A New Tide - But They Too Will Be Screwed By 'Obama!

New Bumper Sticker on Brinks Armored Car: "No money Aboard! Obama has it all."
 ---
Look in the mirror you old white male fart. Bet you will not see yourself. Times are 'achangin' and you are irrelevant, you are becoming extinct! The new voters who are replacing you are unschooled in the ways of Constitutional Government. They came/come here seeking change and Obama is prepared to accommodate them but in ways they might not like. Stay tuned! (See 1 below.)

 Yes, all you new voters who swoon(ed) over Obama and have become Democrats are probably going to get screwed as well. (See 1a and 1b below.)
 ---
But then, why stop with his supporters when you can screw Congress and the entire nation. (See 2 below.)
---
Obama's 'Watch the slaughter in Syria Foreign Policy' could lead to the collapse of Jordan! Why? Because the flood of refugees from Syria is now over 5000/day. 100,000 plus Syrians have already flooded into Jordan and Turkey creating destabilizing conditions in the former and terrible human conditions in both. Obama's legacy could be akin to Nero's, ie Obama sat and observed while an entire population was slaughtered! Meanwhile on the home front. (See 3 below.)
 --- 
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)New Voters, New Values By CELINDA LAKE,MICHAEL ADAMS,DAVID MERMIN

 Women, Latinos, African Americans, and the 
young don’t believe what older white men believe. Their views fueled Obama’s victory and may portend a new Democratic majority. Barack Obama would have lost the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections had a new set of voters not joined the American electorate—voters who brought with them a range of values that differed sharply from those of more traditional voters.

These changing values—on such issues as personal social responsibility, the role of government, sexual mores, gender roles, and America’s place in the world—underpin the decisions these voters made on Election Day and provide a basis for understanding Obama’s victory. They also signify profound changes to American politics and pose elemental challenges to both the Republican and Democratic parties in coming years.

 As the values of the new American electorate (Latinos, women, the young, the unmarried) clash with those of the old (particularly white married men over 35), the country could see a shift not only in voting patterns but also in public policy.

Consider these different groups’ answers when asked if they agreed or disagreed with a question that ascertained their views toward nationalism. The world that young people, minorities, women, and the unmarried experience has produced sets of values on economic and social issues that vary greatly from those of older white men in particular. The increased influence of these newer groups is not a temporary electoral condition, contingent on a charismatic African American candidate.

These Americans who turned out in force for Obama are an increasingly powerful presence in the U.S. electorate—and, like older white married men, they are bringing their values with them to the polls. Older White Men White married men over the age of 35 stand out among Americans on many measures—to begin, by their support for traditional social hierarchies and institutions. They score low on the value “Flexible Definition of the Family.” Asked to agree or disagree that “getting married and having children is the only real definition of a family,” about half (49 percent) of these men agree, compared to 37 percent of the rest of the population.

Thirty-seven percent of older white married men also agree that “society should regard two people of the same sex who live together as being the same as a married couple”; among other Americans, 52 percent do. Closely linked to this belief in traditional family is a belief that the family should be a seat of patriarchal authority: Forty-four percent of older white married men agree with the statement “The father of the family must be master in his own house.” Among other Americans, support for this statement is 39 percent.

 When it comes to the appropriate size and role of government, an issue that animated much of the recent election campaign, older white married men differ from their compatriots substantially. They are about half as likely (18 percent) as other Americans (39 percent) to agree that “it should be primarily government, not the private sector, that is concerned with solving the country’s social problems.” This disinclination toward governmental responsibility and power is bolstered both by their somewhat weaker sense of responsibility for the fates of people less fortunate than themselves and a slightly stronger faith in the value “American Dream” (the belief that “it is possible for myself and/or my children to ‘make it’”)—a statement that 76 percent of older white married men support, compared to 69 percent of other Americans.

 Similarly, 55 percent of this group endorses the idea that people basically get what they deserve (“Just Deserts”), while 49 percent of other Americans agree. Notably, although we might expect that economic winners would be more likely to see the system as fair, there is in fact no clear pattern by income on either American Dream or Just Deserts. Education makes a difference on the latter value, however: People with higher levels of education are markedly less likely to believe that people basically get what they deserve. As to America’s place in the world, older white married men empathize less than other Americans with people suffering in foreign nations, and just 23 percent say they often or occasionally feel they are “more a citizen of the world than of my country,” while 51 percent of other Americans say that they feel a sense of global citizenship.

 Under 30s People under the age of 30 made up 19 percent of the electorate in November. Although Obama lost ground with young voters—60 percent of them voted for him in 2012 as compared to 66 percent in 2008—he nevertheless won them by a clear margin. Young Americans are more at ease with a multicultural society and relatively skeptical of authority and the trappings of tradition (including religion) than older voters.

For example, 75 percent of Americans under 30 agree that “I would be happy if someone in my family married someone of a different race,” compared to 57 percent of other Americans. Six in ten Americans under 30 agree that “the spiritual side of my life is not a single belief system; I draw on several faiths and traditions.” Forty-seven percent of Americans over 30 say the same.

 But it may be young people’s attitudes toward government that are most notable, and not just because this election cycle featured so much discussion of the appropriate size and role of government. Americans under 30 are twice as likely (54 percent) as those 30 and over (27 percent) to agree that “it should be primarily government, not the private sector, that is concerned with solving the country’s social problems”

This interest in an active government emerges against the backdrop of serious economic insecurity for students and young workers. Youth unemployment has been a major feature of the post-2008 recession and recovery. Although young people are not especially pessimistic about their financial outlook, they express feelings of vulnerability and insecurity that reflect something deeper than uncertainty about temporary joblessness.

Americans under 30 score low on the value “Personal Control,” which gauges a sense of personal efficacy in the face of circumstances. For instance, 51 percent of Americans under the age of 30 (compared to 38 percent of older people) agree with the statement “No matter what I do, I have a lot of trouble changing the course of my life.”

Young people also score higher on the value “Anomie--Aimlessness”; they are more likely to believe they have scant value as individuals in society and to feel their life has little meaning. Although bread-and-butter issues matter to the young, their underlying desire may be for a sense of direction and empowerment, the mingling of personal meaning and collective purpose. An every-man-for-himself orientation to the economy does not resonate as strongly with this group as a government that seeks to support young people’s economic participation and harness young adults’ energies for a stronger

America. Women

 In the 2012 elections, 55 percent of women voters cast their ballot for President Obama. That gender gap wasn’t simply a reaction to Republican candidates’ musings about “legitimate rape” and the “gift of God” bestowed as a consequence of rape.

 On social issues, women’s values do indeed differ from those of men in a number of ways.

Women tend to be more at ease with diverse family models, more supportive of gender equality, and more comfortable with flexible gender roles (men and women taking on nontraditional responsibilities and even dressing and behaving in nontraditional ways). The most interesting difference between women and men, however, is their values divergence on economic issues. In the past couple of years, women have been hit harder than men by job losses, particularly in the public sector. Job loss tends to be as disastrous for women as it is for men; the time when women were second earners whose incomes padded out the family finances is ancient history.

Other survey work finds that 41 percent of American women said they were the primary breadwinners for their family at some point in the preceding four years. Women, though, still earn only 77 cents for every man’s dollar. These different life circumstances are reflected in the values women and men hold. Women and men differ in their basic sense of economic fairness. Women score lower on the value Just Deserts; they are less likely (46 percent) than men (55 percent), for instance, to agree that “I feel that people get what they deserve.” They are also less certain about the value American Dream, expressing slightly less confidence that they or their children can “make it.”

Perhaps because women have less confidence that people’s outcomes in life neatly match their efforts, they also score higher on the value “Social Responsibility.” Forty-two percent of women, as compared to 27 percent of men, strongly agree that “I have a personal responsibility to help those worse off than myself.” Women’s higher scores on the value “Introspection and Empathy” may also have some power to explain their differences from men. Four in ten women, as compared to 29 percent of men, agree strongly that “I like to put myself in another person’s shoes and try to imagine how I would have felt in his/her place.” Whereas men’s values profile indicates a tendency to favor clear rules and structures, women’s values inscribe greater flexibility.

 Women are more likely than men to endorse social safety nets and desire a stronger role for the government, which they see as a partner in achieving economic security, education, and a better future. Men are more likely to see government as a meddlesome hindrance than a supportive partner. For example, a Lake Research Partners survey found that 62 percent of women compared to 49 percent of men say the statement “It’s time for government to take a larger and stronger role in making the economy work for the average American” is closer to their own view than the statement

“Turning to big government to solve our economic problems will do more harm than good.”

 The Unmarried Today, 51 percent of adult Americans are married. In 1960, the proportion was 72 percent. About nine in ten Americans will marry at some point in their lives. Because young people are marrying later in life and divorce is more common, however, a larger proportion of today’s voting-age population arrives at the polls unmarried.

This year, unmarried women made up 23 percent of the electorate (up from 21 percent in 2008), and two-thirds of them voted for Obama. The divergence on sexual mores between single voters (especially the never-married, as distinct from the divorced and widowed) and the married voters who largely supported Mitt Romney represented a key value divide in this election.

Whereas 34 percent of married Americans strongly disagree, for instance, that premarital sex increases the chances of a successful marriage, just 20 percent of unmarried Americans feel the same way. Single, separated, and divorced Americans—both men and women—are also more flexible about what constitutes a marriage and a family. So are married women. It is married men who are the outliers on these issues, expressing by far the strongest attachment not only to traditional marriage and family but to a patriarchal model of family.

Forty-nine percent of married men agree that “the father of the family must be master in his own house,” compared to 31 percent of unmarried women—and 24 percent of married women. It is not just values surrounding gender and sexuality that drives differences between unmarried and married voters but also feelings about their economic vulnerability. Thirty-nine percent of singles say they are less financially secure this year than last (compared to 34 percent of married Americans); the separated and divorced are especially likely to feel worse off.

Although singles overall are about as likely as married people to feel their financial circumstances will worsen in the future, the widowed, separated, and divorced are more pessimistic than average. Blacks, Latinos, and Immigrants Race and racism made major differences in voting behavior in both the 2008 and the 2012 elections. Not surprising, we find substantial differences between whites and nonwhites and between immigrants and the American-born on a number of dimensions related to racism, immigration, and diversity. African Americans stand out in believing that racism remains a significant feature of American life.

Asked to agree or disagree that “racism in the United States is by and large a thing of the past,” most African Americans (58 percent) disagree strongly, as compared to 34 percent of whites and 32 percent of Latinos. African Americans may be more likely than whites to expect government to take a leadership role in tackling the racism they see as a persistent part of American life: About half (51 percent) of this group agrees that “it should be primarily government, not the private sector, that is concerned with solving the country’s social problems.”

Latinos are roughly in line with African Americans, while only three in ten white Americans agree. This, of course, reflects a variety of attitudes not just on racism but also on the role of government and the state of the economy. On the question of multiculturalism, opinions vary about the extent to which immigrants should maintain their heritage languages and cultures or “blend in” to an American mainstream. Here, too, older white married men are the outliers: Sixty-seven percent agree that “immigrants of different races and ethnic groups should set aside their cultural backgrounds and try to blend into the American culture,” compared to just 47 percent of other Americans.

 Navigating the New Values Landscape

 The values cleavages between traditional voters and the emerging constituencies are profound. The different values that women, minorities, the young, and the unmarried bring to their voting decisions are the product of a set of life experiences unlike the experiences of the old electorate. These groups pose different demands on government and political leaders that could point to new directions in public policy.

But while the values shifts we have traced here are profound, their short-term impact on politics is by no means guaranteed. A lot depends on turnout in the next election cycle. In 2012, voters over the age of 50 made up 44 percent of the electorate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, they cast 53 percent of the ballots. The more youthful composition of the 2012 electorate clearly benefited Democrats, but it is notable that Democrats’ performance among older people was actually worse in 2012 than in the 2010 midterms. Democrats lost all over-50 segments in 2012, whereas in 2010 they conceded only senior citizens (not the 50-to-64 age group).

Thus, 2014 could once again find Democrats on the defensive if turnout plummets among young, as well as minority and unmarried, voters. Beyond 2014, both major parties face challenges in adapting to the evolving social-values landscape.

The challenge for Republicans is greater, as some of the values around which they have built their party’s base are precisely those that alienate the emerging electorate. Yet Democrats and progressive leaders have work to do as well. While they won this year’s election, they did so with a diverse, multifaceted coalition whose values and priorities may affront some of their older and white blue-collar voters.

 Nor have the Democrats transformed politics or public policy in a way that connects more deeply with the emerging values of the country or even guarantees that their supporters will continue to participate in the political process. Some of the same values that so distinctly differentiate the new electorate from the old also pose challenges to their political engagement.

Younger generations’ higher scores on the value of Anomie-Aimlessness and their feeling that they have little control over their future could impede their developing the lifelong habit of voting, particularly in non-presidential elections. The new electorate represents a great opportunity for progressives that is matched by an even bigger challenge of engaging these voters and speaking to their experiences, needs, and desires. Democrats and progressives will need to take a strong stand defending the safety-net programs that are important to their base of women, young voters, people of color, and unmarried voters. They must move aggressively on major immigration reform. Most important, Democrats and progressives need to define a new economic agenda that promises opportunity, security, stability, and prosperity to their growing constituencies.

The successful campaigns in 2012 lacked a comprehensive economic plan or perspective—but by voting in such high numbers, the new American electorate gave Democrats another chance to produce one. Progressives must now make sure that their voters’ leap of faith is rewarded. Brittany Stalsburg of Lake Research Partners and Amy Langstaff of Environics contributed to this article. 1a)Obama Prepares To Screw His Base Young people reelected the president. Now they get to pay disproportionately for ObamaCare. By Ben Smith President Obama's enemies often accuse him, in the starkest political terms, of crudely acting to shift resources toward his political base: green-energy donors, single women, Latinos, African-Americans.

 But the next 12 months are likely to reveal the opposite. Imminent elements of Obama's grandest policy move, the health-care overhaul known as ObamaCare, are calculated to screw his most passionate supporters and to transfer wealth to his worst enemies. The passionate supporters are the youth, who voted for him by a margin of 60% to 36%, according to exit poll samples of people 29 and under. His enemies are the elderly: Mitt Romney won 56% of the votes from people 65 and over.

And while one of ObamaCare's earliest provisions was a boon to the young, allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance through the age of 26, what follows may come as an unpleasant surprise to many of the president's supporters. The provisions required to make any kind of health insurance plan work — not just ObamaCare, but really any plan of its sort — require healthy young people to pay more in health insurance than they consume in services, while the elderly (saved by Sarah "Death Panels" Palin from any serious attempt to ration expensive and often futile end-of-life care) consume far more than they pay in.

There is always a push and pull, however, and this year will be spent laying plans to shift the burden further toward the young. State and federal officials and the health-care industry are currently preparing to implement two specific ObamaCare provisions taking effect on Jan. 1, 2014, actin

g on this politically perverse principle of shifting resources from your supporters to your opponents. The first is the individual mandate, which aims to force the young, childless, and healthy — "Young Invincibles," as they are said to think of themselves — to buy health insurance, even if they think (and even perhaps make a rational, if risky, bet) that they don't need it.

 The second is a lesser-known policy to limit the practices of charging different premiums to different ages, known as age-rating. Many states currently set a limit on this difference, often mandating that an old person shouldn't pay a premium more than five times a younger person's, even if she's expected to use more than five times as much health care. The ObamaCare provision kicking in next Jan. 1 would reduce that ratio to three-to-one, essentially limiting what the elderly pay in part by forcing young people to carry a larger share of the total cost of national health care.

 The raw politics aside, there is certainly a reasonable case for sparing the elderly exorbitant premiums, and for forcing young men to buy insurance before they wreck their motorcycles. The Health Care Blog's Maggie Mahar points out that a 60-year-old unable to buy insurance is in a far worse position than a 27-year-old forced to pay a bit more, though she and others worry that the costs will keep some young people from buying care for themselves and their children. (There are also provisions yet to come that benefit the young; subsidies for people buying insurance on the individual market are expected to be disproportionately used by younger people.)

Meanwhile the AARP, the implacable lobby for retired people, has been energetically making the case that the young should pay up. In an interview, AARP legislative policy director David Certner didn't contest the suggestion that young people would be forced to pay more, but argued that it was a matter of the common good, not simply the interest of his constituents.

 First of all, he told BuzzFeed, the young may not be paying their fair share: "Younger people pay less in taxes than they do when they're middle aged and have higher incomes."

And second, they'll be old someday too: "It's about having a big insurance pool because everyone benefits from it," Certner said. "If a younger, healthier person is spending a little more now, it's OK because at some point they're going to be a less healthy, older person too." This is a reasonable policy argument, though it's worth noting that every interest group argues its interests are identical to the common good. Cutting my taxes will stimulate the economy; spending on defense technologies will protect the homeland; maintaining my work rules will protect students; etc. But politics is about power and resources, not about policy and morality.

AARP has no real case to make there. The current young supported Obama; and the current old opposed him. The near-total silence on this issue is a mark of a class that is either utterly selfless (hard to believe, honestly) or, as usual, singularly bad at seeing and defending its interests. And so this vast transfer or resources from young to old — just the latest in a long line of these transfers — hasn't been discussed much because it is totally uncontroversial. Compare it to the footnote that has at times turned into a national obsession: religious conservatives' objection to a provision favoring the young (and possibly saving money), the new requirement for private coverage of contraception.

 The voices raised against age rating and other policies tend not to be the most credible. They are, first, conservatives who simply see this as another wedge against Obama and his new policy. Outlandish rhetoric about the health-care law's threat to American freedom can make it hard for members of either party to consider policy on the merits; and so the proposal from Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey (in the news of late for theorizing that " tense and uptight" women, like, say, rape victims, are less likely to conceive children) to leave age discount decisions with the states is generally considered as gimmicky as its name: The Liberty Act. (It's short for "Letting Insurance Benefit Everyone Regardless of Their Youth.")

 The other main source of criticism of age rating has been the insurance industry, which worries that it will be blamed for rising premiums and that it will find it hard to sign young people up to expensive plans. Its main lobbying group, America's Health Insurance Plans, has been quietly briefing reporters on the threat and circulating a catchy infographic suggesting that age rating will be a major threat to the success of ObamaCare — not just to the industry bottom lines.

And insurers told the conservative American Action forum that small employers' premiums for healthy people 27 and under are likely to increase an average of 169%, while less-healthy people 55 and older would see their costs decrease less than 25% (a smaller percentage, of course, of a much larger sum). If you don't consider ultra-conservative Republicans and the insurance industry particularly credible sources in this argument, though, look to a young persons' lobby, such as it is.

Young Invincibles, a liberal group best known for supporting the Affordable Care Act (and filing an amicus brief in support of the individual mandate), wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services last Dec. 26 rather meekly suggesting that age rating be watered down a bit. "While young people have both a societal and individual interest in ensuring that older adults can afford to purchase coverage, no one benefits if young people who are not protected by this cushion do not buy on exchanges," the group wrote.

 So attack Obama on whatever grounds you want, and accuse him, if you like, of rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. But that charge, true to some degree of most politicians, may be less true of this one than any other in recent memory. The central question, as Mahar notes, is, "How do we choose between children and their grandparents?" In any normal political calculation, that answer would be clear: You choose the ones who voted for you.

 1b)In Health Care, One Law Is Working Like a Charm By A. Barton Hinkle

 “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it,” said Nancy Pelosi during the debate over Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act passed, and Americans are now finding out. It’s not a pretty picture.

 Take employment. “Medical device makers in Massachusetts and elsewhere are warning of potential job losses,” reports The Boston Globe, because of a 2.3-percent tax on medical devices imposed by law. Even liberal-heartthrob-turned-Massachusetts-Senator Elizabeth Warren, a supporter of the law, says repealing that tax is “essential.” (To paraphrase a cliché, if it saves one job – hers – it’s worth it.)

 But the ACA’s effect on jobs goes well beyond medical device makers. Reporting on January’s employment numbers, Investor’s Business Daily notes an “apparent shift to part-time work ahead of a key Obamacare deadline.” Although more people are working in the retail sector, they are working fewer hours per person – now just a hair above 30 hours a week. “A similar trend,” IBD notes, “showed up in leisure and hospitality.” Why? No great mystery: Under the ACA, companies with 50 full-time employees or more must provide health insurance or pay a fine.

 As Paul Christiansen writes in The Wall Street Journal, “thousands of small businesses across the U.S. are desperately looking for a way to escape their own fiscal cliff” through layoffs or shifting to more part-time employees. (He advises a third route: “going protean,” an approach in which a small cadre of managers sets strategy and outsources everything else – from accounting and IT to product development and manufacturing – to contractors.) This employment shift may frustrate one of the aims of the Affordable Care Act: increasing the percentage of Americans who have employer-based health insurance.

Won’t the downsized be able to buy subsidized health insurance through the new state exchanges, though? Sure. In fact, they will be forced to, or pay a fine. But that only highlights another area where the law is falling short: cost control. Back in 2010 the Congressional Budget Office estimated the average subsidy at $3,970 per individual. It’s now up to $5,510 – bringing the overall cost between now and 2022 to more than $1 trillion.

 This is the trajectory of a law President Obama insisted was necessary to “bend the cost curve downward.” Indeed, three years ago Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explained the “urgency” of health-care reform this way: “Working families have been saddled with huge rate increase in their health insurance premiums” – 39 percent in California, 56 percent in Michigan, and so on. Yet as Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, a recent survey of insurance companies finds that “if the law’s insurance rules were in force [now], the premium for a relatively bare-bones policy for a 27-year-old male nonsmoker on the individual market would be nearly 190 percent higher.” Okay, so maybe the conservative group that conducted the survey cherry-picked that case. What about other sorts of policies, and other people?

The news isn’t much better: Wisconsin predicts “an average premium increase of 41 percent.” Ohio’s Department of Insurance says “the individual health insurance market premiums are estimated to increase by 55 percent to 85 percent above current market average rates.” ACA defenders retort that consumers won’t pay the full cost of those big increases because of the subsidies. But those subsidies – soaring already, as noted above – merely shift costs; they do not lower them.

The government is picking up the tab in the same sense that it picked up the tab for the war in Iraq: by handing it off to taxpayers. That’s precisely the story with regard to Medicaid, too: Washington is trying to bribe states to expand the Medicaid rolls by funding nearly all of the increases. From a state government’s perspective it looks like a sweet deal: free federal money! From the taxpayer’s point of view, it looks like a sick joke: Medicaid’s expansion could raise the cost of the program by $1 trillion over the next nine years.

 That’s on top of the trillion-plus cost of subsidizing insurance purchased through state exchanges. Speaking of which: Under ACA law, those exchanges will require thousands of “navigators” to help consumers select a policy. California alone expects to hire 21,000. (Virginia, which is letting the feds run its exchange, has no estimate.) The insurance industry is supposed to foot the bill for the navigators through a surtax – just one of the many levies in the legislation that are now taking or soon will take effect. Others include a 0.9-percent Medicare tax increase, a 3.8-percent tax on investment income, a tax on indoor tanning, a tax on brand-name drugs . . . and of course the tax for failing to abide by the individual insurance mandate. Long story short: Less employment, higher rather than lower costs, higher taxes, and massive increases in government spending.

 The health-care law might not be working as advertised. But another law – the one about unintended consequnces – is working like a charm. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Obama State of Union Means Executive Power for Defiant Congress By Lisa Lerer

 When President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address on tonight, the biggest question he’ll face will be how to get an ambitious second-term agenda through a divided Congress. The answer: Go around it. On climate change, gun control, gay rights, and even immigration, the White House has signaled a willingness to circumvent lawmakers through the use of presidential power.

Already, plans are being laid to unleash new executive orders, regulations, signing statements and memorandums designed to push Obama’s programs forward and cement his legacy, according to administration aides and allies. “The big things that we need to get done, we can’t wait on,” said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. “If we can take action, we will take action.” The tactic carries political risk, beyond the backlash it will spark from congressional Republicans.

Advisers say the president -- who already faces charges from Republicans that he is concentrating too much power in the White House -- remains cautious about getting too far ahead of public opinion. And executive orders can be overturned by a future president a lot easier than can legislation. What’s more, Obama will still need to work through Congress to deal with some of the nation’s biggest concerns, including tax and spending issues as well as any comprehensive changes in the immigration system. Obama’s Evolution Still, the use of executive power isn’t new: Historically, second-term presidents, freed from fears of a political payback at the polls, have been more willing to flex their authority.

 The shift to a more assertive use of such power marks an evolution for Obama, who as a U.S. senator from Illinois accused President George W. Bush of flouting Congress. After spending his first two years in office deep in negotiations with a Democratic-controlled Congress, and the last two years battling with much of the Republican-controlled House, he enters his second term prepared to move forward alone. “He made a true sea change on thinking about the executive orders,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential scholar at Rice University in Houston who is part of a group of historians who periodically meet with the president. “Now, it seems to me that he’s going to be viewed as an executive power president.” Obama’s increasing use of executive action began in the fall of 2011, when the president, frustrated with Republican opposition, urged his team to seek actions the White House could take unilaterally, according to Pfeiffer.

Can’t Wait Branding their independent efforts

 “We Can’t Wait,” the White House rolled out dozens of policies that included raising fuel-economy standards, granting legal status to young immigrants, reducing student loan payments, preventing prescription drug shortages and getting jobs for veterans. In his second term, aides say Obama will escalate his use of executive power. He’s expected to focus on job creation and economic growth, calling for new federal spending on infrastructure, clean energy and education in his State of the Union speech at 9 p.m., Washington time, tomorrow, according to a senior official briefed on the speech. He’ll also push lawmakers for action on immigration, gun control and climate change.

 Last month, he initiated 23 executive actions on gun control, as part of a legislative package proposed after the Dec. 14 killings at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school. They include several designed to maximize prosecution of gun crimes and improve access to government data for background checks.

Using EPA After efforts to pass climate legislation to curb greenhouse gases failed in the first term, administration officials have indicated that they aim to use the Environmental Protection Agency to limit emissions from new power plants and tackle existing plants in the second, according to an environmental activist and a congressional aide.

 “The opportunity is in what the president can do under the laws Congress has already passed,” said David Doniger, policy director of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental group. “It’s the tools the president already has laying around at home he can use now.”

 The Pentagon is poised to extend some military benefits to the same-sex partners of service members, according to a U.S. official, including access to day-care facilities and visiting privileges at military hospitals.

Topping the wish lists of gay- rights advocates in the second term is an executive order that would bar workplace discrimination by federal contractors based on sexual orientation. Broken System

 And even as the president pushes for legislation revising immigration laws, his aides and advocates have a menu of actions that can be taken unilaterally by the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon to benefit undocumented immigrants and their families, according to congressional staff members and immigration activists. “If things really do truly stall and we can’t get the bipartisan agreement to fix a really broken system, these may be the kinds of tools to look for,” said Bob Deasy, a director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Rules also need to be written to carry out much of the president’s signature first-term domestic policy initiatives -- the expansion of health-care coverage to tens of millions of Americans, and the Dodd-Frank law, the most sweeping new regulations of the financial industry since the Great Depression.

Republican Complaints Even in areas where the president is trying to work with lawmakers, he has emphasized his efforts to get tough with Congress. When he announced details of his immigration plan in Las Vegas last month, he said: “If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.” The White House assertiveness has sparked complaints from Republicans. Obama’s gun proposals, released on Jan. 16, drew a sharp response from one lawmaker mentioned as a possible 2016 presidential contender.

 “President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress,” said Florida Senator Marco Rubio, in a statement released after Obama’s announcement. “President Obama’s frustration with our republic and the way it works doesn’t give him license to ignore the Constitution.” It’s not just Republicans who have objected to Obama’s efforts to wield executive power.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled on Jan. 25 that the president violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate last year to appoint three members to the National Labor Relations Board. Firmer Ground To be sure, Obama says he still prefers legislation when possible, recognizing that it gives his agenda deeper legal roots. “Whenever we can codify something through legislation, it is on firmer ground,” he told the New Republic magazine in an interview last month. “It is something that will be long lasting and sturdier and more stable.” Yet he’s in good company in using presidential authority: Scholars consider Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt to be among the presidents who relied most heavily on executive power, contrasting their records with that of Lyndon Johnson, a former Senate majority leader known for his ability to push legislation through Congress.

 “The president recognized that he might not be able to be the Lyndon Johnson president with legislative achievements, that he might have to become an executive-power president,” said Brinkley. Outpacing Bush Pending regulations in the White House pipeline position Obama to outpace Bush with second-term rulemaking. In his second term, when Democrats won control of Congress after two years, Bush’s new regulations cost the U.S. economy at least $30 billion, according to Office of Management and Budget data. Estimates for rules headed for completion in a second Obama administration already approach that figure, according to a review of regulatory filings by Bloomberg Government. Obama delayed until after the election decisions on regulating ozone levels and requiring rearview cameras for cars, which could cost between $22 billion and $93 billion in 2020, according to the White House. Rules approved during the first 32 months of his presidency will cost an estimated $19.9 billion and yield net benefits of more than $91 billion in monetary savings and deaths and injuries avoided, according to OMB figures. No King

That record aside, the president has been frank about the limitations of his new strategy. On budget issues, a series of fiscal deadlines will force him to work with lawmakers. Only Congress can pass legislation halting automatic reductions in domestic and defense spending, known as the sequester, scheduled to go into effect next month. A continuing resolution funding the government expires in late March, meaning the government will shut down if Congress doesn’t act.

There is another deadline to raise the U.S. debt ceiling two months later. “I’m not a king,” Obama said in a Jan. 30 interview with Telemundo, a broadcasting network, when asked why he couldn’t unilaterally legalize undocumented immigrants. “We can’t simply ignore the law.” To contact the reporter on this story:

Lisa Lerer in Washington at llerer@bloomberg.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)TUESDAY'S BIG STORY: The only game in town: President Obama heads to Capitol Hill on Tuesday in hopes of piecing together the scraps of bipartisanship that could lead to a whole package of policy ideas where Republicans and Democrats agree.

 In the first State of the Union address of his second term, Obama is likely to press for the parties to work together on an overhaul of the immigration system and gun control before the opening for consensus closes. Since a "fiscal cliff" deal was inked more than a month ago, lawmakers and the White House have found some common ground and have apparently tired of partisan showdowns. Yes, there are still major policy differences, but for the first time in, well, forever, Democrats and Republicans seem to be bushwhacking the same trail on some issues, including immigration, with several proposals floating around the Capitol.

 Both parties have said they would like to stop the sequester from going into place on March 1, although it could take more than political will to stop that train from steaming down the tracks. In recent days, there have been countless studies that detail how the automatic spending cuts would damage the overall economy. While Obama is likely to outline some legislative goals for the year, he could do that in the context of a greater vision — the importance of Washington working together on the issues where the parties' paths cross, especially with the goal of speeding up the nation's economic recovery amid persistently high unemployment.

 There will probably be some talk about Obama's vision on the nation's budget struggles and the battles ahead — including the looming sequestration and government funding for the rest of the fiscal year. While the president could contrast his approach with the GOP's plans, he might point out where the parties agree and hammer home those points.

 As The Hill's Alex Bolton reported, there have been several signs lately that the ice of gridlock is thawing — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) forged a deal with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to reform the filibuster rule; Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.); bipartisan groups of House and Senate lawmakers are teaming up on immigration; a bipartisan House bill has been launched to stiffen penalties against straw purchasers of firearms; and House freshmen are planning a bipartisan bowling session this month. We'll see if the speech leads to more of these types of deals amid a flurry of budget challenges. 

WHAT ELSE TO WATCH FOR

 Budget debut: Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) will hold her first hearing as the new chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday. The committee will hear from Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), who will present the nonpartisan agency's annual budget baseline outlook, which was released on Feb. 5. CBO is forecasting that the deficit would fall this year to $845 billion, the first sub-trillion deficit under President Obama. Elmendorf will show why he expects the the deficit to decline in the middle part of the decade only to return to the $1 trillion by around 2023, as an aging population and soaring healthcare costs weigh on the budget. Murray is slated to insist on an approach of spending cuts and more tax increases to get fiscal matters under control.

 The hearing will showcase the relationship with panel ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who brings a prosecutorial zeal to the budget process. Sequester replacement confab: Barring any last-minute hurdles, Senate Democrats plan to discuss legislation to replace the $85 billion sequester at their weekly policy lunch on Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to brief members on a package that would include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts, and get the go-ahead from lawmakers to introduce a measure by Thursday. That would set in motion procedures for a final vote the week of Feb. 25, only a few days head of the March 1 sequestration deadline.

 The Senate Armed Services Committee will explore on Tuesday what impact the across-the-board cuts to discretionary and defense spending would mean with a wide range of Defense Department officials. On Monday night, Democratic aides said their proposal is still under construction. They have said a replacement package could reflect parts of what Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the top Democrat at the House Budget Committee, offered up last week. Van Hollen and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a member of the Budget panel, will discuss the federal budget on Tuesday at the National Press Club. The New York Times reported Monday that Senate Democrats were nearing completion of $120 billion package that would include elements of Van Hollen's proposal.

 The House Democratic plan would eliminate subsidies to agribusinesses, scrap tax preferences used by oil-and-gas companies and implement a new minimum tax rate on people making seven figures a year — the proposal commonly known as the “Buffett Rule.” On Monday, Senate Democrats began to take steps toward a solution to avoid sequestration by closing tax loopholes. Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said they had two bills: one that would avoid the automatic spending cuts set to take place next month for one year, and a second bill that would close enough tax loopholes to provide revenue to turn off the sequester for the next 10 years.

 Levin said tax loopholes for corporations drain the U.S. Treasury and shift the burden to middle-class families. He specifically targeted tax loopholes that allow corporations to hold assets overseas, deduct corporate stock options and deductions for large oil companies. While lawmakers move forward, most market professionals do not believe the White House and Congress will strike a deal to avoid automatic spending cuts, and the stock market will pay the price as a result.

 CABINET WATCH

 Not your run of the Mill(s) departure: Karen Mills, the head of the Small Business Administration (SBA), on Monday became the latest departure from President Obama's Cabinet. “After four years as Administrator of the SBA, I have let President Obama know that I will not be staying for a second term. I will stay on until my successor is confirmed to ensure a smooth and seamless transition,” Mills wrote in a note to SBA staff. Mills has served for nearly four years in the administration, and became a member of the Cabinet a little more than a year ago, after the president elevated the SBA administrator to his inner circle. Obama credited Mills for her efforts to support start-ups and entrepreneurs and in seeing through the passage of the Small Business Jobs Act. "I asked Karen to lead the SBA because I knew she had the skills and experience to help America’s small businesses recover from the worst economic crisis in generations — and that’s exactly what she’s done,"

Obama said. Looking at Lew: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said his panel would quickly confirm Jack Lew to be the next Treasury secretary. However, the top Republican on the panel said Lew should be properly grilled, in particular when it comes to the time he spent at the bank Citigroup. The panel is lined up to consider Lew's nomination on Wednesday. "We have a tremendous amount of work to do over the next couple months to get our fiscal house in order," he said in a statement. "It is my hope that — after this thorough vetting process — Jack Lew will be quickly confirmed so he can help tackle our country's pressing economic issues."

 The panel's ranking member, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said he needs a better understanding of Lew’s role at Citigroup as well as his knowledge of financial markets before deciding if he will support his nomination. "The American people will want to know what his role was there and how that might have prepared him for this critical job after the most severe financial crisis and prolonged economic downturn in generations," Hatch said in a statement. "After all, as Treasury secretary, he would be leading efforts dealing with international financial markets, global banking rules, exchange rates and a host of domestic policies ranging from housing and mortgage markets to oversight of entitlement trust funds.”

Haggling for Hagel:

Senate Democratic leaders are aiming to clear former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s (R-Neb.) nomination by Thursday even as Republicans are threatening to block his confirmation. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday he would move Hagel’s nomination as Defense secretary quickly to the floor following a Tuesday vote by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Reid said he expected a floor vote on Wednesday or Thursday, and was “confident” that there would not be a filibuster, despite the Republicans’ rhetoric.