted murder, attempted murder of a policeman and causing explosions that damaged property. Prewpan said he believed there already was enough evidence to prosecute them. The Israeli ambassador to Thailand, Itzhak Shoham, declined to comment on reports his staff had been specifically targeted. He said the Israeli Embassy was open and functioning as normal.

Shoham told The Associated Press earlier this week, however, that the similarity of the bombs found in Bangkok and New Delhi had led Israel to believe the plots were linked.
Prewpan also said that two homemade “sticky” bombs found at the blast site Tuesday matched the devices planted on Israeli diplomatic cars in India and Georgia a day earlier.

Thailand’s acknowledgment that terror attacks were being planned on its soil stood in contrast to its denials of that last month, when police arrested a Lebanese-Swedish man with alleged links to Hezbollah. At the time, authorities insisted Thailand was only being used as a staging ground for attacks, but was not the target. The man led police to a warehouse near Bangkok packed with more than 8,800 pounds (4,000 kilograms) of urea fertilizer and other materials that could be used to make bombs.

After that incident, Israel and the United States warned their citizens to be alert. The U.S. Embassy said foreign terrorists may have been looking to attack tourist areas in Bangkok and Thai media reported the attacks were aimed at Israeli targets, including the Israeli Embassy.

Thai officials say it is not clear if the two incidents are connected.

On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the violence.

“If this aggression isn’t halted, ultimately it will spread to many other countries,” Netanyahu said in Israel’s parliament Wednesday. He convened his Security Cabinet to discuss terrorism against Israel and “Iran’s involvement in repeated attempts to attack Israeli targets,” his office said.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast called the allegations baseless and said Israel was trying to damage his country’s relations with Thailand and fuel conspiracy theories. Iran has blamed the Jewish state for the recent killings of Iranian atomic scientists.

Xi sees new "starting point" for US-China ties

WASHINGTON: Chinese heir apparent Xi Jinping told US business leaders Wednesday that relations between the two powers were at "a new historical starting point," as he broadened a week-long US charm offensive.

Speaking during a lavish ballroom lunch aimed at wooing the top crust of corporate America, Vice President Xi described Sino-American ties as an "unstoppable river that keeps surging ahead" despite twists and turns.

"It is a course that cannot be stopped or reversed," he said describing ever more intertwined interests. "Chinese-US relations are now at a new historical starting point in the second decade of the 21st century."

Xi is on a high-profile visit to the United States, which many hope will close an acrimonious chapter in relations characterized by mistrust and mudslinging, particularly in the commercial sphere.

As the tectonic plates of global trade have shifted in the last two decades, China and the United States have frequently collided, jutted and bumped against each other, sometimes to damaging effect for both.

With Xi widely tipped to get China's top job next year and Obama in a November re-election battle, Xi's US visit is being seen as a dress rehearsal for what could become the world's most crucial political and economic relationship.

During the trip Xi has worked US constituencies key to the bilateral ties: official Washington, corporate leaders and, later Wednesday, small-town America.

Stops have included the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress, the US-China Business Council and Muscatine, Iowa -- where he visited on an exchange in 1985.

Throughout his trip Xi has received the trappings of a state visit -- even if he is only head of state in waiting.

In a broad-ranging speech Wednesday, Xi told business leaders that ties should now focus on increased understanding, mutual respect for core interests, trade and cooperation in international affairs.

"Over the past 33 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties, the friendship between our two peoples has deepened, mutually beneficial cooperation has expanded and our interests have become increasingly interconnected."

At the luncheon Xi was flanked by a cadre of Chinese Communist Party officials, as well as chief executives from Coca Cola, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Procter & Gamble and Estee Lauder.

Coca Cola CEO Muhtar Kent expressed the cautious optimism felt in the US business community about expanding ties with China.

He described Xi's visit as "another important milestone toward building an enduring and constructive relationship between our two nations."

The Chinese leader largely steered clear of specific policy pronouncements, but stressed the mutual benefits of trade, pointing out that 47 of 50 US states had seen their exports with China grow in the last decade.

Despite this growth many Americans and their Congress angrily accuse Beijing of not playing by the rules.

They accuse China of keeping the value of its currency unfairly low to fuel inexpensive exports, which have catalysed China's headlong dash toward becoming an economic superpower.

From June 2010 Beijing has allowed the yuan to rise 8.5 percent against the dollar, in part because of domestic inflation pressures -- making the yuan an increasingly dubious scapegoat for lopsided trade.

In the last decade trade between the two countries has increased over 275 percent and is now worth half a trillion dollars a year.

But Chinese exports still make up 80 percent of bilateral trade, despite China joining the World Trade Organization a decade ago, leading to accusations of protectionism from US industry.

Aussie Gets Boost from People’s Bank of China

Australian dollar got a boost in earlier trading as the governor of the People’s Bank of China reassured Europe — and the world — that China is still committed to investing in the euro as an asset. The news provided a little bit of risk appetite in the midst of uncertainty. Aussie is also receiving help from the Reserve Bank of Australia, which continues to show caution about cutting interest rates.

Worries about the eurozone are cropping up again as a Greek debt deal is delayed again. However, PBOC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan expressed his confidence that the eurozone would be able to navigate the trouble, and he reiterated China’s support for the euro. This show of faith helped give the Aussie a bit of a boost — even if it failed to help the euro much against the US dollar.

Another focus has been on the RBA. RBA officials have been reluctant to cut interest rates, and that has proved a positive for the Aussie. That Australia doesn’t feel the need to ease monetary policy is encouraging to many who hope that the economy Down Under will remain somewhat strong. Higher gold prices are also providing a certain amount of support for the Australian dollar.

At 15:37 GMT AUD/USD is up to 1.0726 from the open at 1.0682. EUR/AUD is down to 1.2190 from the open at 1.2281. AUD/JPY is higher at 84.04, up from the open at 83.84.

US Dollar Mixed this Morning

US dollar is mixed this morning on the Forex market as traders look for direction, and all of the latest news and information is processed. From China to Europe to Zynga, there is plenty to talk about today, and the US dollar is very mixed as a result.

Overnight, China provided some bracing words for Europe, encouraging leaders of the eurozone. Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, expressed confidence in the eurozone and said that China plans to invest more in the region. However, even so, the US dollar is currently higher against the euro.

Additionally, investors in the United States are looking to Zynga, the online game maker. The company recently offered its IPO, and it is very active today, helping propel US stock futures higher. European stocks are also mostly higher, and that is adding to the success of the Great Britain pound against the US dollar right now.

Greenback was higher against the Japanese yen after the Bank of Japan announced that it will expand its easing program but now the greenback is retreating. US dollar is lower against the Canadian dollar on higher oil prices and better stock performances. It will be an interesting day ahead.

At 14:23 GMT EUR/USD is lower at 1.3108, down from the open at 1.3134. GBP/USD is up to 1.5713 from the open at 1.5694. USD/JPY has dropped to 78.3020 from the open at 78.4380. USD/CAD is lower at 0.9954, down from the open at 0.9990.

Meet Moshe Kai Cavalin, who graduated college with a 4.0 … at age 9

From The Washington Times comes the story of a boy who enrolled in college at the age of 8 and earned the first of two Associate of Arts degrees at age 9, graduating from East Los Angeles Community College with a perfect 4.0 grade point average. Today, Moshe Kai Cavalin is 14 years old and about to graduate with a bachelor’s degree in math from the University of California, Los Angeles. He also happens to have just published an English version of his first book (originally published in Chinese) called “We Can Do.”

Cavalin is convinced he’s not a genius and that plenty of kids are capable of accomplishing similar academic feats:

“That’s always the question that bothers me,” Cavalin, who turned 14 onValentine’s Day, says when the G-word is raised. “People need to know you don’t really need to be a genius. You just have to work hard and you can accomplish anything.”

And maybe cut out some of the TV.

Although he’s a big fan of Jackie Chan movies, Cavalin says he limits his television time to four hours a week.

Not that he lacks for recreational activities or feels that his parents pressured him into studying constantly. He writes in “We Can Do” of learning to scuba dive, and he loves soccer and martial arts. He used to participate in the latter sport when he was younger, winning trophies for his age group, until his UCLA studies and his writing made things a little too hectic.

Indeed one of the key messages of his book is to stay focused and to not take on any endeavor half-heartedly.

Like Amy Chua’s controversial article about tiger motherhood in The Wall Street Journal, Cavalin’s story raises an important question: Might we be expecting too little from children academically? All people have a profound way of rising to expectations — and history demonstrates that children are capable of more than we give them credit for today. Cavalin’s experience teaches that children can achieve more while also still living childhood to the fullest; he doesn’t sound like the driven child of a tiger mother — just like an open and disciplined kid.

My firsthand experience also suggests public schools might expect too little from students. In middle school, when I was homeschooled, my curriculum made use of the once-standard McGuffey’s readers. In sixth grade, I was required to read Francis Bacon’s “Of Studies.” In high school, when I went to public school, I again encountered an excerpt from Bacon’s classic essay … in a senior-level English class on a practice test for the ACT. Unfortunately, schools have to work around any number of problems that are completely unrelated to education — bureaucratic red tape, for example, or out-of-control family problems that interfere with a child’s ability to concentrate. But the point is a hopeful one: More is possible.

Incidentally, it strikes me that children would be able to handle more mentally if we didn’t so saturate and overwhelm them with what they’re not prepared for emotionally. Intellectual advancement and preserved innocence can go hand-in-hand. Children, like all of us, are subject to the restraints of time and space; the time they spend learning about one subject is time they cannot spend learning about another. How much time do we really want to spend teaching kids about how to avoid obesity, manage their finances, or cope with their as-yet-undiscovered-sexuality when we could stick to the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic?