UnSkewing recent polls that falsely project President Obama surging shows a different, yet more accurate, view of the 2012 race.
These polls are oversampling Democrats by an average of 9%. Some say this is an attempt to discourage Republicans but I think if the pollsters and the media keep this narrative up, it will have the opposite effect and actually cause Democrats and to stay home thinking that Obama has this election, “in the bag,” so to speak.
Here’s what the numbers really look like:
So don’t be discouraged and don’t obsess over things you can’t control, like pollsters oversampling and using 2008 models, GO VOTE!!! Convince your friends and family to do the same… the momentum is with the Conservative movement even as the dead tree media does it’s level best to convince Americans otherwise.
Bestselling author Ed Klein in op-ed this morning: “Jews represent only 4 percent of the population in Florida, but because they vote at a disproportionately higher rate than other groups, they account for 7 to 8 percent of the total vote. Obama got 78 percent of that vote in 2008. Current polls put him at 68 percent or lower among Jews in Florida. If Obama’s margin is reduced by 10 percentage points, that would translate to 85,000 lost votes. In a close election, the Jewish vote could make a difference in who wins Florida— and the presidential election—and Obama would have no one to blame but himself.”
The Times of Israel this afternoon: “Support for President Barack Obama among Jews in the state of Florida is down 7 percent on 2008, according to an American Jewish Committee (AJC) poll released Thursday. A total of 69% of Florida Jews said they would vote for Obama in November’s presidential elections, down from 76% in 2008, the AJC noted. A 7% drop in the Jewish vote likely represents over 50,000 votes in a state that the Republicans won in 2000 by fewer than 600 votes.”
By Edward Klein
[Iran is] six months away from being about 90 percent of having the rich uranium for an atom bomb. I think that you have to place that red line before them now, before it’s too late.
—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press”
One of the most enduring myths about Barack Obama is that he’s been a better foreign policy president than a domestic one. Given his feeble record at home, that isn’t saying much. And now, after the wholesale collapse of his “soft diplomacy” throughout the Muslim world, that myth has finally been shattered.
Indeed, when it comes to foreign policy, it’s amateur hour in the White House. This rank amateurism was on full display in the confusing and contradictory manner with which Obama treated the two most important leaders in the Middle East— Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu of Israel and Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt.
The current Islamic rage against America began in Egypt, and the American embassy in Cairo has been under constant assault by Morsi’s radical Islamist political partners. So how did Obama react? He agreed to reward Morsi with a private meeting at the United Nations General Assembly later this month, but flatly turned down a request for a get-together with America’s chief ally in the region, Netanyahu.
Netanyahu has made no secret of the fact that he doesn’t trust Obama, and the president has been equally candid that he despises the outspoken Netanyahu. The White House didn’t even try to come up with a valid excuse for the president’s snub of Netanyahu. It said that the president would arrive in New York for the UN on Monday, September 24 and depart on Tuesday, September 25, and Netanyahu wouldn’t arrive in New York until later in the week. But that explanation didn’t wash, because Netanyahu offered to go to Washington if New York wasn’t convenient.
With less than two months remaining in the presidential campaign, Obama was in no mood to be lectured in public by Netanyahu about America’s ineffectual approach to stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But according to my sources in Jerusalem and Washington, the real reason Obama gave Netanyahu the brush off, was political, no diplomatic.
David Axelrod and his Chicago campaign team reckoned that if Obama agreed to meet with Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister would feel obliged to appear even-handed in the American presidential race and meet with Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. The last thing the Axelrod gang wanted to see were side-by-side front-page photos of Bibi’s chilly reception at the White House contrasted with his warm embrace by Romney. Netanyahu and Romney have a close relationship that dates back to their work together at the Boston Consulting Group in the mid-1970s. That friendship has been cemented by Romney’s trips to Israel, where he has dined with Netanyahu and his wife, and by the friends they have in common both in Israel and the United States.
The Obama campaign operation is convinced that Netanyahu is grossly interfering in the American presidential election. Netanyahu, according to their theory, wants Romney to win the election because he shares Netanyahu’s hawkish views on Iran. What’s more, the Israeli prime minister’s constant complaints about America’s approach to Iran are viewed by Axelrod & Co. as an effort to portray Obama as a weak leader.
Furthermore, the Axelrod operation believes that Netanyahu is somehow in cahoots with a major Republican effort to influence Jewish voters to abandon Obama and vote for Romney. The Chicago operatives point to the fact that the Republican Jewish Coalition is spending $6.5 million in advertisements to influence the Jewish vote in swing states like Florida.
Jews represent only 4 percent of the population in Florida, but because they vote at a disproportionately higher rate than other groups, they account for 7 to 8 percent of the total vote. Obama got 78 percent of that vote in 2008. Current polls put him at 68 percent or lower among Jews in Florida. If Obama’s margin is reduced by 10 percentage points, that would translate to 85,000 lost votes. In a close election, the Jewish vote could make a difference in who wins Florida— and the presidential election—and Obama would have no one to blame but himself.
Edward Klein is the former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine. His latest book is “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.” (Regnery 2012)
We don’t care if you’re offended, and we never will. Get used to it.
US warns citizens not to travel to Pakistan
Al-Qaeda threatens attacks on US diplomats
US ambassador and three staff killed in film protest
Fatwa issued against “Innocence of Muslims” film producer
Turkish PM thinks Islamophobia is a crime against humanity
Pakistan calls in the army to control riot at US embassy
Pakistan declares holiday in response to prophet film
You can download an audio version of this video at
Subscribe via iTunes at http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=262679978
BOOK OF VIDEO TRANSCRIPTS AVAILABLE
ALSO AVAILABLE ON AMAZON KINDLE
Follow me on Twitter
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senate Republicans delivered a coordinated round of speeches on the Senate floor today regarding the do-nothing approach by Senate Democrats and the President’s refusal to lead while blaming others for his policy failures. The following are excerpts from their remarks:
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “In these very challenging times, Americans deserve leadership. Never before have a President and a Senate majority party done so little when our challenges have been so great.” (Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
On Jobs And The Economy
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): “For the past three and a half years, the President and the Democrats here in the Senate have failed to provide the leadership that America needs to make a stronger middle class. Middle class Americans continue to face a bleak economic picture on this President’s watch.” (Sen. Thune, Floor Remarks, 9/20)
SEN. MIKE ENZI (R-WY): “The President, the administration and the Senate majority have failed to govern during a crucial time for our nation. There is a willingness to kick our problems down the road with the hopes that the next election will suddenly inspire action. Rome burned while Nero fiddled. We have had enough fiddling.” (Sen. Enzi, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): “Right now, federal agencies are at work on 2,700 new rules. These rules will go on top of a pile of regulations measuring millions of pages. Mr. President, if we want to put people back to work, we have to cut the red tape that is strangling our job creators.” (Sen. Collins, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JOHN BOOZMAN (R-AR): “The administration’s policies have led to the worst recovery since World War II. Over 23 million people are unemployed, underemployed. One of the main reasons that we can’t find work in this is the economic uncertainty Washington has created, stopping the hiring process. Our businesses are frozen.” (Sen. John Boozman, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): “The number-one job of this Congress domestically should have been more private sector jobs. The President’s long-held view of redistribution as a goal for the government is not going to accomplish that. What’s going to accomplish that is more opportunity.” (Sen. Blunt, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JIM DeMINT (R-SC): “Yesterday, a businessman from South Carolina came to Washington to present a very simple proposition. He built his business from his garage to 150 workers, putting every dime he could back into his business. His plan was to add 25 workers next year if we keep taxes the same, but to do nothing if we follow [Democrats’] plan to raise taxes. Mr. President, if you really want to create jobs, help our economy and reduce our deficit, stop threatening to raise taxes.” (Sen. DeMint, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R-OH): “We’ve learned again, a lesson we’ve learned time and time again in America, you can’t tax, regulate your way to prosperity. And Republicans in the Senate have provided an alternative. This is the Republican Senate Jobs Plan. All 47 Republican Senators have supported it. We have introduced legislation that incorporates these ideas. And yet we haven’t gotten a hearing on the Senate floor. Pretty simple.” (Sen. Portman, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): “Our country is at a moment of deep economic uncertainty, and America’s citizens and taxpayers deserve more than the President’s decision to prioritize electoral politics over sound fiscal policy.” (Sen. Hatch, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. THAD COCHRAN (R-MS): “In most states unemployment has remained over 8% for more than three years despite spending nearly $1 trillion with the President’s 2009 stimulus package. Investments in small business growth have languished, and they’ve done this in a state of the economy, tax policy, federal regulations that seem to have made matters worse. The course we’re on is simply not good enough.” (Sen. Cochran, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
On The Budget
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): “This nation has never faced a more difficult financial challenge. We have deep systemic demographic problems. They need to be addressed yet today marks the 1,240th day since the Democratic Leadership in the Senate adopted a budget.” (Sen. Sessions, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): “When Republicans regain the majority in the Senate, we will pass a budget, we will reduce the deficit, we will tackle our long-term debt and we will help grow the American economy by getting our boot off the neck of the small businesses and job creators in our country.” (Sen. Cornyn, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN): “This year we will spend over $3.5 trillion, 60% of which is taxpayer money, 40% is borrowed. Over the next 10 years, we will spend $45 trillion. We haven’t had a budget in this body for 1,240 days. Not only is this dysfunctional and America looks at us as a dysfunctional body, it is an embarrassment.” (Sen. Corker, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON (R-GA): “We spent $10.6 trillion, increased our debt over $4 trillion while the American people have cut their debt, cut their spending and got their house in order during our worst recession since the Great Depression. It’s time the leadership of the Senate took a lesson from the American people.” (Sen. Isakson, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. MIKE JOHANNS (R-NE): “Mr. President, think about it, $5 trillion of new debt under this President. So when he submits a budget plan, what happens to it? On the floor of this Senate, the President’s budget plan did not get a single vote. No Republican, no Democrat, no Independent supported the President.” (Sen. Johanns, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): “We’re facing the most predictable financial crisis in our nation, and our President refuses to lead, this Senate refuses to lead. America hungers for leadership.” (Sen. Ron Johnson, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): “It’s bad enough that this Senate Leadership, led by the Democrats, has not passed a budget in three and a half years. What’s even worse than that is the fact that they haven’t offered a budget this Congress. They haven’t voted for or supported a single budget in this Congress.” (Sen. Lee, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
On The Fiscal Cliff
SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ): “Senate Democrats and the Obama administration are too afraid to tackle, let alone vote on, the tough issues in an election year. For Americans outside the Beltway, the consequences are very serious.” (Sen. Kyl, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME): “We’re facing another manufactured crisis this year with a fiscal cliff that never would have existed if the Senate had remained in session, had fewer recesses, and maximized every legislative day based on the job we were elected to do as I have argued virtually throughout this entire Congress.” (Sen. Snowe, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): “We find ourselves at a point in time where the greatest threat to our nation is our debt and our economy. We’re risking our future, not only our future economically but our future of liberty. What we have had, I would remind my colleagues, is a history in the Senate of doing hard things, under the leadership of Senator Reid, the Senate has not attempted to do hard things.” (Sen. Coburn, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. PAT TOOMEY (R-PA): “As long as everybody who might even contemplate launching a new business or expanding an existing business knows that this government is running trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see with no willingness to address this, then people won’t make that investment, they won’t expand their business, they won’t hire that next worker. Mr. President, it’s long past time that the Democratic Leadership in this body accept its responsibility to address this problem…” (Sen. Toomey, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. RICHARD BURR (R-NC): “We’ve known about the fiscal cliff for a long time, and there’s been no shortage of warnings about the dire economic consequences of doing nothing, but that’s in fact what this body has done. Nothing. So let me just say this. There’s a reason that President Obama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are targeting the Romney plan and the Ryan plan and the Republican plan. It’s because they don’t have a plan.” (Sen. Burr, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): “This is a softball: what’s the estate tax rate going to be next year? It’s embarrassing not to be able to answer the simple questions about what is going to happen in people’s lives… We’re facing a point in time in which we have no opportunity to tell somebody what the tax code is going to be in three months. That’s embarrassing.” (Sen. Moran, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
On National Security
SEN. KELLY AYOTTE (R-NH): “Our troops are fighting and being attacked in Afghanistan. Iran marches toward the capability of having a nuclear weapon, terrorists have murdered our diplomats. Innocent civilians are being murdered in Syria by a despotic regime. Mr. President, the world is a dangerous place. President Obama, stop leading from behind.” (Sen. Ayotte, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): “There is no coherent foreign policy at a time when we need one. Four years later, after a charm offensive and an apology tour that has not worked, our enemies are on steroids and our friends are unsure about who we are. I’ll make a prediction. If this continues, the world is going to devolve into chaos…” (Sen. Graham, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA): “The Senate’s lack of leadership in addressing sequestration will have long-term effects on our nation’s robust intelligence community which had to be rebuilt after 9/11. These budget cuts will make it very difficult for the intelligence community to keep Americans safe in future years.” (Sen. Chambliss, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS): “Americans are watching a conflagration of an estimated half million jihadists and over 30 countries burning portraits of our President, American flags and threatening attacks upon our consulates and embassies while shouting death to America. No, Mr. President, my colleagues, the war against terrorism is not over. … We are on a merry-go-round with this administration of excuses. There is no strong horse or weak horse. It’s a merry-go-round that has to stop.” (Sen. Roberts, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JAMES RISCH (R-ID): “This is a foreign policy that is in shambles. In the Middle East, it is a foreign policy of apology, it is a foreign policy of appeasement, it is a foreign policy of dithering and looking the other way. This cannot go on.” (Sen. Risch, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): “I will remind my colleagues, this is our choice here. It is within our power to free ourselves from reliance on OPEC oil. … Our problems result from a federal government that has actions and inactions that indefinitely delay if not prohibit in many cases access to our energy resources. Mr. President, we are not running out of energy. What we’re running out of are excuses for continued reliance on OPEC.” (Sen. Murkowski, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): “Just yesterday, the White House went out and applauded the fact that Saudi Arabia is creating more, producing more oil. The President goes to Brazil and he tells the President of Brazil, we want to be your number-one customer. This is at the same time that this White House is blocking American energy projects and American energy jobs. Held hostage by environmental extremists, this President continues to block and cause people to lose jobs in the United States.” (Sen. Barrasso, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. DAVID VITTER (R-LA): “Today the price of gasoline at the pump is double what it was four years ago. The majority in this Senate has done nothing to address that problem, and this administration has done nothing to address that problem. In fact, we are moving in the wrong direction. … We are the most energy-rich country in the world, but this Senate majority, this administration won’t allow us to access our own resources for our own good.” (Sen. Vitter, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R-ND): “Why do veterans have to come back from the Middle East and go to Canada to get a job to work on something like the Keystone pipeline? Because the Administration is blocking it in this country. The question I have is, ‘Why?’” (Sen. Hoeven, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
On The Broken Senate
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “The committee did its work. Eleven of the 12 [appropriations bills] have been reported to the floor. … But the Majority Leader said we’re not going to consider any appropriations bills. No appropriations bills. Mr. President, being elected to the Senate and not being allowed to vote on appropriations bills is like being invited to join the Grand Ole Opry and not be allowed to sing.” (Sen. Alexander, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): “The Majority Leader of the United States Senate said the day of amendments in this body are over. Is there a more telling description of how this body has deteriorated and degenerated over the years?” (Sen. McCain, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. DAN COATS (R-IN): “Twenty-three million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed and millions more have simply given up finding a job. And what is the President’s response in the face of all this? Reject every plan presented by Republicans and instead spend $5 trillion of borrowed money leading, so-called leading, our country into decline and ultimately into bankruptcy.” (Sen. Coats, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS): “Yesterday The New York Times said this: the 112th Congress is set to enter the congressional record books as the least productive body in a generation. This is true, and the responsibility falls squarely at the feet of the Democratic Senate leadership. … The Majority Leader has shut off the right to amend a record number of times. The Majority Leader has filled the amendment tree a record 66 times, more than his six predecessors in the Senate …” (Sen. Wicker, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
SEN. MITCH McCONNELL (R-KY): “The fact that we have an election coming up is not an excuse for not tackling the tough problems.” (Sen. McConnell, Floor Remarks, 9/20/12)
On September 13, 2012, the House Armed Services Committee took a small step to confront the challenges military personnel face in obtaining or submitting an absentee ballot by conducting a hearing focused on the DoD’s Federal Voting Assistance program.
Unfortunately, despite direct questions from the members, no answers were forthcoming as to why reforms mandated by Congress had not taken place.
Sign up for email updates from Concerned Veterans for America, CLICK HERE: http://bit.ly/QXtuct
Since our Egyptian and Libyan embassies were attacked we’ve seen a steady stream of statements from the Obama administration who blame an obscure 14 minute film for the outbreak of the violence.
For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the video “disgusting and reprehensible.”
|Ironically, last year Clinton attended the smash Broadway musical “Book of Mormon,” an irreverent spoof on Mormonism which includes lines so trashy we wouldn’t put them in this email.|
Did you hear Clinton complain about the offense the musical afforded to Mormons? No? Because according to a column in The Wall Street Journal, she didn’t.
This illustrates the politically correct, free speech double standard.
Would Mrs. Clinton ever attend a Broadway spoof entitled “The Qur’an?”
Better yet, would such a musical ever be performed on Broadway?
This glaring double standard is a frontal assault on our precious First Amendment—by the very people who have taken an oath to uphold it.
|Did you know our State Department is working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to advance UN Resolution 16/18, which calls for prohibiting speech that “incites violence?|
Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., don’t respond to offenses to their beliefs with mass riots. They understand that free speech protects the right to offend.
Thus, UN Resolution 16/18 would have one notable effect—suppressing speech that offends Muslims. That would be the beginning of the end of the First Amendment.
|If you’ve had enough of this double standard assault on free speech, please add your name to our new petition, which we will deliver to the White House and leaders of Congress.|
The text of the petition is below. VISIT HERE to add your name, or click on the image above. Then FORWARD this to everyone you know!
Speak out now—while you still can.
Since the unjustified assaults on the U.S. embassies and consulates in Egypt, Libya, and over 23 countries, many in the Obama administration, the Congress, the media, and academia, have apologized, blamed or insinuated that a satirical film about Mohammed was the catalyst for all the violence.
We, the undersigned, know better—and we’ve had enough.
We’ve had enough of the Obama administration’s efforts to placate Islamist mobs motivated by ideology, or hatred of America, or just plain thuggery, with its repeated references to this obscure film that prior to September 11, 2012, no one had ever heard of.
We’ve had enough of the Obama administration and some Members of Congress insinuating or even implying that the violence against our embassies would not have occurred had it not been for this “offense” against Islam.
We’ve had enough of those who say a single blog post about an obscure film satirizing Islam is somehow responsible for the violence and anger raging throughout the Muslim world.
We’ve had enough of political leaders who cower in the face of the intimidation and bullying tactics of radical Muslims around the world who can never be appeased enough or accommodated enough.
We’ve had enough of the “establishment media’s” double standard, who defend satirical films and art that offend Christians and Jews as “free speech,” but condemn satire that offends Muslims as “hate speech.”
We’ve had enough of American politicians who fail to see or refuse to see the clear and present threat the Muslim Brotherhood poses to the United States.
We’ve had enough of the message of weakness coming out of Washington when what is required now is a defense of America, a defense of our values, strength, courage and resolve.
We are the silent majority in America.
We don’t riot when offended. We don’t storm embassies, kill ambassadors, or torch government buildings.
And we know that we’ve been here once before.
In 1979, we said “enough” to an economy in shambles, skyrocketing gas prices, and a president whose weakness emboldened Iranian radicals to hold Americans hostage for 444 days.
On November 6th, we will again say “enough,” just as patriotic and responsible Americans have said “enough” in the past.
We will VOTE.
(James Smack)- I am proud to state that I caucused for Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012, and I am a believer in the Constitutional, Liberty principles that Dr. Paul and those who support him also believe in. Like you, I was faced with a difficult choice once it became apparent that Dr. Paul was not going to win the nomination: fully support Mitt Romney, or look at other options.
I chose, as Senator Rand Paul did, to fully support Mitt Romney once he secured the nomination. I went on record within a couple of days after Senator Paul, and I will submit to my fellow Ron Paul supporters that I have made the right choice.
Allow me to explain.
The single biggest thing that I hear from supporters of Dr. Paul is “Romney is no better than Obama.” Let me play into that assumption for just a moment, even though I do not share those feelings.
I’ll agree that Mitt Romney does not demonstrate the same Constitutional, Liberty principles that we do. However, I will firmly state that Mitt Romney will be superior to President Obama, if for no other reason than he will be in his first term, not his second term.
I have nightmares about what Obama can do with a second term. Let’s start with the Second Amendment.
Now, I highly doubt that Obama and his cronies will be able to repeal the Second Amendment. However, how far can they water it down? Outlaw assault weapon sales? Outlaw handgun sales via executive order? Outlaw ammunition sales by executive order? You and I both know that, even if the GOP controls both Houses of Congress, they will not be able to override an Obama veto of legislation to repeal his executive orders.
How about internet freedom?
Does anyone really think that a second Obama term is not going to be harmful to our freedom of expression via the internet? If you think that you will have the same freedom of expression on the internet if Obama is re-elected, please pull your head out of the sand. This is one thing that Homeland Security Obama style can’t wait to start attacking, ladies and gentlemen.
The deficit? It is a bipartisan issue that must be addressed, but what will be Obama’s motivation to do so when he never has to face the voters again? I sense none.
A second term Obama is a diabolical proposition to say the least. We will lose our Republic to Liberal Socialism. Obama is licking his chops at the proposition of having four more years of never having to answer to the voters again. He will shape this country in his image, which is an image of European Socialism.
So, Ron Paul supporters, I ask you this: Are you willing to take that chance by either not voting or voting third party?
(Mr. Smack in the Republican National Committeeman for Nevada) via Nevada News & Views.
Congress is in the midst of considering a new Farm Bill. Lurking in this legislation is a scheme called the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP). Supporters of DMSP call it “reform,” but in fact it continues the failed command-and-control policies for milk that have existed for decades.
DMSP will limit the supply of milk and, as a result, increase the price Americans pay at the grocery counter for milk and dairy products, like cheese, yogurt, and ice cream. DMSP will also impose a new layer of job-killing regulations on American companies that manufacture dairy products. Please tell Congress today to stop messing with your milk money!
Members of Congress are in the midst of considering a new farm bill, with immense pressure from commodity groups to get it done quickly. Lurking in this legislation is a scheme called the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP). Don’t be fooled by the title: DMSP is just the latest set of complicated federal rules that meddle with the nation’s milk supply, make prices higher for consumers, and deny everyday Americans the job opportunities they deserve.
Supporters of DMSP call it “reform,” but it will instead be a new layer of government intervention in markets on top of existing federal rules to control the price of milk. DMSP attempts to both limit the supply of milk and increase the demand for dairy products. One absurd consequence of DMSP is that farmers could be penalized for exceeding government milk production “quotas.” Plans like this have been imposed in other countries, including Canada, and have undermined dairy markets and cost consumers.
Everyone knows what happens when the supply of something is restricted: if demand remains constant, prices will still rise. That is exactly what supporters of DMSP want to do with milk. The bottom line: consumers will pay more at the cash register, not only for milk, but for other dairy items such as cheese, yogurt, and ice cream. Moreover, low-income families, who spend a larger percentage of their income on food than other consumers, will be hit hardest.
What’s more, DMSP is a job killer. Constraining supplies will make it less likely that the people who make the dairy foods that Americans enjoy will expand their plants, create new jobs, and increase exports.
Finally, higher dairy prices will hit taxpayers, who foot the bill for federal nutrition assistance programs.
The controversy over the Obama Administration’s gutting of welfare reform continues to grow. Two new government reports show the move’s illegality and effects on taxpayers. And the House of Representatives is set to vote today to approve or disapprove Health and Human Services’ (HHS) rewriting of the 1996 law.
Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a new report saying that in the years since the Clinton-era reform added work requirements to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, five states inquired about waivers of TANF requirements. The report confirms that since welfare reform was enacted, HHS has never before suggested that it had any authority to waive the work requirements. Waiver requests were turned down, in fact.
In specific instances in 2005 and 2007, the response from HHS was clear: “HHS stated that all applicable programmatic requirements apply to a family that is provided TANF-funded cash assistance, and the Department does not have authority to waive any of the provisions.”
In the debate thus far, one question has largely gone unanswered: Just how strict are these now-controversial work requirements?
In a new report, Heritage expert Robert Rector explains that “the work requirements were quite lenient, requiring only 30 percent to 40 percent of a state’s caseload to participate in work or a work-related activity and requiring individuals to work as few as 20 hours per week to fulfill the requirement….Yet half of TANF recipients receive a welfare check without performing any activity at all.”
In a snapshot of the TANF recipients in March 2011, only about 14 percent of the recipients were actually meeting the work requirements. The other 86 percent were receiving their welfare benefits just the same.
As Rector says, “It is difficult to understand why anyone would want to weaken these already overly lenient work standards.” Yet he details the left’s vigorous opposition to work requirements in welfare dating back to the Nixon Administration.
The Obama Administration’s rewriting of the law will cost taxpayers, too. A new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that the Obama Administration’s move will actually increase the deficit by $60 million over the next 10 years. Why? Because states have been paying penalties if they aren’t meeting the work requirements—and under the Administration’s rewriting of the law, those penalties are gone. So is the revenue to the federal government.
But the Administration’s gutting of welfare reform not only costs taxpayers; it also harms those welfare reform was designed to help. By jettisoning the law’s goal of reducing dependency, the new policy will increase welfare caseloads and leave more people stuck in poverty.
Workfare separates those who truly need help from those who do not. Faced with a simple requirement to prepare or search for work, many people simply choose not to enter the welfare rolls in the first place. This is generally good for the prospective recipient and the taxpayer. As Rector explains:
Time spent on welfare never looks good on a job resume. Welfare dependence erodes work habits and job skills and reduces contacts with other employed persons that can lead to future job opportunities. Unnecessary enrollment in welfare therefore undermines an individual’s long-term earnings potential and increases the prospects for future poverty.
Those already on welfare, faced with a requirement to search or prepare for work, leave welfare much more quickly. Having a work requirement tied to welfare benefits is good for recipients and good for taxpayers. As Rector’s new report shows, stronger, not weaker, work requirements are needed.
But the Obama Administration is moving in the opposition direction. Under the new welfare performance measures devised by the Administration, the old pre-reform welfare program with rapidly rising caseloads would be judged a rousing success, while welfare reform itself—with rapid declines in the caseload—would be judged a failure. As Rector states, “The Obama Administration is not just gutting welfare reform; it is turning it on its head.”
Falsehoods continue to circulate on this topic, but the facts are starting to break through. After speaking with Heritage’s Rector, The Washington Post’s “fact check” columnist took a second look at former President Bill Clinton’s recent speech and gave him two “Pinocchios” for misleading people about the TANF work requirements.
Heritage just held a fact check panel of its own this week, featuring Rector, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), The Daily Caller’s Mickey Kaus, and Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute.
On July 12, the Obama Administration issued a directive from the Department of Health and Human Services that undermines the work requirements in the successful 1996 welfare-reform law. That law stipulated clear work standards for the largest cash assistance welfare program. As a result, stagnant welfare rolls experienced unprecedented declines, as millions of families left welfare for jobs.
Under the Obama Administration’s new policy, states could receive waivers that would be inconstant with the 1996 law’s performance measures. The waiver policy not only undermines the success these standards helped to bring about, but also violates the letter and intent of the reform law.
“Gutting welfare work requirements with the stroke of a pen and without congressional input is simply unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand,” said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in a statement released July 18. “Neither the Obama Administration nor any administration should have the power to unilaterally change the law as it sees fit.”
Join us for a “fact check the fact checkers” event as Senator Hatch details areas in which self-appointed arbiters have gotten their facts wrong. Following the Senator’s remarks, our panelists will explore other areas where the “fact checkers” don’t have their facts right.