The federal government is exploring the possibility of using a credit rating giant like Equifax to verify the identity of American workers, a move that could make it far more difficult for undocumented immigrants to get work using stolen Social Security numbers.

The plan by the Department of Homeland Security, which is still preliminary and would probably require congressional approval, could have far-reaching consequences. The government already allows employers to check the legal status of employees using a system known as E-Verify, but hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants beat the system by using stolen Social Security numbers.

If workers had to use the verification systems in place to apply for a mortgage or a bank account, they would not only have to present a Social Security number to an employer, but also answer questions about their personal history and financial background to establish their identity.

On Monday, the government announced that it would begin allowing individuals in the District, Virginia and four other states to voluntarily use a system provided by Equifax to verify their identity. Once they did that, they could access a federal database to verify their authorization to work. The move will help the small number of legally authorized immigrants and U.S. citizens who encounter problems each year when an employer runs their Social Security numbers through the E-Verify system.

By giving workers the ability to check their records before they apply for a job, authorities said that citizens and immigrants who are authorized to work will be able to take care of spelling mistakes and other common errors. The voluntary program will be piloted in the District, Virginia, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho and Mississippi. It will be expanded nationwide in the coming months.

Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the government planned to use the initiative to evaluate how the third-party verification system worked, with a view to making the tool available to employers.

Mayorkas added that only Congress could compel employers to use third-party verification systems. The main E-Verify system is also voluntary for employers, but House Republicans have indicated that they would like it to be mandatory.

Private identification systems might reduce Social Security number fraud, but Mayorkas said he has concerns about how the federal government would deal with errors in third-party databases.

Neither employers nor the federal government will gain information about worker queries under the new self-check system. Mayorkas also said that employers will not be permitted to force employees to do self-checks.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Think of Washington’s initial 2011 budget fights as spring training — for a season about to open in a hailstorm.

Twice, Congress and the Obama White House have agreed on temporary spending bills that trim spending and keep the government open. Last week’s version averted a shutdown, at least until April 8.

But the pace of play is accelerating, under deteriorating conditions. And practices so far have produced little evidence of confidence-building.

Republican and Democratic negotiators bought time by cutting the easiest $10 billion, from discredited projects and programs. Closing the remaining $50 billion gap for the last half of this fiscal year will require steeper reductions from a small slice of the budget.

“There needs to be a global solution,” said Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, one of a half-dozen senators from both parties seeking a long-term fix. Meantime, he said, “There’s growing frustration with this inability to predict how long the government is going to stay open.”

Yet a comprehensive fix means two teams with weak batting averages must hit a series of 100 mile-per-hour fastballs.

For most Republicans, “global” means cutting not just discretionary spending, but also the enormous “entitlements” of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the House Budget Committee, promises his forthcoming 2012 blueprint will take that risky step.

For most Democrats, “global” means collecting additional taxes, as well. That step, under discussion by Mr. Warner’s “Gang of Six,” is also risky.

So is the prospect that the United States might shake investor confidence by defaulting on its obligations. That could happen if Congress fails to raise the federal debt limit once the current ceiling is reached sometime this spring.

Leading Republicans say they will raise it only if Democrats accept more spending reductions. As if the showdown needed any more complications, the military confrontation with Libya throws a curve at the possibility of cuts to the Pentagon budget.

In other words, the game will not get easier after Opening Day.

Thinking Long Term

One reason: some on both sides feel they are losing.

Conservative Republicans think that slow-motion, piecemeal spending cuts have undercut momentum from their election triumph last November. By defying their leaders and opposing last week’s stopgap “continuing resolution,” 54 House Republicans signaled that unease.

Liberal Democrats consider spending cuts economically counterproductive amid high unemployment, and see further reductions as threats to cherished priorities. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, sought to draw a line by vowing, “I will not support tinkering with Social Security.”

Steve Bell, a former Senate Republican budget aide now at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said “the reason I am pessimistic is that the scar tissue” from the from stopgap spending battle could affect negotiations over 2012 and beyond.

A longer-term negotiation is what Mr. Warner and five colleagues, from both parties, are conducting. The White House is encouraging their effort from afar as a potential way out if negotiations falter on short-term spending and the debt limit.

The six senators are using recommendations from President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission as a template. Neither the president nor Republican leaders has embraced those recommendations, however.

“Nobody ever won the office pool by betting on the success of bipartisanship,” said Bruce Reed, who assisted the deficit-reduction commission and is now chief of staff to Vice  President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “But the Gang of Six is bringing Republicans and Democrats together, the way Washington should work.”

Possible Compromise

Prospects for compromise appeared to brighten last week when 64 senators, 32 from each party, urged Mr. Obama to seek a “comprehensive” solution touching all three hot-buttons — discretionary spending, entitlements, and taxes.

But the path from hortatory letter to long-term deal is steep. Newly empowered House Republicans would have to accept more taxes ; Senate Democrats, fighting to keep their majority in 2012, would have to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Referring to the Gang of Six, Robert Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said, “The probability that their fruit will ripen to an eatable state is very low.”

A least-common-denominator outcome might yield targets for limiting spending and deficits as a proportion of the economy. As with the 1980s-era “Gramm-Rudman” efforts, it could include enforcement mechanisms to require later policy choices for meeting those targets.

But even that possible fallback has not eased fears of stalemate. The Federal Reserve chairman,
Ben S. Bernanke, has warned that tying a debt-limit increase to a long-term budget deal would risk default and fresh financial “chaos” as the nation tries to leave the 2008 crisis behind.

“The idea that this time some folks want to start the fire. . .” Mr. Warner said, his words trailing off. “You just have to hope cooler heads will prevail.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

With four days until President Obama gives his State of the Union address, interest groups have buried the White House with a barrage of unsolicited advice about what they want him to say.

The suggestions come from all quarters — the Mr. Obama’s liberal supporters who are already suspicious of his commitment to their causes, the conservative activists who oppose his policies and independent groups who are urging compromise and conciliation.

Gun control groups want the president to call for restrictions on the size of high capacity ammunition clips. Gay rights organizations say he should talk about bullying aimed at homosexuals. Think tanks believe he should focus on the nation’s debt. Tea Party groups hope he will endorse a repeal of his health care overhaul.

Aides to Mr. Obama remained largely silent on which of those, if any, are likely to make it into the president’s address, which he will give Tuesday night in front of a joint session of Congress.

“The State of the Union is an annual occasion to get a mountain of advice both public and private on what to include in the speech,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s communications director. “A lot ends up on the cutting room floor, but getting all the ideas and sifting through them is a very constructive process.”

The Caucus asked more than 20 interest groups in Washington what advice they are giving the president, either in public or in private. Here’s a sampling of their responses:

Mark McKinnon, No Labels: “President Obama, you have an opportunity in your State of the Union Address to bookend the great speech you delivered in Tucson.  We are at a potential inflection point in our politics where we have an opportunity to tone down heated hyper-partisan rhetoric and recognize that our opponents are not “enemies” but people of pure motive who just have a different approach and ideas.  Your speech next week can help heal the partisan breach by compelling us all to work together to achieve consensus on the pressing issues facing the country.”

Damon Silvers, policy director for the AFL-CIO: “We need to have an economic recovery that creates jobs and rebuilds the middle class because if we are reduced to competing to cut spending instead of deciding how to compete in the world economy then we are having the wrong conversation. … We also hope that the president will protect and defend Social Security and Medicare, which are crucial lifelines for working families, seniors and the disabled.”

Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women: “I am writing to you with a heartfelt plea to take a stand against Social Security benefit cuts or any other weakening of the program that may be attempted in the new Congress. Will you speak out against any undermining of Social Security in your State of the Union message?”

Edward F. Coyle, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans: “Retirees will be watching the State of the Union address on Tuesday, and they will support President Obama’s call to lower federal spending. But they know that Social Security did not create these deficits and that we cannot balance the budget on the backs of current and future retirees.”

Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinators of Tea Party Patriots: “Based on his newfound understanding and respect for the views of the majority of Americans, Tea Party Patriots hopes that he will encourage repeal of Obamacare in the Senate, and then sign the bill and begin to engage in true bipartisan negotiations to solve the nation’s health care problems.”

Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring: “If he fails to address the need to rein in the excessive and economically ineffective deficit spending of his administration’s first two years, anything that he says about raising the debt ceiling should be disregarded.”

Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: “We’re hoping he’s going to say something about gun violence. Here’s a chance for some leadership and some eloquence. He should call for a presidential commission on guns and support for the legislation limiting the size of ammo clips.”

Fred Sainz, spokesman for Human Rights Campaign: “This past year Americans were confronted with the epidemic of bullying against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people that goes on in our schools.  The State of the Union address would be an appropriate time for the president to assert leadership on this moral issue and call on all schools to address the problem head on.”

Jim Kessler, vice president for Third Way: “The president ought to make long term economic growth the theme of his State of the Union. He should declare that with the passage of health care reform, America’s 85-year quest to weave a strong safety net is now complete. From there he would describe a clear, tangible, and compelling destination for the nation – that of American excellence. It is a destination where America has the strongest, most vibrant, and most advanced economy on earth.”

Ralph Benko, senior adviser on Economics for American Principles Project: “President Obama must make the case that public funds for essential government services not be used up in paying exorbitant retirement benefits, a trillion dollar problem that news reports show is threatening more than 100 American municipalities with bankruptcy and up to 20 states with insolvency.”

Former Senator Pete Domenici, a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center: “First, he must carefully explain the severe nature of the nation’s debt and deficit problem, showing why it is unlike any other fiscal problem we have ever faced.  Next, he should discuss the consequences that may occur if we simply continue to delay facing the problem with concrete proposals.  Finally, I hope that he will outline a comprehensive plan of what must be contained in a real debt stabilization initiative.”

Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee: “He should use the State of the Union to draw a firm line in the sand against any reduction of the Social Security benefits that American workers earned, paid for, and do not want to see cut. Then he should offer a progressive vision for creating jobs and fighting for middle class families over big corporations.”

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform: “You should say you recognize that spending $800 billion on stimulus didn’t create jobs. You should say you will bring corporate tax rates down, extend the expensing of business investment, and allow repatriation of overseas assets. These are tax cuts that you and Democrats have endorsed that would have bipartisan support.”

Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters: “In order to be the kind of transformational  leader he can be, he should show the country the way forth on dismantling the so-called Defense of Marriage Act so that the law no longer robs the states of their right to decide the question of marriage, nor deprives lawfully married gay Americans of their federal benefits. That’s the advice I’m giving to all the people I know who might actually influence the speech. If you want to be a leader, this is the speech in which to do it.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

From Today’s Times:

• Americans are sending Washington mixed messages about reducing the federal deficit, a new poll from The New York Times and CBS News shows. While most say they would rather cut government spending than pay higher taxes, they change their minds when cutting spending means reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits, according to The Times’s Jackie Calmes and Dalia Sussman.

• As voters make their often contradictory preferences known, the Republican Study Group, a conservative bloc in the House, laid out its approach Thursday to making deep cuts to domestic programs like education and homeland security to curb spending, leaving Medicare, Social Security and the military unscathed. The proposal offers the most detailed look yet at how Republicans could fulfill their promises to cut federal spending, The Times’s David M. Herszenhorn reports.

• President Hu Jintao’s visit to Washington wasn’t all state dinners and photo ops. President Obama emphasized to Mr. Hu, the Chinese president, this week that if China doesn’t take a firmer stance with North Korea, the United States may be forced to redirect troops to protect itself from attack. The warning proved successful in further bringing China on board with the United States strategy for handling North Korea, The Times’s Mark Landler and Martin Fackler report.

• Mr. Obama will break from other modern presidential incumbents and launch his re-election campaign from Chicago instead of Washington, The Times’s Jeff Zeleny reports. As part of his reorganization in preparation for the 2012 election, Mr. Obama will hand over the duties of the White House office of political affairs to the Democratic National Committee. He’s expected to formally declare his candidacy in about two months.

• Policy makers are tiptoeing into discussions about finding a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers, Mary Williams Walsh reports. Besides facing high constitutional hurdles, a formal proposal could have a destabilizing effect on the bond market. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month.

Around the Web:

• While Senators Joe Lieberman and Kent Conrad may be calling it a day, the 84-year-old Representative John Dingell of Michigan said Thursday he’ll make a run for his 30th term in 2012, The Detroit News reports.

Washington Happenings:

• After rescheduling his trip because of the shooting in Tucson this month, Mr. Obama will travel to New York on Friday to tour a General Electric plant, taking the opportunity to talk about jobs and clean energy.

• The co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s on Friday will join other opponents of the Supreme Court’s one-year-old Citizens United decision in the business world to start “Business for Democracy,” a campaign against the decision.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

WASHINGTON — “Can’t see London, Can’t see France, unless we see your underpants.”

Yes, the T.S.A. jokes are flying. As Transportation Security Administration officials struggled to handle the uproar from piqued travelers who maintained their private parts were being treated in a public fashion by new security screening techniques at the airport, the people who make up
dumb jokes were having a field day.

Want to hear some more? These are all courtesy of an off-the-record listserve that caters to aviation, er, professionals, for want of a better word.

“T.S.A.: If we did our job any better, we’d have to buy you dinner first.”

Like that, huh? Want another one? How about “T.S.A.: We are now free to move about your pants.”

Or this. “T.S.A.: Wanna Fly? Drop your fly.” Or “T.S.A.: It’s not a grope. It’s a freedom pat.”

And finally, here’s one for the road.

“TSA: We rub you the wrong way, so you can be on your way.”

Okay, this is family website. We’ll end here.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

3:37 p.m. | Updated Representative John A. Boehner, soon to be the Speaker of the House, has pledged to fly commercial airlines back to his home district in Ohio. But that does not mean that he will be subjected to the hassles of ordinary passengers, including the controversial security pat-downs.

As he left Washington on Friday, Mr. Boehner headed across the Potomac River to Reagan National Airport, which was bustling with afternoon travelers. But there was no waiting in line for Mr. Boehner, who was escorted around the metal detectors and body scanners, and taken directly to the gate.

Mr. Boehner, who was wearing a casual yellow sweater and tan slacks, carried his own bags and smiled pleasantly at passengers who were leaving the security checkpoint inside the airport terminal. It was unclear whether any passengers waiting in the security line, including Representative Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat who lost his re-election bid, saw Mr. Boehner.

At a Capitol Hill news conference after Election Day, as Mr. Boehner began laying out the changes he would make when he becomes House Speaker, he announced that he would continue to fly commercial airlines (usually Delta) back to Ohio. It was a not-so-subtle dig at the outgoing Democratic speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, who had been criticized by Republicans for flying military airplanes when she returned home to San Francisco.

“Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on a commercial aircraft,” Mr. Boehner said at the time, “and I am going to continue to do that.”

And so on Friday, he did. But not without the perquisites of office, including avoiding those security pat-downs that many travelers are bracing for as holiday travel season approaches.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for the Republican leader, said in a statement that Mr. Boehner was not receiving special treatment. And a law enforcement official said that any member of Congress or administration official with a security detail is allowed to bypass security.

“The appropriate security procedures for all Congressional leaders, including Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, are determined by the Capitol Police working with the Transportation Security Administration,” Mr. Steel said.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

3:37 p.m. | Updated Representative John A. Boehner, soon to be the Speaker of the House, has pledged to fly commercial airlines back to his home district in Ohio. But that does not mean that he will be subjected to the hassles of ordinary passengers, including the controversial security pat-downs.

As he left Washington on Friday, Mr. Boehner headed across the Potomac River to Reagan National Airport, which was bustling with afternoon travelers. But there was no waiting in line for Mr. Boehner, who was escorted around the metal detectors and body scanners, and taken directly to the gate.

Mr. Boehner, who was wearing a casual yellow sweater and tan slacks, carried his own bags and smiled pleasantly at passengers who were leaving the security checkpoint inside the airport terminal. It was unclear whether any passengers waiting in the security line, including Representative Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat who lost his re-election bid, saw Mr. Boehner.

At a Capitol Hill news conference after Election Day, as Mr. Boehner began laying out the changes he would make when he becomes House Speaker, he announced that he would continue to fly commercial airlines (usually Delta) back to Ohio. It was a not-so-subtle dig at the outgoing Democratic speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, who had been criticized by Republicans for flying military airplanes when she returned home to San Francisco.

“Over the last 20 years, I have flown back and forth to my district on a commercial aircraft,” Mr. Boehner said at the time, “and I am going to continue to do that.”

And so on Friday, he did. But not without the perquisites of office, including avoiding those security pat-downs that many travelers are bracing for as holiday travel season approaches.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for the Republican leader, said in a statement that Mr. Boehner was not receiving special treatment. And a law enforcement official said that any member of Congress or administration official with a security detail is allowed to bypass security.

“The appropriate security procedures for all Congressional leaders, including Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, are determined by the Capitol Police working with the Transportation Security Administration,” Mr. Steel said.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Real life has a way of intruding on Barack Obama’s presidency.

After a 10-day trip through Asia and a quick, two-day summit in Europe, Mr. Obama and the White House were eager to shift the political focus back to looming fights with Republicans over the economy, tax cuts, spending and the deficit.

Instead, the administration found itself this weekend on the receiving end of squirm-inducing questions about invasive pat-downs of travelers by Transportation Security Agency officers – procedures that appeared to pop up almost overnight.

With Thanksgiving travel just days away, members of Congress were already calling for hearings. The Sunday morning news shows diverted from talk about nuclear treaty negotiations to inquire about probing in sensitive areas of another kind. Even “Saturday Night Live” jumped in with a racy, wickedly funny spoof that cast T.S.A. agents as phone-sex operators.

On Saturday, Mr. Obama weighed in on the controversy from Lisbon. The nation’s top T.S.A. official spent Sunday staunchly defending the new procedures even as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton admitted on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that she would prefer not to have to submit to an invasive pat-down.

“Not if I could avoid it,” Ms. Clinton said. “No. I mean, who would?”

Soon thereafter, John Pistole, the chief of the T.S.A., issued a statement acknowledging that his agency would try to make the pat-downs and other screening methods “as minimally invasive as possible.”

It all felt vaguely familiar. Mr. Obama has repeatedly found himself off message and embroiled in events that quickly capture the imagination of the public, the news media and his adversaries.

Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama was caught up in the whirlwind surrounding the arrest of an African-American professor in Cambridge after he said the officer in the case had “acted stupidly.” The media frenzy didn’t end until the three men shared a beer at the White House.

There was the flap over the mosque to be built near ground zero in New York, which for a time became the primary focus of attention in the White House briefing room. Mr. Obama contributed to the spirited public debate by weighing in on the subject during an iftar dinner at the White House.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico strained the physical resources of the federal government as containment efforts failed for months. But the issue became political and strained the communication resources of the White House, which was repeatedly diverted from focusing on the economy to explain the government’s actions.

In July, the odd case of Shirley Sherrod, the agriculture department employee who was fired, again pulled Mr. Obama into a sideshow about race and politics. In September, a Florida pastor threatened to burn a Koran, once again pulling the White House into a national conversation.

Like those incidents, the furor over the pat-downs started outside the White House. In this case, a San Diego man refused to submit to a full-body scanner and then secretly recorded the pat-down that he received instead.

But the federal government – which runs airport security – was quickly drawn into the controversy. Last week, as outrage grew, critics of the administration blasted officials for failing to effectively communicate with the public about what they should expect at airports and why it was necessary.

“It comes back to marketing,” Allen West, a Florida Republican who was elected to Congress this month, told a local television station. “We should have put out some type of feelers to the American people before we go and implement this type of plan.”

Mr. Obama has blamed the “shellacking” his party received in the midterm elections on a failure to communicate effectively the rationale and motives behind the policies he has pursued, like health care and financial reform.

Traveling abroad, Mr. Obama sought to explain the rationale for the invasive pat-downs, saying that his top security officials “have indicated to me that the procedures that they’ve been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing.”

Mr. Obama said he recognized the frustration that people feel – though he admitted that he had not personally been subjected to the procedures. And he promised to press his security advisers to keep reassessing the need for the procedures in the future.

“Have we thought it through?” he told reporters. “Are there other ways of accomplishing it that meet the same objectives?”

But as this week began, there remained little clarity about the future of the pat-downs that have caused so much consternation. Mr. Pistole’s initial comment that the policy was “not going to change” appears to have given way a bit.

“There is a continual process of refinement and adjustment to ensure that best practices are applied,” Mr. Pistole said in a statement to The Associated Press on Sunday afternoon.

Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, who is set to become chairman of the House Transportation Committee next year, said he agreed with Mr. Pistole that the practice needed to be refined.

But speaking on CNN, Mr. Mica, a longtime critic of the T.S.A., hinted at the criticism that was still headed the government’s way.

“He’s saying it’s the only tool,” Mr. Mica said of Mr. Pistole. “And I believe that’s wrong.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.