Pages

Monday, March 12, 2012

Bill Summary & Status 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) S.1408

S.1408
Latest Title: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] (introduced 7/8/2009)      Cosponsors (7)
Related Bills: H.R.1835
Latest Major Action: 7/8/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

ALL ACTIONS:
7/8/2009:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. 
SUMMARY AS OF:
7/8/2009--Introduced.

New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow: (1) an excise tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuels and fuel mixtures involving compressed or liquefied natural gas; (2) an modified income tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuel motor vehicles powered by compressed or liquefied natural gas; (3) an offset against the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for tax credits for alternative fuel motor vehicles and refueling property and provide for the transferability of such credits; (4) a tax credit through 2019 for investment in natural gas vehicle project bonds; (5) expensing of property used to manufacture vehicles fueled by compressed or liquefied natural gas; and (6) a tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property relating to compressed or liquefied natural gas.
Requires federal agencies to purchase dedicated alternative fuel vehicles for their fleets unless such agencies can show that alternative fuel is unavailable or purchasing such vehicles would be impractical.
Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost.
Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should streamline the certification process for natural gas vehicle retrofit kits.

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
Senate Finance Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:  (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)

Bill:Relationship:
H.R.1835Related bill identified by CRS

COSPONSORS(7), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)
Sen Begich, Mark [AK] - 1/28/2010
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 10/14/2009
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 7/8/2009
Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL] - 3/17/2010
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 7/21/2009
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] - 7/8/2009
Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 10/5/2009

Boone-Doggle


The natural gas industry doesn't need subsidies.


Something about energy policy causes Republicans and even many conservatives to abandon every free-market principle they claim to believe and embrace corporate welfare. The latest example comes courtesy of our sometime intellectual ally, Texas billionaire Boone Pickens, who is pushing the Nat Gas Act.
Mr. Pickens wants to pour subsidies on the production and purchase of vehicles that use natural gas as a transportation fuel. With conventional gasoline prices approaching $4 a gallon in many markets, this is the hottest energy fad in Washington and has had as many as 180 House co-sponsors, including, at last count, 72 Republicans.
The Pickens plan got a big lift when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced a version of the bill with fellow Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey and North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, a rare case of bipartisan agreement.

***

"Natural gas is cheap, clean, abundant, and it's ours," Mr. Pickens says, and he's right. Breakthroughs in drilling technologies, such as hydraulic fracturing in shale, have increased America's recoverable reserves of natural gas at a low cost. Natural gas prices have remained low and stable this year even as oil prices have fluctuated and topped $100 a barrel. Natural gas is already supplanting coal plants for electricity in many places and is likely to keep doing so unless environmentalists kill the fracking industry.
But natural gas isn't widespread as a transportation fuel, and Mr. Pickens wants to dun taxpayers to change that. The Nat Gas Act would provide tax credits between $7,500 and $65,000 per vehicle to convert 150,000 U.S. light trucks and heavy 18-wheelers to natural gas engines from those powered by diesel oil. The bill would also provide a tax credit to the manufacturers of natural gas vehicles.
There's more. The 50 cent a gallon alternative fuel credit for purchasing natural gas at the pump would be extended for five years through 2016. On top of that, service stations would get a tax credit of up to $100,000 to buy the pumps and other equipment to provide natural gas.

 Associated Press
Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens

Proponents put the cost at about $5 billion over five years, but many energy experts believe it would be multiples higher. Eight million trucks are on the road today, and if each got a $15,000 average tax credit, the price tag grows to over $100 billion.
The natural gas shale revolution is a blessing for the U.S., but its very abundance and low cost mean that it could be a commercially viable substitute for oil without taxpayer handouts. At current prices, a gallon of transportation fuel from natural gas costs about one-third to one-half less a gallon of gas from oil. That's a big nonsubsidized cost advantage.
Mr. Pickens claims that the subsidies are merely to finance the transition to natural gas vehicles, and that they will be temporary. But there were no subsidies for Henry Ford to build the Model T, and no tax incentives for gas stations in every town in America.
As for "energy independence," taxpayer subsidies have a miserable record of reducing reliance on foreign oil. In the 1970s the feds spent some $2 billion on synthetic fuels, which were a commercial bust. Ethanol was sold as a path to energy "security," but 30 years and more than $40 billion later it still can't compete without governmental support. The two-decade federal nourishment of solar, wind and other non-hydro renewables has cost tens of billions of dollars, yet they still provide just 3.6% of U.S. electricity.
The history of energy subsidies is that they become an industrial and political addiction that is difficult to stop, no matter the results, and may even inhibit innovation and profitability by providing a crutch.
We are also told that government must subsidize natural gas because the OPEC cartel blocks a free market in oil. But OPEC is not the only price-setter in oil markets, and in any case the point of a cartel is to hold the market price artificially high, which should help natural gas and renewables. If the world is running out of oil (doubtful), and prices will rise over time (maybe), this should only make natural gas more promising without federal help.
Equally dubious is the claim that natural gas subsidies would merely "level the playing field" because oil also gets tax breaks. We'd prefer no breaks for any industry, but the modest benefits for oil include tax write-offs that every manufacturer gets. In any case the Nat Gas Act would provide subsidies many times greater per unit of BTU.

***

The big transportation debate of the moment is whether the future belongs to natural gas vehicles, battery-operated cars or hybrids, or whether new sources of oil will keep gasoline, diesel and the internal-combustion engine paramount. Who knows?
But we do know who doesn't know: Congress. Best to let millions of investors and consumers—otherwise known as a market—decide these fates rather than blowing $5 billion, or $100 billion, and creating another industry that depends on political intervention for its survival. One reason the U.S. has trillion-dollar deficits is because too many Republicans too often forget that they were elected to end subsidies and earmarks, not to create new ones.
A version of this article appeared Feb. 28, 2012, on page A16 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Boone-Doggle.

An Update On the Status of the NatGas Act

I found this article and it states that the bill should pass the house, where it has bipartisan support. So the articles following are of this bill.  It was proposed in two congress' and has been in committee since.

Courtesy of Lawrence MacDonald and DC Tripwire
Bottom Line: The NAT GAS Act is expected to easily pass the House, where it has broad support from Members on both sides of the aisle. Challenges remain before the bill becomes law, however, the most significant of which is the determination of an acceptable pay-for, i.e. revenue raiser or spending cut to offset the tax subsidies provided in the bill. But with continued high gasoline prices and the American public demanding action, it may be that the time is finally right to send this legislation to the President’s desk. While its path through the House looks easy though, its prospects in the Senate are murkier, as it has been stymied in the Senate once before. Thus, companies which benefit from the tax benefits that would be derived form the NAT GAS Act — such as makers of fleet-based natural gas vehicles — could continue to ride a wave of high expectations as the bill winds its way through the House, but such expectations could run into a wall in the Senate.
· Last week, Reps. John Sullivan (R-OK), Dan Boren (D-OK), Kevin Brady (R-TX), and John Larson (D-CT) introduced H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of 2011, in the House.
· The bill seeks to promote natural gas as a transportation fuel by providing expanded tax incentives for the purchase and production of natural gas vehicles (NGVs) and the installation of natural gas refueling infrastructure. It also includes a section to directing funding at the Department of Energy for research and development to improve NGV performance and efficiency and to promote NVGs for their petroleum reductions and greenhouse gas reductions.
· The NAT GAS Act already has 133 bipartisan cosponsors, ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal, and both President Obama and Speaker Boehner have expressed support for legislation promoting NGVs.
· The House bill was referred to three committees – Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Science.
o These multiple committee referrals could, in theory, slow the bill’s movement through the House.
o Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), however, is a member of the House Natural Gas Caucus and is expected to support the bill. Additionally, Rep. Kevin Brady, a lead cosponsor of the legislation, is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
o The road through the Energy and Commerce Committee, where Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) has previously expressed concern about passing legislation to promote one source of energy over another, may be a bit rockier. In addition to overcoming any speed bumps with the Chairman, Democratic Members could attempt to attach any number of “poison pill” amendments to the bill in committee, including controversial amendments regarding hydraulic fracturing.
o But because the bill is supported by Speaker Boehner, and because Rep. Sullivan is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, these obstacles are expected to be overcome.
· Champions of the bill believe that because it is supported by both Republican and Democratic Leadership (Rep. Larson is Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus), the legislation will move quickly through the House.
· Despite its multiple committee referrals and possible challenges in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill is, in fact, likely to pass the House easily.
· There is even talk that the bill may be considered under “suspension of the rules,” a process typically used in the House on noncontroversial measures. This procedure limits debate to 40 minutes, permits no floor amendments, and requires the support two-thirds of Members present and voting for passage.
Challenges Ahead
· Although there is not yet an official CBO score for the NAT GAS Act, back of the envelope estimates suggest that it will cost approximately $3.5 billion.
· According to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, which became law early last year, bills reducing revenues must be fully offset by cuts in mandatory programs or by revenue increases.
· Although the House Rules under the Republican leadership do not require tax cuts to be paid for, such a requirement still exists in the Senate and remains law of the land.
· At this point, the bill passed by the House is not expected to have a pay-for.
· This will present a challenge in the Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the weeks ahead by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Orin Hatch (R-NJ). (The bill is also supported by Majority Leader Harry Reid.)
· In the last Congress, disagreement over the pay-for prevented similar legislation from going anywhere in the Senate, and that issue could easily rear its head again, grinding the bill’s movement to a halt.
· In addition to the challenge of finding an acceptable pay-for, it remains uncertain if the NAT GAS Act would move on its own in the Senate or if would be included in a more comprehensive energy package, which would significantly slow the process and make passage more complicated.





  1. Contrary to what the opponents say about the Nat Gas Act, this bill does not favor one market of energy over another; rather this Nat Gas Act levels the unfair energy playing field.
    Foreign suppliers of energy have long entrenched themselves in the energy market, since the beginning of the 20th century. Oil was cheap and plentiful, so much so that it is available at every pump, all across America. Now this foreign oil is becoming exceedingly expensive, with hard pressed Americans being forced to pay $4-$5 gasoline.
    This is why I think the Nat Gas Act is the right thing to support. You are not being asked to support unfair legislation that favors one energy commodity over another; you are in fact being asked to level the energy playing field, to help a local source to supply cheaper, cleaner energy to cash-strapped and environmentally concerned Americans.
    Call this affirmative energy action.
    Julian Andrew Wong
    Singapore

Afghanistan Taliban Vow Revenge For Civilians Killed By American Soldier


US soldiers keep watch at the entrance of a military base near Alkozai village following the shooting of Afghan civilians allegedly committed by a rogue US soldier in Panjwayi district, Kandahar province on March 11, 2012. An AFP reporter counted 16 bodies -- including women and children -- in three Afghan houses after a rogue US soldier walked out of his base and began shooting civilians early Sunday. NATO's International Security Assistance Force said it had arrested a soldier 'in connection to an incident that resulted in Afghan casualties in Kandahar province', without giving a figure for the dead or wounded. (JANGIR/AFP/Getty Images)
Afghanistan Taliban Revenge
Anar Gul gestures to the body of her grandchild, who was allegedly killed by a U.S. service member in Panjwai, Kandahar province south of Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, March. 11, 2012. Afghan President Hamid Karzai says a U.S. service member has killed more than a dozen people in a shooting including nine children and three women. Karzai called the attack Sunday "an assassination" and demanded an explanation from the United States. (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan)



MIRWAIS KHAN and SEBASTIAN ABBOT 03/12/12 02:00 PM ET

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — A young Afghan man recounted on Monday the harrowing scene in his home as a lone U.S. soldier moved stealthily through it during a killing spree, then crouched down and shot his father in the thigh as he emerged from the bedroom in the deep of night.
The soldier, now in U.S. custody, is accused of killing 16 Afghan civilians in their homes overnight between Saturday and Sunday and then burning some of their corpses. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said nine of those killed were children and three were women.
"He was walking around taking up positions in the house – in two or three places like he was searching," said 26-year-old witness Mohammad Zahir, who watched the gunman while hiding in another room. "He was on his knees when he shot my father" in the thigh, he told The Associated Press. His father was wounded but survived.
Even before the shootings, anti-Americanism was already boiling in Afghanistan over U.S. troops burning Muslim holy books, including Qurans, last month on an American base. The burnings came to light soon after a video purporting to show four Marines urinating on Taliban corpses was posted on the Internet in January.
Now, another wave of anti-foreigner hatred could threaten the entire future of the U.S.-led coalition's mission in Afghanistan. The recent events have not only infuriated the Afghan people and leaders, but have also raised doubts among U.S. political figures that the long and costly war is worth the sacrifice in lives and money.
NATO and member countries said the slayings are a blow to the alliance's efforts to cultivate trust, but that it will not affect the timeline to hand over security operations by the end of 2014. The White House said U.S. objectives in Afghanistan will not change because of the killings.
Zahir described the scene that unfolded when the assailant came to his house before dawn.
"I heard a gunshot. When I came out of my room, somebody entered our house. He was in a NATO forces uniform. I didn't see his face because it was dark," he said.
Zahir said he quickly went into another room in the house, where animals are penned.



"After that, I saw him moving to different areas of the house – like he was searching," he said.
His father, unarmed, then took a few steps out of his bedroom door, Zahir recalled.
"He was not holding anything – not even a cup of tea," Zahir said. Then he fired.
"My mother was pulling my father into the room. I put a cloth on his wound," he said.
After the gunman left, Zahir said he heard gunshots near the house again. He stayed in hiding for a few minutes to make sure he was gone.
The motives of the shooter and most details about him, including his name, are still not known.
The suspect, who has been placed in pretrial confinement in Kandahar, is an Army staff sergeant who has been in the military for 11 years. The soldier, who is married with two children, served three tours in Iraq. He began his first deployment to Afghanistan in December, according to a Congressional source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
The soldier with the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. The soldier's unit was attached on Feb. 1 to Camp Belambai, home to a village stability force, the Congressional source said. The village stability units pair special operations troops with villagers chosen by community elders to become essentially a sanctioned armed neighborhood watch.
The main responsibility of the soldier was camp security and helping protect the forces stationed at the small combat outpost, said Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings, another spokesman for the coalition. It is not known what type of job he did at the base. The soldier was not assigned to a special operations unit and has no special operations training, Cummings said.
He attacked two small villages very close to his base in southern Kandahar province. An enraged Karzai called it "an assassination, an intentional killing of innocent civilians" that cannot be forgiven. He demanded an explanation from Washington.
Tensions between Afghanistan and the United States rocketed last month after word of the Quran burnings got out. President Barack Obama said the burnings were a mistake and apologized.
But the strains had appeared to be easing as recently as Friday, when the two governments signed a memorandum of understanding about the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan control – a key step toward an eventual strategic partnership to govern U.S. forces in the country.
In Afghanistan's parliament on Monday, however, lawmakers called for a halt to negotiations on the strategic partnership document until it is clear that soldier behind the shooting rampage is facing justice in Afghan courts.
"We said to Karzai: If you sign that document, you are betraying your country," said Shikiba Ashimi, a parliamentarian from Kandahar. "The U.S. should be very careful. It is sabotaging the atmosphere of this strategic partnership."
Under the Military Technical Agreement between Afghanistan and the U.S., if legal proceedings have to be carried out regarding any wrongdoing by a service member, it will be handled under U.S. military law.
In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that despite the killings, Britain, the United States and their allies must stay the course they have set to return Afghanistan to local control in the next few years.
"One's heart just goes out to those families in Kandahar who have suffered these appalling losses," Cameron said.
The public response to the shootings so far has been calmer than the six days of violent protests and clashes that erupted after Qurans were burned at Bagram Air Field. There were no signs of protests Monday.
Afghan forces also turned their guns on their supposed allies in the aftermath of the Quran burnings, killing six U.S. troops.
The Taliban vowed revenge. It also claimed responsibility for several attacks last month that the group said were retaliation for the Americans burning Qurans.
The al-Qaida-linked militant group said in a statement on their website that "sick-minded American savages" committed the "blood-soaked and inhumane crime" in a rural region that is the cradle of the Taliban and where coalition forces have fought for control for years.
U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan have stepped up security following the shootings out of concern about retaliatory attacks. The U.S. Embassy has also warned American citizens in Afghanistan about the possibility of reprisals. As standard practice, the coalition increased security following the shootings out of concern about retaliatory attacks, said German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a coalition spokesman.
Two U.S. defense officials said an investigation has been started by the Army Criminal Investigation Division, but that it was too soon to say when any charges might be filed. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the issue. Army officials are reviewing his complete deployment and medical history, the congressional source said.
There have been varying reports about the distances from the base to the two villages where the shootings occurred.
The Congressional source said one village was about 800 meters (yards) south of the base and the other was about 500 meters north.
The Afghan Defense Ministry said, however, that the gunman left the base in Panjwai district and walked about 1,800 meters (one mile) to Balandi village. Villagers described how they cowered in fear around 3 a.m. as gunshots rang out and the soldier roamed from house to house, firing on those inside. They said he entered three homes in all and set fire to some of the bodies after he killed them.
Eleven of the 12 civilians killed in Balandi were from the same family. The remaining victim was a neighbor.
From Balandi, the gunman walked roughly one mile to the village of Alkozai, which was only about 500 meters from the American military base. There the gunman killed four people in one house and then moved to Zahir's house, where he shot his father in the leg.
U.S. officials said initial reports indicated that the soldier returned to his base after the shootings and turned himself in.
Some Afghan officials and local villagers expressed doubt that a single U.S. soldier could have carried out all the killings and burned the bodies afterward.
"It is not possible for only one American soldier to come out of his base, kill a number of people far away, burn the bodies, go to another house and kill civilians there, then walk at least 2 kilometers and enter another house, kill civilians and burn them," said Abdul Rahim Ayubi, a lawmaker from Kandahar province who visited the area on Monday.
Some villagers also told officials there were multiple soldiers and heard shooting from different directions. But many others said they only saw a single soldier.
NATO insisted there was only one gunman.
"There's no indication that there was more than one shooter," Cummings said.
Agha Lalia, member of the Kandahar provincial council who is from Panjwai district, said he talked to two people who were injured in the shooting at a hospital at Kandahar Air Field, where they are being treated by coalition medical personnel. Both said they only saw one soldier shooting.


The body of an Afghan child, allegedly shot by a rogue US soldier, are seen with other bodies in the back of a truck in Alkozai village of Panjwayi district, Kandahar province on March 11, 2012. An AFP reporter counted 16 bodies -- including women and children -- in three Afghan houses after a rogue US soldier walked out of his base and began shooting civilians early Sunday. NATO's International Security Assistance Force said it had arrested a soldier 'in connection to an incident that resulted in Afghan casualties in Kandahar province', without giving a figure for the dead or wounded. (JANGIR/AFP/Getty Images)

A mourner cries over the bodies of Afghan civilians, allegedly shot by a rogue US soldier, seen loaded into the back of a truck in Alkozai village of Panjwayi district, Kandahar province on March 11, 2012. An AFP reporter counted 16 bodies -- including women and children -- in three Afghan houses after a rogue US soldier walked out of his base and began shooting civilians early Sunday. NATO's International Security Assistance Force said it had arrested a soldier 'in connection to an incident that resulted in Afghan casualties in Kandahar province', without giving a figure for the dead or wounded. (JANGIR/AFP/Getty Images)

An Afghan man sits in the back of a bus with the body of a person who was allegedly killed by a U.S. service member in Panjwai, Kandahar province south of Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, March 11, 2012. Afghan President Hamid Karzai says a U.S. service member has killed more than a dozen people in a shooting including nine children and three women. Karzai called the attack Sunday "an assassination" and demanded an explanation from the United States. He says several people were also wounded in the attack on two villages near a U.S. base in the southern province of Kandahar. (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan)
An Afghan soldier is seen in a guard tower at a military base as civilians gather outside in Panjwai, Kandahar province south of Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, March 11, 2012. Afghan President Hamid Karzai says a U.S. service member has killed more than a dozen people in a shooting including nine children and three women. Karzai called the attack Sunday "an assassination" and demanded an explanation from the United States. He says several people were also wounded in the attack on two villages near a U.S. base in the southern province of Kandahar. (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan)

Who would bomb Iran?

Santorum, Romney, Gingrich & Paul on the nuclear threat: Character Sketch

Trailing by a double-digit margin in the polls in the waning weeks of his 2006 Senate reelection campaign in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum went nuclear. He did so not by launching vicious new attacks on his soon-to-be-victorious Democratic opponent, Bob Casey, but by indulging his own obsession with mushroom-cloud politics. He began speaking incessantly about the potential threat from a nuclear-armed Iran.
This was not a clever consultant's ploy to give the two-term Pennsylvania senator an aura of foreign-policy gravitas. Rather it was Santorum's laudable decision--knowing he was politically doomed--to go down fighting with an issue that aroused his passions. Santorum, who can be guilty himself of Newt Gingrich-style grandiosity, modeled himself after Winston Churchill and his thunderous warnings about Nazi Germany from the parliamentary backbenches in the 1930s. Santorum labeled his oft-delivered speech on the Iranian menace as "The Gathering Storm," taking its title from the first volume of Churchill's postwar memoirs.
Santorum did not stint with his 1930s jack-booted metaphors as he linked the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the usual suspects. "Ahmadinejad, like Hitler and Mussolini, intends to conquer the world," Santorum said in an apocalyptic tone that suggested that Iran (population: 70 million) was size of China. "This is not a hidden agenda. His goal is to establish a caliphate. Like Khrushchev, he wants a nuclear arsenal, and he is building the same sort of frightening global alliances that enabled the Soviet Union to put missiles near us."
These days, Santorum is under fire for his comments in 2008 that Satan stalks America. But Santorum's 2006 speech about Iran (cue the 1979 clip of the Ayatollah Khomeini excoriating America as "the Great Satan") is far more relevant to the Oval Office. The challenge for any president is how to interpret ambiguous national-security information, whether it is about Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction or the status of the Iranian nuclear program. Santorum's fire-bell warnings about Iran strongly suggest that he is a disciple of the Dick Cheney better-wrong-too-early-than-right-too-late school of aggressive intervention.
This is not to say that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich raise doves as a hobby. In Romney's major foreign policy address last October, he unequivocally if vaguely declared, "Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable." Campaigning in Ohio earlier this month, Gingrich warned, "You think about an Iranian nuclear weapon. You think about the dangers to Cleveland, or to Columbus, or to Cincinnati, or to New York." The former House speaker did not explain how or why Iran, which has not yet developed an operational nuclear weapon, intends to target Cincinnati.
Ron Paul is the uncompromising Republican naysayer about a potential war over Iran's nuclear ambitions. "The greatest danger is overreacting," Paul said during a December debate. "That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq." There is a constituency in American politics for this kind of skepticism about preventive war. Unfortunately for Paul, it isn't in the Republican Party. Three-quarters (74 percent) of all GOP voters are willing to support as a last resort American military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, according to a Pew Research Center poll, conducted earlier this month. And three-fifths (62 percent) of these Republicans would cheer an Israel assault on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Predicting a president's foreign policy based on his campaign rhetoric can be as risky as buying diamonds off the Internet cash in advance. During the 2008 primaries, Barack Obama came under repeated attack from Hillary Clinton for his proudly expressed willingness to negotiate with countries like Iran without preconditions. Nearly four years later that Obama position has been filed away in a drawer marked, "Wiser Reflections After Taking Office." George W. Bush needed a similar file. In a 2000 debate with Al Gore, Bush sniffed, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." As president, Bush, of course, had to deal with the aftermath of what's called "mission accomplished."
Romney is clearly on the hawkish side of the foreign-policy divide. In a 2007 presidential campaign speech to a Jewish audience, Romney played up the Hitler-at-Munich analogy: "In the face of what is an existential threat from jihadists, many in the Democratic Party are in the most serious delusional and politically driven denial since Neville Chamberlain." (A personal plea to politicians in both parties: Nearly 75 years later, can we drop this rhetorical fixation on British pre-war appeasement? The presidential passion to emulate Churchill rather than Chamberlain has contributed to the march of folly from Vietnam to Iraq).
Yet listening carefully to Romney offers hints of a candidate reluctant to be hamstrung by foreign-policy commitments before he is inaugurated. When asked about a possible American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in a December interview with the Washington Examiner, Romney stressed the military ambiguities: "The endgame begins with thoroughly understanding the options that we have. That's not something that I've been briefed upon. I have not sat down with U.S. military and said, 'All right, let's look at the widest array of military options that we have.'" Every prudent presidential candidate avoids offering too many specifics in response to hypothetical national-security questions. But Romney's full answer on Iran in his Examiner interview prompted James Lindsay, a senior vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations, to conclude, "So even if the political rhetoric about Iran gets red hot on the campaign trail, don't assume that a Romney administration would be hell-bent on taking military action against Tehran."
Gingrich is even more difficult to categorize on Iran. The former House speaker and fading presidential contender can glibly describe America as already waging World War III (as he did in 2006) and direly depict a nuclear-armed Iran as "the biggest national security threat of the next 10 years." But Gingrich--in sharp contrast to Santorum--is also a skeptic about the "bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" chorus and its confidence that military strikes can eliminate Tehran's nuclear capacity. During a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with Jon Huntsman (remember him?) in New Hampshire in December, Gingrich called the bombs-away option "a fantasy" because Iran has located so much of its nuclear program in hardened underground sites. The Gingrich cheap-hawk approach would pivot around covert action to further disrupt Iranian nuclear development and emphasize permanent regime change--rather than short-term military action--as the overriding goal of American policy.
Five years after he sounded the tocsin about Iran's nuclear threat, Santorum remains confident about the national-security remedy. Appearing on Meet the Press in January, Santorum said, "We will degrade those facilities through air strikes, and make it very public that we're doing that." That is the Santorum difference: no ambiguity and no hypocrisy. It explains why the thought of the sweater-vested former senator in the Oval Office is either--depending on your political point of view--alluring or alarming.

Now is the time for Paul to pick up delegates

Strategy is to convert nonbinding straw-poll, caucus results his way

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, addressing in a crowd in North Dakota on Tuesday, is banking on winning over delegates in states where straw-poll and caucus results are not binding. His supporters will be contacting those delegates. (Associated Press)
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, addressing in a crowd in North Dakota on Tuesday, is banking on winning over delegates in states where straw-poll and caucus results are not binding. His supporters will be contacting those delegates. (Associated Press)
Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign always has banked on playing the caucus game to try to maximize his support where it counts — the delegates who will attend the national convention this summer in Tampa, Fla.
This week that strategy gets its first test in Iowa and Wyoming, where earlier nonbinding straw polls begin to turn into those convention delegates. Mr. Paul is counting on his small cadre of dedicated supporters to be the ones fighting to win those delegate seats.
“The real winnowing will happen Saturday,” said Drew Ivers, Mr. Paul’s Iowa campaign chairman, adding that the campaign is playing out the process by contacting all of the delegates and asking them to support Mr. Paul going forward.
Iowa held its precinct caucuses on Jan. 3, and Rick Santorum won the presidential preference straw poll there, while Mr. Paul came in third. But those results aren’t binding.
The state’s actual delegates to the GOP’s national convention are chosen through a convoluted process that began with delegates being elected at the precincts. They then attend district and state conventions, where the national delegates are actually chosen — and those delegates aren’t bound to follow the results of the Jan. 3 straw poll.
That same process already is playing out in Wyoming, where Mitt Romney won last month’s caucuses but the real voting is happening at county conventions this week.
With some of those counties already reporting, Mr. Romney is projected to have won five delegates, Mr. Paul to have won one and Mr. Santorum and Newt Gingrich to have none.
Mr. Paul has vowed all along that his supporters, being committed to his cause, would be more likely to turn out for the subsequent conventions and therefore are likely to be better represented in the eventual slate of delegates that caucus states send to Tampa.
He’ll need all the help he can get because he has failed to win any of the 23 primaries and caucuses that have been held so far and trails badly in delegate projections.
It’s a surprise given the level of enthusiasm he earns on the campaign trail.
In Washington over the past month, Mr. Paul held six rallies that his campaign said were attended by more than 7,000 people combined. But when time came for the GOP’s caucuses, he won just 12,594 votes.
That indicates a core group of very dedicated supporters but also underscores the trouble he has had reaching out to voters beyond that core.
In Idaho, the situation was even worse: He held seven rallies that his campaign said attracted more than 12,000 people, but he won only slightly more than 8,000 votes in the caucuses on Super Tuesday. That suggests that more people heard him speak than were willing to show up and caucus for him.
Sensing worry among his followers, Mr. Paul sent an email to them Thursday saying his delegate strategy is intact after Super Tuesday.
“In fact, while I didn’t win any state’s straw polls, my team expects me to win a plurality of delegates in at least three states, as well as outright majorities in two more of the states that have already started their process,” he said.
In Iowa, converting support into votes is going to be difficult at the beginning of a political revolution like the one the campaign hopes to spark, Mr. Ivers said.
“A revolution means new activity. So you’ve got new people who are starting to wake up, get engaged in the political process, who up until now have not been engaged in the political process,” he said. “A lot of them still don’t go to the caucus, even though they say this is the right guy even though I’m behind him 100 percent, I just don’t normally go to caucuses.”
He said Mr. Paul’s support has grown exponentially from his 2008 presidential bid and predicted it would quadruple in the next four years.
Indeed, a Washington Times analysis of votes so far shows Mr. Paul has more than doubled his support in the 23 states that have voted so far, from less than 430,000 in 2008 to more than 930,000 this year.
He has done particularly well in caucuses, winning about 20 percent of all votes in those contests while averaging only about 10 percent of the vote in primary states.
Sponsored Link: Do you have this “currency“ in your emergency survival kit? When disaster strikes you should have a 72-hour kit you can grab at a moment’s notice. But in addition to food and water, there’s a unique “currency“ you should have in your kit. Click here to find out what it is.


The Newtonian conundrum: Has Gingrich changed since the 1990s?

 Character Sketch



Gingrich on the trail. (AP/Charlie Neibergall)

CHARLESTON, S.C.--Precisely a year from today in Washington, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will swear in the next president. And, in order of likelihood, standing there with his left hand on the Bible and his right hand in the air will either be a reelected Barack Obama, a determined Mitt Romney or (gulp) a vindicated Newt Gingrich.
Yes, Newt Gingrich, a 68-year-old man who was last elected to office in 1998, a candidate whose ex-wife is crusading against him on television, a contender who has been knocked out so many times in this campaign that he should be punch drunk, is now the third most likely person in this land of 300 million people to be the next president. Before vulnerable Democrats lapse into cardiac arrest, I should stress that the odds of a Gingrich presidency are still dauntingly long. But unlike 10 days ago, following well-I-did-beat-Rick-Perry finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, President Gingrich is now a plausible possibility.
"So what would a Gingrich presidency be like?"
In a speech to a South Carolina business group on Tuesday in Columbia, Gingrich himself posed just that question as a way of his introducing his tax-cutting economic plan. But for some Republican voters the question brings to mind the former House speaker's temperament--and, to be blunt, whether he has the right emotional makeup to be entrusted with the codes to nuclear weapons. The Romney campaign has been hammering this theme in South Carolina by releasing a web ad featuring Susan Molinari, who served in the House with Gingrich, railing against his lack of discipline as speaker and calling his management style "leadership by chaos."
Alternately bombastic and visionary, self-important and cerebral, Gingrich is certain to be hounded by these type of questions throughout his campaign. During Thursday night's debate, Rick Santorum attacked Gingrich for his "grandiosity" and the Romney campaign put out a Newt's-greatest-hits press release headlined, "I Think Grandiose Thoughts." Gingrich underscored this theme when he described himself as a "big ideas, big solutions" nontraditional candidate who erred by beginning his campaign with "regular consultants and tried to figure out how to be a normal candidate." (You can almost imagine the attack ad: "Gingrich admits he's not a 'normal candidate.' Do we really want someone abnormal in the Oval Office?")
The Gingrich candidacy poses a Newtonian conundrum: Can a political leader in his late sixties change? This is a serious question rather than as a cynical reference to the illusory "New Nixon" who was trotted out for the 1968 presidential campaign. During a November Fox News interview with Sean Hannity, Gingrich declared, "I think I'm much more mature than I was when I was speaker."
Sure, Gingrich can be dismissed as an unreliable narrator on the subject of his late-in-life conversion to maturity. But I am also reflecting on a conversation that I had with Robert McFarlane, a Gingrich supporter who was Ronald Reagan's national security advisor, in the spin room after a debate just before the New Hampshire primary.
"The Newt that I traveled with in the last months is a much more mature, cerebral figure than when he left office," McFarlane told me. "I have seen his steadiness over the last six months." What gives McFarlane credibility in my book is that sadly he knows all too well the emotional rigors that accompany life inside the corridors of power--the former Reagan aide attempted suicide in 1987 from shame over his involvement in the Iran-contra scandal.
What gives the Gingrich candidacy heft is that, alone among the remaining Republican contenders, the former House speaker radiates a well-developed view of the presidency that goes beyond applause lines and stances on issues. If you listen carefully to Gingrich on the campaign trail, you can sense that he has thought about how to wield the powers of the office. In his stump speech, Gingrich declares: "I will sign between 100 and 200 executive orders on the first day within two hours of the inaugural address. The first will abolish all the White House czars." There is something quintessentially Gingrichian about the numerical specificity of his projected 100 to 200 executive orders. The number may be entirely made up, but Gingrich conveys the impression that he could rattle them off in sequence.
Part of the Gingrich difference is that Newt understands, at least in theory, how to negotiate. Offering a slightly airbrushed account of the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996 that ended up strengthening Bill Clinton's bargaining position, Gingrich said in Columbia: "Clinton and I had a rhythm: Hold a press conference and beat each other up--and then go to work. And we would sit in a meeting and he would say to me, 'This is what I have to do and this is what I can do. Now what do you have to have and what can you do?'"
This is a world-shaking historical insight. (Whoops, I'm sounding like Newt). But, in truth, this is how smart politicians and presidents negotiate. They do not govern by fiat. They cannot unilaterally transform the tax code or automatically rewrite Medicare legislation. Instead, they get their political adversaries to set priorities: What is politically off-limits and what is negotiable? It is within those margins that legislation like welfare reform can not only pass Congress but also be signed into law by the president. Gingrich appears to understand that lesson, even though his ability to put it into practice remains debatable.
Gingrich's stump speech offers another hint of the Newtonian laws of political compromise. In Columbia, he said that as president, "I would reach out to every Democrat [in Congress], not just the leadership." Using as an example the efforts to revitalize the impoverished "corridor of shame" along the planned route of I-73 in South Carolina, Gingrich said that as president he would ask Democrats in Congress: "Do you want to help get it done or not? If not, I won't call you. If you want to, we're in business." Again, this is how an activist president like Lyndon Johnson would use the levers of power: telling legislators, in effect, that you have to give to get.
As a presidential candidate, free-wheelin' Newt offers the perfect counterpoint to PowerPoint Mitt. The real question as the race for the Republican nomination morphs from a cakewalk into a contest is whether there is indeed a New Newt, or whether Gingrich's claim to newfound maturity is just another artful reinvention by the Great Survivor of Republican politics.

‘The Real Romney’ looks at the first quant who would be president:

 Character Sketch


COLUMBIA, S.C.--With the Republican nomination shimmering just over the horizon, Mitt Romney dominated the news at noon Tuesday on WIS, the NBC affiliate here. A flashback to Monday night's Republican debate described it as "Mitt Romney against the rest." A new South Carolina poll, sponsored by Monmouth University, showed Romney leading the GOP five-pack, even among evangelical voters. Sid Bedingfield, a journalism professor at the University of South Carolina, cautioned, "It's no secret that conservatives are not in love with Mitt Romney." And there was no break from the midday Mittathon when the newscast paused for commercials: A 30-second spot sponsored by a shadowy independent group called Citizens for a Working America PAC heralded Romney as the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama.
Barring a dramatic upset in next Saturday's South Carolina primary or a political upheaval soon thereafter, voters will have more than nine months until the November election to contemplate Romney as the nation's 45th president. No White House candidate can stand public scrutiny for that long without new revelations or, at least, new theories about what makes him tick. But the contours of the Romney story are unlikely to change--a devoted son of a failed presidential candidate; devout Mormon and dedicated family man; data-driven (and maybe cold-hearted) business consultant and leveraged buyout executive; non-ideological one-term governor of Massachusetts; and disciplined right-wing presidential candidate who has been running virtually nonstop since 2007.
Assuming Romney is indeed the Republican Party's presidential nominee, the jumping off point for all future explorations into his political and business record will be The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, which was published Tuesday. The authors, Boston Globe reporters assisted by the rest of the newspaper's staff, have written a shrewd and fair-minded biography of the cautious and unruffled front-runner, a candidate who appears to be basing every public comment and gesture on research from a PowerPoint presentation (his favorite form of briefing).
The Real Romney contains little that is likely to dominate the headlines this week or influence Saturday's voting in South Carolina. But make no mistake, this book is important. It offers intriguing insights about Romney, who would be the first president to see the world through the prism of quantitative business analysis rather than backslapping politics. (George W. Bush, who was a year behind Romney at Harvard Business School, also had an M.B.A., but as a presidential candidate in 2000 and 2004 he campaigned as a decisive C.E.O. rather than a dedicated quant who believes that cosmic truth can be found in numbers.)
Here are some thoughts about how man in The Real Romney might govern from the Oval Office:
"It was good training for how life works. I mean, rejection of one kind of another is going to be an important part of everyone's life."
That was the mature Romney, running for governor in 2002, looking back on his two and a half years as a Mormon missionary in France during the late 1960s. What comes through in the Globe's telling was the austere isolation of the missionary experience: no television, no telephone, and minimal contact with home. Just a regimented life of prayer, French studies and knocking on doors in quest of converts.
Most presidents (think Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton or both Bushes) have never spent more than a stray afternoon living the contemplative life. But looking ahead to the November election, it is fascinating that Romney's missionary years have an eerie similarity to Barack Obama's stint as a community organizer in Chicago. (Yes, their motivations were starkly different). Like Romney, who found between 10 and 20 French converts, Obama had minimal success in creating anything lasting amid the abandoned steel mills of 1980s Chicago. Although, Obama was not under religious discipline, his life in those days was monkish. As Obama wrote in Dreams from My Father, "When I wasn't working, the weekends would usually find me alone in an empty apartment, making do with the company of books."
Holding oneself aloof may be a Romney tradition. In a 1967 magazine profile, Life described presidential candidate George Romney as "a loner who is really close to one person, Lenore," his wife.
"A wall. A shell. A mask. There are many names for it, but many who have known or worked with Romney say the same thing: he carries himself as a man apart, a man who sometimes seems to be looking not into your eyes, but past them."
In this passage, Kranish and Helman are summarizing dozens of interviews depicting Romney as driven and task-oriented, congenitally impatient with the small social niceties that leaven day-to-day life. Outside his family and a small group of longtime, mostly Mormon friends, Romney tends to regard other people as data points rather than as objects of curiosity. At Bain Capital, where he made his fortune, Romney encouraged debate and disagreement within the formal structure of company decision-making. As Romney explained his management style at a 2007 conference, "Get people of different background and experience who disagree with each other and are willing to debate and argue." This adversarial method combined Romney's law-school training and the case-study method central to the Harvard Business School.
There is no single personality type that automatically produces successful presidents. But, as we have glimpsed with Obama, there is a downside to a leader who is swaddled in bubble wrap of his own making. Anyone elected without close political intimates (truth-tellers like Senator Richard Russell for L.B.J. or Jim Baker for George H.W. Bush) can be victimized by the sycophancy that naturally surrounds a president. Even if a President Romney were to demand candor, aides would be apt to bow to his whims and tell him what he wanted to hear. That is how it is in all White Houses, as bad news has a way of being diverted and distracted before it gets to the Oval Office.
Driving around New Hampshire in the months before the 2008 primary, Romney insisted on traveling in a personal Fortress of Solitude, accompanied only by his longtime press secretary, Eric Fehrnstrom. In contrast, most presidential candidates use drive time as a way of cementing the loyalties of party activists and picking local political intelligence. Romney did not "apply the old adage about management by walking around," Brian Keough, who headed Romney's 2008 New Hampshire primary campaign, complained to the Globe reporters. "If you want to know how things are going on the factory floor, go talk to the factory workers." Unless the cameras are on, such unstructured banter is the antithesis of the Romney style.
"This start was nothing like the typical small business. It was a nearly risk-free opportunity with substantial financial backing — and a lucrative fallback plan in case of failure."
The candidate's more than two decades at Bain, as The Real Romney summarizes them, did not fit into either the create-jobs mythology that he pushes in campaign debates or his critics' portrait of a gimlet-eyed cost-cutter distributing pink slips like confetti. Romney, who the biography describes as "deeply risk averse," was hesitant to leave the structured environment of business consulting to head the company's new private-equity arm. Ultimately, Romney the Reluctant Capitalist negotiated a sweetheart deal under which the partners at Bain Consulting would provide the seed funding to launch Bain Capital. And, if the new venture somehow went south, Romney would get his old consulting job back complete with retroactive raises. Romney, in fact, was so cautious that he concocted in advance with the firm's founder, Bill Bain, a cover story to explain away any future failure.
What should not be lost in the campaign debates over Romney's activities at Bain is how adroit an investor he was. According to a private analysis of Romney's record conducted by Deutsche Bank, Bain Capital made money on roughly half of its investments. "Overall, though, the numbers were stunning," Kranish and Holman write. "Bain was nearly doubling its investors' money annually, achieving one of the best track records in the business." Bain Capital tended to concentrate on the industries that 1950s auto executive George Romney might understand: makers of wheel rims and photo albums. For all of Romney's political boasting about helping launch Staples, Bain invested only a paltry $2.5 million in the company before selling its interest after three years for $13 million.
Romney's greatest business triumph had nothing to do with creating new companies, and everything to do with saving the Bain brand. In the early 1990s, the eight original partners, who pre-dated Romney at Bain Consulting, wanted to cash out. The company foolishly borrowed $200 million to buy back their holdings just as the 1991 recession hit. With Bain Consulting on the cusp of bankruptcy, Romney was brought in from the sister firm down to the hall to devise a rescue plan. The Romney solution inflicted a heavy dose of pain on all concerned: the original partners had to give up $100 million in equity; nearly 20 percent of Bain's worldwide work force were laid off; the compensation for the remaining business consultants was cut; and creditors were forced to take 80 percent on the dollar. But Bain survived and eventually prospered. It was, in the words of Kranish and Helman, "the very definition of the kind of 'turnaround' for which Romney would claim expertise."
"My usual approach has been to set the strategic vision for the enterprise and then work with the executive vice presidents to implement that strategy."
Those were Romney's words to a group of state legislators in 2003, a few weeks after he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor. In the annals of governing, it is hard to imagine a more maladroit way of courting independent legislators than likening them to executive vice presidents in a Romney-run enterprise. This disdain for politics had its virtues. Romney as governor ran a virtually scandal-free administration in which patronage took a back seat to merit. And although it would be a tad embarrassing to stress this point on a debate stage while other Republicans are threatening activist judges, Romney's judicial picks as governor were shaped far more by merit than ideology.
The unanswered question in The Real Romney is how much has this relentless businessman learned about how politics really works in his decade as governor and presidential candidate. As Kranish and Helman tell it, after his failed 2008 presidential bid, "Romney closely analyzed the campaign … he wallowed in the data, crunched the numbers and evaluated the results thoroughly."
It is hard to imagine another politician analyzing defeat in such a systematic manner. It is also hard to capture the essence of politics through such a bloodless exercise. Romney, in fact, brings to mind Louis Armstrong's immortal response to the question of what is jazz: "If you don't know, don't mess with it." Maybe these days, Romney knows. Or maybe the Republican Party is embarking on a grand experiment to test whether business methods can really succeed in the political arena--and, ultimately, if Romney is lucky, in the White House.

President’s FY 2013 Budget Request for Department of Defense (February 28, 2012)(Senate)

Was not embed able until now.


Additional Materials
Transcript of Chairman Conrad's Remarks
Charts Used During the Hearing
Photos Taken During the Hearing

Witness Statements


DOD Releases Fiscal 2013 Budget Proposal

| Budget Briefing |Go and see all pertinent information on the Defense Budget

State Department Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (February 29, 2012)(House)


Feb 29, 2012

House Committee Foreign Affairs
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified on her department's fiscal year 2013 budget request.

State Department Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (February 28, 2012)(Senate)


Feb. 28, 2012

Senate Committee Foreign Relations
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified on her department's fiscal year 2013 budget request. She answered questions on Russia entering the World Trade Organization, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran. She talked about the sanctions against Iran and the possible effects of hose sanctions on oil prices. She also addressed U.S. military troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Defense Department Fiscal Year 2013 Budget(February 29, 2012)(House)


Feb. 29, 2012

House Committee Budget
Defense Department officials testified about the department's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Among the topics they addressed were proposed spending cuts, the potential impact of sequestration based on the 2011 debt ceiling agreement, and strategic planning.