The Fact Check.org , highly respected, independent, funded by the Annenberg Foundation
poked enough holes in the Heritage Foundation claim of the $6.3 trillion cost due to immigration reform to call it false. 

"Critics of a bipartisan Senate bill to overhaul the nation’s immigration system falsely claim that it will cost an additional $6.3 trillion, citing a study by a conservative group that opposes the bill."
...for the rest of their analysis,  see    http://factcheck.org/2013/06/the-immigration-bills-6-3-trillion-price-tag/

Hyping the scandals is not a game changer

The “scandals”  seem to be heaped one on top of another on the White House lately.   While there is some fire in the substance, the hyperventilated, over the top smoke  blown mightily   by the GOP   is also about the 2014 midterms. It is a political strategy that is  sound and fury likely to signify little in the end.

 The GOP seems determined to pin the problem on Pres. Obama, best if he can be found to be the actual perpetrator (and so far they have failed to do that), or at least the head of   an overreached, out of control, incompetent administration.  Therefore, the GOP hopes the President will be so wounded,  Congressional and Senatorial elections will go their way as voters become disgusted with anything tied to him.

The GOP views the  rollout of Obamacare   like a fox salivating at the possibilities of catching chipmunk in a rock garden.  They hope Obamacare will fail miserably.  They have laid the groundwork to self  fulfill their prophecy.    Whenever  some southern and Midwestern  governors and state legislatures were in  GOP control, they have refused to set up the state managed exchanges…resulting in the mistrusted feds having to do it for them and leaving a gap of millions who would not have access to expanded Medicaid or Obamacare. They have cut out funds slated  to encourage  currently uninsured into subscribe to  the subsidized exchanges,  hoping if  they built it, no one came.

Except where they have tried to sabotage the roll out, the GOP is taking a risk.  The roll out might work…because California, Colorado, and Massachusetts, and New Jersey  and Pacific Coast states are well prepared . The cost of the subsidized premiums in California have come in much lower than actuarial studies predicted.  Colorado is well ahead of the game, already testing  technology and with 17 private insurers signed on to participate.

 Where the GOP will be able to howl in protest and point to failure will be in states where they are  already  strong. All politics in electing representatives and s enators are local.  They will be preaching to their  choir,  safe  in gerrymandered non competitive  districts.    Any failures of the roll out could blowback on the GOP when the successes in other states could be contrasted with the bungling in the purposefully unprepared states.

The GOP has tried to inflate the “scandals”  by painting them as “Nixonian”.    In their zeal to try to draw  comparisons  of Obama with Nixon they  fall very flat.  Nixon himself  ordered the IRS to  audit politicians, groups and journalists on his enemies list.  It was not a case of  bungling by career service bureaucrats  and an overprotective White House staff, as it appears involved in  this current “scandal”.

 The attempt by Nixon  to hush up the Washington Post was not because the CIA or national security was  jeopardized by their reporting. The Watergate coverup was his directed attempt to cover his role in a criminal act. However, it  was AP’s and Fox’s reporting of the leak  that blew the cover off covert action against Al Qaeda in Yemen, endangering our war against terrorists, that triggered the Attorney General’s investigation.  

Nothing this year equals the Iran Contra Scandal in which the Reagan administration  skirted laws to run  Central American covert actions,  or the revenge seeking W Bush administration blowing CIA operative Valerie Plame’s cover.

As a strategy, even these more substantive  scandals have  not  changes the  party domination in the immediately following elections in the past. Economic issues were always larger factors.

So…fire away GOP.  Voters will begin asking where  is  your replacement  for Obamacare or what you will do about employment and the disappearing middle class. A GOP  blocking immigration reform will only feed  Democrats’ winning demographics.  Those are the real game changers.

For more, visit  www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com

This is a version of my column that will appear in the Sky Hi Daily News this week.

AP scandal and new drone policies: collision of American values and national security interests collide in a kicked over hornets nest.

The collision of  American values and national security interests erupted recently   over the Associated Press “scandal” and President Obama’s  ordering a new policy limiting  drone strikes.  The President’s walking a fine line  between looking after the safety of our homeland  and doing it within the bounds of the ideals  we like to think our country represents knocked over a hornets nest of political controversy.  How the President, already under attack for handling the IRS and Benghazi issues, can get past this will be a challenge, but he can.

The AP scandal and outrage from the public,  Congress,  and  journalists heaped another headache on the White House, already besieged by the IRS and  Benghazi   issues. Attorney General  Eric Holder had subpoenaed  telephone and email records of journalists who made public information they had obtained from unknown sources in the administration. The Justice Department’ claims  their  goal was to discover who in the administration  was talking to the journalists  in question since the leak  endangered national security.

 Bi-partisan  cries of foul  roared to  ear numbing decibel  levels.  Critics claimed  Holder’s actions were  suppressing whistle blowers, chilling investigative reporting,  violating first amendment rights,  and were another example of  government overreach. 

 Was national security endangered ?  We may never know all of the details because the White House considers  the leaked information to have damaged  an on-going covert operation.  What appears to have happened is that the 2009 underwear  bomber  that tried to bring down an airplane and  a recent drone attack on an Al Qaeda target in Yemen  both  involved  a  U.S. intelligence operative working  within the  Yemen Al Qaeda organization and the agent  and the operation were now endangered, thanks to reports on FOX and Associated Press.  

While the President was not implicated in ordering the investigation,  he immediately announced his  support of legislation to provide immunity for journalists who publish leaks . Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced plans to introduce legislation.       Politico  reported   May 26 what  the senators  had in mind:  “ Demands for reporters' phone or email records .. would need to be approved by a judge under a strict legal standard of… a 'significant and articulable risk of future terrorism or harm to the national security'….”  If the President throws strong support to this legislation, he has a chance to put the issue to rest.

The other issue exploding lately was the President’s announcement to limit drone attacks.  This policy change addresses an ethical and moral dilemma and helps remove a stumbling block to carrying out American foreign policy.

The CIA had originally used drone strikes to hit high value Al Qaeda control and command operatives, but lately it had expanded their use to lower level activists.   Targeting had also  killed  innocent civilian wedding party and funeral attendees, including women and children, and four US citizens.  The President made it clear drones would still be used, but the extensive, and sometimes indiscriminate use of drone strikes had become a counter productive strategy, turning off those we needed as allies and becoming a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations..

  The President  plans to transfer execution of  drone strikes to the military,  limiting their use to when civilians were not near,   targeting truly  high value operatives, and being  used only when  local governments were unwilling or unable to take action. The President believes limiting drone strikes   will also  make it easier to gather international support, win hearts and minds instead of angering those we need on our side ,  and  to diminish our enemies’ recruiting tools.

 This new policy  serves two masters:  smart strategy that promotes our national interests and being more in harmony with our national values.  He needs to make that argument more strongly than he has so far, but the case is there to be made.

For more, go to www.mufticforumespanol.blogspot.com
This is a version of my column that will appear in the www.skyhidailynews.com this week
 

Focus on the IRS "scandal" creates an opportunity to fix a campaign finance dodge and redefine exemptions

The brouhaha over the IRS’s zeal in investigating conservative political organizations’ application for tax exemption under  a501(c)(4) clause  is one more  episode  of the IRS stepping  into political doo doo.  The current focus  creates an opportunity to fix a problem.

A long standing  interpretation of the laws by the IRS has  opened the door to a dodge of   campaign finance laws.. Unlike other political organizations, the names of  donors to “C4’s” are not required to be disclosed. Requests for the exempt status doubled after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 permitting corporations  and labor to donate to political organizations.  The IRS’   triaging priorities for review given   a limited staff  and more work  could be interpreted as  intentionally or inadvertently biased. The Inspector General’s conclusion was the  latter.

 Conservative groups claim  they were singled out for long delays and demands for excessive  documentation . No Tea Party  or Patriot applicant was denied tax exempt status, though one did lose it.   The report conducted by the independent Inspector General and the House hearings  reveal no White House involvement.  Whether   a criminal act was committed  is yet to be seen. 

Abuse of IRS regulations  has happened under the aegis  of both parties.  In 2004, in the Bush administration, the  NAACP complained their applications were singled out by the IRS  and  approval  were delayed for two years.  There are other incidents  involving tax exempt status and politically motivated  audits  over the 100 year history of the IRS .

The most constructive  outcome  of this newest  scrutiny  of the IRS  is to rewrite the tax code to eliminate ambiguities or , better still,  simply to deny exempt status to any political organization that  spends any  money  on  political  ads that intervene in campaigns.. Why should taxpayers have to make up the difference for reduced   income to the Treasury by exempting organizations intervening actively in political campaigns, anyway ?

Why is the IRS caught up  trying to determine whether a politically oriented applicant is primarily spending  resources on political intervention? The law says those getting tax exempt status are  organizations that  operate “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare”. In 1959, the regulators interpreted the law to mean groups “primarily” engaged in helping the community.

  “Primarily” by definition  is   not  the same as “exclusively”.   “Primarily” makes the test more  vulnerable to some underling’s judgment call.  Is the tipping point   50%?, 51% or more?.  Whether either term is followed, the IRS’ burden will always be to  determine how much of an organization’s activity is used for political campaign advocacy and that can only be learned  by asking for evidence.

The devil is also  in defining what  constitutes forbidden  action.  Is it  that a  political organization has paid for advertising urging   votes  for or against an issue or candidate?  Whether that is the situation  or not has been a subject of  court cases and conflicting laws on the state level, including a recent case in Colorado.   

This hearing is an opportunity to fix a problem at the federal level by amending the federal tax laws. The easiest fix, requiring no act of Congress,  is for the IRS   to follow the statute as written:  (C4)’s should spend zero  money on campaigning for or   running ads exhorting voters to cast ballots for or against a specific ballot issue or a candidate.

The House Committee has  provided a public service by exposing the need for  reforms  regarding  (C4)’s.  So long as the GOP does  not   spew turbo charged   rhetoric that gives the impression their goal is mostly to damage the President, the public will  not dismiss the hearings  as just partisan politics .They are in danger. CNN polls as of    Friday, May 17,   showed President’s approval of 53% broke down heavily by  party affiliation.  

A version of this will appear this week in the www.skyhidailynews.com 

Footnote: Felicia Muftic has been active in government relations in 501(C)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations  and as an election commissioner and a government official in a career spanning 40 years.  She wrote the handbook for campaign finance disclosures for the City and County of Denver.