Thursday, January 31, 2013

Thursday's Thoughts

View the story "Thursday's Thoughts (1/31/13)" on StorifyThursday's Thoughts (1/31/13)http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.comStorified by Brian Empric· Thu, Jan 31 2013 16:33:36Sheila Weber (@MarriageWeekUSA), Executive Director of National Marriage Week USA & Let’s Strengthen Marriage, writes that marriage “builds the economic stability of children, supports the raising of a healthy next generation, and is a cornerstone for the economic health of our nation.”

“In mid-January, the Pew Research Center told us 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married in 1960; but today just 51% are—a record low.

“This means fewer folks are getting married, or staying married—not a great sign since research proves children (our future citizens) do best when raised with both parents.”

“… marriage is more or less holding its own among the white upper middle and upper class, but falling off a cliff among the white working class and lower class.”

“The Institute for American Values reports that 40 percent of all American babies are born outside of marriage today… less than 5% of white college-educated women have children outside of marriage, compared with approximately 40% of white women with just a high-school diploma... The National Center on African American Marriages and Parenting reports that 72 percent of all African-American babies are born outside of marriage.”

“Whether you are married or not, Americans should be supportive of promoting marriage prior to childbearing and the strengthening of marriage at all socio-economic levels.”
A new path to upward mobility-get married and stay marriedMarriage, we have just learned, is a major cause of the growing great divide among American upper and lower classes. Last week, in advanc...RNC chairman Priebus details how Republicans are going to renew our party, grow our ranks and win more elections:

“To start, we must take our message to every state and every community. As I told the committee last week, we must stop looking at elections through the lens of ‘battleground states.’ Being a ‘blue state’ is not a permanent diagnosis. Republicans want to be a party for everyone, everywhere.”

“Election year ‘outreach’ is insufficient. We're going to stop simply reaching out — and work on welcoming in as we build a permanent, lasting presence across the country.”

“Republicans are the party of opportunity and liberty, and freedom is an ever-fresh, revolutionary idea. It brought settlers to our shores and continues to attract newcomers to America. No one comes to the United States in search of a superior government bureaucracy… We're the party that says the individual can make better decisions than the bureaucrat.”

“But those principles mean nothing if voters don't hear them. Too often, Republicans have let ourselves be defined by others before defining ourselves. No more. We're taking our message of freedom and opportunity where it hasn't been heard before.”My latest – “The Republican Party's future” http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-Republican-Party-s-future-4230572.php We have a lot to do, but it can be done. Pls read and RTReince PriebusRobert Stacy McCain reports that the National Review Institute’s “Future of Conservatism” Summit attempted to dispel the omens of doom.

“Facts are stubborn things, John Adams once observed, but perhaps even more stubborn is the sense of panic that has gripped Republicans since Obama’s re-election. No sooner had the votes been counted than shell-shocked Republicans began making a lot of earnest noise about ‘demographics’ and ‘culture.’ These seem to be code words of a kind. When a Republican says ‘demographics,’ he means, ‘Brown people don’t like us very much,’ and ‘culture’ is Republican code-speak for, ‘Young people really hate us, don’t they?’”

“The GOP panic reaction to those numbers has been wildly disproportionate. Hispanic voters comprised just 10 percent of the electorate, according to the exit polls, and 81 percent of voters were over 30, but the Republican demoralization since November has been so complete that they can’t seem to stop obsessing over ‘demographics’ and ‘culture.’”

“If there are Democrats today who don’t enthusiastically endorse same-sex marriage and abortion on demand, they’re awfully quiet about it, and the fanatical extremism of the Left has apparently intimidated even conservative Republicans, who are now increasingly fearful of being identified with ‘social issues.’”
"Is this 'prudence' or panic? Are Republicans prepared to surrender and call it a victory?" http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/28/when-will-the-republican-panic #tcotRobert Stacy McCainS.E. Cupp writes that universal background checks are not as simple as liberals have made them out to be.

“We all want to stop criminals and the dangerous (or potentially dangerous) mentally ill from getting weapons… At the same time, NRA head Wayne LaPierre reportedly plans to tug at that thread a little in his Senate testimony this week, when he will argue, according to a Washington Post report, that ‘background checks will never be universal because criminals will never submit to them.’”

“As Glenn Kessler reported in the Washington Post this week, a 2004 survey of inmates in state prisons who were incarcerated for crimes committed with handguns found that only 11% bought their guns from licensed gun dealers. The vast majority acquired them from friends, on ‘the street,’ or stole them.”

“Next to ‘Will this actually solve the problem?’ the question least often asked when issues of gun control are bandied about is, ‘Whom will this punish?’ And when it comes to law-abiding gun owners, there is often little consideration or sympathy.”

“Unlike gun safety courses, which rightly ask that gun owners prove they are responsible, background checks ask that they prove they are not criminals, effectively putting the burden of proof on law-abiding citizens… though the background check may not discriminate on outward appearance, it does prejudicially read criminal intentions into law-abiding citizens who primarily just want to hunt, target shoot and protect their families.”Gun Owners Are People, Too by @secupp Read it online at http://thesecupp.com/2013/01/gun-owners-are-people-too/ http://thesecupp.comS.E. CuppVictor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) writes that Europe is proving that socialism doesn’t work.

“Almost a decade ago, Europeans and many progressive Americans were lamenting how the United States was going to miss out on the 21st-century paradigm symbolized by the robust European Union… The European Union avoided foreign conflicts and embraced soft power. Its declining military budgets and centralized transnational government ensured that it could address climate change and fund ever-expanding entitlements… President George W. Bush was not just hated in Europe, but caricatured as the symbol of backward, free-market capitalism, rank American consumerism and U.S. imperialism abroad.”

“Yet European Union prosperity has now proved a phantom — one conjured up by accounting gimmickry, borrowed German money and corrupt EU apparatchiks.”

“The European Union may be worried that President Obama’s United States is becoming more like the EU at the very time many in Europe are starting to take a second, kinder look at the old free-market model of the United States. An America of low taxes, low unemployment and robust growth once meant a huge market for European goods, as the United States drove a prosperous world economy and had enough cash to protect the Western world.”

“Mr. Obama has loudly promised a pivot in the U.S. security profile toward the Pacific region. This change represents the unspoken reality that socialist redistribution has reduced Europe to near-irrelevancy… In short, Europe got the European Union of its hopes and the changed America of its fantasies — but both are rapidly becoming its worst nightmares.”HANSON: Obama’s America looks a lot like the #EU: Europe proving #socialism doesn’t work: http://bit.ly/UzTLRRThe Washington TimesDaniel Henninger writes that Obama’s goal is to make Republican ideas intolerable, and to annihilate and delegitimize the GOP. “If the opposition is looking for one word to shape its role now, it would be this: Dissent.”

“Better late than never, Speaker Boehner now sees that Barack Obama's notion of political competition is Mad Max inside the Thunderdome: ‘Two men enter, one man leaves.’”

“When he won, the rationalization was that it was all a shrewd if brutal campaign strategy. But it kept coming. What is striking about the Obama technique is that it's not so much criticism as something closer to political obliteration, driving his opposition out of the political arena altogether.”

“Even among the president's supporters, one is hard put now to find anyone who doesn't recognize that Mr. Obama's original appeal to hope and change has given way to search and destroy.”

“The good news is that John Boehner and Paul Ryan recognize that their relationship with this White House is not as partners in anything. They are prey.”

“The original argument for the Obama presidency was that this was a new, open-minded and liberal man intent on elevating the common good. No one believes that now. This will be a second term of imposition.”Henninger: Obama's Thunderdome Strategy http://on.wsj.com/TZia5hOpinion & CommentaryEdward L. Glaeser (professor of economics at Harvard University) writes that conservative policies have greatly benefited urbanites, and encourages Republicans to seek their votes.

“After the presidential election in November, New York Times exit polls found that Republican candidate Mitt Romney had received only 29 percent of the big-city vote to President Obama’s 69 percent. That gap prompted Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, to conclude that it was ‘the turnout especially in urban areas’ that ‘gave President Obama the big margin to win this race.’ Ryan was right: the GOP has an urban problem. And it’s partly a self-created one. The party, nationally and even locally, has focused on winning suburban and rural votes and has stopped reaching out to city dwellers.”

“Cities have suffered from the GOP’s departure. For one thing, any group or place benefits from being the object of political competition: swing groups in swing states, such as Cubans in Miami and autoworkers in Ohio, receive political attention and favors, while solidly Republican or Democratic constituencies get taken for granted.”

“But handouts and other pandering are far less valuable than the other asset that Republican-abandoned cities have lost: the particularly Republican perspective, with its focus on economic freedom, competition, and law and order.”

“Forty years ago, conservatives and liberals disagreed about how to fight crime. Conservatives looked to more effective policing; liberals, believing that poverty caused crime, bet on redistributive social policies. The past decades have overwhelmingly vindicated the conservatives. The expansive government programs of the liberals’ Great Society coincided with rapidly rising urban crime rates. Cities became safe again only when they embraced tougher—and smarter—policing.”

“The Right has correctly promoted choice and accountability as key principles in making schools better. Great enterprises, from law firms to restaurants, spring up in cities because cities’ agglomerations of people produce free-market maelstroms, which encourage vigorous competition and innovation.”

“Republicans have good ideas to share in other areas of urban policy as well. For example, improving city services while reducing costs is a priority in these budget-strapped times.”

“The GOP clearly needs a heftier percentage of the urban vote, but winning it by means of fiscal pandering or redistribution isn’t the way to go—partly because such a strategy would cost rural and suburban votes and partly because it would be wrong. A better approach is to offer the good ideas that cities desperately need. Republicans have plenty.”The GOP and the City by Edward L. Glaeser, City Journal WInter 2013Conservative policies have greatly benefited urbanites. Why won't Republicans seek their votes? After the presidential election in Novemb...

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Wednesday's Write-up

@Bishtoons

@ericallie

@varvel

View the story "Wednesday's Write-up (1/23/13)" on Storify Wednesday's Write-up (1/23/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Wed, Jan 30 2013 17:11:37 The ABC News Power Players report that multimillionaire conservative investor Foster Friess (@FosterFriess) would support Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign again if he runs in 2016.

"If people let him out of that box of social conservative, and appreciate how much more he brings to the table, I think he's still one of my favorite candidates."

"I believe we have an opportunity now to lift up a whole new group of young Republicans, and young new faces that are going to change our country back to where it was maybe 20 years ago."

"I think the smartest thing the Republican party can do is stick to the principles that Republicans stand for -- limited government, respect for the constitution and free markets. If you stick with that, there's no way we're not going to win."
Standing by his man: GOP millionaire Foster Friess wants Santorum in 2016Top Line Wealthy conservative investor Foster Friess is best known in Washington, D.C. for helping fund Rick Santorum's presidential camp... Tasha Tsiaperas reports on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s lecture at Southern Methodist University earlier this week.

“(Scalia) said law schools don’t adequately emphasize that decisions should reflect the letter of the law.

“He spoke of schoolchildren coming to visit the Supreme Court and calling the Constitution a ‘living document.’”

“It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead,” he said.
Constitution a 'dead, dead, dead' document, Scalia tells SMU audienceU.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says a key part of interpreting the law properly is reaching decisions even when they contradic... Richard A. Epstein (Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution) writes that Obama’s redistributive effort to limit charitable tax deductions will hurt the poor—and everyone else.

“On four separate occasions, President Obama has proposed limiting the deduction for charitable contributions to a maximum 28 percent.”

“The advocates of redistribution are quick to trumpet its virtue, but slow to identify the optimal level of redistribution that does not undermine the incentives for productive work… What is doubly ironic in this situation is that the champions of redistribution seek to neuter the single most effective device for redistribution that is available to modern societies—the charitable deduction.”

“It is tempting to think that the limitations on deductions will hurt the rich by cutting back on their deductions. But the burden will fall heavily on the recipients of charitable support, for as the price of making a charitable gift rises (anywhere from 30 to 100 percent), the level of charitable giving will decline. Hurt in the shuffle are, of course, the low-income beneficiaries of charity.”

“What the current tax deduction does, in effect, is to take income out of a rich person’s tax base if he or she is prepared to give it to others. It protects the incentive to create wealth, as people are far more likely to work hard to generate wealth whose distribution they can direct than to create wealth that the government snatches from them for its own purposes.”

“Why then would the government take steps to cut back on charitable giving? The most obvious explanation is both insidious and dangerous. It is to shrink the size of its main competitors in the private sector in order to increase the dependence of ordinary people on the federal government.” My take on charitable deductionshttp://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/139186Richard A. Epstein James Pethokoukis writes that the parties are at loggerheads over taxes, and no sweeping reform will please both sides.

“A group of House Republicans wants to put an expiration date on the 75,000-page U.S. tax code. The Tax Code Termination Act would require the repeal of the entire code in 2017 — except for the bits dealing with Social Security and Medicare — with a new system ready to go for the following year.”

“But Republicans can put aside any fantasies of starting 2018 with a flat income tax or a national sales tax such as the Fair Tax, two popular right-of-center alternatives to the status quo… First, both of those sweeping reforms would likely either raise taxes on middle-class voters — including millions who currently pay no income tax — or be huge revenue losers… Second, unless Republicans score a historic landslide in the 2016 presidential and congressional elections, the folks on the other side of the aisle will have a major say in any tax revamp.”

“Liberals start with a belief that America is severely undertaxed… Also making bipartisan agreement harder is the new left-of-center consensus that marginal tax rates can go dramatically higher before they weaken economic growth and become self-defeating.”

“Maybe there’s no better example of how Democrats are veering sharply from both the GOP and mainstream economics on tax reform than the reemergence of the old idea of slapping a wealth tax on the fortunes of rich Americans.”

“Republicans view tax reform as way of making the tax code more efficient and amenable to economic growth; Democrats see it as a crude tool for financing an ever-expanding welfare state.” My NR column on why getting a tax reform deal with Dems is almost impossible http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338947/total-tax-code-termination-james-pethokoukisJames Pethokoukis Robert C. Pozen (Nonresident Senior Fellow, Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution) writes that the need to reduce the current corporate tax rate is one policy that both parties can agree to. Pozen estimates that a 65% cap on deductions for corporations for gross interest would be enough to finance a corporate tax rate reduction from 35% to 25% (financial institutions would be allowed to deduct 79%).

“The current rate, highest in the advanced industrial world, disincentivizes investment and encourages corporations to relocate overseas.”

“Because of the fiscal pressures facing the government, most politicians recognize that any corporate tax rate cut must be paid for by eliminating tax preferences and ‘loopholes.’ But few politicians have identified enough revenue-raising measures to offset the cost of a significant reduction of the corporate tax rate-cutting the rate from 35% to 25% would cost roughly $1.2 trillion over ten years.”

“…the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the elimination of virtually all corporate tax expenditures would not be sufficient to reduce the corporate tax rate to 25%.”

“Currently, corporations may fully deduct the interest they pay on their bonds and other forms of debt. This deduction costs the Treasury a significant amount of money, and encourages corporations to take on too much debt, increasing the fragility of the economy.”

“My proposed ‘interest cap’ would also reduce a significant distortion in the tax code. Currently, if a corporation finances an investment with debt, it can deduct the interest that it pays on that debt. If a corporation finances an investment by issuing new shares of stock, or by using money in the bank, there is no equivalent deduction. As a result, the tax code effectively encourages corporations to load up on debt. This makes companies more vulnerable to downturns-exposing their employees to a greater risk of layoffs and prolonging recessions in the broader economy.” My piece in @rc_markets explaining why a corporate tax cut should be funded by limiting interest deductions: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/01/29/35_is_way_too_high_for_corporate_taxes_100117.html #liBob Pozen John B. Taylor (former Treasury undersecretary for international affairs) writes that while borrowers like near-zero interest rates, there is little incentive for lenders to extend credit at that rate.

“The Fed ratcheted up purchases of mortgage-backed and U.S. Treasury securities, and now they say more large-scale purchases are coming. They kept extending the near-zero federal funds rate and now say that rate will remain in place for at least several more years. And yet—unlike its actions taken during the panic—the Fed's policies have been accompanied by disappointing outcomes. While the Fed points to external causes, it ignores the possibility that its own policy has been a factor.”

“The Fed's current zero interest-rate policy also creates incentives for otherwise risk-averse investors—retirees, pension funds—to take on questionable investments as they search for higher yields in an attempt to bolster their minuscule interest income… And extraordinarily low rates support and feed the spending appetites of Congress and the president, increasing deficits and debt.”

“Consider the ‘forward guidance’ policy of saying that the short-term rate will be near zero for several years into the future. The purpose of this guidance is to keep longer-term interest rates down and thus encourage more borrowing… Effectively the Fed is imposing an interest-rate ceiling on the longer-term market by saying it will keep the short rate unusually low.”

“Ironically, the harmful effects of these interventions lead policy makers to expand them, which further increases their harmful effects. No one should want a continuation of this vicious circle.” John Taylor: Fed Policy Is a Drag on the Economy http://on.wsj.com/XNGOBjOpinion & Commentary David Mamet (author, playwright, producer, screenwriter, and director) writes that the individual is the best and only one qualified to provide his own personal defense, and the right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

“President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the ‘needs’ of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he ‘needs.’

“But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining ‘needs’? And note that the president did not say ‘I have more money than I need,’ but ‘You and I have more than we need.’ Who elected him to speak for another citizen?”

“The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good��that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.”

“Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men… It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.”

“The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves?”

“More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.”

“The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense.” Cover Story: David Mamet says the individual has a right to defend himself with a gun http://nswk.ly/X8mZp6Newsweek Michael Tanner (senior fellow at the Cato Institute) writes that prominent liberals are now insisting that we face no debt problem at all.

“Bolstered by a study from the left-wing Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the debt deniers claim that a combination of economic growth, tax hikes, and projected (but not yet realized) spending reductions have already significantly reduced deficits. They argue that a mere $1.2 trillion in additional tax hikes over the next ten years, and the resulting savings on interest, would enable us to ‘stabilize’ our debt at a mere 73 percent of GDP by 2022.”

“But even if you think that’s good news, it’s not really the truth. The 73 percent figure actually represents only that portion of the federal government’s debt classified as ‘debt held by the public,’ primarily those U.S. government securities that are owned by individuals, corporations, and other entities outside the federal government itself.”

“Moreover, by cutting off the trend line in 2022, the debt deniers ignore the enormous unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, the costs of which will kick in mostly beyond this limited budget window.”

“True, those obligations represent the ‘softest’ form of debt. But ‘soft’ does not mean debt that can be completely dismissed. According to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), by which private corporations abide, promises to pay future benefits are generally categorized as debt.”

“The International Monetary Fund looked at the relationship between debt and economic growth, concluding that, from 1890 to 2000, countries with high debt levels have consistently experienced slower economic growth than those with low debt levels. Similarly, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded that countries with debt totaling more than 90 percent of GDP have median growth rates one percentage point lower than countries with lower debt levels, and average growth rates nearly four points lower. The slow economic growth that the United States has seen coming out of the recession is likely due in part to our high levels of government debt.” The Debt Deniers’ Fantasy http://j.mp/11d7gLfMichael Tanner

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Immigration Reform - No to Amnesty!

@Bishtoons

@AUG_RickMcKee

View the story "Immigration Reform" on Storify Immigration Reform http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Tue, Jan 29 2013 16:33:26 @Jordanfabian reports on the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators who agreed to an immigration reform framework that includes amnesty for illegal aliens.

“The principles agreed upon by this ‘Gang of Eight’ include enhancing border security and cracking down on businesses that employ undocumented immigrants. The outline also proposes making it easier for foreigners to come to the United States legally to work or join their families.”

“Senate staff from both parties characterized the document as a broad statement of principles rather than concrete legislative language, and one aide said that the group aims to have an actual piece of legislation ready as early as the end of March.”

“Under the 'Gang of Eight’ plan, undocumented immigrants would be required to register with the federal government. Those without a criminal record would be eligible for ‘probationary legal status’ if they pass a background check and pay fines and back taxes. The status would allow them to live and work legally in the U.S., but they would remain ineligible for federal benefits such as welfare or Medicaid.”

“At the same time, the government would spend more to prevent illegal border crossings in part by increasing the use of unmanned drones and hiring more border agents. It would also implement a new system to prevent people from overstaying their visas, a main source of illegal immigration. Those undocumented immigrants with criminal records would be subject to deportation.” Senators' Immigration Reform FrameworkA bipartisan group of senators has agreed to an immigration reform framework that includes a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented,... Gang of 8Brian_Empric Sen. John McCain on Monday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “I’m not sure if it’s quote politics, but it’s certainly the realization that if we continue to polarize the Latino slash Hispanic vote that the demographics indicate that our chances for being in the majority are minimal. I’m sure that this is a factor because many of us believe that they are a natural constituency of ours; small business, less regulation, big service in the military, pro-life, all of those reasons. But this issue of illegal immigration has obviously been a major driving factor in the decision making of the Hispanic voter.”

Watch the segment via CNN and @NoahCRothman
John McCain: Without Backing Immigration Reform, 'Our Chances Of Being In The Majority Are Minimal' | MediaiteSen. John McCain (R-AZ) joined CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer on Monday to explain his support for a bipartisan effort to reform the immigration... @JakeSherman and @GingerGibson report that the White House praised the “Gang of Eight” plan, but with House Republicans, who usually oppose a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, “it landed with a thud.”

“Some House Republicans have come around to supporting ‘amnesty’ or a pathway to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country who could seek legal residency under the Senate plan. But there are still hardline conservatives who oppose it and will undoubtedly make the Senate plan a tough sell in the House. And the Senate plan could fall apart before it even gets there.”

“Immigration is a delicate political issue for Republicans. If the Senate passes a bill, the House will feel political pressure to take it up, lest they cement their image as Washington's obstructionists. But it isn’t likely to be a speedy process as Boehner (R-Ohio) has promised that legislation will move through regular order, meaning committee hearings and markups that could produce a completely different product.”
Immigration tough sell in GOP House - Jake Sherman and Ginger GibsonThe Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform plan was lauded by the White House and advocacy groups around town on Monday. But with H... The conservative Republicans in the House are right to be skeptical of any plan that provides amnesty, since history shows that this policy does not help Republicans politically, and is certainly no panacea that leads to future electoral victories. Amnesty is just another big government program that adds more poor people to the already massive welfare state.

In reality, open borders with lax security effectively import Democratic voters and maximize their advantage. Because of the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, automatic birthright citizenship is granted to all people born in the United States, regardless of the alienage of the parents, which, like amnesty, serves as a magnet that attracts more illegal immigrants. In August 2010, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that 340,000 babies in 2008 were the offspring of illegal immigrants, and 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009.

In his October 21, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, Ronald Reagan supported amnesty: “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”

In 1986, Reagan reluctantly signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which legalized approximately three million illegal aliens. Simpson-Mazzoli required employers to verify the immigration status of employees, and criminalized knowingly hiring an illegal alien. However, the law did not stop calls for more amnesties and did not swell Hispanic support for Republicans.

Since Simpson-Mazzoli, the Republican presidential candidate has exceeded Reagan’s share of the Hispanic vote (37% in his re-election) in only 1 out of 7 elections. The Democratic advantage with this constituency is massive no matter who is running, or what their position is on amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform.

In George W. Bush’s 2004 State of the Union Address, he supported a temporary-worker program: “Tonight I also ask you to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary-worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers when no Americans can be found to fill the job. This reform will be good for our economy, because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. A temporary-worker program will help protect our homeland, allowing border patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security. I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary-worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.”

In John McCain’s 2008 speech to NALEO, he likewise promoted a comprehensive change: “I and many other colleagues twice attempted to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken borders; ensure respect for the laws of this country; recognize the important economic necessity of immigrant laborers; apprehend those who came here illegally to commit crimes; and deal practically and humanely with those who came here, as my distant ancestors did, to build a better, safer life for their families, without excusing the fact they came here illegally or granting them privileges before those who did.” Pew Hispanic CenterBrian_Empric So why don’t Hispanics vote for Republicans? Heather Mac Donald explains:

“The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the wake of President Obama’s victory. Hispanics supported Obama by a margin of nearly 75 percent to 25 percent, and may have provided important margins in some swing states. If only Republicans relented on their Neanderthal views regarding the immigration rule of law, the message will run, they would release the inner Republican waiting to emerge in the Hispanic population.”

“It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation… And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs.”

“The idea of the ‘social issues’ Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from (October) found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.”

“A Fox News Latino poll in September 2012 found that 62 percent of likely Latino voters backed President Obama’s handling of health care, including the Affordable Care Act. Only 25 percent of those voters wanted the act repealed. The Catholic Church’s strong opposition to the bill’s contraception mandate did not tip the Latino scales against it, dealing another blow to the myth of the ‘social values’ Hispanic conservative.”

“Rather than solving the Republican party’s alleged Hispanic problem, the suddenly popular immigration amnesty could exacerbate it. Those who oppose amnesty do so on two grounds: a revulsion against violations of the rule of law and a fear that an amnesty will attract more illegal immigrants to the country, as previous amnesties in Europe and the U.S. have done. Those illegal immigrants who are drawn in by the hope of yet another future amnesty will be precisely that category of immigrant which now provides an ever-growing base for the Democratic party — low-skilled individuals who disproportionately consume government services and who lack the social capital to reliably inoculate their children against America’s underclass culture.” Why Hispanics Don't Vote for RepublicansHeather Mac Donald writes on NRO: The call for Republicans to discard their opposition to immigration amnesty will grow deafening in the ... Re: Why Hispanics Don't Vote for RepublicansHeather Mac Donald writes on NRO: To follow up on the question of whether Hispanics are held back from their natural Republican affinitie... Rachel Campos-Duffy, the Mexican-American wife of Wisconsin Republican Congressman Sean Duffy (and cast member on The Real World: San Francisco in 1994), agrees that a quick-fix amnesty solution will do more harm than good for Republicans:

“Yes, we have a serious problem with Hispanics… But the quick-fix immigration solutions now being offered by the likes of Charles Krauthammer and other establishment-elites figures are an over-correction, do not actually address the root of the problem, and, frankly, may even accelerate our losses in the crucial Hispanic demographic.”

“Hispanics rank immigration fourth in their list of concerns, behind the economy, education, and health care.”

“Hispanics come to America for the American Dream. They are ‘trabajadores,’ and you would be hard pressed to find an American farmer, contractor, or restaurant owner who would not testify to their work ethic. Unfortunately, the communities in which they live and work are teeming with liberal activists… All of these activist groups and institutions have a common ideology and an affinity for big and centralized government, and of course, entitlements. They go out of their way to sign folks up and to begin the cycle of government dependency.”

“The sad fact is that these activists operate unimpeded. The voices of economic freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination are virtually nonexistent in Hispanic communities and media… Meanwhile, since Republicans and conservatives prefer D.C. think tanks and expensive ad buys to the long, hard, dowdy work of community organizing, we’ve effectively ceded these communities and the culture that surrounds them to the Left.”

“The irony of the now trendy quick-fix solutions of immigration and amnesty among GOP and conservative elites is that these short-term solutions may actually worsen our problem with Hispanics… without conservatives on the ground, educating and organizing on behalf of our values, we’ll just be helping the Left increase its numbers.” Read my column on NRO. Tell me if u agree with my strategy on attracting Hispanics 2 GOP?http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333319/gop-s-hispanic-opportunity-rachel-campos-duffyRachel Campos-Duffy Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) also writes that Republicans are right to worry about the Latino vote, but the wrong solution would be worse than none.

“Postelection panic among conservatives about the Latino vote has reached the point of absurdity — and mostly reveals the naïveté of detached political grandees who know little about the ideology and motivations of those they are now supposed to adroitly woo.”

“In the first place, why do Republicans think their conservative message is a natural one for the majority of contemporary Latinos/Hispanics — rubrics that strangely now include everyone from Cubans and upscale Argentinians to Oaxacan indigenous peoples and Hondurans? In truth, the vast majority of Latinos who vote overwhelmingly Democratic is made up of poorer immigrants from Central America and Mexico rather than Marco Rubio–like second-generation Cuban-Americans.”

“Second, the ‘grand bargain’ on comprehensive immigration reform envisions ending illegal immigration but granting amnesty to, at least, those who were brought here as children and are still under 25, in school or in the military, and without a criminal record. But why do Republicans think Latinos are in any significant way opposed to continuing illegal immigration?... An expectation of cyclical amnesty or a general unwillingness of Americans to enforce their own laws is a magnet for millions in Latin America.”

“For all practical purposes, ‘comprehensive reform’ means granting amnesty but also leaving the border fence uncompleted, having a guest-worker program, and issuing green cards to millions of illegal residents.”

“For all the talk of family values and natural conservatism, there is not much evidence that rates of illegitimacy, crime, or divorce are much lower among Latinos than among the general population, and plenty of reason to believe that they may in fact be higher than averages among whites and Asians. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and environmentalism have been successfully welded by the Latino leadership into a liberal package — at best, the price that Latino elites pay to white liberal counterparts for their support of amnesty and generous entitlements; at worst, because they believe these issues are a thorn in the side of the status quo establishment.”

“What, then, should Republicans do? Stick to their melting-pot principles and apply them across the board, regardless of race and tribe, emphasizing the content of our characters rather than the color of our skins.”

“The success of the Obama campaign in capturing the minority vote was not due to a Republican failure to have minority voices (cf. the party’s multiracial convention), nor was it due to opposition to the DREAM Act, but rather to a moral failure on the part of Republicans (not even a mild rebuke to Joseph Lowery’s racist rant?) to demonstrate that those who were building racial divisions for political advantage were themselves the real racists.”
The Latino-Vote ObsessionVictor Davis Hanson writes on NRO: Postelection panic among conservatives about the Latino vote has reached the point of absurdity - and ... Mark Hugo Lopez (@mhugolopez) and Paul Taylor analyze the exit polls and Latino voters in the last election:

“Obama carried Florida’s Hispanic vote 60% to 39%, an improvement over his 57% to 42% showing in 2008. Also, Hispanics made up 17% of the Florida electorate this year, up from 14% in 2008.

“The state’s growing non-Cuban population—especially growth in the Puerto Rican population in central Florida—contributed to the president’s improved showing among Hispanic voters. This year, according to the Florida exit poll, 34% of Hispanic voters were Cuban while 57% were non-Cuban. Among Cuban voters, the vote was split—49% supported Obama while 47% supported Romney. Among the state’s non-Cuban voters, Obama won 66% versus 34% for Romney.”

“For Hispanic voters, according to the national exit poll, 60% identified the economy as the most important issue (of four listed) facing the country today, virtually the same as the share (59%) of the general electorate that identified the economy as the nation’s most important issue. On the other three issues asked about, for Hispanic voters, the economy was followed by health care (18%), the federal budget deficit (11%) and foreign policy (6%).

“Throughout this election cycle, the issue of immigration has been an important issue for Hispanics. In the national exit poll, voters were asked about what should happen to unauthorized immigrants working in the U.S. According to the national exit poll, 77% of Hispanic voters said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 18% said these immigrants should be deported.”

“According to the national exit poll, Hispanic women supported Obama more than Hispanic males—76% versus 65%.”

“Among Latino voters whose total family income is below $50,000, 82% voted for Obama while 17% voted for Romney. Among Latino voters with family incomes of $50,000 or more, 59% voted for Obama while 39% voted for Romney.”

See also: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/11/2012_Latino_vote_exit_poll_analysis_final_11-09.pdf
Obama won 71% of #Hispanic vote, the highest since Bill Clinton won 72% in 1996 http://pewrsr.ch/UwZC6l http://pic.twitter.com/mfS9jFaLPew Hispanic Center

Monday, January 28, 2013

Monday's Menagerie

@ericallie

Michael Ramirez

Jeff Darcy

View the story "Monday's Menagerie (1/28/13)" on Storify Monday's Menagerie (1/28/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Mon, Jan 28 2013 18:54:08 Illegal immigrants are competing with less-educated American citizens for jobs. 50.6% of working-age adult American citizens (18 to 65) not holding a job have no education beyond high school. This is 27.7 million potential less-skilled workers, while seven to eight million illegal immigrants are thought to be holding a job, the overwhelming majority of which have no more than a high school education. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, concludes:

“It is difficult to overstate the size of the pool of potential workers that now exists in the United States. If through enforcement a large fraction of illegal immigrants returned to their home countries rather than being allowed to stay with legal status, there would seem to be an ample supply of idle workers to replace them, particularly workers who have relatively little education. Of course, employers might have to pay more, and offer better benefits and working conditions in order to attract American citizens. But improving the living standards and bargaining power of the least-educated and poorest American workers can be seen as a desirable social outcome. The contention that there is a general labor shortage that has to be satisfied by giving work authorization and/or citizenship to illegal immigrants and increasing the number of immigrants allowed into the country seems entirely inconsistent with the available evidence.”

“While it would be a mistake to think that every job taken by an illegal immigrant is a job lost by a native, it would also be a mistake to imagine that allowing illegal immigrants to stay permanently in their jobs has no impact on labor market outcomes for U.S.-born workers.”
Amnesty and the U.S. Labor MarketThe president and his political allies seem to believe that the kinds of jobs done by such workers are plentiful. However, the findings o... Melanie Trottman (@wsjMelanie), Jess Bravin (@JessBravin) and Michael R. Crittenden report that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last week that President Obama violated the Constitution in filling three National Labor Relations Board vacancies, and therefore those recess appointments are invalid.

“The decision strips the board of key powers and could void some of its actions over the past year.

“The board made more than 200 case rulings last year, including a decision that protected workers from being fired for complaining about working conditions on sites like Facebook, and a decision that gave greater rights to unions in employee-discipline cases.

“The ruling also puts in jeopardy recent moves by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, since its director, Richard Cordray, also was installed in a recess appointment.”

“The court case turned on whether the Senate was in recess when Mr. Obama made the appointments during a holiday break early last year. The Constitution allows a president to unilaterally install nominees to positions that normally require Senate confirmation when the Senate is in recess.”

“The Justice Department didn't immediately announce its next move, but an appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.”
Court Rules Obama Recess Appointments Unconstitutional - http://WSJ.com http://on.wsj.com/W7rSAK via @WSJMichael Crittenden “There was a time when you had to be successful on Wall Street to become secretary of the Treasury. Now along comes presidential nominee Jack Lew, whose only business credential is a stint at the most troubled too-big-to-fail bank.”

“There probably weren't many laughs at Citi during the market panic in 2008. But if someone had said that a (Citigroup’s now defunct Alternative Investments unit) executive would be the secretary of the Treasury within five years, the line would have brought the house down.”

“Defenders of Mr. Lew say that by the time he showed up at CAI most of the bad decisions had already been made. But even if Mr. Lew didn't create the mess, the taxpayers who ended up underwriting his seven-figure compensation might want to know what exactly he was doing to clean it up.”

“If confirmed, Mr. Lew will chair the Financial Stability Oversight Council, responsible for identifying and addressing ‘systemic risks’ to the financial system. It's hard to believe he can competently perform this task if his only experience in a similar situation ended in failure.”

“Before he took the top operating job at the CAI division, he held the same job at Citi's Global Wealth Management division, beginning in July 2006… while Mr. Lew's future colleagues at the CAI division were cooking up toxic investments, some of his Global Wealth Management colleagues were feeding them to investors.”

“The greatest irony is that given Mr. Lew's crisis-era resumé, he bears a remarkable resemblance to the bankers who President Obama says created the financial crisis and deserve federal investigation. But apparently there's an exception as long as your liberal intentions are noble and you're a loyal Democrat. Then you can get rich at one of Wall Street's biggest failures and end up running the entire financial system.”
Treasury Gets a CitibankerThere was a time when you had to be successful on Wall Street to become secretary of the Treasury. Now along comes presidential nominee J... James C. Capretta (senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute) and Jeffrey H. Anderson (senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute) write that the Obamacare fight has just begun and the only question is how to proceed, unless we are willing to give in to an eventual single-payer, universal, socialized health care system.

“Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare… Steadfast resistance by so many states is a welcome and important development. In addition to the signal that such resistance sends, Congress hasn’t authorized funding for the federally run Obamacare exchanges that would operate in place of state-based ones.”

“In addition to opting out of establishing the exchanges, states can also refuse to implement Obamacare’s massive expansion of Medicaid. The Supreme Court opened up this option by striking down the law’s onerous penalties on states that decline to raise the income cutoff for Medicaid eligibility by 33 percent, as Obamacare prescribes.”

“Beyond these encouraging developments in the states, however, there are two proposals that Republicans should embrace in the early months of 2013 to help destabilize Obamacare and lay the foundation for its eventual replacement. First, congressional Republicans should push for a delay in Obamacare’s implementation. Second, the party should unite behind, and persuasively advance, a credible and practical replacement plan—for one cannot replace Obamacare without offering a replacement.”

“Once a possible delay gets floated by Republicans in Congress, it could gather momentum. Many governors, including some Democrats, are likely to support such a move because they see a train wreck coming in 2014 and are eager to avoid it.”

“…the most important thing for the GOP at this point is to develop and unite behind a practical replacement proposal—one that will actually solve the very real problems plaguing American health care… Americans want reform of some sort to address the issues of preexisting conditions, rapidly rising costs, and unstable and insecure insurance for tens of millions of their fellow citizens.”

“Since World War II, the federal tax code has been heavily biased toward job-based insurance. As a result, those without access to employer plans have a very difficult time finding affordable insurance. In reforming the insurance market, Republicans should end the tax code’s discrimination against those outside of the employer-based system.”

“The primary problem in American health care is that it operates without the discipline of a properly functioning marketplace. The federal government’s subsidies in Medicare and Medicaid, and its tax subsidies to employer plans, are open-ended and increase when costs rise. This undercuts the incentive for price-shopping and for judicious use of resources.”

“If Republicans were to advance a replacement along these lines—a plan that would provide stable insurance options, consumer choice, and high-quality health care without the heavy-handed mandates and regulations of Obamacare—the American people would be more than happy to throw Obamacare overboard.”

“In direct contradiction to what President Obama repeatedly promised, Americans will soon realize two things: Obamacare will cause health costs to rise, not fall; and just because they like their health plans, that doesn’t mean they’ll get to keep them… Since Obamacare will mandate that businesses with at least 50 workers provide insurance to all ‘full-time’ employees—defined under the overhaul as those who work at least 30 hours a week—the 49-employee business and the 29-hour week will both become commonplace.”
Delay, Repeal, ReplaceWatching Congress take the final steps to pass Obamacare in March 2010 was a bitterly disappointing moment for the law's opponents. They ... Diversity of State Coverage OptionsBrian_Empric Micah Cohen blogs that “an Electoral College based on Congressional districts would be decidedly more friendly to Republican presidential candidates than the current system” and changes would pose danger for Democrats.

“With Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin awarding their electors proportionally by Congressional district, Mr. Obama would have won re-election by just 30 electoral college votes instead of 126… If those five states and Florida had switched to a proportional system, Mr. Romney would currently be getting accustomed to the West Wing computers.”

“The states where Democrats could gain a significant number of votes from proportional allocation by Congressional district — Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona — are all controlled by Republicans. In addition, even if the system were somehow put in place in every state, the payoff for Democrats would be substantially smaller than the G.O.P.’s electoral windfall.”
The proposed changes to electoral college may be unlikely to all pass, but GOP is proposing them where it would matter http://nyti.ms/YtBid0Micah Cohen

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Weekend Potpourri

View the story "Weekend Potpourri (1/26/13-1/27/13)" on Storify Weekend Potpourri (1/26/13-1/27/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Sun, Jan 27 2013 13:54:45 Conservatives Underperform Our Issues http://amsp.ec/1Rq9JKQuin Hillyer Exclusive, via @mikeallen: here's what Priebus will tell Republicans at a meeting Friday about the future of the party http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/exclusive-reince-priebus-plan-for-renewal-86662.html#.UQFCZoiixBI.twitterKatie Glueck Read My Latest Commentary: Politicians Need to Catch Up When It Comes to the People's Money... http://tinyurl.com/amrr5xgScott Rasmussen Defense of abortion built on a foundation of lies. My column >> http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-defense-of-abortion-built-on-a-foundation-of-lies/article/2519509#.UQCGZonjlEATimothy P Carney

Friday, January 25, 2013

Friday’s Florilegium

@AUG_RickMcKee

View the story "Friday’s Florilegium (1/25/13)" on Storify Friday’s Florilegium (1/25/13) http://theintransigentconservative.blogspot.com Storified by Brian Empric· Fri, Jan 25 2013 20:44:45 Yesterday, the Senate approved a deal that will keep the 60-vote threshold for halting a filibuster but will streamline some of the more cumbersome procedures. These changes, crafted in part by John McCain, will effectively “thwart the power of a small band of conservatives who have used the Senate’s complicated rules to their advantage.”

Sean Trende (@SeanTrende) writes that a statistical analysis of future presidential, House and Senate races suggests that Democrats should be wary of wishing for filibuster reforms. Trende’s analysis shows that Republican trifectas (control of the presidency, House, and Senate) are much more likely than Democratic trifectas in the near future, by a 20% to 3% margin.

“Even if (Harry) Reid were to lower the number of votes needed to move legislation through the Senate to 20 votes, it still wouldn’t significantly advance the Democratic cause in Congress, because the Republican House acts as an effective filibuster.”

Trende writes that Democrats may have a short term structural demographic edge over Republicans in the race for the presidency, but in the long run each party has won the popular vote twenty times. For control of the House, he notes that given the current district configurations and tightly packed geographic Democratic constituencies, it is difficult for Democrats to retake the House (except in wave years).

Trende assumes that Democrats will win two-thirds of the presidential elections in the short-to-medium term, and will win the House 20% of the time.

“Take 2012 as an example. With an electorate that featured one of the most favorable demographic tilts toward Democrats in recent memory, with a president winning by a decent margin, and with Democrats even winning the popular vote for the House by a point, Republicans won the third-largest number of seats they have enjoyed after an election since the 1920s.”

Almost half of Trende’s column is devoted to a rigorous statistical analysis of the Senate, using Monte Carlo simulations to quantify the Republicans natural advantage in future Senate races. He estimates the percentage of the vote that each state will cast for each party, using the past five presidential elections as a base line with a few statistical corrections.

“The Senate is a natural GOP gerrymander. Consider: Mitt Romney lost by 3.8 points, but still carried 24 states. John McCain lost by 7.3 points, but carried 22 states. On the other hand, when John Kerry lost by only 2.5 points, he carried just 19 states. Twenty-seven states currently have Republican PVIs, meaning that in a completely neutral environment, we’d expect them to vote for a Republican.”

“…running our simulation 2,000 times, we find Republicans winning control of the Senate 74 percent of the time, with 51 seats on average… And even if this is a touch too optimistic for Republicans, our House and presidential estimates are probably a touch too optimistic for Democrats.”

“Already we can see the problem for the Democrats -- control of just the Senate is very difficult for them to maintain over the long haul. At the same time, Republicans should never achieve a filibuster-proof majority; the best they do in our simulation is 59 seats, once every 1,000 elections.”

Since we know that Democrats have almost no understanding of basic math, it comes as no surprise that they also have no understanding of how unlikely it is that they will control the White House and all of Congress.

“Weakening the filibuster was a perfectly sensible goal for liberals back in the 1970s, when Democrats arguably had natural Senate and House majorities, and their main goal was to diminish the ability of Southern Democrats to cross the liberal leadership. But it makes much less sense today.”

“There’s no immediate benefit for Democrats, little short- or medium-term benefit, and some potentially catastrophic downsides for them during that time frame.” Why filibuster reform is problematic for Democrats. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/24/why_democrats_should_fear_filibuster_reform.htmlSean Trendē Jonathan S. Tobin (@TobinCommentary) answers Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s infamous question, “What difference does it make?”:

“An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been ‘decimated’ and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.”

“The problem here is not just what she considers an irrelevant question from Johnson or a mere ‘difference of opinion’–as she characterized Senator John McCain’s scathing attack on her record on the issue–but a belief that four dead Americans in Benghazi was really not such an earth-shaking event.”

“‘What difference does it make’ is an answer that ought to hang over Hillary Clinton for the rest of her public career. It is just one more indication that what happened after Benghazi in the State Department was akin to a cover up. Should Clinton run for president in 2016, this is a story that won’t go away. Nor should it.” Hillary's "What difference does it make?" answer about admin Benghazi lies will haunt her in 2016. http://goo.gl/EFl89Jonathan S. Tobin Robert J. Samuelson writes that there was a “make-believe quality” to Obama’s second inaugural address. There are, in fact, daunting realities to the problems of paying for the retirement of the baby boom and climate change, which cannot be solved solely with rousing rhetoric and political grit.

“Excluding (Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid) programs from even modest budget cuts — as Obama seems inclined to do — imposes huge costs on the young. Their taxes will rise, big deficits will persist or spending cuts will be concentrated on other programs more important to the working population (for starters, grants to state and local governments). There’s no honest way around these conflicts, but Obama pretended they don’t exist.”

“On climate change, the difficulty is greater. Environmentalists argue that emissions from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) need to be cut 50 percent to 80 percent by mid-century to avoid a ruinous warming. The problem is that there’s simply no plausible way to get from here to there without, in effect, shutting down the world economy… The politics of climate change are excruciatingly difficult. Do we make heroic efforts (involving more regulations, subsidies or energy taxes) to curb emissions when any U.S. decreases would have only a tiny global effect?”

“Why are Americans so disillusioned with politics? One reason is that our leaders — and this applies to both parties — often create narratives that seem uplifting and convincing only because they are completely detached from underlying realities. These fantasies transcend routine rhetorical flourishes and self-serving exaggerations and simplifications. But sooner or later, the realities assert themselves. People grasp that they’ve been misled. They feel betrayed; there’s a backlash.” President Make-BelieveOn the baby boom, Obama said: "We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country an... Nicholas Eberstadt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, writes that Obama may be tired of listening to entitlement program critics, who are alarmed about the mounting evidence of increasing state dependency, but this debate is far from over, “because the country's social-welfare spending is generating severe and mounting hazards for the nation. These hazards are not only fiscal but moral.”

“Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers—government payments of cash, goods and services to citizens—have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income.”

“According to the BEA, America's myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually.”

“In 1960, according to the Office of Management and Budget, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending.”

“According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits. That percentage is up almost 20 points from the early 1980s.”

“At this writing, about 35% of Americans (well over 100 million people) are accepting money, goods or services from ‘means-tested’ government programs. This percentage is twice as high as in the early 1980s.”

“As entitlement outlays have risen, there has been flight of men from the work force… Arithmetically speaking, the recent American flight from work has largely been a flight to government disability programs… On the current trajectory, the Social Security disability fund is projected to run out of money during Mr. Obama's second term.”

“The moral hazard embedded in the explosion of social-welfare programs is plain. Transfers funded by other people's money tend to foster a pernicious ‘something for nothing’ mentality—especially when those transfers seem to be progressively and relentlessly growing, year by year. This ‘taker’ mentality can only weaken civil society—even as it places ever-heavier burdens on taxpayers.” Nicholas Eberstadt: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of TakersIn President Obama's second inaugural address, he not only outlined an ambitious agenda for his second term but also seemed intent on shu... Paul Kengor wonders if we are at the end of the Reagan era, now that a self-described conservative, Reagan-loving electorate has twice voted for Obama. Kengor accurately lays the blame squarely on this ignorant, senseless, and self-contradictory electorate.

“Alas, with Obama’s re-coronation, liberals are glorying in an altogether new epoch, one of supreme significance to their ideological resurgence: the end of the Reagan era… Sadly, I must admit, as a Reagan scholar and admirer, that they are largely correct. Obama’s reelection does, to a notable degree, end the Reagan era.”

“…Barack Obama is indeed in the process of undoing the Reagan era. He has done so courtesy of a hopelessly oblivious American public, one that exhibits mindlessly schizophrenic voting behavior.”

“…when you break down the data, and ask voters questions like whether they prefer more taxes and more government, well, they generally don’t — even when they vote that way. They favor the conservative vision. It appeals to them. And though your television may have convinced you that half of America is gay, well, it’s far and away not — and the vast majority don’t support gay marriage either (not yet), or taxpayer-funding of abortion. No, but they vote for candidates who do.”

“The deeper truth, however, is that the American voter cannot be trusted; the American voter cannot be depended upon to vote rationally. Other elements, far more decisive, influence their voting behavior, such as (among others) the personalities and personas and public images of presidential candidates, the campaigns run by the candidates and their advisers (the David Axelrod factor), and, most critically of all, the liberal mainstream media that serves as a 24/7 full-time partisan/propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.” The End of the Reagan Era?Barack Obama's re-christening has arrived. It commenced with a small private ceremony January 20, Sunday - God's day. The actual festivit... Frank Newport, Gallup's Editor in Chief, concludes with their polling that Obama faces obvious challenges ahead since “less than four in 10 Americans rate the nation's current situation on the positive end of a zero to 10 scale and that slightly less than half project that the state of the nation will be positive in five years.”

“The 48% who give a six to 10 ranking when asked to project the status of the U.S. five years from now is tied with the 1979 measure as the lowest in Gallup's history of asking the question. Additionally, the 40% who give a negative rating (zero to four) when asked to look ahead is lower than at any point in history. These negative ratings include 10% who say the situation of the country in five years will be zero, the worst they can imagine.”

“In short, Republicans overwhelmingly say that the best times are behind the country, while Democrats look ahead and say the best times are ahead… The 60-percentage-point (15% versus 75%) partisan difference in optimism about the state of the nation in five years is particularly noteworthy. Democrats are overwhelmingly positive about the state the nation will find itself in in five years, while Republicans are just as markedly negative.” Americans Downbeat on State of U.S., Prospects for FuturePRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. President Barack Obama begins his second term at a time when Americans are as negative about the state of the count... Bryan R. Lawrence, founder of investment firm Oakcliff Capital, writes that the Treasury Department’s annual financial report highlights that our finances are unsustainable unless GDP growth rates increase and health care is delivered with better results and lower costs.

“The 2012 annual report for the federal government, released last week, continues to use dubious accounting standards to avoid putting the cost of government retirement promises into the headline deficit of $1.1 trillion… One example is the cost, in today’s dollars, to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for the next 75 years. This grew to $38.6 trillion, an increase of $4.7 trillion over the prior year.”

“Every year of slow growth decreases the amount brought in from payroll taxes. This hits younger Americans twice, with a smaller economy and higher personal income tax rates to pay for baby-boomer retirements.”

“Without the 3 percent growth that the U.S. economy has historically delivered, the promises we have made ourselves will be even more unaffordable. Why aren’t we focused on boosting growth?”

“…if the pilot programs (in ObamaCare) fail, personal income taxes on all Americans would have to increase to unprecedented levels. Taxes that high will crush growth, making health-care promises even less affordable.” Health care threatens to crush U.S. growthThe 2012 annual report for the federal government, released last week, continues to use dubious accounting standards to avoid putting the...

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Thursday's Thoughts

@AUG_RickMcKee

Joe Heller


Jim Harbaugh's meltdown after an unfavorable replay ruling in the NFC Championship Game

View the story "Thursday's ? (1/24/13)" on Storify Storify //<![CDATA[try{if (!window.CloudFlare) { var CloudFlare=[{verbose:0,p:0,byc:0,owlid:"cf",mirage:{responsive:1,lazy:0},oracle:0,paths:{cloudflare:"/cdn-cgi/nexp/abv=1870252173/"},atok:"add97a205f426d5a6ebe2cc6c452234f",zone:"storify.com",rocket:"0",apps:{}}];var a=document.createElement("script"),b=document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0];a.async=!0;a.src="//ajax.cloudflare.com/cdn-cgi/nexp/abv=4114775854/cloudflare.min.js";b.parentNode.insertBefore(a,b);}}catch(e){};//]]>// app: // res: window.s = window.s || {};s["base_url"] = "//storify.com";s["env"] = "production";s["git"] = "13aa8a6f";s["namespace"] = "storifyapp";window.s = window.s || {};s.user = window.s.user || {};s.user["username"] = "brian_empric";s.user["canEdit"] = true;window.s = window.s || {};s.story = window.s.story || {};s.story["sid"] = "5101bb81fd1be1936200b9f3";s.story["slug"] = "thursday-s-1-24-13";s.story["permalink"] = "http://storify.com/brian_empric/thursday-s-1-24-13";s.story["title"] = "Thursday's ? (1/24/13)";s.story["date"] = {"created":"2013-01-24T22:53:53.723Z", "modified":null, "published":null};s.story["stats"] = {"views":4, "popularity":0, "likes":0, "embeds":[{"clicks":0, "views":4, "href":"http://storify.com/brian_empric/thursday-s-1-24-13/preview", "domain":"storify.com"}], "elements":{"text":0, "quote":0, "image":0, "video":0, "link":0, "other":0}, "elementComments":0, "comments":0, "clicks":0};s.story["canEdit"] = true;s.story["liked"] = false;s.story["author"] = {"username":"brian_empric", "name":"Brian Empric"};window.s = window.s || {};s.user = window.s.user || {};s.user["username"] = "brian_empric";s.user["canEdit"] = true;