Banner ad

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Cruising the Web

John Podhoretz explains why liberals' victory lap over Obamacare is quite premature. And any politicians who pretend to be excited about the CBO's projections of lower federal deficits this year are also quite premature in their celebration.
But CBO also expects things to get worse in a hurry. In just the next two years, with no more federal budget sequester to limit spending, annual outlays will grow by almost $500 billion, driving federal spending above $4 trillion for the first time. In that fiscal year of 2016, federal deficits will resume their upward march. By 2023 we will be back to the annual trillion-dollar deficits that characterized the Obama first term. The debt subject to limit, now $17.5 trillion, would need to rise to more than $27 trillion by 2024 to cover all the expected spending. Of course a growing economy would be a great help in financing the looming spending increases, but the current White House is more concerned with reallocating wealth than with allowing people to create it.

While we're getting depressed, we should also note that the $17.5 trillion that many people think of as the federal debt only scratches the surface of the future obligations promised by politicians. Last year legendary investor Stanley Druckenmiller calculated the net present value of Beltway commitments and concluded that "the future liabilities are $205 trillion, not 17."

How long the world's investors will continue to finance U.S. debt is a question. But whether a reckoning occurs sooner or later, eventually all of this spending and debt must be paid for with higher tax collections.

So as bad as you feel reviewing this year's tax return, remember that things could be much worse. And they soon will be, unless the next President is committed to reform in Washington and revival in the rest of the country.

Well, isn't this just typical? The Census Bureau is changing how they measure how many people are uninsured just in time so that it won't be possible to measure how many people have gotten health insurance under Obamacare.
The changes are intended to improve the accuracy of the survey, being conducted this month in interviews with tens of thousands of households around the country. But the new questions are so different that the findings will not be comparable, the officials said.

An internal Census Bureau document said that the new questionnaire included a “total revision to health insurance questions” and, in a test last year, produced lower estimates of the uninsured. Thus, officials said, it will be difficult to say how much of any change is attributable to the Affordable Care Act and how much to the use of a new survey instrument.
Coincidence? And what are the chances that Obama supporters will cite the lower numbers as proof that Obamacare is working regardless of what the small print says? As the WSJ writes today,
The FDA would never approve a new drug whose maker completely changed the clinical trial protocol in the middle of the experiment, yet that is what the White House has done. How many people gained or lost insurance under ObamaCare? Did government crowd out individual insurance? What about employer-sponsored insurance? It will be much harder and in some cases impossible to know.

Robert Pear of the New York Times NYT +4.69% obtained internal Census documents that note that the new CPS system produces lower estimates of the uninsured as an artifact of how the questionnaire is structured. One memo refers to the "coincidental and unfortunate timing" and that, "Ideally, the redesign would have had at least a few years to gather base line and trend data."

Ideally, the White House would have provided those years. For changes this substantial, standard procedure would be to ask the new and old questions concurrently. With an overlap, researchers could study changes over time using the long-term historical information without introducing bias, as well as interpret emerging developments with new tools.

The Census says the new CPS is more accurate, and demographers and statisticians of all persuasions have argued for years that the old version overreports the number of uninsured relative to other surveys. But the inflated figures served the politicians who were plugging national health care, and Democrats in 2009 and 2010 used them to exaggerate the problem amid the push to put more of American health care under government direction.

As with the IRS targeting of conservative political groups, this sudden change will undermine public trust in the supposedly nonpartisan institutions of government. Muddying a useful source of information about ObamaCare's results is definitely unfortunate, but our guess is that it wasn't coincidental.

And, of course, Jay Carney says that there are no plans for the administration to release any further information about the people who have signed up for Obamacare on the federal exchanges. They wouldn't want to release any information to indicate how many of those people have actually paid for their insurance or how many were previously uninsured or are now on Medicaid. They'll want to keep those sorts of details as secret as possible.

Wow, look at these poll results from Democratic pollster PPP: Greg Abbot is leading Wendy Davis in the race for Texas governor among women voters. I guess basing your whole campaign on your support for late-term abortions is not the appeal to women voters that Democrats thought it was.

Jeff Jacoby asks a good question: Why aren't feminists angry at Brandeis for rescinding their invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak and receive an honorary degree? After all, she has devoted her life, despite death threats, to the rights of women in the Islamic world.
But it happens routinely. People prepared to label opposition to employer-paid contraceptives a “war on women” are generally much less willing to channel their outrage at the savagery of honor killings or child marriages in non-Western societies. “They fear treading on cultural toes,” says Jasvinder Sanghera, one of the film’s featured advocates. “We’re constantly having to remind them that cultural acceptance does not mean accepting the unacceptable.”

For Sanghera, who fled a forced marriage as a young teen, this is no abstract theory. She is haunted by the memory of her sister, Ravina, who committed suicide rather than “dishonor” her family by leaving the husband she was forced to marry. Also highlighted in the film is Raquel Saraswati, who embraces Islam as a source of strength and peace in her life, yet feels “afraid all the time” of the backlash against those who challenge “honor-based” violence against women.

Efforts by CAIR and its ilk to squelch honest discussion of such grave human-rights issues — and to demonize as “haters” and “Islamophobes” those who do — encapsulate the very perversity “Honor Diaries” seeks to expose: valuing the honor of a community more than a woman’s life or voice. But does CAIR’s shrill protest reflect what average citizens in Muslim countries think of such a documentary? Or does the “Honor Diaries” Arabic Facebook page, with 95,000 “likes” — and climbing?

Why aren’t more progressives passionate about these issues?

I put that question to Nazie Eftekhari, an immigrant from Iran and another of the women “Honor Diaries” focuses on. A successful Minnesota health care entrepreneur, Eftekhari unhesitatingly describes herself as a “bleeding-heart liberal” and a longtime Democratic Party voter, loyalist, and fund-raiser. She is as mystified as I am.

“The biggest human-rights crisis of our generation is the treatment of women in Muslim-majority countries, and we’ve applied a gag order to ourselves,” she replies with unmistakable distress. “We won’t talk about it. Where are my fellow liberals? Where are the feminists?”

And this is also quite typical. President Obama wishes Jews a happy Passover by sending out a picture of...himself and his family.

The contrast between Illinois and its neighbors among the Great Lakes states is quite marked.
Start with Illinois's 8.7% jobless rate, which is the country's second highest after Rhode Island's 9% and has fallen by a mere 0.7 percentage points since Mr. Quinn began his second term in January 2011. That's when Illinois increased its flat income tax to 5% from 3% and the corporate rate to 9.5% from 7.3%.

The nearby chart shows the jobless-rate trend in five Great Lakes states since 2010. Note the sharp decline in Michigan, where Republican Governor Rick Snyder and a GOP legislature cut corporate taxes. In the last three years, the rate has fallen to 7.7% from 11% in the Wolverine State, to 6.5% from 9.1% in Ohio, to 6.1% from 9% in Indiana, and to 6.1% from 7.7% in Wisconsin. Only Illinois has raised taxes, while Ohio cut taxes, Michigan and Indiana have passed right-to-work laws and Wisconsin famously reformed collective bargaining.

Illinois has also recorded the slowest personal income growth in the Great Lakes. Between 2012 and 2013, personal income rose by 2.1% in Illinois versus 2.7% in Wisconsin, 2.5% in Michigan, and 2.3% in Ohio and Indiana.

But get this—about a third of Illinois's personal-income growth last year was driven by "transfer receipts" (i.e., food stamps, workers' compensation, disability, welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, earned income tax credits, unemployment benefits). According to BEA, these payments increased 5.2% in Illinois in 2013, the third most in the U.S., while wages and salaries ticked up only 1%.

Some 31,000 Illinois workers left the state's labor force in 2013, while Michigan's workforce expanded by 2,000 and Indiana's grew by 11,000. Illinois also lost about 9,000 manufacturing jobs in the last year while Michigan gained 17,000 and Ohio and Indiana each added 12,000.
You think that a state's economic policies don't matter? Well, the ongoing laboratory in democracy taking place in those Midwest states says otherwise.
But in the end, Landrieu's much bigger problem is authenticity. Can she succeed by campaigning against a president she has supported so much? Landrieu has many assets in the race -- she has been able to shower Louisiana with federal money and will undoubtedly bring even more pork dollars to the state in coming months. In the final count, that could well mean victory for her. But Landrieu has an authenticity problem she just can't shake -- it's been building for the last six years -- and if she loses, it will be because she couldn't oppose Barack Obama and support him at the same time, and still win the support of Louisiana voters.

Mary Landrieu is including fakery in her campaign ad, but her real problem is how she's trying to separate herself from President Obama and the Democratic Party despite her support for them on every important vote.

Pro-union supporters on the Los Angeles School Board are now aiming to close down two very successful charters that have been achieving great success in educating minority students. It is so shameful.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Cruising the Web

The Social Security Administration backs down from the program that was seizing tax refunds of people who might have been overpaid when they were in children or whose parents might have been overpaid. The Washington Post had written about this last week and it just took the outrage that that story engendered for the Social Security Administration to rethink its policy. What I found funny from the original Post story was that this change in the law to allow the SSA to go after people decades later had been inserted into a farm bill in 2008 and no one will fess up that they were responsible for writing that provision. Perhaps it's time for all provisions in a law to have a footnote explaining which congressman or senator wanted that provision inserted into the law. That might produce some valuable transparency. Maybe some politicians would balk at some of what they do if it could be traced back to them. I would fully endorse such a change in congressional procedures.

The Supreme Court will hear the case next week on whether lying in politics is protected by the First Amendment. And former Senator Mike DeWine who is the attorney general of Ohio has produced briefs on both sides of the law.

Obamacare is increasing health-insurance premiums at the fastest rate in decades. And, as the LA Times notes, this especially burdens the working poor.

Mayor de Blasio seeks to mold New York City into his own version of what the ideals of progressivism should be.

Maybe Jay Carney could explain to President Obama why his wife chose flexibility over a higher salary. Obama doesn't seem to think that women want that.

ABC discovers the story of Halbig v. Sebelius, the case wending its way through the courts that could eventually gut Obamacare. The essential question is whether the words of the law matter.

The Lilly Ledbetter lie that will not die.

Ed Morrissey notes the one accomplishment of Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State - she helped Boeing sell jets to Russia. And scored a major donation from Boeing to her husband's foundation plus a fundraiser for her super PAC.

At least eight members of the House Ways and Means Committee of both parties have not paid some of their taxes. Of course.

The Daily Beast explains why being a doctor has become the "most miserable profession."

Meet the man whose goal in life is to make sure that the first primary takes place in New Hampshire.

Forget the health of the city and its economy or, of course, the taxpayers. This is what the SEIU is asking for of San Francisco for government employees.
-- A 15 percent raise over the next three years.

-- A $21-an-hour minimum wage for all city workers.

-- Fully paid health coverage for single workers, 98 percent paid coverage for couples and 85 percent coverage for families.

-- A free clinic just for city workers to go along with the health coverage.

-- A free $50,000 life insurance policy for SEIU workers. Seven other city unions already have free life insurance.

The union has dropped its call for a $76-a-month commuter subsidy and premium pay while off on paid holidays.

The city is countering with a 2.5 percent raise over two years, and no clinic, no free life insurance and a health care package of 93 percent coverage for singles and couples and 83 percent for families.
The average SEIU worker gets $33 an hour, plus benefits. But now they need more.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Cruising the Web

Ross Douthat gets to the heart of what is so despicable about the stories of Brendan Eich's resignation from Mozilla and Brandeis University's disinviting of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
What both cases illustrate, with their fuzzy rhetoric masking ideological pressure, is a serious moral defect at the heart of elite culture in America.

The defect, crucially, is not this culture’s bias against social conservatives, or its discomfort with stinging attacks on non-Western religions. Rather, it’s the refusal to admit — to others, and to itself — that these biases fundamentally trump the commitment to “free expression” or “diversity” affirmed in mission statements and news releases.

This refusal, this self-deception, means that we have far too many powerful communities (corporate, academic, journalistic) that are simultaneously dogmatic and dishonest about it — that promise diversity but only as the left defines it, that fill their ranks with ideologues and then claim to stand athwart bias and misinformation, that speak the language of pluralism while presiding over communities that resemble the beau ideal of Sandra Y. L. Korn.
Korn is the Harvard undergraduate who wrote an essay proposing that Harvard shouldn't allow its faculty to write anything that didn't conform to left-wing ideals, basically that Harvey Mansfield should be shut up by the university that employs him.
I am (or try to be) a partisan of pluralism, which requires respecting Mozilla’s right to have a C.E.O. whose politics fit the climate of Silicon Valley, and Brandeis’s right to rescind degrees as it sees fit, and Harvard’s freedom to be essentially a two-worldview community, with a campus shared uneasily by progressives and corporate neoliberals, and a small corner reserved for token reactionary cranks.

But this respect is difficult to maintain when these institutions will not admit that this is what is going on. Instead, we have the pretense of universality — the insistence that the post-Eich Mozilla is open to all ideas, the invocations of the “spirit of free expression” from a school that’s kicking a controversial speaker off the stage.

And with the pretense, increasingly, comes a dismissive attitude toward those institutions — mostly religious — that do acknowledge their own dogmas and commitments, and ask for the freedom to embody them and live them out.

It would be a far, far better thing if Harvard and Brandeis and Mozilla would simply say, explicitly, that they are as ideologically progressive as Notre Dame is Catholic or B. Y.U. is Mormon or Chick-fil-A is evangelical, and that they intend to run their institution according to those lights.

I can live with the progressivism. It’s the lying that gets toxic.
Hey, that hypocrisy has basically been the MSM's shtick for years. They pretend that they are perfectly nonpartisan and nonideological and then proceed to report everything from a leftist, Democratic perspective. They are so immersed in that viewpoint that they don't even recognize their own biases. It just seems like the truth to them.

CBS would probably like us all to believe that they tell the news the way it is, but the revelations that have come out about how they tried to smother the reporting of Sharyl Attkisson from investigating any news story that made the Obama administration look bad put a lie to that fantasy.

Why would Jay Carney and his wife, Claire Shipman, pose for these ridiculous photos in Washingtonian Magazine that supposedly portray their have-it-all lifestyle? Why would they allow their children to be part of this farce? Just remember these facts, helpfully supplied by the magazine the next time you see Jay Carney trying to evade answering embarrassing questions at the podium.
Jay Suit, $895, glen plaid dress shirt, $195, foulard print tie, $135, and polka-dot pocket square, $55, all at Hugo Boss (Tysons Galleria). Claire Cotton jacquard shift dress, $299 at Karen Millen (Tysons Galleria); knotted rope crystal necklace, $98 at Ann Taylor (multiple area locations); and jeweled bracelet by Loren Hope, similar styles at Bishop Boutique (Alexandria).
Ah, yes. A true family of the people.

George Will contrasts the women running for office in the Midwest to the leftist heroine, Sandra Fluke.
Land represents Republicans’ most effective response to Democrats’ ­hyperventilating about the “war on women” — female candidates. It will be amusing to see such rhetoric tried in Iowa, where Joni Ernst, a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard who served in Iraq, is seeking the Republican Senate nomination. She says in an ad: “I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm. So when I get to Washington, I’ll know how to cut pork.” She rides a Harley and in a recent Des Moines Register column she said, “Those who know me well know that I carry a black purse everywhere I go. What many people don’t know is what’s inside: a Smith and Wesson 9 mm and my concealed carry permit.”

Many Democrats seem to prefer the sensibility of Fluke, a professional victim and virtuoso whiner. Michigan’s electorate, which has produced today’s Republican governor and legislature, may be ready, by electing a Republican senator for the third time in 42 years, to show what they think of “war on women” hysterics as a substitute for thought.
What a surprise - President Obama lied about voting rights cases.

Democrats sure have a proclivity to call their political foes "un-American." Remember when liberals used to howl at any sort of hint that Republicans were calling them un-American. How quickly the worm turns.

This is a fascinating tale told by self-proclaimed "Bag Men" who reveals the secrets of how he and others like him channel all sorts of money, gifts, and perks to SEC players and their families.
The Bag Man excuses himself to make a call outside, on his "other phone," to arrange delivery of $500 in cash to a visiting recruit. The player is rated No. 1 at his position nationally and on his way into town. We're sitting in a popular restaurant near campus almost a week before National Signing Day, talking about how to arrange cash payments for amateur athletes.

"Nah, there's no way we're landing him, but you still have to do it," he says. "It looks good. It's good for down the road. Same reason my wife reads Yelp. These kids talk to each other. It's a waste of money, but they're doing the same thing to our guys right now in [rival school's town]. Cost of business."
Read the rest and ponder how ridiculous things still are in college sports.

Here are seven charts to demonstrate why Obamacare is going to continue to be so unpopular for many years. Add in the increased premiums and taxes that are strongly increasing costs to the increased rates that people might just be realizing. And what about when all those people who bought insurance for the first time realize that they have such high deductibles?
First-time insurance purchasers, especially those living paycheck to paycheck, will be shocked by ObamaCare’s high deductibles, about $3,000 for the silver plan (the most commonly selected) and $5,000 for the bronze plan (the most affordable).

Basically, you’ll have to pay thousands out of pocket for appointments, tests and prescriptions until you reach your deductible.

Millennials who heard Obama say on “Between Two Ferns” that they can buy a health plan for the price of a cellphone contract won’t be laughing when they realize what the $5,000 deductible means. (It’s like a cellphone contract that makes you pay $5 a text for your first thousand texts.) Rather than pay thousands out of pocket for care while also paying premiums, some will quit paying premiums.

That’s why the AMA is worried. Section 1412 of the health law gives consumers a 90 day “grace period” before their subsidized plan is canceled for nonpayment. But insurers only have to keep paying doctors and hospitals for 30 days. The next 60 days of care are on the care provider. The AMA says “it could pose a significant financial risk for medical practices.”
Add in the people who are going to lose coverage through their employers once those employers find out how much their coverage is going to increase.

And then there is the "Medicaid trap" that the "tech surge" to fix the Obamacare website didn't address.
Some applications sent from the exchanges never make it to the state Medicaid offices. Of those that do, jumbled or missing data can make the applications impossible to process in any kind of automated way. In the meantime, these individuals are without coverage as they wait for their applications to be reviewed, and their prospects for getting insured soon are dimming as backlogs build.

And then there's the extreme example, where some applicants—typically those whose incomes put them on the cusp of Medicaid eligibility—have been trapped in a circular purgatory. Consumers are incorrectly deemed eligible for Medicaid by the exchanges, then rejected by the Medicaid offices. Their applications then need to be sent back over to the marketplaces, but they don't always make it there.

The size of the problem is difficult to pinpoint, as experiences vary by state and information is largely anecdotal. But backlogs of Medicaid applications stretching to the hundred-thousands have been reported in states including Texas, Illinois, California, and New Jersey.

All of this is the opposite of what the White House intended: The federal and state exchange websites were meant to serve as a one-stop shop for insurance, where consumers could immediately find out whether they were eligible for subsidized private coverage or Medicaid. The law's Medicaid efforts are aimed at closing a gap in the social safety net that left out people with incomes that were high enough to miss their home state's Medicaid qualifications but not high enough to afford insurance.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Cruising the Web

Ace says "This is just a great clip all around" as an MSNBC panel stumbles around trying to come up with one accomplishment as Secretary of State. They just can't find anything. And then the ultimate insult - that her time there will compare unfavorably to that of John Kerry who has not accomplished anything good for the United States. I guess we'll have to wait for her book to come out and enlighten us on how wonderful she is. Byron York observes that all she has is to associate herself with her husband's and President Obama's accomplishments.

This is what happens when bureaucrats are given unchecked powers.
A few weeks ago, with no notice, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. Grice had no idea that Uncle Sam had seized her money until some days later, when she got a letter saying that her refund had gone to satisfy an old debt to the government — a very old debt.

When Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them.

Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery.

Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who are expecting refunds this month are instead getting letters like the one Grice got, informing them that because of a debt they never knew about — often a debt incurred by their parents — the government has confiscated their check....

Grice filed suit against the Social Security Administration in federal court in Greenbelt this week, alleging that the government violated her right to due process by holding her responsible for a $2,996 debt supposedly incurred under her father’s Social Security number.

Social Security officials told Grice that six people — Grice, her four siblings and her father’s first wife, whom she never knew — had received benefits under her father’s account. The government doesn’t look into exactly who got the overpayment; the policy is to seek compensation from the oldest sibling and work down through the family until the debt is paid.

The Federal Trade Commission, on its Web site, advises Americans that “family members typically are not obligated to pay the debts of a deceased relative from their own assets.” But Social Security officials say that if children indirectly received assistance from public dollars paid to a parent, the children’s money can be taken, no matter how long ago any overpayment occurred....

Grice, who works for the Food and Drug Administration and lives in Takoma Park, in the same apartment she’s resided in since 1984, never got any notice about a debt.

Social Security officials told her they had sent their notice to her post office box in Roxboro, N.C. Grice rented that box from 1977 to 1979 and never since. And Social Security has Grice’s current address: Every year, it sends her a statement about her benefits.

“Their record-keeping seems to be very spotty,” she said.

Treasury officials say that before they will take someone’s refund, the agency owed the money must certify the debt, meaning there must be evidence of the overpayment. But Social Security officials told Grice they had no records explaining the debt.

“The craziest part of this whole thing is the way the government seizes a child’s money to satisfy a debt that child never even knew about,” says Robert Vogel, Grice’s attorney. “They’ll say that somebody got paid for that child’s benefit, but the child had no control over the money and there’s no way to know if the parent ever used the money for the benefit of that kid.”

Grice, the middle of five children, said neither of her surviving siblings — one older, one younger — has had any money taken by the government. When Grice asked why she had been selected to pay the debt, she was told it was because she had an income and her address popped up — the correct one this time.

Grice found a lawyer willing to take her case without charge. Vogel is exercised about the constitutional violations he sees in the retroactive lifting of the 10-year limit on debt collection. “Can the government really bring back to life a case that was long dead?” the lawyer asked. “Can it really be right to seize a child’s money to satisfy a parent’s debt?”

But many other taxpayers whose refunds have been taken say they’ve been unable to contest the confiscations because of the cost, because Social Security cannot provide records detailing the original overpayment, and because the citizens, following advice from the IRS to keep financial documents for just three years, had long since trashed their own records.

In Glenarm, Ill., Brenda and Mike Samonds have spent the past year trying to figure out how to get back the $189.10 tax refund the government seized, claiming that Mike’s mother, who died 33 years ago, had been overpaid on survivor’s benefits after Mike’s father died in 1969.
That is an amazing story. Good luck to Mary Grice in her efforts to get her money back and perhaps overturn this little-known provision of the law that no one admits that they wanted in the first place, yet somehow the power for the Treasury Department to do this got stuck into the farm bill.

Typical, the Democratic candidate to replace Mitch McConnell, Alison Lundergan Grimes, blasts Mitch McConnell for opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act yet refuses to criticize a Kentucky Democratic politician accused of sexual harassment.

Oh, what is a little Senate rule when Harry Reid wants to attack the Koch brothers?

Even liberal Ruth Marcus is disgusted by the Democrats' demagoguery on equal pay.

Michael Barone reminds us of a lot of assumptions that were made in the 1970s that were never borne out. So, he wonders, what conventional wisdom from today will be proven wrong in time.

Eric Holder thinks he's been treated worse than any other attorney general of the United States. Peter Wehner reminds us of other attorneys generals whom the Democrats were happy to attack personally. Wehner reminds us of the ugly, partisan tone of Obama's administration.
Mr. Obama has accused Republicans of being social Darwinists and members of the “flat earth society,” of putting their party ahead of their country, and of wanting dirty air and dirty water. He says Republicans want autistic and Down syndrome children to “fend for themselves.” He accuses his opponents of not simply being wrong but of being his “enemies.” During the 2012 election, Obama’s vice president said Republicans want to put African-Americans “back in chains” while Obama’s top aides and allies implied Governor Romney was a felon and flat-out stated that he was responsible for the cancer-death of a steelworker’s wife. The list goes on and on. Mr. Obama is the most polarizing president in the history of polling.

It’s bad enough that Eric Holder is incompetent, that he’s misled Congress on multiple occasions, that he considers America to be a “nation of cowards” on race, and that he’s engaged in covering up for the administration (including the current IRS scandal). But can the Attorney General of the United States please quit feeling so sorry for himself? So put upon?
His advice is to "Man up, Mr. Holder."

Jim Geraghty looks at all the phony issues that the Democrats have latched on to in order to avoid talking about Obamacare and the dreary state of the economy.

See what you know about the Democrats' Paycheck Fairness Act.

Kimberley Strassel explains what we know now about the IRS scandal with the release of documents from the House Ways and Means Committee. We can see now how closely tied the IRS targeting of conservative groups was to calls from Democrats to do just that.
The final merit of Mr. Camp's letter is that he's called out Justice and Democrats. Mr. Camp was careful in laying out the ways Ms. Lerner may have broken the law, with powerful details. Democrats can't refute the facts, so instead they are howling about all manner of trivia—the release of names, the "secret" vote to release taxpayer information. But it remains that they are putting themselves on record in support of IRS officials who target groups, circumvent rules, and potentially break the law. That ought to go down well with voters.