Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, has recently earned the ire of many for his hairbrained attempt at curbing obesity by banning sugary drinks. Today, he took to the Twitters to promote an op-ed he wrote for USA Today, defending his policy:

If I may interject, seems like the Mayor is ignoring some basic math here: 2 x 16 = 32, and 32 > 20. But a look at the op-ed itself reveals that this plan of his isn't really tethered in logic:

Together, these facts strongly suggest that if people are served smaller portion sizes of sugary drinks, they will consume less, gain less weight and be healthier — and we may just start to reverse the catastrophic epidemic of obesity.

Critics claim this policy restricts choice. But, currently, people almost never have the choice to purchase as small as an 8-ounce beverage, which was considered adequate for decades.

Under our proposal, people could still choose to drink as much soda as they want. If 16 ounces (promoted as enough for three people in the 1950s!) is not enough, people could purchase two portions. Is that too much an inconvenience to reverse a national health catastrophe?

First of all, his defense against the rightful charge that he's impeding on freedom of choice is...people don't have the choice of a smaller drink? By his logic, because restaurants don't serve 8 oz beverages, he has to ban any drinks over 16 oz. His "choice" argument seems to be a better defense of a mandate that restaurants include smaller portions, rather than a ban on larger ones. And, who's to say restaurants won't institute two-for-one deals on 16 oz beverages, as a means of manipulating public outrage for purposes of making more sales? After all, if those evil corporations are capable of foisting larger portion sizes on poor, unsuspecting Americans, who's to say they won't harness the backlash against this policy to wring a profit?

The Mayor also compares the policy to bans on cigarettes in bars and mandatory calorie posting in restaurants, but that's apples to oranges. The cigarette ban could pass muster because of the immediate neighborhood effect smoking has on others -- secondhand smoke, and all -- so even though it's a restriction of choice, the argument goes that fellow patrons aren't choosing to inhale smoke. As for calorie posting, that's a policy that helps people make more informed choices: it doesn't add to or take away from their options, just shows them what, exactly, they're picking. The soda (or, if you're Midwestern like me, pop) ban is much more intrusive, as it restricts actual options.

Now, you'd think the mayor's overbearing mom-ness would translate into drug policy, right?

Wrong.

Mr. Bloomberg, whose administration had previously defended low-level marijuana arrests as a way to deter more serious crime, said in a statement that the governor’s proposal “strikes the right balance” in part because it would still allow the police to arrest people who were smoking marijuana in public.

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, plans to hold a news conference at the Capitol on Monday to announce his plans to seek the change in state law. Administration officials said the governor would seek to downgrade the possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana in public view from a misdemeanor to a violation, with a maximum fine of $100 for first-time offenders.

Mr. Bloomberg said his police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, would attend the governor’s news conference “to show our support for his proposal.”

“We look forward to working with legislative leaders to help pass a bill before the end of session,” the mayor said, referring to this year’s legislative session in Albany, which is scheduled to conclude in three weeks.

So there you have it, residents of New York: if Mayor Bloomberg gets his way, you can have your pot, but if the munchies hit, good luck finding a 32 oz Mountain Dew to wash down your Taco Bell.

Times like these are exactly why the word awkward was invented.

President Obama welcomed back his predecessor, the ever-maligned George W. Bush and his lovely wife Laura to the White House for the unveiling of their official portraits. The whole event was very dignified, of course, but there's clearly some tension between the two presidents, especially since 44's favorite rhetorical strategy is to blame 43 for...well, everything.

Unfortunately, that verbal tic made its way into Obama's remarks this afternoon, when the current president kinda-sorta blamed the former for the dire economic straights in which we have lately found ourselves.

In all fairness, the remainder of his talk commended Bush for his tenure as Chief Executive, especially for how he handled 9/11. Obama was a gracious host, and he and Michelle had plenty of kind words for the Bushes (although, perhaps this is just me projecting, but the dynamic among the four of them seemed...stilted, especially when taking the group photo).

Honestly, it seems like Obama has relied for so long on Bush as a scapegoat that he doesn't really know how to talk about the economy without mentioning W. Even if he didn't intend to place blame -- as I'm sure was the case, at least for today's purposes -- he's simply so unwilling to accept any responsibility for our disastrous economy that he'll allude to the damage Bush did in office while introducing him to accept his presidential portrait. It's sad, really. And it calls for one of these:

Awkward turtle, indeed.

First, he went 0-for-2 on budgets, and now, this: Senate Democrats blatantly don't care about President Obama's "To Do List," and what's more, they don't even know what's on it!

For background, this "To Do List" was a demagogue-tastic rhetorical device Obama threw around in a few speeches, starting with this year's State of the Union. In early May, he introduced the list itself, five "tasks" he charged Congress with completing, that he argued could conveniently fit on a Post-It note.

Among the proposals are tax credits for businesses who hire workers or increase wages, credits for businesses that bring jobs from overseas back to the United States, and a plan for mortgage relief that would allow homeowners who are current on their loans to refinance at lower rates, according to a White House official. Obama also wants Congress to extend and expand tax credits for clean energy production and create a veterans job corps.

As usual, he entreated voters to bug their Representatives and Senators about it -- the old, "Call them, tweet them, write them letters" mantra -- but it seems the American people didn't follow directions. As partisan as the Senate is, it seems there's agreement between both the Democrats and the Republicans: no one cares about the president's list. Really, when you see what some of these Democratic lawmakers had to say about Obama's agenda, you almost feel bad for him.

"Didn’t we do some things he wanted us to do?” asked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). “[Export-Import] Bank, that doesn’t count? That wasn’t on the to-do list?”

No. The president wanted that, too, but it’s not on the list.

“Do you have a copy of the to-do list?” Landrieu asked.

After a reporter told her what was on the list, she quipped, “We’re adding to that list by doing some great things.”

“I don’t have a copy of it; I’m sure my staff does,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), when asked when the Senate might get to it.

“We’ve got June, July. We’ve got some time. What time frame did he put on that to-do list?”

When told the president said the to-do list could be done “now,” Casey joked, “Now is a very expansive term. It’s not even the summer yet.“

“Didn’t we just try to move on student loans. Wasn’t that on his list?” asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

No, that’s a separate priority.

“You’d have to ask Harry Reid” why the list hasn’t moved, Levin said.

As funny as this is, it's pretty revealing: Obama has lost his clout with the Congressional higher-ups in his own party. His disgraceful, debt-laden attempts at producing a budget failed so miserably that it seems they just won't take him too seriously when he suggests legislation.

Of course, this little rift between Congressional Democrats and the White House is hardly hostile -- quite the contrary! The lawmakers quoted in this Roll Call story kept insisting they were doing Obama's bidding, with student loans, the Export-Import Bank, etc. They're happy to advance the party's agenda; they're just not listening to what Obama's proposing anymore. Even Harry Reid won't play along with the "To Do List:"

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) outlined his agenda for the June work period this week, only one item from Obama’s to-do list made the cut — a business tax cut package. That’s the item most likely to win GOP support, given that Democrats at this point plan to follow the lead of House Republicans and simply borrow the money to pay for it.

The president has become legislatively impotent; no one in his party will follow his directions, and of course, the Republicans are hardly going to take up his agenda. According to Sen. Cornyn, the Democrats, along with the Republicans, seem to think that the president is in all-out campaign mode, and no longer a participant in helping to set the agenda.

“The fact of life is none of us work for the president,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “What you see is the Senate’s legislative agenda being driven by the Senate, not by the White House. The president’s pretty much irrelevant, because he’s basically given up on governing and is campaigning.”

Obama's the Ugarte to the Senate's Rick: they might despise him, if they gave him any thought. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is bipartisanship.

Yep, you read that headline right. Chris Hayes, of MSNBC's Sunday morning show "Up with Chris Hayes," says he's uncomfortable ascribing valorous terms to fallen military because it's "rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war." Just...watch:

Sorry, Chris, but anyone willing to sacrifice his or her life for your right to say whatever you want on your Sunday morning talk show is a hero. There is no incorrect way to "marshal" that word when speaking about the men and women who value the principles of our nation above their own lives. Calling them what they are -- heroes -- is a small way to recognize their bravery. It's hardly justification for more war; it's just one way we can say thank you to our soliders.

The fact is, our soldiers are our greatest heroes, and they deserve our utmost respect for their willingness to sacrifice their time and their lives for us. Yes, Chris, you are wrong -- after all, the reason we celebrate this Memorial Day holiday is to honor our fallen heroes.

To no one's surprise, international talks had no effect on Iran's nuclear productions. In fact, the effort only confirmed that Iran has even more uranium that previously though, and could produce five atomic bombs with its supply.

During talks in Baghdad this week, six world powers failed to convince Iran to scale back its uranium enrichment program. They will meet again in Moscow next month to try to defuse a decade-old standoff that has raised fears of a new war in the Middle East that could disrupt oil supplies.

Friday's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a Vienna-based U.N. body, showed Iran was pressing ahead with its uranium enrichment work in defiance of U.N. resolutions calling on it to suspend the activity.

It said Iran had produced almost 6.2 tons of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent since it began the work in 2007 - some of which has subsequently been further processed into higher-grade material.

This is nearly 750 kg more than in the previous IAEA report issued in February, and ISIS said Iran's monthly production had risen by roughly a third.

"This total amount of 3.5 percent low enriched uranium hexafluoride, if further enriched to weapon grade, is enough to make over five nuclear weapons," ISIS said in its analysis.

As diplomatic efforts have failed, however, Leon Panetta has been increasingly clear about the U.S.' intent to use military force to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday indirectly confirmed recent remarks by the Ambassador to Israel that the U.S. is “ready from a military perspective’’ to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon if international pressure fails.

“We have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s This Week. Earlier, Panetta said, “The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.’’

Panetta's hint comes on the heels of rumblings from other officials; clearly, the U.S. is fearful of Iran's capabilities, and seems to be warming up to the idea of a strike. The question now seems to be one of when: time seems to be running short, as Iran gets closer and closer to building a nuclear weapon -- and presumeably, using it against Israel.

Some bad news for the vehement anti-war set: they've lost the spending argument. A new chart reveals that in the last decade, spending on national security, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined paled in comparison to entitlement spending -- 19% to 65%, respectively. Over to you, infographic:

"About 65 percent of federal expenditures over the last ten years have gone towards entitlements,"Paul Miller writes. "By comparison, about 15 percent has gone towards national defense, excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has cost three percent, and only about one percent has gone towards the war in Afghanistan (including the cost of ongoing military operations and all reconstruction and stabilization assistance combined), according to my analysis of figures from OMB."

In other words, Miller says, "Afghanistan is the second-cheapest major war in U.S. history as a percentage of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service."

And of course, it's worth noting that war spending is about to decline, as our efforts abroad wind down, but entitlement spending will only grow as more people retire. For all President Obama's talk of a cheaper, "leaner" military, that's clearly not the area in need of a trimming.

Some astoundingly grim news on the "economic recovery" front: half of American households are receiving government funds to support themselves. No matter which way you slice it, this number isn't good news for the Obama administration -- they can spin the jobs numbers by ignoring the number of people who dropped out of the workforce, but this statistic is pretty straightforward.

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

It seems that Newt Gingrich's nickname for President Obama rings true: he really is the "food stamp president." More people than ever are relying on the state to support their families, and that's a major indictment on Obama's first term.

Furthermore, this puts even more pressure on the economic aspect of the presidential election. There's no way to cut the deficit until fewer people are on the government payroll -- unless, of course, Congress imposes massive (and sure to be massively unpopular) tax hikes.

Really, if this is the direction we're headed, how many people want to keep going "forward?"

Yet again, the Obama administration shows that its principles have limits, at least where electoral success is concerned. The Justice Department has pushed back a contentious regulation requiring public and commercial swimming pools to be equipped with elevators for the disabled. Rather than forcing hotel and municipal pools to comply with the regulation, passed as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the DOJ has opted to wait until after the election to enforce the rule. Of course, this means they're also avoiding a pre-November conflict with the powerful hotel lobby (pun unintended, whomp).

After initially setting a March 15 deadline -- and telling the industry it wouldn't budge -- the department has granted two extensions. After first saying it might grant a reprieve until September, Justice announced last week that pool owners won't have to comply with the new requirements until early next year, a move that gets the controversy safely past the election.

At issue is whether hotels and other facilities will have to install fixed lifts to assist disabled people getting in and out of their pools, a move that can require hiring a contractor and tearing up the pool deck at a cost of as much as $6,000. Many pool owners were hoping to comply with the rules by purchasing less costly portable lifts that could be wheeled out to poolside as needed. Hotel owners who already have lifts say few of their customers ever ask for them.

Pragmatism over principle, as always. If there's money or support to be lost, the Obama administration is always accommodating.

That being said, the regulation itself places such a burden on community pools, that many are reportedly set to close, as they can't afford to install the expensive -- and underused -- elevators. Furthermore, there are fears of increased liability, as the elevators are typically in the shallow end of the pool, where children may jump off and injure themselves.

The guidance created a new set of potential problems and concerns. Among them was that children might climb on the lifts _ which would be built at the shallow end of the pool _ and potentially hurt themselves by falling or diving off.

The January directive put hotel owners in a real bind. Over the horizon they saw themselves being hit with government penalties and private lawsuits for failing to comply with the rules. Some hotels announced they would have to close their pools. Community and municipal pools risked being out of compliance as well.

Should these pools close, small hotels could face a loss in business, and lower income families who depend on community pools for their summer fun will suffer, too. It's a well-meaning regulation -- after all, the disabled should have the chance to enjoy swimming pools, too -- but it's one that fails to take into account all possible consequences, and likely hurts more people than it helps.

This ought to be fun. Barack and Michelle Obama will welcome The Most Evil Man in the World (or as he's known outside the Democratic Party, George W. Bush) and his wife Laura to the White House next week, for the unveiling of their official portraits. Of course, this comes as the current president is in full campaign mode, and W. occupies the role of Obama's eternal scapegoat. It'll be no minor miracle if Obama can make it through the unveiling without blaming Bush for something.

Such ceremonies often bring together current and former presidents with rivalries, grudges or awkward relationships. But the timing of this unveiling is particularly delicate as Mr. Obama uses Mr. Bush as a foil on the campaign trail against former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, his presumptive Republican challenger. Although Mr. Obama generally does not mention Mr. Bush by name, he often says Mr. Romney wants to replicate the former president’s agenda but “on steroids.”

At a campaign fund-raiser in Redwood City, Calif., on Wednesday, for instance, Mr. Obama said Republicans wanted “bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,” “deeper cuts” in Medicare and education, “even more power” for banks to do as they please, and fewer regulations that protect consumers. “But that’s not new,” he added. “That was tried, remember? The last guy did all this.”

He presented Mr. Bush’s record in caustic terms. “We watched a record surplus that was squandered on tax cuts for folks who didn’t need them and weren’t asking for them,” he said. “We saw two wars being waged on a credit card. We saw speculation in the financial sector, reaping huge profits for a few folks who were making bets with other people’s money, but it was a flimsy kind of success. Manufacturing left our shores. A shrinking number of Americans did really, really well, but a growing number saw falling incomes and stagnant job growth.”

Mr. Bush, by contrast, has offered virtually no commentary on his successor in the three years since he left office, saying “he deserves my silence.” He has stayed out of the campaign to oust Mr. Obama, offering a four-word endorsement for Mr. Romney only when asked by a reporter as he headed into an elevator after an unrelated event in Washington last week.

Oh, the contrast. Obama's lack of personal responsibility and arrogance are especially glaring when put in the same room as Bush's class and humility. To be sure, Bush's presidency was far from perfect, but at the very least he had enough self-respect to accept his own failings, unlike Obama. You have to wonder about their rapport -- although knowing W., I'd imagine it's cordial and respectful.

Here she goes again: Debbie Wasserman Schultz was back on air this morning, sharing some golden nuggets of widsom about the 2012 campaign trail. Yet the Democratic National Committee chair, notorious for her vehement defense of Obama and all facets of his agenda, has really outdone herself here. When asked about whether it's hypocritical for Obama to keep money from private equity firms while attacking Mitt Romney for working for such a firm, DWS says no, that's "apples to coconuts."

What? Make sense of her logic, if you can:

Even CNN recognizes that she's an utter failure as a spokeswoman. Note how she tries to differentiate between Romney's restructuring work at Bain and Obama's takeover of the auto industry: "Obama make sure we still had an American auto industry," which is why it's OK he laid people off at GM. Yet Romney, who saved a number of American companies using the same tactics (as a private equity firm, rather than the government!), is a scumsucking capitalist pig who enjoys ruining people's lives.

Right.

DWS' questionable public appearances of late have led to speculation that Obama is ready to get rid of her. Apparently, he wasn't too keen on appointing her DNC chair anyway, but she promised to help him hang on to some key demographics, specifically, women and Jews. Now, however, all signs point to her heading out the door next term. In fact, it looks like she could forego another run for Congress:

However, while Obama has been able to count on Schultz to carry his political water, he has become increasingly irritated by her polemic behavior, which only served to galvanize Republicans and cost them precious support among independents.

In the words of Shark Tank’s inside source, the president “does not want her in the DNC anymore.”

During Obama's trip to Florida, not only was Schultz stripped of her previously held honor of introducing the president before his speeches, he barely acknowledged her presence.

In fact, Shark Tank's source said Obama addressed Shultz personally on her destructive activities, telling her it’s not about her, it’s about him.

“Don’t forget, you work for me.”

Despite the general elections being six months away, there’s nothing on her website about running for re-election.

More notable, her name doesn’t appear anywhere on the Florida Division of Elections List of Candidates.

According to the Florida Supervisor of Elections, if Schultz doesn’t qualify by petition or pay to get on the ballot by June 8, she won’t be eligible to run for re-election.

Gasp! Could our favorite Obama attack dog be heading back to Florida for good? So sad. Cable news commentary just won't be the same without her gaffe-tastic partisanship.

While traveling to his mobile field office in his Wisconsin district yesterday, Rep. Sean Duffy and his staff suffered a flat tire on the highway. But Rep. Duffy proved himself to be most resourceful, and changed the tire himself -- and apparently, it only took him 10 minutes! He posted a short YouTube video of the incident, in which he "goes old school," as he says, tire jack and all:

Rep. Duffy is one of the "Final Four" in the House Republican new media challenge, in which members of the GOP conference are competing to see who can amass the most Facebook likes, Twitter followers, and YouTube subscribers. This week focuses on YouTube, hence the video. It's nice to see that members of Congress are working so hard to connect with constituents, and even better to know they're willing to take a knee and fix a flat tire when need be!

Despite the tribulations the American Catholic Church has been suffering with the Obama administration, the Vatican continues to pursue government-enforced universal healthcare. Its ambassador to the United Nations recently issued a statement encouraging all member nations to move toward a system of universal healthcare, implemented by government.

The Vatican said the Catholic Church is "committed to universal healthcare coverage" in a release Thursday that described a speech by one of its leaders before the World Health Assembly.

Archbishop Zygmunt Zimoski told the meeting in Geneva on Wednesday that the Vatican supports Resolution WHA64.9, a measure that would urge countries to "plan the transition of their health systems to universal coverage."

"My delegation strongly believes that … fundamental values such as equity, human rights and social justice need to become explicit policy objectives," Zimoski said.

Unfortunately, the Church keeps turning to the public option to fulfill its social justice mission -- but that's exactly what got it into the contraception coverage mess. Now, a number of Catholic institutions, universities, and organizations are suing the government over the contraception mandate. Clearly, the Catholic-government alliance in the U.S. has failed:

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress — and we’ll keep at it — but there's still no fix," [Archbishop Timothy Dolan] said.

"Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now."

The Church want the government to assist in insuring everyone, yet acts affronted when public officials impose regulations contrary to Catholic doctrine. Improving access to health insurance is an admirable and important goal; however, the answer certainly does not lie with increased government intervention. The Church will never win if it gets in bed with the government to solve the healthcare crisis. As we've seen with the contraception mandate, what many people consider standard in a healthcare policy is opposed to Catholic teaching.

If the Church truly wants to ameliorate the healthcare problem, it would encourage fewer government regulations, thereby making healthcare more affordable and accessible. The government will never enact a policy the Vatican can fully support; the best thing it can do is get out of the way, and allow the Church to fulfill its mission in good conscience.

Good news for all you Hannity junkies out there: FOX News has signed host Sean Hannity to a multi-year contract, so you can hope to see him and his ubiquitous football for a good long time. This new contract will extend his tenure on FOX past twenty years. A press release from FOX has the details:

In making the announcement, [Roger] Ailes said, “Hannity’s years of experience and thought-provoking commentary will continue to engage and excite loyal viewers. He is a remarkable asset to the network and we are happy that he’ll remain in his current role.”

In 1996, Hannity joined FOX News Channel (FNC) as co-host of Hannity & Colmes appearing with counterpart Alan Colmes, who has since moved on to become a liberal commentator across all FOX News properties. In 2008, the program was re-named to the solo-hosted Hannity offering a mix of political analysis, buzz worthy interviews and signature segments such as the Great American Panel. Currently averaging more than 2.1 million viewers each night, Hannity continues to beat CNN and MSNBC combined in viewership and is the second most watched show in cable news.

Hannity added, “It’s been an honor and privilege to work alongside the incredible team at FOX News, whose talent is unparalleled. In true Roger Ailes form, he saw something in me that no one else did and afforded me the opportunity to achieve incredible success. I look forward to many more years to come.”

Congrats to Mr. Hannity from Townhall! We look forward to more of his insights, commentary, and of course, hard-hitting interviews like this one (my personal favorite):

While the economy may take center stage this election season, it seems like Mitt Romney has given education reform a major role in his campaign as well. In a speech at the Latino Coalition in Washington, DC today, the presumptive Republican nominee spoke about the importance of expanding school choice, and condemned President Obama for capitulating to the will of the teachers' union.

“Here we are in the most prosperous nation, but millions of kids are getting a Third World education. And America’s minority children suffer the most,” Mr. Romney said in a speech to the Latino Coalition, a conservative Hispanic organization. “This is the civil rights issue of our era. And it’s the great challenge of our time.”

And he declared war on teachers unions, saying they “are the clearest example of a group that has lost its way.” He said Mr. Obama is too beholden to the unions to be able to reform the school system.

“President Obama has been unable to stand up to union bosses — and unwilling to stand up for kids,” Mr. Romney said, accusing the president of putting the unions’ campaign donations ahead of the needs of students those teachers are teaching.

Romney also discussed his plan for education reform, drawing a sharp contrast between himself and Obama by highlighting the D.C. Opporunity Scholarship program, which Romney supports. The president sought to end the program upon taking office, as it was extremely unpopular with the unions (which, of course, helped bankroll Obama's campaign). The program no longer takes new applicants, although students who had already been participating could remain in the program.

If the unions didn't like the program, however, parents did -- especially minorities. Hispanics cite school choice and access to good education as one of their chief concerns -- hence, the venue for Romney's talk - and so the GOP frontrunner is making a very politically wise decision to play up education reform. He says he would use the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program as the blueprint for other nationwide reforms, thereby empowering parents, and forcing schools to hold higher standards.

Mr. Romney’s nationwide plan calls for giving students who receive federal education assistance the ability to choose from among any public and charter schools in their districts. He said he would push for states to offer enough options so that the choice would be meaningful.

He said he will streamline teacher-quality programs at the federal level and award them to states based on how well they promote good teachers. He also said he would demand better transparency from schools — such as a more useful grading of public schools’ performance — which he said lets parents make better choices.

Scott Walker's predicament proves that the unions will fight back, but Romney's language is harder to distort. He's not speaking about education in terms of budget cuts -- language that can be construed as "anti-education" -- but rather, he's putting the focus on parents' ability to seek the best education for their children.

So what did the White House have to say on the matter?

“It’s the first time I’ve heard of it. As I recall, education never came up in the Republican primaries in any of the debates. Or if it did, it came up almost never,” Mr. Carney said.

Ooh, burn.

Looks like this is an issue Romney will be touting throughout his campaign, and rightly so. It's an issue he can win against Obama, and more importantly, critical to all aspects of this country's future, economic and civic alike.

Although the presidential elections have taken center stage of late, there's another round of nuclear talks with Iran taking place in the coming week, and tensions are running high. There's long been suspicion that Israel may preemptively strike Iran if it doesn't cease its nuclear program, but now it seems that the US is openly admitting it, too, is prepared to strike if diplomacy fails.

The U.S. has plans in place to attack Iran if necessary to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, Washington's envoy to Israel said, days ahead of a crucial round of nuclear talks with Tehran.

Dan Shapiro's message resonated Thursday far beyond the closed forum in which it was made: Iran should not test Washington's resolve to act on its promise to strike if diplomacy and sanctions fail to pressure Tehran to abandon its disputed nuclear program.

Shapiro told the Israel Bar Association the U.S. hopes it will not have to resort to military force.

"But that doesn't mean that option is not fully available. Not just available, but it's ready," he said. "The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it's ready."

The annoucement comes as Israel's leadership tightens its lips on the matter. Although the country has been vocal about its willingness to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, its recent stoicism has led to speculation that it's actually preparing to launch a strike. Insiders say that Israel might attack before the US presidential elections, so as to force our support.

As the deadline for a decision draws nearer, the public pronouncements of Israel's top officials and military have changed. After hawkish warnings about a possible strike earlier this year, their language of late has been more guarded and clues to their intentions more difficult to discern.

"The top of the government has gone into lockdown," one official said. "Nobody is saying anything publicly. That in itself tells you a lot about where things stand."

"I think they have made a decision to attack," said one senior Israeli figure with close ties to the leadership. "It is going to happen. The window of opportunity is before the U.S. presidential election in November. This way they will bounce the Americans into supporting them."

Iran is preparing to relocate its facilities underground, which means that the window for an attack is closing. But of course, an attack pre-November could drastically complicate the election over here, and refocus it from the economy to foreign affairs. It's a heady decision, and it sounds like it's in the works already. Next week's summit in Baghdad ought to offer more insight into the situation, but clearly, it's tense, and it's liable to get worse.

This election has been rife with stump speeches about getting America back to work, but Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC) is putting word into action. He’s hosting an upcoming conference entitled, “Encouraging Entrepreneurship,” where politicians and business leaders will come together for a day to have a meeting of the minds. The conference is the first in his "Revitalizing America" series.

Rep. Scott has been on both the business and political sides of the economy. An entrepreneur himself, he owned an insurance agency for several years before holding office at the local, state, and now national levels. He first began hosting forums like this one in South Carolina. “I would have a quarterly meeting with CEOs from my community to talk about how to build a better economy,” he says. “So for about six or seven years, I did different meetings in different locations, and found that when people gather, it creates synergy, and from that synergy, opportunity springs.”

He’s hoping to bridge the gap between business and government, and devise the best way to relieve the country’s economic woes. “We have such a national debate coming our way, during that lame-duck session,” he says. “So I wanted to take the opportunity to engage stakeholders in our economy, in the business community, with the decision makers in Congress and by putting those two teams together, I thought we might find some solutions.”

Joining him on May 31^st in Washington is a high-profile cast of business and political leaders alike. Steve Forbes, Patrick Doyle, CEO of Domino’s Pizza, Rep. Eric Cantor, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers with gather to discuss job growth, market regulation, and healthcare innovation, among many other topics.

Despite the usual stalemate that occurs during a lame-duck session, Rep. Scott says he’s hoping the politicians will take what they learn at the conference and use it to craft responsible economic policy. After all, the economy won’t wait for political squabbles to resolve themselves.

An agenda with a full list of speakers can be found here, and anyone interested is encouraged to RSVP.

Just in case our forgetful President Obama needs a reminder of the country's economic woes, here he has it: Americans' outlook on the economy dropped six points in the last month, according to new polls. Many believe the economy will continue to get worse, and only 1 in 5 believe the economy is "good." (Actually, I'm surprised it's that much.)

Just 22 percent of Americans said that the economy has improved in the past month, down from the 28 percent who said so in February, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.

Meanwhile, 35 percent predict that the unemployment rate, which has been slowly dropping, will start going back up, up from 30 percent who believed that in February.

Fewer than one in three Americans believe their household’s economic condition will improve in the next year, down from 37 percent just three months ago, while 18 percent believe their finances will deteriorate, up from 11 percent in February.

This increased economic pessimism extends to Democrats as well — the share of Democrats who called the economy “good” dropped from 48 percent in February to 31 percent now.

But that still remains more optimistic than Americans as a whole — only 20 percent of Americans believe that the economy is “good.”

I know, I know. You're all thinking, "But wait! Mitt Romney bullied a kid in high school! Obama endorsed gay marriage! These are critical issues that we should be spending all our time thinking and talking about!" So I hate to disappoint you with this dose of sobering reality, but it's important that we recall Americans' increasing inability to find a job, or pay a mortgage, or save for retirement.

The headlines certainly aren't reflective of what's on most Americans' minds right now. It's remarkable and insulting that we've allowed ourselves to spend so much time focusing on fringe issues (or in the case of 'Bullygate,' non-issues) when the country's outlook is so poor. Perhaps the president can take a quick break from congratulating himself on his "evolution" and attending glitzy Hollywood fundraisers to address what really matters to Americans: his failed economic policies. That is, if he's not suffering from selective amnesia today.

The sisters of the boy Mitt Romney allegedly bullied in high school isn't happy that their brother's name is in the news. In fact, prior to the Washington Post's story about Romney's prep school antics, the women didn't even know about the incident. Instead of jumping on the Mitt's-a-bully bandwagon, however, they want their brother's memory out of the fray. Turns out, WaPo got some of their facts wrong, and besides, say his sisters, he wouldn't want to be used as a political pawn anyway.

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.

“Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” Christine Lauber said.

She added she and her sisters will likely put out a statement later via a family attorney.

“If he were still alive today, he would be furious [about the story],” she said with tears in her eyes.

The story has already come under scrutiny for misleading information, but this statement from the family seals it: the Post published a shoddy hit-piece designed to make Romney look bad in the wake of Obama's gay marriage endorsement. Now, as Romney himself said, "Aren't there issues of significance you'd like to talk about?"

To borrow a phrase from the president, let me be clear: I'm not bothered by President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage. I am bothered by the fact that we're ignoring the motivation behind its timing. So let's call it what it was: a masterful display of political expediency, for the sake of adulation and the almighty dollar.

For example, study this tweet a moment:

This tweet and its accompanying photo, from Barack Obama's official account, are representative of this president's unnerving tendency to canonize himself for his decisions or positions. "History," it says, alongside a photo of the president's face captioned with his newly "evolved" position on the  matter. The Weekly Standard once published what is essentially a case study on his self-love, and as WSJ's James Taranto tweeted, it's worth considering that "sheer vanity" drove his decision to endorse same-sex marriage. In short, the man is known for having an ego. The fact that his camp felt the need to hammer home his endorsement as "history-making" reinforces the fact that this was a chance to remind us of just how great and brave this president is. We know this because he told us himself.

But a chance to pat himself on the back again wasn't the only factor that drove the timing of the announcement. No, just this week the Washington Post published a few accounts of the political pressure for him to do so. Certain major Obama donors have a highly vested interest in this issue, and were threatening to withhold their considerable fundraising power if he didn't make the endorsement, and make it right quick.

A review of Obama’s top bundlers, who have brought in $500,000 or more for the campaign, shows that about one in six publicly identify themselves as gay. His overall list of bundlers also includes a number of gay couples who have wed in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage was legal.

“It’s a very important constituency,” said Los Angeles attorney Dana Perlman, a top Obama bundler who is helping organize a 700-person LGBT fundraiser for the president on June 6. “The community for the most part is wholeheartedly behind this man.”

But that relationship was put to the test this week after Vice President Joe Biden said he was “absolutely comfortable” with same-sex unions. The remarks led to mounting pressure on Obama to also shift his position on gay marriage, which he had previously characterized as “evolving.”

Some liberal gay donors had threatened to withhold contributions over Obama’s stance on gay marriage as well as his administration’s decision to shelve an executive order banning sexual-identity discrimination by federal contractors.

Now, I'm not here to question the sincerity of his support for same-sex marriage. As Guy pointed out yesterday, Obama has gone back and forth on this issue through the years. I'd imagine he's always been fine with same-sex marriage, but again, political expediency dictated his stance on the issue as he rose through the ranks.

How he feels about the issue is not the point; the point is, it's important to recognize why he chose to make the endorsement now. And it's not because he "felt in his heart" he had to, or because he thought of his daughters, or because he was just going to burst if he didn't share his "evolved" stance with the world as soon as possible. No, he endorsed same-sex marriage yesterday -- as opposed to later in the summer, or after the election -- because he desperately needs the money that he was about to lose. (Those damn SuperPACs, right?!)

Update: For further proof that we must take his endorsement of same-sex marriage with a grain of salt, consider the following two stories.

-The White House isn't pushing to include gay rights as part of the Democrats' campaign platform for the 2012 elections:

"Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked if Obama would call for the repeal of DOMA and endorsement of pro-gay marriage language in the party platform. "That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform."

-He has given no indication of willingness to sign an executive order that "would prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." No, he "has refused -- and continues to refuse -- to sign it." For someone who's all about marriage equality, that seems like a pretty basic reform to support. However, the president walks the fine line of pleasing his donors and, of course, not alienating swing states like Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina, which have banned gay marriage. What's that they say about please all of the people, all of the time?

There's a fantastic Bible verse that a Catholic of Vice President Joe Biden's professed devotion to the faith ought to know. Matthew 7:4 reads, "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" It's an especially prescient verse when considering remarks he made today regarding Rep. Paul Ryan's budget:

Remarkable, really, that he could accuse Ryan of crafting a budget "incompatible with the social doctrine" of the Catholic Church when Biden himself is staunchly pro-choice. The Catholic Church has much to say on the socio-political issues of our day, but it's most famous for its stance on abortion. One of John Paul II's most famous encyclicals called for a "culture of life," in which the sanctity of human life is valued and protected "from conception until natural death." Throughout his political career, Biden has, time and again, flouted this teaching in the name of "women's rights," as though that broad concept could be reduced to the singular -- and singularly anti-Catholic -- issue of abortion.

So what makes Ryan's budget anti-Catholic? Well, Biden ascribes to the "social justice" aspects of Catholic doctrine, which guides many politically left-wing Catholics. These teachings focus on alleviating poverty and protecting the less fortunate; the Church's most famous instance of political involvement along these lines was, of course, their unholy alliance with the Democrats over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Church supports government social programs like Medicaid, because they help the poor access essential services and goods. Therefore, some have taken to attacking Ryan's budget as "anti-Catholic," owing to the spending cuts he's called for in his Path to Prosperity. (It's worth noting that Ryan cleared up some of the misconceptions about his proposal in a House Budget Committee hearing yesterday, and fought back against the "uncompassionate" label so many have been quick to slap on his budget.)

Returning to Biden's comments, however, it's clear that Obama for America is desperate to capture the Catholic vote, a crucial swing bloc that it won in 2008. Recently, polls showed that Catholics are split evenly between Obama and Romney, 46/46. Considering the historically predictive power of this particular group, it's certainly an important one. So here's Biden, playing to Catholics' political sensibilities at the expense of a sensible budget that has widespread support among conservatives, including Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, he's ignoring the issue of abortion, a crucial plank of Catholic social doctrine -- the one that's stuck in his own eye -- to point out the superficial speck in Ryan's. Matthew 7:5: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."