Lead House Republican Burgess: Did the Administration Put Salazar in Witness Protection?

As the House Energy and Commerce Committee is conducting an investigation on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Administration role in it, there is an important piece of the puzzle that has gone MIA. Leading Republican, Michael Burgess of Texas, on the subcommittee wonders where in the world is Ken Salazar:

Word came down Thursday evening from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats:

“The joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment entitled 'The Role of the Interior Department in the Deepwater Horizon Disaster,' scheduled for Tuesday, June 29, 2010 has been postponed.  A new date and time for the hearing is to be determined.”

The star witness of the scheduled hearing?  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), top Republican on the subcommittee has repeatedly requested oversight testimony from the Obama administration on their actions in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.

The Majority has set up the greatest Witness Protection program this Congress has seen,” Burgess said.  “Secretary Salazar had already agreed to be present for next Tuesday’s hearing, so it appears that the Democrats are delaying this hearing for purely political reasons.”

As far as I can tell I have found, I can find where Salazar has given any reason for his absence.

Burgess went on to go after the Obama administration for their lack of transparency in this crisis:

“It has been 67 days since the spill began, and we still have no sworn testimony or documents from the Obama administration before this committee,” Burgess said.  “Given the frustration of the public with BP and the administration’s handling of the oil spill and response, one would think the Democrats would be eager to find out why federal authorities approved BP drilling plans and what role the federal government played in responding to the oil spill.  We need answers to a host of questions and soon -- the American people are demanding answers now.”

Burgess sent a letter to Salazar asking him to prepare answers for oversight questions he would raise in the hearing.  But within hours, the hearing was “delayed” until further notice.

The American people are looking for answers in this crisis. They want to know why it happened and how it will be fixed, and as we saw in Obama's pitiful excuse for an Oval Office Address, the Administration seems to be short on answers.

Hillary Clinton: Forget About Feeding Third World’s Starving Babies, We Have to Fund Killing Unborn Ones Too

The Obama Administration seems to care more about furthering their liberal political agenda worldwide more than making sure women and children remain healthy in the some of the poorest parts of the world:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?

It does seem to be an odd form of “smart diplomacy” to politicize and hold a program that would make sure to limit infant deaths hostage to make sure that funding for abortions are included in the package that would be sent to these impoverished countries, but here it is:

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

It is surprising that Hillary Clinton would insist on funding for abortion and risk derailing an initiative that is poised to generate unprecedented commitments in both the private and public sectors. It is especially surprising considering the body of recent scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of various straightforward, uncontroversial, and achievable means to reduce maternal and infant mortality.

When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia? Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement? Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand? What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?

As Allahpundit points out, it is beyond ironic and hypocritical for the same people that criticized Bush for holding out on the same kind of funding to the third world in order to make sure that it doesn’t fund abortions. Then, they turn around and hold out on sending money to help the poorest among us to make sure that money for abortions are included in the money being sent to ensure the health of babies:

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion. In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?

Indeed!

What Freeze?: Administration Buys 30-sec Spot During the Super Bowl With Taxpayer Money To Advertise Upcoming Census

The Obama Administration is going Is the kind of frivolous spending that Obama wanted Congress to put a freeze on? Perhaps, he should lead by example. Instead, his administration seems content to join right in with the rest of them:

Taxpayers might want to pay close attention to this Sunday’s Super Bowl broadcast or they’ll miss Uncle Sam’s 30-second, $2.5-million reminder to stand up and be counted.

That’s what the Census Bureau paid CBS to get their message notched somewhere between a National Lampoon reprisal, a weird dude with big glasses, a beer-can house and men without pants.

And, that’s just a fraction of what the bureau plans to spend this year to get Americans to answer a simple, 10-question survey.

The bureau is spending $133 million between January and May — or, more than $13 million for each of 10 questions, one of which reads: What is your telephone number? — to publicize the national head-count. Part of that effort is the Super Bowl ad, which Kendall Johnson, a spokeswoman for the bureau, confirmed Wednesday to FoxNews.com cost $2.5 million to air.

Come on, this is ridiculous. Not only did they buy air time, they did it on the most expensive program of the year. How can he explain this away? What is the benefit of this ad to Joe Q Taxpayer? None. With the ad, they are trying to get people to fill out a small questionnaire from the Census Bureau. How many jobs did it create? Maybe a couple extra bean counters. Was that all worth $2.5 million for 30 seconds of air time? Hell, no!

What's even sadder is that this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the $133 million they're spending over 5 months to promote the Census.

White House Goes Into Shoot the Messenger Mode: Chastises Fox for Mammogram Rationing Controversy

There was a big controversy yesterday about a report that came out, at the behest of the Department of Health & Human Services, that discouraged women from getting mammograms, a potentially life-saving procedure, after the same organization released a report 6 months before decrying the importance of women over 40 getting mammograms.

Critics claimed that this was the start of healthcare rationing that many were worried about as a government-run system tries to save money.

In vintage Obama style, White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer attacked Fox News, yet again:

White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer blasted critics of the guidelines in a blog posted to the administration's Web site late Tuesday, taking particular aim at an article posted on FoxNews.com.

"One of the hallmark tactics from opponents of health insurance reform has been to grab onto any convenient piece of information and twist it into some misguided attack on reform -- no matter how unrelated it may actually be," wrote Pfeiffer. "Today they're going back to that playbook again, and Fox News obliges them."

The White House lamely tried to spin the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the people that released the recommendation, had no direct power over whether or not Obamacare will cover mammograms for women 40-50.

While this is true, who doesn't think that government bureaucrats will use this as an excuse to cut financial corners. With the national debt and deficit at record numbers, there will be tremendous pressure on those that do have the power to keep costs down.

Republican women, led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have begun to take a stand on this important women's health issue:

"This is the way rationing, which my colleagues and I have warned about, will begin to enter the market place -- slowly, imperceptibly and lethally," Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

Blackburn, of Tennessee, joined other Republican women in Congress on Wednesday to speak out in opposition to guidelines that recommend changing when and how women should be tested for the No. 2 cancer killer in women.

This is just another example of how government-run healthcare is not really any better than the insurance companies, when it comes to the quality of healthcare. The only real difference is the government will be telling you that a potentially life-saving procedure is an "elective" procedure or "too experimental" and refuse to pay for it.

Oh My: FNC's Chris Wallace: This White House Is Full of Immature Crybabys

Wow! Considering Obama's obsession with dissing Fox News, this isn't surprising, nor is it a shock to hear that it is getting on Fox's corresponents nerves. He is paranoid, believing that Fox News is out to destroy his presidency.

Obama has totally snubbed Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallance's show. He will do 5 shows on 5 different stations. Guess what? Fox didn't make the cut, but Univision did.

Let's not for get the snub of FNC's Major Garrett from a few months ago that was "payback" for not showing Obama primetime press conference, a few months ago:

More "Smart" Diplomacy: Brits "Pissed" Over Obama's Transer of Gitmo Detainees to Bermuda

Obama does it again. At this pace, England will be our bitter enemies by the end of his term. In his haste to get the prisoners out of Gitmo by early next year, he made an arrangement with one governing body of the island without consulting with the other government in charge:

ABC News' Kirit Radia reports: The U.S. may be happy to see four more detainees leave the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Those Uighurs -- Chinese Muslims -- were sent to Bermuda today, but close ally Great Britain is seething because they say they were not adequately consulted about the move.

"They're pissed," admitted a senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The UK provides for Bermuda's defense and foreign affairs, but the State Department today said it dealt directly with the government of Bermuda, who then informed the British Governor General on the island.

How can they move these dangerous individuals into a country without notifying the local military contingent. That would be like moving a convicted child molester into a neighborhood without notifying the local police or sheriff's office.

What in the world was the Obama Administration thinking? We wouldn't like it if France made a deal with Puerto Rican governor Luis Fortuño to send some of their serial killers to live in the American territory without contacting Washington. Obama, Gibbs, Clinton, and basically everyone else in the administration would be appalled at their audacity and arrogance of the French because we were not informed of the move.

Transparency Takes Another Hit Under the Obama Administration: Officials Softens Union Transparency

So much for the most transparent administration ever:

That news comes courtesy of federal disclosure forms that unions file each year with the Department of Labor. The Bush Administration toughened the enforcement of those disclosure rules, but under pressure from unions the Obama Labor shop is slashing funding for such enforcement. Without such disclosure, workers wouldn't be able to see how their union chiefs are managing their mandatory dues money.

They are obviously trying to cover up for their little buddies in the unions. It looks like all of money the unions gave to the Obama campaign is starting to really pay off. After all, Obama and the Democrats don't want to bite the hand that feeds their campaign war chest.

NSA Under Obama: Exceeds Warrentless Tap Limit

WASHINGTON - The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

The Bush administration was constantly vilified by the Democrats and especially Obama for "tearing up the Constitution" for his use of wiretaps to look for terrorists and terrorist activity. Obama even made the campaign promise of "no warrantless wiretaps, if you elect me" back in the primaries.

The recent “'overcollection' of domestic communications of Americans" under the Obama administration oversteps the cap that Congress put on the executive branch when the previous administration asked for the permission to do said wiretaps.

What happened to the policy of no warrantless taps? Is it another case of the "do as I say and not as I do" party not doing what they expect everyone else to do. You know, kinda like pay their taxes.

According to the article, a NSA official said that it may have been unintentional. How can it be "unintentional"? Oops, I tapped your phoneline, or oops I hacked into your email and opened it. That doesn't seem very likely. In fact, the more I think about it; the more I think that it's a moronic statement.

All Attorney General Holder wants to do is make sure that "new safeguards were put in place". Again, not much change from the "change" administration.

After Napalitano's warning to beware of anyone pro-life, ex-military, pro-2nd amendment, or strict on illegal immigration, maybe the "change" meant who he would be eavesdropping on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30238492/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration Tries Buy Kyrgyzstan Back From Putin's Influence

U.S. Official: Negotiations Continue Over Kyrgyzstan Air Base
Friday, March 27, 2009

MOSCOW —  A senior U.S. official said Friday that negotiations are continuing with Kyrgyzstan over a key American air base that the Central Asian country has ordered U.S. forces to leave this year.

The base provides support for military operations in Afghanistan and its potential closure poses a challenge to President Barack Obama's plan to send up to 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this year to fight surging Taliban and Al Qaeda violence.

Kyrgyzstan last month ordered the United States to leave the base within 180 days.

But the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, told reporters in Moscow that, "We have agreed to enter into discussions with the Kyrgyz, at their invitation, on the possibility of the (base) agreement remaining in force."

"They have given us notification that they want the agreement to end, but the story is not over yet," the official said.

Kyrgyz officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

The U.S. official downplayed the effect that closure of the base would have on Afghanistan operations, saying the United States has options with countries that already offer basing rights, saying "it's not going to affect our ability to supply our forces in Afghanistan."

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510917,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Maybe Obama has realized the error in his ways at letting Putin and Russia influence their former satellite state into kicking our troops out of their country.

That base is an invaluable asset to our war effort in Afghanistan especially since Obama is sending even more troops into the country.

What's Tim Geithner Doing These Days Other Than Looking Like An Incompetent Boob?

Plan to Buy Toxic Bank Assets Delayed Again
By MASSIMO CALABRESI
Thursday, Mar. 19, 2009

The Administration's long-awaited plan to save America's banks is being delayed again, government sources tell Time. Fears of an AIG-like backlash among potential private investors, and the difficulty of creating a model to price toxic assets on the banks' balance sheets, have both contributed to the delay, the sources say.

The slip is embarrassing for Treasury officials who have been assuring the media and the markets that the plan was coming, first in mid-February, and as recently as March 14 when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Bloomberg TV he would release details soon. A senior Treasury department official says the plan isn't slipping, but other government officials say it is and could be unveiled anywhere from next week to early April. (See TIME's top 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)

Facing this latest delay, Administration officials are urging patience and insist they are moving more programs on more fronts faster than anyone has tried to do before. "People want a quick, clean, decisive resolution to this stuff, they want us to just fix it and have it be over with," says a senior Administration official. "We are moving in a relatively short period of time on a scale that I don't think you've ever seen an Administration do."

The plan is intended to relieve banks of their toxic assets — including such securities as subprime mortgage bonds — through purchases by a public-private investment fund, heavily backed by government money. But versions of the plan have faced challenges from the start. Last year, when he was head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner said the government might to try by itself to restart sales in these assets using a "reverse auction" where sellers bid down an asset's price to compete for buyers. (Read "Obama's Challenge: Containing the AIG Bonus Outrage.")

That plan went nowhere, and in mid-February Geithner announced that the government would design a partnership between private investors and the feds that would kick-start a trading market for the assets. But figuring out what mix of incentives and restraints should be written into the program has proved extremely tricky.

On the one hand, no one wants taxpayer money handed indiscriminately to Wall Street investors with no hope of return. On the other, if the program doesn't encourage buyers to participate not only will the program fail, the markets could suffer a mini-panic, just as they did when the plan was unveiled with no details in mid-February.

Geithner has been burdened by thin staffing as he tries to get nominees to the Senate who can pass muster. In the meantime, he is relying on career staff and a handful of unconfirmed counselors, like Lee Sachs and Gene Sperling, both of whom served in the Clinton administration. (See who's who in Barack Obama's White House.)

Further complicating the challenge, the uproar over AIG has scared potential private investors from any involvement in a government-run program. "AIG makes everything worse," says the senior administration official. Private investors fear that an angry Congress might place restrictions on pay packages for anyone who participates, Treasury, Federal Reserve officials and industry officials say.

In fact, the Federal Reserve had to reassure private investors that they would not be vulnerable to such a backlash when it unveiled a similar government program this week. But that program also had trouble getting off the ground. The Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility, which is designed to spur trading in securitized consumer loans, has gotten off to a slow start, attracting only a handful of applications during the two-day window for participation this week. The total size of the deals fell well-short of the $200 billion the Federal Reserve initially made available for the program, let alone the $1 trillion to which the Fed eventually raised the ceiling.
Geithner and the Obama administration have much stake in the public-private partnership program. It is key to getting banks working again, which makes it an essential element in any economic recovery.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1886729,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

He has most of his departmental positions unfilled. He hasn't developed anything even close to resembling a plan to turn the economy around. He has done zero to inspire more confidence in the economy. He hasn't developed anything even close to resembling a plan to turn the economy around.

Is this the man that we couldn't live without at the helm of the Treasury Department despite his massive tax problems?

Even Democrats are starting to turn on him. If he doesn't do something significant quick, it won't be long before he is asked to resign.

Obama Administration to Wounded Vets: FU

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance

• Story Highlights
• Obama team considering plan in which vets would use private insurance for wounds
• No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly
• Veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea
• Lawmakers say plan would be rejected if it goes to Congress

By Adam Levine CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I think Obama is missing the point of the VA. This is almost guaranteed to go nowhere, but the very thought of his administration contemplating such a move is not just shocking but preposterous. Insult doesn't seem like a strong enough word for how the administration has offended all vets, current military, and their families.

This seems in conflict with his rhetoric of everyone having a right to healthcare and the universal healthcare the Democrats and the left seem so fond of implementing here in the US.

What in the world could posses them to even suggest it?

Obama Administraton Official: Earmarks Will Stay Until Next Year

Mar 8, 9:37 AM EDT
On earmarks, budget chief says wait till next year

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When it comes to dealing with all those pet projects in the big spending bill before Congress, President Barack Obama's budget chief says wait till next year.

White House budget director Peter Orszag says the Obama administration isn't happy with the billions of dollars aimed at lawmakers' pet projects - also known as earmarks. Obama had campaigned on changing the way such money is appropriated by Congress.

Yet Orszag says Obama doesn't want to revisit the spending bill Congress put together before he was elected and wants to move on. Next year, according to Orszag, when Obama is fully involved in the next budget from the start, earmarks will be handled differently.

Obama's budget chief appeared Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." © 2009 The Associated Press.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WHITE_HOUSE_PET_PROJECTS?SITE=COBOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I guess they will have to wait until the Democrats pay off their base with all of the earmarks in the stimulus and 2009 spending bill. That is probably why they're sticking in so many the last two spending bills. They want to make sure they get enough money to last them the next few years. The Obama administration couldn't very well do it immediately right after he was inaugurated because they had to have time to pay off those that helped him get elected, and they have to be able get enough to pay for other Democrats campaigns for office.