Sunday, June 3, 2012
Obama's Failed Solyndra Investment
The Republican National Committee has a new ad out which highlights the president's failed decisions on his 'green energy' favorite Solyndra. We thought we'd share.
Give Bob Kerrey a Housewarming Party
Bobby's going to have a lot of things to do over the next five months as he tries to convince Nebraskans why his liberal views better represent them than his 'other home state' of New York, and with a wife and child living 'back home' in New York where they will continue to reside should he be elected, it seems to us that folks really need to get together and get this guy some furniture. We can't let him sleep on the floor.
So we want to know who will step up and donate, or at least take some of Kerrey's $3 million or so in severance and salaries from the New School, and get him some furniture and decorate his house??? We think it would be clever if the Republicans brought some of their remnants by and, of course, it seems to us that the State Democrat Party or the Douglas County Democrat Party should step up to the task as well.
And, of course, if the house is well decorated it will sell a lot easier after Kerrey's November loss when he heads back to his real home in New York City.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Baloney 2 and Obama-Claire
Montana and Missouri are two of the states Republicans will need to win to help take the majority in the U.S. Senate after Deb Fischer kicks Bob Kerrey's butt this November. While there are some good ads running locally, we thought we'd share a couple Republican ads running in those states by either the candidate, or Crossroads GPS.
Enjoy. We're sure the opponents aren't.
P.S. $516,000 is being spent running this ad in Missouri.
Looking to a Potential Electoral Vote Mess?
Are We Headed for Another Electoral Mess?" from "The Rothenberg Political Report"
"The 2012 presidential election looks like it could well be another squeaker, and if it is, a number of possible outcomes could produce national hand-wringing, finger-pointing, complaints of unfairness and anger, further dividing Americans and undermining confidence in our political system.
A dozen years ago, Democrat Al Gore drew 540,000 votes more than Republican George W. Bush but lost the presidency when Bush carried Florida and won 271 electoral votes.
There is no reason that couldn’t happen again, with President Barack Obama winning a narrow popular vote victory and losing in the Electoral College. Most of the same states are in play as were in 2000, and any close popular vote outcome raises the possibility of a split decision, especially because Obama is likely to “waste” large numbers of votes in carrying a handful of populous states.
In 2000, six states delivered a plurality of at least 500,000 votes to one of the major party nominees. Five of those states — New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois and New Jersey — went for Gore, while only one, Texas, went for Bush. Bush carried 30 states that year, while Gore won 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Eight years later, in a relative blowout, 10 states delivered pluralities of at least 500,000 votes for one of the nominees. Obama won nine of those states (the five above plus Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington), while Texas gave Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) a huge win. McCain won only 22 states that year to Obama’s 28 (plus D.C.), though the Democrat also won one of Nebraska’s electoral votes by carrying the state’s 2nd district.
Even assuming that Obama’s large 9.5 million vote majority will be erased almost completely this time, he is still likely to “over perform” in the most populous states, again “wasting” votes in his quest to 270 electoral votes.
If you start to feel dread at the thought of the fallout from the unlikely popular vote/electoral vote scenario, here is another unlikely scenario that would boost cable viewing but further tear apart the country: Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney tie at 269 delegates, throwing the contest to the House.
Bush’s 271-267 victory in 2000 (in fact, Gore drew 266 electoral votes because one D.C. elector abstained) would translate into a 285-253 advantage for Bush after the latest round of reapportionment following the 2010 census. Given that, Obama would need to hold all of Gore’s states and win an additional 16 electoral votes to get to 269 and an Electoral College tie.
For Democrats, an electoral vote deadlock would be a problem because Republicans currently have a majority in 33 state U.S. House delegations while Democrats have a majority in only 17 (counting D.C.). One delegation (Minnesota) is now tied.
While those numbers will change after November’s elections, the GOP is likely to have a majority in at least 26 state U.S. House delegations and quite possibly many more in the next Congress. An Electoral College tie therefore would almost certainly result in a Romney victory.
If either of these scenarios comes to pass in November, the country is headed for a very difficult period. But even a razor-thin victory in 2012 is guaranteed to produce conspiracy theories, anecdotes of voters turned away at the polls or ineligible people voting and charges of irregularities. Mistakes still happen.
University of California-Irvine School of Law professor Richard Hasen believes that voting technology has improved substantially since the 2000 elections, when hanging chads and confusing ballots caused complaints about votes not being counted and resulted in an election decided by the Supreme Court.
But if the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and other remedies have improved the likelihood that votes will be counted accurately, our electoral process is still filled with flaws, says Hasen, whose new book, “The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown,” will be published by Yale University Press in August.
Partisan election officials still run our elections, and levels of competence vary from state to state and polling place to polling place, says Hasen, who points to an April 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court race where more than 14,000 votes in Waukesha County initially weren’t added to the state vote totals. When, following a canvass, the votes were counted, the initial outcome of the election was reversed.
“The next [election] meltdown will be much worse [than in 2000],” predicts Hasen, citing the presence of social media.
Hasen argues that instead of opening avenues of communication and trust between people, social media — particularly Twitter — has made people more partisan and less tolerant. Communication is shorter and meaner. And social media makes it easier for people who are angry or suspicious to generate an uproar and organize protests that will challenge the legitimacy of the election outcome.
For those of us who are already tired of partisanship and screaming, a clear win by either Obama or Romney certainly is preferable to any sort of messy outcome. But it’s wise to prepare for the worst."
Hoping Nancy Sebring Has a Better Start in Omaha than her Finish in Des Moines
We wondered why the Omaha Public School Super-intendent select Nancy Sebring was leaving her Des Moines school district abruptly when it was announced last month. Now we know that she didn't resign early in order to take care of personal matters but because she got caught sending sexually explicit e-mails from her school district computer. Whether they were to her husband or someone else doesn't seem to be known yet, but what is for sure is that someone taking on a position similar to hers or holding one similar to the one she held should have better judgement than she displayed.There is something called professionalism and one would think that someone who warrants an income of $250,000 a year would have more professionalism than Sebring has displayed.
One can only hope that this inauspicious end to her one employment isn't a portent of things to come in her new one. Very disappointing!
Friday, June 1, 2012
Polls: It Won't Be Over Until The Fat Lady Sings
Barring any major developments, we may not know until late on November 6th or early on November 7th who will lead (or destroy) our nation over the next four years. So, we thought' we'd share Sabato's take on the polls.
| PRESIDENTIAL POLLING IN JUNE: FLIP A COIN INSTEAD? | |
|---|---|
| By Larry J. Sabato Director, U.Va. Center for Politics |
h all of the polls, models and history at their disposal, political analysts should be able to figure out who is going to win a November presidential election by June, right?
Well, not quite. While we would modestly suggest to Socrates and our readers that we know more than nothing about the election, declaring the winner with certainty at this point is a fool's errand, particularly when the current data argue only that the contest will be a close one. In the RealClearPolitics average of national horse race polls as of Wednesday, President Obama was narrowly ahead of Mitt Romney by 2.0 percentage points. Meanwhile, in last week's Crystal Ball, Alan Abramowitz showed how his respected presidential election model forecasts a very tight race at this point, with Obama as a slight favorite.
But surely, this year is an outlier, many would assert. Because of the unique circumstances surrounding this election, including the great economic dislocation caused by the 2008 crash and the restless mood of Americans even after three straight wave elections, it's understandable that this contest would remain hazy late into the spring.
That's true. But uncertainty in June is not unique, at least not in modern history.
If anyone doubts that a reassessment -- maybe several of them -- will come as 2012 wears on, consider this: Over the past eight elections, Gallup -- the most recognizable of polling organizations -- has only identified the eventual popular vote winner twice in its early June horse race polling:
- In June 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 39% to 32%, with independent John Anderson at 21%. In November, Reagan defeated Carter, 51% to 41%, with Anderson getting less than 7%. Remember that this race appeared close until the very end, with some polling even indicating that Carter might actually win just a few days before the election. But Reagan proved his mettle in a late debate, and Carter's attempt to negotiate freedom for the American hostages in Iran failed. Those late developments helped turn a close election into a blowout. Note, also, Anderson's strong early performance in polls: Third party candidates sometimes appear formidable in early surveys and then fade away as the election gets closer, victims of the voters' desire not to "waste" their ballots.
- The polling was fairly stable in 1984. In June, Reagan already led Walter Mondale by 53% to 44%. The incumbent won 59% in the fall. Such early polling, and Reagan's strength, prompted Mondale to throw a Hail Mary by selecting Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. Like most Hail Marys, the pass was incomplete.
- By 1988, the June polling was far more misleading: Michael Dukakis was ahead of George H.W. Bush by a landslide, 52% to 38%. Bush ended up winning more than 53% in November.
- The June 1992 polling projected the nation's first independent president, Ross Perot. At 39%, Perot easily topped Bush (31%) and Bill Clinton at 25%. Less than five months later, the order was reversed: Clinton won with 43%, Bush (37%) was ousted and Perot finished last with 19%, failing to win a single electoral vote. However, Perot maintained his support to a greater degree than most independent candidates do down the stretch.
- Gallup's June 1996 survey got Clinton's reelection percentage right on the nose (49%), but Bob Dole, at 33%, was well below his eventual 41% and Perot had 17% in June but finished with about 8% in November. Like 1984, Clinton's reelection bid lacked drama.
- The squeaker of 2000 was close even in June, but Gallup had George W. Bush up over Al Gore, 46% to 41%. Come November, Gore won the popular vote by half a percentage point, though of course he lost the Electoral College vote.
- Gallup had John Kerry well on his way to avenging Gore's loss in June 2004. Kerry led Bush outside the margin of error at 49% to 43%. Instead, Bush grabbed his second term with 51% in November.
- It's rarely recalled, but John McCain actually led Barack Obama by a whisker in Gallup's daily tracking at the beginning of June 2008, 46% to 45%. It wasn't close in the fall, with Obama winning 53%.
This is not meant to cast aspersions on Gallup; rather, it's to say that presidential races are not static, and that polling conducted five months before the election is only a snapshot in time, as opposed to a reliable prediction as to how the race will eventually shake out. As of Wednesday, Obama and Romney were tied, 46%-46%, in the Gallup poll. Obviously, this is a matchup that could go either way.
Almost everything can change, and frequently does, during the course of the summer and fall in a presidential race. The economy can get decidedly better or worse. International crises can pop up -- or peace can break out. Unexpected scandals can engulf one or both major party candidates. One or more independents or third-party candidates may prove influential in the presidential tally.
Politics, as we've insisted for years, is a good thing. And a fun thing, too, for people who do not treat American elections as a life or death affair. There will be many spectacles between now and Nov. 6, and plenty of unexpected developments in this semi-scripted human drama. But while we know the road to the finish line will be fascinating, let's also grant that it will be somewhat unpredictable.
For those of you who can't wait, just join the partisans on both sides who absolutely, positively know their side will win -- in a landslide! One side will be right, more or less, and after the election, the winners will lord their perceptiveness over friends, family and the opposition.
And if your partisanship isn't intense enough for this route, there's always that coin in your pocket. With the prospect of a tight presidential race, a good flip may tell you as much as June polls.
Bloomberg's 16 Ounce Drinks: Government Will Control Your Life Because You Aren't Capable of Making Decisions
Every day, we see more and more of this vision affecting our lives. Restaurants are told what they can serve children, calorie counts which are ignored are posted next to the prices of the food on your menus. The government knows what you can and should eat, how you should live.
And now in what surely will spread like some epidemic across our country New York City's Mayor Bloomberg thinks he can legislate people's state in his nanny state environment by limiting the size of sugary drinks people by limiting restaurants, ball parks, etc., to selling drinks in sizes not to exceed 16 ounces.
Let's face it, YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING DECISIONS FOR YOUR SELF. YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN LIFE.
Forget that you might just go buy and drink two 16 ounce sugary drinks, or more. Forget that you might still order that 1080 calorie extra value meal despite the calorie count next to price. Government will deal with that later. Maybe government will issue 'ration' stamps or ration e-cards, that will be required to buy any of these horrible bad-for-you products.
What should strike everyone in this country at some point is that government and those folks you elect truly believe it is right for them to control your behavior. The simple premise is that you are not capable of making the least of decisions in your life for yourself let alone the major ones.
What should further and more importantly strike everyone is that if government can make decisions as to whether you can order a happy meal for your kid, or a 32 ounce latteyour life. , it can virtually decide everything that you do in
Bloomberg and his ilk believe that government should control virtually all aspect of your life and decision making. If we don't stop this mentality, we will behave exactly as we portrayed in our first paragraph.
For those of you who want a little more on this, check out the below DNAinfo:
Starbucks Frappuccino Under Attack in Mayor's Sugary-Drink Crackdown Updated 5 hrs ago
ASTOR PLACE — The city's proposed ban on jumbo-sized sugary sodas could put the freeze on many a New Yorker's morning fix — a large Starbucks Frappuccino.
Caffeine-addicted New Yorkers were steaming mad Thursday over Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to ban sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces, including large Cokes at Yankee Stadium.But what made some people's cups run over was the threat placed on another hometown favorite — Starbucks' sugary treat.
Bloomberg's plan wouldn't cover large beverages that contain more than 51 percent milk, because dairy is considered to have redeeming nutritional value. While several administration officials said they believed Frappuccinos would likely be spared because the coffee concoctions hit the dairy quota, Starbucks employees disagreed.
“There’s very, very little [milk in them],” said one barista at Astor Place. “Definitely not half,” she said, pointing to a marker about a half-inch up the cup.
The news had many Frappuccino fans fuming.
“I think that's horrible,” said Eileen Ko, a 20-year-old student from Queens, as she was walking around Astor Place.
"Frappuccinos are what makes the summer the summer. Without them, life would suck."
“I think he’s just gone way overboard with the whole cutting out the sugar thing,” agreed Mildred Payne, another Frappuccino devotee, between sips of her mocha cookie crumble frap.
“I do understand that we have an obesity problem, but there comes a time when the government simply should stand aside and let us do what we have to do," she said. “Stepping in and telling us what to drink, large drink, whatever is just not right.”
The Frappuccino, whose trademarked name was invented by Starbucks, is a blend of ice, milk and flavorings such as toffee nut syrup, usually topped with whipped cream. The most popular version, the caramel Frappuccino, packs 64 grams of sugar — the equivalent of almost three Hersey bars.
The move is intended to curb the rising tide of obesity, which Health Commissioner Thomas Farley said is closely linked to the consumption of empty calories in sodas and other drinks.
“We think it’s an especially important target in obesity reduction," he said.
The proposed soda rules are fraught with apparent contradictions. Big Gulp sodas and super-sized Slurpees at convenience stores like 7-Eleven that can pack upwards of 700 calories each are okay, while a large, sweetened Starbucks tea, at 200 calories (with non-fat milk), is not.
The same 20-ounce bottle of Coke would be allowed for sale in a bodega or a grocery store with a deli section, but would be banned from sale inside a city-defined deli, even on similar grocery shelves in the back.
That’s because the city would need Albany’s permission to ban products in grocery stores, which are regulated by the state. Rules governing the city's restaurants, delis and concession stands can be changed by the Board of Health.
Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said that, while he expects criticism, especially from the beverage industry, he expects people to eventually embrace the regulations, just like the ban on smoking in city restaurants and bars.
“I think people will come to see this as very much in the interest of public health,” he said, adding that he also expects the idea to start a nationwide trend, which could trigger an industry-wide change in package sizing.
“I suspect that in five years, or 10 years, you’re going to have people going up to this mayor of the city and saying, ‘Thank you for doing that. This is what helped me lose weight and save my life,'” he said.
“I suspect that in five years, or 10 years, you’re going to have people going up to this mayor of the city and saying, ‘Thank you for doing that. This is what helped me lose weight and save my life,'” he said.
Starbucks did not immediately respond to requests for clarification about which menu items would be banned, but said the company has “developed an extensive portfolio of products” that includes beverages without sugar and sugar-free syrups.
“As Starbucks offers more than 170,000 ways to customize your beverage, we believe many of our beverages would fall outside of the proposed ban,” a Starbucks company spokeswoman said.
The Bloomberg administration does not intend to consult the City Council, which Wolfson was quick to point out had been critical of the city’s restaurant letter grading system before later embracing the plan.
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is widely seen as an ally of the mayor, said she was concerned by the idea.
“It seems punitive and I worry that in the end, this proposal won't yield a positive result,” she said, stressing that, when it comes to fighting obesity, knowledge and healthy available options were key.
“Limiting people's choices is not about knowledge, empowerment or access,” she said.
The plan is also drawing fire from companies that would be forced to retool menus and shuffle stock.
“Public health issues cannot be effectively addressed through a narrowly-focused and misguided ban. This is a complex topic, and one that requires a more collaborative and comprehensive approach,” McDonald’s said in a statement, noting that the company offers numerous low-calorie menu items.
“We trust our customers to make the choices that are best for them,” the said.
The New York City Beverage Association also railed against what it called an “unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks.” “These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front,” they said.
Other residents agreed.
“It’s definitely not anyone’s business to monitor people’s obesity,” said Adele Johns, 19, another Starbucks devotee who lives in Tribeca.
Others were more blunt.
“He disgusts me,” said Nick, a Starbucks customer who declined to give his last name, referring to the mayor.
“I drink four coffees a day with probably three packets of sugar and I'd like Mike Bloomberg to take off his shirt and stand next to me and see who looks better,” said the 33-year-old health care worker between sips on a sweetened Venti iced coffee with milk.
But Kate Rube, who works at a non-profit, sided with the mayor.
“I think the ban is a good idea. I personally don’t drink a lot of large beverages but I think, in general, we've had portion sizes get really large in this country over time,” said Rube, 32, adding that the obesity epidemic is both expensive and harmful to the country.
“I think things that we can do to help people make healthier choices is a good thing,” she said.
How the Ban Will Affect You:
New Yorkers may be going into sugar shock over the proposed city ban on super-sized sodas, but some are confused about where they can and can't indulge.
DNAinfo.com New York has the breakdown of where the city's ban on sodas and other sugar-sweetened drinks larger than 16 oz. would apply.
The restriction will apply to all Food Service Establishments, including:
• Restaurants
• Coffee Shops
• Fast Food Counters
• Movie Theater Concession Stands
• Stadium and Arena Concession Stands
• Food Carts
• Delis
A good way to tell whether a location in affected is to check whether it receives a letter health inspection grade from the city’s Health Department.
Size restrictions will also apply to mobile food carts that are not yet graded by the city.
At those locations:
• All sugar-sweetened sodas over 16 ounces will be banned.
• Cups larger than 16 ounces will be banned at self-service soda fountains, even if a customer wants a diet option. Unlimited refills would still be allowed.
Still allowed, at any size:
• Low-calorie drinks that contain less than 25 calories per 8 ounces, including diet sodas, teas and fruit drinks.
• Unsweetened coffees and teas.
• Drinks that are at least 70 percent fruit or vegetable juice.
• Dairy drinks that contain at least 51 percent milk or milk substitute by volume, including milkshakes and sweetened lattes.
• Alcoholic drinks
Customers who want to purchase more than 16 ounces of a sugary drink will still be able to purchase more than one or refill their cups.
The restrictions will NOT apply to grocery stores, convenience stores or bodegas, including Slurpees and Big Gulps at 7-Eleven."
Is the Tea Party Dead?
Frankly, we continue to be somewhat confused about which of the four (yes we're not counting Zimmerman) was truly a 'tea party' candidate. Bruning had a national tea party endorsement, Stenberg had the three mentioned below, and of course Fischer had Sara Palin, ShePac and Joe Ricketts (an independent, incidentally). Knowing all three of these candidates, it is hard to see how anyone of them might not be easily and appropriately embraced by the movement. And contrary to the local daily, it's hard to imagine anyway in which any of the three aren't more mainstream than a guy who supports cap and trade, partial-birth abortion, higher taxes, Obamcare, gay marriage, etc. Certainly, the winner of the Republican nomination, Deb Fischer is much more mainstream than Kerrey regardless of whether one defines her as a 'tea party' candidate or not.
Here's the column:
On the Trail
Analysis of the national political environment.
Steaming Mad:
"There are no tea party protests or conventions these days, but the movement is still very much with us.
The tea party is dead; long live the tea party. Despite a national media that craves the spectacle of a tea party-versus-establishment fight for the soul of the Republican Party, the populist conservative movement that so dominated the 2010 elections has played a microscopic role in the 2012 primary season.
The tea party movement that cost Robert Bennett his Senate seat two years ago in Utah and drove far-right candidates to Republican nominations in states like Colorado, Nevada, and Delaware has waned. There are no longer tea party protests or conventions. And while there are more candidates claiming the tea party mantle, few of them are associated with the movement itself.
That’s not to say the tea party movement has not had a tremendous impact on the Republican Party—it has. House Speaker John Boehner may hail from an older order of Republicanism, but his “Boehner Rule,” requiring Congress to cut an amount equal to any debt-ceiling increase, is pure tea party. The tea party movement has “convinced Republicans in Washington that they had to focus on spending as well as taxes,” says Grover Norquist, the antitax activist. In that sense, it has forced Republicans to go beyond simply cutting taxes as a policy prescription.
It has even forced some incumbents to change their habits. Sen. Orrin Hatch, seeking reelection in Utah, stands as the most obvious example: Since his colleague Bennett lost renomination, Hatch’s tone has been strikingly more conservative—and so have his votes, like the one against the Violence Against Women Act, a bill he cosponsored in 1994.
But the tea party’s legacy in Washington’s political industry has been to spur growth among organizations fighting for supremacy within the Republican Party writ large. Consider some of the Senate candidates who have assumed the tea party mantle so far this year, like Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock, Nebraska Treasurer Don Stenberg, and former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz. Mourdock, who has run for statewide office or Congress seven times, began his campaign by courting local party officials and making clear that he would position himself just a few steps to Sen. Richard Lugar’s right. Stenberg had run for statewide office even more often, beginning decades before the tea party movement came into being. Cruz, who on Tuesday advanced to a runoff in the race to replace retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, has no voting record to speak of, giving him fewer demerits on his conservative scorecard than his rival, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.
The one thing Mourdock, Stenberg, and Cruz have in common is support from a few national conservative groups who stand as shorthand for the tea party: FreedomWorks, the Club for Growth, and Sen. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund. All three groups either bundled or spent money on behalf of the three candidates. Those organizations are just as interested in building their own national platform from which to elect the most conservative candidates possible—a goal seemingly at odds with a movement initially organized around hyper-local hubs, rather than the Beltway.
Part of that evolution, from localized to nationalized, is natural. The tea party movement is the latest arch-conservative wave that has changed the Republican Party—Goldwaterites in 1964; the family-values activists led by Phyllis Schlafly who organized against the Equal Rights Amendment; the Religious Right that backed Pat Robertson’s presidential campaign in 1988; and even Rep. Ron Paul’s fans, who now control state party organizations in Alaska, Idaho, and Nevada. (Even Iowa’s state GOP chair is a Ron Paul backer.)
That’s what happens to movements, Norquist says. “In 2009, 2010, a whole bunch of people who had not heretofore been political got scared by all the spending by Obama and got active and went out to demonstrations,” he says. “You get people excited about something, and a certain percentage of them stay active.”
In truth, the Grand Old Party has been searching for its identity since the middle of the last decade. Fed up with George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism (and the higher spending and new entitlement programs that came along with it), activists sat on their hands in 2006 and 2008. By 2010, galvanized against President Obama, the animating force behind the wave of Republican victories was the populist movement aimed, in part, at clearing out the dead weight within their own party.
Candidates running this year use the tea party label to signal their own conservatism. But instead of accepting the tea party-versus-establishment construct that’s so easy it’s alluring, the candidates are evidence that the tea party has gone mainstream, changing both itself and the GOP in the process."
This article appeared in the Thursday, May 31, 2012 edition of National Journal Daily.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Planned Parenthood Promotes War On Women Theme in Iowa
Iowa may only represent six electoral votes, but it is clear that it's swing status and those six votes are important to Barack Obama's re-election (just as that one in Nebraska could very well be). The president seems to have taken up residence in the state recently and you can bet that he will be back many, many more times.
With that said Planned Parenthood, your government financed women's health care organization, has started a $1.4 MILLION media campaign in three major Iowa media markets.
Lots more money will be spent in Iowa which has swung back and forth the last three elections, supporting Gore, than Bush, then Obama. It's political background has changed again since it voted for Obama in 2008 when the governor's mansion was controlled by Democrats and when the Democrat Party held a registration advantatage of more than 100,000.
Today, the Governor's mansion is controlled by a Republican and the registration advantage has been totally erased, actually shifted to a nearly 10,000 advantage to the GOP--something that must be pretty scary to Obama and associates. And recent polling shows that Romney and Obama are virtually tied at 44%.
One can see why Planned Parenthood is spending big bucks in Iowa in hope of preserving itself with continued congressional largess ($500,000,000!) and in hopes that Obama will get to replace one of those conservative scoundrels on the Supreme Court with another abortion-loving liberal.
Will the U.S. Be the New World's Greece?
Walter Williams has a good editorial that we thought we'd share with you. It's probably old news, but if something isn't done by our congress and president, this country will simply become the New World version of Greece.
Our Nation's Future
Walter E.Williams
"Our nation is rapidly approaching a point from which there's little chance to avoid a financial collapse. The heart of our problem can be seen as a tragedy of the commons. That's a set of circumstances when something is commonly owned and individuals acting rationally in their own self-interest produce a set of results that's inimical to everyone's long-term interest. Let's look at an example of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon and then apply it to our national problem.
Imagine there are 100 cattlemen all having an equal right to graze their herds on 1,000 acres of commonly owned grassland. The rational self-interested response of each cattleman is to have the largest herd that he can afford. Each cattleman pursing similar self-interests will produce results not in any of the cattlemen's long-term interest -- overgrazing, soil erosion and destruction of the land's usefulness. Even if they all recognize the dangers, does it pay for any one cattleman to cut the size of his herd? The short answer is no because he would bear the cost of having a smaller herd while the other cattlemen gain at his expense. In the long term, they all lose because the land will be overgrazed and made useless.
We can think of the federal budget as a commons to which each of our 535 congressmen and the president have access. Like the cattlemen, each congressman and the president want to get as much out of the federal budget as possible for their constituents. Political success depends upon "bringing home the bacon." Spending is popular, but taxes to finance the spending are not. The tendency is for spending to rise and its financing to be concealed through borrowing and inflation.
Does it pay for an individual congressman to say, "This spending is unconstitutional and ruining our nation, and I'll have no part of it; I will refuse a $500 million federal grant to my congressional district"? The answer is no because he would gain little or nothing, plus the federal budget wouldn't be reduced by $500 million. Other congressmen would benefit by having $500 million more for their districts.
What about the constituents of a principled congressman? If their congressman refuses unconstitutional spending, it doesn't mean that they pay lower federal income taxes. All that it means is constituents of some other congressmen get the money while the nation spirals toward financial ruin, and they wouldn't be spared from that ruin because their congressman refused to participate in unconstitutional spending.
What we're witnessing in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and other parts of Europe is a direct result of their massive spending to accommodate the welfare state. A greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes. Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product. The other percentages of GDP are 120 in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal. As a result of this debt and the improbability of their ever paying it, their credit ratings either have reached or are close to reaching junk bond status.
Here's the question for us: Is the U.S. moving in a direction toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt, which was 35 percent of GDP during the 1970s, is now 106 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II's 122 percent. That debt, plus our more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, has led Standard & Poor's to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+, and the agency is keeping the outlook at "negative" as a result of its having little confidence that Congress will take on the politically sensitive job of tackling the same type of entitlement that has turned Europe into a basket case.
I am all too afraid that Benjamin Franklin correctly saw our nation's destiny when he said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Our Nation's Future
Walter E.Williams
"Our nation is rapidly approaching a point from which there's little chance to avoid a financial collapse. The heart of our problem can be seen as a tragedy of the commons. That's a set of circumstances when something is commonly owned and individuals acting rationally in their own self-interest produce a set of results that's inimical to everyone's long-term interest. Let's look at an example of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon and then apply it to our national problem.
Imagine there are 100 cattlemen all having an equal right to graze their herds on 1,000 acres of commonly owned grassland. The rational self-interested response of each cattleman is to have the largest herd that he can afford. Each cattleman pursing similar self-interests will produce results not in any of the cattlemen's long-term interest -- overgrazing, soil erosion and destruction of the land's usefulness. Even if they all recognize the dangers, does it pay for any one cattleman to cut the size of his herd? The short answer is no because he would bear the cost of having a smaller herd while the other cattlemen gain at his expense. In the long term, they all lose because the land will be overgrazed and made useless.
We can think of the federal budget as a commons to which each of our 535 congressmen and the president have access. Like the cattlemen, each congressman and the president want to get as much out of the federal budget as possible for their constituents. Political success depends upon "bringing home the bacon." Spending is popular, but taxes to finance the spending are not. The tendency is for spending to rise and its financing to be concealed through borrowing and inflation.
Does it pay for an individual congressman to say, "This spending is unconstitutional and ruining our nation, and I'll have no part of it; I will refuse a $500 million federal grant to my congressional district"? The answer is no because he would gain little or nothing, plus the federal budget wouldn't be reduced by $500 million. Other congressmen would benefit by having $500 million more for their districts.
What about the constituents of a principled congressman? If their congressman refuses unconstitutional spending, it doesn't mean that they pay lower federal income taxes. All that it means is constituents of some other congressmen get the money while the nation spirals toward financial ruin, and they wouldn't be spared from that ruin because their congressman refused to participate in unconstitutional spending.
What we're witnessing in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and other parts of Europe is a direct result of their massive spending to accommodate the welfare state. A greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes. Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product. The other percentages of GDP are 120 in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal. As a result of this debt and the improbability of their ever paying it, their credit ratings either have reached or are close to reaching junk bond status.
Here's the question for us: Is the U.S. moving in a direction toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt, which was 35 percent of GDP during the 1970s, is now 106 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II's 122 percent. That debt, plus our more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, has led Standard & Poor's to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+, and the agency is keeping the outlook at "negative" as a result of its having little confidence that Congress will take on the politically sensitive job of tackling the same type of entitlement that has turned Europe into a basket case.
I am all too afraid that Benjamin Franklin correctly saw our nation's destiny when he said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
SHE PAC Involved in Wisconsin Recall
You may have recalled that an organization, known as SHE PAC came out and endorsed Nebraska's Next United States Senator Deb Fischer in the week before the May 15 primary. Now the group is involved in the Wisconsin recall effort against Governor Walker and his Lt. Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch.
More and more it looks like a selfish Barack Obama and National Democratic Party, as well as the unions that brought about the recall while creating havoc in the state have abandoned the effort. That's good, but the final results won't be decided until next week and its great to have other organizations step up to the plate.
do everything we can to support their efforts to make a stand for conservative
More and more it looks like a selfish Barack Obama and National Democratic Party, as well as the unions that brought about the recall while creating havoc in the state have abandoned the effort. That's good, but the final results won't be decided until next week and its great to have other organizations step up to the plate.
Dear Bill:
ShePAC is grateful and honored to have stood alongside such rising political stars as
Mia Love and Deb Fischer as they staged come from behind victories to become
nominees for the U.S. House and Senate, respectively. You and I know that
conservative women bring a unique dynamic to the political dialogue, and we must
do everything we can to support their efforts to make a stand for conservative ideals.
We now turn our attention to Wisconsin, where Democrats and their union
cronies look to recall conservatives who have courageously acted in favor of
fiscal sanity. Governor Scott Walker has stood strong in this fight, and he has
a great ally in his lieutenant governor, Rebecca Kleefisch.
Lt. Gov. Kleefisch was elected alongside Gov. Walker in 2010, both running on
pro-growth, pro-business platforms. Since being elected, they have lived up
to their word, applying commonsense solutions during a time of economic
uncertainty. Most famously, Gov. Walker took on public sector unions in
Wisconsin that were demanding more government subsidies. Lt. Gov.
Kleefisch joined the governor as a valuable ally in the stand against unions
and their cronies in the Democrat party.
As a result, both Walker and Kleefisch are now facing recall elections on June
5th. And if that weren’t enough, the lieutenant governor is also being
subjected to vile harassment from liberals, an all-too-common occurrence for
conservative women these days.
Because she has stood strong for liberty and weathered attacks from liberal
smear merchants with dignity, ShePAC is delighted to endorse Lt. Gov.
Rebecca Kleefisch in her recall election. Hers is the kind of principled
leadership that we need fighting for our side in Wisconsin.
Rebecca Kleefisch is not a career politician beholden to special interests,
she is a wife and mother who did not like what she saw happening to her
state and decided to do something about it. She is an outstanding role model
for women who are thinking of running for office.
Sincerely,
Teri Christoph, Co-Chair
Suzanne Haik Terrell, Co-Chair
Tim Crawford, Treasurer
Suzanne Haik Terrell, Co-Chair
Tim Crawford, Treasurer
His Last Campaign: Let Us Pray
In today's 'we get e-mail' category we have one from the current and failed occupant of the White House. Yes, preying on our love for him and the sad thought that this will be our last chance to vote for him, he asks us for just $3 to help make his last one successful.
We certainly hope he is a man of his words and this is his last campaign since he's going to get his butt kicked in the tradition of another failed Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. Of course, after his failed attempt at a 'last campaign' Carter went home to Plains, GA which unfortunately he has used as a home base for his liberal interfering world missions. Still, we'd rather have the current president back in Chicago with the likes of Rev. Wright for the balance of his life rather than completing his mission of driving the country toward ruination over four more years.
From Barack:
"Jon,
I have to tell you -- the next few months will be a little bittersweet for Michelle and me.
It's our last campaign, and that means it's one of our last chances to do something we both love. Connecting with folks and hearing their stories and what they're fighting for is one of the best parts of this job.
So before we head back out there, I wanted to ask you to help make this summer the best we can, by making this campaign as strong as possible right now.
Can you pitch in $3 or more before midnight?
https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-Tonight
Thank you, as always, for stepping up and making this happen. We'll see you out there.
- Barack"
We certainly hope he is a man of his words and this is his last campaign since he's going to get his butt kicked in the tradition of another failed Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. Of course, after his failed attempt at a 'last campaign' Carter went home to Plains, GA which unfortunately he has used as a home base for his liberal interfering world missions. Still, we'd rather have the current president back in Chicago with the likes of Rev. Wright for the balance of his life rather than completing his mission of driving the country toward ruination over four more years.
From Barack:
"Jon,
I have to tell you -- the next few months will be a little bittersweet for Michelle and me.
It's our last campaign, and that means it's one of our last chances to do something we both love. Connecting with folks and hearing their stories and what they're fighting for is one of the best parts of this job.
So before we head back out there, I wanted to ask you to help make this summer the best we can, by making this campaign as strong as possible right now.
Can you pitch in $3 or more before midnight?
https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-Tonight
Thank you, as always, for stepping up and making this happen. We'll see you out there.
- Barack"
Ron Paul Still Seeking Nebraska Convention Delegates
You won't learn this from the local daily or the Nebraska Watch Dog or the the local electronic media, but Ron Paul hasn't given up on an attempt to hijack the Nebraska Republican National Delegates, a result that would be embarrassing to our governor and those supporting Mitt Romney.
We received the e-mail below a little while ago and it explains the Paul strategy. Get delegates to the county conventions, elect them as delegates to the state convention, and hopefully, elect them to be delegates to the national convention. While the March 15 date mentioned in the e-mail is inaccurate, it should be March 1, the plans is the same.
We can also tell you that approximately 310 Nebraskans have signed 'notices of intent' to be national delegates. In past presidential election years that number has generally been around 80, so the Paul supporters are actively working at it.
Perhaps some of these supporters think or perhaps thought there was still a chance for Paul to prevent Romney's nomination. That chance ended last night in Texas. We also suspect lots of those folks don't understand that THEY PAY THEIR WAY TO THE CONVENTION, HOTEL COSTS, etc., which probably will take $2,000 out of each of their pockets to make a statement on behalf of Paul should they be elected delegates at the state convention.
The bottom line is that, as you will note from the Paul e-mail, Ron Paul is still trying to gather delegates and doing so regardless of Romney's certain nomination.
Here is the e-mail:
We received the e-mail below a little while ago and it explains the Paul strategy. Get delegates to the county conventions, elect them as delegates to the state convention, and hopefully, elect them to be delegates to the national convention. While the March 15 date mentioned in the e-mail is inaccurate, it should be March 1, the plans is the same.
We can also tell you that approximately 310 Nebraskans have signed 'notices of intent' to be national delegates. In past presidential election years that number has generally been around 80, so the Paul supporters are actively working at it.
Perhaps some of these supporters think or perhaps thought there was still a chance for Paul to prevent Romney's nomination. That chance ended last night in Texas. We also suspect lots of those folks don't understand that THEY PAY THEIR WAY TO THE CONVENTION, HOTEL COSTS, etc., which probably will take $2,000 out of each of their pockets to make a statement on behalf of Paul should they be elected delegates at the state convention.
The bottom line is that, as you will note from the Paul e-mail, Ron Paul is still trying to gather delegates and doing so regardless of Romney's certain nomination.
Here is the e-mail:
Dear James,
Nebraska’s Republican County Conventions start this Friday!And if you pre-registered for your County Convention by the March 15 deadline, it’s absolutely CRUCIAL you attend.
But even if you didn’t pre-register, I still hope you’ll make it a point to attend your County Convention.
You see, many counties seat voters that show up regardless of whether or not they pre-registered.
That means if you didn’t pre-register, there’s still a good chance you can participate in your County Convention - as long as you're a registered Republican.
To find out the date, time, and location of your County Convention, just CLICK HERE and select your county from the drop-down box.
As you know, from the get-go, Ron Paul’s campaign has been about picking up as many delegates as possible.
With recent victories in Nevada, Maine, and Minnesota - along with a large number of delegates in other states where Ron Paul supporters have been able to gain key party positions - this plan is paying huge dividends.
Your upcoming County Convention is your opportunity to help Ron Paul supporters begin making an impact in Nebraska.
So please, find out when your County Convention is taking place by CLICKING HERE - and make sure you’re there to vote for Ron Paul supporters who are running as State Convention delegates!
Together, you and I can – and will – Restore America NOW!For Liberty,
John Tate
Campaign Manager
P.S. It’s absolutely vital you attend your upcoming County Convention, even if you weren’t able to file as a County Convention delegate by the March 15 deadline.
Many County Conventions will seat registered Republicans who show up on convention day.
County Conventions will take place June 1 – June 10.To find out the date, time, and location of your County Convention, just CLICK HERE and choose your county from the drop-down box.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Democrat/Obama Gay Marriage Stance Fallout
The Daily Caller's Social Reader had an interesting article on a Pennsylvania Democrat committee woman that has left her party and become a Republican as a result of the president's stand on gay marriage and Catholic issues. We're sure this is one that you won't see nationally and certainly not in the Omaha daily as it reflects negatively on the chosen political affiliation of those media.Penn. Democratic leader defects to GOP, cites Catholic faith as reason
"The defection of a prominent Pennsylvania Democrat to the Republican Party is raising some eyebrows.
Jo Ann Nardelli, a state committeewoman and founding president of the Blair County Federation of Democratic Women, has switched her political affiliation to the GOP, citing her Catholic faith and President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage as reasons.
During a press conference last week, Nardelli cited President Obama’s recent announcement in support of gay marriage as a central reason for her defection, endorsed Mitt Romney for president and changed her party registration to Republican, The Altoona Mirror reported.
“As the Democratic Party has taken the stand for same-sex marriage, then I must make a stand on my faith that marriage is between a man and a woman. God’s principles for life never change. His guidelines, given in Scripture, produce fruitful lives when you follow them,” Nardelli, a pro-life Democrat for more than 40 years, said at the Blair County Courthouse.
According to Politics PA, Nardelli continued to point to her Catholic faith as a major motivator in her letter of resignation to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
“I respect all of you and all that I have achieved in the past. Due to personal matters and faith beliefs at this time, it is only fair to resign,” she wrote. “I will miss you all very much as you are all a part of my family; however, it is time to move forward with my life in a direction that is more in line with my faith.”
The Mirror added that Blair County Republican Party Chairman A.C. Stickel welcomed Nardelli. Stickel emphasized Obama’s, and the Democratic Party’s, disconnect with blue collar values as a big part of the story."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/29/penn-democratic-leader-defects-to-gop-cites-catholic-faith-as-reason/#ixzz1wMniBFq9e
Johanns Favoring Tax Increases?
We got this from Politico's Pulse this morning. Apparently, Senator Johanns may be distancing himself further from those tea party types as he appears to be wavering on tax increases:
REPUBLICANS SOFTENING ON TAXES? Ahead of the looming budget showdown, there are cracks emerging in the GOP's hardline stance against boosting tax revenues to cut the deficit. Interviews with more than a dozen Senate Republicans show them warming to higher tax revenues to reach a "grand bargain" that overhauls Medicare and other safety net programs. "My impression is if you brought rates down, did real meaningful tax reform, the additional revenue would not be a deal-killer for many," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). Thing is, that's setting up a stark contrast with Mitt Romney, who pledged during the primaries that he'll oppose new taxes as part of a debt deal. The Romney campaign is still sticking to this message."
Fighting Obamacare
If you were an Omaha city councilman you might call this an "occupation tax" since it is hidden and still passed on to the end consumer. We wonder what Bob Kerrey thinks of a tax that affects those who need artificial limbs? Oh, the government already pays for his....
Anyway, here is Norquist's message along with the 'educational graphic' he sent:
"As House Republicans ramp up efforts to dismantle Obamacare over the next few weeks, Americans for Tax Reform wanted to highlight some of the more egregious portions of President Obama’s “signature issue.”
The first provision scheduled to be voted on for elimination is the medical device tax. Obamacare imposes a new tax of 2.3% on medical devices, including braces, pacemakers, wheelchairs, and other costly medical devices. While these taxes will be paid by the device manufacturer, you can bet the tax will be passed along as a higher cost of the product, ultimately forcing seniors, parents, and veterans to pay more for these life sustaining devices."
Memorial Day 2012 Was a Solemn Occasion -- Doug Patton
On Sunday morning of Memorial Day weekend, my family and I gather at a small rural cemetery on a windswept hillside, surrounded by rich Iowa farmland, as the local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars honors the men buried there who served in all of America's wars, from the War of 1812 to Operation Iraqi Freedom.An aging VFW honor guard provides a 21-gun salute, followed by a lone bugler playing Taps. Some of the men being honored there were teenagers when they lost their lives in battle. Some came home to raise families and grow old in that community, or perhaps they settled there after their war years to start a whole new life. Still others migrated elsewhere before returning home to live out their final years and be buried in that little cemetery.
Whatever their circumstances, they are remembered each Memorial Day at this brief ceremony. Among the names of those who served in World War I is that of my maternal grandfather. He and my grandmother settled there in the 1930s and made the community their home. They are buried together in that little cemetery.
For the past 14 years, my father's name has been among those interred there who served in World War II. As a 22-year-old NCO on Eisenhower's staff during the planning for D-Day, only a freak accident resulting in a broken ankle kept him from sailing across the English Channel on June 6, 1944, with the rest of the invasion force. Like most WWII vets, he never talked much about his wartime experiences, but he did tell us about that one, and I believe it always haunted him that the young man who took his place that day was one of the first to fall on Omaha Beach.
I have always viewed this special Memorial Day ceremony as a celebration of the lives of ordinary men who rose to the occasion in the worst of times to do extraordinary things. For the last three years, I have felt a sense of sadness and resentment on behalf of those men, because their country is now led by a man who believes that America is an arrogant nation that needs to apologize to the rest of the world.
From the bloody, mustard gas-poisoned battlefields of World War I to the beaches of Normandy, from the freezing cold of Korea to the rice paddies of Vietnam, from the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, these brave men set aside their own personal hopes, dreams, goals and lives to serve us when we needed them most. They fought for an ideal this president cannot even fathom and about which he apparently cares nothing, and their country they defended owes apologies to no one.
I hear people say of Barack Obama, "He's not one of us," almost as if he's a space alien. I understand what they mean. He is not a loyal American. He is a radical ideologue whose worldview is global and whose loyalties lie somewhere other than with the nation that has given him so much.
I miss my dad. My father would have turned 90 this month. I wish he had lived far beyond the 76 years he was given. Hardly a day has passed in the last 14 years that I have not wished that I could ask him the questions I failed to ask when I thought I had another year or another month with him, or to tell him how much I appreciate the sacrifice he and his generation made to preserve my freedom.
But when I see the President of the United States travel to Europe and refuse to go to a U.S. military cemetery in France, as he did during his first year in office, I am glad my father did not live to see it. When I see this president speak before crowds of ungrateful Europeans, all of whom, without the intervention of my country — twice in one century — would be living under the jackboot of Nazi Germany today, I am ashamed for the honor of all the brave men who fought beside them.
Just as my father and grandfather stood against evil in their time, may God grant us the endurance and the fortitude to stand against the evil of this president's ideology and agenda, and the wisdom to replace him in November.
______________________________________________________________________________
© 2012 by Doug Patton
______________________________________________________________________________
Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at dougpatton@cox.net.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
World Herald Continues Attack on Conservatives
Once again, the local daily cartoon expresses the beliefs of its editorial page and its owner. They don't believe that the Republican party (that would be the citizens who elect its candidates) is right in moving to the right. You know, excising itself of great conservatives like Hagel and Lugar, et cetera?
Of course, when the paper (and Hagel, etal) come out in support of Warren Buffett's fair-haired boy Bob Kerrey you can bet there will be no cartoon of a moderate donkey standing in a field of ass skeletons......No, of course, because the paper doesn't believe that Democrats who support abortion on demand, partial-birth abortion, gay marriage, cap and trade and higher taxes are liberal right wingers. No, in the eyes of the local daily those, like Kerrey, who support such are mainstream moderates.
Maybe it's time for the local daily to rename itself, the Liberal Mouthpiece.....
Romney Finally Locks it Up: Time to Send Obama Packing
In this evening's 'we get e-mail' category, we've got one that will be shared across the nation as Mitt Romney can finally claim he has locked up the Republican nomination with his win in Texas. It's been a long hard fight against many who also wanted the nomination but Romney displayed the tenacity to fight it out. Yes, money helped. And organization helped. His organization out performed all others.
Now, whether every Republican or conservative likes it or not, it's time to realize that he is the only one that can save our country from four more years of Obama disaster and ruination.
We're glad it's over. It's time to finish the job and send Obama back to Chicago or where ever.
Tonight, we surpassed 1,144 delegates and secured the nomination. I am grateful and humbled by your support through this process. We did it!
This has been an extraordinary journey. And yet it's only the beginning.
Now all Republicans can move forward toward our convention in Tampa. There, we will stand united as a party with a winning ticket for America. Ours will be a campaign to unite every American who knows in his or her heart that we can do better.
There's much to be done by November 6th - but with your help, we will get it done!
Now, whether every Republican or conservative likes it or not, it's time to realize that he is the only one that can save our country from four more years of Obama disaster and ruination.
We're glad it's over. It's time to finish the job and send Obama back to Chicago or where ever.
This has been an extraordinary journey. And yet it's only the beginning.
Now all Republicans can move forward toward our convention in Tampa. There, we will stand united as a party with a winning ticket for America. Ours will be a campaign to unite every American who knows in his or her heart that we can do better.
There's much to be done by November 6th - but with your help, we will get it done!
Four More Years? We Hope Not
We had posted the prior entry, The President's Deficit Lies Refuted -- Let's Hope His Work Is Done before we read Pete Du Pont's commentary in the Wall Street Journal which only highlights the fiscal destruction this president has wrought in just over three years on this nation, its citizens and its economy. With that said, we thought we'd share Du Pont's thoughts with you.Four More Years
By PETE DU PONT
"Before being elected in 2008, Barack Obama said: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." That belief has turned out to be wholly accurate. America has been greatly transformed by all areas of this administration's policy goals and actions.The most significant policy change during President Obama's first term was his health-care "reform," the movement of 17% of our economy from the marketplace of ideas and physician-patient decision-making to control and management by the federal government. The Supreme Court is now considering whether ObamaCare is constitutional, and is expected to decide by the end of June.
ObamaCare is a huge governmental mandate, the impact of which we are just beginning to feel. If the Supreme Court upholds the law, full government control of health care will start next year, with the new ObamaCare taxes on investment income. The individual mandates and other rules and regulations will begin in 2014. If the court upholds ObamaCare and Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, the scope and size of our government's control over health care will increase dramatically.
A second Obama term would guarantee no repeal or significant repair of ObamaCare for at least four more years, allowing it to push its tentacles into every aspect of our health care. It will give the health and human services secretary free rein in her decisions about new mandates and about which organizations or entities can be granted exemptions from them. This would give her and the president a new way to reward favored special interests.
The second negative policy impact of the president's first term is the large and unsustainable increase in federal spending and debt. Annual spending increased from $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2010, and the Obama plan is to grow it to $5.5 trillion a year less than a decade from now. Deficits averaging $1.3 trillion a year have been the rule so far, and that thinking—and perhaps worse—would be with us for a second Obama term.
Mr. Obama's first term commenced with an $800 billion "stimulus" giveaway to the favored constituencies of the liberal left. Then the excessive spending that created the deficits continued. The president's recent budgets have been so far from the mainstream that Congress, including Democrats, has had little interest in supporting them. If Mr. Obama is re-elected and no longer constrained in his policy proposals by the need to keep independents in his camp, there will be continued squandering of the nation's fiscal resources. All of this will lead to even more burdens on individuals, families and businesses, not to mention future generations.
Increasing entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is a huge threat to our economic future, yet any suggestion reform do gets a very healthy dose of Obama demagoguery. So these issues would no doubt go unanswered in a second term.
Tax policy is the other substantial change coming to us if there a second Obama term. The White House made one good decision in its first term by extending the Bush tax cuts for two years, an idea that came to pass after the drubbing the president's party took in the 2010 congressional elections. But the current promise that the Bush tax cuts will end two months after the coming election surely means that if the president wins, taxes for a large number of Americans will rise. That would have a negative impact not just on those individuals and families but on the economy as a whole, stifling job creation and harming people and businesses across all income levels.
The other decision the administration has made is to reduce the availability and affordability of the energy used by American businesses and individuals. The goal is to make energy scarcer, more expensive and firmly controlled by the federal government. The capturing of natural gas via fracking has been a huge success story. Yet the federal government is to embrace it and appears to want to restrict and regulate all of it. Add in the federal government's clamp-down on power production from coal, its slowness in the approval of oil- and gas-drilling permits, and its disapproval of the Keystone pipeline, and we can see what the administration will continue to do in a possible second term. All that will add to continual lower supplies and make energy more expensive for American businesses and individuals.
From ObamaCare, excessive spending, increased debt and lack of effort on reforming entitlement programs, to flawed policies on taxes and energy, this administration's efforts have hurt our economy, stifled job creation, and taken away many of the freedoms and characteristics that have made America great. It would be foolhardy to expect this administration to do a 180 if granted a second term. It would also be foolhardy to ignore the question of what eight years of such policies will do to America.
One final thought on what lies behind the very negative impact of the president's first term is the increasing jadedness on the part of Americans. The president many people felt would unite the country has instead used one wedge issue after another to divide our people along the lines of income, race, sex and class. This setting of one group against another is part of the re-election process and prospects. It may lead to a more difficult, divisive, and nastier election than we have seen in a while. And that may in turn mean an more difficult time for whoever is president in 2013."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
