Getty Images

Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.)

The ongoing congressional debate over the Farm Bill has made clear just how eager Republicans are to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the program formerly known as food stamps). Despite high unemployment, a Senate committee approved striking $4.1 billion from the program over 10 years -- and the House GOP is looking for cuts five times as large.

Helping lead the way is none other than Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.), who balked when Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee urged Republicans to remember "the least of these." The Tennessee Republican, defending the cuts, countered with 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."

As a theological matter, this isn't constructive -- as Jack Jenkins explained, the Bible verse "was actually referring to ancient Christians who had stopped working in anticipation of Jesus' Second Coming. The verse is concerned with correcting a theological misunderstanding (i.e., don't just wait around for Jesus, live an active faith), not passing judgment on the poor."

But wait, it gets much worse.

A Tennessee congressman who supports billions of dollars in cuts to the food stamp program is one of the largest recipients of federal farm subsidies, according to new annual data released by a Washington environmental group.

Using Agriculture Department data, researchers at the Environmental Working Group found that Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012. The data is part of the research group's online farm subsidy database from which the group issues a report each year.

In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000 in direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland owners, even if they do not grow crops.

So, the guy who's trying to slash assistance for struggling families, arguing that it's necessary to cut spending and let the poor fend for themselves, is also the beneficiary of generous agricultural subsidies? This Tea Party Republicans wants the Department of Agriculture to give him money, but not the poor?

Yep, pretty much.

Note, we've known about the generous taxpayer-financed subsidies Fincher collects for a while -- I first wrote about it in April 2011 -- and the fact that they seem to contradict his political ideology. Asked two years ago whether he's prepared to stop taking these agricultural subsidies, Fincher wouldn't say.

But that was before he started pushing aggressively for cutting food stamps, which makes this story considerably worse.

During the committee debate, Fincher declared, "We have to remember there is not a big printing press in Washington that continually prints money over and over. This is other people's money that Washington is appropriating and spending."

Right, and Washington has been appropriating and spending our money by giving it to wealthy farmers like congressman Fincher.

Ohio's House Republicans last month passed a bill that would punish universities if they help students vote. Included in the regular budget, the proposal would force universities to charge out-of-state students the lower in-state tuition rate if the universities give the students a letter or utility bill proving they live at school. Ohio universities say that would cost them as much as $370 million each year.

To which Ohio's House Speaker responded, verbatim, "That's a rather gigantic amount of money, and I just couldn't respond to it. I don’t know what to say." 

Meanwhile Republicans in the Ohio Senate have desperately been trying to slam the brakes on their colleagues' plan. For one thing, $370 million is truly a gigantic amount of money. For another, the House Republicans would create an incentive for more students to register to vote, and students tend to vote Democratic. It seems that Ohio's House Republicans had not thought about that part, either. From a Cincinnati Enquirer editorial:

Backers of the bill say they are rethinking the proposal because they hadn't considered the unintended consequences.

So it never occurred to them that making it easier for out-of-state students to get the lower in-state tuition rate -- indeed, requiring it if they want to vote here -- would not turn them away from voting but might in fact encourage them to vote, precisely to obtain the lower rate?

In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students have the right to vote in person at college. The court said it is students' constitutional right, under the 26th Amendment. Three decades later, Ohio Republicans are not satisfied with that. Republican State Senator Randy Gardner says the question of student voting belongs "in a separate election-reform bill," reports the Columbus Dispatch.

Some senators share concerns that students who have no intention of living in Ohio after college are voting not only in presidential elections in a vital swing state, but also on local tax levies.

"To dismiss this as a nonissue would not be fair," Gardner said.

Ohio's Senate is expected to decide on changes to the budget, including the student measure, by June 5.

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R), already struggling in advance of his re-election campaign, was asked at an event last week whether he has any Latino staffers. "No, we do not have any staff members in there," the governor responded. "If you can find us one, please let me know."

* In Massachusetts' U.S. Senate special election, billionaire Tom Steyer is gearing up to boost Rep. Ed Markey's (D) prospects. "NextGen, working with our local partners, will be seeking to be a politically disruptive force between now and Election Day," reads the memo sent by Chris Lehane, a spokesman for Steyer's NextGen super-PAC, to the PAC's campaign team, and obtained by The Hill.

* Remember former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R), the failed former presidential and gubernatorial candidate? The anti-immigrant conservative announced this morning that he'll be running for governor in Colorado once again in 2014.

* In Iowa, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Terry Branstad (R), now in his fifth term, with a fairly strong 49% approval rating. The same poll, however, found a 43% plurality does not believe he deserves a sixth term.

* Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) now has the support of a super PAC. The name isn't subtle: Rand PAC 2016.

* Despite being in the minority, the House Democrats' campaign committee narrowly outraised their Republican counterparts in April, $5.4 million to $5.1 million.

* Despite being in the minority, the Senate Republicans' campaign committee narrowly outraised their Democratic counterparts in April, $3.56 million to $3.54 million.

* And in Utah, Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love (R) is looking for a rematch against Rep. Jim Matheson (D) in 2014.

Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), like a few too many pundits, is eager to find a common thread connecting the various political controversies of the day. And in a new Washington Post op-ed, the Republican leader thinks he's found it: that rascally President Obama has created a "culture of intimidation."

Remarkably, Mitch McConnell overcame his fears of Obama's heavy-handed thugs just long enough to write the op-ed. What a trooper.

But what can be done to combat this president's crushing culture of intimidation? Don't worry, the Senate Minority Leader knows just what to do.

[R]ecent efforts to revive the so-called Disclose Act suggest that these tactics are alive and well in Washington. This bill, which would force grass-roots groups to make their member and donor lists public, may seem benign to some. But as a longtime defender of the First Amendment, I have always seen it for what it is: a backdoor effort to discourage those who disagree with the Obama administration from participating in the political process. [...]

Oddly, some on the left are now arguing that the IRS scandal is reason to revive the Disclose Act. But if this scandal has taught us anything, it is that Washington's ability to target individuals and groups is already too expansive.

Wait, what? It's scandal-mania, Republicans are openly speculating about impeachment, and McConnell's worried about campaign-finance laws? Actually, yes. As Ed Kilgore explained:

You have to hand it to Mitch McConnell. While other scandal-mad Republicans are off on a wild goose chase that could well end in 1998, McConnell's focused on exploiting scandals to promote his very favorite cause, and his special gift to the corruption of American politics: hiding the identity of big campaign donors. His op-ed in today's Washington Post aims at convincing us that conservative donors obviously need anonymity because they will otherwise be persecuted by Obama-inspired bureaucrats and union thugs.

In other words, McConnell's op-ed is just shameless opportunism -- he's killed campaign-finance disclosures in the past, desperately wants to prevent them in the future, and figures now is as good a time as any to leverage controversies that have nothing to do with campaign finance to push his favorite argument.

In case anyone's forgotten, the Disclose Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections), was a pretty modest proposal. Proponents have argued it's corrosive to our democracy to have secret donors quietly funneling millions into the elections process.

And since Democrats and Republicans have traditionally agreed that disclosure and transparency is the key to preventing corruption, the Disclose Act's authors saw it as a rather mainstream idea -- those who donate $10,000 or more to organizations that spend money on political campaigns could not do so in secret.

Republicans killed the proposal last summer, with McConnell leading the way. Secret donations, he said, are critical and must be protected.

As of today, McConnell is still saying the same thing, but now he has a new talking point: we must shield major donors from disclosure or the big bad Obama meanies will somehow punish them with something.

Associated Press

There's quite a bit of interest lately in political controversies and efforts to connect them to the White House, but as an electoral matter, there's a limit to the utility: President Obama won't be on the ballot again.

But, Republicans argue, there will be important midterm elections in November 2014, and if the public has soured on the president, it's likely his party will be punished accordingly. Democratic dreams of taking back the U.S. House majority will be dashed, and the Senate Democratic majority, already weakened by retirements, will be in jeopardy.

It was therefore interesting to see the new Washington Post/ABC News poll ask the generic-ballot question: "If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your congressional district?"

If the various "scandals" are hurting the president's party, it is not yet reflected in the data: Democrats lead Republicans on the generic ballot by eight points, 48% to 40%. There's no recent trend line, but late last month, Quinnipiac released a similar poll, and it showed Dems with a four-point advantage.

For context, note that shortly before the 2006 midterms, when Democrats took back both chambers, they also had an eight-point lead in a Washington Post/ABC News generic-ballot poll.

I remain skeptical of House Dems being able to pick up a net gain of 17 seats -- redistricting tilted the playing field against them heavily -- but so long as they enjoy an advantage this large over the GOP, it's at least possible.

Associated Press

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

For all of the partisan disputes on Capitol Hill, lawmakers tend to get along fairly well when it comes to sanctions against Iran. Lawmakers in both parties want more of them, and want them to harsher and more punitive.

But Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) seems a little more eager than most on this subject. Zach Carter reported that the Arkansas Republican introduced a measure yesterday to not only punish those who violate U.S. sanctions against Iran, but would also "automatically" punish the family members of the transgressors.

The provision was introduced as an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which lays out strong penalties for people who violate human rights, engage in censorship, or commit other abuses associated with the Iranian government.

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, "to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree," including, "parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews. nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids," Cotton said.

"There would be no investigation," Cotton said during Wednesday's markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It'd be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof."

Hmm. Let's say some folks decided to roll the dice -- they circumvented U.S. sanctions against Iran and got caught. The law would, naturally, hold them accountable. But under Cotton's vision, that's insufficient -- we would also have to go after the transgressors' parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

That Cotton is prepared to exclude criminals' third cousins twice removed is evidence of his magnanimous restraint.

What if the transgressors' great children didn't know anything about the dealings? It doesn't matter. In fact, there'd be no point in even trying to find out -- "There would be no investigation."

After some committee discussion, Cotton ultimately pulled his proposal, but the fact that he recommended it anyway says something interesting about his worldview.

And who's Tom Cotton? The 35-year-old congressional freshman has been quickly embraced by the political establishment, already having made three Sunday show appearances this year. The Weekly Standard makes no effort to hide its affection for the congressman, and Politico recently described Cotton "an angular soldier-politician ... seemingly destined for higher office."

The same piece described the Arkansas Republican, a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as "his party's most aggressive next-generation advocate for military action overseas," and the "last, best hope" for the "hawkish Republican elites."

He also believes that when it comes to evaluating the Bush/Cheney record on national security, 9/11 doesn't count.

From time to time, I enjoy marveling at the kind of questions that appear in ostensibly neutral Fox News polls. This latest entry only helps reinforce suspicions that the network asks questions intended to get an ideologically satisfying result.

C'mon. Does anyone seriously believe an independent poll would ask whether respondents feel like "the federal government has gotten out of control"? I think it's far more likely Fox wanted to tell it's viewers about results that reinforce a preconceived narrative, so it asked a question to illicit a predictable response.

As for the underlying point, it's also worth noting that Fox did not ask whether the public believed "the federal government has gotten out of control" when the Bush/Cheney administration said warrantless wiretaps of Americans were legally permissible.

Let's also not overlook the larger polling pattern. I've long marveled at the kind of questions that make their way into a Fox survey, starting in March 2007 when the network's poll asked, in all seriousness, "Do you think the Democratic Party should allow a grassroots organization like Moveon.org to take it over or should it resist this type of takeover?" Soon after, another Fox poll asked, "Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not?"

In 2009, a Fox poll asked, "Do you think the United Nations should be in charge of the worldwide effort to combat climate change and the United States should report to the United Nations on this effort, or should it be up to individual countries and the United States would be allowed to make decisions on its own?"

In March 2013, a Fox poll asked, "Former President George W. Bush stopped golfing after the start of the Iraq war. Do you think President Barack Obama should stop golfing until the unemployment rate improves and the economy is doing better?"

As a rule, professional news organizations put a great deal of care into how they word polling questions. To get reliable results that accurately reflect public attitudes, surveys have to be careful not to guide respondents or skew their answers.

It's possible Fox is less concerned about accurately reflecting public attitudes.

Associated Press

Following up on an item from March, President Obama's Republican critics spent a fair amount of time in 2012 condemning the administration's loan to Tesla Motors. In the final months of the race, it was a standard line of attack: the president was recklessly using our money, Mitt Romney said, to "pick losers." Obama was so irresponsible, he even invested in Tesla.

Romney was so fond of the criticism, he even brought it up during one of the debates. Paul Ryan joined in on the fun, condemning Tesla's loan on the stump as well.

Oops.

The taxpayer no longer has to worry about Tesla Motors.

Tesla, the maker of electric cars, paid off a $465 million loan on Wednesday that the Energy Department made in 2010. The repayment is a lift to the Obama administration, whose clean-energy loan programs faced criticism after the collapse of Solyndra, the solar panel maker. The company, using money it raised last week in the markets, is repaying the government nine years before its loan was due. [...]

Elon Musk, who co-founded and leads Tesla, issued a statement thanking the Energy Department, Congress and taxpayers for the loan. "I hope we did you proud," he said.

Time will tell whether Tesla is able to build a model of sustained success, but at least for now, the rhetoric about the Obama administration's Energy Department loan program picking "losers" appears off the mark. The Obama administration took a chance on an innovative company, and now that company is paying taxpayers back -- ahead of schedule.

And what of the complaints that federal funds shouldn't go to subsidize car companies that cater to the rich? It's not an unreasonable point -- taxpayers helped boost an auto manufacturer selling a product that the typical American consumer cannot afford. But proponents of the loan program would argue, persuasively, that the United States benefits from a burgeoning electric-car manufacturing sector and two administrations of different parties saw value in helping get that sector off the ground. In time, as the industry grows, prices fall, and environmentally-friendly cars will be far more common.

Also note that the right hasn't just complained about this company, but the loan program itself, which Republicans generally supported under the Bush/Cheney administration, only to change their mind after President Obama took office.

It's true that some of the program's investments were more successful than others. It happens. But it's also true that on balance, the program conservatives love to hate is looking pretty good.

"Today's repayment is the latest indication that the Energy Department's portfolio of more than 30 loans is delivering big results for the American economy while costing far less than anticipated," Ernest Moniz, the energy secretary, said in a statement. [...]

"Tesla is arguably making the most exciting car in the world today," said [Greg Kats, president of Capital-E, a firm that invests in clean-energy companies], who worked in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration. "This loan program has exceeded expectations."

Fortune's Dan Primack added this morning that there is "now a very real chance" that the Department of Energy loan program "will end up in the black."

Though last week's report on initial unemployment claims was a jolt of unexpectedly bad news, the new figures out this morning point in a more encouraging direction.

The number of people who applied for new unemployment benefits fell by 23,000 to 340,000 in the week ended May 18, the U.S. government said Thursday, keeping the level of initial claims in a range consistent with modest job growth. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected claims to drop to a seasonally adjusted 343,000. The average of new claims over the past month, a more reliable gauge than the volatile weekly number, edged down by 500 to 339,500, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's just above a five-year low.

To reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it's worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it's best not to read too much significance into any one report.

In terms of metrics, when jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it's considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape, and when the number drops below 370,000, it suggests jobs are being created rather quickly. We've been below the 370,000 threshold 20 of the last 23 weeks, and below 350,000 in five of the last seven weeks.

Above you'll find the chart showing weekly, initial unemployment claims going back to the beginning of 2007. (Remember, unlike the monthly jobs chart, a lower number is good news.) For context, I've added an arrow to show the point at which President Obama's Recovery Act began spending money.

In "The Princess Bride," there's one word that Vizzini uses repeatedly and inappropriately: "inconceivable." The problem, of course, that the circumstances that he describes as "inconceivable" are actually quite predictable, leading Inigo Montoya to eventually respond, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Likewise, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) may be equally confused.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday said he believed it was "inconceivable" that President Obama did not learn sooner about the Internal Revenue Service's political targeting of Tea Party groups.

"It's pretty inconceivable to me that the president wouldn't know," Boehner told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren.... "[W]ith as many people that were involved in the audit, the number of people involved in the investigation, somebody -- and the number of people in the White House that knew -- it really is inconceivable that he wouldn't have known about it," he added.

He keeps using that word, but I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

It really isn't inconceivable at all. The president is the chief executive of a very large federal bureaucracy, filled with all kinds of departments and agencies. He's also the president during a time of war and economic crises, so it stands to reason that Obama doesn't have a lot of time to micromanage a division of an IRS office in Cincinnati.

But maybe he knew of allegations that the division of an IRS office in Cincinnati was accused of using ill-advised standards when scrutinizing organizations seeking tax-exempt status? Boehner thinks it's "inconceivable" Obama wasn't aware of this; I think it's "inconceivable" that the Speaker of the House could seriously believe something so deeply silly -- why inform the president and raise the prospect of undermining the Inspector General's investigation? What would be the point?

Boehner believes it's significant that some White House officials were made aware of the probe -- why this is important remains a mystery to me -- but even these GOP talking points keep pushing Obama's critics further from their original goal of connecting the president to the controversy itself. As Jeffrey Toobin explained, "White House officials seem to have engaged in the opposite of a cover-up. They let the investigation proceed, and let the Inspector General do his job. They let the process play out. They played by the rules, which is what lawyers are supposed to do."

Which then leads us to the latest missive from a certain former half-term Alaska governor.

In an op-ed for Breitbart, Palin argues that President Obama should be held responsible for political targeting at the Internal Revenue Service and the formulation of talking points that suggested the Benghazi terror attack had grown spontaneously from a political protest even though there is little to link the West Wing to either.

"For the president to deny any knowledge of what was brewing and to claim to know nothing about the Benghazi cover-up or anything about anything White House-related lately, he's either a liar or a hugely incompetent CEO. You decide," Palin wrote.

And with this, the goalposts move a little further. The right started by arguing, "Why did Obama intervene in the IRS's activities?" This shifted recently to, "Why didn't Obama intervene in the IRS's activities?" And Palin is shifting it again, effectively asking, "Why didn't Obama know more about the IRS's activities?"

This is a more effective line of attack when we're talking about a president's entire Defense apparatus selling weapons to Iran to finance an illegal war in Nicaragua -- if the president didn't know, he should have -- but it makes a lot less sense if we're talking about a president's understanding of a division of an IRS office in Cincinnati.

One might even say it's inconceivable.

Ken Cuccinelli's Twitter avatar

House Ways and Means wants to hear tales of IRS woe from the public.

VA's gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the current governor.

David Koch is hosting a fundraiser for Ken Cuccinelli.

A Senate committee approves the president's nominees for the National Labor Relations Board.

Gun-rights groups sue Connecticut over its new gun laws.

CO Gov. Hickenlooper questions the death penalty.

A ricin scare leads to a Washington state man's arrest.

You know you want to click... President Obama's high school prom pictures.

When Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service's director of Exempt Organizations, invoked the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, it might be said that she 

Need help? Need to shout out the answer without spoiling anyone else's game?

There's a thread for that.

*Remember to mention the number of the puzzle you're talking about.

Citations for Wednesday night's show are listed after the jump.

Tonight's guests include:

Wesley Lowery, reporter for the Boston Globe, live from Orlando

Jeh Johnson, former Pentagon general counsel

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, (D) New York, member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which held today’s IRS hearings

And here's executive producer Bill Wolff with a look at what will come up on the show when the sun goes down:

The ancient response to tornadoes in school remains -- and, in many places -- the current one.

A bunch of you who grew up sitting in hallways during tornado warnings wrote in yesterday about Moore, Oklahoma. Neither of the two schools hit by a tornado this week had special "safe rooms" for protection from storms. The students and teachers took shelter the same way they have taken shelter for generations -- in hallways and bathrooms, wherever they could, with horrifying and tragic results.

Oklahoma state Representative Joe Dorman grew up sitting in hallways, too, and hoping for the best. Now he is proposing that Oklahoma spend $500 million building safe rooms for schools and other public facilities. As part of the Democratic minority, Dorman will need bipartisan support if he's to get anywhere with a bill. He tells us:

"There is that Big Brother mentality that says, 'You can't tell me what to do. We will never get a mandate that says you have to have a safe room in your home. . . . [I]f we are going to mandate that our kids must be in school, then we need to mandate that they have somewhere safe to go when there's a tornado."

As it happens, the mayor of devastated Moore now says he'll push for an ordinance requiring safe rooms in new homes. Even as Oklahoma has offered funding for schools to build safe rooms, the state has also resisted having the government regulation needed to require them and the expense of building them.

Oklahoma's 2013 legislative session is down to its last few days, so Representative Dorman's proposal might not get considered until next year. For now, the House budget chief tells the local press that they're considering the $500 million bond issue, along with other responses to the storm. Dorman says that if he can't get a vote in this session, he'll ask for a study committee over the summer and hearings to follow. He's term-limited out of office after next year. "Knowing this is my last stand in the legislature, I'm going to be tenacious about this," he says. 

After the jump, our segment last night on safe rooms and the Oklahoma town they saved.

In 2011, the tiny town of Tushka, Oklahoma, rode out a tornado in a pair of community safe rooms. The twister destroyed the town's school. Now they're rebuilding, they're including three safe rooms. The superintendent, as you'll see in the clip, says that was the first question they had about the new facility: Where are the safe rooms going to go? You can read more about Tushka's safe rooms on our previous post.

Today's edition of quick hits:

* London: "A man was killed by knife-wielding assailants on a London street Wednesday, and a bloodstained suspect at the scene holding a meat cleaver was captured on video telling passers-by: 'We swear by the almighty Allah.'"

* Oklahoma: "At the White House press briefing on Wednesday, Press Secretary Jay Carney announced that President Obama will travel to Oklahoma on Sunday, May 26 to inspect the damage from the tornado that hit the state on Monday. Carney added that the president will visit with affected families and thank first-responders."

* Drone strikes: "[T]he Obama administration revealed Wednesday that drone strikes since 2009 had killed four Americans overseas -- one of whom, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was targeted in Yemen because he'd planned and was planning terrorist attacks on the United States – principally the plot to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Eve 2009. Three others who were not 'specifically targeted' were killed in circumstances the administration did not explain."

* The Waltham muders: "Dead Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and another man -- who was killed by the FBI on Wednesday -- murdered three people in Massachusetts after a drug deal went wrong in 2011, law enforcement sources tell NBC News."

* Lois Lerner: "The Internal Revenue Service official who first disclosed that the agency had targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny, and in doing so ignited a controversy that has ensnared the White House, denied on Wednesday that she had ever provided false information to Congress. She then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to testify at a House hearing on the agency's actions."

* The need for systemic action grows: "A sergeant first class on the staff of the United States Military Academy at West Point faces charges for allegedly videotaping female cadets without their consent, sometimes when they were in the shower, according to Army officials."

* Climate crisis: "China is taking steps to tackle its huge carbon output. Today, the country announced the details of its first carbon trading program, which will begin in the city of Shenzhen next month. The southern city is one of seven cities and provinces, including Beijing, which will take part in the pilot program, set to be completely implemented by 2014."

* And the Presidential Commission on Election Administration -- also known as Obama's election-reform panel -- now has members.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Getty Images

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke to the Joint Economic Committee this morning, and as expected, much of the attention was on his expectations with regard to monetary policy. The Fed will, Bernanke explained, pull back from its quantitative easing, but not before the economy shows it can handle the departure.

But as it often the case, what interested me were Bernanke's not-so-subtle hints to lawmakers about their role in making the economy worse.

Bernanke touted the Fed's efforts to lift the economy but warned Congress that the central bank's actions will be insufficient to stave off a drag on the economy caused by rising taxes and spending cuts.

A bevy of fiscal policy issues -- including the expiration of the payroll tax cut, tax increases, budget caps on discretionary spending and the cuts to government spending from sequestration -- are creating headwinds that will "exert a substantial drag on the economy this year," he said.

"Taking them all together, they have the effect of being a drag on economic growth, perhaps more than necessary."

With interest rates near zero, the Fed "does not have the capacity to fully offset an economic headwind of this magnitude." ... "Monetary policy is not omnipotent," Bernanke said.

To be sure, this is all very polite and professional in tone, and I suspect some of the members of Congress on the Joint Economic Committee didn't fully appreciate what Bernanke was saying.

So let's translate a bit: the Fed chairman was telling Congress that taking money out of the economy, as Republicans insist we keep doing, is the one thing holding an American economic recovery. While Bernanke is trying to make it easier for the economy to grow, his efforts are being negated by Congress, which is making it harder for the economy to grow by embracing austerity measures and focusing on deficit reduction. The unsatisfactory status quo is, quite literally, largely lawmakers' fault.

He'd never say this out loud, of course, but Bernanke was effectively trying to argue, "While I'm trying to keep the water out of the boat to keep it from sinking, you guys are inexplicably trying to pour more water back into the boat. Please stop."

This isn't the first time the Fed chairman has pleaded with Congress to get smarter about economic policy, and I'll confess, it amazes me every time.

To reiterate a point we last discussed in December, Bernanke has, over the last few years, occasionally abandoned subtlety and explicitly pleaded with Congress to consider fiscal stimulus, but Republicans have always refused. (Indeed, GOP lawmakers haven't just been content to ignore the need for fiscal remedies, they've also demanded that Bernanke stop trying to improve the economy through monetary measures.)

Bernanke wants Congress to act as a partner, working alongside the Fed to strengthen the economy. Instead, Congress has acted as an opponent, pushing in the opposite direction.

In fact, congressional Republicans see Bernanke's explanation that unnecessary government spending cuts are undermining the recovery, and they respond with two arguments: (1) we need more unnecessary government spending cuts; and (2) the Republican Fed chairman must be some kind of liberal.

And what of the tax increases? Republicans demanded an end to the payroll tax break, too. As for the income tax hikes on the wealthy, they're largely responsible for sharp reduction in the deficit, which is what Republicans have claimed is their top priority.

Associated Press

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)

It's hardly unreasonable to think the Internal Revenue Service took some serious missteps when it came to groups seeking tax-exempt status, and will need to improve the way the agency is managed. But being critical of the IRS's missteps does not mean one should necessarily start making wild assumptions about imaginary misdeeds.

You may recall last summer, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) caused quite a stir claiming he'd heard from a Bain Capital investor that Mitt Romney hadn't paid income taxes for 10 years. Which investor? Reid didn't say. Why should anyone take the claim seriously? Reid couldn't say. He heard an unsubstantiated rumor, and he passed it along.

Nearly 10 months later, the right has decided to revisit the issue, in light of the ongoing IRS controversy. Last week, for example, the Daily Caller ran a report, based on literally nothing, asking whether "someone at the IRS" leaked Romney's tax information to Reid.

As is often the case, the story worked its way from Republican media to Republican lawmakers. During a congressional hearing today, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) was incensed when former IRS commissioner Doug Shulman said he no idea whether Romney's tax documents had leaked.

"Do you know how Mr. Reid obtained that information? Did you look into this?" he asked Shulman.

Shulman stumbled, then said, "I have no idea."

"Doesn't that alarm you that all of a sudden, this pertinent information comes up, and you're the head of this agency, and you're not asking questions? Shame on you. Absolutely shame on you," Gosar responded.

Look, I criticized Reid at the time for repeating unsubstantiated rumors, which struck me as irresponsible. And if lawmakers want to read IRS officials the riot act over its mistakes on dealing with tax-exempt applicants, more power to 'em.

But Gosar's tirade today wasn't just over the top; it was plainly ridiculous.

Reid said he'd heard a rumor from an investor about Romney. Should the IRS have investigated this? Of course not; that wouldn't make any sense.

Indeed, one need not be a strategic mastermind to understand that if Reid had actual tax materials to bolster his rumors, he would have released them to make Romney look bad.

And while we're at it, let's go ahead and note that Reid was, in fact, wrong -- Romney did pay taxes over that 10-year period. If someone had illegally leaked Romney's returns, they'd show the opposite of Reid's claims.

So, the underlying argument is kind of silly, and is probably evidence of a right-wing congressman looking for an excuse to yell at the IRS. "Absolutely shame on you"? Gosar doesn't seem to have any idea what he's talking about.

Associated Press

In competitive states, we're seeing two kinds of politicians: those who support new measures intended to reduce gun violence and those who pretend to support new measures intended to reduce gun violence.

In New Hampshire, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), shortly after voting to kill the bipartisan bill to expand background checks, benefited from new ads claiming she voted for "a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective." In Arizona, Sen. Jeff Flake (R), who voted the way the NRA demanded last month, this month is telling anyone who'll listen how much he loves "to strengthen background checks."

And in Nevada, as Jon Ralston noted today, Sen. Dean Heller (R) is sending out interesting correspondence to his constituents.

"Knowing your interest in gun control, I wanted to give you an update on legislation I have cosponsored and supported recently."

Imagine how Nevadans felt when they received a letter that began that way from none other than Sen. Dean Heller, who voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill, saying he feared a creation of a gun registry despite his general support for the concepts in the measure. He was hailed by NRA types and blistered by gun control advocates.

I wonder how many folks who received that missive fell for the having-it-both-ways Heller approach.

Probably quite a few. That's the point -- politicians who do unpopular things have to cynically hope they can mislead voters, not by explicitly lying, but by taking advantage of public confusion over details.

In this case, Heller's letter (pdf) makes him sound like quite the reformer, boasting of his support for background checks, keeping firearms from the mentally ill, endorsing an amendment sponsored by a Democrat, and cosponsoring "bipartisan" legislation.

The typical person, who may not follow the news closely, would probably have no idea that Heller helped filibuster the bipartisan measure on background checks, and helped kill the entire bill on gun reforms.

But therein lies the point: the Nevada Republican is embarrassed enough to try to give people the wrong impression, and that level of embarrassment tells us something important.

As we talked about the other day, the NRA would have lawmakers believe -- indeed, it would have all of us believe -- that opponents of gun reforms enjoy broad support from the American mainstream. The NRA's allies have nothing to be embarrassed about, and have no reason to fear a public backlash, since freedom-loving Americans have no use for those rascally liberal ideas on gun safety.

But we know they're wrong, not just because of the available public opinion data, but because the senators who voted with the NRA appear to be going out of their way to pretend they didn't.

Getty Images

A week ago, it looked like the Senate was gearing up for some major nominating fights. Richard Cordray's nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was ready to be brought the floor, as were Thomas Perez's Labor Secretary nomination and Gina McCarthy's EPA nomination. The result would some knock-down-drag-out fights that could dictate the future of how the chamber deals with administration nominees.

And then ... nothing. Even Cordray's nomination, which was slated for tomorrow, was pulled from the schedule. What happened? Brian Beutler reports this morning:

Cordray will now most likely get his chance after immigration reform legislation clears the Senate. And not because Reid is giving up on Cordray's nomination, but because he wants to turn Cordray and a handful of other nominees into a test of the GOP's vows to filibuster top Obama picks, including two designated cabinet secretaries.

The move serves two purposes: First, it removes one of the largest pretexts Republicans will have to walk away from immigration reform. Second, it puts Republicans on the spot in an exquisite -- and in Reid's mind necessary -- way, thus providing the nominees their best chance at confirmation, and leaving Democrats little choice, if the GOP blocks them, but to change the rules to immunize executive and judicial nominees from filibuster.

A senior Democratic aide told Brian the idea is to set up "back-to-back-to-back confirmation votes" on Cordray, Perez, and McCarthy. My sources have suggested President Obama's nominees to lead the ATF and sit on the NLRB may also in the mix as part of the same effort.

If the Senate is allowed to exercise its advise-and-consent role, fine -- these nominees will be confirmed and the chamber will move on to other business. If the Republican minority blocks some or all of these nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will, in theory, be able to credibly argue that the GOP has given him no other choice but to pursue the "nuclear option."

Why not do this sooner rather than later? Two reasons.

First, Reid and Senate Dems see immigration as so important, they're inclined to push everything off until the reform bill has cleared the chamber. Once it's done, Democrats will feel freer to use hardball tactics to combat Republican obstructionism -- knowing that forcing the confrontation now would almost certainly derail the bipartisan legislation.

Second, if Reid is serious about the "nuclear option," he's going to need at least 51 votes to pull it off. That may sound easy given that the Senate Democratic caucus has 55 members, but let's not forget that plenty of those 55 have proven to be very reluctant when it comes to changing how the Senate operates. If they were uncomfortable with filibuster reform in January, the "nuclear option" is likely to be a tough sell, too.

Either way, this is a major fight on the horizon. As Brian concluded, "That effectively puts Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on a collision course. If McConnell caves or works out an agreement with Reid, then the nuclear option will become inoperative. But if he doesn't and these confirmation votes fail, then Reid will either have to admit defeat or do ... something. In that sense he's essentially building a 'permission structure' for himself and his caucus to do something about the rules in the event that Republicans make good on their threats."

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In New Jersey, Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Barbara Buono has her first television ad of the cycle. It's generally just a light, bio ad, but note the Andrew Cuomo reference. [Update: It turns out the video below is Buono's first online ad, while this is her first televised spot of the campaign.]

* In Massachusetts' Senate special election, Republican Gabriel Gomez released his first attack ad of the race, though several local reports are drawing attention to the commercial's obvious falsehoods.

* On a related note, Karl Rove's American Crossroads said this week it's "watching" the Massachusetts race "closely," but would not commit to intervening on Gomez's behalf.

* In Minnesota, a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Sen. Al Franken (D) leading each of his potential Republican challengers by margins ranging from 15 to 17 points. He appears to be a safe bet for re-election.

* In Virginia, we continue to learn more about E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP's nominee for lieutenant governor, including the fact that he worked to oppose housing desegregation in Boston in 1988.

* Virginia Republicans' gubernatorial nominee, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, endorsed Jackson publicly yesterday, but said he would refuse to comment on all of the nutty things his new running mate has said over the years.

* In Michigan, a new statewide poll shows incumbent Gov. Rick Snyder (R) with a one-point edge over former U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer (D), who has not yet announced his plans, 39% to 38%. The same poll found U.S. Rep. Gary Peters (D) as the early favorite in the open U.S. Senate race.

* In New York City, former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) launched his mayoral campaign overnight.

* And the 2014 Senate retirements may not be over just yet: Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) acknowledged this week that he has not yet decided whether to seek re-election next year.

It must be tiresome to have to update political talking points. Partisans go to a lot of trouble to write, poll test, memorize, and repeat them, and when the talking points are no longer accurate, it must be terribly inconvenient to come up with new ones.

For example, Republicans were heavily invested in arguing that the unemployment rate was "above 8 percent of x months," which was fine until the unemployment rate dropped below 8 percent, forcing the right to come up with new talking points.

The same is true on deficit reduction. Conservative condemnations of "trillion-dollar" deficits made more sense right until the point the deficit shrunk below $1 trillion.

Alas, some folks stick to their old talking points, even when they're now wrong.

Now, this is ordinarily the point at which I note that China owns only a small portion of U.S. debt; large deficits are wise under the economic circumstances; and if Sen. Paul is really eager to reduce the deficit, he should endorse some tax increases.

But putting all of this aside, Rand Paul is using out-of-date math. "We are borrowing $4 billion a day"? Let's see -- there are 365 days in a year ... multiplied by 4 billion ... carry the one ... that means we'll have annual federal budget deficit of over $1.4 trillion.

Except, we won't. The latest CBO estimate says this year's deficit will be $642 billion, down $400 billion from last year, and nearly $800 billion from when President Obama took office. Paul's argument, in other words, isn't even close to being accurate -- we're not borrowing $4 billion a day; we're borrowing less than $2 billion a day.

If the right wants to argue that's still too much, fine. I disagree, but we can at least have a debate. But to use talking points from 2009, as if we have haven't already seen the fastest deficit reduction in modern U.S. history, is absurd. What Rand Paul is telling his followers is simply and demonstrably wrong.

Updating talking points may be annoying, but when the facts change, politicians' rhetoric needs to change with them.

Associated Press

When it comes to the IRS controversy, I'm starting to get the impression that the goalposts have moved rather quickly.

The initial allegation raised by the right and other administration critics is that President Obama's White House, if not the president himself, may have been directly involved. As this story goes, Team Obama sent word to an IRS office in Cincinnati to apply extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

When every shred of evidence suggested this allegation is baseless, the charges shifted from "Obama did too much!" to "Obama did too little!"

For example, ABC's Jonathan Karl, who's had a rough go of it lately, said yesterday of the IRS's missteps: "How was this allowed to go on? ... There were public reports that this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election.... Is there any responsibility from the administration of saying, 'Hey, IRS, we don't treat groups differently based on politics [instead of waiting] for the report after the election to make a comment?'"

In other words, we've reached the point in the controversy at which critics are raising the opposite of their original charges. "Why did the White House intervene?" has become "Why didn't the White House intervene?"

Jeffrey Toobin's take yesterday rings true.

When you can't prove that the White House did anything wrong, and you can't prove that the White House knew that someone else was doing something wrong, what do you try to prove? That the White House knew there was an investigation into whether someone else was doing something wrong! That may sound scandalous, but, in fact, it's perfectly appropriate. [...]

White House officials seem to have engaged in the opposite of a cover-up. They let the investigation proceed, and let the Inspector General do his job. They let the process play out. They played by the rules, which is what lawyers are supposed to do.

I'd note that congressional Republicans learned about the IG's inquiry last summer -- to use Karl's words, they knew "this stuff was going on almost a year before the presidential election" -- and they too let the process play out, as they should have.

Dave Weigel added, "What started as a question of whether the White House ordered 'Tea Party targeting' has become a Byzantine investigation of on what day which staffers were informed that the inspector general was digging into this."

It suggests the "scandal," such as it is, continues to shrink. This is not to say the controversy is unimportant, but it's clear the goalposts are nowhere near where they were at the outset.

Associated Press

President Obama, at a press conference last week, was asked about possible prosecutorial overreach when it came to subpoenaing reporters' communications as part of leak probes. The president, though not directly involved with the investigations, defended the inquiries.

"U.S. national security is dependent on those folks being able to operate with confidence that folks back home have their backs, so they're not just left out there high and dry, and potentially put in even more danger than they may already be," Obama said. "And so I make no apologies, and I don't think the American people would expect me as Commander-in-Chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed."

The White House's position hasn't changed, but in light of the AP and James Rosen stories, it's worth noting that press secretary Jay Carney adopted a different posture
yesterday.

The White House said on Tuesday that it did not think the Justice Department should threaten criminal action against journalists who report on sensitive national security matters, distancing itself from a recent case in which a television correspondent was targeted as a possible "co-conspirator" in a leak investigation.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said he discussed the situation with President Obama after reports that James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, was described in criminal terms in an affidavit involving a 2009 article about North Korea posted on the network's Web site.

"I can't comment on the specifics of any ongoing criminal matter," Mr. Carney told reporters. "But if you're asking me whether the president believes that journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs, the answer is no."

So, on the one hand, Carney said it's "a serious matter" when "classified information is leaked." On the other hand, he added, it is "vital to our democracy -- and the president believes this deeply -- that the press is allowed to pursue investigative journalism freely."

If a remedy for the conflicting priorities is on the horizon, it might be a media shield law.

The administration reiterated its support for the idea last week, and a day later, the proposal had bipartisan cosponsors -- Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- though Republicans have generally been far more skeptical of the bill. The AP subpoenas didn't seem to generate much interest among GOP senators last week, but the fact that a Fox News reporter was targeted might help Republicans take a fresh look at the proposal.

Indeed, while that may sound overly cynical, Graham admitted as much yesterday: "Maybe now that Fox is involved, more [Republicans] will pay attention."

Associated Press

As if Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) didn't have enough troubles, the FBI has reportedly taken an interest in one of her ongoing controversies (via Laura Clawson).

The FBI is investigating complaints of alleged campaign finance violations in Rep. Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign.

The FBI joins the Office of Congressional Ethics, the Federal Elections Commission and an Iowa state Senate ethics committee in probing whether Bachmann's presidential campaign paid an Iowa state senator from her MichelePAC, a fund that should not have been used for campaign expenses, and whether the state senator stole the email list of an Iowa home-school group from another Bachmann staffer, Barbara Hekki, prior to the Iowa caucuses in January, 2012.

About a month ago, after an unrelated press conference, reporters hoped to get some information from Bachmann about the recent allegations. Instead of responding, the right-wing congresswoman literally ran away, while some aides "physically blocked reporters" to keep them at bay, and other aides were seen "pushing reporters out of the way as Bachmann left the room."

And that was before we knew the FBI had taken an interest in one of the Bachmann's controversies.

The story admittedly can get a little convoluted -- Bachmann allegedly paid a Republican state lawmaker $7,500 a month, funneling the money through a business owned by a Bachmann fundraiser -- but it certainly has the potential to do real harm to the Minnesota Republican's career.

Gavin Aronsen has a good overview: "[T]he FBI is investigating allegations that the 2012 presidential campaign of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) violated federal laws by not disclosing payments to an Iowa state senator, improperly coordinated with her PAC, and tried to silence whistleblowing staffers."