Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.
During his State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama talked about the need to slash government spending, and he even referred to Pentagon spending. But Gordon Adams, an expert on military spending, says that Obama is pulling his punches:
When it came to defense, though, Obama deferred to the Pentagon and shied away from any game-changing vision on par with his other ideas.
We saw this deference in quick sequence. Last year the president promised a three-year freeze in domestic discretionary spending but excluded defense; this year he extended that freeze to five years and again exempted defense. Obama then bowed to the Pentagon, noting that “the Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.”
Deferring to a bureaucratic interest to determine what resources it can and cannot do without is not ‘tackling excessive spending.’ It’s posturing – the image of discipline without the pain of making it real. That shortchanges the taxpayer, neglects the service-member, and undermines the civil-military balance on which our republic is premised.
For the taxpayer, trusting the Pentagon, one of the few cabinet-level agencies unable to meet the standards of financial audit, to set its own budget is a sure path toward the spending waste and excess the president claims to be tackling....
Much work therefore remains to be done. National defense is on the table for debt reduction, as it should be. But the conversation is still immature, the outcome uncertain, and the stakes especially high.
Is President Barack Obama a fierce down-sizer of government, or an ardent champion of boosting government investment in the economy? Well, he's both.
In his second State of the Union speech, delivered Tuesday night, Obama trotted the tight wire. To show he's a mighty crusader against deficits, he declared he would impose a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. And to show he's (still) the rescuer of the US economy, he proclaimed he wants to spend billions on—that is, invest in—innovative technology (such as clean energy), infrastructure (including high-speed rail and high-speed Internet) and education (including 100,000 additional science, technology, engineering, and math teachers within the next eight years), all so the United States can "win the future," as it competes with China and other economic superpowers.
Responding to criticism she received after the January 8 Tucson shootings, Sarah Palin referred to death threats she and her children have received, suggesting that the Palin clan have been victims of heated political rhetoric. And an aide noted that the Palin team was consulting with security professionals. Andree McLeod, a prominent Palin critic in Alaska, could also use such help, for she has been publicly threatened with assassination—just for requesting, under Alaska's open records act, the work-related emails Palin sent and received while governor.
The Tucson massacre has prompted gun-control advocates to promote several measures to regulate certain firearms or ammo. But it has not moved the Obama White House to propose any such initiatives. And the White House appears to have no plans to do so.
At the daily press briefing on Thursday afternoon, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the president and his aides have been thinking about crafting or suggesting any gun-related measures. He replied that he had "not heard anything particular in here." That came across as a "no." Gibbs did say that the White House was "looking through different proposals" that have been suggested by pro-gun-control lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but he didn't mention any specific measures. Asked if if Obama, given his previous support of gun control, would be amenable to legislation being introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Frank Lautneberg (D-NJ) to ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, such as the one used by suspected gunman Jared Lee Loughner, Gibbs was decidedly non-committal. He displayed no enthusiasm for this measure—or for pushing any gun-control initiative.
Since the Tucson tragedy, Obama has said nothing explicitly about guns. He did not address the issue in his much-praised address at the memorial service. This is no surprise. As president, Obama has placed a silencer on his past backing of gun control. For instance, as a presidential candidate Obama called for reinstating the ban on assault weapons. Though Attorney General Eric Holder early in the Obama administration cited the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban as an administration priority, the White House has not pursued that goal, and Obama has side-stepped the matter when questioned about it. At a press conference last year with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama declined to even discuss reviving this ban. The message has been clear: Obama may think gun regulation is good policy but he also has concluded taking any action that could enrage gun owners and the gun lobby is lousy politics.
The Tucson shootings places this calculation in the spotlight. Any political or media focus on gun-control measures does pose a challenge for Obama and the White House. After all, a person who endorsed banning assault weapons at least ought to favor banning high-capacity magazines. In the immediate aftermath of Tucson, the White House can plausibly say it is reviewing the various gun-control (or ammo-control) measures being proposed. But can the president escape having to declare whether or not he supports the McCarthy-Lautenberg measure forever (that is, until after the 2012 election)?
He and his aides might believe that is indeed possible. They have managed to steer clear of gun-related political trouble during the first two years of Obama's presidency. (Recall the storm that ensued when candidate Obama said that "bitter" unemployed small-town Americans "cling to guns.") Judging from Gibbs' remarks, the Tucson episode—even if it entailed the near-assassination of a House member and the murder of six bystanders—has not changed the president's strategy. He is still holding his fire.
CBS reporter Lesley Stahl may be able to settle the family feud that has erupted between President Ronald Reagan's two sons over an important historical issue: Did the 40th president have Alzheimer's disease when he was in the White House?
In a new memoir, his son Ron suggests that Reagan suffered from the beginning stages of this disease while he was commander in chief, pointing out that his father became "lost and bewildered" during the 1984 presidential debates with Democratic nominee Walter Mondale and that in 1986 Reagan could not remember the names of familiar landmarks. But Ron defends his father, who was not diagnosed with Alzheimer's until 2004, and his aides: "I've seen no evidence that my father (or anyone else) was aware of his medical condition while he was in office. Had the diagnosis been made in, say 1987, would he have stepped down? I believe he would have."