Noemie Emery: You’ve disregarded civility, Mr. President

Noemie Emery

Ryan: Fix Health Reform, Then Repeal It

By PAUL RYAN

ON Thursday night, Congress sent to President Obama the reconciliation package to remove some of the embarrassing provisions in his signature legislative achievement, health care reform. But a serious fix for what ails health care in America will entail far more than merely tweaking the new law of the land; we will need to repeal the entire faulty architecture of the government behemoth and replace it with real reform.

To be clear: it is not sufficient for those of us in the opposition to await a reversal of political fortune months or years from now before we advance action on health care reform. Costs will continue their ascent as the debt burden squeezes life out of our economy. We are unapologetic advocates for the repeal of this costly misstep. But Republicans must also make the case for a reform agenda to take its place, and get to work on that effort now.

So what can we do?

Health care experts across the political spectrum acknowledge that a fundamental driver of health inflation is the regressive tax preference for employer-based health insurance. This discriminatory tax treatment lavishes the greatest benefit on the most expensive plans while providing no support for the unemployed, the self-employed or those who don’t get coverage from their employer.

Reform-minded leaders like Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, pushed legislative proposals that would directly address this issue. I helped write a plan that would replace the bias in the tax code with universal tax credits so that all Americans have the resources to purchase portable, affordable coverage that best suits their needs, with additional support provided for those with lower incomes. All these ideas, though, were dismissed early on, as they didn’t fit with the government-driven plan favored by the majority. But going forward it’s important that we reconsider this regressive tax issue.

Then, when helping Americans with pre-existing conditions obtain coverage, we should focus on innovative state-based solutions, including robust high-risk pools, reinsurance markets and risk-adjustment mechanisms. I intend to continue advancing true patient-centered reforms like attaching tax benefits to the individual rather than the job, breaking down barriers to interstate competition, and promoting transparency and consumer-friendly coverage options.

We should ensure that health care decisions are made by patients and their doctors, not by bureaucrats, whether at an insurance company or a government agency. By inviting market forces into health care, we can encourage a system where doctors, insurers and hospitals compete against one another for the business of informed consumers.

We must also immediately begin dealing with our crushing debt burdens, which this legislation will worsen. The Democrats’ fiscal arguments never did add up: they claim that their program will reduce the deficit even though the federal government will pick up the tab for more than 30 million uninsured Americans and subsidize millions more. Even after accounting for the $569 billion in tax increases and $523 billion in Medicare cuts, the true costs of this legislation — concealed by timing gimmicks, hidden spending and double-counting — will make the deficit explode, plunging us deeper into debt.

Washington already has no idea on how to pay for its current entitlement programs, as we find ourselves $76 trillion in the hole. Our country cannot afford to avoid a serious conversation on entitlement reform. By taking action now, we can make certain that our entitlement programs are kept whole for those in and near retirement, while devising sustainable health and retirement security for future generations.

The case for attempting health care reform was not difficult to make. Skyrocketing health care costs are driving more and more families and businesses to the brink of bankruptcy, leaving affordable coverage out of reach for millions of Americans and accelerating our path to fiscal ruin. The challenge was how to deal with the seemingly inexorable increase in health care costs.

Yet the Congressional majority went at this goal backward: with the force of the federal government, cover all Americans — then figure out which screws to twist to contain costs. Democrats opted for this approach because their concern was never about costs. It was about expanding coverage through an expansion of government.

As the dust settles from this historic and fiscally calamitous week, we have to try to steer this country back in the right direction. The opposition must always speak with vigor and candor on the need for wholesale repeal and for real reform to fix what’s broken in health care.

Read the original article NewYorkTimes

NRO:Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable

 Never despair. That is a sentiment that conservatives need to take to heart now that Congress has narrowly passed a bill that simultaneously undermines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It takes some ingenuity to add to the costs, inefficiency, and dysfunctions that government has already bequeathed to our health-care system, but the Democrats have proven themselves up to the challenge. Almost nothing about this legislation is free of dispute, but we are convinced that it will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.

The Democrats had no mandate to take these steps. In 2008, the president campaigned both against forcing people to buy insurance and against taxing their benefits. The legislation runs counter to the campaign on both points. The president promised to change Washington. He has made its stench more noisome, winning this vote by using every kind of deceit and (legal) corruption, and over the objection of a bipartisan coalition representing most Americans.

We are now being told that the campaign to repeal this legislation is over before it has even begun, that Americans will come to appreciate the benefits that a bountiful government is giving them, and that the growth of the welfare state can never be reversed. We understand the odds against repeal. We understand, indeed, that complete repeal of every provision of the bill is impossible. The doughnut hole — a gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug coverage designed to encourage seniors to economize — has been filled, and it is not going to be re-opened.

But the larger thesis seems as superficially plausible, and as ultimately convincing, as were earlier predictions that state socialism or secularization were our inevitable future. It is quite possible that the majority of America that rejects this legislation will get its way in the next few years — if it is given the right leadership. And it is worth the effort to try.

It is possible, for example, that the results of the legislation will turn out to be unpleasant more quickly than most observers realize. The bill requires insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions the same as everyone else, and the only reason for people not to game the system — dropping their insurance until they get sick and the insurer has to take them — is because the law requires them to buy insurance or pay a fine. For many people, the fine will be a cheap price to avoid premiums that could run around $8,000 a year for a family of four. The effect of the legislation could be to cause the number of healthy people with insurance to fall dramatically — and for premiums to rise, which would cause more people to drop their insurance. If this happens, we can expect liberals to agitate for a single-payer system; but we can also expect the public to blame the Democrats whose health-care system it will now be. A less lopsidedly Democratic Congress is not going to respond to this chaos by enacting single payer or strengthening the fines.

For that matter, the lengthy legislation could turn out to have little time bombs, the nature of which cannot currently be guessed. Nothing about the process that produced the legislation, after all, suggests that it was put together with careful consideration. Conservatives will be able to capitalize on the discrediting of Obamacare, however it takes place, only if they campaign this fall on a pledge to replace this government-heavy system with true reform. Republicans running against Democrats who voted for this legislation will have the easiest task. But even Republicans running against Democrats who voted against it can advance the cause by challenging those Democrats either to advocate repeal and replacement themselves or to expose themselves as false opponents of Obamacare.
Nor have pro-lifers lost the war. Pro-lifers should campaign this fall on a pledge to make the Hyde amendment — the partial ban on government funding of abortion, which now applies to portions of federal spending and has to be renewed each year — a permanent feature of law that applies to all federal spending. The Obama administration and most of liberaldom have pretended over the last year to favor both the principle in general and the Hyde amendment in particular. And the principle is popular. Their posturing, disingenuous though it was, has handed pro-lifers a winning issue.

The Democrats have abused the system, ignoring both the Founders’ design and public opinion. The first step toward undoing that abuse is to make them pay a political price for it.
Read the original article National Review Online

Breaking: “Fix” Bill May Not Advance In Senate

Senate Democrats Refuse Bi-partisan Meeting With Parliamentarian Until After House Votes

WASHINGTON DC – Senate Democrats have balked at a bi-partisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss a rule violation that could doom the entire House reconciliation proposal.

DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: “Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.”

BACKGROUND

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP RELEASE: “The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the health care legislation shows an increase in Social Security revenues… CBO projects that the resulting increase in wages will generate $29 billion in additional FICA contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund.” (“Health Care Reform Update,” Office of Rep. Steny Hoyer, 3/21/10)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT:  “LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act.” (Congressional Budget Act Of 1974, Sec. 310g, P. 31)

 Read the original article Republican.Senate.Gov

WSJ: Overhaul Splits Party Faithful

Nearly Half in Poll Oppose Health-Care Plan, but Core Democrats Want Action.

PETER WALLSTEN And JEAN SPENCER

The pending health-care overhaul remains unpopular with a broad swath of the public, but core Democrats the party needs to show up and vote in November are strong backers, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

The survey found that opinions have solidified around the health-care legislation, with 48% calling it a “bad idea” and 36% viewing it as a “good idea” when presented with a choice between those two. That gap is consistent with surveys dating to the fall.

At the same time, Democratic voters strongly favor the legislation being pushed by President Barack Obama, particularly constituencies such as blacks, Latinos and self-described liberals. Those groups mobilized in 2008 to help elect Mr. Obama, but are far less enthusiastic than core Republicans about voting in this year’s midterm elections.

The survey found a 21-point enthusiasm gap between the parties, with 67% of Republicans saying they are very interested in the November elections, compared with 46% of Democrats. “If the Democrats are going to close that gap, they’ve got to get their people excited. And I don’t see how you get those people if you vote no” on the party’s health-care legislation, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican Bill McInturff.

“I don’t think it’s about winning the middle. It’s really about alienating the base,” Mr. Hart said of Democratic lawmakers’ calculations about the upcoming health-care vote.

The survey found that Mr. Obama’s job-approval rating of 48%—as opposed to the 47% who disapprove—has remained steady since its precipitous drop last summer, which coincided with rising public opposition to the health-care initiative.

Where the health-care debate has been a drag for Mr. Obama’s numbers, it also has been an anchor for Congress, which now has an anemic 17% approval rating. Half of Americans, if they had the choice, would vote to replace every member of Congress, including their own representative, the survey found.

On health care, the results underscore the argument from liberal activists that the bill’s demise would dissuade the Democratic base from voting in November. The Journal/NBC survey shows that majorities of African-Americans and liberal Democrats, as well as a plurality of Latinos, would be less likely to vote for their representative in Congress if he or she voted against the health-care plan.

Further complicating the calculation for all lawmakers is that a clear plurality of Americans wants the issue addressed in some form. Forty-seven percent of poll respondents said they wanted Congress to consider significant health-care legislation “immediately” if the Obama plan fails, while another 23% wanted that done at least within the next couple of years.

“Something’s got to be done,” said Phil Boyd, a 58-year-old retired teacher from Roanoke, Va., a registered independent who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Boyd said he worried that the cost of health care is “getting out of hand,” but he wasn’t convinced yet that this particular bill is “the one we want or need.”

Selena King, a 34-year-old registered nurse who is a registered independent voter in Nevada, said she supported a health-care overhaul but not in its current form. “I think they should redo it and not pass it at this time,” she said.

No matter what happens on the vote this week, the survey points to political challenges facing both parties as they weigh how to talk about health care on the campaign trail this fall.

Thirty-six percent of voters said they would be less likely to support their member of Congress if he or she voted for the bill, but 34% said they would be less likely to support their representative if he or she voted against it. While Republican leaders have said they would encourage GOP candidates to campaign for repeal of the legislation should it pass, the survey showed voters split on that possibility: 37% were more likely to back a candidate who embraced repeal and 33% less likely.

More broadly, the survey showed continued gloominess among all voters about the country’s direction, with nearly six in 10 saying it is on the wrong track. Adding to Democrats’ election-year concerns: Voters are souring on the party’s ability to deal with the country’s economic troubles.

As an issue, handling of the economy has favored the Democrats in the past four election cycles. But now, by a 10-point margin, registered voters with the highest interest in the November elections said they believe the GOP is better at dealing with the economy.

Some of Mr. Obama’s highest ratings relate to his work on foreign policy, an area that had been a weakness when he was a presidential candidate. Clear majorities said they approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan and the situation in Iraq. In both cases, 53% of respondents said they approved of his work.

The high numbers reflect the support by many Republicans and independents for the president’s decision to boost troop levels in Afghanistan. Liberal activists have blamed that stance for adding to the decline in enthusiasm among core Democratic voters.

On another foreign-policy matter confronting the White House, a 51%-38% majority in the survey supported initiating military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons if Tehran continues its nuclear program and is close to developing a weapon. Thirty-nine percent said they strongly supported military action.

Read the original article on WSJ

Senate Staffers Warned to Stay Clear of Drudge Report

The Senate’s official gatekeeper, said the Drudge Report, a conservative news aggregator, and whitepages.com “are responsible for the many viruses popping up throughout the Senate,” according to an e-mail to the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Jobs bill could contain Card Check

Ed Morrissey
At first, this report from the Las Vegas Sun sounds as though conservatives have mostly won the fight against Big Labor to keep the Obama administration from stripping the secret ballot from organizing elections.  They pushed hard on ObamaCare and appear to have lost that battle.  No one in Congress has touched the Card Check bill as people grow more angry over employment losses.  Unions themselves have slipped in standing with the American electorate to their lowest level of support ever recorded.  With their political power waning, conservatives have focused more on the ObamaCare debate and the lack of action by Democrats on the economy.

However, deeper within this report lies a new strategy by the unions to use the latter to get its Card Check legislation out of Congress (emphasis mine):

Still, those moves don’t easily lend themselves to a campaign mailer or political rhetoric. Even key parts of the economic stimulus package, such as tax credits and unemployment assistance, don’t pack the populist punch of health care or labor law reform.

“Saving jobs is invisible,” said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “You need an accomplishment that is clear. No matter what unions try to do, their members and the friends of their members will be demobilized.

“That’s why something like health care is so important. People will say, ‘What have you done for me?’ And the answer is, ‘Nothing or not much.’ ”

On labor law, Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO’s legislative director, said the union would try to enlist moderate Republicans but acknowledged the difficulty of achieving a bipartisan bill. He said the federation might consider “other tactics,” meaning the card-check legislation or key parts of it could be placed into a larger jobs bill this year.

Perhaps the big surprise here is that the Democrats didn’t think to attach it to Porkulus.  They only had 58 Senate votes at the time, as Al Franken didn’t get seated until June, but they perhaps figured they could get enough votes to get it out of the Senate on its own.  Despite having 60 votes, though, the Democrats never made the attempt as they wound up tying themselves in knots to get all 60 votes to support ObamaCare.

If Harry Reid introduces Card Check as a rider on another bill, it has to be somewhat germane to the core legislation.  That makes the upcoming second stimulus bill — what Democrats insist on calling a “jobs bill” to avoid admitting that Porkulus flopped — the most likely target for such a strategy.  Republicans and conservatives need to keep a sharp eye on the bill as it passes through committees in both chambers to ensure that Card Check doesn’t end up in an obscure amendment, especially its waiver of secret balloting and the government arbitration clauses that would wreck American businesses.

Read the original article on HotAire

GOP wary of pitfalls in Obama’s health care summit

By CHARLES BABINGTON,

WASHINGTON – Even as Republicans publicly welcome President Barack Obama’s call for a bipartisan confab on health care, some privately worry that he might be laying a trap to portray their ideas as flimsy.

If so, a shaky showing by GOP leaders could possibly embolden congressional Democrats to make a final, aggressive push to overhaul the nation’s health care system, with or without any Republican votes.

Some Republicans doubt that scenario, saying Democrats have lost momentum for any plan that’s certain to draw fierce criticism. But they noted Monday that the White House has not backed away from its support of legislation similar to what the Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed separately in December over strong GOP objections.

“This is a clever tactic by the president to try to put the Republicans on the defensive,” said John Feehery, a GOP consultant and former congressional aide. “There’s a vast ideological gulf” between the two parties on health care, he said, making it likely that the Feb. 25 half-day meeting will be more showmanship than substance.

The House’s top two Republican leaders openly questioned Obama’s sincerity and hinted they might skip the meeting if he uses the Democratic bills as the starting point for discussions.

“Assuming the president is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over?” said a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel from House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio and GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

“If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” Boehner and Cantor wrote.

They asked Obama to rule out the possibility of using “budget reconciliation” rules, which could allow Democrats to enact some health care provisions with a simple Senate majority, not the 60-vote super majority needed to halt filibusters. Democrats control 59 of the Senate’s 100 seats.

In response to the letter, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs released a statement contending that Obama is “open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny.”

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the president will not rule out the reconciliation route but is sincere in wanting to hear Republicans’ ideas for improving the health care legislation.

In announcing his call for the bipartisan event in a CBS News interview Sunday, Obama was vague when asked whether he was willing to start from scratch on health care. But the White House circulated talking points saying the president is “adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate” shortly before Democrats lost their filibuster-proof Senate majority.

If that’s true, Republicans said, what is the point of the Feb. 25 meeting? Some looked to the CBS interview for signs that Obama may use the televised event to depict Republicans’ proposals as falling short in key areas.

“What I want to do is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there,” Obama said. “And I want to be very specific. ‘How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance markets so people with preexisting conditions, for example, can get health care? How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don’t have health insurance can get it?’”

Republicans say their health care proposals are frugal and practical. But Obama may be able to cast unkind lights on some details, such as nonpartisan estimates that the House Republican bill would cover 3 million uninsured people while the Democratic version would cover 36 million.

All presidents command a bully pulpit, and Democrats feel Obama was especially nimble in parrying House Republicans’ arguments and criticisms at a Jan. 29 televised event. The Feb. 25 setting could offer him a similar chance to spar with his critics.

The Boehner-Cantor letter sought to even the sides a bit. It called on the White House to invite pro-Republican analysts and Democratic lawmakers who voted against the Obama-backed legislation in December.

Liberal groups hope Americans will see the Republicans as obstructionists, possibly encouraging Democrats to use their still-sizable congressional majorities to enact their health care proposals via the budget reconciliation rules, without GOP help.

If the Feb. 25 meeting clarifies the sharp differences between the two parties, “that might be helpful,” said Richard Kirsch of the liberal Heath Care for America Now.

But some Republicans said Obama runs the risk of appearing insincere if he convenes the bipartisan gathering without showing greater willingness to shelve or greatly change his party’s proposals.

It’s a gamble Democrats appear willing to take.

“I think the greatest risk for Democrats is passing nothing,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va. “There are a lot of things the public may not support in a given moment, but later on, when things have quieted down, they may think of highly.”

An overhaul of U.S. health care could fit that description, he said.

Read the original article on Yahoo

Obama Appears Blinded by His Own Ideological Biases

“I am not an ideologue,” President Obama insisted at his truly refreshing confab with the Republican caucus in Baltimore last Friday. When he heard some incredulous murmurs and chuckles from the audience in response to the idea that the most sincerely ideological president in a generation is no ideologue, he added a somewhat plaintive, “I’m not.”

It’s clear from interviews that he is fond of the notion that he is above ideological squabbles and is a clear-eyed appraiser of facts and adjudicator of political disagreements. He’s described himself as a “pragmatist,” even a “ruthless pragmatist,” countless times.

The evidence offered that Obama is no ideologue rests almost entirely on two contentions: He has annoyed some members of his ideological base, and because he says so.

Here, for instance, is New York Times columnist David Brooks, an Obama confidant and champion of Obama’s nonideological street cred, asserting that Obama is loyal only to facts, evidence and logic (a theme Obama echoed in his Q&A with the GOP). Obama, Brooks writes, “is beholden to no ideological camp, and there is no group in his political base that he has not angered at some point in his first year.”

If this gruel were any thinner, it would be water. Every president annoys his base. Are we therefore to believe that no president has ever been an ideologue? And how has Obama angered his base? Not by tacking to the center but by not going fast enough in pursuit of their shared goals.

As for Obama’s personal testimony, so what? Is this the one instance in American history when a politician’s self-serving statements are to be taken at face value? Besides, how many times have we heard from the left that right-wing ideologues are in denial about what “really” drives them (the answer, we’re frequently told: greed, racism, homophobia, etc.). Is denial only a conservative malady? Certainly not.

Of course Obama is an ideologue. The important question is whether he is sufficiently self-aware to recognize the truth.

I, for one, would be horrified to learn that the president is working from the assumption that ideological biases are something only other people have. That is the surest route to hubris and groupthink (which might explain Obama’s political predicament).

Obama routinely insinuates that all of the facts are on his side. He invokes a confabulated consensus of experts to suggest that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to disagree with his agenda. After all, with the eggheads and “facts” in his corner, only the other side’s ideological blinders — or stupidity — could account for any dissent.

On health care, for instance. Obama promised to be the last president to ever grapple with health care, because his reforms would be so sweeping, so authoritative, that no such reforms would ever be necessary again. So far, Obama’s only concession of error in this fiasco is his failure to “explain it better.”

What I really don’t understand is what’s so great about allegedly value-free pragmatism and so bad about supposedly unthinking ideology? The truth is that the vast majority of the time, pragmatism isn’t value-free and ideology isn’t unthinking.

Ideologies don’t require blinding yourself to the facts; rather, they help you prioritize what you are going to do with the facts. Indeed, the very question of deciding what to be pragmatic about — this but not that — requires applying an ideological test.

The president invokes his or America’s “values” to justify a ban on waterboarding, passage of universal health care, sustaining legalized abortion, higher taxes for the wealthy, gay equality and — coming soon — a more expedient system for selecting a college football champion. Those all involve pursuing ideological ends, even if that fact is obscured with rhetorical blather about pragmatic means.

A truly “ruthless pragmatist” might opt for summarily executing enemy combatants after torturing them with hot pokers. He might abandon anyone who can’t afford health insurance. He might ban abortion on the grounds that Social Security needs more young people or eliminate college football entirely as a needless distraction and a drain on resources.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then “ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth.” Russell’s point was that there’s nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.

Our values, customs, traditions and principles provide the insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it’s often called an ideology, and there’s no reason to apologize for having one.

Read the original article TownHall

Obama budget aims at solidifying women’s support

By James Rosen

WASHINGTON — With women’s advocacy groups voicing growing unease with administration policy, President Barack Obama will propose a $3.8 trillion budget on Monday that would exempt programs for women and girls from spending restrictions he’s proposed for other programs.

Obama aides denied that political calculation was behind the emphasis on programs for women and girls, detailed in a budget document obtained by McClatchy entitled “Opportunity and Progress for Women and Girls.”

“We’re looking at a lot of significant funding increases for women’s programs in a year when the president has ordered a three-year, non-security, discretionary spending freeze,” Kate Bedingfield, a White House spokesman, said.

The document describes 15 federal programs that benefit women that would get increased funding under his spending plan. Nine of the programs are narrowly aimed at women and girls, but six are much broader initiatives that would benefit men and boys as well, including the 1.4 percent pay increase requested for the U.S. military.

Women are a key voting block for Obama. Exit polling from the 2008 election showed 56 percent of female voters cast ballots for Obama. Only 49 percent of male voters backed Obama. Women remain supportive: A Gallup poll conducted in early January found that 54 percent of women surveyed approved of Obama’s performance; only 47 percent of men said the same.

In recent weeks, however, women rights advocates have been critical of the administration, particularly after Obama’s allies in Congress agreed to limits on insurance coverage for abortion in health-care legislation passed by the House.

Women’s-rights advocates also challenged Obama’s decision to impose a spending freeze on discretionary domestic programs while continuing to increase military, intelligence and other homeland security funding.

“A domestic spending freeze would lead us in the wrong direction,” Terry O’Neill, head of the National Organization for Women, said last week after Obama’s State of the Union address to Congress.

“It would, for example, decimate funding for many battered women’s shelters at a time when the recession is causing a spike in domestic violence rates,” O’Neill said. “At the least, our swollen military budget should receive as much cost-conscious scrutiny as services for vulnerable women.”

The budget unveiled Monday would exempt those programs from the freeze.

Among the programs targeted at women are $8.1 billion in food aid for low-income pregnant women, infants and children up to 5 years old and $3.9 billion for child care and Head Start meals.

It also will increase by $10 million money set aside for family planning efforts, raising the total to $327 million, including $205 million for the prevention of teen pregnancy, the rate of which has increased after a decade of decline.

The budget also will propose spending $535 million in aid for victims of domestic violence — $117 million more than current funding, a 22 percent increase.

Obama last March issued an executive order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. In June, he named Lynn Rosenthal as special adviser on violence against women.

Read the original article  McClatchy