White House Graphic Distorts Impact of Climate Change

    As Earth Day approaches, the White House is once again pushing action on climate change, presenting a rather stark contrast between action and inaction on carbon emissions. Monday, the following graphic appeared in a White House tweet, presenting almost a night-and-day difference between the status quo and adopting the president's policies:

    The way in which the White House chose to present the alternatives, however, seems to be designed to exaggerate the difference between the two.

     Although both the graphic and tweet display a link to the Climate Change page on the White House website, the map showing worldwide temperature variances does not appear there, although the same graphic has appeared several times in the past on the White House Twitter account. 

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, does present similar maps on its website. The following graphic shows low emissions, medium-high emissions, and high emissions scenarios during three time periods: 2011-2030; 2046-2065; and 2080-2099:

     The White House apparently chose to present only the longest range projection, the one extending to the end of the 21st century. But by using a different color scheme than the EPA and by leaving out any actual reference to the period of time being portrayed, the White House overdramatizes the comparison. Rather than a more gradual transition from greens and yellows to oranges and reds, the White House scale abruptly changes at the seven-degree mark from a dull gold to a rather dark orange that is almost indistinguishable from the next color, a dark red that represents the nine to eleven degree range. The result is striking. Here again is the White House map:

And here is a composite map representing the world split in half like the White House map, except using the EPA maps for low emissions versus high emissions:

     The difference is still apparent, yet far different from the extraordinary contrast implied by the White House graphic. The White House did not respond to a request for the source of the map using for its graphic.
     Of course, those who question the models and projections that the White House, the EPA and others rely on to press their case for draconian reductions in emissions reject the premise that human activity is driving a catastrophic increase in global temperatures. These skeptics are not likely to be swayed by the above maps in any case. But by presenting nearly a century of projections in such a misleading way, the Obama administration appears to be trying to manipulate those sitting on the fence to buy into a doomsday scenario that calls for the president's policies to avoid endangering the entire planet.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

27.49 Percent of Everyone's Tax Bill Is Spent on Health Care

    Every year since 2011, the White House has used tax time to post a "Federal Taxpayer Receipt" showing taxpayers how their federal tax dollars are being spent. President Obama introduced the concept in his 2011 State of the Union address, and Wednesday the White House posted the fifth installment so taxpayers can see how "tax dollars are being spent on priorities like education, veterans benefits, and health care."
    While users can punch in their own tax liability and see dollar amounts assigned to each category, the figures are based on percentages from the prior fiscal year budget. Comparing those percentages from year to year, taxpayers can see that from 2012 to 2014, the percentage of their taxes going towards federal healthcare expenses has jumped 22 percent.
    In 2010, the year the Obamacare passed and was signed into law, the healthcare percentage was 24.10. The following year, 2011, it dropped to 23.7 percent, and in 2012 dropped still further to 22.45 percent. After this, however, the trend sharply reversed. In 2013 the healthcare share jumped to 25.19 percent, and the latest numbers posted this week for 2014 show the highest proportion yet at 27.49 percent, a full 22 percent increase over 2012. This means that for every dollar a taxpayer pays in 2014, an additional nickel is going to pay for healthcare that had been spent elsewhere in 2012. Presently, over 27 cents on every dollar is spent by the federal government on healthcare, primarily Medicaid and Medicare.
     One area impacted is national defense. For the five years of the National Taxpayer Receipt, the share for national defense was highest in 2010 at 26.3 percent. By 2014, this figure had fallen to 23.91 percent, a decrease of nine percent. Other budget areas have changed to varying degrees, such as veterans benefits which increased from 4.1 percent in 2010  to 5.93 percent in 2014, a 45 percent increase.
    Although the White House characterizes the Federal Taxpayer Receipts as a promise kept by President Obama to let taxpayers easily know where their tax dollars are going, the administration also used the opportunity to take a dig at Republicans, providing a link to "See how two starkly different tax plans would impact you" where viewers can read about the president's "tax cuts for the middle class" and the Republicans' "giveaways for the wealthy few." In the end, the White House doesn't just want taxpayers to know where their money is going, but where everyone else's is going, too.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House: Motherhood Is a 'Wage Penalty'

    In recognition of Equal Pay Day Tuesday, Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, wrote an entry on the White House blog entitled Five Facts About the Gender Pay Gap. While touching on a number of factors influencing the "gender pay gap", Stevenson cites "motherhood" as one such factor.
    However, rather than present it as a natural choice women make, along with their mates, to enhance their lives and in turn benefit society, "motherhood" is said to be "associated with a wage penalty and lower future career earnings." The article goes on to tout the career-earnings benefits that accrue from delaying childbirth and asserts that women who might otherwise leave the workforce could be persuaded to stay with better paid family and sick leave policies and "therefore bolster their lifelong earnings."
    The full write up on the impact of motherhood on the "gender pay gap" reads as follows:

4. Motherhood is associated with a wage penalty and lower future career earnings. One reason the gender wage gap has narrowed faster among younger women is that between 1980 and 2013, the median age of first birth rose from 22.6 to 26.0. Because motherhood is associated with a wage penalty and lower wage gains later in a woman’s career these delays in childbirth have helped narrow the pay gap. Research has shown that delaying child birth for one year can increase a woman’s total career earnings and experience by 9 percent. But research shows that a lack of paid leave is one reason mothers with infants leave the labor force and therefore earn less later in life. So policies providing paid sick and family leave encourage women to participate in the labor force and therefore bolster their lifelong earnings.

    Throughout the article, Stevenson seems reluctant to acknowledge that other legitimate differences in choices women make versus men can also contribute to a pay gap. She notes that "women are still more likely to work in lower-paying occupations and industries," but says it's important to find out "what we can do to make it easier for women to succeed in high paying occupations." Stevenson's explanation seems to suggest that if men behaved differently, women might be better represented in some traditionally male-dominated fields:

For instance, from college, women are under-represented in STEM fields, receiving only 35 percent in STEM bachelor degrees. However, even among women who begin a science-related career, more than half leave by mid-career, double the rate of men. Forty percent of those who leave cite a “macho” culture as the primary reason.

    Interestingly, as pointed out Tuesday by Mary Katharine Ham at Hot Air, Betsey Stevenson acknowledged, on Equal Pay Day 2014, the impact factors other than outright discrimination can have on the pay gap [emphasis added]:

Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged to reporters that the 77-cent figure did not reflect equal pay for equal work. “Seventy-seven cents captures the annual earnings of full-time, full-year women divided by the annual earnings of full-time, full-year men,” she said. “There are a lot of things that go into that 77-cents figure, there are a lot of things that contribute and no one’s trying to say that it’s all about discrimination, but I don’t think there’s a better figure.”

    Despite this 2014 admission, Stevenson, throughout her 2015 article, continually comes back to the "unexplained" differences in this "stubborn and troubling... large gender pay gap," at one point even suggesting that "even though employers are prohibited from discriminating, in cultures of pay secrecy, it is more difficult to enforce non-discrimination requirements." While grudgingly acknowledging that "women are more likely to take time out of the labor force and work fewer hours", the White House's message is clear: even though "American women have made tremendous strides", the work will not be over until the gap is gone.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House Gives Iran More Benefit of the Doubt Than Israel

    A pair of statements about an hour apart on Monday by two top Obama administration officials give a clear if jarring look into the funhouse mirror that is current US policy towards Iran and Israel. The two comments are recorded by CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta on his Twitter account:

Here are White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough's comments, made at the J Street Annual Conference, in fuller context:

After the election, the Prime Minister said that he had not changed his position, but for many in Israel and in the international community, such contradictory comments call into question his commitment to a two-state solution, as did his suggestion that the construction of settlements has a strategic purpose of dividing Palestinian communities and his claim that conditions in the larger Middle East must be more stable before a Palestinian state can be established. We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never made, or that they don’t raise questions about the Prime Minister’s commitment to achieving peace through direct negotiations.

    Over at the State Department, spokesperson Marie Harf piled on, despite clarification and even apologies from Netanyahu for some of his pre-election remarks:

MS. HARF: Well, the President, I think, addressed this in his interview that ran this weekend – that given [Netanyahu's] statements prior to the election, it’s going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing, when it comes to negotiations, that those are possible. So we are evaluating what’s taking place. And I think what we’re looking for now are actions and policies that demonstrate genuine commitment to a two-state solution, not more words. So that’s what we’ll be looking for. 

... I think it’s just understandably confusing for people about which of his comments to believe. And so that’s why -- 

...I think we just don’t know what to believe at this point.

    On the other hand, Ayatollah Khamenei's Nowruz (Iranian New Year) message called for "Death to America" even as he voiced support for the ongoing nuclear negotiations, blaming the US in advance if the talks fail. Rather than read this dichotomy as a reason to doubt Iran's sincerity (John Kerry, after all, said that we have "great respect" for the religious importance of the Ayatollah's elusive anti-nuke fatwa), White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest simply sees this as all the more reason to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. And as CNN reported (via Josh Kraushaar), the White House just sees the "Death to America" talk as "intended for a domestic political audience," not the first time the Obama administration has used that excuse for Iran.
    Even for veterans observers of middle eastern politics it must be disorienting to witness the benefit of the doubt extended to the worst state sponsor of terrorism whose "Supreme Leader" wishes "Death to America", while this nation's closest ally in the Middle East (and also a target of death wishes by Iran's Supreme Leader) is met with the wounded lament, "I think we just don’t know what to believe at this point." Given these responses, the Unites States may not be the only country to "re-evaluate our approach to the peace process."


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Sports Versus Science, White House Style

    At Monday's White House Science Fair, President Obama made it clear he wanted to make sure that science and scientists are given an appropriate level of attention and respect in American society, at least on par with our sports heroes:

"We’ve got to celebrate the winners of our science fairs as much as the winners of football or basketball" —President Obama #WHScienceFair
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 23, 2015

    A little later in the day, however, that message became a little less clear as the White House released the 2015 Easter Egg Roll Talent Line-up and Program. Among the invited guests are no fewer than forty-three individual athletes or sports teams:

This year’s participating athletes include:

Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir (NCAA Women’s Basketball)
Katrina Adams (US Tennis, Retired and US Tennis Association, president)
Davy Arnaud (D.C. United, MLS)
Chris Baker (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Tornado Alicia Black (Women’s Tennis)
Bobby Boswell (D.C. United, MLS)
Calais Campbell (Arizona Cardinals, NFL)
Chris Canty (Baltimore Ravens, NFL)
Victoria Duval (Women’s Tennis)
Sean Franklin (D.C. United, MLS)
Robert Griffin III (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Markus Halsti (D.C. United, MLS)
Roman Harper (Carolina Panthers, NFL)
Angela Hucles (US Soccer, Retired and president of Women’s Sports Foundation)
Ryan Kerrigan (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Stefan Kozlov (Tennis)
Matt Lawrence (NFL, Retired)
Esther Lofgren (US Olympic Rowing)
LaShawn Merritt (US Olympic Track and Field)
Ben Olsen (D.C. United head coach, MLS)
Niles Paul (Washington Redskins, NFL)
Chris Pontius (D.C. United, MLS)
Kelly Berger Rabil (US Lacrosse)
Paul Rabil (US Lacrosse)
Rajeev Ram (Tennis)
Noah Rubin (Tennis)
Briana Scurry (US Soccer, Retired)
Torrey Smith (San Francisco 49ers, NFL)
Steve Smith, Sr. (Baltimore Ravens, NFL)
Frances Tiafoe (Tennis)
Coco Vandeweghe (Women’s Tennis)
David Wagner (American Wheelchair Tennis)
DeMarcus Ware (Denver Broncos, NFL)
Dominique Wilkins (NBA, Retired and Basketball Hall of Famer)
Brandon Williams (Baltimore Ravens, NFL)
Doug Williams (NFL, Retired and Super Bowl XXII MVP)
Caroline Wozniacki (Women’s Tennis)
Boston Renegades (Women’s Football Alliance)
D.C. Divas (Women’s Football Alliance)
US Olympic Fencing Team
Washington Capitals (NHL)
Washington Mystics (WNBA)
Washington Wizards (NBA)

And representing science? This guy:

    Forty-three to one is probably not a ratio that is going to elevate scientists to sports-star status, but I guess you have to start somewhere. You go, Sid!

Billgate: President Obama and His Unpaid Bills [Updated]

    During various showdowns with Congress over the past few years (government shutdown, debt ceiling, sequester,) President Obama has declared that we've got to "pay our bills on time." Twice in the past week, President Obama has raised the issue of unpaid bills - but not those of the United States - his own personal bills.

President Obama, executive order signing , October 17, 2014:

I went to a restaurant up in New York when I was there during the General Assembly, and my credit card was rejected... And I was trying to explain to the waitress, no, I really think that I’ve been paying my bills.

 President Obama, Democratic fundraiser, October 20, 2014:

One of the nice things about being home is actually that it's a little bit like a time capsule. Because Michelle and I and the kids, we left so quickly that there’s still junk on my desk, including some unpaid bills (laughter) -- I think eventually they got paid -- but they're sort of stacked up. And messages, newspapers and all kinds of stuff.

    As Daniel Halper noted, the White House did not include the president's remarks about the unpaid bills in the official transcript of the October 20 remarks, but a White House pool reporter caught the omission.
    As they say in Washington, it's the cover up that gets you...


UPDATE:

After initially posting a transcript that completely omitted the "unpaid bills" remark...

...the White House transcript was updated to include "-- (inaudible) --":

Apparently the pool reporters' hearing is superior to that of the White House transcriptionist. Or there was a gap in the tape.

UPDATE 2: Aha! So there WAS an issue with the tape...

“There was a problem with the recording” says Josh Earnest about WH audio recording of the events comments
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) October 21, 2014

White House Seeks Ideas For Building a 'Solar System Civilization'

   While the rise of the barbarous Islamic State and the spread of the modern day plague of Ebola has many concerned about the state of civilization here on earth, some at the White House are turning their attention beyond our planet. A Tuesday entry on the White House blog Tuesday solicits ideas for "massless exploration and bootstrapping a Solar System civilization" and "how the [Obama] Administration, the private sector, philanthropists, the research community, and storytellers can further these goals."
    "Bootstrapping" is a term employed by Dr. Phillip Metzger, former NASA research physicist now on the University of Central Florida faculty. Metzger explains:

If we want to want to create a robust civilization in our solar system, more of the energy, raw materials, and equipment that we use in space has to come from space.  Launching everything we need from Earth is too expensive.  It would also be too expensive to send all of the factories required to manufacture everything necessary to support a solar system civilization. 

Ultimately what we need to do is to evolve a complete supply chain in space, utilizing the energy and resources of space along the way. We are calling this approach “bootstrapping” because of the old saying that you have to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.  Industry in space can start small then pull itself up to more advanced levels through its own productivity, minimizing the cost of launching things from Earth in the meantime.  Obviously, this isn’t going to happen overnight, but I think that it is the right long-term goal.

    Tom Kali, Deputy Director for Technology and Innovation at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and author of the White House blog post, says that NASA is already experimenting with 3D printing with the ultimate goal of printing replacement parts for spacecraft on long voyages, and even "self-replicating large structures" in future missions to Mars. The next rover to be sent to explore Mars will attempt to demonstrate something called "In-Situ Resource Utilization," which converts carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on Mars to oxygen to provide fuel and air for future manned missions.
    Anyone with ideas is invited to email the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Michelle Obama: 'Fashion Plays an Important Role in My Confidence'

    Clothes may not make the woman, but according to First Lady Michelle Obama, they don't hurt. Mrs. Obama hosted a "Fashion Workshop" for students and fashion industry representatives at the White House Wednesday, something she said had been a "dream" of hers:

But I want to thank everyone here for making this dream -- this was really a dream of mine in so many ways, to have this industry and all those who have supported me, who do so much for people to make us feel beautiful and ready to get out there.  

Then Mrs. Obama personalized it further:

Let me tell you, fashion plays an important role in my confidence.  My ability to do my job is really linked to how I feel about what I’m wearing. 

The first lady also encouraged the students to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to them by this White House visit:

If I were you, you all -- students sitting in here -- I would be either writing somebody in this room, I’d be getting a card.  I would get my personal notes together right now, because my letter would be addressed to whoever -- I was one of the students that was at the White House panel, I attended this workshop, we sat in the lunch, I mentioned something that they heard or a quote.  And I’d say I was -- you know, now is the time to get -- this is an opportunity.  This is a door... 

This is really special, so make the most of it.  It won’t be the last door that you have access to, but this door is real different. 

Mrs. Obama told the audience that she was taking her own advice on making the most of being in the White House:

And you have to think, when is the next time I’m going to be invited to the White House?  Because I think about that all the time.  (Laughter.)  I tell my kids, take a look around now, because you may never get invited back here again.

According to the White House transcript, her remarks were met with laughter and applause.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Biden: 'Why Would a Business Go' to Delaware?

    Vice President Joe Biden inadvertently may have produced the worst public service announcement for a state since  Maryland's Governor William Donald Schaefer referred to the Eastern Shore of his state as the "[outhouse]" of Maryland. Biden recently recorded a White House White Board video to boost the president's latest plan to spend billions on those ubiquitous "crumbling roads and bridges." To provide an example, Biden turned his sights on his home state, the "little state of Delaware":

[Transcript, 2:50 to 3:29] Take a look at my little state of Delaware.  I'm very proud of Delaware because I know it so well having represented it for so long.  There are 6,357 miles of public roads in the state of Delaware. Sixteen percent of them are in poor condition. How does that little state compete? Why would a business go, why would an enterprise get engaged in a place where there wasn't sufficient rail, or the roads weren't good, where the bridges were in disrepair? Businesses go where they can increase productivity. Productivity relates to how rapidly they can get things to market, how cheaply they can get 'em to market, and how often they can get 'em to market.

    Asked to comment on the vice president's remarks, Kelly M. Bachman, press secretary for Governor Jack Markell responded:

The Vice President has been as great a champion for Delaware as we have and has only helped improve the image of our great state across the country and around the world. We should always want to do better, but we're encouraged that our economy is improving and our job growth is outpacing the nation's. 

I don't speak for the Vice President, but I suspect he did not view his words as disparaging and we do not take them that way.  As a point of comparison, Delaware's 16% of roads in poor condition, although certainly not good, is better than our surrounding states. 

Both the President and Vice President continue to show the necessary sense of urgency to strengthen our transportation system and Governor Markell appreciates their support and advocacy. The condition of infrastructure in parts of the country are in an unacceptable condition and our advantages in the global economy will shrink rapidly if we don't make needed investments. 

Businesses and entrepreneurs have more choices than ever about where to locate, expand and hire - and a safe, reliable transportation infrastructure plays an important role in their decision making process. If we want to successfully compete for jobs in the global economy, we must invest in our people and our infrastructure.

    In spite of the benefit of the doubt the governor's office gave the vice president, it seems a safe bet that after Biden returns to Delaware for good, he won't be looking for work designing welcome signs for his home state.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Honor and Distinction: A 'Throwaway Line'?

    National Security Advisor Susan Rice's dubious assertion on ABC's "This Week" that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" has further tarnished her Sunday morning news show reputation. In a with-friends-like-these-who-needs-enemies attempt at a defense of Rice, the American Prospect's Paul Waldman, blogging for the Washington Post (via James Taranto,) wrote:

Conservatives are up in arms over the fact that Susan Rice said Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" before he was captured by the Taliban. But how many times have we heard that phrase? It's become a meaningless throwaway line.

    If "honor and distinction" has become a meaningless throwaway line, then Susan Rice has a lot of company in the Obama administration throwing it. The White House website is replete with examples, among them:

Barack Obama, on Memorial Day, 2011: "From Gettysburg to Kandahar, America's sons and daughters have served with honor and distinction, securing our liberties and laying a foundation for lasting peace."

Barack Obama, on Memorial Day, 2012: "...our veterans are part of an unbroken chain of men and women who have served our country with honor and distinction."

Barack Obama, on Memorial Day, 2013: "America has been blessed with an unbroken chain of patriots who have served our country with honor and distinction."

Valarie Jarrett, about gay soldiers: "...many patriotic servicemembers who were forced to live the same kind of lie that David [Hall] lived, and were discharged, despite serving our country with honor and distinction." 

Barack Obama, proclamation in 2009 about Hispanics: "Hispanics have served with honor and distinction in every conflict since the Revolutionary War, and they have made invaluable contributions through their service to our country." 

Michelle Obama, about the Coast Guard: "And I have no doubt that you will carry on the proud Coast Guard tradition and serve our country with honor and distinction." 

White House on Iraq War soldiers: "American troops served in Iraq with honor and distinction from March 19, 2003 until December 2011." 

Barack Obama, on Marine survivors of Beirut, Lebanon barracks bombing: "They were faithful to their comrades in arms and served with honor and distinction in the finest tradition of the U.S. military." 

Barack Obama, on veterans, including those from upstate New York, where he happened to be giving a speech: "Our men and women in uniform have served this country with such honor and distinction -- a lot of them come from upstate New York." 

Barack Obama, on Native Americans: "Native Americans have also served in the United States Armed Forces with honor and distinction, defending the security of our Nation with their lives." 

Barack Obama, on Richard Holbrooke: "For nearly 50 years, Richard served the country he loved with honor and distinction."

    Over on the State Department's website, examples abound as well, including this one:

Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2012: "Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were both decorated military veterans who served our country with honor and distinction."

    Perhaps Paul Waldman could review the above list and determine which instances were also in his view "meaningless throwaways." Or perhaps he could just acknowledge that in the case of Susan Rice's ill-advised use of the words, political considerations and an attempt to justify President Obama's much maligned and possibly illegal prisoner swap led to a different throwaway: the truth.

WH in 2013: Return of Bergdahl, Release of Detainees Two Separate Issues

    At the White House press briefing Monday, Jay Carney was not asked directly about his statement from June 2013 that "we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law," as THE WEEKLY STANDARD first reported yesterday.  However, the Washington Post reports that Carney rejected criticism about the lack of notice to Congress:

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday dismissed criticism from lawmakers over the administration's Taliban prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, saying the deal "should not have come as a surprise to members of Congress" because the basic outlines had been discussed for years.

    White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough echoed Carney's assertion:

At a forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Monday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also defended the move, saying: "We've been consulting with members of Congress about this effort, including the potential transfer of five Gitmo detainees, for years."

    However, in the same June 2013 press briefing where Carney made his statement that the White House would consult with Congress before making any detainee transfer decisions, he made clear that the White House considered the return of Sgt. Bergdahl and the release of any detainees to be two separate issues [emphasis added]:

Q    So you haven’t ruled it out [the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay]? 

MR. CARNEY:  I’m simply saying that -- first of all, you have to separate the two issues.  We are focused on the return  -- the safe and immediate return of Sergeant Bergdahl, and we continue to use the tools at our disposal to help bring that about. 

We also expect the Taliban to raise the issue of their detainees in discussions that we have with them if those discussions take place.  And at this time we’ve made no decisions about the transfer of detainees.  And in accordance with law, we would be consulting with Congress should we make any decisions about that.  So we remain committed to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, as you know.  But separate from that on these specific issues about individual detainees, that would be a process that is done in accordance with law.

    The Obama administration is also claiming that secrecy and lack of time were other considerations in the lack of Congressional consultation or even notification.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers is now saying Congress was last consulted about a possible Bergdahl-detainee swap in 2011, the Hill reports.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Jay Carney, 2013: No Decisions About Bergdahl-Detainee Deal 'Without Consulting With Congress'

    Among the questions being raised about this weekend's exchange of  Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five top Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo is why Congress was not informed of the move ahead of time.  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Meet the Press on Sunday that concerns over the health and perhaps even the survival of Bergdahl required secrecy, telling reporters, "We couldn't afford any leaks anywhere" because the deal was "essentially an operation to save the life of Sgt. Bergdahl."
    But just under a year ago in June 2013, then-Press Secretary Jay Carney was unequivocal in his response to a reporter's questions about this very deal, saying, "[W]e would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law."
    Here is the full exchange from the White House transcript [emphasis added]:

Q    Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.  Is this something that the administration is considering?  Is this something that the President would agree to? 

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans -- between the Taliban and the Afghan government.  However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long. 

We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release.  We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue -- using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools -- the effort to return him home safely.  And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family. 

With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made -- the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen. 

As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.

    President Obama announced on Friday, the day before the Bergdahl-detainee exchange, that Carney was leaving his position as press secretary.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Study Cited By Michelle Obama Showing Drastic Drop in Childhood Obesity Questioned by Researchers

    As Michelle Obama celebrated the fourth anniversary of Let's Move, her White House initiative on fitness and healthy eating, she cited a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showing a remarkable 43 percent drop in obesity rates among children ages 2-5.  Mrs. Obama brought up the study again on Friday at a Partnership for a Healthier America’s Building a Healthier Future Summit.  But a report by Reuters Health & Science Correspondent Sharon Begley casts doubt on the validity of the results of the study.  While Begley concludes that "no one can say for certain that the claim is wrong," the results are so uncertain that "based on the researchers' own data, the obesity rate may have even risen rather than declined."

    The problem lies in large measure with the small sample size of the CDC study and its relatively large margin of error.  Begley explains:

The 13.9 percent obesity rate among preschoolers reported for 2003-2004 had a large enough margin of error that the actual rate could range between 10.8 percent and 17.6 percent, the CDC authors acknowledged. The 8.4 percent rate in 2011-2012 reported could range from 5.9 percent and 11.6 percent.  

Since the range for 2003-2004 overlaps with that of 2011-2012, [epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City] said, "that's another way of saying there might have been no change" in preschoolers' obesity rate. Even an increase is a statistical possibility.

     The study size is not the only problem.  Other studies, some with considerably larger sample sizes, have shown significantly smaller decreases; others have shown little change; still others have actually shown obesity increasing.  For instance, a study of 200,000 children in the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program "found virtually no change in obesity rates":

Rather than reducing the prevalence of obesity among 3-and-4-year olds in the WIC program in California's Los Angeles County, researchers found that the problem worsened from 2003 to 2011. Obesity rose to 20.4 percent from about 17 percent, the researchers reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2013. 

In New York, the WIC study found that obesity rates fell to 15.5 percent in 2011 from about 19.5 percent in 2003, a much less dramatic drop than the 40 percent decline. 

"We agree there is a slight downward trend in obesity among 2-to-5-year olds," said Shannon Whaley, a co-author of the WIC study. "But a 43 percent drop is absolutely not what we're seeing."

     This is not the first time Mrs. Obama has cited statistics in support of Let's Move that turned out to be less than meets the eye.  Just last year, on the third anniversary of Let's Move, the first lady's office sent out a press release that appeared to take credit for the recent developments that "national childhood obesity rate has leveled off, and even declined in some cities and states." In particular, the White House highlighted a 13% decline in childhood obesity in Mississippi.  But as we reported at the time,

[t]he 13 percent decrease that Mrs. Obama touted is measured from Spring 2005 through Spring 2011. “Let's Move” was launched in February 2010, so the first five years of the time period in question were prior to Let's Move's existence.

     This week's Reuters report questioning the 43% decline suggests one more reason to question the results showing a decline in pre-schooler obesity rates:

[F]ew anti-obesity efforts target preschoolers... 

"The programs that have been implemented, from changing what's in vending machines to the Let's Move program, target school-age children more than preschoolers," he said, referring to an exercise initiative championed by Michelle Obama.

    Rather than wait for results to come in over the long term, the White House seems too eager to show that Mrs. Obama's Let's Move program is having an impact while President Obama is still in office. However, continuing to cite studies that do not support the assertions being made may do more harm than good, not only to Mrs. Obama's reputation, but to the very causes her program seeks to advance.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Widespread Vulnerability Found in Dozens of Government 'Open Data' Websites [Updated]

    At first glance, a page on the Health and Human Services (HHS) website seems to be giving that agency's official advice on the "The Health Benefits of Nootropics," a classification of purportedly memory-enhancing drugs.  The page is found on the website's subdomain of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) as part of the Health System Measurement Project.  The page contains the official logo of HHS, the domain in the URL ends with the legitimate HHS address containing "hhs.gov", and the "https://" indicates the connection is even a secure one.  Further down the page, there is even a link to a website selling related products.  A partial screenshot of the profile page at HHS.gov appears as follows:

    Similar pages on the site offer information and counsel on shampoo, surgery, and health issues suffered by computer users.  However, in spite of all the apparently reassuring elements and features of these pages, Health and Human Services had nothing to do with their creation or content, and does not recommend or endorse either the information or the linked products.

    Nevertheless, while the pages are not official HHS information, neither are they technically cases of hacking.  Rather, the creators have exploited a weakness in the "open data" system used by dozens of government websites.  The platform was developed by a company called Socrata.  The system allows users to create profiles and then manipulate data tables that various governments (federal, state, local) host on their websites.  The results can be shared with others for statistical analysis, research, and other purposes, as some users have done. However, in cases like the ones above, a profile page itself can be used to promote a product or information in a way that gives viewers the impression that the host government entity approves or even endorses.  A legitimate looking link could even be included in an email to direct recipients to what they may easily perceive as government-provided information.

    THE WEEKLY STANDARD first reported this opening in January when some internet marketers had created profiles at data.healthcare.gov, the federal government's Obamacare website.  Within a day  after the story ran, Healthcare.gov disabled public access to profiles created for its data site.  At the time, David Kennedy, the CEO of TrustedSec, an information security firm, remarked that the opening could allow scammers to fool users with a "website that’s legitimate to make them believe its something else," and that "an attacker can basically create a functioning website and host any content they want there and under the umbrella of healthcare.gov."

    Use of the profiles can be especially effective since the profiles contain no disclaimers that the government entity does not endorse the content, and there are no warnings when clicking on links that "you are now leaving the website for an external site", a common warning on government sites.

    Health and Human Services is not the only government agency at risk.  The White House announced "Project Open Data" in May 2013 with dozens of federal agencies and sub-agencies taking part.  As recently as January 14, the White House released a Fact Sheet on the White House Safety Datapalooza,  an initiative to safeguard government data that is "part of the Administration’s larger commitment to unleash the power of open data."

    Other examples of profiles such as the one above are numerous, including other federal agencies, plus state, county and local governments.  The products and information being pushed range from private loans to debt consolidation to even "artificial turf":

Cook County, Illinois

Data.gov,  General Services Administration

City of Boston

Honolulu, Hawaii

    Each of the pages above (and dozens of others discovered in the preparation of this story) contains a link to an external website that is obviously not an officially sanctioned site by the government host, but neither are there any disclaimers to warn potential viewers.  The pages appear to violate the Terms of Service of the Socrata platform since "[u]nsolicited promotions, political campaigning, advertising or solicitations" are prohibited.

    More malicious sites could be used for data harvesting or even identity theft since scammers are able to trade on the credibility conferred by the official government websites that host these profile pages.  THE WEEKLY STANDARD has no direct evidence that such activity has yet taken place via an "open data" website, but at this point, clearly the door is wide open to such abuse.  

   An email to an official at Data.gov seeking comment was referred to another official who has not yet responded.  An emailed request to Socrata for comment was initially returned Tuesday evening with a promise of a response, but so far, no additional response has been received.

UPDATE: By the end of the day on Thursday, public access to Socrata profiles had been disabled.  Clicking on links to the profiles now redirect users to a login page.  Neither the government nor Socrata ever acknowledged the vulnerability nor issued any statement regarding the issue despite earlier promises to respond.  Tim Cashman, a Senior Content Strategist at Socrata, initially responded to an email Tuesday night with a promise to "be in touch with a response shortly", and Steven Gottlieb, a Socrata PR contact, and Bill Glenn, VP of Marketing, were both cc'd on his reply.  Several followup emails to all three Socrata representatives, however, were ignored.

Note: A version of this post, before the update, first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House on President's Day: "President Barack Obama 101"

    The White House is recognizing President's Day 2014 with a blog post entitled "Dive into the Presidency for President's Day."  The post features a biography of Thomas Jefferson, a high-definition photo of a painting of George Washington, a special interactive gallery that includes "pages from George Washington's first inaugural address and other inaugural moments from 13 Presidential Libraries," and two videos of the White House curator exploring the history of the Presidential Seal and also President Theodore Roosevelt's official presidential portrait.
    The post ends, however, inviting visitors to "learn about President Obama and keep up with his administration by following @WhiteHouse on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Google+, and Tumblr":

    In addition to linking to the White House's social media sites, the post also links to the White House's own page on President Obama.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House Deletes Blog Post Warning Against Marijuana Legalization; Since Restored [see update]

    Monday morning, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) blog at Whitehouse.gov posted an entry entitled: "Support for National Association of School Nurses' [NASN] Position on the Legalization of Marijuana."  However, the original link for the post is now meet with a "Sorry, the page you're looking for can't be found" message, and the most recent post on the ONDCP blog is dated January 20.

    The main thrust of the deleted entry is that the NASN agrees with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that "the overwhelming evidence" is that "any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents."
    The president raised eyebrows recently by downplaying the dangers of marijuana, even by young people:

As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.

    The president went on to say in the same New Yorker interview that it is "important for [legalization of marijuana] to go forward":

[President Obama] said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished."

    The deleted blog post is still available via a Google cache, which shows how it appeared on Whitehouse.gov for part of the day on Monday:

    The full post reads as follows:

Support for National Association of School Nurses' Position on the Legalization of Marijuana 

Posted by David Mineta, Carolyn Duff and Mary Louise Embrey on January 27, 2014 at 09:00 AM EST 

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) joins school nurses across the country to express our support for efforts that promote wellness and good health outcomes for our Nation’s children, including the prevention of substance use disorders. ONDCP shares the concerns of school nurses regarding the harmful effects of marijuana use among young people. Given research indications that marijuana is harmful to the developing brain,[1] we are especially concerned about the repercussions of use on the health, safety, and education of adolescents. On January 27, 2014, based on overwhelming scientific evidence, the National Association of School Nurses (NASN) Board of Directors adopted an official position statement[2] outlining the negative impact of marijuana legalization on the health of students. ONDCP supports NASN in bringing attention to this issue.
School nurses are present in 75 percent of the Nation’s schools, so many are in touch with substance use trends within the school and greater community and are able to make educated assessments when students visit their offices.  The school nursing profession has more than 100 years of experience, and school nurses know first-hand that healthy, drug-free children learn better! As more and more states consider the legalization of marijuana, school nurses are compelled to continue providing their students with the facts on the multiple physical and behavioral health consequences of marijuana use. Access to marijuana by young people and the impact of its use on the developing brain continue to be matters of concern for both ONDCP and NASN. 

Together, we recognize that adult influencers, including parents, school nurses, teachers, counselors, and other support personnel in the academic setting, are key to helping adolescents understand the connection between good health practices and educational achievement.  There is grave concern that marijuana use, given its impact on cognitive development, motor skills, and attention, will be detrimental to the learning environment for our young people. We encourage professionals in all health fields, parents, educators, and communities to get involved with this issue. We all must work together to reduce marijuana use and prevent substance use disorders among our young people. 

David Mineta is Deputy Director for Demand Reduction at ONDCP. Carolyn Duff is President of the National Association for School Nurses, and Mary Louise Embrey is the NASN Consultant on Substance Abuse Prevention.

[1] Meier MH, Caspi A, Ambler A, Harrington H, Houts R, Keefe RS, McDonald K, Ward A, Poulton R, Moffitt TE.  Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012, Aug 27. 

It is the opinion of the NASN that marijuana is properly categorized by the DEA under Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act.  NASN recognizes the overwhelming evidence that “any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents.”

    The ONDCP's fact sheet on marijuana on the White House website says:

The Administration steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans, particularly young people.

    Emails to the White House press office and to the National Association of School Nurses inquiring about the deletion of the blog post have so far gone unanswered.


UPDATE: A public affairs official at ONDCP emails to say that the post is now back up: "Saw your post on the standard re: our blog on school nurses.   Was an administrative issue - It was posted prematurely by our web team ahead of the resolution, but it’s back up now that the resolution formally passed.  Here’s the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/24/support-national-association-school-nurses-position-legalization-marijuana"


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House Responds to Criticism of Restrictions on Press... With A White House Photo of Photographers

    On Thursday, a scathing article by Ron Fournier entitled "Obama’s Image Machine: Monopolistic Propaganda Funded by You" ran at National Journal taking the White House to task for shutting out press photographers from presidential events in favor of official White House photos taken by White House photographer Pete Souza.  The article, which received wide play on Thursday, included numerous examples of the superior access Souza has over the press photographers, such as this:

    The frustration is exemplified in the opening anecdote in Fournier's piece:

New York Times photographer Doug Mills strode into Jay Carney's office Oct. 29 with a pile of pictures taken exclusively by President Obama's official photographer at events the White House press corps was forbidden to cover. "This one," Mills said, sliding one picture after another off his stack and onto the press secretary's desk. "This one, too – and this one and this one and … ." 

The red-faced photographer, joined by colleagues on the White House Correspondents' Association board, finished his 10-minute presentation with a flourish that made Carney, a former Moscow correspondent for Time, wince. 

"You guys," Mills said, "are just like Tass."

    Late on Thursday, the White House, as if in response to the criticism, released a photo by Pete Souza -- a photo of photojournalists covering the signing of two bills, the Streamlining Claims for Federal Contractor Employees Act, and the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustments Act of 2013, neither exactly marquee legislative achievements for the president:

    Perhaps the next time Doug Mills enters Jay Carney's office, he'll find a framed print of this photo on Carney's desk.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House Goes on the Offensive on Obamacare

    Evan as millions of taxpayers are receiving cancellation notices for their health insurance that President Obama assured them they could keep, the White House has gone on a Twitter campaign to excoriate Republicans for not expanding Medicaid to another 4.5 million people.  In a series of tweets on Wednesday, the GOP in Texas, Florida and North Carolina were characterized as putting politics over people by refusing to expand Medicaid roles under the Affordable Care Act:

    Given the news recently, it does not take much imagination to tweak the White House graphic to tell the real story:

White House Cites Domestic Violence in Push for Immigration Reform

    The White House is ramping up a new push for the president's version of comprehensive immigration reform.  In an opening salvo, White House advisor on Violence Against Women Lynn Rosenthal wrote a blog entry entitled, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Survivors Can’t Afford to Wait", saying that "it’s up to Republicans in the House to decide whether to move forward with immigration reform."  Ms. Rosenthal framed the argument in the context of the just-ended Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October:

Domestic Violence Awareness Month has ended, but our work to end abuse continues. Today, in this country, women and children continue to suffer from unspeakable violence because they are afraid to seek help without legal status. When immigrant survivors of abuse without legal status are, according to one study, half as likely to call the police to seek the help they need, we must act.

Rosenthal goes on to say the federal law (Violence Against Women Act) already contains provisions to help immigrant victims of abuse, more needs to be done.

Since it was first signed into law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act or VAWA has recognized the need for special protections for immigrant survivors of abuse, including self-petitions and categories of visas for victims of violent crimes and human trafficking. But while VAWA includes key provisions to help immigrant survivors, it is not enough. 

Rosenthal cites fear of deportation, potential homelessness, and economic dependence as reasons many immigrant women - documented or undocumented - do not seek help.  She noted that the Senate had passed legislation already, and asserted that "[u]nlike many other issues in Washington, immigration reform is one that both parties can agree on."


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

White House Graphic Leaves a Page Out of New "Simple" 3-Page Obamacare Application

    A Sunday blog post at Whitehouse.gov declares that "the new [Obamacare] application is so simple, it's 17 pages shorter than the current application you'd fill out to enroll in coverage in the individual market."  While the final version of the application has not yet been publicly released (several draft versions have appeared in the past), the White House blog features an animated GIF graphic to contrast the average 20-page application with the new 3-page Obamacare application:

The only problem is that close observation of the graphic shows that only two pages of the Obamacare application appear in the animation.  The slide labeled "Page 1" at the bottom appears as follows, with "Step 1" visible at the top:

However, when the slide changes to Page 2, the Obamacare application page doesn't change: "Step 1" is still at the top:

But when the slide changes again to "Page 3", the Obamacare application page suddenly changes to "Step 4" at the top:

Since October 1 is Tuesday, there won't be long to wait to see the real page 2 with the missing Steps 2 and 3.  But while the public might forgive the 33% error rate on this first attempt by the administration to unveil the new "simple" application, the actual launch of Obamacare on Tuesday will doubtless be subject to stricter scrutiny, and the ultimate success or failure of the program may ride on how well, or how poorly, the launch goes.