Untrue.

People who have worked or are working in the WH say that sometimes the chosen one is not in the room when Jarrett is making decisions.

Even if he is in the room he might as well not be. He has been described as distant, aloof, uninvolved and disinterested.

Yes, I do love that Obama was elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. And I’m thrilled that McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan were defeated. That doesn’t mean I agree with POTUS on everything. I’m more conservative on fiscal matters and somewhat more liberal on social issues. If somebody criticizes Obama on policy substance and I disagree with that criticism, I’ll argue accordingly. If I think he is unfairly attacked about this or that, I’ll speak up.

The suggestion that Valerie Jarrett is “telling him what to do” is nonsense. You’re really saying he is a wimp who doesn’t have his own mind and is letting a pushy broad lead him around on a leash. If her name was Steve Jarrett, you’d never hear stuff like that.

Watching his back is one thing. Telling him what to do is quite another. But he’s such a doofus and a wimp that somebody has to do it.

Seems like a good explanation to me.

If you’re POTUS, and the lives of you and your family depend on the SS, you don’t want to piss them off by calling upon them to make frivolous use of their limited resources. So, I assume there is a protocol the SS follows in assessing situations that might call for them to extend protection to a member of the WH senior staff who is not automatically covered by law.

If I thought this was just some “executive perk” situation, I wouldn’t defend it. I just find that hard to believe, for the reason stated above.

But, just for discussion purposes, if she has been threatened, why can’t she complain to DCPD like any other private citizen?

Still no logical explanation.

Other than officials who automatically get SS protection by law, the SS does not disclose how many protectees they have, who they are or why.

It’s possible that Ms. Jarrett is a perk-hog and demanded that Obama issue the executive order required to get protection for people not covered by statute. But I don’t think that’s the way it works. More likely, the SS decided she needed protection based on some incident or intelligence and recommended that Obama issue the order for some level of protection. Not all details are alike. Probably just a bodyguard.

Of course, various right-leaning “news” sources are having a field day with this.

Having cast my vote to re-elect, I’m still waiting for my “gift.” I know it must be coming, because Mitt told me so. Maybe it will be in my Christmas stocking.

Third quarter GDP growth was just adjusted upward.
Housing is on the move nationwide.
Unemployment edging downward in nearly all states.

Those deficits are a combination of too much spending and too little taxes, with Medicare (specifically Part B and prescription drugs) and Defense being the biggest factors on the spending side. I’m in favor of strong Defense spending, but we have to pay for it.

On the tax side, individual income taxes as a percent of GDP ranged between 9.6% and 10.2% from 1998 to 2001. That was when we ran budget surplusses under Cliinton tax rates and Paygo spending constraints.

From 2003 (first year of Bush tax cuts in full effect) to 2009, income taxes as a percent of GDP ranged from just 6.6% to 8.4%.

From 2009 through 2012, with Bush tax rates still in effect plus some other stimulus income tax reductions at the low end), income taxes as a percent of GDP have ranged from just 6.3% to 7.5%.

You don’t have to be a math whiz to see a pattern here. Historically, we have had a few years in the late 1940′s and late 1950′s when the budget was balanced with income taxes as percent of GDP in the 7.5% range. But that was during periods or reduced military spending and before Medicare Part B and prescription drugs (which are funded by general taxes, not by the Medicare payroll tax).