Making Amtrak Compete Would Benefit All

The recent Amtrak derailment outside of Philadelphia, which killed eight people and injured over 200, is a somber reminder that quick action by Congress is necessary to prevent another passenger rail catastrophe. Amtrak is the sole operator of trains on the Northeast corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston, and thus bears responsibility for providing safe passenger train travel. Yet, despite a posted 50-mph speed limit on that section of track, the train was traveling at 106 mph around a very tight turn. Amtrak’s contract to operate trains on the Northeast corridor should be terminated immediately. 

But wait. No such contract exists. Amtrak has an uncontested, indefinite monopoly on intercity train operations in the United States. The problem lies therein: Amtrak is unconstrained by the fear of losing its operational rights, and thus its revenue, regardless of safety or on-time performance. 

The corridor includes stops in such major population centers as Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, N.J., and New York. It is highly profitable, with the tight population densities, moderate distances, and concentrated central business districts that are critical for successful passenger rail. The NEC should be a showcase for how the United States can deliver a self-sustaining, reliable, safe, and affordable high-speed passenger rail. The barrier is not geography or insufficient taxpayer spending but appalling, outdated federal rail policy. 

We can do better. One appealing solution is a public-private operating partnership, or PPOP. Under this approach, the NEC would be separated from the rest of Amtrak’s routes. The NEC already differs fundamentally from the rest of the passenger rail system. Amtrak owns most of the tracks and rights of way on the NEC, but utilizes freight train tracks in the rest of the country. 

A 2013 report from the Brookings Institution notes that the NEC routes, which carry some 11.4 million people each year, earn an operating profit of about $205 million annually. The rest of Amtrak’s nationwide network, however, hemorrhages cash. 

Under a PPOP, the right to maintain and operate NEC trains would be bid out at regular intervals of, say, 10 to 15 years. A PPOP concession contract would specify key aspects of service, such as rates, service frequency, and safety standards. Bidding would occur on the basis of the largest upfront concession payment an operator is willing to make for an exclusive operational right subject to the pre-set terms of service.  

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading....

White House Staff Tells All: Inside The Private Lives Of First Families

A new book released this week gives readers an unprecedented look at life inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, from the perspective of the traditionally reticent White House staff. In her book, The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House, Kate Andersen Brower brings together their stories from the administration of JFK to the current day.

Brower’s research was extensive, including interviewing over 100 former White House staff. She spoke to retired butlers, ushers, bakers, florists, maids, and doormen among others. Some staff members werereluctant to participate in Brower’s project at first, due to an unwritten tradition of silence about their work; but the writer was persistent and persuaded some to share their stories, and the momentum built from there.

Not surprisingly, one of Brower’s discoveries was that life inside the White House became tense between the Clintons following the revelation of President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Bill was relegated to the proverbial couch in the residence for months. Staff also recalled profanity-laced shouting matchesbetween the couple that only intensified following the affair. Staff suspected that Hillary threw one of her bedside books at him, hitting his face and leaving blood-stained sheets for the staff to replace.

Bill and Hillary were the most private occupants of the White House in recent decades, according to Brower. “I’ve had staffers say that the Clintons were definitely the most paranoid first family that they ever had to work with,” she said.

A very poignant moment, which Brower opens the book with, follows the assassination of John F. Kennedy as seen through the eyes of doorman Preston Bruce. He recalled a tearful hug with Bobby and Jackie Kennedy when they arrived back at the White House at 4 am, immediately after JFK’s death. Jackie, still in her bloodstained pink woolsuit and clutching Bobby’s arm, said to him softly, “Bruce, you waited until we came.” He replied, “You knew I was going to be here, Mrs. Kennedy.”

Brower writes:

Exhausted, Bruce spent what was left of that night sitting upright in a chair in a tiny bedroom on the third floor. He took off his jacket and bow tie and unbuttoned the collar of his stiff white shirt, but he wouldn’t let himself give into exhaustion. “I didn’t want to lie down, in case Mrs Kennedy needed me.” He refused to go home for the next four days, seeing the Kennedys through the funeral and its aftermath.

Mrs. Kennedy thanked Bruce by giving him a tie that JFK had worn on the flight to Dallas. Bobby Kennedy gave him the gloves he wore to his brother’s funeral.

Via: Western Journalism

Continue Reading......

Only Democrats Are to Blame for ObamaCare Chaos

If the Supreme Court were to decide not to allow retroactive legislating and uphold Obamacare as written, terrible things would happen to America. We might, for instance, find out what health insurance in fabricated, state-run “marketplaces” actually costs.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the 37 states that have declined to set up exchanges would see an average spike of 287 percent should the King v. Burwell decision not go the Obama administration’s way. It would be 650 percent in Mississippi — an amount that only proves that exchanges have not made insurance markets more competitive or more affordable as promised. Actually, the cost of insurance in federally run exchanges is already 287 percent higher. The difference is picked up by taxpayers.

And you know who’s to blame for that, right?

Here is Vox: “What a Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would look like, in 3 maps.”

Here is The Washington Post: “Map: Health-care premiums could spike as much as 650 percent if this Obamacare challenge succeeds.”

Now, technically, King v. Burwell isn’t a “challenge” to Obamacare. It’s a challenge to uphold Obamacare rather than allow the administration to implement the law in any manner it sees fit. There are compelling arguments on both sides, but the case is well within the purview of the U.S. Supreme Court. The coverage of the debate, though, has already been irrevocably distorted.

In the past few years, any SCOTUS decision that potentially disrupts liberal policy aims has been depicted as an unprecedented and extraordinary partisan overreach that threatens civic order and the norms of democracy. If the president is willing to berate SCOTUS for protecting the First Amendment, you can imagine what we’re in for should something unpleasant happen to the signature achievement of the new progressive era.

So SCOTUS can issue pro-same-sex marriage opinions that “challenge” over 200 years of American law and upend a traditional institution, but ending a concocted subsidy that’s only been around for a few years would, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, create bedlam:

“We continue to be very confident in the legal case we have to make. What’s also true is that if the Supreme Court were to throw the health care system in this country into utter chaos, there would be no easy solution for solving that problem, because it would likely require an act of Congress in order to address that situation.”

Via: The Patriot Post

Continue Reading....

[CARTOON]: Fracking Fool

Via: California Political Review

DEA Releases Photos Of Baltimore Pharmacy Looters…

“You’re Honor at the time of the looting my client was returning from singing in the church choir, after he taught the homeless illiterate how to read and in his spare time builds houses for the poor.”

The Drug Enforcement Agency released photographs Thursday of nine people officials say are connected with looting prescription drugs from Baltimore pharmacies during the April unrest related to the death of Freddie Gray.

The move came a day after Baltimore police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts revised the estimate of how many drugs were stolen to more than 175,000 units, or doses.

“That amount of drugs has thrown off the balance on the streets of Baltimore,” Batts said.

DEA Special Agent Gary Tuggle said even more drugs were stolen than initially reported. About 40 percent of the looted pharmacies have not finished counting losses, he said.

Twenty-seven pharmacies and two methadone clinics were looted when rioting erupted April 27, the day of Gray’s funeral.[…]

harmacy and law enforcement officials said they have seen no evidence that personal information found on stolen prescriptions has been used for fraud. Nevertheless, Rite Aid hired Kroll, a risk management firm, “to alert impacted customers via a letter of notification and share with them the proactive measures it has taken to guard against identity theft.”

Via: Baltimore Sun

Continue Reading..... 

If Supremes slap ObamaCare, it’s health insurers who lose

Photo: Reuters

This week health insurers announced they will hike premiums on ObamaCare plans by double digits in 2016. Yet it’s not ObamaCare buyers who are getting gouged.

For the most part, what consumers have to pay is calculated based on their income.

They don’t pay the sticker price. It’s you — the taxpayers — who get taken to the cleaners, because you foot the bill for the subsidies paid directly to the insurers.

That makes the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell, expected this month, even more consequential. It will determine the fate of these subsidies in 37 states.

Without subsidies, ObamaCare buyers in those states will have to pay the actual — and unaffordable — sticker price of ObamaCare. And you — taxpayers — will not have to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize insurers over the next decade.

But the dirty secret is that insurers stand to lose the most from King v. Burwell.

The Affordable Care Act compels the public to buy their product, and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. What a sweetheart deal.

The giant players — United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Anthem and Humana — have seen stock prices double, triple, even quadruple since the law was passed in 2010. The coming ruling threatens to put an end to their gravy train.

Democrats are predicting disaster if the court rules against President Obama.

Republicans will “rue the day” they let millions of people lose their subsidies, says Nancy Pelosi. That’s crazy talk.

No one will lose their coverage immediately, the poor will be unaffected and the biggest losers will be insurance companies.

Employers, job-seekers and taxpayers actually stand to win here.

In addition, most Republicans in Congress are inclined to compromise with the president to provide some type of financial help for insurance buyers. If the Supremes gut ObamaCare, there will be many more winners than losers. Here’s how it shakes out:

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading.....

Another accomplishment -- Obama first President to have a Triple Crown winner since Carter

 

Dan Pfeiffer‏@danpfeiffer

Another accomplishment -- Obama first President to have a Triple Crown winner since Carter

• RETWEETS227
• FAVORITES189
• 

3:59 PM - 6 Jun 2015

What King v. Burwell and the downfall of Obamacare would really mean

Before the ACA was passed, Democrats screamed, “The sky is falling!  We must pass this law!’  Now that the Supreme Court stands poised to finally drive a stake through the heart of one of the worst misuses of legislative power exercised by a single party this century, the Democrats are again screaming, “The sky is falling!”

But is it?

Betsy McCaughey’s June 3rd New York Post article, “If Supremes Slap ObamaCare, it’s health insurers who lose” nails the post-decision fallout from King v. Burwell, should the Supremes actually apply the “plain meaning” of the ACA and gut Obamacare’s subsidies.  (Emphasis added)…

Any of the 37 states that want to can set up an exchange and immediately qualify for the subsidies. But most are controlled by the GOP and won’t do it.

Without subsidies, the employer mandate is toothless, because employers are only fined if their uninsured workers go to an exchange and get a subsidy.

Employers who have been struggling to keep their workforce under 50 (where ObamaCare kicks in) and use part-timers (who aren’t subject to ObamaCare) won’t have to worry any more.
Nullifying the employer mandate is likely to ignite a hiring boom.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, that looming mandate has caused 21 percent of small businesses to reduce workers’ hours, 41 percent to delay hiring and 27 percent of franchises (such as fast-food restaurants) to replace full-timers with part-timers.

People facing a penalty for being uninsured will also come out ahead. Without subsidies, most will be exempted from the penalty, saving them $2,000 on average next year.

Despite Democrats’ dire warnings, the poor won’t be hurt. An amazing 89 percent of people who are newly insured because of ObamaCare are on Medicaid, which won’t be affected.

Ignore the alarmist rhetoric. A loss for the Obama administration in King v. Burwell will be a win for most Americans.

We all know Democrats are nothing if not audacious, so here’s the rub – If the subsidies are overturned, the Dems will then take credit for the sure-to-follow hiring boom! 

The ACA choked economic growth by forcing small businesses to stay below 50 employees to avoid paying unaffordable health insurance premiums for all their employees.  Striking down the subsidies adds certainty to an unstable market and small business can finally invest and expand, putting many hundreds of thousands of the unemployed to work.

Dems caused the economic slowdown with trillions upon trillions of spending with virtually nothing to show for a 6 year malaise, which they deliberately aggravated and accelerated in order to expand the liberal socialist agenda and governmental power.


Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] ‘Total Failure’: Obama Admin Reportedly Tried To Recruit Taliban 5 Members As Informants

The U.S. government tried to recruit members of the Taliban Five as assets, so they could gather intelligence and the U.S. could influence their future actions, Fox News has learned.

The effort to "flip" the five Taliban leaders into becoming informants, however, didn't work. A source familiar with the strategy described it as a "total failure." 

Other sources, who discussed the option on the condition of anonymity, backed up the account. 

The move was pursued to strengthen the Obama administration's ability to prevent the ex-Guantanamo prisoners -- traded more than a year ago for American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- from returning to terrorism. The Taliban Five have been living in Qatar under a travel ban, which was set to expire earlier this week but was temporarily extended amid ongoing talks between the U.S. and Qatar. 

Asked about the strategy of flipping Taliban Five members, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest offered little information at Friday's press briefing. 

"Even as a general matter, this is an intelligence matter that I won't be able to discuss from here," Earnest said. 

The Taliban Five were held for 12 years at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where military reviews concluded they were a likely security threat and had "high intelligence value." For those reasons, among others, seasoned military officers believe the Taliban Five were obvious recruitment targets. 

"We would definitely have tried to work that with these people because of who they are, and because of the relationships they have," Fox News military analyst and retired Gen. Jack Keane said. "These are people that had significant senior positions inside this organization." 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.... 

AMERICAN PHAROAH BECOMES FIRST TRIPLE CROWN WINNER SINCE '78

ELMONT, N.Y. – American Pharoah accomplished one of the rare feats in sport Saturday, becoming the first horse in 37 years and just the 12th horse ever to win the Triple Crown.

The heavily favored colt completed the quest by running away from seven rivals in the Belmont Stakes, three weeks after a rain-soaked dash in the Preakness and five weeks after a gritty,stretch-duel victory in the Kentucky Derby.

American Pharoah's name now moves into the history books alongside equine immortals like Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Citation and War Admiral. And horse racing finally has the superstar it has hungered for – a fluid athlete with a massive stride who seems to float over the ground.

The last horse to win all three of North America's biggest races was Affirmed in 1978. Since then, 13 horses have come to this historic track having won the first two legs of the Crown. All had failed (with I'll Have Another scratched prior to the 2012 running), raising doubts whether the quest was still attainable for the modern thoroughbred.

View photo

.

Victor Espinoza reacts after crossing the finish line with American Pharoah to win the Triple Crown. (AP)

In front of a roaring crowd, American Pharoah eradicated those doubts in stirring fashion, going wire-to-wire at the Belmont, beating second-place finisher Frosted by 5½ lengths.

Pharoah didn't break well from the gate, but it didn't matter. Jockey Victor Espinoza steered him to the lead, which he never relinquished.

As he came down the stretch, American Pharoah never slowed, widening his lead to win going away in a time of 2:26.65 – the quickest Belmont time since 2001.

The result gave triumphant closure to trainer Bob Baffert's 18-year quest to win the Triple Crown. Three times previously, he had won the Derby and Preakness only to encounter Belmont heartbreak. In 1997, his Silver Charm was passed in deep stretch. In '98, Real Quiet was nipped at the wire. And in 2002, front-running War Emblem stumbled leaving the gate and was never a factor.

Now the 62-year-old Californian finally has his Triple.

Via: Yahoo Sports

Continue Reading.....

EXCLUSIVE–IOWA GOP CHAIRMAN REACTS TO BERNIE SANDERS’ AND MARTIN O’MALLEY’S RECEPTION IN IOWA: ‘SOCIALISM IS SO ODD TO US’

DES MOINES, Iowa – Although underdogs, Hillary Clinton’s competition in the Democratic Party drew large crowds in Iowa last weekend, as Breitbart News previously reported.

The self proclaimed socialist, “Sanders attracted overflow crowds in Ames and Davenport, then Sanders capped his three-day trip with a Saturday night stop in Kensett, where more than 300 people greeted him,” Radio Iowa’s O. Kay Henderson wrote earlier last week.

“To a certain degree, I think socialism is so odd to us – I think there would be people that want to hear how in the world an American could promote socialism,” Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kauffman told Breitbart News – adding that he is interested in how Sanders will put his campaign message all together.

Breitbart News questioned if Iowans were interested in both Sanders and O’Malley because they aren’t Clinton – as Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness has been crumbling among independent voters, a recent poll suggests.

“The Democrats I know certainly are – I don’t know if a socialist is going to provide that – but you know, if you look at Hillary’s voting record she’s a socialist in the making – and wait until she gets in the Obama White House and picks up whatever he leaves, in terms of his policies,” Kauffman added.

Breitbart News noted how Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is the favorite in Iowa in many recent polls but that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

93%

 were the only two candidates in a recent poll that Iowans selected in an individual match up with Clinton.

“These polls are going to be so fluid … I listen to the polls obviously – you know, I’m not going to get real serious about the polls at least for the top ten until – I’ll tell you it’s going to almost have to be October before I start listening,” he said.

Kauffman said it’s hard to believe anything in a June or July poll can be of any predictive value of what is going to happen in February.

Via: Breitbart.com

Continue Reading....

Hillary's huge lead over the GOP? Maybe it never existed

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers a speech at Texas Southern University in Houston, Thursday, June 4, 2015. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)

Through all of Hillary Clinton's recent troubles — emails, foundation, Benghazi — Democrats have taken comfort in their all-but-assured nominee's formidable lead over top Republicans in head-to-head matchups. Now that lead is shrinking, and the Democratic comfort level is falling along with it.

 

But it's possible Clinton's big lead was never as big as Democrats thought. Yes, some of the margins looked enormous:

* A CNN poll in March showed Clinton up by 15 points over Republican Jeb Bush, 13 points over Marco Rubio, 11 points over Rand Paul, and 15 points over Scott Walker.

* An ABC News poll in March showed Clinton up by 15 points over Rubio, 14 points over Walker, and 13 points over Bush.

* A CNN poll in April showed Clinton up by 22 points over Walker, 19 points over Paul, 14 points over Rubio, and 17 points over Bush.

Big margins. But at the same time, at least one other poll — by Public Policy Polling, the Democratic polling firm — showed Clinton with much more modest leads over her GOP rivals. A PPP survey in late February showed Clinton with an eight-point lead over Walker, a seven-point lead over Rubio, a seven-point lead over Paul, and a 10-point lead over Bush.

A PPP poll at the end of March showed Clinton with a four-point lead over Walker, a four-point lead over Paul, a three-point lead over Rubio, and a six-point lead over Bush — at a time the other polls showed Clinton far ahead of those rivals.

"I am definitely skeptical that Clinton was ever really up by 15 points like some of the early polls were showing," says PPP director Tom Jensen. The reason for those big leads, Jensen suggested in an email conversation, might have more to do with the other polls' methods rather than any overwhelming Clinton advantage.

We use tighter controls on who we call for our polls than most national surveys do. Although we don't do an actual likely voter screen this far out, we do pull lists based on people who have voted in at least one of the last three elections. So I think we end up with samples that are a little bit more conservative than if we were calling all adults or even just registered voters with no respect to voting history.

If Jensen and PPP are correct, then the core assumption of much political analysis in the last few months was little more than irrational exuberance. Now that Clinton is returning to earth in other polls as well — PPP has a new poll out in about 10 days — the question will be how Democrats react to the realization that there once-inevitable shoo-in president might not be an inevitable shoo-in after all.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....