White House social secretary resigns

Yesterday White House social secretary Desiree Rogers resigned from her position, 3 months after Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashed the White House state dinner. Julianna Smoot will be the new social secretary, a position that organizes the White House's social events. Rogers came under scrutiny for the breach in security that allowed the Salahis (who were uninvited) into the White House's first state dinner, although Rogers claimed that the mistake was the Secret Service's fault and not hers. In an interview after she announced her resignation, Rogers said "It has nothing to do with that, it's Secret Service's job to handle security. Not the Social Secretary's office" in response to a question about the party crashers. A statement from the President and the First Lady also neglected to mention the November event. "When she took this position, we asked Desiree to help make sure that the White House truly is the People's House," they said, "and she did that by welcoming scores of everyday Americans through its doors, from wounded warriors to local schoolchildren to NASCAR drivers." Read more at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/27/white-house-announces-new-social-secretary/?fbid=PRi3EP0uE8f Despite the fact that Rogers' resignation is occurring 3 months after the state dinner, I can't help but think that her resigning has something to do with the negative publicity she received from the breach in security. While it very well might not have been Rogers' fault that the Salahis made it in, she was certainly criticized by the media, which can definitely wear a person down. I didn't even know that there was such an office as the social secretary, and it's just another example of how large the government is. Question to any potential readers: does the job of White House social secretary sound fun to you?

Democrats to shortcut healthcare bill process

President Obama is expected to make an announcement next week detailing the Democrats' plans of how to move the health care bill forward. It's likely that the House and Senate will try to shortcut the process through reconciliation, in which the Senate only needs a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes for a cloture (which can end a filibuster). The plan, which was hinted at by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi earlier today, would consist of the House passing the Senate's version of the bill, sending the bill to President Obama, who would revise the bill to implement his package and send the bill back to Congress for approval. Using the reconciliation process, the Senate would only need 51 votes to pass the bill in this final stage. Pelosi called for a simple majority in the Senate, saying "a simple majority, that's what we're asking the Senate to act upon." Reconciliation was established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 so that only a majority vote in the Senate would be needed to advance bills dealing with the national budget. The idea behind the process is so that it is easier to pass deficit-reducing legislation. This seems like kind of an unfair way to pass the health care bill. I don't see how health care can be applied to reconciliation, as health care does not directly deal with the budget and will certainly not reduce the federal deficit. This is a sneaky way to sidestep a Senate filibuster, but I just don't see this working out for the Democrats. Using reconciliation will probably get a lot of negative media attention and, like always, there is probably some way in which the Republicans can counter to prevent this legislation from being approved. We shall soon find out. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/26/health.care/index.html.

Brown praised and criticized for his independence

After the Senate passed the jobs bill yesterday with a 70-28 vote, Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts has been both praised and criticized by his fellow Republicans for his independence in joining Democrats and voting in favor of the bill. In total, 13 Republicans voted for the bill and one Democrat did not (Ben Nelson of Nebraska). Brown, who won the late Ted Kennedy's seat last month in an upset over Democrat Martha Coakley, campaigned with the promise to bring an independent voice to the Senate and to value his constituents over partisanship. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accepted Brown's vote, saying "We don't expect our members to be in lockstep on every single issue, and we're happy to have him here. I think it's made a huge, positive difference for us and for the whole legislative agenda." Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh had other thoughts though, saying "You will not find me being a giant, big-time, pedal-to-the-metal supporter of Scott Brown. We're talking about a Massachusetts Republican." I think that it's a good thing that Brown is more committed to doing what he feels is right for Massachusetts than to following his party lines. It's nice to see some Senators being more independent and reaching across the aisle for the good of the nation. But I don't really see why Brown is getting all of the attention, as there were 12 other Republicans who voted for this bill. All these other Senators should also be commended for putting their party differences beside and voting for what they believe in. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/scott.brown.jobs.vote/index.html?hpt=Sbin.

Senate passes jobs bill

The U.S. Senate passed the $15 billion jobs bill today with a bipartisan vote of 70-28. The bill, which was approved for a vote on Monday, provides tax breaks for hiring the jobless, funding for new highway and transit programs, and extends a tax break for businesses that spend on long-term investments (such as equipment purchases). A major difference between this bill and the $154 billion bill that the House passed last year is that this scaled-down version does not contain an extension for unemployment benefits or the COBRA health insurance subsidy. Several Republicans, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, joined with the Democrats in voting for this bill. Said Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, “Today, jobs triumphed over politics.” I'm glad that these Senators finally put aside their differences and actually passed something. This is like a breath of fresh air on a crisp spring day beside a babbling brook exposed to dappled light from the gentle encroachment of just-budding willows and wild columbines. In other words, it's the first time in a long while that we have seen the Senate work together. It is significant, however, that COBRA was not extended, as this deals with the ongoing health care debate. If these Senators were unwilling to extend COBRA, I find it unlikely that they will support a giant, comprehensive health care plan. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/senate.jobs.bill/index.html?hpt=Sbin. Think spring.

Government lifts gun restrictions in National Parks

On Monday the government lifted it's long-standing regulation on carrying firearms in National Parks. The new law, which comes from a bill President Obama signed last May, will allow people to carry loaded and concealed weapons, as long as they are in accordance with state law. The policy for each National Park will be subject to specific state laws, although for all Parks it will be illegal to carry firearms into visitor centers or any other federal facilities. Some groups, including the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and the Association of National Park Rangers, claim that the new law will undermine the purpose of national parks and potentially lead to more poaching and other crimes involving firearms. Said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, "People go to national parks to get away from things that they face in their everyday living, where they live and work. Now I think that social dynamic is really going to change." Read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021805124.html. While I see the constitutional reasoning behind this decision and this bill (specifically the 2nd Amendment), allowing guns in National Parks just rubs me the wrong way. I agree with Wade that allowing guns will severely change the feel of the Parks, as there will no longer be a sense of getting away from everything and simply enjoying nature. There is now going to be a slight sense of uneasiness whenever I go to a National Park, which is too bad. Oh well, the Constitution is the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is not going away.

Senate advances jobs bill

Today the Senate voted 62-30 in favor of advancing a 15 billion dollar bill that would give businesses a tax break for hiring the unemployed. The bill, known as the jobs bill, includes provisions that would exempt employers from Social Security taxes who hire previously unemployed workers, fund highway and transit programs through 2010, give tax breaks to businesses that spend money on capital investments (i.e. equipment purchases), and expand the Build America Bonds program, which helps fund capital construction projects. Five Republicans, including the recently elected Scott Brown (R-Mass.), voted for the provision while one Democrat did not. Liberals and labor organizations do not think that this bill will be enough and are calling for the Senate to do more to create jobs. As Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute put it, "We need to create 11 million jobs to get back to the level of unemployment we had before the recession began, yet the Senate jobs bill would create no more than a couple hundred thousand jobs." A final vote on the bill should take place in a few days. I'm glad to see that the Senate might be reaching a consensus on an issue dealing with the economy, as there has been so much partisan bickering over the past few months. Even though some don't think this bill will do enough, it is better than nothing and the only way to get anything passed in Congress is to do some compromising, which is just what occurred when Senators agreed to cut down the House's proposed $154 billion bill. We'll see what happens over the next few days and hope that the Senate can get this bill passed. Read more at http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/22/news/economy/jobs_bill_senate/index.htm?hpt=T1.

Utah legislators want to spark Supreme Court case over returning federal land to private ownership

Conservative Utah officials are trying to spark a Supreme Court case that could potentially allow them to develop resource-rich parcels of land that are currently owned by the federal government and off-limits to energy development. 60% of Utah's land is federally owned, which officials from the state claim hurts their ability to generate tax revenues and fund public schools. These legislators wish that if the Supreme Court hears such a case, it will establish a precedent against eminent domain, which currently allows the government to take private property for public use. This type of ruling would be a big breakthrough for states' rights, but it's unlikely that the Supreme Court would even decide to review the case. One of the areas legislators like Christopher Herrod, a Provo Republican, are looking at to develop is the pristine Kaiparowits Plateau, which is currently part of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The Kaiparowits is thought to hold large coal reserves. Said Herrod, "In the Kaiparowits Plateau alone there is a trillion dollars worth of natural resources. Had that been privatized ... we'd have $50 billion in our school trust land." Read more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100211/ap_on_re_us/us_federal_land.

Great, Utah, let's destroy all of your amazing natural scenery to fund public schools. This is a worthless idea. I know that energy development brings in a lot of dollars, but how about tourist dollars from the millions of visitors who flock to Utah's National Parks and other scenic areas? The outstanding scenery of the Colorado Plateau is Utah's greatest resource, not the minerals underground. The minute Utah shifts its focus to energy development is the minute tourism goes down the drain. Besides, these natural areas can continue to help Utah's economy for years if they are preserved correctly, while mining for coal and other minerals will eventually stop being profitable when we develop alternative forms of energy or when these resources run out. The Kaiparowits is one of Utah's least known but most valuable treasures, and I can't imagine it run over with power plants, trains, and energy yahoos driving diesel-spewing trucks who have not respect for the land. Lets hope this bill doesn't make it to the Supreme Court, although if it did, I'm confident that the justices would have enough common sense not to rule in favor of these Utah officials. HAYDUKE LIVES!