Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Today's Quote from Kentucky 's Favorite Son!
"An oppressed people are authorized whenever they can to rise and break their fetters."
Henry Clay
Henry Clay
National Poll: Gingrich 45% Obama 43%
2012 Presidential Matchups
National Poll: Gingrich 45% Obama 43%
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Newt Gingrich surge has moved him to the top of the polls in Iowa, big gains in New Hampshire and now a two-point edge over President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
National Poll: Gingrich 45% Obama 43%
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Newt Gingrich surge has moved him to the top of the polls in Iowa, big gains in New Hampshire and now a two-point edge over President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Obama's 2012 Chances and Democratic Demographic Dreaming
The latest report from Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin of the progressive Center for American Progress contains a thoughtful examination of President Obama's re-election chances. There's an awful lot packed into the 60 pages of text, but the basic thrust is as follows: We should expect the non-white share of the electorate to grow at least 2 percent from the 2008 election, padding Obama's base line. If he can hold serve among either the white working class or college-educated whites, he should be able to pull out a victory, even amid troubled economic times.
Obama's 2012 Chances and Democratic Demographic Dreaming
Obama's 2012 Chances and Democratic Demographic Dreaming
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Gingrich Pulls Ahead in Gallup's Net Favorability Ratings | The Weekly Standard
For the first time, Newt Gingrich has moved into first place in Gallup’s net favorability ratings. Here are the candidates’ respective tallies among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents:
1. Newt Gingrich, +44 percent (68 percent favorable, 24 percent unfavorable)
2. Mitt Romney, +42 percent (67 to 25 percent)
3. Rick Santorum, +31 percent (58 to 27 percent)
4. Herman Cain, +28 percent (60 to 32 percent)
5. (tie) Michele Bachmann, +21 percent (56 to 35 percent)
5. (tie) Ron Paul, +21 percent (56 to 35 percent)
5. (tie) Rick Perry, +21 percent (55 to 34 percent)
8. Jon Huntsman, +15 percent (49 to 34 percent)
Gingrich has also pulled ahead for the first time in Gallup’s Positive Intensity Score, which reflects a candidate’s net favorability rating among those who have a “strongly favorable” or “strongly unfavorable view” of the candidate. Gingrich has a Positive Intensity Score of +20 (24 percent of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents have a “strongly favorable” opinion of him, while 4 percent have a “strongly unfavorable opinion). That’s up 7 points from early October (when his score was +13), making Gingrich the only GOP presidential candidate whose score has improved over that span. Here are the candidates’ current Positive Intensity Scores:
1. Gingrich, +20 — up 7 points from early October
2. Cain, +14 — down 20 points
3. Romney, +11 — down 4 points
4. Santorum, +6 — down 4 points
5. (tie) Paul, +2 — even
5. (tie) Perry, +2 — down 2 points
7. Bachmann, +1 — down 3 points
8. Huntsman, -2 — down 3 points
Gingrich Pulls Ahead in Gallup’s Net Favorability Ratings | The Weekly Standard
1. Newt Gingrich, +44 percent (68 percent favorable, 24 percent unfavorable)
2. Mitt Romney, +42 percent (67 to 25 percent)
3. Rick Santorum, +31 percent (58 to 27 percent)
4. Herman Cain, +28 percent (60 to 32 percent)
5. (tie) Michele Bachmann, +21 percent (56 to 35 percent)
5. (tie) Ron Paul, +21 percent (56 to 35 percent)
5. (tie) Rick Perry, +21 percent (55 to 34 percent)
8. Jon Huntsman, +15 percent (49 to 34 percent)
Gingrich has also pulled ahead for the first time in Gallup’s Positive Intensity Score, which reflects a candidate’s net favorability rating among those who have a “strongly favorable” or “strongly unfavorable view” of the candidate. Gingrich has a Positive Intensity Score of +20 (24 percent of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents have a “strongly favorable” opinion of him, while 4 percent have a “strongly unfavorable opinion). That’s up 7 points from early October (when his score was +13), making Gingrich the only GOP presidential candidate whose score has improved over that span. Here are the candidates’ current Positive Intensity Scores:
1. Gingrich, +20 — up 7 points from early October
2. Cain, +14 — down 20 points
3. Romney, +11 — down 4 points
4. Santorum, +6 — down 4 points
5. (tie) Paul, +2 — even
5. (tie) Perry, +2 — down 2 points
7. Bachmann, +1 — down 3 points
8. Huntsman, -2 — down 3 points
Gingrich Pulls Ahead in Gallup’s Net Favorability Ratings | The Weekly Standard
Porker of the Month: Steven Chu
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu Porker of the Month for his weak oversight of DOE’s loan guarantee program (LGP), which resulted in huge losses to taxpayers when solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, the recipient of a $535 million loan guarantee, filed for bankruptcy in September.
The LGP program, which received a massive increase in funding in the 2009 stimulus package, has been the subject of three Government Accountability Office reports since its inception, all detailing its management weaknesses, arbitrary selection process, and vulnerabilities to manipulation and politicization. The collapse of Solyndra was quickly followed by the bankruptcies of three other LGP recipients – Massachusetts-based Beacon Power and Evergreen, Inc. and Oregon-based SpectraWatt.
CAGW President Tom Schatz commented, “Sec. Chu and his colleagues dismissed numerous warning signs that the LGP was a ticking time bomb…If this is the Obama administration’s idea of how America can ‘invest’ in its economic recovery, taxpayers would much rather keep the money and do it themselves.” For trying to pick winners and losers in a volatile sector, for acting as if winning a Nobel Prize in physics also magically confers the title of venture capitalist, and for frittering away taxpayers’ hard-earned money, Sec. Chu is CAGW’s November 2011 Porker of the Month. Read more about the Porker of the Month.
The LGP program, which received a massive increase in funding in the 2009 stimulus package, has been the subject of three Government Accountability Office reports since its inception, all detailing its management weaknesses, arbitrary selection process, and vulnerabilities to manipulation and politicization. The collapse of Solyndra was quickly followed by the bankruptcies of three other LGP recipients – Massachusetts-based Beacon Power and Evergreen, Inc. and Oregon-based SpectraWatt.
CAGW President Tom Schatz commented, “Sec. Chu and his colleagues dismissed numerous warning signs that the LGP was a ticking time bomb…If this is the Obama administration’s idea of how America can ‘invest’ in its economic recovery, taxpayers would much rather keep the money and do it themselves.” For trying to pick winners and losers in a volatile sector, for acting as if winning a Nobel Prize in physics also magically confers the title of venture capitalist, and for frittering away taxpayers’ hard-earned money, Sec. Chu is CAGW’s November 2011 Porker of the Month. Read more about the Porker of the Month.
Purely Political:Obama administration rejects Republican states' health law waiver requests - The Hill's Healthwatch
The Obama administration on Monday rejected two states’ requests for waivers from the healthcare reform law.
The decision could rekindle the controversy over the waiver process, as the two states that were turned down, Indiana and Louisiana, have Republican governors. GOP leaders at the state level have been extremely critical of the healthcare law and the requirements that it imposes on states.
The Department of Health and Human Services said Indiana and Louisiana do not need an adjustment from the health law's medical loss ratio. That provision requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care or offer rebates to their customers starting next year.
Link to entire article:Obama administration rejects Republican states' health law waiver requests - The Hill's Healthwatch
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
Charlie Cook Sees GOP Winning Big in 2012
By TIERNEY SNEED
November 17, 2011 RSS Feed Print
Republicans may be heading toward complete control of Washington—maintaining the House, taking the Senate, and likely capturing the White House—if Election Day 2012 unfolds as Charlie Cook, acclaimed vote counter, predicts.
Sure that the former Gov. Mitt Romney will clinch the GOP nomination, Cook says President Obama faces an uphill battle to be re-elected, and the election will be a referendum on his presidency and the dire economic situation he now "owns." [Vote now: Will Obama be a one-term president?]
Even if Obama did manage to hold on to the presidency, he will face a Republican-controlled legislature that will likely shut down his agenda entirely.
Cook sees House Republicans losing some of their majority, perhaps five to 10 of the seats he calls "exotic and problematic" that rode the wave in 2010 midterm elections. But he believes that Democrats stand no chance of winning enough seats to gain control.
For similar reasons in the Senate, he sees Democrats losing some of the seats that they gained in their own wave in 2006. "Best-case scenario" for the Democrats, says Cook, is that they lose only three of their 23 seats that are up for grabs. More likely however, they will lose at least six of the 10 most at risk, tipping the Republicans into a slight majority. [See photos of 2012 GOP hopefuls on the campaign trail]
As for the Republican nomination, there is no doubt in Cook's mind that it will be Romney. Herman Cain might have passion, Newt Gingrich intellect, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry money, but, "Romney is the only guy with the whole package."
For Cook, "The $64,000 questions is, 'Is it going to be quick and clean or long and messy?'" If Romney gains the support of his party early, he will pick a vice presidential candidate who appeals to the center. If issues like his faith or his Massachusetts healthcare plan continue to disrupt his path for nomination, he may have to do some "awkward ticket balancing" like Sen. John McCain did in his choice of former Gov. Sarah Palin for vice president, explains Cook.
Either way, Cook says, Obama, quoting the president himself, "faces an uphill battle." Cook adds that the only chance he has is to borrow moves from former President Bush's 2004 playbook and "marginalize" Romney just as Bush's team tried to marginalized Sen. John Kerry. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the 2012 GOP candidates.]
Cook, who spoke at an event last night hosted by Prism Public Affairs and C. Fox Communications, also says that the Gallup presidential approval poll is the best indicator of president's chances for re-election. "Don't pay attention to the horse race figures," he says.
Most tellingly, he adds, Obama has only 39 percent approval among independents—only 32 percent among the "pure independents" who do not lean left or right—and they will be the ones who decide the election.
By TIERNEY SNEED
November 17, 2011 RSS Feed Print
Republicans may be heading toward complete control of Washington—maintaining the House, taking the Senate, and likely capturing the White House—if Election Day 2012 unfolds as Charlie Cook, acclaimed vote counter, predicts.
Sure that the former Gov. Mitt Romney will clinch the GOP nomination, Cook says President Obama faces an uphill battle to be re-elected, and the election will be a referendum on his presidency and the dire economic situation he now "owns." [Vote now: Will Obama be a one-term president?]
Even if Obama did manage to hold on to the presidency, he will face a Republican-controlled legislature that will likely shut down his agenda entirely.
Cook sees House Republicans losing some of their majority, perhaps five to 10 of the seats he calls "exotic and problematic" that rode the wave in 2010 midterm elections. But he believes that Democrats stand no chance of winning enough seats to gain control.
For similar reasons in the Senate, he sees Democrats losing some of the seats that they gained in their own wave in 2006. "Best-case scenario" for the Democrats, says Cook, is that they lose only three of their 23 seats that are up for grabs. More likely however, they will lose at least six of the 10 most at risk, tipping the Republicans into a slight majority. [See photos of 2012 GOP hopefuls on the campaign trail]
As for the Republican nomination, there is no doubt in Cook's mind that it will be Romney. Herman Cain might have passion, Newt Gingrich intellect, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry money, but, "Romney is the only guy with the whole package."
For Cook, "The $64,000 questions is, 'Is it going to be quick and clean or long and messy?'" If Romney gains the support of his party early, he will pick a vice presidential candidate who appeals to the center. If issues like his faith or his Massachusetts healthcare plan continue to disrupt his path for nomination, he may have to do some "awkward ticket balancing" like Sen. John McCain did in his choice of former Gov. Sarah Palin for vice president, explains Cook.
Either way, Cook says, Obama, quoting the president himself, "faces an uphill battle." Cook adds that the only chance he has is to borrow moves from former President Bush's 2004 playbook and "marginalize" Romney just as Bush's team tried to marginalized Sen. John Kerry. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the 2012 GOP candidates.]
Cook, who spoke at an event last night hosted by Prism Public Affairs and C. Fox Communications, also says that the Gallup presidential approval poll is the best indicator of president's chances for re-election. "Don't pay attention to the horse race figures," he says.
Most tellingly, he adds, Obama has only 39 percent approval among independents—only 32 percent among the "pure independents" who do not lean left or right—and they will be the ones who decide the election.
What You Don't Often Hear About Those 'Greedy' One Percenters - Forbes
What You Don't Often Hear About Those 'Greedy' One Percenters - Forbes
What’s not said enough about the 1 percenters is how difficult were their paths, but perhaps even more to the point, how much easier and better our paths will be for what they did ahead of us. Rather than bemoan their wealth, it’s time we start thanking them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2011/11/27/what-you-dont-always-hear-about-those-greedy-one-percenters/
Monday, November 28, 2011
Cleaning Up Congress | The Weekly Standard
When former New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg was being considered for Commerce secretary in early 2009, his investments came under scrutiny. Among other things, Gregg had earmarked $66 million in federal funds to transform a decommissioned Air Force base in his home state into a business park.
The project was being spearheaded by Gregg’s brother Cyrus, and the senator had invested $450,000 to $1 million of his own money. Since the taxpayer-financed redevelopment, Judd Gregg has earned somewhere between $240,000 and $650,000. Yet when asked about his earmarks, Gregg replied, “I am absolutely sure that in every way I’ve complied with the ethics rules of the Senate both literally and in their spirit relative to any investment I’ve made anywhere.”
Gregg’s statement is true—and that’s a problem. In terms of earmark abuse, Senator Gregg was far from the worst member of Congress. But Senate ethics rules are toothless and easily skirted. George Washington Plunkitt of Tammany Hall once put it this way: “There is so much honest graft in this big town that they would be fools to go in for dishonest graft.” (As the Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics investigations indicate, we still elect our share of fools.)
The anecdote about Gregg and the Plunkitt quote above are both included in Peter Schweizer’s Throw Them All Out. The book has received a massive publicity push—including a much-discussed 60 Minutes segment—and for good reason. Though many people may think it’s impossible to be any more cynical about Washington, D.C., -Schweizer’s well-documented litany of political corruption is likely to discover wells of indignation heretofore untapped.
Entire article:Cleaning Up Congress | The Weekly Standard
Stupid Quote Of the Day: Economist Paul Krugman
"Why should 1990s taxes be considered the outer limit of revenue collection? Think about it: The long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?
Let me suggest two areas in which it would make a lot of sense to raise taxes in earnest, not just return them to pre-Bush levels: taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions."
Economist Paul Krugman
What Is Constitutional Conservatism? - Yuval Levin - National Review Online
The difference between these two kinds of liberalism — constitutionalism grounded in humility about human nature and progressivism grounded in utopian expectations — is a crucial fault line of our politics, and has divided the friends of liberty since at least the French Revolution. It speaks to two kinds of views about just what liberal politics is.
One view, which has always been the less common one, holds that liberal institutions were the product of countless generations of political and cultural evolution in the West, which by the time of the Enlightenment, and especially in Britain, had begun to arrive at political forms that pointed toward some timeless principles in which our common life must be grounded, that accounted for the complexities of society, and that allowed for a workable balance between freedom and effective government given the constraints of human nature. Liberalism, in this view, involves the preservation and gradual improvement of those forms because they allow us both to grasp the proper principles of politics and to govern ourselves well.
Link to entire article:
What Is Constitutional Conservatism? - Yuval Levin - National Review Online
One view, which has always been the less common one, holds that liberal institutions were the product of countless generations of political and cultural evolution in the West, which by the time of the Enlightenment, and especially in Britain, had begun to arrive at political forms that pointed toward some timeless principles in which our common life must be grounded, that accounted for the complexities of society, and that allowed for a workable balance between freedom and effective government given the constraints of human nature. Liberalism, in this view, involves the preservation and gradual improvement of those forms because they allow us both to grasp the proper principles of politics and to govern ourselves well.
Link to entire article:
What Is Constitutional Conservatism? - Yuval Levin - National Review Online
Sunday, November 27, 2011
For President, Newt Gingrich | New Hampshire OPINION01
This newspaper endorses Newt Gingrich in the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.
America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.
He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.
Entire article:For President, Newt Gingrich | New Hampshire OPINION01
America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.
He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they're going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.
Entire article:For President, Newt Gingrich | New Hampshire OPINION01
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Our Spending Problem | The Weekly Standard
Our Spending Problem | The Weekly Standard
The failure of the supercommittee marks a good time to highlight just how out of control our federal spending really is. To see the matter in a clearer light, let’s leave aside all disputes over tax revenues for the time being, and focus purely on spending.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that federal spending has increased from $2.73 trillion in fiscal year 2007 to $3.60 trillion in fiscal year 2011. That’s a whopping 32 percent increase in just five years. (Americans should have been so lucky with their incomes.) That figure has nothing to do with diminishing tax revenues. It is strictly the amount by which federal outlays have increased.
Looking forward, the CBO projects (see table 1-1) that the federal government will spend $5.68 trillion in 2021. That’s an increase of 58 percent over 2011, and 108 percent over 2007. In other words, on our current trajectory, annual federal spending will more than double over the 15-year span from 2007 through 2021.
Given this substantial level of projected growth in federal spending, it doesn’t seem like it would have been very hard to cut $1.2 trillion off of that number — thereby cutting 2021 spending from $5.68 to $4.48 trillion. Even $4.48 trillion in spending in 2021 would be an increase of 64 percent versus 2007 spending.
But that’s not what the deficit committee was charged with doing — it wasn’t charged with cutting $1.2 trillion from fiscal year 2021 spending. Instead, it had a far, far easier task. It needed only to cut spending by that amount over the entire decade from 2012 to 2021.
The failure of the supercommittee marks a good time to highlight just how out of control our federal spending really is. To see the matter in a clearer light, let’s leave aside all disputes over tax revenues for the time being, and focus purely on spending.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that federal spending has increased from $2.73 trillion in fiscal year 2007 to $3.60 trillion in fiscal year 2011. That’s a whopping 32 percent increase in just five years. (Americans should have been so lucky with their incomes.) That figure has nothing to do with diminishing tax revenues. It is strictly the amount by which federal outlays have increased.
Looking forward, the CBO projects (see table 1-1) that the federal government will spend $5.68 trillion in 2021. That’s an increase of 58 percent over 2011, and 108 percent over 2007. In other words, on our current trajectory, annual federal spending will more than double over the 15-year span from 2007 through 2021.
Given this substantial level of projected growth in federal spending, it doesn’t seem like it would have been very hard to cut $1.2 trillion off of that number — thereby cutting 2021 spending from $5.68 to $4.48 trillion. Even $4.48 trillion in spending in 2021 would be an increase of 64 percent versus 2007 spending.
But that’s not what the deficit committee was charged with doing — it wasn’t charged with cutting $1.2 trillion from fiscal year 2021 spending. Instead, it had a far, far easier task. It needed only to cut spending by that amount over the entire decade from 2012 to 2021.
Friday, November 25, 2011
The Federal Government's Job Is Not to Redistribute Income | The Weekly Standard
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent claims to debunk the conservative argument against raising taxes on wealthier Americans, by drawing attention to “how much the share of their own income they are paying in taxes” and observing how much that share “has shrunk” (italics in original). But the facts don’t back him up.
Sargent claims that, from 1986 to 2008, the share of income that the top 1 percent of American income-earners paid in federal taxes dropped from 33 to 23 percent. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the percentage actually rose from 25.5 to 29.5 percent from 1986 to 2007 (the last year for which the CBO provides such figures). And according to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, the share of income that the top 1 percent paid in federal taxes in 2008 was 30 percent. So wealthier Americans are not only paying a higher share of federal taxes — the top 0.1 percent now pays more in federal income tax than the bottom 80 percent — but the share of their own income that they are paying in federal taxes has risen as well.
Link to article:The Federal Government’s Job Is Not to Redistribute Income | The Weekly Standard
Sargent claims that, from 1986 to 2008, the share of income that the top 1 percent of American income-earners paid in federal taxes dropped from 33 to 23 percent. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the percentage actually rose from 25.5 to 29.5 percent from 1986 to 2007 (the last year for which the CBO provides such figures). And according to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, the share of income that the top 1 percent paid in federal taxes in 2008 was 30 percent. So wealthier Americans are not only paying a higher share of federal taxes — the top 0.1 percent now pays more in federal income tax than the bottom 80 percent — but the share of their own income that they are paying in federal taxes has risen as well.
Link to article:The Federal Government’s Job Is Not to Redistribute Income | The Weekly Standard
Today's Founding Father Quote
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
James Madison, Federalist No. 58, 1788
James Madison, Federalist No. 58, 1788
Even Obama's cheerleaders are falling away | David Limbaugh | Columnists | Washington Examiner
Even Obama's cheerleaders are falling away | David Limbaugh | Columnists | Washington Examiner
Even Obama's cheerleaders are falling away
By: David Limbaugh | 11/24/11 8:05 PM
President Obama's cheerleaders are starting to peel away along with his approval ratings, and it's a fascinating sight to behold. They offer different reasons, but they all boil down to one obvious thing -- Obama is first and foremost about Obama -- and one less obvious: He has been a failed president.
Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, admittedly more centrist than most of their Democratic counterparts, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal urging Obama "to abandon his candidacy for re-election."
The authors conclude that the only way Obama could possibly win in 2012 would be "to wage the most negative campaign in history," because he has no successful record to run on.
If he would happen to win in that way, he wouldn't be able to govern, they say, so he should step aside and allow Hillary Clinton to run.
Their main beef with Obama seems to be his extreme partisanship, which is a particularly damning indictment coming from fellow Democrats. Should he resign, they argue, he would be in a better position to work with Republicans toward "a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future" instead of obsessing over whether he or George W. Bush is more to blame for our problems.
I don't agree that Obama would be any easier to work with if he were to withdraw from the race, but it is significant that two credible Democrats, both still loyal to their party, concede that Obama is hyperpartisan and hopelessly mired in the quicksand of scapegoating his predecessor.
Even more interesting was the viral video of Chris Matthews explaining to fellow MSNBC host Alex Witt why his Obama-thrill is gone. This represents quite a fall from Matthews' previous perch of Obama hero worship.
Matthews clearly believes that Obama peaked about the time his campaign ended and his term in office began, because "the day he was inaugurated, with the Mall filled with people, African-Americans and everyone else, he sent us all home and said, 'Thank you. Now watch how smart I am.' That's the worst kind of a notion of the presidency."
Matthews is also upset that Obama is running a "virtual presidency," through endless impersonal emails, rather than building and exploiting the interpersonal relationships that are vital for effective governance.
On that score, he laments: "I hear stories [from members of Congress] that you will not believe. Not a single phone call since the last election."
Matthews is an incorrigible idealist, with a romanticized notion of politics, longing to relive his childhood conception of statecraft as a Camelot Neverland. He is livid at Obama for giving him a political fix with all that grandiose "Yes, we can" rhetoric and then removing it like a sadistic parole officer as soon as he was inaugurated.
Matthews wants a leader, not just to provide that fix but also to follow it up with a vision and policies to realize the vision. But here's what's revealing: Matthews excoriates Obama for failing to say "one thing about what he'd do in the second term. He never tells" us his plan for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the tax system or the long-term debt.
I think Matthews is disillusioned with Obama on two levels. First, he feels betrayed that Obama the person is so different from Obama the pseudo-messiah he calculatingly portrayed himself to be during the campaign.
He's ultimately about himself; he's all hat and no cattle -- something many of us knew years ago. He doesn't share Matthews' idealism about politics, and he is an abject fraud for pretending to.
Second, whether or not he fully realizes it or its implications, Matthews is frustrated that Obama, the apparently quintessential liberal, hasn't been able, through their shared ideology, to produce prosperity and world peace.
There is a disconnect at work here with Matthews' anger at Obama for doing precisely what liberals do. Obama shoved through a radically liberal agenda -- the kind that should earn him permanent gratitude from a liberal such as Matthews, and it has led to economic catastrophe.
Matthews, at least in part, is furious at Obama, perhaps subconsciously, for proving that Matthews' lifelong ideology is an epic failure.
But in fairness, Matthews is also rightly disgusted with Obama for refusing to provide leadership or show even a modicum of willingness to work in good faith to extricate us from these horrendous economic, entitlement and debt problems, which, maddeningly, are occurring on a liberal president's watch.
Matthews pleads: "Just tell us, Commander. Give us our orders, and tell us where we're going. Give us the mission. And he hasn't done it."
I feel your pain, Chris, but we tried to warn you.
Examiner columnist David Limbaugh is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate (www.creatorsyndicate.com).
MORE ON THESE TOPICS: 2012 Election chris matthews David Limbaugh Democrats Doug Schoen Liberals MSNBC Patrick Caddell Politics President Obama
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/even-obamas-cheerleaders-are-falling-away#ixzz1ejxPCIjq
Even Obama's cheerleaders are falling away
By: David Limbaugh | 11/24/11 8:05 PM
President Obama's cheerleaders are starting to peel away along with his approval ratings, and it's a fascinating sight to behold. They offer different reasons, but they all boil down to one obvious thing -- Obama is first and foremost about Obama -- and one less obvious: He has been a failed president.
Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, admittedly more centrist than most of their Democratic counterparts, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal urging Obama "to abandon his candidacy for re-election."
The authors conclude that the only way Obama could possibly win in 2012 would be "to wage the most negative campaign in history," because he has no successful record to run on.
If he would happen to win in that way, he wouldn't be able to govern, they say, so he should step aside and allow Hillary Clinton to run.
Their main beef with Obama seems to be his extreme partisanship, which is a particularly damning indictment coming from fellow Democrats. Should he resign, they argue, he would be in a better position to work with Republicans toward "a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future" instead of obsessing over whether he or George W. Bush is more to blame for our problems.
I don't agree that Obama would be any easier to work with if he were to withdraw from the race, but it is significant that two credible Democrats, both still loyal to their party, concede that Obama is hyperpartisan and hopelessly mired in the quicksand of scapegoating his predecessor.
Even more interesting was the viral video of Chris Matthews explaining to fellow MSNBC host Alex Witt why his Obama-thrill is gone. This represents quite a fall from Matthews' previous perch of Obama hero worship.
Matthews clearly believes that Obama peaked about the time his campaign ended and his term in office began, because "the day he was inaugurated, with the Mall filled with people, African-Americans and everyone else, he sent us all home and said, 'Thank you. Now watch how smart I am.' That's the worst kind of a notion of the presidency."
Matthews is also upset that Obama is running a "virtual presidency," through endless impersonal emails, rather than building and exploiting the interpersonal relationships that are vital for effective governance.
On that score, he laments: "I hear stories [from members of Congress] that you will not believe. Not a single phone call since the last election."
Matthews is an incorrigible idealist, with a romanticized notion of politics, longing to relive his childhood conception of statecraft as a Camelot Neverland. He is livid at Obama for giving him a political fix with all that grandiose "Yes, we can" rhetoric and then removing it like a sadistic parole officer as soon as he was inaugurated.
Matthews wants a leader, not just to provide that fix but also to follow it up with a vision and policies to realize the vision. But here's what's revealing: Matthews excoriates Obama for failing to say "one thing about what he'd do in the second term. He never tells" us his plan for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the tax system or the long-term debt.
I think Matthews is disillusioned with Obama on two levels. First, he feels betrayed that Obama the person is so different from Obama the pseudo-messiah he calculatingly portrayed himself to be during the campaign.
He's ultimately about himself; he's all hat and no cattle -- something many of us knew years ago. He doesn't share Matthews' idealism about politics, and he is an abject fraud for pretending to.
Second, whether or not he fully realizes it or its implications, Matthews is frustrated that Obama, the apparently quintessential liberal, hasn't been able, through their shared ideology, to produce prosperity and world peace.
There is a disconnect at work here with Matthews' anger at Obama for doing precisely what liberals do. Obama shoved through a radically liberal agenda -- the kind that should earn him permanent gratitude from a liberal such as Matthews, and it has led to economic catastrophe.
Matthews, at least in part, is furious at Obama, perhaps subconsciously, for proving that Matthews' lifelong ideology is an epic failure.
But in fairness, Matthews is also rightly disgusted with Obama for refusing to provide leadership or show even a modicum of willingness to work in good faith to extricate us from these horrendous economic, entitlement and debt problems, which, maddeningly, are occurring on a liberal president's watch.
Matthews pleads: "Just tell us, Commander. Give us our orders, and tell us where we're going. Give us the mission. And he hasn't done it."
I feel your pain, Chris, but we tried to warn you.
Examiner columnist David Limbaugh is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate (www.creatorsyndicate.com).
MORE ON THESE TOPICS: 2012 Election chris matthews David Limbaugh Democrats Doug Schoen Liberals MSNBC Patrick Caddell Politics President Obama
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/11/even-obamas-cheerleaders-are-falling-away#ixzz1ejxPCIjq
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Today's Quote
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
HURT: Turkey taxpayers never get pardoned - Washington Times
Happy Thanksgiving, America! It’s that special time of year when Americans pause to count our many blessings, ponder our faith and reflect upon the awesome sacrifices made by patriots before us to ensure our freedoms.
And this year, we are once again reminded that there is no bigger chump in the world than the innocent taxpayer. We are the turkey. The turkey that is never pardoned - certainly not this year.
We have worked hard, saved our money and paid our bills. Under the threat of prison time and force of the gun, we hand over punishing amounts of taxes to government. In many cases, state and local politicians carefully invest our taxes with the utmost care and respect.
Link to article:
HURT: Turkey taxpayers never get pardoned - Washington Times
And this year, we are once again reminded that there is no bigger chump in the world than the innocent taxpayer. We are the turkey. The turkey that is never pardoned - certainly not this year.
We have worked hard, saved our money and paid our bills. Under the threat of prison time and force of the gun, we hand over punishing amounts of taxes to government. In many cases, state and local politicians carefully invest our taxes with the utmost care and respect.
Link to article:
HURT: Turkey taxpayers never get pardoned - Washington Times
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Rep. Barney Frank: Supercommittee failure ‘good news’ for Dems - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the congressional supercommittee's failure Monday to come to an agreement on spending reforms was “good news” because it will help to end the Bush-era tax cuts and give Democrats more bargaining power in budget negotiations.
Rep. Barney Frank: Supercommittee failure ‘good news’ for Dems - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Rep. Barney Frank: Supercommittee failure ‘good news’ for Dems - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Dennis Miller Tells Jay Leno: You and Obama 'Have Quite a Bromance' - It's 'J-Lobama' | NewsBusters.org
Last month as NewsBusters reported, Jay Leno did a disgustingly sycophantic interview with President Obama.
On Monday's program, comedian Dennis Miller told the Tonight Show host, "You guys have quite a bromance there, don't you? I've come up with one of those celebrity nicknames for you two -- J-Lobama"
Read more: Dennis Miller Tells Jay Leno: You and Obama 'Have Quite a Bromance' - It's 'J-Lobama' | NewsBusters.org
On Monday's program, comedian Dennis Miller told the Tonight Show host, "You guys have quite a bromance there, don't you? I've come up with one of those celebrity nicknames for you two -- J-Lobama"
Read more: Dennis Miller Tells Jay Leno: You and Obama 'Have Quite a Bromance' - It's 'J-Lobama' | NewsBusters.org
A New Newt Gingrich?
Inside the Numbers
Meet the new Newt Gingrich
By Matt Towery
November 18, 2011 —
While I poll and analyze the 2012 presidential race straight down the middle, an equal opportunity offender, I am in a unique position to explain who "the new" Newt Gingrich is, and why he is starting to race up to the top of national and various state polls.
Having known Newt since I was 19, serving as a youthful debate advisor in 1980, a lawyer in recount elections, his campaign chairman from 1992 until he resigned from office and a client of his consulting group in his early years in business, I cover virtually every aspect of his adult life. I've known his daughters, his wives and his closest friends for nearly 32 years.
To put it bluntly, the Newt I knew so very well in his prior life as an elected official and political operator hardly resembles the man I know now.
Then he was extremely ambitious (I thought he was crazy when he told me in 1980 that he would someday be speaker of the House) and let virtually nothing stand in his way. He often was so trigger-happy with his attacks that he fired without thinking, rarely worrying about the collateral damage he left behind. He could engage in really heated arguments, and the way most of us survived was to fight right back.
And back then, Newt could never relax. I would try to get him to laugh, but quite frankly he didn't want to. I knew he loved football, having played it in high school, but it was hard for any of his inner-circle of friends to get him to consistently join the average Joe and get into supporting a team, save New Year's, when he would kick back with friends and watch games -- but talk politics.
He was also somewhat secretive. I think he felt that, even with those he basically loved and who loved him, he could never truly drop his guard. I can't tell you how many then-young members of Congress on the GOP side would pull me aside and ask me what Newt really thought of them. I had a standard answer: "He doesn't think of you. Just keep on doing your best, and don't pay too much attention when he gets mad." It worked, because many of those who asked me that question are now governor, senators or very successful in other occupations.
The one thing that never bothered me personally was Newt's so-called "baggage." Not because I approved of some self-confessed improper actions, but because I knew the real story behind the various untrue tales related to both marriages. It's not my place to spill the beans on the inner dynamics of Newt's prior marriages, particularly with regard to wife No. 2, whom I knew throughout that marriage. I think it is fair to say that both parties shared equal blame, both morally and otherwise, for the demise of the union.
Yes, by the early 2000s, Newt was not the best of company. But it was then that he began to change. He converted to the Catholic Church, and for the first time was passionate about God and his spiritual life. His marriage to Callista brought him peace and a settled-down lifestyle that I had never seen in the many decades I had known him. Then came the grandchildren. Newt became an integral part of their lives, perhaps more so than in that of his girls when they were growing up. His eyes light up around them, and he never hesitates to let them be a part of whatever he is doing.
The new Newt Gingrich rarely loses his temper, suffers fools easily, and cares about the more human and personal side of his longtime friends. He is genuinely kind.
And there is one more characteristic that Newt actually had even as speaker that he retains today. Despite his reputation as "the smartest guy in the room," he bucks the typical GOP desire to use pomp, title or access in a manner to make others feel small. From the day I met him until the day I write this column, he has always asked people to call him not Congressman or Mr. Speaker, but just "Newt." It may be that the Newt Gingrich is not only more likeable but more electable. But if he's president, we will likely have to get used to calling him President Newt. That's as far as he will go!
Matt Towery is author of the book "Paranoid Nation: The Real Story of the 2008 Fight for the Presidency." He heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage. Follow him on Twitter @matttowery. To find out more about Matt Towery and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Meet the new Newt Gingrich
By Matt Towery
November 18, 2011 —
While I poll and analyze the 2012 presidential race straight down the middle, an equal opportunity offender, I am in a unique position to explain who "the new" Newt Gingrich is, and why he is starting to race up to the top of national and various state polls.
Having known Newt since I was 19, serving as a youthful debate advisor in 1980, a lawyer in recount elections, his campaign chairman from 1992 until he resigned from office and a client of his consulting group in his early years in business, I cover virtually every aspect of his adult life. I've known his daughters, his wives and his closest friends for nearly 32 years.
To put it bluntly, the Newt I knew so very well in his prior life as an elected official and political operator hardly resembles the man I know now.
Then he was extremely ambitious (I thought he was crazy when he told me in 1980 that he would someday be speaker of the House) and let virtually nothing stand in his way. He often was so trigger-happy with his attacks that he fired without thinking, rarely worrying about the collateral damage he left behind. He could engage in really heated arguments, and the way most of us survived was to fight right back.
And back then, Newt could never relax. I would try to get him to laugh, but quite frankly he didn't want to. I knew he loved football, having played it in high school, but it was hard for any of his inner-circle of friends to get him to consistently join the average Joe and get into supporting a team, save New Year's, when he would kick back with friends and watch games -- but talk politics.
He was also somewhat secretive. I think he felt that, even with those he basically loved and who loved him, he could never truly drop his guard. I can't tell you how many then-young members of Congress on the GOP side would pull me aside and ask me what Newt really thought of them. I had a standard answer: "He doesn't think of you. Just keep on doing your best, and don't pay too much attention when he gets mad." It worked, because many of those who asked me that question are now governor, senators or very successful in other occupations.
The one thing that never bothered me personally was Newt's so-called "baggage." Not because I approved of some self-confessed improper actions, but because I knew the real story behind the various untrue tales related to both marriages. It's not my place to spill the beans on the inner dynamics of Newt's prior marriages, particularly with regard to wife No. 2, whom I knew throughout that marriage. I think it is fair to say that both parties shared equal blame, both morally and otherwise, for the demise of the union.
Yes, by the early 2000s, Newt was not the best of company. But it was then that he began to change. He converted to the Catholic Church, and for the first time was passionate about God and his spiritual life. His marriage to Callista brought him peace and a settled-down lifestyle that I had never seen in the many decades I had known him. Then came the grandchildren. Newt became an integral part of their lives, perhaps more so than in that of his girls when they were growing up. His eyes light up around them, and he never hesitates to let them be a part of whatever he is doing.
The new Newt Gingrich rarely loses his temper, suffers fools easily, and cares about the more human and personal side of his longtime friends. He is genuinely kind.
And there is one more characteristic that Newt actually had even as speaker that he retains today. Despite his reputation as "the smartest guy in the room," he bucks the typical GOP desire to use pomp, title or access in a manner to make others feel small. From the day I met him until the day I write this column, he has always asked people to call him not Congressman or Mr. Speaker, but just "Newt." It may be that the Newt Gingrich is not only more likeable but more electable. But if he's president, we will likely have to get used to calling him President Newt. That's as far as he will go!
Matt Towery is author of the book "Paranoid Nation: The Real Story of the 2008 Fight for the Presidency." He heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage. Follow him on Twitter @matttowery. To find out more about Matt Towery and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
PERRY: Eric Holder must go - Washington Times
Ever since the Department of Justice’s gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious became public, the Obama administration’s response has been slow and infuriating. Of particular concern is Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s lack of candor concerning what he knew and when he knew it.
This is not a typical case of bureaucratic bungling. A 40-year-old Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, and possibly a U.S. immigration agent, are dead because of a horribly ill-conceived Justice Department operation that went tragically wrong.
Hundreds of Fast and Furious firearms have been implicated in criminal activity, and another 1,400 firearms are on the street because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives engaged in gun-walking - the selling of firearms to straw purchasers in an attempt to locate major weapons traffickers in Mexico. This controversial tactic, involving thousands of weapons, means that brave law enforcement personnel along the border remain at risk.
Link to entire article:
PERRY: Eric Holder must go - Washington Times
This is not a typical case of bureaucratic bungling. A 40-year-old Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, and possibly a U.S. immigration agent, are dead because of a horribly ill-conceived Justice Department operation that went tragically wrong.
Hundreds of Fast and Furious firearms have been implicated in criminal activity, and another 1,400 firearms are on the street because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives engaged in gun-walking - the selling of firearms to straw purchasers in an attempt to locate major weapons traffickers in Mexico. This controversial tactic, involving thousands of weapons, means that brave law enforcement personnel along the border remain at risk.
Link to entire article:
PERRY: Eric Holder must go - Washington Times
Monday, November 21, 2011
Breitbart.tv » Peggy Noonan: Republicans Want To ‘Overthrow’ The ‘Permanent Washington Political Class’
"Look, there's a thing percolating, coming to a boil on the Republican side. It is this opposition to, this resentment to, and a desire to overthrow this permanent Washington political class. You see it this week in the Peter Schweizer book. You saw it a few months ago in the Gretchen Morgenson book. Everybody's reading them. The people who come to Washington as regular, say, middle-class folk stay here for a while, serve for a while, as they put it, and wind up 10 or 20 years later extremely rich men and women and nobody likes it."
Link:Breitbart.tv » Peggy Noonan: Republicans Want To ‘Overthrow’ The ‘Permanent Washington Political Class’
Link:Breitbart.tv » Peggy Noonan: Republicans Want To ‘Overthrow’ The ‘Permanent Washington Political Class’
Super Committee Fails to Reach Deficit Agreement - Billy House - NationalJournal.com
The bipartisan congressional committee tasked with finding at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction announced on Monday it cannot reach agreement by the Wednesday deadline, a stark if not unexpected admission that its efforts have ended in failure.
Super Committee Fails to Reach Deficit Agreement - Billy House - NationalJournal.com
Super Committee Fails to Reach Deficit Agreement - Billy House - NationalJournal.com
Mica Must Be Off Her Meds!
Shades of "Special Comment"! In a rant worthy of Keith Olbermann at the height of his Miss Precious Perfect histrionics, Mika Brezinski began today's Morning Joe by tearing into Newt Gingrich for his recent suggestion that Occupy protestors should "get a job, right after you take a bath."
It wasn't merely Mika's words: "arrogant, disgusting, sickened." So strongly ran Brzezinski's rage that more than once her voice quavered and she seemed on some sort of emotional brink.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/11/21/mikas-newt-hatred-rant-drives-her-brink#ixzz1eMxDTPqV
Kicking our spending habit
Kicking our spending habit
By Jeff Jacoby | BOSTON GLOBE STAFF NOVEMBER 20, 2011
THE TREASURY Department reported last week that the national debt had surpassed $15 trillion, clocking in at precisely $15,033,607,255,920.32 as of the close of business Tuesday. Since President Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, the amount owed by the federal government to its lenders has soared more than $4.4 trillion, an increase of 41 percent in less than three years.
To put those figures in perspective, consider these:
When Bill Clinton was president, the national debt rose by an annual average of $193 billion; when the profligate George W. Bush was in the White House, the yearly debt increases averaged $612 billion. On Obama’s watch, by contrast, the federal debt has been skyrocketing by more than $1.5 trillion per year. It took 40 presidents and nearly two centuries, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan , for the US government to accumulate $1.5 trillion in indebtedness. The 44th president — aided and abetted by Congress — enlarges the federal debt by that amount every 12 months.
And the political class has its knickers in a twist because the much-vaunted “supercommittee’’ was only given until Thanksgiving to come up a plan for trimming the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
Washington’s refusal to take spending reduction seriously amounts to an almost criminal abdication of its responsibilities to the taxpayers, and politicians of both parties share in the guilt. As a candidate for president in 2008, Barack Obama properly blasted what was then a $9 trillion national debt as “irresponsible’’ and “unpatriotic.’’ Just weeks after moving into the White House, he vowed that by the end of his first term he would cut the $1.3 trillion federal budget deficit in half .
“We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation,’’ Obama told a White House summit on fiscal responsibility . “You don’t spend what you don’t have.’’
But Washington continues not only to spend what it doesn’t have, but to do so at a record-setting pace . In the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, the federal government burned through a staggering $3.6 trillion — “well above amounts recorded before 2009,’’ as the Congressional Budget Office dryly noted. The budget deficits of the last three years have been the largest in American history , whether measured in dollars or as a percentage of GDP.
For all the hyperventilating in recent months about “Draconian’’ cuts and “slashing spending’’ and the “brutal’’ scope of the automatic reductions that are supposed to take effect if Congress doesn’t approve an alternative, the bottom line is unchanged: The federal budget, like the federal establishment it funds, is grotesquely overweight and getting fatter by the day. The frantic stimulus spendathon has done nothing to heal the economy, and it is ludicrous that anyone can speak of the government’s current “austerity’’ with a straight face. The deal that raised the federal debt ceiling last summer didn’t impose austerity on Washington’s budget-makers. It averted austerity.
Sequestration — the triggering of automatic spending cuts if the supercommittee’s required deficit trims don’t materialize — will barely slow the spending train. Between 2013 and 2021, the federal budget is expected to grow by another $1.7 trillion. And if the sequester trigger is pulled? By another $1.6 trillion . If that’s “brutal,’’ I’m Katy Perry.
Like any morbidly obese patient, the federal behemoth needs to go on a diet. Ultimately the only prescription for reducing the government’s parade of yearly deficits and mounting debt without suffocating economic growth is to cut spending. Politicians find that a frightening prospect, and special interests and pressure groups don’t hesitate to exploit their fear .
But kicking out-of-control spending isn’t impossible. Other governments (and earlier administrations) have done it. Under Prime Minister Jean Chretien in the 1990s, Canada slashed spending across the board, reduced its federal payroll by 45,000 jobs, and privatized the national railway and air traffic control system. The result, as Fred Barnes recently chronicled in National Affairs , was an economic rebound. A deficit of nearly $37 billion turned into a $3 billion surplus, and a national economy that had been growing at an anemic 1 percent kicked into overdrive, expanding by an annual average of 3.4 percent between 1994 and 2006.
The longer Washington avoids serious and permanent spending cuts, the higher the debt will climb and the more painful the ultimate reckoning will be. “We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences,’’ the president said in 2009. It was true then. It’s even truer now.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jeff_jacoby.
By Jeff Jacoby | BOSTON GLOBE STAFF NOVEMBER 20, 2011
THE TREASURY Department reported last week that the national debt had surpassed $15 trillion, clocking in at precisely $15,033,607,255,920.32 as of the close of business Tuesday. Since President Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, the amount owed by the federal government to its lenders has soared more than $4.4 trillion, an increase of 41 percent in less than three years.
To put those figures in perspective, consider these:
When Bill Clinton was president, the national debt rose by an annual average of $193 billion; when the profligate George W. Bush was in the White House, the yearly debt increases averaged $612 billion. On Obama’s watch, by contrast, the federal debt has been skyrocketing by more than $1.5 trillion per year. It took 40 presidents and nearly two centuries, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan , for the US government to accumulate $1.5 trillion in indebtedness. The 44th president — aided and abetted by Congress — enlarges the federal debt by that amount every 12 months.
And the political class has its knickers in a twist because the much-vaunted “supercommittee’’ was only given until Thanksgiving to come up a plan for trimming the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
Washington’s refusal to take spending reduction seriously amounts to an almost criminal abdication of its responsibilities to the taxpayers, and politicians of both parties share in the guilt. As a candidate for president in 2008, Barack Obama properly blasted what was then a $9 trillion national debt as “irresponsible’’ and “unpatriotic.’’ Just weeks after moving into the White House, he vowed that by the end of his first term he would cut the $1.3 trillion federal budget deficit in half .
“We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation,’’ Obama told a White House summit on fiscal responsibility . “You don’t spend what you don’t have.’’
But Washington continues not only to spend what it doesn’t have, but to do so at a record-setting pace . In the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, the federal government burned through a staggering $3.6 trillion — “well above amounts recorded before 2009,’’ as the Congressional Budget Office dryly noted. The budget deficits of the last three years have been the largest in American history , whether measured in dollars or as a percentage of GDP.
For all the hyperventilating in recent months about “Draconian’’ cuts and “slashing spending’’ and the “brutal’’ scope of the automatic reductions that are supposed to take effect if Congress doesn’t approve an alternative, the bottom line is unchanged: The federal budget, like the federal establishment it funds, is grotesquely overweight and getting fatter by the day. The frantic stimulus spendathon has done nothing to heal the economy, and it is ludicrous that anyone can speak of the government’s current “austerity’’ with a straight face. The deal that raised the federal debt ceiling last summer didn’t impose austerity on Washington’s budget-makers. It averted austerity.
Sequestration — the triggering of automatic spending cuts if the supercommittee’s required deficit trims don’t materialize — will barely slow the spending train. Between 2013 and 2021, the federal budget is expected to grow by another $1.7 trillion. And if the sequester trigger is pulled? By another $1.6 trillion . If that’s “brutal,’’ I’m Katy Perry.
Like any morbidly obese patient, the federal behemoth needs to go on a diet. Ultimately the only prescription for reducing the government’s parade of yearly deficits and mounting debt without suffocating economic growth is to cut spending. Politicians find that a frightening prospect, and special interests and pressure groups don’t hesitate to exploit their fear .
But kicking out-of-control spending isn’t impossible. Other governments (and earlier administrations) have done it. Under Prime Minister Jean Chretien in the 1990s, Canada slashed spending across the board, reduced its federal payroll by 45,000 jobs, and privatized the national railway and air traffic control system. The result, as Fred Barnes recently chronicled in National Affairs , was an economic rebound. A deficit of nearly $37 billion turned into a $3 billion surplus, and a national economy that had been growing at an anemic 1 percent kicked into overdrive, expanding by an annual average of 3.4 percent between 1994 and 2006.
The longer Washington avoids serious and permanent spending cuts, the higher the debt will climb and the more painful the ultimate reckoning will be. “We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences,’’ the president said in 2009. It was true then. It’s even truer now.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jeff_jacoby.
Housing Finance: FHA and Lessons Learned from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Congress passed a combined spending proposal (H.R. 2112) that includes an increase in the limits on mortgages held by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are left untouched.
Link to article:
Housing Finance: FHA and Lessons Learned from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Link to article:
Housing Finance: FHA and Lessons Learned from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Today's Reaganism
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
- Ronald Reagan
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Today's Deep Thought
Should race,gender,religion,sexual orientation or nationality count more than qualifications and skill? Is "diversity" more important than fairness and merit? Just asking?
Gingrich to Occupy Wall Street: "Go Get a Job Right after You Take a Bath" | The Weekly Standard
The movement "starts with the premise that we all owe them everything," said Gingrich. And the movement's sense of entitlement is a "symptom how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country, and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying, 'Go get a job right after you take a bath,'" the former speaker of the House concluded.
Fred Barnes writes in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Gingrich has "told friends he’s like Richard Nixon, not particularly likable and hated by the press and the left." And here we see Gingrich taking a page from Nixon's playbook. If there was one thing Americans disliked more than the not particularly likable Nixon, it was dirty hippies.
Speaking of Occupy Wall Street, check out Matthew Continetti's new WEEKLY STANDARD piece on the movement's intellectual roots: "Anarchy in the U.S.A."
Gingrich to Occupy Wall Street: "Go Get a Job Right after You Take a Bath" | The Weekly Standard
Fred Barnes writes in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Gingrich has "told friends he’s like Richard Nixon, not particularly likable and hated by the press and the left." And here we see Gingrich taking a page from Nixon's playbook. If there was one thing Americans disliked more than the not particularly likable Nixon, it was dirty hippies.
Speaking of Occupy Wall Street, check out Matthew Continetti's new WEEKLY STANDARD piece on the movement's intellectual roots: "Anarchy in the U.S.A."
Gingrich to Occupy Wall Street: "Go Get a Job Right after You Take a Bath" | The Weekly Standard
Democratic Pollsters Urge Obama Not To Run!
Democratic Pollsters: Obama Should Abandon Run for Second Term
Michael Catalini | November 20, 2011
President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.
Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.
“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.
Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.
“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.
Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign.
This is not the first time Caddell and Schoen have made this argument. They wrote in November 2010 in The Washington Post that they “do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.”
Michael Catalini | November 20, 2011
President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.
Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.
“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.
Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.
“One year ago in these pages, we warned that if President Obama continued down his overly partisan road, the nation would be ‘guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it.’ The result has been exactly as we predicted: stalemate in Washington, fights over the debt ceiling, an inability to tackle the debt and deficit, and paralysis exacerbating market turmoil and economic decline,” they write.
Caddell and Schoen say they write as “patriots and Democrats” who are concerned for their country, and they do not expect to play a direct role in any possible Clinton campaign.
This is not the first time Caddell and Schoen have made this argument. They wrote in November 2010 in The Washington Post that they “do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed.”
Friday, November 18, 2011
Florida Democratic Senator In Trouble!
Republican Congressman Connie Mack changed his mind late last month about challenging longtime Democratic Senator Bill Nelson in 2012, and now he finds himself with a modest edge over the incumbent in the first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Florida’s U.S. Senate race.
The latest statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state shows Mack with 43% to Nelson’s 39%.
This Florida survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on November 17, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports.
The latest statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state shows Mack with 43% to Nelson’s 39%.
This Florida survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted on November 17, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports.
Obama: We've Lost Our Ambition
Just four years after campaigning around the country promising hope and change, President Obama is down on America. At a recent event, Obama said that "we've lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness" to do great things.
After three years of failed leadership, it's clear that the problem isn't the American people -- it's President Obama. Mitt Romney believes in America and the strength of its people.
How Congress Occupied Wall Street
Mark Twain famously wrote, "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Peter Schweizer's new book, "Throw Them All Out," reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory. (Full disclosure: Mr. Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign-policy adviser.)
Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.
The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening.
Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).
The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.
None of this surprises me. I've been fighting this type of corruption and cronyism my entire political career. For years Alaskans suspected that our lawmakers and state administrators were in the pockets of the big oil companies to the detriment of ordinary Alaskans. We knew we were being taken for a ride, but it took FBI wiretaps to finally capture lawmakers in the act of selling their votes. In the wake of politicos being carted off to prison, my administration enacted reforms based on transparency and accountability to prevent this from happening again.
We were successful because we had the righteous indignation of Alaskan citizens on our side. Our good ol' boy political class in Juneau was definitely not with us. Business was good for them, so why would they want to end "business as usual"?
The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they'll moan that they can't govern effectively without it. Perhaps they'll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of "We the people" to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.
I've learned from local, state and national political experience that the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert the public's attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.
What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.
We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren't really blind because they're managed by family members or friends.)
No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.
This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.
Ms. Palin, a former governor of Alaska, was the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008.
Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.
The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening.
Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).
The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.
None of this surprises me. I've been fighting this type of corruption and cronyism my entire political career. For years Alaskans suspected that our lawmakers and state administrators were in the pockets of the big oil companies to the detriment of ordinary Alaskans. We knew we were being taken for a ride, but it took FBI wiretaps to finally capture lawmakers in the act of selling their votes. In the wake of politicos being carted off to prison, my administration enacted reforms based on transparency and accountability to prevent this from happening again.
We were successful because we had the righteous indignation of Alaskan citizens on our side. Our good ol' boy political class in Juneau was definitely not with us. Business was good for them, so why would they want to end "business as usual"?
The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they'll moan that they can't govern effectively without it. Perhaps they'll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of "We the people" to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.
I've learned from local, state and national political experience that the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert the public's attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.
What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.
We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren't really blind because they're managed by family members or friends.)
No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.
This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.
Ms. Palin, a former governor of Alaska, was the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008.
Today's Conservative Quote: Occupy Wall Street
“Let me try this a little differently,”.... “Rather than going through the list of crimes that have been committed, the sex acts, the horrendous sanitary conditions and so forth, let me try it this way. Joe Biden likes to say that we all need to have skin in the game. What’s the skin in the game with these people? Let me put it like a normal human being would, not Joe Biden. What are these people contributing to society? Don’t we have a right to ask? As a matter of fact, don’t we have a right to demand? What are these pieces of crap contributing to society?”
Mark Levin, Conservative Talk Show Host
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/18/mark-levin-on-occupy-what-are-these-pieces-of-crap-contributing-to-society/#ixzz1e55jFBTk
Mark Levin, Conservative Talk Show Host
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/18/mark-levin-on-occupy-what-are-these-pieces-of-crap-contributing-to-society/#ixzz1e55jFBTk
GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits | The Weekly Standard
General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn't pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and stacked.
The fact that GE paid no taxes in 2010 was widely reported earlier this year, but the size of its tax return first came to light when House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan (R, Wisc.) made the case for corporate tax reform at a recent townhall meeting. "GE was able to utilize all of these various loopholes, all of these various deductions--it's legal," Ryan said. Nine billion dollars of GE's profits came overseas, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. tax law. GE wasn't taxed on $5 billion in U.S. profits because it utilized numerous deductions and tax credits, including tax breaks for investments in low-income housing, green energy, research and development, as well as depreciation of property.
Link to complete article:
GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits | The Weekly Standard
The fact that GE paid no taxes in 2010 was widely reported earlier this year, but the size of its tax return first came to light when House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan (R, Wisc.) made the case for corporate tax reform at a recent townhall meeting. "GE was able to utilize all of these various loopholes, all of these various deductions--it's legal," Ryan said. Nine billion dollars of GE's profits came overseas, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. tax law. GE wasn't taxed on $5 billion in U.S. profits because it utilized numerous deductions and tax credits, including tax breaks for investments in low-income housing, green energy, research and development, as well as depreciation of property.
Link to complete article:
GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits | The Weekly Standard
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Occupy Protesters Removed From Hopkins After Disrupting Karl Rove’s Speech « CBS Baltimore
BALTIMORE (WJZ)—The Occupy Wall Street movement causes chaos from Baltimore to the West Coast. In downtown Seattle, police use pepper spray to break up a rowdy protest, injuring an 84-year-old woman and a pregnant woman. It’s one of many violent confrontations around the country as protesters take over public parks and busy streets.
Mike Hellgren explains how some disrupted a high-profile speaking event at Johns Hopkins.
Minutes into his speech at Johns Hopkins University, Occupy movement protesters heckled Karl Rove.
And he fired back.
“If you don’t have the courage to stand here and then ask a question, you’re just showing your moral cowardice,” Rove said.
“Do not be so arrogant and presumptive to think that you’re the only person who has a First Amendment right that needs to be heard,” Rove continued. “Who gave you the right to occupy America? Nobody.”
Entire article:Occupy Protesters Removed From Hopkins After Disrupting Karl Rove’s Speech « CBS Baltimore
Mike Hellgren explains how some disrupted a high-profile speaking event at Johns Hopkins.
Minutes into his speech at Johns Hopkins University, Occupy movement protesters heckled Karl Rove.
And he fired back.
“If you don’t have the courage to stand here and then ask a question, you’re just showing your moral cowardice,” Rove said.
“Do not be so arrogant and presumptive to think that you’re the only person who has a First Amendment right that needs to be heard,” Rove continued. “Who gave you the right to occupy America? Nobody.”
Entire article:Occupy Protesters Removed From Hopkins After Disrupting Karl Rove’s Speech « CBS Baltimore
Rep. Stan Lee pre-files bill dealing with Federal program that targets illegal immigrants that have broken laws for the 2012 Kentucky Legislative Session
Rep. Stan Lee pre-files bill dealing with Federal program that targets illegal immigrants that have broken laws for the 2012 Kentucky Legislative Session
Legislation seeks to enroll all law enforcement agencies in Secure Communities program
FRANKFORT, Ky. (November 17, 2011) – Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington (45th District) announced today he is pre-filing legislation for the 2012 Legislative session that if passed would require all state, county and local law enforcement agencies to participate in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities Program, and would prohibit state and local government and agencies from prohibiting or restrict any person from participating in the Federal program.
“Our law enforcement agencies, from the Kentucky State Police to sheriff’s offices, airport security, and community police departments, to our jails and conservation officers with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, are on the front lines in protecting our Commonwealth from the threat of criminals who are also in this country illegally,” said Rep. Lee in filing the bill. “It is imperative that our police agencies are not prohibited from assisting Federal agents in identifying and arresting those illegal immigrants who pose a threat to our way of life.”
According to information from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website, the Secure Communities program Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE's priorities. It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement.
For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals who are booked into jails with the FBI to see if they have a criminal record. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to ICE to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors – as well as those who have repeatedly violated immigration laws.
Secure Communities imposes no new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement, and the federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.
Kentucky has already served as a successful test model for the Secure Communities program. In late 2010 the city of Lexington became the first in the nation to implement the program, which has allowed ICE to utilize fingerprints and other biometric information to identify and deport those illegal aliens who have a history of violent crimes. As of May 2011 the program helped identify and deport 41 illegal aliens, with one quarter of those identified also having a criminal record of committing crimes like theft and arson.
“Secure Communities has helped in ridding our city of dangerous criminals in our country illegally, and it is my belief that other communities across Kentucky could be made safer by joining this Federal program,” added Rep. Lee. “And in order for the Secure Communities program to reach the pinnacle of success, it is imperative that we allow our police agencies to do their job as part of the program.”
The bill is prefiled as BR 37 for the 2012 Regular Session.
Legislation seeks to enroll all law enforcement agencies in Secure Communities program
FRANKFORT, Ky. (November 17, 2011) – Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington (45th District) announced today he is pre-filing legislation for the 2012 Legislative session that if passed would require all state, county and local law enforcement agencies to participate in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities Program, and would prohibit state and local government and agencies from prohibiting or restrict any person from participating in the Federal program.
“Our law enforcement agencies, from the Kentucky State Police to sheriff’s offices, airport security, and community police departments, to our jails and conservation officers with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, are on the front lines in protecting our Commonwealth from the threat of criminals who are also in this country illegally,” said Rep. Lee in filing the bill. “It is imperative that our police agencies are not prohibited from assisting Federal agents in identifying and arresting those illegal immigrants who pose a threat to our way of life.”
According to information from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website, the Secure Communities program Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE's priorities. It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement.
For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals who are booked into jails with the FBI to see if they have a criminal record. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to ICE to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors – as well as those who have repeatedly violated immigration laws.
Secure Communities imposes no new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement, and the federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.
Kentucky has already served as a successful test model for the Secure Communities program. In late 2010 the city of Lexington became the first in the nation to implement the program, which has allowed ICE to utilize fingerprints and other biometric information to identify and deport those illegal aliens who have a history of violent crimes. As of May 2011 the program helped identify and deport 41 illegal aliens, with one quarter of those identified also having a criminal record of committing crimes like theft and arson.
“Secure Communities has helped in ridding our city of dangerous criminals in our country illegally, and it is my belief that other communities across Kentucky could be made safer by joining this Federal program,” added Rep. Lee. “And in order for the Secure Communities program to reach the pinnacle of success, it is imperative that we allow our police agencies to do their job as part of the program.”
The bill is prefiled as BR 37 for the 2012 Regular Session.
Scary: Obama Wins No Matter What?
No Matter What
By Dr. Walter Williams
Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.
The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012.
The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East ? He wins a second term.
America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barak Obama! The U.S. Government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily.
You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do.
And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us,
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that,
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope,
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide,
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics,
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,
8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist,
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly,
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.
-- Dr. Walter Williams
By Dr. Walter Williams
Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.
The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012.
The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East ? He wins a second term.
America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barak Obama! The U.S. Government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily.
You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do.
And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us,
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that,
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope,
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide,
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics,
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,
8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist,
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly,
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.
-- Dr. Walter Williams
Hundreds march towards Wall Street as massive protests begin, 50 arrested - NYPOST.com
Hundreds of protesters got into skirmishes with cops this morning after attempting to march on Wall Street as part of a massive citywide demonstration marking two months since the movement began.
The protest had begun peacefully, but quickly grew tense and escalated as cops made 50 arrests when a group of demonstrators tried to jump over some barricades.
Others were cuffed and hauled off after they sat on the ground in defiance.
After the arrests, most of the protesters retreated north of the Financial District.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters had gathered near Zuccotti Park at 7 a.m. and walked towards the New York Stock Exchange.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/roughly_people_demonstration_gathered_dqucDJs1oJYCdedLgh4rwL#ixzz1dyYNMrDZ
Link to entire article:
Hundreds march towards Wall Street as massive protests begin, 50 arrested - NYPOST.com
The protest had begun peacefully, but quickly grew tense and escalated as cops made 50 arrests when a group of demonstrators tried to jump over some barricades.
Others were cuffed and hauled off after they sat on the ground in defiance.
After the arrests, most of the protesters retreated north of the Financial District.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters had gathered near Zuccotti Park at 7 a.m. and walked towards the New York Stock Exchange.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/roughly_people_demonstration_gathered_dqucDJs1oJYCdedLgh4rwL#ixzz1dyYNMrDZ
Link to entire article:
Hundreds march towards Wall Street as massive protests begin, 50 arrested - NYPOST.com
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Today's Conservative Quote
"Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer."
Ludwig Von Mises
Ludwig Von Mises
Obama's Dark Vision of America: Politico
Barack Obama is trying a reelection model that posits a broken country, the author writes. |
By KEITH KOFFLER | 11/16/11 12:16 AM EST Updated: 11/16/11 3:05 PM EST
America, in the view of President Barack Obama, is not a happy place. It is a dark region where people cheat each other; corporations brutalize the public, and opportunity is out of reach.
Obama’s relentless reelection focus on America’s demons is a communications error that could haunt his bid for a second term.
Americans want to be told the truth. They don’t want their president to pretend that the economy is thriving.
But what they probably won’t abide is a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the nation that Obama, like some prophet preaching through Gomorrah, was sent to fix.
The last Democratic president to win reelection, Bill Clinton, mimicked Ronald Reagan’s feel-good “Morning in America” theme to coast to a second term.
But Obama is trying out a reelection model that posits a broken country which needs him to “finish the job” he started.
America, in Obama’s view, is an unfair place, where “our school system” is working “for just some children;” where immigrants live “in second-class status.”
The wealthiest — who do pay most of the federal income taxes — are unscrupulous cheats who would have their secretaries fork over a bigger percentage of their income to Uncle Sam than they do.
Corporations and their henchmen on Washington’s K Street have fixed the system so they can rip it off at will.
“Tell these members of Congress,” Obama instructed North Carolina high school students last month, in a pessimistic civics lesson, “that they don’t work for special interest, they don’t work for lobbyists. They work for you.”
Corrupt corporate interests are grabbing for themselves and lying to the public. “I did not run for office,” Obama said, “to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,”
As for insurers, Obama has charged that they used “deceptive and dishonest” methods to advertise their opposition to his health reform plan.
Together, the wealthy and corporations are assailing the middle class.
“The only class warfare I’ve seen,” Obama said in September, “is the battle that’s been waged against the middle class in this country for a decade.”
For too many, Obama suggests, the American Dream is dead or dying.
By KEITH KOFFLER | 11/16/11 12:16 AM EST Updated: 11/16/11 3:05 PM EST
America, in the view of President Barack Obama, is not a happy place. It is a dark region where people cheat each other; corporations brutalize the public, and opportunity is out of reach.
Obama’s relentless reelection focus on America’s demons is a communications error that could haunt his bid for a second term.
Americans want to be told the truth. They don’t want their president to pretend that the economy is thriving.
But what they probably won’t abide is a message that there is something fundamentally wrong with the nation that Obama, like some prophet preaching through Gomorrah, was sent to fix.
The last Democratic president to win reelection, Bill Clinton, mimicked Ronald Reagan’s feel-good “Morning in America” theme to coast to a second term.
But Obama is trying out a reelection model that posits a broken country which needs him to “finish the job” he started.
America, in Obama’s view, is an unfair place, where “our school system” is working “for just some children;” where immigrants live “in second-class status.”
The wealthiest — who do pay most of the federal income taxes — are unscrupulous cheats who would have their secretaries fork over a bigger percentage of their income to Uncle Sam than they do.
Corporations and their henchmen on Washington’s K Street have fixed the system so they can rip it off at will.
“Tell these members of Congress,” Obama instructed North Carolina high school students last month, in a pessimistic civics lesson, “that they don’t work for special interest, they don’t work for lobbyists. They work for you.”
Corrupt corporate interests are grabbing for themselves and lying to the public. “I did not run for office,” Obama said, “to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,”
As for insurers, Obama has charged that they used “deceptive and dishonest” methods to advertise their opposition to his health reform plan.
Together, the wealthy and corporations are assailing the middle class.
“The only class warfare I’ve seen,” Obama said in September, “is the battle that’s been waged against the middle class in this country for a decade.”
For too many, Obama suggests, the American Dream is dead or dying.
Fed Now Largest Owner of U.S. Govt Debt Surpassing China | CNSnews.com
Fed Now Largest Owner of U.S. Gov’t Debt—Surpassing China | CNSnews.com
The Federal Reserve said that as of Sept. 28, it owned $1.665 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. That was more than double the $812 billion in U.S. Treasury securities the Fed said it owned as of Sept. 29, 2010.
The Federal Reserve said that as of Sept. 28, it owned $1.665 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities. That was more than double the $812 billion in U.S. Treasury securities the Fed said it owned as of Sept. 29, 2010.
OWS Makes Dems Nostalgic For the Tea Party
November 16, 2011 11:06am
51 Comments
PPP: #Occupy makes voters nostalgic for Tea Party byDavid Freddoso Online Opinion Editor
Follow on Twitter:@freddoso
Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm that has been correct with most of its election surveys this year, has a new survey that indicates the Occupy movement is grating on people. Surprisingly, after two months of Occupiers defiling public spaces across America, voters are suddenly more fond of tea partiers than of occupiers. Even better, Tea Party favorables are up ten points from a month ago among independent voters.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.
Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.
51 Comments
PPP: #Occupy makes voters nostalgic for Tea Party byDavid Freddoso Online Opinion Editor
Follow on Twitter:@freddoso
Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm that has been correct with most of its election surveys this year, has a new survey that indicates the Occupy movement is grating on people. Surprisingly, after two months of Occupiers defiling public spaces across America, voters are suddenly more fond of tea partiers than of occupiers. Even better, Tea Party favorables are up ten points from a month ago among independent voters.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.
Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.
OWS Protesters Calling For 'Day Of Action' Following Loss Of Camp In Zuccotti Park « CBS New York
In a video posted on YouTube after protesters were evicted from Zuccotti Park, a demonstrator in the crowd says “On the 17th, we’re going to burn New York City to the ground.”
Later in the video, he then goes on to say “No more talking. They’ve got guns, we’ve got bottles. They’ve got bricks, we’ve got rocks…in a few days you’re going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macy’s.”
OWS Protesters Calling For 'Day Of Action' Following Loss Of Camp In Zuccotti Park « CBS New York
Later in the video, he then goes on to say “No more talking. They’ve got guns, we’ve got bottles. They’ve got bricks, we’ve got rocks…in a few days you’re going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macy’s.”
OWS Protesters Calling For 'Day Of Action' Following Loss Of Camp In Zuccotti Park « CBS New York
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Today's Quote
"America became the wealthiest country because for most of our history we have followed the basic principles of economic freedom: property rights, freedom to trade internationally, minimal governmental regulation of business, sound money, relatively low taxes, the rule of law, entrepreneurship, freedom to fail, and voluntary exchange."
John Mackey, co-founder and co-CEO of Whole Foods
John Mackey, co-founder and co-CEO of Whole Foods
Obama White House E-mailed Solyndra to Hold Off Layoffs Until After 2010 Elections; Will Media Report?
Obama White House E-mailed Solyndra to Hold Off Layoffs Until After 2010 Elections; Will Media Report?
"The Obama administration urged the now-bankrupt solar-energy firm Solyndra and its top investor to hold off announcing planned layoffs in 2010 until after the Nov. 2 elections, according to e-mails released by House Republicans on Tuesday," Amy Harder of National Journal reported this morning:
“They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3—oddly, they didn’t give us a reason for that date,” states an October 2010 e-mail exchange between advisers for Argonaut Private Equity, the top investor in Solyndra that was founded by George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who bundled campaign donations for presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008.
It remains to be seen if the network newscasts cover this development. We'll keep our eyes on it, but aren't holding our breaths.
"The Obama administration urged the now-bankrupt solar-energy firm Solyndra and its top investor to hold off announcing planned layoffs in 2010 until after the Nov. 2 elections, according to e-mails released by House Republicans on Tuesday," Amy Harder of National Journal reported this morning:
“They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3—oddly, they didn’t give us a reason for that date,” states an October 2010 e-mail exchange between advisers for Argonaut Private Equity, the top investor in Solyndra that was founded by George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who bundled campaign donations for presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008.
It remains to be seen if the network newscasts cover this development. We'll keep our eyes on it, but aren't holding our breaths.
Congress Net Worth $2.04 Billion: Best Government That Money Can Buy!
Did you know that Congress has exempted themselves from insider trading rules. Perhaps that is why the net worth of Congress is $2.04 Billion!
"But why were so many members of Congress so successful at investing in 2009 . . . the year after the financial meltdown . . . when the rest of America’s investors were losing their collective rear ends?
Could it be because members of Congress have access to ‘insider’ information on pending legislation that can mean swings of millions, if not billions of dollars to and from NYSE and NASDAQ listed corporations?"-Political Buzz Examiner
Can someone explain to me how Sen. Mitch McConnell can have a net worth in excess of $27 Million when he has been an elected official for more than 30 years?
Back in 2005, McConnell's net worth was somewhere between $1,645,032 and $4,278,999, ranking him the 38th richest Senators. After six years when the economy has flatlined, McConnell now has a net worth of $27 Million and he's now the 12th wealthiest Senator. Pretty good, for a guy who has evidently NEVER had a private sector job.
"But why were so many members of Congress so successful at investing in 2009 . . . the year after the financial meltdown . . . when the rest of America’s investors were losing their collective rear ends?
Could it be because members of Congress have access to ‘insider’ information on pending legislation that can mean swings of millions, if not billions of dollars to and from NYSE and NASDAQ listed corporations?"-Political Buzz Examiner
Can someone explain to me how Sen. Mitch McConnell can have a net worth in excess of $27 Million when he has been an elected official for more than 30 years?
Back in 2005, McConnell's net worth was somewhere between $1,645,032 and $4,278,999, ranking him the 38th richest Senators. After six years when the economy has flatlined, McConnell now has a net worth of $27 Million and he's now the 12th wealthiest Senator. Pretty good, for a guy who has evidently NEVER had a private sector job.
MILLER: Supercommittee a super dud - Washington Times
The congressional supercommittee was supposed to make all of the hard budgetary choices that representatives couldn’t be trusted to make on their own. As the final deadline looms, it’s looking like the end result will be the imposition of fake spending cuts and real tax hikes.
The debt-ceiling deal struck earlier this year gave this extraordinary panel until Nov. 23 to submit its decisions to the Congressional Budget Office and avoid triggering $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts - half from defense. The committee is supposed to find that amount in deficit reduction over 10 years in order to compensate for the next bump up in the debt ceiling.
A meeting of the minds isn’t likely because, even behind closed doors, Democrats refuse to address the real drivers of our debt: Medicare and Medicaid. Republican Medicare reform proposals include the Ryan plan and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici plan. The supercommittee gave both sides bipartisan cover to implement the necessary but politically difficult changes such as means testing and increasing the eligibility age.
Link to entire article:MILLER: Supercommittee a super dud - Washington Times
The debt-ceiling deal struck earlier this year gave this extraordinary panel until Nov. 23 to submit its decisions to the Congressional Budget Office and avoid triggering $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts - half from defense. The committee is supposed to find that amount in deficit reduction over 10 years in order to compensate for the next bump up in the debt ceiling.
A meeting of the minds isn’t likely because, even behind closed doors, Democrats refuse to address the real drivers of our debt: Medicare and Medicaid. Republican Medicare reform proposals include the Ryan plan and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici plan. The supercommittee gave both sides bipartisan cover to implement the necessary but politically difficult changes such as means testing and increasing the eligibility age.
Link to entire article:MILLER: Supercommittee a super dud - Washington Times
Mitt Romney Commercial
Will we re-elect a president who will continue with the status quo? A stagnant economy. High unemployment. Out of control spending. Or will we change the direction of our country? Will we renew the lease on four years of failed leadership or we will set a new course? Ask yourself, will you make a difference?
House Overview: What’s In Play?" from "The Rothenberg Political Report"
House Overview: What’s In Play?" from "The Rothenberg Political Report"
Aside from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (Calif.) prediction to ABC News back in early June that her party had “a very good chance of winning the House,” national Democrats have been cautious about predicting a takeover next November.
That’s the way it should be, of course, given that redistricting has yet to be completed and considering President Barack Obama’s job performance ratings.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.), for example, has talked only about “putting the House in play,” a far lower — and more reasonable — bar.
With redistricting maps either still not completed or pending legal review in some key states — including Texas, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — the playing field for the fight for the House may not be finalized for months.
The initial Texas map, which is now going to trial, gives three of the state’s four new districts to the GOP. The Republican-
dominated Florida Legislature has yet to produce a new map, a task made more complicated by a new state law that restricts GOP options.
Considerable redistricting-generated gains in just two states, Illinois and California, could give Democrats about 10 seats, possibly a few more. New lines in Arizona, Maryland, Nevada and Washington are likely to produce additional Democratic gains. Obama will run quite well in most of these states.
But redistricting already has or is likely to cost Democrats seats in Georgia (Rep. John Barrow), Michigan (Rep. Gary Peters), Missouri (Rep. Russ Carnahan), Massachusetts, North Carolina (Reps. Larry Kissell and Brad Miller and possibly Reps. Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre), and possibly Pennsylvania. Open seats in Arkansas (Rep. Mike Ross), Oklahoma (Rep. Dan Boren) and Indiana (Rep. Joe Donnelly) are also going to be very difficult for the party to hold.
Those Democratic losses, combined with new Republican districts created by GOP-controlled legislatures in Utah, Georgia and South Carolina, almost completely offset Democratic redistricting gains.
That means that to retake the House, Democrats must knock off as many as two dozen Republican incumbents who are seeking re-election. That’s possible, but it’s a big number, particularly without a huge partisan wave.
Last year, a stunning 54 incumbents were defeated (52 Democrats and two Republicans), and in the 1994 Republican wave, 34 House Democrats lost their bids for re-election. But in the 2006 Democratic wave, only 22 House Republicans were defeated, and two years later, in a smaller Democratic wave propelled by open-seat Democratic victories, another 14 House Republicans (and five Democrats) were defeated.
Large waves usually happen in presidential election years only when times are bad and when one party holds both the presidency and Congress. Under those conditions, it is easy for voters to assign blame completely to one party. The worse the public’s mood, the more unpopular the sitting president, and the larger the majority’s numbers in Congress, the bigger the potential turnover in the House.
While Republicans currently hold 242 seats — their largest number since the 80th Congress (1947-1949) — their risk is limited by redistricting, by Democratic control of the Senate and the White House and by the president’s poor standing in public opinion polls.
Obama’s job approval has been stuck in the low to mid-40s, and most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. That creates a difficult environment for Democratic Congressional candidates, who in many districts will need to separate themselves from the president while at the same time try to motivate core Democratic constituencies that are sticking by him.
Democratic strategists crow about their candidate recruiting and about opportunities in districts that Obama carried three years ago, and they certainly do have some strong recruits.
But the president isn’t likely to replicate his 2008 numbers, and in many states Republicans have solidified potentially vulnerable House Members, thus limiting the number of opportunities that Democrats will have.
Silly polls conducted by partisan pollsters for partisan groups notwithstanding, history suggests that the president’s party is more vulnerable during difficult economic times.
Of course, if the White House and Democratic campaign strategists can shift the focus of the election away from Obama and onto the Republican Party, it’s possible that House Democratic candidates could avoid some of the blame they now seem sure to get.
Based on district fundamentals and Democratic recruiting to date, the list of most vulnerable Republicans — apart from those already counted because they have been endangered by redistricting — includes Reps. Charles Bass and Frank Guinta in New Hampshire, Steve King in Iowa, Roscoe Bartlett in Maryland, David McKinley in West Virginia, Joe Heck in Nevada and Sean Duffy in Wisconsin.
Democrats hope to oust Republicans in Colorado (Reps. Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner), Minnesota (Rep. Chip Cravaack), Arkansas (Reps. Tim Griffin and Rick Crawford), Virginia (Rep. Scott Rigell) and Florida as well.
Of course, Republicans hope to offset any losses of their incumbents with defeats of a handful of Democratic incumbents. They cite Iowa’s Leonard Boswell, California’s John Garamendi and Lois Capps, Utah’s Jim Matheson and New York’s Bill Owens as examples.
Although the amount of 2012 political chatter makes it feel as if we are about to approach the home stretch of the campaign, we haven’t had a single primary or even entered the year of the election. It’s still 2011, if you hadn’t noticed.
No, that hasn’t stopped the spinners from spinning, but it should mean that most of us understand that the cycle’s political environment hasn’t fully formed and that events over the next 10 months will tell us a great deal about where the voters will place blame and who will represent the face of the GOP (i.e., the Republican nominee for president).
At this point, with redistricting still up in the air in key states, Democrats appear positioned to gain House seats, but not all that close to the 25 seats they would need to regain a majority in the House.
Democrats need some breaks in the final redistricting states, some additional recruits and almost certainly a shift in the national political environment to improve their chances of winning back the House. For as we have seen over the past three elections, even smart, well-funded candidates running quality campaigns can’t win in a tough political environment.
Aside from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (Calif.) prediction to ABC News back in early June that her party had “a very good chance of winning the House,” national Democrats have been cautious about predicting a takeover next November.
That’s the way it should be, of course, given that redistricting has yet to be completed and considering President Barack Obama’s job performance ratings.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.), for example, has talked only about “putting the House in play,” a far lower — and more reasonable — bar.
With redistricting maps either still not completed or pending legal review in some key states — including Texas, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — the playing field for the fight for the House may not be finalized for months.
The initial Texas map, which is now going to trial, gives three of the state’s four new districts to the GOP. The Republican-
dominated Florida Legislature has yet to produce a new map, a task made more complicated by a new state law that restricts GOP options.
Considerable redistricting-generated gains in just two states, Illinois and California, could give Democrats about 10 seats, possibly a few more. New lines in Arizona, Maryland, Nevada and Washington are likely to produce additional Democratic gains. Obama will run quite well in most of these states.
But redistricting already has or is likely to cost Democrats seats in Georgia (Rep. John Barrow), Michigan (Rep. Gary Peters), Missouri (Rep. Russ Carnahan), Massachusetts, North Carolina (Reps. Larry Kissell and Brad Miller and possibly Reps. Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre), and possibly Pennsylvania. Open seats in Arkansas (Rep. Mike Ross), Oklahoma (Rep. Dan Boren) and Indiana (Rep. Joe Donnelly) are also going to be very difficult for the party to hold.
Those Democratic losses, combined with new Republican districts created by GOP-controlled legislatures in Utah, Georgia and South Carolina, almost completely offset Democratic redistricting gains.
That means that to retake the House, Democrats must knock off as many as two dozen Republican incumbents who are seeking re-election. That’s possible, but it’s a big number, particularly without a huge partisan wave.
Last year, a stunning 54 incumbents were defeated (52 Democrats and two Republicans), and in the 1994 Republican wave, 34 House Democrats lost their bids for re-election. But in the 2006 Democratic wave, only 22 House Republicans were defeated, and two years later, in a smaller Democratic wave propelled by open-seat Democratic victories, another 14 House Republicans (and five Democrats) were defeated.
Large waves usually happen in presidential election years only when times are bad and when one party holds both the presidency and Congress. Under those conditions, it is easy for voters to assign blame completely to one party. The worse the public’s mood, the more unpopular the sitting president, and the larger the majority’s numbers in Congress, the bigger the potential turnover in the House.
While Republicans currently hold 242 seats — their largest number since the 80th Congress (1947-1949) — their risk is limited by redistricting, by Democratic control of the Senate and the White House and by the president’s poor standing in public opinion polls.
Obama’s job approval has been stuck in the low to mid-40s, and most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. That creates a difficult environment for Democratic Congressional candidates, who in many districts will need to separate themselves from the president while at the same time try to motivate core Democratic constituencies that are sticking by him.
Democratic strategists crow about their candidate recruiting and about opportunities in districts that Obama carried three years ago, and they certainly do have some strong recruits.
But the president isn’t likely to replicate his 2008 numbers, and in many states Republicans have solidified potentially vulnerable House Members, thus limiting the number of opportunities that Democrats will have.
Silly polls conducted by partisan pollsters for partisan groups notwithstanding, history suggests that the president’s party is more vulnerable during difficult economic times.
Of course, if the White House and Democratic campaign strategists can shift the focus of the election away from Obama and onto the Republican Party, it’s possible that House Democratic candidates could avoid some of the blame they now seem sure to get.
Based on district fundamentals and Democratic recruiting to date, the list of most vulnerable Republicans — apart from those already counted because they have been endangered by redistricting — includes Reps. Charles Bass and Frank Guinta in New Hampshire, Steve King in Iowa, Roscoe Bartlett in Maryland, David McKinley in West Virginia, Joe Heck in Nevada and Sean Duffy in Wisconsin.
Democrats hope to oust Republicans in Colorado (Reps. Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner), Minnesota (Rep. Chip Cravaack), Arkansas (Reps. Tim Griffin and Rick Crawford), Virginia (Rep. Scott Rigell) and Florida as well.
Of course, Republicans hope to offset any losses of their incumbents with defeats of a handful of Democratic incumbents. They cite Iowa’s Leonard Boswell, California’s John Garamendi and Lois Capps, Utah’s Jim Matheson and New York’s Bill Owens as examples.
Although the amount of 2012 political chatter makes it feel as if we are about to approach the home stretch of the campaign, we haven’t had a single primary or even entered the year of the election. It’s still 2011, if you hadn’t noticed.
No, that hasn’t stopped the spinners from spinning, but it should mean that most of us understand that the cycle’s political environment hasn’t fully formed and that events over the next 10 months will tell us a great deal about where the voters will place blame and who will represent the face of the GOP (i.e., the Republican nominee for president).
At this point, with redistricting still up in the air in key states, Democrats appear positioned to gain House seats, but not all that close to the 25 seats they would need to regain a majority in the House.
Democrats need some breaks in the final redistricting states, some additional recruits and almost certainly a shift in the national political environment to improve their chances of winning back the House. For as we have seen over the past three elections, even smart, well-funded candidates running quality campaigns can’t win in a tough political environment.
Monday, November 14, 2011
'Throw them all out' sounds like a good start | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner
'Throw them all out' sounds like a good start | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner
Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer is making huge waves this week with advance coverage of his book "Throw Them All Out" on "60 Minutes" and in a Newsweek piece by Peter Boyer. CBS and Newsweek focused on Schweizer's contention that because Congress exempts itself from laws it imposes on the rest of us, senators and representatives can engage in insider stock trading with impunity. Among the most outrageous examples, according to Schweizer, is that of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, with her millionaire husband, bought between $1 million and $5 million (members of Congress only have to report such investments in broad categories rather than nickels and dimes like the rest of us) in an initial public offering from Visa. The Pelosis paid $44 per share in the IPO.
According to Wynton Hall of BigGovernment.com (Schweizer is also an editor there), the Pelosis did rather handsomely on this investment because "two days later, the stock price rocketed to $65 per share, yielding a 50 percent profit. The Pelosis then bought Visa twice more. By their third purchase on June 4, 2008, Visa was worth $85 per share." In the "60 Minutes" segment, Pelosi snarkily dismisses reporter Steve Kroft's question about an apparent conflict of interest as if no sane person would ever even think of asking.
But the Visa IPO was not the first time the Pelosis have done well on IPOs in which government played important roles in determining the initial price of offerings. As Hall notes, Schweizer's research makes clear that the Pelosis "have participated in at least 10 lucrative IPOs throughout her career. In 1993, Pelosi purchased IPO shares in a high-tech company named Gupta, watched the stock price leap 88 percent in 24 hours, then seized the profits by selling the stock the next day. The Pelosis did the same thing with Netscape and UUNet, resulting in a one-day doubling of their initial investment. Other fast and lucrative IPO flips included Remedy Corporation, Opal, Legato Systems, and Act Networks."
The point here is not that Pelosi has profited immensely while serving in Congress -- and quite possibly as a result of knowledge and information she would not otherwise have had -- but rather that what she did apparently is entirely legal. Members of Congress are not covered by the same anti-insider trading laws that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has used for decades to jail legions of corrupt brokers, corporation officials and other investors. As Schweizer told Newsweek, "the only group in America that we exempt is politicians, who are probably the last people about whom we should be saying, 'Oh, we'll take their word for it.' That's what's so amazing to me."
It shouldn't be, because here's something else to think about: The same politicians who aren't covered by anti-insider trading laws also exempted themselves from the Freedom of Information Act. So the public has no access to the emails, correspondence, memos or other communications by or to individual congressmen. No wonder 70 percent of the American people support the term limits initiatives opposed by both parties in Congress.
Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer is making huge waves this week with advance coverage of his book "Throw Them All Out" on "60 Minutes" and in a Newsweek piece by Peter Boyer. CBS and Newsweek focused on Schweizer's contention that because Congress exempts itself from laws it imposes on the rest of us, senators and representatives can engage in insider stock trading with impunity. Among the most outrageous examples, according to Schweizer, is that of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who, with her millionaire husband, bought between $1 million and $5 million (members of Congress only have to report such investments in broad categories rather than nickels and dimes like the rest of us) in an initial public offering from Visa. The Pelosis paid $44 per share in the IPO.
According to Wynton Hall of BigGovernment.com (Schweizer is also an editor there), the Pelosis did rather handsomely on this investment because "two days later, the stock price rocketed to $65 per share, yielding a 50 percent profit. The Pelosis then bought Visa twice more. By their third purchase on June 4, 2008, Visa was worth $85 per share." In the "60 Minutes" segment, Pelosi snarkily dismisses reporter Steve Kroft's question about an apparent conflict of interest as if no sane person would ever even think of asking.
But the Visa IPO was not the first time the Pelosis have done well on IPOs in which government played important roles in determining the initial price of offerings. As Hall notes, Schweizer's research makes clear that the Pelosis "have participated in at least 10 lucrative IPOs throughout her career. In 1993, Pelosi purchased IPO shares in a high-tech company named Gupta, watched the stock price leap 88 percent in 24 hours, then seized the profits by selling the stock the next day. The Pelosis did the same thing with Netscape and UUNet, resulting in a one-day doubling of their initial investment. Other fast and lucrative IPO flips included Remedy Corporation, Opal, Legato Systems, and Act Networks."
The point here is not that Pelosi has profited immensely while serving in Congress -- and quite possibly as a result of knowledge and information she would not otherwise have had -- but rather that what she did apparently is entirely legal. Members of Congress are not covered by the same anti-insider trading laws that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has used for decades to jail legions of corrupt brokers, corporation officials and other investors. As Schweizer told Newsweek, "the only group in America that we exempt is politicians, who are probably the last people about whom we should be saying, 'Oh, we'll take their word for it.' That's what's so amazing to me."
It shouldn't be, because here's something else to think about: The same politicians who aren't covered by anti-insider trading laws also exempted themselves from the Freedom of Information Act. So the public has no access to the emails, correspondence, memos or other communications by or to individual congressmen. No wonder 70 percent of the American people support the term limits initiatives opposed by both parties in Congress.
Quote of the Day!
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given The Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, because America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." ~ Newt Gingrich
Obamacare Is Bigger than Roe v. Wade
Obamacare Is Bigger than Roe v. Wade
Posted by Ilya Shapiro
This morning, as expected, the Supreme Court agreed to take up Obamacare. What was unexpected — and unprecedented in modern times — is that it set aside five-and-a-half hours for the argument. Here are the issues the Court will decide:
Whether Congress has the power to enact the individual mandate. – 2 hours
Whether the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. – 1 hour
Whether and to what extent the individual mandate, if unconstitutional, is severable from the rest of the Act. – 90 minutes
Whether the new conditions on all federal Medicaid funding (expanding eligibility, greater coverage, etc.) constitute an unconstitutional coercion of the states. – 1 hour
In addition to the length of argument, which we can expect to be heard over multiple days in March or April, perhaps the biggest surprise is the Court’s decision to review that fourth issue. There is no circuit split here — in large part because 26 states are already in this one suit — and no judge has yet voted to uphold what also be described as a claim that the federal government is “commandeering” the states to do its bidding. The Court probably took the case precisely because so many states have brought it; that former solicitor general Paul Clement is their lawyer also doesn’t hurt. As a practical matter, this could be a bigger deal than the individual mandate because, while Congress had never before tried an economic mandate, it certainly does attach plenty of strings to the grants it gives states — and the spending power is thought to be even broader than the power to regulate commerce.
In any event, the Supreme Court has now set the stage for the most significant case since Roe v. Wade. Indeed, this litigation implicates the future of the Republic as Roe never did. On both the individual-mandate and Medicaid-coercion issues, the Court will decide whether the Constitution’s structure — federalism and enumeration of powers — is judicially enforceable or whether Congress is the sole judge of its own authority. In other words, do we have a government of laws or men?
Obamacare Is Bigger than <em>Roe v. Wade</em>
Posted by Ilya Shapiro
This morning, as expected, the Supreme Court agreed to take up Obamacare. What was unexpected — and unprecedented in modern times — is that it set aside five-and-a-half hours for the argument. Here are the issues the Court will decide:
Whether Congress has the power to enact the individual mandate. – 2 hours
Whether the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. – 1 hour
Whether and to what extent the individual mandate, if unconstitutional, is severable from the rest of the Act. – 90 minutes
Whether the new conditions on all federal Medicaid funding (expanding eligibility, greater coverage, etc.) constitute an unconstitutional coercion of the states. – 1 hour
In addition to the length of argument, which we can expect to be heard over multiple days in March or April, perhaps the biggest surprise is the Court’s decision to review that fourth issue. There is no circuit split here — in large part because 26 states are already in this one suit — and no judge has yet voted to uphold what also be described as a claim that the federal government is “commandeering” the states to do its bidding. The Court probably took the case precisely because so many states have brought it; that former solicitor general Paul Clement is their lawyer also doesn’t hurt. As a practical matter, this could be a bigger deal than the individual mandate because, while Congress had never before tried an economic mandate, it certainly does attach plenty of strings to the grants it gives states — and the spending power is thought to be even broader than the power to regulate commerce.
In any event, the Supreme Court has now set the stage for the most significant case since Roe v. Wade. Indeed, this litigation implicates the future of the Republic as Roe never did. On both the individual-mandate and Medicaid-coercion issues, the Court will decide whether the Constitution’s structure — federalism and enumeration of powers — is judicially enforceable or whether Congress is the sole judge of its own authority. In other words, do we have a government of laws or men?
Obamacare Is Bigger than <em>Roe v. Wade</em>
Newt On The Rise!
CNN Poll: Gingrich soars, Cain drops
Posted by
CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) – A new national survey of Republicans indicates that it's basically all tied up between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Gingrich on the rise and businessman Herman Cain falling due to the sexual harassment allegations he's been facing the past two weeks.
According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday, 24% of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say Romney is their most likely choice for their party's presidential nominee with Gingrich at 22%. Romney's two-point advantage is well within the survey's sampling error.
Posted by
CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) – A new national survey of Republicans indicates that it's basically all tied up between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Gingrich on the rise and businessman Herman Cain falling due to the sexual harassment allegations he's been facing the past two weeks.
According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday, 24% of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say Romney is their most likely choice for their party's presidential nominee with Gingrich at 22%. Romney's two-point advantage is well within the survey's sampling error.
Surprise! Iran Has Nukes!
If ever there was a time when "see, I told you so" was warranted, it is now as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports this week that Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon.
That so many in the State Department over several administrations could deceive themselves into believing claims by the Iranians that their intentions are nothing but peaceful and their sole objective is to develop more sources of electricity for their country reminds me of the Munich Agreement of 1938. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler, thought they had an agreement concerning Czechoslovakia, shook hands on it, and then watched stupefied as Hitler boldly seized the country, en route to Poland, plunging Europe into greater turmoil.
Link to Entire Article
Cal Thomas
That so many in the State Department over several administrations could deceive themselves into believing claims by the Iranians that their intentions are nothing but peaceful and their sole objective is to develop more sources of electricity for their country reminds me of the Munich Agreement of 1938. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler, thought they had an agreement concerning Czechoslovakia, shook hands on it, and then watched stupefied as Hitler boldly seized the country, en route to Poland, plunging Europe into greater turmoil.
Link to Entire Article
Cal Thomas
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Today's Conservative Quote
No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.
Walter Williams
Walter Williams
Bring the supercommittee out from behind closed doors | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner
Bring the supercommittee out from behind closed doors | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner
When Senate and House negotiators crafted their deal to create the so-called "supercommittee" on federal spending reduction, they forgot that one of the key reasons for Congress' abysmal public approval ratings is the lack of transparency in the legislative process. It was especially disappointing that House Republican leaders went along with the supercommittee deal's provision that its meetings would be held in secrecy, and that its product would be rushed directly to the floor of the Senate and House for an up-or-down vote, with no amendments allowed.
They agreed to this anti-democratic deal despite the promise of House Speaker John Boehner at the outset of the current Congress that "the days of quickly ramming massive bills through Congress -- such as the 'stimulus' that didn't work and the job-killing national energy tax -- are over. Under the new rules, the House will post all bills online at least three calendar days before a vote, giving lawmakers, the public and the media a chance to read each proposal and understand its impact." House Republicans have adhered to the new rule for the most part, but not when it came time to cut the supercommittee deal.
As a result, the American people have since been forced to rely upon leaked reports from various members of the dozen supercommittee members, or their staffs, for incomplete information on the panel's deliberations. The panel's deadline of Nov. 23 for completing its deliberations is fast approaching, and it's time for congressional leaders to bring this process out from behind the closed doors and into the light of day. That is the only way the public will know before the final vote who faces higher taxes; which government programs, if any, face genuine long-term spending reductions or outright elimination; and, most important, who among the special interests that have been spending millions lobbying the dozen members will benefit from the provisions of the final agreement.
As the Sunlight Foundation said in a recent memo on the issue, "it doesn't have to be this way. Super Committee members still have the opportunity to redeem some measure of integrity by letting the public in on their legislation by posting their final recommendations online 72 hours before their vote. There is even a bill -- the Deficit Committee Transparency Act (HR 2860) -- that would require that. But, as of yet, members of Congress have shown little appetite for mandating Super Committee transparency."
There is always the temptation to appoint a select group of "experts," give them extraordinary powers, and shield them from public pressure in the hope they will objectively produce a reasonable solution to a vexing problem. That temptation should always be resisted, particularly in a democratic republic. There is still time for Congress to do the right thing on the supercommittee's transparency.
When Senate and House negotiators crafted their deal to create the so-called "supercommittee" on federal spending reduction, they forgot that one of the key reasons for Congress' abysmal public approval ratings is the lack of transparency in the legislative process. It was especially disappointing that House Republican leaders went along with the supercommittee deal's provision that its meetings would be held in secrecy, and that its product would be rushed directly to the floor of the Senate and House for an up-or-down vote, with no amendments allowed.
They agreed to this anti-democratic deal despite the promise of House Speaker John Boehner at the outset of the current Congress that "the days of quickly ramming massive bills through Congress -- such as the 'stimulus' that didn't work and the job-killing national energy tax -- are over. Under the new rules, the House will post all bills online at least three calendar days before a vote, giving lawmakers, the public and the media a chance to read each proposal and understand its impact." House Republicans have adhered to the new rule for the most part, but not when it came time to cut the supercommittee deal.
As a result, the American people have since been forced to rely upon leaked reports from various members of the dozen supercommittee members, or their staffs, for incomplete information on the panel's deliberations. The panel's deadline of Nov. 23 for completing its deliberations is fast approaching, and it's time for congressional leaders to bring this process out from behind the closed doors and into the light of day. That is the only way the public will know before the final vote who faces higher taxes; which government programs, if any, face genuine long-term spending reductions or outright elimination; and, most important, who among the special interests that have been spending millions lobbying the dozen members will benefit from the provisions of the final agreement.
As the Sunlight Foundation said in a recent memo on the issue, "it doesn't have to be this way. Super Committee members still have the opportunity to redeem some measure of integrity by letting the public in on their legislation by posting their final recommendations online 72 hours before their vote. There is even a bill -- the Deficit Committee Transparency Act (HR 2860) -- that would require that. But, as of yet, members of Congress have shown little appetite for mandating Super Committee transparency."
There is always the temptation to appoint a select group of "experts," give them extraordinary powers, and shield them from public pressure in the hope they will objectively produce a reasonable solution to a vexing problem. That temptation should always be resisted, particularly in a democratic republic. There is still time for Congress to do the right thing on the supercommittee's transparency.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Today's Quote: General George S. Patton
"God of our fathers, who by land and sea have ever lead us to victory, please continue your inspiring guidance in this the greatest of all conflicts. Strengthen my soul so that the weakening instinct of self-preservation, which besets all of us in battle, shall not blind me to my duty to my own manhood, to the glory of my calling, and to my responsibility to my fellow soldiers. Grant to our armed forces that disciplined valor and mutual confidence which insures success in war. Let me not mourn for the men who have died fighting, but rather let me be glad that such heroes have lived. If it be my lot to die, let me do so with courage and honor in a manner which will bring the greatest harm to the enemy, and please, oh Lord, protect and guide those I shall leave behind. Give us the victory, Lord."
-General George S. Patton
-General George S. Patton
Gingrich Mixes Populism & Policy Wonk
Gingrich Mixes Populism & Policy Wonk
A successful presidential candidate taps into the public mood. Newt Gingrich must be hoping the public is bristling with irritation and high dudgeon.
The old saw is that the most dangerous place to be is between Chuck Schumer and a camera. The second most dangerous place to be is sitting across from Newt Gingrich on a stage asking him a question during a Republican debate. There is no surer way to get shot down as superficial, ill-informed, and divisive than to pose a query to the former speaker of the House.
At the CNBC debate on the economy, Gingrich eyed Maria Bartiromo the way Franklin Roosevelt might have looked at Admiral Yamamoto had the Japanese commander been selected to moderate a foreign-policy debate shortly after Pearl Harbor. A lawyer argues the law when he doesn’t have the facts on his side, and vice versa; Gingrich litigates the debate question even when he has a perfectly suitable answer.
His exchange with Bartiromo on health care was utterly characteristic. She asked all the candidates for a 30-second summary of how they would replace Obamacare. A couple of them did, and when she got to Gingrich he objected to the “absurd question,” complaining that no one could meaningfully discuss health care in 30 seconds. The two of them bickered unpleasantly about the appropriateness of the question for more than a minute — before Newt gave in and delivered a crisp response hitting on the highlights of his thoughts on health care.
A successful presidential candidate taps into the public mood. Newt Gingrich must be hoping the public is bristling with irritation and high dudgeon.
The old saw is that the most dangerous place to be is between Chuck Schumer and a camera. The second most dangerous place to be is sitting across from Newt Gingrich on a stage asking him a question during a Republican debate. There is no surer way to get shot down as superficial, ill-informed, and divisive than to pose a query to the former speaker of the House.
At the CNBC debate on the economy, Gingrich eyed Maria Bartiromo the way Franklin Roosevelt might have looked at Admiral Yamamoto had the Japanese commander been selected to moderate a foreign-policy debate shortly after Pearl Harbor. A lawyer argues the law when he doesn’t have the facts on his side, and vice versa; Gingrich litigates the debate question even when he has a perfectly suitable answer.
His exchange with Bartiromo on health care was utterly characteristic. She asked all the candidates for a 30-second summary of how they would replace Obamacare. A couple of them did, and when she got to Gingrich he objected to the “absurd question,” complaining that no one could meaningfully discuss health care in 30 seconds. The two of them bickered unpleasantly about the appropriateness of the question for more than a minute — before Newt gave in and delivered a crisp response hitting on the highlights of his thoughts on health care.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Morning Jay: Can Obama Win By Attacking the GOP? | The Weekly Standard
The conventional wisdom about Barack Obama’s path to reelection is that, though the president is unpopular, he will run a strongly negative campaign against the GOP nominee – tarring him as a radical or (in the case of Mitt Romney) an unprincipled flip-flopper. Thus, voters who might not be happy with him will nevertheless support his reelection because it’s better to back the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.
The template for this is supposedly the George W. Bush 2004 campaign, which is ironic because Democrats howled in protest over the allegedly extreme negativity of that contest. Regardless, Obama hopes to do what Bush did to John Kerry: attack him so relentlessly that people can’t support him.
What to make of this approach? Put simply: It is a weak political strategy with little historical evidence to validate it.
Link to article:Morning Jay: Can Obama Win By Attacking the GOP? | The Weekly Standard
The template for this is supposedly the George W. Bush 2004 campaign, which is ironic because Democrats howled in protest over the allegedly extreme negativity of that contest. Regardless, Obama hopes to do what Bush did to John Kerry: attack him so relentlessly that people can’t support him.
What to make of this approach? Put simply: It is a weak political strategy with little historical evidence to validate it.
Link to article:Morning Jay: Can Obama Win By Attacking the GOP? | The Weekly Standard
Today's Quote
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."-George Orwell
God bless all of those men and women who have served our great nation since 1776!
Panetta Plays Last Card, Warns Defense Cuts Could Lead to Attack on the U.S. - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been steadily escalating his warnings about the impact of the deep cuts facing the Pentagon if the congressional super committee fails to reach a deal. On Thursday, he played the last – and strongest -- card in his deck, arguing that the hundreds of billions of dollars of mandatory cuts would directly imperil U.S. national security.
The Defense chief has spent weeks publicly urging the 12 lawmakers on the panel to reach a deficit-reduction deal. On Tuesday, he departed from his prepared remarks during a speech to top National Guard officials and colorfully called on Congress to reach an agreement.
Lawmakers, Panetta said, needed to understand that U.S. troops “are willing to put their lives on the line to sacrifice for this country; you sure as hell can sacrifice to provide a little leadership to get the solution we need in order to solve this problem.”
He went even further on Thursday, using arguably the strongest rhetorical weapon in his arsenal. Mandatory defense cuts, he warned, would weaken the armed forces to the point that enemies would be emboldened to attack the U.S.
“In effect, it invites aggression," Panetta said during the new conference, just his second since taking office in July.
Link to entire article:Panetta Plays Last Card, Warns Defense Cuts Could Lead to Attack on the U.S. - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com
The Defense chief has spent weeks publicly urging the 12 lawmakers on the panel to reach a deficit-reduction deal. On Tuesday, he departed from his prepared remarks during a speech to top National Guard officials and colorfully called on Congress to reach an agreement.
Lawmakers, Panetta said, needed to understand that U.S. troops “are willing to put their lives on the line to sacrifice for this country; you sure as hell can sacrifice to provide a little leadership to get the solution we need in order to solve this problem.”
He went even further on Thursday, using arguably the strongest rhetorical weapon in his arsenal. Mandatory defense cuts, he warned, would weaken the armed forces to the point that enemies would be emboldened to attack the U.S.
“In effect, it invites aggression," Panetta said during the new conference, just his second since taking office in July.
Link to entire article:Panetta Plays Last Card, Warns Defense Cuts Could Lead to Attack on the U.S. - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com