Subject: ​Correct The Record Tuesday January 13, 2015 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:50:57 -0500
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Tuesday January 13, 2015 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> authored proposal to provide tuition
to students that commit to public service #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash>
https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/3958 …
<https://t.co/TO0FBCY0zn> [1/12/15, 6:21 p.m. EST
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/554780169546653697>]

*Headlines:*

*Des Moines Register profile: “Hillary Rodham Clinton”*
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/candidates/2015/01/12/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-candidate-profile/21114581/>

“Her popularity here is commanding: 76 percent of likely Democratic
caucus-goers view her favorably, while just 19 percent have unfavorable
feelings, the Register/Bloomberg Iowa Poll in early October showed.”

*Fortune: “Elizabeth Warren: I'm not running for president”*
<http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair/>

*Fortune: So are you going to run for President?/* Sen. Warren: No.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Elizabeth Warren, in the
Future Tense, Says ‘No’ to 2016 White House Bid”*
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-in-the-future-tense-says-no-to-2016-white-house-bid/>

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren has now rejected a 2016 presidential campaign in
both the present and future tenses.”

*Talking Points Memo: “Elizabeth Warren Gives Firm 'No' On Whether She's
Going To Run For Prez”*
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-no-going-to-run-for-president>

“Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) gave a new type of answer about possibly
running for president: she's not going to run for president.”

*Associated Press: “Effort To Draft Warren Into 2016 Race heads to New
Hampshire”*
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_WARREN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

“Progressive activists hoping to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the 2016
presidential race will hold their first meeting in the key early-voting
state of New Hampshire on Saturday.”

*Washington Times: “Activists pining for Elizabeth Warren in 2016 set to
kick off New Hampshire effort Saturday”*
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/activists-elizabeth-warren-2016-new-hampshire/>

“The event in Manchester will involve members of the liberal groups
Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, who have banded together in an effort
to get Ms. Warren into the race. A similar one was held in the early
presidential state of Iowa last month.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Paul: Clinton did a 'terrible job' at State”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229352-paul-clinton-did-a-terrible-job-at-state>*

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took a shot at likely presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, saying she did ‘a terrible job’ as secretary of
State and calling her handling of the Benghazi attack ‘inexcusable.’”

*Daily Caller: “Limbaugh: Jeb Bush And Hillary Clinton ‘Aligned Perfectly’
On ‘Leftist Control Of The Common Core’”*
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/13/limbaugh-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-aligned-perfectly-on-leftist-control-of-the-common-core/>

“Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is not impressed. He blasted both
Bush and Clinton on his program Monday for, in his opinion, agreeing about
‘leftist control of the Common Core education curriculum.’”

*Articles:*

*Des Moines Register profile: “Hillary Rodham Clinton”*
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/candidates/2015/01/12/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-candidate-profile/21114581/>

[No Writer Mentioned]

January 12, 2015, 10:06 p.m. CST

*Name:*

Hillary Rodham Clinton

*Birth date:*

Oct. 26, 1947

*Education:*

Bachelor's degree, political science, 1969, Wellesley College.

Law degree, 1973, Yale Law School.

Yale Child Study Center, 1973-1974, for one post-graduate year of study on
children and medicine.

*Family:*

Husband: Bill, former president.

One child: Chelsea (born 1980).

Current home: Chappaqua, N.Y.

*What you might not know:*

She participated in young Republican groups and campaigned for GOP
presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964. She switched to the
Democratic Party in 1968 and campaigned for Eugene McCarthy. She was in the
audience when Martin Luther King gave a speech in Chicago, and it inspired
her into public service.

In her Twitter profile, Clinton describes herself as "wife, mom, lawyer,
women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, U.S. Senator, SecState, author, dog
owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD..."

*Websites:*

www.hillaryclinton.com/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hillary-Clinton/109881115705319

*Elective office:*

U.S. Senate, representing New York, 2001-2009. She won election in 2000,
defeating Republican Rick Lazio 55 percent to 43 percent, and was
re-elected in 2006, winning by 36 points.

U.S. Secretary of State, 2009-2013.

*Other career highlights:*

Worked in Alaska, including time at a fish cannery, after college.

Staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund in 1970 after graduating
from law school.

Worked in 1971 for Democratic Minnesota U.S. Sen. Walter Mondale's
subcommittee on migrant workers, studying health, education and housing
problems.

Worked in 1972 for Democratic presidential hopeful George McGovern's
campaign.

Worked in 1974 on the impeachment inquiry staff advising the U.S. House
Judiciary Committee during Watergate.

After failing the District of Columbia bar exam and passing the Arkansas
exam, she took a job teaching at the University of Arkansas Law School in
1974.

Joined the Rose Law Firm in 1976, specializing in patent infringement and
intellectual property law. President Jimmy Carter appointed her in 1978 to
the board of the Legal Services Corporation.

First lady of Arkansas from 1979-1981 and 1983-1992.

Chaired an education standards task force that reformed the Arkansas school
system, and served on several boards, including for the TCBY frozen yogurt
chain (1985-1992) and Wal-Mart (1986-1992).

As the nation's first lady (1993-2001), she chaired a task force on
national health care reform.

Ran for president during the 2008 cycle and lost a long nomination battle
to Barack Obama. She resigned from the Senate after Obama selected her as
U.S. Secretary of State in January 2009.

*Key Iowa allies:*

Andy McGuire, a Des Moines physician and former lieutenant governor
candidate; Jerry Crawford, veteran adviser and fundraiser.

*Known for:*

Is the only first lady to have been elected to the U.S. Senate or any
public office. For 20 days, from Jan. 1 to Jan. 20, 2001,, she was
simultaneously the nation's first lady, married to a member of the
executive branch of the federal government, while serving in the
legislative branch of government.

Has written several books, including "Hard Choices" (2014); "Living
History" (2004); "An Invitation to the White House: At Home with History"
(2000); "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids' Letters to the First Pets" (1998);
and "The Unique Voice of Hillary Rodham Clinton: A Portrait in Her Own
Words" (1997). Her audio recording of her 1996 book, "It Takes a Village
and Other Lessons Children Teach Us," won a Grammy Award.

As U.S. secretary of state, she dealt with the Arab Spring, the attack on
the U.S. consulate in Libya, the war on terror in Afghanistan, North
Korea's firing of short-range missiles into South Korea, imposition of
sanctions on Iran and other high-tension matters. She resigned in February
2013, one month after being released from the hospital after sustaining a
concussion. She fainted at home due to a stomach virus that led to extreme
dehydration, according to her doctors. A blood clot was discovered during a
follow-up exam.

Clinton stayed away from Iowa for nearly seven years after losing her 2008
presidential bid. She returned for Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin's
September 2014 steak fry fundraiser.

Her popularity here is commanding: 76 percent of likely Democratic
caucus-goers view her favorably, while just 19 percent have unfavorable
feelings, the Register/Bloomberg Iowa Poll in early October showed.

*Fortune: “Elizabeth Warren: I'm not running for president”*
<http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-sheila-bair/>

By Sheila Bair

January 13, 2015, 5:00 a.m. EST

In this conversation between the Massachusetts senator and Fortune
Contributor and former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, a more business-friendly
side of Warren emerges — and the final word on a White House run.

Elizabeth Warren. For many Wall Street leaders, the name is like the sound
of their impeccably manicured nails scratching against a blackboard. They
have tried to marginalize her as left-wing extremist, but so far, her
influence and popularity have only grown.

I have known and worked with Warren for many years, beginning with her days
as a Harvard law professor and prominent bankruptcy expert to her current
role as the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I must profess that the
Elizabeth Warren I know respects business and the role it plays in jobs and
wealth creation. Yes, she is a champion of the working class, but she
couches her arguments in terms of policies that make the markets work
better for all Americans. I don’t for the life of me understand what is
radical or extreme about that.

So you decide for yourself. I recently sat down with her to discuss her
thinking on banking, tax reform, the economy, the plight of the middle
class, and the 2016 Presidential elections. –Sheila Bair

*Fortune: Congress just effectively repealed a Dodd-Frank prohibition on
big banks using FDIC-insured deposits to fund high-risk derivatives,
notwithstanding bipartisan opposition led by you and GOP Senator David
Vitter. What’s going to happen to financial reform over the next few years?
Is this a precursor of things to come?*

Warren: I’m not sure what’s going to happen in the next Congress, but I
will tell you that I’m madder than hops about repealing the section of
Dodd-Frank that is designed to lower risks in exactly the area where the
big banks got into trouble. And now we are putting taxpayers back on the
hook. They want to take all the profits, but tag the taxpayer with the
losses.

*And not everyone in the financial industry thinks this is a good idea.*

Right. If I were running a competing investment bank that was doing
business without deposit insurance, I’d be even madder. These big banks
don’t have to compete on a level playing field. I have talked to a lot of
nonbank financial players – investment banks, hedge funds –they have to
compete for capital on their own. They have to convince their investors to
be willing to accept the risks. They have to provide a rate of return to
their investors that compensates for those risks. They don’t like competing
with a half dozen large financial institutions who enjoy the benefits of
deposit insurance and too-big-to-fail status.

You know, when we were talking about doing this interview you put a bug in
my brain – you always do.

*I’m honored to put bugs in your brain.*

You do. And I started thinking about how non-financial businesses are also
disadvantaged by this. The last I heard, most Fortune 500 companies are not
big financial firms — they don’t have too-big-to-fail government
guarantees. That’s worth real money to the big banks. If they had to
purchase that kind of insurance against their failure- they would have to
pay a lot Everyone else in the system has to compete for capital against a
sector that has a special deal from the government.

*Yes. But no one wants to say that publicly.*

That’s true. Some business people will say these things to me, but they
won’t say them publicly. This gets to the revolving door problem. When
too-big-to-fail institutions can place their employees in government
positions, it extends their power and intimidates others who don’t have
their connections.

*I think that is true. There was an article in the American Banker about
all the people in this Administration with Bob Rubin and/or Citigroup
connections. As individuals, they are fine people, but most seem to have
the same worldview and that is a Wall Street-centric view. It’s a giant
echo chamber.*

EW: We saw this during crisis when you were running the FDIC and I was
setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I would talk to them
not only about families losing their homes and what that meant for the
families but also what it meant for the broader economy. And I felt like we
weren’t even on the same planet. Our conversations would go right by each
other. I’d say look what’s happening to families struggling with their
mortgages and their response would be “the banks’ balance sheets can take
it.” The idea that mortgage relief was dialed up and down in response to
the profitability needs of the big banks, rather than needs of families and
the larger economy. It was deeply troubling

Guess who my favorite President is.

*Roosevelt*

Correct. Teddy. He was the trust buster.

You know, when I was in law school, they taught us that monopolies were
wrong because they hurt price competition. They were a market failure that
hurt consumers, and that of course, was true. So you needed to break them
up. But if you read Teddy Roosevelt on this – his principle push for
breaking up the trusts was because they had too much political power. They
overwhelmed the government. It wasn’t so much that they were stronger than
government, but they could persuade government to shift the rules to make
themselves even more powerful. And when that happens, it’s not just a
threat to the economy. It’s a threat to democracy.

This is part of what we are starting to wrestle with. I look at the way
regulators kowtowed to big financial institutions in the run up to the
crisis. It was a complete failure not only of markets, but also of
government. Government didn’t work the way it should.

*We forgot about the importance of regulating banks.*

We did lose it. And there’s another part of what we lost. You know, banking
is not that hard to understand. They try to make it complicated because
they can hide what’s going on. It’s a way to back everyone else off from
having real oversight about what’s happening. “Nothing to see here. We’ve
decided what needs to be done. Don’t worry.” During the run up to
Dodd-Frank, after the market crashed, and Congress was trying to figure out
what to do, I can’t tell you how many Senators’ offices I walked into and
they would say “Wow. These bank CEOs were just here and they tell us that
if we get this wrong, we are going to crash the whole economy. We better
not regulate.” They were using it to buffalo not just the public, but also
the government.

*Right, and with this complexity and lack of understanding, comes no
accountability. And unfortunately, I think the regulators exacerbate the
problem with these hideously complex rules.*

You put your finger on it. I believe in small and simple rules. I’m not a
fan of the big, complex rules. Complexity is a way to hide the loopholes
the special deals. It’s also a way to tilt the playing field toward the big
guys. Small companies, start ups, new competitors just get shut out of a
complex system. Tell some group that has a new way to deliver financial
services to consumers—and they find out it’s going to cost them hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fees just to find out if they can make money, much
less the costs of all the licensing, vetting that it will take if the
decide they want to launch a new business.

*And we have a similar problem with our tax code.*

Wage earners and small businesses and entrepreneurs are powerfully
disadvantaged under the current tax code.

Let me tell you a story. When I was campaigning for Senate, I would walk
into a bar, cafe, or retail store, and I would often hear small business
owners say that they are Republican because they are worried about taxes.
They weren’t sure about me. And I would ask them, you know, you are right.
You should be worried about taxes. Now tell me, how much money do you have
in the Cayman Islands? Did you move your intellectual property to Europe?
How many tax deals have you done? And of course, the answer would always be
no, no, and no. The point was that small businesses are carrying full
freight. The loopholes are written for the big guys. The only ones who are
paying full freight are the little guys.

*I did a column about corporate taxes and inversions and I complained that
my husband and I have a marginal rate — federal and state — of 53% which is
not that uncommon for a professional couple. I got mostly favorable mail on
it, but one guy wrote and said “well, why should I listen to you if you
aren’t smart enough to find ways around this high rate?” And it’s kind of
becoming the American way — to dodge taxes however you can. This complex
tax code- it’s corrosive to the culture.*

It is corrosive. It penalizes people who just want to pay their taxes. It
undercuts the fundamental idea of a level playing field. It undermines the
idea that people get ahead because they have good ideas and they work hard,
not because they can exploit loopholes. It doesn’t make us a more
productive country. It doesn’t create wealth. It doesn’t strengthen our
economy. It helps lawyers get richer — I can say that as a recovering
lawyer.

*So if you were dictator and there were three things you could do to help
the middle class, what would they be?*

First, invest far more in education.

Second, rebuild our infrastructure, both to put people to work immediately
in better paying jobs, but in the long run, to help our economy because
strong infrastructure is what encourages businesses to invest and grow.
China is investing 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. Here in the US, we are
investing about 2.5%. China is building a future for its businesses. We are
letting our infrastructure crumble. We have $3.4 trillion in deferred
maintenance. If we want to have a vibrant economy going forward, we need
safe roads and bridges, power grids, communications networks. That’s the
part we all invest in. Even if we didn’t need the jobs, we should do this,
but we do need the jobs and infrastructure is an investment in the middle
class.

Third, research. I’d invest in research. Medical, scientific, engineering
and the reason for that, this is an exceptional country. The investment
here would be much smaller than the other two. But it’s the great pipeline
of ideas that creative people build off of to turn the research into
something extraordinary. And you could go down the list of what government
sponsored research has given us: nanotechnology, touch screens, vaccines,
gene therapies, GPS – and then, entrepreneurs– people who have worked their
tail ends off – they have turned that research into extraordinary
businesses that employ a lot of people.

*But on education, we spend a lot already. This is an area where Republican
and Democrats should join hands, but how can we spend the money more
effectively?*

Absolutely. For instance, it is outrageous that the federal government
today spends billions of dollars helping college students get an education,
and asks for almost no accountability for the colleges themselves. It is a
scandal.

For-profit colleges account for roughly 10% of all college students, but
they account for 25% of federal student aid dollars, and almost 50% of
student loan defaults. They target minorities and they target veterans. The
Lowell campus of the University of Massachusetts is trying to help veterans
who have been targeted by these schools. They’ve seen vets entering U-Mass
with as much as $65,000 in student debt and not one single college credit
that can transfer to a real school. These young people are already starting
in a hole.

*So are you going to run for President?*

No.

*What does the Democratic nominee need to do to win in 2016?*

They need to speak to America’s families about the economic crisis in this
country. It starts with the recognition that Washington works for the rich
and powerful and not for America’s families. From there, it has to go into
what changes we need to make, and that gets back to education,
infrastructure, and research.

*Do you think anyone on the Republican side will sound that theme as well?*

I think they might. But for both sides, the proof will be in the pudding.
Who is willing to stand up for Wall Street accountability? Who is willing
to take on the powerful by closing tax loopholes so that we have the money
to invest in education, infrastructure, and research. Who’s willing to make
the hard choices? The candidates need to say something concrete. This can’t
be a silent game, with a lot of nice platitudes. There needs to be
something real.

*Obama’s core constituency has lost ground during his Administration.
That’s not all on him. This has been a longstanding trend. But things have
gotten worse.*

The middle class has been under assault for 35 years — the combination of
stagnant wages and rising core expenses have squeezed families beyond
endurance.

*But he hasn’t been able to reverse that trend. What advice do you have for
him for his last two years?*

Get out and fight for America’s families and be clear what you are fighting
for. Don’t just say it once. Give one speech, and then another, and then
another. Talk to the Democrats on the Hill to propose the legislation that
you want and invite the Republicans in. And ask if there is a way to do it
together. But get out there and fight for our families, they need it.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Elizabeth Warren, in the
Future Tense, Says ‘No’ to 2016 White House Bid”*
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-in-the-future-tense-says-no-to-2016-white-house-bid/>

By Reid J. Epstein

January 13, 2015, 12:02 p.m. EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has now rejected a 2016 presidential campaign in both
the present and future tenses.

The Massachusetts Democrat has for months gently patted away questions
about her presidential ambitions with a present-tense “I am not running for
president.”

But in an interview published Tuesday in Fortune magazine, Ms. Warren gave
a categorical response to the future-tense question: “Are you going to run
for president?”

“No,” Ms. Warren responded to Sheila Bair, the former FDIC chairman who
conducted the interview.

Ms. Warren’s apparently firm rejection of a future presidential campaign
breaks from her previous hedged answers, in which she said she was not at
that moment running but did not appear to rule out launching a campaign in
the future.

Of course, prior disavowal of presidential ambitions didn’t prevent
then-Sen. Barack Obama from joining the 2008 campaign he eventually won.
Nor has it stopped Mitt Romney from discussing a 2016 run after firmly
ruling it out many times since losing the 2012 race.

While polls show Ms. Warren far behind presumed Democratic front-runner
Hillary Clinton, Iowa’s Democratic leaders are hungry for Ms. Warren to
join the race.

And her remarks come on the same day that two groups urging Ms. Warren to
seek the White House announced the launch of a New Hampshire campaign to
support her. MoveOn and Democracy for America on Tuesday said they would
begin a Granite State effort to back Ms. Warren on Saturday.

*Talking Points Memo: “Elizabeth Warren Gives Firm 'No' On Whether She's
Going To Run For Prez”*
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-no-going-to-run-for-president>

By Daniel Strauss

January 13, 2015, 11:27 a.m. EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) gave a new type of answer about possibly
running for president: she's not going to run for president.

Warren, a favorite of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, was asked
if she was going to run for president in an interview with Sheila Bair for
Fortune magazine.

"So are you going to run for president?" Bair asked.

"No," Warren responded.

That response is different from one Warren gave in an interview with NPR
where she said she's not running for president but declined to say in the
future tense that she wouldn't run for president. Fans of Warren running
for president in 2016 said this showed that she had not completely closed
the door to the idea.

Warren did offer some advice for the 2016 Democratic nominee for president.

"They need to speak to America’s families about the economic crisis in this
country," Warren said. "It starts with the recognition that Washington
works for the rich and powerful and not for America’s families. From there,
it has to go into what changes we need to make, and that gets back to
education, infrastructure, and research."

*Associated Press: “Effort To Draft Warren Into 2016 Race heads to New
Hampshire”*
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_WARREN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

By Holly Ramer

January 13, 2015, 11:30 a.m. EST

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- Progressive activists hoping to draft Sen. Elizabeth
Warren into the 2016 presidential race will hold their first meeting in the
key early-voting state of New Hampshire on Saturday.

Members of MoveOn.org and Democracy for America are starting their "Run,
Warren, Run" New Hampshire effort with a meeting in Manchester. The groups
hope to persuade the populist Massachusetts senator to seek the Democratic
nomination in 2016, even though she has repeatedly said she is not running.

The architect of President Barack Obama's consumer financial protection
agency, Warren would be able to quickly raise millions from an enthusiastic
following, many of whom are wary of the leading potential Democratic
candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Saturday's meeting comes a month after a similar gathering attracted about
75 people in Iowa, which traditionally holds the earliest presidential
caucuses just before New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primaries.

MoveOn plans to spend $1 million on its Warren effort, and Democracy for
America has pledged $250,000. The groups are seeking staffers in both
states and are trying to build volunteer and donor support.

Such work also has been underway on behalf of Clinton in both states for at
least a year, and Clinton herself has a strong network of New Hampshire
support that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have
nurtured for more than two decades. Both Warren and Clinton campaigned for
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire last fall.

A spokeswoman for Warren did not immediately respond to a request for
comment Tuesday.

*Washington Times: “Activists pining for Elizabeth Warren in 2016 set to
kick off New Hampshire effort Saturday”*
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/activists-elizabeth-warren-2016-new-hampshire/>

By David Sherfinski

January 13, 2015

Activists trying to recruit Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat,
to run for president in 2016 are scheduled to kick off an organizational
effort in the early presidential primary state of New Hampshire on Saturday.

The event in Manchester will involve members of the liberal groups
Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, who have banded together in an effort
to get Ms. Warren into the race. A similar one was held in the early
presidential state of Iowa last month.

The groups announced last week that more than 200,000 people have signed
onto a petition asking Ms. Warren to run. The first-term senator has
repeatedly resisted such pleas and has said she is not running for
president. Polls show former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as
the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016,
should Mrs. Clinton choose to run.

Ms. Warren’s influence is nevertheless being felt in Washington. After
Democrats’ disastrous performance in the 2014 midterms, she was tapped to
serve in a leadership position for Senate Democrats, and amid pressure from
Mrs. Warren and other progressives, the White House recently announced that
President Obama’s pick to serve in a top Treasury post has withdrawn his
nomination.

Antonio Weiss, Mr. Obama’s pick to serve as undersecretary for domestic
finance, told the White House over the weekend he was withdrawing his name
from consideration, citing the distraction his Senate confirmation hearing
would cause.

Mr. Weiss, who had been criticized by Ms. Warren and others for his ties to
Wall Street, will instead serve as counselor to Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew, a position that does not need confirmation from the Senate.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Paul: Clinton did a 'terrible job' at State”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229352-paul-clinton-did-a-terrible-job-at-state>*

By Jesse Byrnes

January 13, 2015, 1:13 p.m. EST

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took a shot at likely presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton on Tuesday, saying she did "a terrible job" as secretary of State
and calling her handling of the Benghazi attack "inexcusable."

"I put a lot of blame at the feet of Hillary Clinton for not defending the
consulate in Benghazi," Paul said after comments at the conservative
Heritage Foundation, referring to the 2012 attack that left four Americans
dead, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

"I think she did a terrible job," Paul added, saying it was "inexcusable"
to not provide help when assistance was requested.

Paul, a likely 2016 presidential candidate, has dinged Clinton on Benghazi
and has highlighted her support of unsuccessful midterm candidates.

His latest shot comes after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he
is seriously considering a third White House bid, telling one Republican in
a Washington Post story published Monday night that he "almost certainly
will" jump into the 2016 race.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is also ramping up for a presidential run, and other
Republicans weighing bids include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, outgoing
Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, among others.

Paul's comments on Clinton came immediately after responding to a question
on radical Islamic terrorism, saying “We have to defend ourselves.”

"Printing cartoons shouldn't engender people murdering you," he added,
referring to last week's deadly attack on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical
newspaper in Paris known for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

The two-day Heritage event will include a variety of speeches by
conservative lawmakers including Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), Sen. Mike Lee
(Utah) and Rep. Jeff Duncan (S.C.), among others.

Paul is set to visit the early voting state of New Hampshire on Wednesday
where he will meet political leaders, business heads and activists.

*Daily Caller: “Limbaugh: Jeb Bush And Hillary Clinton ‘Aligned Perfectly’
On ‘Leftist Control Of The Common Core’”*
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/13/limbaugh-jeb-bush-and-hillary-clinton-aligned-perfectly-on-leftist-control-of-the-common-core/>

By Eric Owens

January 13, 2015, 11:47 a.m. EST

Like two once-great heavyweight fighters from the 1970s stalking the same
title belt one last time, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are grabbing
headlines as they mull running for the presidential bids of their
respective bids.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is not impressed. He blasted both
Bush and Clinton on his program Monday for, in his opinion, agreeing about
“leftist control of the Common Core education curriculum.”

“It was long ago on this program, ladies and gentlemen, that I was being a
little facetious, but I made the point that when you compare three of the
most important issues facing the country today: amnesty for illegal
immigrants, the full implementation of Obamacare, and leftist control of
the Common Core education curriculum, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are
aligned perfectly,” Limbaugh said on his Jan. 12 radio radiocast.

“I said they’d make a hell of a ticket,” the radio giant added. “That
between the two of them, they would decide who’d be on top of, of course —
uh, who would be the candidate for president, who would be the candidate
for vice president. But it was to illustrate a point.”

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a set of K-12 math and
language arts curriculum benchmarks and high-stakes standardized tests that
state education bureaucracies was quietly implemented in over 90 percent of
the country at one point. Massive public outrage resulted. The standards
remain in use in public schools in an ever-dwindling number of states.

No Republican is tied to Common Core in the way Jeb Bush is. The governor,
through his leadership of the non-profit Foundation for Excellence in
Education, played a notable role in the creation and promotion of the
standards and he has stood by them ever since. At an education reform
conference in November, his keynote address included a firm defense of the
Core, which he said ought to represent “the new minimum” for academic
standards in the U.S.

As with many other political issues, Hillary Clinton appears to have her
finger still firmly in the air concerning Common Core as she mulls a second
run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Should she decide to run,
she would likely be forced to take some sort of position.