Using his pen again in “this year of action,” President Obama today took executive actions to ease the burden of student debt at the expense of “millionaires.”

The program, “Pay as You Earn,” expands an existing federal loan option available to undergrad and graduate students. It issues caps on monthly loan payments at 10 percent of the borrower’s discretionary income and forgives their remaining balance after 20 years.

For those working in public service or the government, any remaining debt is forgiven after 10 years. An estimated 5 million more borrowers will become eligible under the new plan. Before today, only those who took out loans after 2007 were entitled to “Pay as You Earn” benefits.

To finance the program, Obama proposed closing “tax loopholes” for the wealthy, or what he called “millionaires.”

“This should be a no-brainer,” he said today at the White House. “It would be scandalous if we allowed those kinds of tax loopholes for the very, very fortunate to survive while students are having trouble just getting started in their lives.”

Carmel Martin, executive vice president for policy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, welcomed Obama’s actions.

“Millions of federal loan borrowers—from young adults to senior citizens—are struggling to repay their student loans,” Martin said. “The steps that President Obama announced today will make it easier for borrowers to meet their obligations without the strain and worry of excessive monthly payments.”

Less celebratory was House Speaker John Boehner, who  responded with a statement saying, “Today’s much-hyped loophole closure does nothing to reduce the cost of pursuing a higher education or improve access to federal student loans, nor will it help millions of recent graduates struggling to find jobs in the Obama economy.”

Obama’s decision to bypass Congress with a presidential memorandum snubs Senate Republicans, who are debating alternative approaches they believe would address the fundamental causes of rising tuition costs. The president’s action lasts only as long as he is in office.

Instead of addressing the root of the problem, the senators argue, granting more students access to federal education subsidies gives colleges and universities the green light to continue raising tuition costs.

“Repayment caps such as those offered through IBR and other policies put no downward pressure on college prices,” said Lindsey Burke, the Will Skillman education fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “Transferring the burden of student loan financing from university graduates—who will earn significantly more over the course of a lifetime than someone with a high school diploma—to the three-quarters of taxpayers who do not hold bachelor’s degrees is inequitable.”

Obama said the financial burden of the new “Pay as You Earn” installments will fall on “millionaires,” meaning higher income taxes for higher earners. “I want Americans to pay attention to see where their lawmakers’ priorities lie here:  lower tax bills for millionaires, or lower student loan bills for the middle class.”

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told reporters at the White House that the administration doesn’t currently know how much the expanded payment cap will cost. “We’ll figure that out on the back end.”

Over the past 30 years, average tuition at a public four-year college has more than tripled, the White House said, while family income has largely remained stagnant. An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that recent college graduates in the United States face a more challenging job market, which has left them overqualified and underemployed.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, said the president’s time would be better spent on measures to increase employment. “Republicans are ready to offer and debate our proposals to create more good jobs and to create better schools which mean better jobs,” Alexander said.

Kelsey Harkness is a news producer at The Daily Signal.

The Obama administration’s apparent miscalculation of the threat posed by Al Qaeda-aligned militants in Iraq drew severe criticism Thursday from top Republican lawmakers, who accused President Obama and his national security team of “taking a nap,” warning “the next 9/11 is in the making.”

The administration once again appears to have been caught off guard by an explosion of violence in a country U.S. forces helped liberate from a dictator.

Al Qaeda-aligned Sunni militants were advancing south and threatening to move on Baghdad on Thursday after overrunning the northern Iraq cities of Mosul and Tikrit — with Iraqi government forces in rapid retreat.

GOP lawmakers vented that advances made by the militant Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are confirming their “worst fears” about what would happen in the wake of the Obama-ordered U.S. troop withdrawal in 2011.

“What’s the president doing? Taking a nap,” House Speaker John Boehner snapped, before abruptly ending his weekly press conference on Thursday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Iraq is “collapsing,” calling it another potential Benghazi and urging the president to address the American people.

“The next 9/11 is in the making,” Graham said.

White House and State Department officials say the Obama administration is considering sending additional aid, but have not specified what that might be. The Iraqi government reportedly is seeking U.S. airstrikes. Republican lawmakers and military analysts are urging the administration to quickly piece together a gameplan.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday that the current national security team is a “failure,” urging Obama to get a “new team.” He also took a shot at Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying: “We need a new chairman.”

The escalating violence follows repeated assurances by the Obama administration that Al Qaeda is “on the run” and that its offshoots are not the threat they’re made out to be.

As recently as Monday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said of the situation in northern Iraq, “I don’t get the sense that they’re gaining a lot of territory.”

Obama also brushed off concerns about Al Qaeda affiliates during an interview with The New Yorker, in a piece published in January.

“If a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” the president said. That was in regard to concerns, at the time, that Islamist militants had taken over Fallujah — the comment also followed Islamist militants overrunning the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans.

Yet in Iraq, militants with ISIS have made considerable gains since January. (They were listed in 2004 by the State Department as a terrorist organization under their old name, Al Qaeda in Iraq, shortly after the group formed.)

Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff and Fox News military analyst, said the administration has not put enough effort into forming a “comprehensive strategy” to partner with governments in the region to share intelligence and battle Al Qaeda affiliates.

“This caliphate exists, and it will be the most menacing thing in the Middle East if unattended,” Keane said.

He acknowledged that the administration has “decimated” the Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan to a degree. But he said: “The fact of the matter is the Al Qaeda and its affiliates … is on the rise in the Middle East and in Africa.”

Keane also said the U.S. lost leverage with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom Keane said needs to be saved “from himself.” U.S. lawmakers have faulted Maliki’s Shiite-led government for alienating the Sunni minority, in turn fueling tensions and giving Sunni militants an opening to exploit.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, privately, administration officials acknowledge they were caught off guard by the sudden developments in northern Iraq, where security forces abandoned their posts and militants overran key locations.

Military leaders reportedly said they thought Iraq’s forces could hold off ISIS — they were wrong.

Amid the deliberations, congressional Republicans continue to fume over the administration’s response to the terror attack in Benghazi in 2012, for which nobody has yet been brought to justice, and have launched a formal select committee investigation.

The developments also follow President Obama foreign policy speech last month at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point where he backed a policy of restraint abroad and called for a wind-down of U.S. “military adventures.”

Few expect that U.S. ground troops would be dispatched to Iraq, no matter how dire the situation becomes.

At issue now, among other things, is whether to provide more military aid and approve airstrikes. Maliki reportedly has sought U.S. airstrikes, but so far has been turned down.

A statement from the National Security Council made no commitment.

“We are not going to get into details of our diplomatic discussions but the Government of Iraq has made clear that they welcome our support in their effort to confront [ISIS],” spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said. “We have expedited shipments of military equipment since the beginning of the year, ramped up training of Iraqi Security Forces, and worked intensively to help Iraq implement a holistic approach to counter this terrorist threat.  Our assistance has been comprehensive, is continuing, and will increase.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in a statement overnight, offered “condolences” to the families of those killed, but did not specify what actions the administration would take.

“The United States will stand with Iraqi leaders across the political spectrum as they forge the national unity necessary to succeed in the fight against ISIL,” he said, adding “we will also continue to provide, and as required increase, assistance to the Government of Iraq to help build Iraq’s capacity to effectively and sustainably stop [ISIS’s] efforts to wreak havoc in Iraq and the region.”

To date, the U.S. has provided considerable military assistance. The State Department said Wednesday that that has included: 300 Hellfire missiles, millions of rounds of small arms ammunition, machine guns, grenades, rifles and more. Officials say the U.S. also supplied Bell IA-407 helicopters and is set to send over F-16 fighter jets.

A statement from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.,; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., blamed the current situation on the U.S. decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq.

“We call on the president to explain to Congress and the American people how he plans to address the growing threat to our homeland and our national security interests posed by the rapidly expanding Al-Qaeda safe haven in Iraq and Syria,” they said.

Hillary Clinton will likely be the next president of the United States, and why not? We live in an age of choreographed reality, and hers is among the most choreographed of lives. Also, an age of the triumph of symbol over substance and narrative over fact; an age that demonstrates the power of the contention that truth matters only to the extent people want it to matter. Mrs. Clinton’s career is testimony to these things as well.

Which brings me to the subject of her book.

However one feels about Mrs. Clinton, she was the least consequential secretary of state since William Rogers warmed the seat in the early years of the Nixon administration.

I obtained an advance copy of “Hard Choices,” her latest doorstop of a memoir, and started reading it before its publication Tuesday. There she is, bitterly regretting her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. There she is again, standing by her actions during the Benghazi debacle, insisting on the relevance of the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

Elsewhere we find her equivocating over her opposition to the Iraq surge (which, as we learned from Robert Gates’s memoir “Duty,” she privately admitted was purely political), or allowing that the Obama administration’s decision to stand silent over the stolen 2009 Iranian revolution was something she “came to regret.”

To continue reading Bret Stephens’ column in the Wall Street Journal, click here.

Bret Stephens is the deputy editorial page editor responsible for the international opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal. He also writes “Global View,” the paper’s weekly foreign-affairs column, and is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

The largest hearing room the Senate has in the Hart Building was standing-room only on Tuesday when the Senate Judiciary Committee held its hearing on the resolution proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would amend the First Amendment and give Congress unlimited, plenary power to restrict political speech and political activity.

In a historic and unprecedented event, both majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appeared as the first two witnesses.  They had starkly different presentations, with Reid complaining about so-called “dark money” and corporations and special interests “meddling” in congressional races.  He clearly doesn’t like the fact that Americans have the ability to criticize him and his policies.

McConnell went back to first principles, talking about the First Amendment and the fundamental importance of protecting political speech, as did Floyd Abrams, the well-known First Amendment lawyer who won the historic New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case.  As Abrams said, the purpose of this proposed amendment is clearly “limiting speech intended to affect elections.”  He observed that the title of the amendment, “Restore Democracy to the American People,” is based on the false notion that our democracy has already been lost.  According to Abrams, “the notion that democracy would be advanced – saved, ‘restored’ – by limiting speech is nothing but a perversion of the English language.”

The Democratic witnesses in favor of the amendment seemed obsessed with the Koch brothers, including a state senator from North Carolina who made bizarre claims about supposed Koch-financed efforts to implement a voter ID law to “suppress” the votes of racial minorities.

It was almost funny – Democrats can’t even hold a hearing about the First Amendment without working in their talking points about voter ID and “vote suppression.”  All of the Republican senators who spoke, including Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), made stirring statement about the importance of preserving the Bill of Rights.  I won’t summarize their statements but they are worth watching (here and here).

What was most interesting was something that happened before the hearing started that shows just how dangerous it would be to give Congress the power Udall, Reid and 39 other Democratic senators are seeking (there are 41 cosponsors of this resolution) and how they don’t believe the rules should apply to them.  I was standing in line outside the hearing room waiting to get in and get a seat.  There was a sign prominently taped to the wall where we were all standing that warned attendees of all of the things not allowed in the hearing room, like standing, shouting, applauding, and most importantly, “no signs.”

I was at the head of the line when a large cart loaded with boxes came down the hallway, accompanied by six or seven individuals, many holding protest signs like “Restore the First Amendment – Get Oil Money out of Elections” and “Big $$ out of Politics.”  The boxes had prominently pasted on their side the names of liberal advocacy groups and PACs including People for the American Way, the Daily Kos, Public Citizen, Wolf PAC, Moveon.org, the Coffee Party, and Common Cause.  The boxes were apparently full of petitions supporting Udall’s censorship amendment.  As the cart headed into the hearing room with the protest signs held high, I reminded the Democratic committee staffer supervising entry that these individuals were violating the posted rules about no signs and no protests.  She just ignored me and looked away.

About thirty photographers and reporters facing the entry started snapping pictures of the advocacy group representatives the moment they came in as the cart was trundled up to the front of the hearing room.  Several of the advocacy representatives went to sit down, but not before standing up with their signs held high and posing for more photos from the media.

I have no doubt that if I had attempted to walk into the hearing room with signs protesting this amendment, as opposed to supporting it, I would have been stopped by the committee staffer, and if I had persisted, she would have called over the Capitol policeman who was also standing at the entrance studiously not seeing the liberal protestors violating the posted rules.

It is true that Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) warned the attendees after the hearing started about no sign waiving or protests and one individual was eventually ejected; however, Leahy only did that after the cameras were turned on for anyone watching the hearing on the committee website.  It was his committee staff who, after all, allowed their supporters to come in early with their protest signs and helped to stage-manage protests prior to the start of the hearing for the benefit of the photographers in the hearing room.  You can see one of those photos here – notice there are no staffers or Capitol Police hurrying over to eject the CodePink demonstrators from the hearing room.

So it seems that some Democratic senators want to amend the Constitution so that the American people give them the power to set the rules for raising and spending money on political campaigns and independent expenditures that speak in support of, or opposition to, candidates.  However, at the very hearing at which this amendment was introduced, some of these senators were prepared to apply the Senate’s own rules to only one side of the debate.  Not something that inspires confidence that any such rules on political activity and political speech would ever be enforced in a nonpartisan, unbiased, and objective manner.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.  Along with John Fund, he is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” (Encounter 2012) and the upcoming “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside June 2014).

Tea Party Patriots filed an ethics complaint against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., alleging he has abused his power in a campaign to smear conservative donors.

The complaint, filed Monday with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, alleges Reid has purposely tried to damage the names of Charles and David Koch, prominent conservative donors whom Reid has publicly criticized for running advertisements attacking Democrats. It also cites Reid’s partisan campaign activities, which allegedly violate Senate rules and federal law.

Tea Party Patriots filed a separate complaint against Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., for his alleged role in influencing the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize conservative nonprofit groups.

“Whitehouse exerted pressure on federal agencies to target tea party non-profits and to criminally prosecute groups such as ours,” the complaint reads.

Whitehouse was the main sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would have forced nonprofits who make campaign donations to disclose their donors.

Cleta Mitchell, an attorney representing the Tea Party Patriots, says the complaints were timed to coincide with a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, where congressional leaders, including Reid, clashed over a proposed constitutional amendment to curb political spending.

“We are tired of Reid, Democratic senators, and the White House bullying conservatives and conservative donors,” Mitchell said. “They do not respect the First Amendment rights of citizens and we are sick of it, so we are fighting back.”

Speaking at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Reid defended the proposed amendment, a plan that Democrats plan to vote on this year.

“I support this constitutional amendment,” Reid said. “Our involvement in government should not be dependent on bank account balances. It’s bad for America. What the nation needs is to bring sanity back to campaigns.”

Upon receiving a complaint, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., will initiate a preliminary inquiry to review the case.

If the committee finds substantial evidence, it can issue a public or private letter of admonition, or initiate an adjudicatory review. It can then recommend the Senate take disciplinary action.

In another, unrelated complaint filed Tuesday with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, the Center for Competitive Politics, another conservative nonprofit, charges nine Democratic senators with “interfering with the administrative proceedings of the IRS.”

06-02-2014 Date-Stamped Senate Ethics Complaint Re Sen Reid by John Hinderaker

By Josh Siegel / @JoshDailySignal

On Thursday, the day before a double resignation at the White House, ABC’s Jon Karl grilled Jay Carney over Barack Obama’s confidence in Eric Shinseki. Less than 24 hours later, the press secretary and Veterans Administration head had both quit. During the back-and-forth, Karl pressed, “But does the President right now have confidence in Sec. Shinseki, yes or no? It’s a very simple yes or no question. You told us last week he did have confidence, does he have confidence now?” [See video below.]

Carney dodged and responded, “Jon, the President addressed this question from the podium.” The journalist pointed out, ” But he wasn’t asked directly if he had confidence in him.” The now-ex-press secretary dismissed this as “word play.” Karl continued to push, insisting, “It’s a basic question. It’s not wordplay. Its a central question: Does he have confidence in a member of his cabinet?”

Next week, the Obama administration is planning to unveil a climate action plan that it intends to implement without legislative approval. It’s a creative approach to governing, not unlike other executive actions President Obama has taken to bypass Congress.

When lawmakers refused to pass cap-and-trade legislation, Obama announced there was more than one way to skin the cat. Through climate plans, executive orders and regulatory action, he directed his agencies to find ways to curb the country’s carbon dioxide output and commit to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Leading the charge, unsurprisingly, is the Environmental Protection Agency, which will release its carbon-dioxide regulations for existing power plants on Monday. The plan will drive up energy prices for American families and businesses without making a dent in global temperatures.

Our infographic explains what it means for jobs, incomes and the states hurt most.

By Nicolas Loris and Nicole Rusenko

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday reluctantly picked her team for a GOP-led Benghazi investigative committee, saying that Democrats’ participation was the only way to assure Americans of a “fair process.”

Pelosi appointed five fellow Democrats to the 12-member House select committee on Benghazi, including Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings as the ranking member of the panel.

“We’ve already been there,” Pelosi said in naming the members, continuing to voice concerns about the probe while also ending weeks of speculation about whether her party would participate.

“Eight reviews have been conducted in the House and Senate, 25,000 documents released, millions of taxpayer dollars spent. It was not necessary to put the families or our country through this partisan exercise once again,” the California Democrat continued. “I could have argued either way.”

Cummings is also the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and is known to publicly spar with the chairman of that committee, GOP Rep. Darrell Issa. Pelosi also named Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee; California Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the House Committee on Appropriations; California Rep. Linda Sanchez, a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means; and Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

“I believe we need someone in the room to simply defend the truth,” Cummings said.

The committee will investigate the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Pelosi also said she agreed to have Democrats join the investigation to make it a “fair process” and to bring “openness and transparency” to the investigation.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has already named the seven Republicans who will serve on the committee, including South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy as chairman.

“The Republican members of the … committee welcome our colleagues,” Gowdy said after Pelosi’s announcement. “I respect Mr. Cummings and his work in Congress. I look forward to working with him and the members of the committee toward an investigation and a process worthy of the American people and the four brave Americans who lost their lives.”

The committee will have special subpoena and investigative powers. There is no time frame for when the hearings will begin, but Republican committee members are scheduled to meet Thursday morning in part to discuss hiring staff.

Some Democrats have called the new inquiry a political sham to energize core GOP voters for the midterm elections, embarrass the Obama administration and rough up former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

Pelosi all along was reluctant to bring Democrats on board.

“Why give any validity to this effort?” Pelosi asked Tuesday. “I do think it is important for the American people to have the pursuit of these questions done in as fair and open and balanced way as possible.  … By the way, two families have communicated with us saying don’t take us down this path again.”

The Benghazi attack has become a conservative rallying cry, with Republicans accusing the Obama administration of intentionally misleading the public about the nature of the attack and stonewalling congressional investigators.

The special investigation means high-profile hearings in the months leading up to the elections, with Republicans likely to target current and former administration officials. Almost certain to be called to testify is Clinton.

The panel is authorized to work through the end of the year. In the 20 months since the attack, multiple independent, bipartisan and GOP-led probes have faulted the State Department for inadequate security in Benghazi, leading to four demotions. No attacker has yet been brought to justice.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

When it comes to Washington controversies, most American voters think Benghazi, the IRS and the government’s electronic surveillance program are serious matters. A Fox News poll also finds that less than four in 10 voters trust the federal government.

The new poll, released Thursday, finds 37 percent of voters answer “yes” when asked: “would you say you generally trust the federal government?” Six in 10 say they don’t trust the government, down a touch from a high of 62 percent (June 2013 and July 2011).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

One thing that is sure to erode trust is a scandal, and 78 percent of voters consider the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi a serious matter, including 52 percent who say “very serious.” Just over half (53 percent) see government surveillance of everyday Americans as “very serious” and 44 percent feel that way about the IRS targeting conservative groups.

Partisanship also shapes views on trustworthiness. In 2002, the first time this question was asked on a Fox News poll, 47 percent of Democrats said yes, they trust the government. That increased to 53 percent in February 2009, about a month after President Obama was inaugurated, and it stands at 55 percent in the new poll. The trend is reversed and more dramatic among Republicans: 63 percent trusted the government in 2002, while 32 percent felt that way in 2009 and just 19 percent trust Uncle Sam today.

For independents, trust was 53 percent in 2002, 35 percent in 2009 and 31 percent now.

In all, that’s an increase in trust of eight percentage points among Democrats from the days of the George W. Bush administration, and a decrease of 44 points among Republicans and 22 points among independents.

Only about a quarter of voters think the Obama administration has lived up to the promise of being the most transparent White House in history.

About a third of voters think the Obama administration has been less open and transparent than previous administrations (34 percent). That’s up nine points since early in Obama’s presidency when 25 percent felt that way (August 2010).

The poll finds 27 percent of voters agree with the president that this White House is more open than others, down from a high of 32 percent (2010 and 2012). Comparing sentiment today to that early in the Obama administration, the decline in those saying this White House is more open than others comes mostly from Democrats (-10 points) and independents (-11 points).

Overall, the largest number of voters — 38 percent — believes the transparency of the Obama White House is about the same as previous administrations. And 40 percent felt that way in 2010.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,025 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 10, 12-13, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

By Dana Blanton

Conservative pundit George Will delivered a fierce attack on Common Core last night, characterizing the educational standards as a way for progressives to further promote their political views.

“This is a thin end of an enormous wedge of federal power that will be wielded for the constant progressive purpose of concentrating power in Washington so that it can impose continental solutions to problems nationwide,” Will said on Fox News’ “Special Report.”

He also warned Americans that the federal standards posed a significant threat to local autonomy.

“The advocates of the Common Core say, if you like local control of your schools, you can keep it, period. If you like your local curriculum you can keep it, period, and people don’t believe them for very good reasons,” Will remarked.

By Katrina Trinko