Yahoo News

As President Obama concluded his Rose Garden statement revealing that he had replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top American commander in Afghanistan, a reporter shouted an impromptu question. "Can the war be won?" he yelled. The president didn't answer — perhaps because he doesn't know.

You can watch the non-answer here. (Video courtesy of  ABC News.) The moment comes as the president starts to walk away:

[Profile: McChrystal spoke his mind once too often]

Obama is trying to stick to a July 2011 deadline to draw down troops in Afghanistan — but the McChrystal flap was the latest setback for an administration trying desperately to regain momentum in a conflict that's grown increasingly harder to manage as it loses public support back home.

Obama's choice of Gen. David Petraeus, who is already overseeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as head of U.S. Central Command, will at the very least contain much of the political fallout from McChrystal's firing. Petraeus, an architect of the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, is widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. His appointment will no doubt buy the White House some time politically as it fends off growing criticism from Congress over how the Afghanistan war is being prosecuted.

But with American casualties rising and no clear victory in sight, that breathing spell may prove short-lived.  Obama emphasized that his announcement is a "change in personnel but ... not a change in policy." As the president noted, Petraeus is both an architect and a supporter of the strategy the U.S. is pursuing in Afghanistan.

[Photos: Gen. McChrystal removed from duty]

But continuity at the top may not help the president close ranks among his civilian advisers — a stubborn source of tension ever since the president came into office 18 months ago. Obama has been dogged again and again by the very public squabbling on war strategy among administration officials — indeed, the swipes that McChrystal took in his now-infamous Rolling Stone interview at figures such as Vice President Joe Biden bear witness to that ongoing fractious mood.

And all this dissension prompted the obvious question: If Obama can't control his staff, how can he win the war?

It's no secret to Obama that his reputation as a leader is on the line. In light of the McChrystal drama, Obama told reporters Wednesday that he had reminded members of his national security team that they needed to work together if they are ever to achieve success in Afghanistan.

[Was Obama looking for more rear ends to kick?]

In describing his decision to let McChrystal go, Obama said it wasn't about "personal insult" but more about trust. The general's behavior had undermined trust, among the troops and among his team. "War is bigger than any one man or woman," Obama said. Coming together, he said, was essential: "Doing so is not an option, but an obligation," the president warned. "I will not tolerate division."

[Read Obama's remarks in full]

Obama's ability to enforce that edict by getting his own staff under control could mean the difference between winning and losing a war he was reluctant to fight in the first place. And surmounting this challenge could reassure a growing chorus of critics that he has made the Afghan conflict his responsibility.

— Holly Bailey is a senior politics writer for Yahoo! News.

By Amanda J. Reinecker

Overspending Causes Deficits. Period.

Let's get one thing straight: The dramatic increase in the federal deficit -- which will rise to 8.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2020 -- is exclusively the result of higher spending, not lower revenues. Long term, this higher spending will be driven by entitlements, particularly the rapid and unsustainable growth of spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security).

All too often, the left argues that rising deficits are the result of too-low taxes, so we must therefore increase taxes to reduce the deficit. This is exactly the left's argument today. But this is the wrong diagnosis.  

Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl debunks several progressive distortions about the federal budget. In a report complete with charts and in-depth, fact-filled analyses, Reidl, Heritage's Grover Hermann Fellow in Budgetary Affairs, debunks the major myths one-by-one.

Myth #1: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts wiped out the $5.6 trillion surplus for 2002–2011.

Fact: The tax cuts caused just 14 percent of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits.

Myth #2: Future deficits are "the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

Fact: These policies play a relatively minor role in the growth of future deficits.

Myth #3: Declining tax revenues are driving future deficits.

Fact: Rapidly increasing entitlement spending will cause nearly 100 percent of rising long-term deficits.

Successfully eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget requires drastic reforms. As the President's deficit commission assembles recommendations to reduce our long-term deficit, it must target the historical levels of taxes (18.0 percent of GDP) and spending (20.3 percent of GDP).

In his paper, "The Three Biggest Myths About Tax Cuts and the Budget Deficit," Riedl details several necessary changes, which include:

"Growing long-term budget deficits are exclusively the result of rising spending, not declining revenues," concludes Riedl. "Thus, common sense suggests that most reforms should occur on the spending side." In other words, the federal spending spree needs to end.

The New START Treaty Should Be a Non-Starter

"Welcome to the world of multiple proliferation," writes Heritage national security analyst James Carafano. "With so many fingers on so many buttons, it is not a neighborhood Mr. Rogers would like."

We're on a road to disaster and the New START treaty between Russia and the United States only accelerates our pace. Carafano explains to Washington Examiner readers why the Senate should not ratify this harmful treaty: "It's a bad agreement. It makes Russia a more dominant nuclear power, and it makes Russia more, not less, dependent on nuclear weapons."

All the while, the New START dangerously reduces our nuclear arsenal and potentially weakens our missile defense capabilities.

 » What do you think? Submit your comments on the Washington's Examiner's website.

Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the  treaty. Prior to the hearings, Heritage's Steven Groves advised Senators to ask four key questions:

1. What assurances did U.S. negotiators give to the Russians regarding the U.S. missile defense program?
2. In what way does the preambulatory language in New START affect U.S. missile defense?
3. Were any side agreements made regarding future U.S. missile defense that would affect U.S. capabilities, either quantitatively or qualitatively?
4. Wouldn't access to the negotiating history for the treaty enlighten the Senate regarding what was discussed concerning U.S. missile defense?

Of these questions, two were addressed. In response to question three, Rose Gottemoeller, a key negotiator in the START treaty, stated "unequivocally
that no backroom deals were made between the United States and Russia regarding missile defense.  And in response to question four, Gottemoeller insisted there was no historical precedent for releasing the records, a claim properly challenged by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). She went on to say that releasing such records has the potential to weaken the stance of negotiators in the future.

The treaty could also limit America's ability to protect herself from nuclear attack. But another witness told the Senators that "a comprehensive missile shield is not practical." This is an alarming stance held by an official tasked with overseeing such an important treaty concerning strategic weapons.

> Heritage Work of Note

• It is a crime to provide material support to terrorists and Congress has a right to say so, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder. The decision is a good one -- a bit obvious, but good. However, Heritage legal scholar Paul Rosenzweig explains, the fact "that it took more than 10 years to reach this conclusion, and that three Justices dissented from it, says more about the ways in which lawyers construct arguments that only lawyers can believe in than it does about the reality of the world we live in, in which terrorist activities abound."
  
  International law activists attacked the ruling, insisting that it violates free speech rights. But as Rosenzweig writes, "characterizing the provision of material support to a foreign terrorist group as 'free speech' simply because some speech is involved does not cloak it with First Amendment protections any more than teaching a terrorist how to make a bomb is free speech." The Court got it right.

• World leaders need to focus on creating an economic environment that promotes competition, not the "harmonization" of global policies, Heritage economist Anthony Kim recommends as nations prepare to meet at G-20 summit. Competition between national markets fuels economic growth because it promotes entrepreneurship and innovation. "If President Obama and other leaders of the G20 are genuinely serious about restoring economic growth during the upcoming Toronto summit," writes Kim, "then they should renew their commitment to economic freedom…and provide more than the standard photo op."

• Columbia's new president-elect, Manuel Santos, finds himself in a challenging position. Under Santos, who takes office on August 7, Columbia will need to "strengthen democratic institutions, advance an impartial justice system, put the economy on a high growth track, and battle poverty; all while protecting Colombia's security against drug traffickers, common crime, and the narco-terrorism of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, still the largest armed terror group in the Americas," writes Heritage Latin America expert Ray Walser. Santos seeks a reliable partnership with the U.S. "But the Obama Administration's current two-step in Latin America involves emphasizing ties with friends while trying to dance with tyrants like the Castro brothers and Hugo Chavez."  The administration should do more to keep this hemispheric ally on our side.

• Vince Kolber, the new chairman of the Chicago Committee for Heritage, spoke this week with WBEZ radio about the growth of the conservative movement and how conservatives are faring in Chicago. Listen to his motivating remarks, which begin at minute 32.

> In Other News

• House Democrats won't pass a budget in 2010, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said today. In prepared remarks, Hoyer says it "isn't possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget" until Congress sees the debt commission's report in December.

• Despite addressing the country from the Oval Office last week, President Obama hasn't convinced Americans that he has a solution for the Gulf oil spill. A new poll shows 59 percent of Americans believe the President does not have a clear plan for dealing with the disaster.

• White House budget director Peter Orszag is quitting his job in July, making him the first of President Barack Obama's top advisers to leave the administration.

• The White House's war strategy in Afghanistan may be in jeopardy. As a result of statements to the media, NATO Commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has been summoned back to Washington to face President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who could remove him from command, or reprimand or demote him.

Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, and Stephen Congdon, a Heritage intern, contributed to this report.

heller.house.gov

Dean Heller 

U.S. Congressman Dean Heller (R-NV) made the following statement on the decision by House Democrats to not pass a budget this year.

"Despite calls for fiscal responsibility from Americans across the country, the Majority party in the House has determined that the Congress does not need a budget to rein in spending. This year we will see more spending, more deficits, more debt, and more taxes. This fiscal path that we are on is unsustainable. Congress needs act now to cut spending, reduce the size of government, and make an honest effort to bring fiscal sanity into the process," said Heller.

NY Times

By Kevin Sack and Sheryl Gay Stolberg

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama, whose vilification of insurers helped push a landmark health care overhaul through Congress, warned industry executives at the White House on Tuesday not to use the bill "as an opportunity to enact unjustifiable rate increases that don't boost care and inflate their bottom line."

Obama made his remarks in the East Room of the White House after a private meeting with executives of leading health insurance companies and with state insurance commissioners who regulate them. As the new law is being implemented, the White House wanted to issue a pointed reminder to insurers - and the public - that the president intends to monitor the industry's behavior.

"There are genuine cost drivers that are not caused by insurance companies," Obama said. "But what is also true is that we've got to make sure that this new law is not being used as an excuse to simply drive up costs."

Obama convened the White House session to mark the 90th day (Tuesday was actually the 91st) since he signed the health bill into law. He also used the occasion to unveil what his administration is calling "a new Patient's Bill of Rights" - a set of regulations governing how the industry implements some of the most consumer-friendly provisions of the health care bill.

The rules, which take effect Sept. 23, prevent insurers from refusing to cover children with pre-existing conditions; impose strict limits on insurers' ability to cap coverage during any given year; end lifetime coverage caps; and end the practice known as rescission, in which companies, citing minor paperwork mistakes, cancel coverage for people who get sick.

Under the new regulations, companies will be prohibited from rescinding coverage except in cases involving fraud or intentional misrepresentation of facts.

The White House is concerned that health insurers will blame the new law for increases in premiums that are intended to maximize profits rather than cover claims. The administration is also closely watching investigations by a number of states into the actuarial soundness of double-digit rate increases.

"Our message to them is to work with this law, not against it; don't try and take advantage of it or we will work with state authorities and gather the authority we have to stop rate gouging," David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, said in an interview. "Our concern is that they not try and, under the cover of the act, get in under the wire here on rate increases."

The law does not grant the federal government new authority to regulate health care premiums, which remains the province of state insurance departments. But with important provisions taking effect this summer and fall, the Obama administration has repeatedly reminded insurers - and the public - that it will expose industry pricing to what the health secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has called a "bright spotlight."

The White House meeting follows the release on Monday of a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health policy research group, finding that premiums for the policies most recently bought by individuals had increased by an average of 20 percent.

Obama's message to insurers puts the industry on notice and positions the White House politically in case voters start to link premium increases to the new law.

With the law expected to play a significant role in the midterm elections, the president has been using his platform to sell the bill's most immediate benefits and, by extension, to defend Democrats in Congress who risked their careers to vote for it.