Act II for voting rights -- June 27, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

“Voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. declared in his Supreme Court opinion that nevertheless shredded part of the federal voting rights safety net.

By a 5-4 vote, Roberts and the four other justices nominated by Republican presidents effectively ended nearly 50 years of federal oversight on voting practices in mostly Southern states that had a history of discrimination.

The court said that times have changed and racial progress has made outdated the decades-old formula Congress used to decide which states had to submit their election law changes in advance.  Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Roberts in the majority opinion.

You won’t be surprised that the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents saw the case, Shelby County v. Holder, much differently.

“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a stinging dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Now what? Until Tuesday, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required the states of Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Alaska to submit changes in their election laws to the federal government. Parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota were also required to do so.

Today, those states and localities no longer have to “beseech” – Roberts’ word -- the government for approval. Several states said they’d move quickly to put in place strict new voter ID laws.

Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department will continue to monitor all states and to file lawsuits when questionable steps are taken. Lawsuits take years. Preclearance is a fairly quick process that puts the burden on jurisdictions to prove at the outset that their new election laws do not discriminate.  

The court challenged Congress to rewrite the law’s Section 4, which contains the formula identifying states needing preclearance. The smart money is on Congress to fail, once again, to do anything.  

If members of Congress can’t pass a farm bill or immigration legislation, and might well fight over whether the evening meal is called dinner or supper, how can they possibly agree on politically explosive standards for which states must get federal scrutiny of their election decisions?  

Yes, but…how can Congress NOT act – if the people demand it? It has happened before.

In August 1963, the March on Washington drew more than 200,000 in peaceful demonstration to the Lincoln Memorial. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.

After the march, King and other leaders went to the White House and talked with President John Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon Johnson about the need for bipartisan civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 eventually resulted.  

On the 50^th anniversary of the march and Dream speech, the civil rights community is planning five days of events in August in Washington Leaders say this won’t be a nostalgia trip but a call to restart the civil rights movement and to urge Congress to act on voting rights for the 21^st century.   

For the record, not everyone who has dealt with the preclearance rules has found them burdensome.

“I have generally found the process straightforward, and given the importance of voting, not onerous,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who served as Richmond’s mayor as well as lieutenant governor and governor in a state that had its share of civil rights issues.

Kaine suggested that until Congress acts, jurisdictions previously covered should continue to submit their election changes for preclearance to the Justice Department “as a sign to their own constituents that they are committed to ensuring equal voting rights.” Nice try.

But then Kaine was once a missionary.

The country is becoming more diverse, but members of Congress actually risk little politically if they fail to respond to racial diversity. The average House Republican district is 75 percent white while the average Democratic district is 51 percent white, according to the Cook Political Report. 

So here we are: Everybody agrees voting discrimination is still with us. Democrats and Republicans always say voting isn't a partisan issue. Prove it. Work together on new rules for preclearance and ensure that everybody eligible to vote can do so.

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

 

  

Yes, 2016 is closer than you think -- June 20, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

In his first summer as a lame duck president, Barack Obama has something in common with George W. Bush.

Obama’s job approval rating is only slightly higher than Bush’s 46 percent at this point in his presidency, June 2005. Obama’s popularity has been shaken by reports of the National Security Agency’s phone call tracking, which began in Bush’s term, and of IRS’s targeting tea party groups for special scrutiny, a scandal the Obama administration owns.   

Iowa’s presidential caucuses are still 30 months away, but potential candidates and party operatives are already moving to the next presidential contest. Eight years ago, Democrats were aching to regain the White House; now it’s the Republicans’ turn.

Among possible GOP candidates, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Mitt Romney’s running mate last year, rates highest among Republican voters, while Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., and Sen. Mark Rubio, R-Fla., get higher marks from the general public, Gallup reports. Christie has had weight-loss surgery – for his physical, not his political, health, he insists.  

Democrats are talking enthusiastically about Hillary Clinton as the first woman president, just as they did eight years ago. Therein lies a cautionary tale.

Back in Summer 2005, Clinton was seen as formidable, if not yet inevitable. When Hillary Clinton appeared with Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa at a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, she stole the show. The DLC was a centrist group that had boosted Bill Clinton’s prospects for the White House, and Hillary Clinton was trying to squeeze her liberal foot into a moderate shoe.

Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, had spoken eloquently at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, but Clinton and her fans thought him too inexperienced to win just four years later. Voters had other opinions.   

The country is even more polarized these days. Tea partiers push Republicans to the right, and Democrats drift left. The DLC closed its doors in 2011.

This time around, Vice President Joe Biden has Senate as well as one-heartbeat-away experience to be president. Clinton and her fans should recognize his potential vote-getting power.  

At the same time, the historical significance of the first woman president is huge. Clinton has distinguished herself as a loyal member of the Obama team and as the nation’s top diplomat. Republicans treat her like a frontrunner by attempting to tarnish her sterling reputation with questions about her role in the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which cost four American lives.

Clinton is 65 but she’s hardly ready to retire. Her next memoir is due out next June, and like her husband, she’s on the talk circuit.

When she spoke to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Mich., last Monday night, about 50 supporters outside waved “I’m Ready for Hillary” signs and chanted “Hill-a-ry, 20-16. Hill-a-ry, 20-16.” 

The Grand Rapids Press also reported that Clinton offered five rules for life in her speech, including:  “You can’t win if you don’t show up.” She was referring to the need to demonstrate to countries large and small that the United States values their friendship. But of course her remark added to the buzz about whether she will show up in 2016. Clinton hasn’t announced her plans, but almost everyone assumes she’s in.

The Ready for Hillary super PAC is hard at work building a grassroots draft movement. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., became the first member of Congress to jump on the Hillary bandwagon. McCaskill supported Obama early on for 2008. No fan of Bill Clinton, she said in 2006 she wouldn’t want him near her daughter. That was then.

Hillary Clinton could follow her husband’s lead and make money. Bill Clinton brought home $17 million in speaking fees from mid-January 2012 to mid-January 2013. He made 73 speeches at an average rate of $195,000 per speech, a CNN analysis of financial reports found. The former president has made a whopping $106 million in speaking fees since he left the White House.

Hillary Clinton has a new Twitter account. Her profile: “wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD…” Humor is good.

Practically overnight, she attracted more than half a million followers, with more every minute.  

But Iowa is a long way off. Sometimes you don’t see trouble coming.     

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

RX for states: Expand Medicaid -- June 13, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER 

“Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing – after they have exhausted all other possibilities,” Winston Churchill supposedly said.

Whether the remark reflected Churchill’s or someone else’s wit, we again are seeing Americans struggle over the right thing. This time the right thing is for every state to expand Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor.  

Medicaid currently provides health care to about 59 million low-income people – mostly young children and their parents and pregnant women. It pays for long-term care for seniors in nursing homes and people with disabilities. Some states, like Massachusetts, expanded Medicaid coverage on their own.

In March 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. Obamacare – which aims to bring affordable health care to most Americans no matter where they live.

The law is making significant changes. Next year, insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing health conditions, and almost every American will have to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. The law also required every state to expand Medicaid to cover people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, about $26,000 for a family of three in 2013. The Congressional Budget Office said the Medicaid expansion would provide 16 million Americans with reliable health care.   

Republican state officials challenged the law in the courts. Last June, the Supreme Court upheld the law but said expanding Medicaid was a state option. Today 22 states and the District of Columbia are moving forward with the Medicaid expansion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. These include California, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

About 20 states have rejected the expansion – at least for now. Among them are Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia. Eight other states around the country are still fighting it out.

In five Deep South states that have opted out – Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina – 62 percent of residents support the Medicaid expansion, a poll in March and April by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found. The center is a public policy research group that focuses on African Americans.

Virginians were almost evenly split in March with 45 percent favoring expansion and 43 percent opposed, a Quinnipiac University poll reported.    

States that have rejected the expansion have some of the nation’s worst health records. America’s Health Rankings, an annual report by United Health Foundation, ranked Mississippi and Louisiana 49^{th,  --} the least healthy states. Alabama is 45^th and Virginia 21^st.

The states are forgoing “free” money. The federal government will foot 100 percent of Medicaid expansion costs from 2014 to 2016. Repayment will drop  to 90 percent in 2020 and level off after that. That’s a much better match than states currently have for Medicaid. The federal share ranges from 50 percent to 83 percent, with poorer states getting higher amounts per capita.   

Critics of expansion say they worry about unspecified costs down the road, and yet people without health insurance get health care every day in more costly hospital emergency rooms.    

A new Rand study of the first 14 states whose governors declared they would not expand Medicaid, including Alabama, found those states together would spend $1 billion more on uncompensated health care in 2016 than if they expanded Medicaid. The 14 states would give up $8.4 billion annually in federal payments, Rand said.

An analysis of state health data by the Los Angeles Times indicates that the states could use the help. Colon cancer deaths in states that oppose the Medicaid expansion are, on average, 16 percent higher than in states that support expansion, and deaths from breast cancer are 8 percent higher on average in states that oppose the expansion.

“Medicaid by itself may not close those gaps, which also reflect income and education disparities,” the paper reported, noting that conservatives argue that poor people would be helped more by alternative strategies that encourage people to take responsibility for their own health care.

States that don’t expand Medicaid still face other higher costs. Nationwide, only about two-thirds of people eligible have signed up for Medicaid, and the new health law includes a major outreach effort.

The fight over Medicaid is far from over. There’s no deadline for expansion, and supporters say they’ll be back in statehouses for the next legislative session. As they say in baseball, there’s always next year.

For now, though, it appears many states are determined to ignore the proverb and be “penny wise and pound foolish.”   

©2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

How can GOP win young voters? June 6, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

After back-to-back presidential defeats, the Republican Party is obsessed with reinventing itself. Or, more accurately, it’s obsessed with talking about reinventing itself.

This is like someone who, having gained 25 pounds, debates the virtues of various diets while lying on the couch, eating junk food. It’s a first step, but a tiny one.

   

Poor Bob Dole had the temerity to say that this isn’t his Republican party. Nearly 90, the former senator and Republican presidential nominee said last month that he doubted whether he, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan could even be nominated for president by the current party.

“I think they ought to put a sign on the (Republican National) Committee doors that says ‘Closed for Repairs,’” and spend the next six months coming up with a positive agenda, Dole said on Fox News Sunday.

Conservatives pounced, calling Dole old, irrelevant and worse. Eventually, though, status-quo Republicans may be forced to hear the wake-up calls. Yes, plural.

  

 In March, a Republican task force commissioned by Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus warned in its “Growth and Opportunity Project” report that the party has marginalized itself and risks future presidential losses unless it makes changes.  Among the problems is age. 

“Young people are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the party represents…When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us,” the report said.

Reagan may be a beloved GOP icon, but no one under the age of 51 was old enough to vote for him when he first ran for president, the report noted, adding, “Our party knows how to appeal to older voters, but we have lost our way with younger ones.” 

It’s even worse than that.

When voters under 30 were asked what words they associate with “Republican Party,” they responded: closed-minded, racist, rigid, old-fashioned.

And the Democratic Party? Soft, said some, but most picked tolerant, diverse and open-minded.

These are findings from a new report by the College Republican National Committee. The committee analyzed voter polls and conducted its own focus groups and survey of voters under 30 for “Grand Old Party for a Brand New Generation.” The report calls on Republicans to turn the GOP brand around, update their tech presence and rethink their policies.

Young people have been voting Democratic for president since 1992, so long that it may seem the natural order. President Barack Obama won 5 million more votes of people under 30 than Mitt Romney did last year, and that was enough to ensure Obama’s victory, despite Romney’s winning 2 million more votes of people over 30.

 

It wasn’t always this way. In 1972, the first presidential election when 18-year-olds could vote, 52 percent of voters under 30 cast ballots for Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan won 59 percent of young voters in 1984, and George W. Bush lost young voters by just 2 points in 2000 – while losing seniors 65 and more than 4 points.

Democrats should not enjoy the Republicans’ dilemma too much.  It’s not that young people love Democrats, the college Republicans report. It’s that young people hate Republicans more.

At the start of their survey, the College Republicans’ researchers asked young voters to complete two non-political sentences: “I hope people see me as…” And “I hope people never see me as…” They were given a long list of attributes.This was before any mention of politics, and the idea was to get a sense of what the young people valued. 

Interestingly, the most common answer to “I hope people see me as…” was intelligent, followed by caring and hardworking. Way down the list were creative, unique, adventurous and cool.

And “I hope people never see me as…” stupid. Lazy and incompetent were close behind.  Farther down were closed-minded, negative and unhelpful.  

“For the GOP, being thought of as closed-minded is hardly a good thing. But if the GOP is thought of as the “stupid party,” it may as well be the kiss of death,” the report said.

Cue the comments last year by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who was right on target when he said Republicans have to stop being “the stupid party.”

But how? What can Republicans do to win back the youth vote in presidential elections? I’d love to hear your ideas.

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

A big fish, good karma and the news -- May 30, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

On a Saturday afternoon in May, a fisherman in Nags Head, N.C., reeled in a 34 ½ inch, 19 pound cobia. Travis Kemp attributed his catch to “good karma” because he had helped free an entangled brown pelican minutes earlier.

The Outer Banks Sentinel ran a photo of Kemp holding the big fish with the headline, “Cobia karma.” That’s news people like to read.

    

I saw the newspaper while on vacation and had an idea. If a simple good deed can bring such quick and positive results, let’s convene Congress on a fishing pier on the Outer Banks. The president can provide rods, lures and bait. Surely our elected leaders would accomplish more fishing there than they do posturing in Washington.

Getting away can bring a new perspective. While they’re visiting North Carolina’s beautiful beaches, members of Congress and the president could slow down and watch brown pelicans cruise the shoreline for fish. These impressive birds with 4-foot wing spans and long bills fly single file or in V-formation close to the ocean, occasionally diving straight into the water for their supper. They know what to do and they do it. (Hint, hint.)

The denizens of Washington could even learn from the lowly sand crab, called ghost crabs because of their translucent shells. These finger-sized creatures scurry about their work. They have rotating eyes with 360-degree vision – an enviable trait – and zip around at 10 mph. They dig tunnels 4 feet into the sand. The sensible sand crab stays in its burrow when it’s hot outside and emerges when it’s cool to dine on dead fish, plant matter and whatever else is handy.

To take the time to watch the brown pelican and the ghost crab is to see nature in harmony. The pelican is graceful and ruthlessly efficient; sand crabs are jerky and industrious. Dogs may bark at the pelicans and people of all ages chase sand crabs, but it’s good karma to let the beasties stay on task. They perform the admirable task of keeping the beach clean.

No one, it seems, is keeping Washington clean. The nation’s capital wears bad karma like cheap perfume. We face many problems, but our elected leaders seem content to jockey for political gain.  

Americans, understandably, are fed up with business as usual in Washington. The reputation of the IRS is in tatters after it targeted conservative groups seeking tax exempt status, but nothing has been done – except talk. Allowing Steven Miller, the acting head of the IRS, to retire early and paying Lois Lerner, the head of the division that handles tax exempt requests, to stay home are soft penalties, if they’re penalties at all.   

Lerner was put on paid administrative leave after she pled the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify before a House committee. She has a right to avoid self-incrimination. She also has refused to resign. It’s unclear whether she can even be fired under Civil Service employee rules.

Taxpayers who are paying her salary and politicians in both parties are outraged, but no one can act. It’s maddening.

Fortunately, it’s nearly summer, and Washington’s summer “scandals” are predictable. Next may be the Obamas’ vacation plans. First lady Michelle Obama and daughters Sasha and Malia are eyeing an extended vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, the Boston Globe reported. They also plan to accompany the president on a trip to Ireland for a summit June 17 and 18. The Obamas are unwilling to give up their frequent vacations, despite criticism from the right.

For the record, about 40 percent of American workers don’t get any paid vacation time, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Other surveys indicate that among those who do get paid vacation time, more than half fail to take all the days they’re entitled to.

Americans need a diversion from the troubles in the capital, and perhaps politicians could also benefit from a diversion. The president could make arcade games part of his summer routine.  Everybody loves teddy bears.

During Obama's joint appearance with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on the Point Pleasant Beach boardwalk, rebuilt with a $2.1 million grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Christie won the prize on his first football toss and gave it to Obama. Good karma.

With practice, Obama could improve his football aim before a rematch. That too would be good karma.

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved. 

We're all one disaster away from Moore -- May 23, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

After the horrific tornado in Oklahoma and as another Atlantic hurricane season starts, it’s a good time to think about federal disaster aid. You may have heard politicians in Washington insist that there’s no debate about funding disaster relief. Don’t believe it.

Everyone wants to help the 12,000 families whose homes were destroyed in Moore and Oklahoma City, Okla. The path of devastation is as heartbreaking as the victims’ spirit is inspiring. Fortunately, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster fund can handle whatever part of the estimated $2 billion in damages is not covered by insurance.

That’s great, and it means nobody in Congress has to cast a difficult vote against aid to people who obviously need it. Now let’s think ahead. We still could have more tornadoes. The hurricane season runs from June 1 through Nov. 30. Activity in the Atlantic is expected to be above normal.

The good news for Oklahomans is that FEMA’s disaster fund has $11.6 billion, more than enough to cover expected tornado losses. What happens if we have more tornadoes and a bad season of hurricanes? In the current austerity environment, no one should be surprised to see a repeat of previous squabbles on Capitol Hill about disaster aid.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., ran into a buzz saw of criticism this week when he said that he “absolutely” would require any disaster relief for his state to be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. At least he seemed consistent.

Coburn and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., were among 36 Senate Republicans who voted no earlier this year on a $50.5 billion emergency funding bill for victims of Superstorm Sandy.  The lawmakers objected because the costs weren’t offset by spending cuts and because the bill included extraneous measures for other states.

When Coburn said he’d apply the same standard to his own state, he got creamed in the social media. He issued a rebuttal and went on the media circuit, claiming he has always supported disaster aid – as long as it goes to the victims of disasters and not to other projects.

“I supported a scaled-down $25 billion version of disaster aid for Sandy, but I strongly opposed a $50 billion package that was an all-you-can-eat buffet for politicians and politically connected contractors,” Coburn wrote in an op-ed on CNN.com.

Coburn also contended the news media had created an issue where none exists. Because the money is already in the FEMA fund, no funding bill exists and no vote is required, he said. You could get whiplash trying to follow such arguments.

For his part, Inhofe argued that relief for Oklahoma would be “totally different” from the Sandy relief Christmas tree bill. People in Oklahoma wouldn’t exploit the tragedy as people in other states had done, he explained.

Contrast Coburn and Inhofe with Rep. Tom Cole, the Republican who represents Moore in the U.S. House. Cole supported the relief bill for Hurricane Sandy victims. He said his hometown was only “one tornado away from being Joplin.” He was referring to the 2011 tornado that tore apart that Missouri city.

 

“I just didn’t know it’d be quite this quick,” Cole told NPR in an interview this week. His own home in Moore is only a minute’s walk from the path of destruction, he said, but it was spared this time, as it was in the equally horrific tornado of 1999.

If Moore was one tornado away from Joplin, and we know it was, we’re all one disaster – tornado, hurricane, earthquake, fire, flood -- away from Moore. We don’t know when the worst might come. We want to believe Congress will be there for us.  

And so we’re back where we were last October when Hurricane Sandy hit. Congress eventually approved emergency supplemental funding for Sandy victims, but only after adding some extraneous projects. The additional projects weren't directly related to the need, but they insured that the bill passed.

When the next need arises -- as it inevitably will -- cannot Congress do what is legitimately needed without the histrionics of insisting that it be paid for immediately?

Congressional Democrats and most Republicans like to say that disaster aid is in a category of its own, and victims need help when they need it. We may learn in the next six months whether the politicians mean it.

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

Three cups of tea and the IRS -- May 16, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

We’ll eventually find out what the IRS employees in Cincinnati thought they were doing when they subjected tea party groups to special scrutiny. We already know that they did accomplish one thing, unintentionally. They breathed new life into the tea party movement. 

   

That irony will haunt Democrats and President Barack Obama in the 2014 elections. It’s an old, but good, lesson for anyone involved in government: Avoid even the appearance of a partisan fishing expedition, especially if you’re in the federal agency most Americans fear and hate most.

As of now, it seems that a few overworked, misguided IRS employees in Cincinnati, whose job it was to make sure groups applying for tax-exempt status met certain legal criteria, used a shorthand guide to check groups. This was a Be On the Look Out, or BOLO, system to give special scrutiny to groups that had tea party, patriot or 9/12 in their names.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The IRS needs to be scrupulously nonpartisan. Still, imagine that fewer than 200 overworked employees faced more than 70,000 requests for non-profit status a year.  They might want to find a quick way to assess who was eligible.

Still, going after conservatives wasn’t the solution. Even worse, the IRS’ boss said to stop using the criteria but the employees apparently didn’t stop, according to the Treasury Department Inspector General report. Groups that may have been totally legitimate were subjected to ridiculous reporting requirements. At least one was asked which books its leaders were reading.

Watchdog groups have long warned that some groups, conservative and liberal, were abusing the tax-exempt privilege. Congress needs to clarify just how much political activity is allowed.

After last November’s elections, many analysts wrote off the tea party movement. Several tea party-endorsed Senate candidates washed out, and Michele Bachmann, the tea party darling and victor in the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses, barely won re-election to her House seat in Minnesota.

Bachmann, chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus, was back in front of a microphone. She set up a news conference outside the Capitol Thursday that turned into a tea party rally. She even espoused the crackpot notion that health care could be denied under the president’s new health care program because of people’s beliefs.

“Could there potentially be political implications regarding health care — access to health care, denial of health care — will that happen based upon a person’s political beliefs or their religiously-held beliefs?” Bachmann asked.

She conceded that these questions would have been considered “out of bounds a week ago,” but with the IRS enforcing the penalty for those who refuse to purchase insurance in 2014, she said, it’s “more than reasonable and more than fair” for Americans to ask.

Well, no, it’s neither reasonable nor fair. It’s far-fetched, to put it politely. But this is what happens when an administration runs off the rails.

Don’t get me wrong. The IRS must be above reproach. People must trust that government actions are nonpartisan. Employees reviewing applications for tax-exempt status should never single out groups with partisan-sounding names for intense review, delaying processing. It was “inappropriate,” the Treasury Department Inspector General said. And it was tone deaf. The office that conducted the reviews “did not consider the public perception of using politically sensitive criteria when identifying these cases,” the inspector general said in his report.

The IRS did not deny even one request for tax-exempt status from these groups. Still, the IRS story was one of three that together were damning for President Barack Obama, who promised transparency and honesty.

Besides the IRS targeting, the State Department and other agencies offered confusing explanations about what happened in the attack last year on the mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four American diplomats. 

Plus, the Justice Department secretly seized two months of telephone records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press.

At his news conference Thursday, Obama said he "did not know anything" about an IRS inspector general's report on political targeting prior to media reports. The reporter had asked, though, whether anyone at the White House knew about the targeting.  We will know more later.

Michele Bachmann will make sure about that. 

© Marsha Mercer 2013. All rights reserved.