Daily news sites: obama| Find Breaking World News

Home » obama

Tampilkan postingan dengan label obama. Tampilkan semua postingan

Government is a poor mechanism for correcting societal problems

Commentary by James Shott

Most Americans think that helping truly needy people, whether they live here or in some other country, is a worthy objective. Looking at charitable contributions as a benchmark, Americans are the most generous people in the world, giving $316.23 billion to charitable organizations in 2012, about 2 percent of GDP, according to Charity Navigator, and preliminary figures for 2013 indicate a significant increase to $328 billion.

Double those numbers and it still would not be good enough for the federal government, which believes that if private sources don’t relieve every semblance of suffering for every single suffering American, the government must step in and do the job better.

Except that government can’t do it better, never has, and never will.

Government’s failure to achieve better results than normal people doing what normal people do has never been a deterrent to wasting billions of taxpayers dollars in a futile effort to try one more time to do so.

The most notorious failure was Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” which began 50 years ago in Mr. Johnson’s State of the Union message. From the beginning of the war on poverty until 2013, local, state, and federal spending on welfare programs totaled $16 trillion, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Currently, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty.

When the War on Poverty began, 33 million Americans were in poverty and the poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, approximately 46.5 million live in poverty and the poverty rate is 15 percent. Even though the poverty rate is lower than 50 years ago, because our population is much larger now than then, more people are poor today than in 1964. We have fought a long and expensive fight, and lost. Yet we still fight on.

President Barack Obama’s cause du jour is income inequality, and it’s significant other, the minimum wage. And now that “reforming” the best healthcare system in the world is well underway, he wants to declare war against income inequality.

In no free or relatively free economic system can there be income equality, for two reasons. First, inequality is a fundamental part of life. Some people sing better than others. Some are better athletes than others. And some people make more money than others, and that’s because some people are better at their job than others and deserve higher pay, and some jobs require more skill and training than others, and pay better.

So, like poverty, another area that will always exist, we will always have income inequality.

Far more important, however, is whether there is the opportunity to move up from the lower income levels, and that is an area that has been fairly stable, according to The New York Times, which reported last month that “the odds of moving up — or down — the income ladder in the United States have not changed appreciably in the last 20 years….”

That means that people in the lowest quintile are not condemned to stay there, and people in the top quintile are not guaranteed to stay there, and there is substantial movement in and out of all quintiles.

It’s a favored piece of envy politics that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But the data tell a different story. From 1967 to 2009, the real mean household income increased for every quintile, which means the poor became richer, not poorer. Americans in poverty could afford more goods and services in 2009 than in 1967, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Other factors, like where people live, have an effect. Harvard University’s Raj Chetty reported “the probability that a child reaches the top quintile of the national income distribution starting from a family in the bottom quintile is 4.4 percent in Charlotte but 12.9 percent in San Jose,” and factors such as better primary schools and greater family stability also aid upward mobility, he wrote.

Larry Kaufmann, senior advisor at Pacific Economics Group, discussed findings of the Pew Charitable Trust, which showed that “Half of children born to parents with bottom-third income levels experience upward relative mobility when the parents remain continuously married; the figure falls to 26 percent when this is not the case,” he wrote.

The Pew study shows that the poverty rate among married couples is only 6 percent, and among married couples who both have full-time jobs the poverty rate is practically zero. The poverty rate among single dads and single moms, however, is much higher: 25 percent for single dads and 31percent for single moms.

Investor’s Business Daily Senior Writer John Merline notes that income inequality has increased faster since Mr. Obama took office than under any of the three previous presidents, and that inequality is now greater than at any time since the Census Bureau started recording it back in 1947.

The message from this is that to assist folks in moving up the income ladder, Mr. Obama should replace his administration’s policies that impede economic recovery, and seriously encourage the restoration of family values among Americans. That would accomplish far more than making people think they are victims, and fomenting division among Americans.

Cross-posted from Observations

CNN/ORC Poll Just Out Confirms Low Approval Ratings for President Obama...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty Tyranny

Fifty-six percent questioned say they disapprove of Obama's performance, an all-time high in CNN surveys.

It just doesn't seem to be getting any better for the embattled President. Nice guy that he is, passionately concerned about finding that silver limning in the clouds for ALL Americans, it appears at this point in time credibility (and honesty) still remains important to the American people. Given the President's recent credibility gap (rightfully so) he certainly does have much work to do. It is looking like a Republican House, AND Senate may be within the realm of possibility following the 2014 mid term elections.

From recent CNN/ORC International polling.

Washington (CNN)As President Barack Obama's approval rating hits another all-time low, a new national survey also indicates that Americans say the President has less power than congressional Republicans when it comes to shaping events over the next year.

According to a CNN/ORC poll released Thursday, 41% of Americans approve of the job the President's doing in the White House, the lowest level for that crucial indicator in CNN polling. Fifty-six percent questioned say they disapprove of Obama's performance, an all-time high in CNN surveys.

The President's approval rating has now reached new lows or tied his all-time lows in polls released over the past three weeks from CNN/ORC, CBS News, ABC News/Washington Post, Quinnipiac University, National Journal Heartland Monitor, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal. And the CNN survey is the fourth non-partisan live operator national poll released this week to put Obama's approval rating between 40% and 42%. A CBS News survey released Wednesday showed the President's approval rating at 37%.

Geography appears to play a role in the President's falling numbers.

"The drop in Obama's approval rating comes entirely among suburbanites," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Compared to the October CNN poll, positive views of Obama held steady among people who live in big cities and rural areas. But in the suburbs, his approval rating was 45% a month ago but has dropped to just 37% now." {Read More }

Credibility Mr. President, credibility. Honesty goes a VERY long way in establising AND maintaining credibility Mr. President.

Via: Memeorandum

The Other America Revisited

Government supported indolence is maneuver the Obama Administration utilizes to keep the population in check. A constant flow of treasury largesse, to tens of millions, perpetuates societal weaknesses disallowing the helpless from moving ahead of their own economic vices. As a result an entitlement mentality has developed that is so profound a catastrophe would befall anyone who has to put aside the flood of goodies that arrives weekly from Uncle Obama. Therefore self-made prisons arise where an individual cannot break free of the bonds the political over-class has inflicted on them. Self-serving individuals, who are enhanced by this economic morass, keep their political titles intact by those who partake in this monetary feast, which continues the status quo. Change is the driving force for those with ambition, not for those anchored to the certainty of a welfare handout. Results of government enforced laziness are evident, especially in the cities. Unemployment is conspicuously high in any group you examine. Murder rates exceed those from Middle East countries. Single parent households continue to rise to exponential levels. Even after government officials spin high school graduation rates, they are still low. Violent crime is business as usual. Maryland exemplifies the latter with a government that thrives on the status quo. Blue states officials notoriously buy votes from their entitlement base in return for subsidizing their life styles. Yet these people never seem to grow beyond their checks. A recent conversation with an official from a Maryland detention facility opened the eyes of many who would listen to his sagacious words. Why work when a check is at your door on schedule, regularly. Why work when a kid can run drugs and earn several thousand dollars per week. Why work when each child you conceive increases your monthly take. Why work when the stigma of welfare was removed with an EBT card. This official’s elaboration, taken collectively, is the reason why the so-called poverty class will remain the so-called poverty class, there are too many incentives not to grow. Savvy Politicians play upon this economic class to continue the gravy flowing at the expense of the private sector. In the end there will be an array of cities similar to Detroit: bankrupt, demoralized, polarized and dying. The masters of this destruction will move up the food chain while those left behind will live in the quagmire they created. Mark Davis, MD Author of the Book Lawyers hate, Demons of Democracy and the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. President of Healthnets Review Services and Davis Book Reviews. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com, platomd@gmail.com, To comment further go the group on LinkedIn, Government in Transition.

Obama To Iran: Keep Components, Just Promise Not To Weaponise Them.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

The Obama Regime's policy of Appeasement is coming along nicely with the latest pronouncements to the Iranians.

From Debka

The moderate mien of Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani has had its intended effect – even before nuclear dialogue began. President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran: “Iran would have to demonstrate its own seriousness by agreement not to weaponise nuclear power,” he said Wednesday, Sept. 18. He thus took at his word Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”

The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance.

debkafile’s Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.

Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.

In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit pledge not to weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.

That pledge must come from the supreme leader in person and delivered publicly to Iran’s most hawkish audience, Revolutionary Guards chiefs.

And indeed, Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras.

Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran will appear in the coming DEBKA Weekly 603 out Friday, Sept. 20.

They will confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.

Our sources note that in his direct secret dialogue with Tehran, Obama is pursuing the same tactics he used for the Syrian chemical issue with Russian President Vladmir Putin: Moving fast forward on the secret track while pretending that the process is still at an early stage and then a sudden leap to target – a particular form of diplomacy consisting of verbal calisthenics.

This pretense was played out at the G20, when the two presidents acted as though they were irreconcilably divided on the Syrian question, while secretly tying up the ends of the chemical accord.

Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s oft-repeated assurance that his country’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.

At the Israeli cabinet meeting Tuesday, the prime minister said his White House talks with President Obama on Sept. 30 would focus on Iran and his four demands:
Complete halt of uranium enrichment;
Removal of enriched materials from Iran;
Closure of the Fordo enrichment plant;
Termination of plutonium production at Arak.
Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.

Who but an idiot would actually believe that Iran would not weaponize any nuclear components that they have in their possession? Once again Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus. But will Netanyahu let him do this to Israel? Members of the Obama Regime have quietly told Netanyahu that if Israel attacks Iran the US will NOT block any sanctions and/or boycotts done to Israel by the UN Security Council. Blackmail is the Obama way.

Israel will soon be standing alone in the world without a friend. The perfect solution for his Muslim Brotherhood Masters. Isolate Israel, destroy Israel then finish the job started in 1933. Problem solved and World Peace reigns.

I for one do not believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu would believe anything Obama or Kerry is saying to him. I do believe he is buying time, but will it be time enough to prevent a nuclear bomb being exploded over Tel Aviv? I pray it is.

Death to Nidal Hasan and the better food in schools movement?

On November 5, 2009, US Army Major Nidal Hasan, a Muslim and psychiatrist at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, opened fire on his fellow soldiers inside the center, screaming “Allahu Akbar,” and killing 13 soldiers and an unborn child in her mother’s womb, and wounding 30 others.

While the victims were military personnel trained in the use of weapons, they were unarmed, forbidden from carrying on base the weapons many would use when deployed. Fortunately, Sgt. Kimberley Munley, a civilian police officer, arrived and wounded the jihadist doctor, interrupting his murderous rampage, but he shot Sgt. Munley three times, and just as the terrorist was about to finish her off, another civilian officer, Sgt. Mark Todd, shot him, and ended the killing spree.

This murderous attack left 13 dead, eight widows, one widower, 12 minor children without a father, 18 parents who lost children, 30 soldiers and one civilian police officer wounded.

There’s little positive from that event, other than that Nidal Hasan is now paralyzed from the waist down, and will likely never walk again.

Despite concerns about Hasan’s radical Islamist leanings, revealed when he was an intern at Walter Reed Medical Center, later as a physician in a PowerPoint presentation to other Army doctors, and Islamic abbreviations and phrases on his business card, the Army did not see fit to remove him from duty, or give him the punishment he so rightly deserved. In fact, an email from an Army investigator reveals the ugly politically correct nature of military service today: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."

Inexplicably, the charges the Department of Defense filed against Maj. Hasan ignored his Islam-based terrorist attack, but was instead labeled “workplace violence,” as if he had merely started a fight with a co-worker or thrown a chair at his boss. Such a designation deprives those soldiers killed and injured in this terrorist attack the benefits they are entitled to and would receive had accurate charges been filed.

During his opening statement at trial, in which he was convicted on all charges, Maj. Hasan apologized, not to the victims and their families, the nation or the Army, but to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life, and admitted shooting the 13 soldiers, and said he wanted the death penalty. Last week the jury sentenced him to death.

As one who believes in the death penalty for certain vicious crimes when guilt is not in question, in this case I hope that the death penalty for Nidal Hasan, a painless lethal injection, is set aside, as it has been for those in the military since 1961.

He deserves to live out his miserable life in abject misery, not in the glory of Islamic jihadist martyrdom for which he so badly hungers. Too bad that murderers, rapists, and others among the worst scum of humanity are treated so well when they are condemned to an American prison for their vicious crimes.

* * * * *

America’s First Ladies have always been advocates for important issues in our country. Rosalyn Carter championed mental health, Nancy Reagan fought against drug abuse, Barbara Bush worked to increase literacy, Hillary Clinton pushed for health reform, Laura Bush advocated for improvements in education, and Michelle Obama has worked to have a positive effect on childhood obesity.

Given the overweight nature of the US population generally, and that of the younger generation specifically, who can logically argue that a better menu in the nation’s public schools is a bad thing?

However, this particular effort has been met with resistance, and even outright rebellion, with school kids refusing to eat the better food being served in cafeterias, and school systems losing money on the deal as a result, and bailing out of the program.

One example of the growing national rebellion against the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which set new nutrition standards for school cafeterias and changed the way children are qualified for school meal programs, occurred recently at a contentious meeting of the Harlan County, Kentucky school board.

Board members were treated to a raft of complaints about school meals, which were called crappy and served in portions that critics say are too small. Someone said the meals tasted like “vomit,” and one parent said, “kids can’t learn when they’re hungry.”

Parents criticized the brown wheat bread, the skim or one-percent-fat milk, and the nonfat chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk.

Where this effort has gone wrong is that it attempts to mandate through law the way kids eat, and even though the standards set by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act are nutritionally superior to previous standards, school kids liked the old food and they don’t like the new food, and therefore don’t eat it.

In it’s own way this is a citizen rebellion against an over-reaching state: the people are against the government trying to tell them how to eat, among other things.

Our government has no business doing this. Perhaps this mild revolution will get the point across. But probably not.

Obama criticizes Republican "phony scandals," "short-term thinking"

When questions arise about why four American foreign service personnel died at the hands of Libyan terrorists, or why a Border Patrol agent was murdered by Mexican drug cartel thugs possessing US-provided guns, or why the Internal Revenue Service improperly delayed action on some religious and conservative applicants for non-profit status, or any of the numerous other irregularities under this administration, Democrats and the agenda-driven media say, "That's old news. Move on," as if relevance depends upon the calendar, not the substance of the events.

And that is a pretty convenient modus operandi: They avoid coming clean with the American people on legitimate questions of competence for months on end, virtually never hold guilty parties accountable, and then complain that those asking the questions are living in the past and the answers they seek no longer matter. And they do so knowing that millions of people won't care.

All the while President Barack Obama blames every problem in the country on someone or something else, and calls the government's disgraceful handling of the aforementioned boondoggles a bunch of "phony scandals" manufactured by Republicans. It's a great game of Beat the Clock.

But honest Americans realize that their government failed miserably to do its job as dictated by the US Constitution and want to know who screwed up and what penalty they will pay for their gross incompetence and/or illegal behavior. So far, only lip service has been paid to accountability, and some of the most likely culprits have escaped reaping their just reward, while others have been promoted to higher positions.

Several months after Mr. Obama took office the Department of Justice's (DOJ) gun running operation known as Fast and Furious began. Intended to track gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, it backfired and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in 2010 by people possessing two of those guns provided by the DOJ. The Obama administration's response was something like: "Ooops! Gawrsh, we didn't expect any o' them guns to be used against us. Sorry 'bout that. Nothing to see here; keep moving."

On September 11, 2012, after multiple requests to beef up security at the American diplomatic sites in Libya had been denied or ignored, terrorists attacked the facilities in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Politics demanded that 2 months before a presidential election no screw-ups be under investigation or terrorist activity be fresh in voters' memories, since President Obama had declared the War on Terror over, so the administration concocted a lame excuse that a video that hardly anyone in the entire world had seen, let alone in Libya, caused a spontaneous demonstration at the US consulate. That idiotic story was repeated for weeks by administration spokespersons, including President Obama himself.

Barack Obama, the “news” media, and millions of liberals showed little interest in the inconveniently-timed deaths of these brave Americans.

Unanswered questions persist, but instead of keeping these important events in front of the American people, the media most recently have focused on the shooting of a black high school student by a "white Hispanic" in Florida and the birth of a future monarch in Great Britain. Perhaps if the five murdered government employees looked like Trayvon, Mr. Obama and the media would give a hoot.

Not everyone is as cavalier about these tragic government failures as the administration, Congressional Democrats and the agenda-driven media. A group called Special Operations Veterans, the mission of which is to uncover the truths about the Benghazi terror attack, took its demands to Capitol Hill last week in the form of a 60-foot-long petition, which was unfurled near the steps of the Capitol. It demanded that the government “End the cover-up” of the attack. The petition was signed by more than 1,000 people and called for a special congressional committee to investigate the incident.

Each of us either believes that the deaths of the five government workers are important, or we don't. Apparently, most people don't, or are too-easily satisfied with the partial information provided that doesn’t explain what went wrong.

The Internal Revenue Service targeted scores of conservative religious and political organizations seeking non-profit status with improper questions, and denied action on their applications for up to two years, then tried to blame it on a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati, Oh. It turns out there were 12 different IRS offices involved. Now the administration tells us that the targeting was actually non-partisan. That's a low threshold; even one liberal organization makes that technically true. But the reality is that 292 were conservative; 6 were liberal.

Each of us either believes that our government must operate honorably and follow the rules set forth for it in the US Constitution, or we don't. There is a shockingly large faction of Americans that apparently don't, because they are not demanding answers to these questions, or that people responsible for these events be disciplined, or that such dishonorable and un-American activities be stopped and government restored to functioning constitutionally.

Which side are you on: Honorable government or the status quo?

Obama goes where no president has gone before

Depravity will be the signature achievement of the Obama Administration, once its history is finally written. Obama’s clarion call to teenagers that fornication is acceptable, even if children are under 15 years of age, should have been a wake-up call to every parent in America. Worse, he gave these children a way out if a pregnancy occurs, over-the-counter birth control. When the latter means fails, no problem, abortion on demand will be available on request. Parental consent, not any more, Obama’s programs allow the government to intercede in many cases. Obama’s devilish work does not stop with childhood fornication, his push to have the gay agenda fully accepted by society continues unabated. From the military and marriage to school curriculums and now the Boy Scouts homosexuality is being forced on a population that would rather see this disgusting behavior back in the closet. Military has seen an exponential jump in the number cases of sexual harassment in the last few years, after Obama gave his blessing to an openly gay armed forces. He forgot to ask the soldiers how they feel about sleeping, bathing and living in close quarters with openly gay individuals. Obama’s intent to enable the “gay establishment” to make homosexual marriage as acceptable as the traditional version displays his profound level of deviance from the normal course of human thinking. School systems are slowly implementing curriculums that explore the gay lifestyle, backed by funds from Uncle Obama. This filth is not limited to the upper grades, impressionable minds in lower schools are being introduced to the “new norm” as well. With a complaisant Department of Justice at his backside Obama and the gay gang’s next stop was the Boy Scouts of America. Much consideration went into the Scouts recent decision to allow openly gay children into their ranks, most of it from fear of lawsuits. Yet, the gay crowd is not fully happy with this decision. They aspire to have gay Scout leaders leading these packs of children. Time will soon come when the Boy Scouts of America disbands, because the majority of normal parents do not want their children exposed to such trash. Obama’s attack on the fundamentals of religion and traditional society comes on the heels of a push to move atheism into the forefront of religious thought. In this case, Obama’s moves imbue our culture with a sense of worthlessness. His policies and programs turn the population away from the elements it needs most, a belief in a higher power and the organizational structure implemented by that power. Moral decay and social stagnation were two reasons why Rome fell, America appears to be heading in the same direction. Obama’s deviances need to be checked or America will become Sodom and Gomorrah on steroids. Mark Davis MD, platomd@gmail.com, www.healthnetsreviewservices.com, President of Healthnets Review Services, Author of Demons of Democracy and the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Precription for Disaster. Manager of the group on LinkedIn, Government in Transition (join, comment and debate).

The IRS scandal hearing would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearings on Internal Revenue Service malfeasance has produced scenes worthy of a Mel Brooks film, or maybe "Hogan's Heroes" (“I know nussing!”) As of Friday morning, the following had transpired.

Lois Lerner appeared before the committee last Wednesday. She is the IRS director of exempt organizations, which is the office that deliberately targeted organizations with "Tea Party," "Patriot" and other identifiers in their names indicating they were conservative organizations. These organizations not only had their applications for 501(c) tax-exempt status delayed for up to three years, but in many cases were asked for information that is clearly outside the legitimate areas of interest of the IRS, and which crossed the line into unconstitutionality and perhaps illegality.

Ms. Lerner told the Committee in an opening statement that Committee members have already accused her of providing false information to Congress. However, she said, “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

Having thus stated the case for her innocence, she then invoked Fifth Amendment protections against incriminating herself, and refused to answer any questions.

Translation: "I did nothing wrong, but I won't answer any questions that might show that I did something wrong."

Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked her to reconsider, and when she refused he then dismissed her and her attorney from the hearing room. However, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) objected, pointing out that since Ms. Lerner actually testified by making an opening statement, she should have to stay and answer the lawmakers' questions.

"You don't get to tell your side of the story and then not be subjected to cross-examination," Rep. Gowdy said. "That's not the way it works. She waived her right to Fifth Amendment privilege by issuing an opening statement. She ought to stand here and answer our questions," he said.

Ms. Lerner was ultimately dismissed, but with the caveat that she may be recalled. Better late than never, on Thursday she was suspended from her job. With pay.

This is not the first time the long-time federal employee has been suspected of questionable behavior. When she headed the Enforcement Office at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from 1986 until 2001, there appeared to be politically motivated harassment of conservative groups not unlike what the IRS did. In the late 1990s, the FEC launched an investigation of the Christian Coalition that ultimately cost the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours of lost work.

However, in addition to failing to prove that the Coalition did anything wrong is the question of whether the FEC even had authority to assert the charges it leveled against the Coalition, which was absolved of any wrongdoing in 1999. Following this suspicious investigation Ms. Lerner was promoted to acting General Counsel at the FEC in 2001.

Next to testify was Douglas Shulman, who was appointed by George W. Bush and headed the IRS during the first Obama term. In 2012 he testified before the Committee, saying, "As you know, we pride ourselves in being a non-political, non-partisan organization." He continued, "There is absolutely no political targeting." We now know that was clearly untrue.

In last week's appearance Mr. Shulman denied that he had discussed targeting conservative groups with anyone at the White House in any of the more than 100 times he visited the White House complex between 2010 and 2011. “It would not have been appropriate to have a conversation with anyone at the White House about the subject of discriminating against conservative groups,” he said.

When asked if he could recall the nature of any of those visits, Mr. Shulman responded, "The Easter Egg Roll with my kids." Seriously.

In response to questioning from Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mr. Shulman replied: "I accept the fact that this happened on my watch and I am very sorry that this happened while I was at the IRS. I feel horrible about this for the agency, for the people there, for the great public servants. I am not sure what else I can say." He could have overtly taken responsibility for his agency's malfeasance while he headed it, and apologized to the victims, but he didn't.

Ms. Duckworth, a military veteran, said that she was "deeply disappointed" by his response, explaining that soldiers serving their country know "you can never delegate responsibility and that you are always responsible for the performance, the training, the actions of the men and women under you."

Former President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read: "The Buck Stops Here." This is a concept foreign to many in this administration. But it is the law of leadership, whether at the department level, or at the chief executive level: Whatever happens on your watch is your responsibility.

Maybe actually holding people accountable for their mismanagement through firings and prosecution will wake up sleeping bureaucrats like Ms. Lerner and Mr. Shulman, and restore the idea of "service" to public service.

Daily news sites

Contact :

Histats