Obama slumps to lowest ratings of his presidency

On Tuesday night President Obama will deliver one of the most important political addresses of his presidency, trying to convince a war-weary American public to support his call for military intervention in Syria.

Having casually drawn a red line in the sand on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Obama’s own credibility – not that of the United States – is on the line. But he faces an uphill struggle to win over public opinion, and is almost certainly heading for a heavy defeat on Capitol Hill, where opposition is mounting among Members of Congress.

The scale of the challenge for Mr. Obama is encapsulated in a new poll released by Fox News (conducted by both Democratic and Republican pollsters), which shows the president’s approval rating falling to 40 percent, the lowest level of support in his presidency (on par with December 2010). Obama’s disapproval stands at 54 percent, the highest negative rating he has received since taking office. Read more >>

Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain


A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy.

Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. Read more >>

House votes to repeal ObamaCare in 229-195 vote

The Republican-led House has voted, for the 37th time, to repeal President Obama’s health care law, even though GOP lawmakers know the Senate will not follow suit.  The repeal passed on a 229-195 vote.

All Republicans voted to repeal, while all but two Democrats voted no. They were Reps. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., and Jim Matheson, D-Utah, two of the most conservative Democrats in the House.

Democrats have called efforts to de-fund or partly scale back the Affordable Care Act a waste of time -- even an obsession.

But Republicans see a political advantage to keeping the pressure up as the administration tries to get all the moving parts of the law working in the next few months. They're hoping that problems with its implementation will help them recapture the Senate in next year's midterm elections. Read more >>

House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Increase

House Republicans voted unanimously against raising the federal minimum wage Friday.

A proposal by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over the next two years and increase the wage for tipped employees to 70 percent of the minimum wage was defeated, with every House Republican voting against the motion. On the Democratic side, six lawmakers voted against the measure, and 184 Democrats voted for it.

Miller's proposal was more than a dollar higher than what President Barack Obama proposed during his State of the Union address in February. Obama said in his speech that Congress and the White House should work to "raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour."

The proposal by Miller was offered as an amendment to the SKILLS Act, which Republicans in the House passed Friday afternoon, over strong Democratic opposition. According to the Washington Post, the act will eliminate or consolidate 35 federal programs and create a Workforce Investment Fund to help those searching for a job acquire the skills needed in the workforce. In his State of the Union, Obama said that he hoped to "cut through the maze of confusing training programs," but the White House said it opposes the House bill, the Post reports. House Democrats argued that the bill eliminates programs for veterans, the disabled, and other groups, and voted overwhelmingly against it. The bill now goes to the Senate. Read more >>

ObamaCare's Health-Insurance Sticker Shock

Health-insurance premiums have been rising—and consumers will experience another series of price shocks later this year when some see their premiums skyrocket thanks to the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.

The reason: The congressional Democrats who crafted the legislation ignored virtually every actuarial principle governing rational insurance pricing. Premiums will soon reflect that disregard—indeed, premiums are already reflecting it.

Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue), (2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.

Guaranteed issue incentivizes people to forgo buying a policy until they get sick and need coverage (and then drop the policy after they get well). While ObamaCare imposes a financial penalty—or is it a tax?—to discourage people from gaming the system, it is too low to be a real disincentive. The result will be insurance pools that are smaller and sicker, and therefore more expensive. Read more >>

Fiscal cliff negotiations reviving debate about screwing Retirees out of Social Security

Yes, we can fix Social Security (but it won't be pretty)
The fiscal cliff negotiations are reviving the debate about that other financial elephant in the room: Social Security. Under current government estimates, Social Security could face funding shortfalls in about two decades if nothing changes. That’s because the U.S. population is aging -- and generally living longer.

That sounds like a disheartening scenario for workers who are currently paying into Social Security and worry that they won’t get as much out of it once they retire.  About half of the Americans polled by Pew Research Center earlier this year believe it’s not likely there will be enough money in Social Security and Medicare to maintain current benefit levels into the future.

But experts say there are ways to fix Social Security. Politicians just may not like trying to sell those changes to the American people.

It has happened before, though. In the mid-1980s, none other than President Ronald Reagan, working with Democrats in Congress, oversaw a major overhaul of the nation’s retirement safety net.

That’s something many say seems less likely these days.

“There are politicians – and especially in the Senate but also in the House as well – who could work together and come to an agreement,” said Alan Auerbach, a professor of law and economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “But they’re not the majority of Congress.” Read more >>