February 1, 2013

THE BLAZE

Conservatives Launch New Social Network to Escape Facebook ‘Censorship’ — Will You Join?

by Jason Howerton

January 31, 2013

Fed up with the threat of “censorship” on Facebook, a group of a conservatives are launching their own social network called “The Tea Party Community.” The site, which doesn’t even officially go online until Saturday, has already attracted nearly 50,000 members.

The site’s co-founder, Tea Party activist Ken Crow, told Fox News that The Tea Party Community will be the “new home for conservatives and the Tea Party movement in America.”

“Most of us are subjected to censorship on Facebook…I’ve been suspended there as have many of my friends. You also absorb a lot of abuse from liberals,” Crow said.

Crow reportedly teamed up with Tim Selaty Sr. and Tim Selaty Jr. to put the social networking site together in November, which dubs itself as a “safe haven for the conservative movement where we can share ideas and thoughts and express ourselves without fear of retribution.”

Crow said he, along with many other conservatives, feel as if Facebook intentionally targets conservatives through its policies.

“Most of us are subjected to censorship on Facebook,” Crow explained. “I’ve been suspended there as have many of my friends. You also absorb a lot of abuse from liberals.”

“As many as 100 Facebook users contacted Fox News with complaints that the social networking site had either removed conservative content or blocked them for posting conservative content,” Fox News reports.

Fox News has some additional details about The Tea Party Community:

It’s no surprise The Tea Party Community has a very similar look and feel to Facebook.

“That was intentional,” Crow said. “We didn’t want there to be a learning curve for the new members.”

You can “friend” people and “like” posts. You can also join pages and meet up with like-minded conservatives in your home state. And like Facebook – The Tea Party Community is free of charge.

Crow said he’s not surprised by the popularity of The Tea Party Community. He expects it to become not just a social networking site – but a political networking site.

Read more: http://goo.gl/JysnX

CVN EDITORIAL
The Perpetual Campaign
by Conservative Sue
February 1, 2013

Well, it appears that perpetual campaigning is no longer the exclusive domain of the Obama administration.  Apparently, Reince Priebus, the dear leader of the Grandiose Old-White-Man Party, liked Obama's perpetual campaign strategy so well, he has adopted it for the GOP 2016 race.

That's right.. we are now beginning the 2016 campaign for President of the United States.

Seriously?

Now, perhaps you can sense the sarcasm in my tone.. but just in case you missed that...

This move by the GOP is just one more example of big-party voter manipulation.  It will do NOTHING to solve our problems as a country; this perpetual campaign will be used to deceive voters into towing the 'party line' and will likely just increase the divide (and distrust) that already exists between voters and their elected leaders. If you think people hate politics now, just wait until a few years have passed when we have been enduring campaigning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  I enjoy politics, but even I will loathe it when it never stops!

What happened to statesmanship?

What happened to governing?

What happened to writing and passing budgets?

What happened to being accountable to the voters?

Campaign is just a fancy word for propaganda.  Politicians say whatever they have to say, do whatever they have do ...to get votes.  Lies are just fine, as long as they result in the right person being elected and re-elected, right?  It's Saul Alinsky 101 - the ends justify the means. Maybe they all need to be limited to ONE term in office, so they can actually stop the campaigning and start the governing.

We can't afford a 'say whatever you have to say' government. They all lie.  Liberals lie to get bigger government.  Conservatives lie to hide the fact they don't have the guts or the intelligence to  slow down the growth of big-government.  We must step up and demand the lies STOP, that leaders be HELD TO ACCOUNT for what they do while they are in office (or rather, fail to do).

Enough of the fun and games, Mr. Priebus and the GOP.  It's time to get serious and get to work, or GET OUT OF OUR WAY.

REDSTATE

Thanks to Democrats, poor families getting squeezed on Obamacare exchanges

Moe Lane

January 31, 2013

They’re calling it a “glitch.” Goodness gracious:

Some families could get priced out of health insurance due to what’s being called a glitch in President Barack Obama’s overhaul law. IRS regulations issued Wednesday failed to fix the problem as liberal backers of the president’s plan had hoped. 

As a result, some families that can’t afford the employer coverage that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their own. How many people will be affected is unclear.

The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress wrote the law[*].

Essentially, it breaks down like this: the government is forcing everybody to buy health insurance. The government is also mandating the existence of health care exchanges. If somebody theoretically can’t afford the exchanges, then they theoretically can get subsidies. The rule of thumb for ‘affordability’ was capped at a level designed to keep people from simply dropping their employer coverage. But the rule of thumb was also capped assuming average costs for individual coverage, not average costs for family coverage. As a result, some families will be left in a bad situation: they don’t get family coverage from their employers, they aren’t able to afford the new exchange policies on their own, and they can’t get subsidized because they’re over a badly-designed arbitrary affordability level. And, of course, this is all disproportionally targeting lower-income families.

Well, as Nancy Pelosi (in her increasingly doddering way) said, they had to pass the law in order to find out what was in it.

Read more: http://goo.gl/28H3n

December 5, 2012

NEWSMAX
DeMint Denounces GOP's Fiscal Cliff Plan
by Thomson/Reuters
December 4, 2012

A leading Republican senator underscored division within his party ranks on Tuesday by opposing a plan by the top Republican to increase tax revenues as part of a possible deal to avert the "fiscal cliff."

Senator Jim DeMint, a favorite of the anti-tax Tea Party movement, said the proposal by House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner for $800 billion in increased tax revenues would "destroy jobs and allow Washington politicians" to swell, not reduce, the deficit.

Boehner and fellow House Republican leaders on Monday made the offer, which would raise revenue by eliminating some tax breaks and without increasing any tax rates.

The House Republican proposal was made as a counter offer to one by President Barack Obama, which would increase tax rates on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, while renewing a tax cut for 98 percent of Americans.

Boehner made the offer after some Republicans voiced support to raising taxes on the wealthy in order to obtain a deal by the end of the month to avoid a crush of automatic spending cuts and tax increases that could plunge the nation into a recession.

DeMint's action showed Boehner faces pressure to stand firm against raising taxes while some in his ranks believes he needs to do so to obtain elusive common ground with Obama's Democrats.

In a statement, DeMint said, "This isn't rocket science. Everyone knows that when you take money out of the economy (with tax hikes), it destroys jobs, and everyone knows that when you give politicians more money, they spend it," DeMint said.

"This is why Republicans must oppose tax increases and insist on real spending reductions that shrink the size of government and allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money," the South Carolina Republican said.

Read more: http://goo.gl/KjyIQ

TOWNHALL

Fiscal Cliff Notes: Part II

by Thomas Sowell

December 5, 2012

One of the big advantages that President Obama has, as he plays "chicken" with the Congressional Republicans along the "fiscal cliff," is that Obama is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media-- nor, apparently, by the Republicans.

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit-- so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for "the rich."

It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama's demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for "the rich" than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama's argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics which show plainly how wrong Barack Obama is can be found in his own "Economic Report of the President" for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

You may be able to find a copy of the "Economic Report of the President" for 2012 at your local public library. Or you can buy a hard copy from the Government Printing Office or download an electronic version from the Internet.

For those who find that "a picture is worth a thousand words," they need only see the graphs published in the November 30th issue of Investor's Business Daily.

What both the statistical tables in the "Economic Report of the President" and the graphs in Investor's Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up-- not down-- after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2006: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."

While the New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction.

This has happened as recently as the George W. Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down, as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama's blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

So it is sheer hogwash that "tax cuts for the rich" caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, "the rich" paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government "stimulus" has done under either Bush or Obama.

Yet there is no need to assume that Barack Obama is mistaken about the way to get the economy out of the doldrums. His top priority has always been increasing the size and scope of government. If that means sacrificing the economy or the truth, that is no deterrent to Obama. That is why he is willing to play chicken with Republicans along the fiscal cliff.

Read more: http://goo.gl/vw7Y2

FORBES
The Blue-State Suicide Pact
by Joel Kotkin
December 4, 2012

With their enthusiastic backing of President Obama and the Democratic Party on Election Day, the bluest parts of America may have embraced a program utterly at odds with their economic self-interest. The almost uniform support of blue states’ congressional representatives for the administration’s campaign for tax “fairness” represents a kind of  bizarre economic suicide pact.

Any move to raise taxes on the rich — defined as households making over $250,000 annually — strikes directly at the economies of these states, which depend heavily on the earnings of high-income professionals, entrepreneurs and technical workers. In fact, when you examine which states, and metropolitan areas, have the highest concentrations of such people, it turns out they are overwhelmingly located in the bluest states and regions.

Ironically the new taxes will have relatively little effect on the detested Romney uber-class, who derive most of their income from capital gains,   taxed at a much lower rate. They also have access to all manner of offshore dodges. Nor will it have much impact on Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires, or the Hollywood moguls and urban land speculators who constitute the Democratic Party’s “good rich,” and enjoy many of the same privileges as their wealthy conservative counterparts.

The people whose wallets will be drained in the new war on “the rich” are high-earning, but hardly plutocratic professionals like engineers, doctors, lawyers, small business owners and the like. Once seen as the bastion of the middle class, and exemplars of upward mobility, these people are emerging as the modern day “kulaks,” the affluent peasants ruthlessly targeted by Stalin in the early 1930s.

The ironic geography of the Democratic drive can be seen most clearly by examining the  distribution of the classes now targeted by the coming purge. The top 10 states with the largest percentage of “rich” households under the Obama formula include true blue bastions Washington, D.C., which has the highest concentration of big earners, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California and Hawaii. The only historic “swing state” in the top six is Virginia, due largely to the presence of the affluent suburbs of the capital. These same states, according to the Tax Foundation, would benefit the most from an extension of the much-lambasted Bush tax cuts.

The pattern of distribution of “the rich” is even more marked when we focus on metropolitan areas. Big metro areas supported Obama, particularly their core cities, by margins as high as four to one. Besides New York, the metro areas with the highest percentage of high-earning households include such lockstep blue cities as San Francisco, Washington, San Jose, Atlanta and Los Angeles.

The income tax hit may not be the only pain inflicted on these areas in the President’s drive for greater “fairness.” Moves to curb mortgage interest deductions for affluent households also would fall predominately on these same areas. The states with the highest listing prices — and the biggest mortgages on average – are the president’s home state of Hawaii, followed by the District of Columbia, New York, California and Connecticut. According to the Census Bureau and the Federal Housing Agency, median home values in California are 200% higher than the national median, and in New York they’re 150% higher; in contrast, red Texas’ prices are below the median.

The contrast in prices is even greater between metropolitan areas. The highest prices — and thus largest mortgages — are in the deep blue havens of San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles. If the mortgage interest deduction is capped for loans, say, over $300,000, homeowners in these cities will suffer far more than in key red state cities like Dallas or Houston, where homes are at least half the price.

The curbing of the mortgage interest deduction constitutes only one part of a broader effort to cut back on all itemized deductions. This would hit states with the highest rates of people taking such deductions: California, New York, the District of Columbia, Connecticut and New Jersey, according to the Wall Street Journal. In contrast, the states least vulnerable to this kind of leveling reform would be either red states such as Indiana, Alaska or Kentucky, or classic “swing” states such as Iowa and Ohio.

Of course, one can argue that these changes follow the precepts of social justice: Rich people and rich regions should pay more. Yet being “rich” means different things in different places, due to vast differences in costs of living. The cost of living   in New York and Los Angeles, for example, is so high that the adjusted value of salaries rank in the bottom fifth in the nation. In other words, a couple with two children with a $150,000 income in Austin or Raleigh may be, in terms of housing and personal consumption, far “richer” than one making twice that in New York or Los Angeles. (See “The Cities Where A Paycheck Stretches The Furthest“)

What would a big tax increase on the “rich” mean to the poor and working classes in these areas? To be sure, they may gain via taxpayer-funded transfer payments, but it’s doubtful that higher taxes will make their prospects for escaping poverty much brighter. For the most part, the economies of the key blue regions are very dependent on the earnings of the mass affluent class, and their spending is critical to overall growth. Singling out the affluent may also reduce the discretionary spending that drives employment in the personal services sector, retail and in such key fields as construction.

This prospect is troubling since many of these areas are already among the most unequal in America. In the expensive blue areas, the lower-income middle class population that would benefit from the Administration’s plan of  keeping the Bush rates for them is proportionally smaller, although  the numbers of the poor, who already pay little or nothing in income taxes, generally greater. Indeed, according to a recent Census analysis, the two places with the highest proportions of poor people are Washington, D.C., and California. By far the highest level of inequality among the country’s 25 most populous counties is in Manhattan.

Finally we have to consider the impact of the new tax rates on the fiscal health of these states. Four of the five states in the poorest shape fiscally, according to a recent survey by 24/7 Wall Street, all have congressional delegations dominated by Democrats — California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois (the one red state is Arizona). Slower economic growth brought about by higher taxes — compounded by high state taxes — is unlikely to make their situation any better.

So what can we expect to happen if the fiscal cliff appears, or if the President and his party get their taxes on the rich? One can expect a proportionally greater impact on citizens and the budgets of the already expensive, high-tax states, where the new kulak class is concentrated. It may also spark a greater migration of people and companies to less expensive, lower-tax areas.

Perhaps the greatest  irony in all this is that the Republicans, largely detested in the deep blue bastions, are the ones most likely to fall on their swords to maintain lower rates for the the  mass affluent class in the bluest states and metros. If they were something other than the stupid party, or perhaps a bit more cynical, they would respond to the President’s tax proposals by taking a line from their doddering cultural icon, Clint Eastwood: make my day.

Read more: http://goo.gl/yXG6E

November 30, 2012

NEWSMAX
GOP Rejects Obama Offer of $1.6 Trillion Tax Increase
by Newsmax Wires
November 29, 2012

Congressional Republicans dug in to fight President Barack Obama’s plan to skirt the fiscal cliff, rejecting his tax-and-spending proposal as the president heads out today to sell it to the American public.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner shuttled among congressional leaders yesterday with a plan to trade $1.6 trillion in tax increases for $400 billion in unspecified entitlement program cuts, Republican congressional aides said.

Republicans complained that the offer was little more than a rehash of old budget proposals, setting the stage for more contentious negotiations over the next several weeks as the year-end deadline approaches for more than $600 billion in spending cuts and tax increases to kick in.

“If the president is going to lead on this critical issue, he has to propose a plan that can actually pass,” said Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. “This is simply not a serious proposal.”

Obama today is scheduled to visit a manufacturing plant in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, about 33 miles north of Philadelphia, to emphasize his call for an extension of George W. Bush-era tax rates for middle-income households. He is using the approach of the holidays to argue that families will curb spending if they don’t know whether they will have to pay more taxes next year.

Angry Birds

The president is going to a facility of the Rodon Group, which is the only U.S. manufacturer of K’NEX Brands, which makes Tinkertoys, K’NEX Building Sets and Angry Birds Building Sets. The company also produces plastic parts for the construction and pharmaceutical industries.

The fiscal plan presented by Geithner yesterday was modeled on Obama’s budget proposal from February and includes at least $50 billion in economic stimulus spending for this fiscal year, according to the aides. It would permanently increase the U.S. debt limit to avoid the need for congressional action, said one of the aides, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

Geithner met separately with each of the top four leaders in Congress in their first direct talks since Obama hosted the leaders Nov. 16 at the White House.

Obama and congressional Democrats have insisted that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire at the end of this year for the top 2 percent of taxpayers. The tax cuts should be extended for middle-class taxpayers, they contend.

Entitlement Programs

Republicans reject higher tax rates for all income levels. They are seeking an overhaul of entitlement programs in exchange for raising tax revenue through other methods, such as limiting deductions. They want a higher Medicare eligibility age and an alternative yardstick for calculating inflation that would reduce Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, according to a Republican aide who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

The administration has been consistent about its plans during the campaign and after the Nov. 6 election, said Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat.

“The voters knew what the president was saying,” Mikulski said. “They voted for the president. The election’s over. Let’s get on with it.”

Geithner’s offer, as described by two Republican aides, is based on Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget and his 2011 proposal to the deficit-cutting supercommittee, which last year didn’t come up with a plan all sides could accept.

Top Earners

It would raise taxes for top earners by $1.6 trillion over the next decade with higher rates on income, capital gains, dividends and estates, along with limits on tax breaks. It would call for about $400 billion in cuts to entitlement programs, which Republicans have deemed insufficient.

The plan would either extend or replace a payroll tax cut that is set to expire at the end of the year, according to the Republican aides. It would protect millions more people from having to pay the alternative-minimum tax and defer by a year the federal spending cuts set to start taking effect in January.

The administration hasn’t taken a public position on the extension of the payroll tax cut, which reduces employees’ share of the tax for Social Security to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent. The current break, which started in 2011, expires Dec. 31.

Geithner said in a Nov. 16 Bloomberg Television interview that the U.S. should abolish the debt ceiling, arguing that it enabled the threat of default in 2011. “The sooner the better,” he said. Republicans have used previous debates over increasing the debt limit to hold out for policy changes.

Infrastructure Spending

The proposal seeks infrastructure spending similar to what Obama proposed in September 2011 in his American Jobs Act, which included $50 billion for roads, rails and airports and $30 billion for schools.

The Congressional Budget Office has warned that if Congress doesn’t avert the fiscal cliff, the economy might slip into recession next year and boost the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013, compared with 7.9 percent now.

House Speaker John Boehner, while urging Obama yesterday to propose “serious spending cuts,” avoided publicly discussing specific options for a budget deal. The speaker wouldn’t say how large a spending cut he seeks for an agreement by year’s end.

It’s not “productive for either side to lay out hard lines” because “there are a lot of options of how to get there,” said Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

‘Waiting Game’

Boehner “knows that part of it is a waiting game until the pressure builds to where there is decision,” said Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa. “Barack Obama and John Boehner in the end are going to offer something back here.”

At a briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Jay Carney responded to questions about Republican complaints that the administration wasn’t offering specifics by holding up a proposal Obama presented in September 2011.

Carney said the plan “is very detailed” in how the White House would make cuts and “It is of a piece with his budget that he put forward in February 2012.”

The place where details are missing is “anything specific, politically feasible, or substantial from the Republican side on revenues,” Carney said.

The administration and Democrats say tax rate increases are necessary because deduction caps won’t generate enough money, especially if they are designed to protect charitable contributions and to avoid affecting 98 percent of taxpayers.

A $25,000 cap on deductions with those features would raise about $450 billion over 10 years, less than one-third of what the administration wants, according to a blog post on the White House website by administration economists Gene Sperling and Jason Furman. Keeping tax rates constant would make it more difficult to overhaul the tax code in the future, they said.

That would require any future tax overhaul “to raise taxes on middle-class families simply to preserve lower rates for the most fortunate,” they wrote.

Read more: http://goo.gl/anfri

TOWNHALL
Brain-Lock Inside the Beltway
by Jonah Goldberg
November 30, 2012

America already has a more progressive tax system than Europe, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Democrats insist that the rich need to start paying their "fair share," which means even more progressivity. The Republicans, meanwhile ... agree! The difference is that the GOP wants to eliminate loopholes and exemptions while keeping rates where they are. Democrats would prefer simply raising the rates.

Now here's a distinction that the first few hundred people in the Boston phone book would probably grasp better than the folks at Harvard (or Congress): A tax increase is a tax increase. If I make the same amount of money as I did last year but pay more in taxes, then my taxes have gone up. If I pay less, my taxes have gone down. Whether the numbers moved this way or that because of closed loopholes or rejiggered tax rates, the result for me is the same. That doesn't mean tax simplification doesn't make sense, but dodging a rate hike isn't the same as dodging a tax hike.

So the Republicans are, in fact, in favor of raising taxes by the rules of the real world. In exchange for doing this, they want the Democrats to deal with the real problem: spending. You could confiscate 100 percent of income over $1 million, and it would cover about a third of the deficit (and crush the economy in the process). You'd still have deal with spending, particularly entitlement spending.

But the Democrats want to do ... nothing. Or at least that's the position they seemed to be taking this week.

The White House and the Democrats have been floating the idea that we can worry about entitlements later, if ever. The urgent thing is to raise taxes on the wealthy as soon as possible. When asked what he was prepared to cut, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday, "Now remember, we've already done more than a billion dollars worth of cuts. We've already done that. So we need to get some credit for that."

OK, here's the credit: That is about .09 percent of the deficit. Take .09 percent of a bow Harry.

Meanwhile, the GOP seems to be obsessed with Talmudic interpretations of Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge. You see, if the Bush tax cuts expire, we'll all pay a lot more in taxes. But letting them expire wouldn't violate the pledge, while voting for a smaller net tax increase would.

As Republicans sort all that out, the guy who actually won the election by claiming he had a better plan hasn't proposed any plan at all. That's life in the Beltway for you.

Read more: http://goo.gl/uaFkq

November 29, 2012

TOWNHALL
Poll: Majority Says Federal Government Shouldn't Be Responsible for Healthcare
by Guy Benson
November 28, 2012

Since most of the data in post-election polling has offered little beyond a parade of ugly news, here's a glimmer of hope from Gallup:

For the first time in Gallup trends since 2000, a majority of Americans say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage. Prior to 2009, a majority always felt the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all, though Americans' views have become more divided in recent years...Republicans, including Republican-leaning independents, are mostly responsible for the drop since 2007 in Americans' support for government ensuring universal health coverage. In 2007, 38% of Republicans thought the government should do so; now, 12% do. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners there has been a much smaller drop, from 81% saying the government should make sure all Americans are covered in 2007 to 71% now.

A look at the trendlines:

Americans also remain overwhelmingly opposed to the imposition of a government-run, single-payer healthcare system, which very much remains leftists' endgame:

One thing that has not changed is that Americans still widely prefer a system based on private insurance to one run by the government. Currently, 57% prefer a private system and 36% a government-run system, essentially the same as in 2010 and 2011. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of Americans in favor of a government-run system ranged from 32% to 41%.

A few final notes:  (1) Though Gallup's final likely voter poll prior to the election was off by four points, their registered voters numbers were pretty much spot on.  In other words, their LV screen was too restrictive, but their overall data was sound.  (2) Despite a heavily Democratic electorate on election day, a substantial plurality still supported Obamacare repeal, a result that mirrors stable polling trends.  (3) For an idea of what a mind-blowing cluster Obamacare has already become, read this piece by Mary Katharine Ham.  Deadlines keep getting pushed farther and farther back, and the administration has finally issued coverage rules for the state exchanges that are supposed to be up and running in a matter of months.  These rules took 32 months to produce.  An unmitigated mess.

Read more: http://goo.gl/z19yo

THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Are Republicans Learning the Wrong Lessons?

by  Jeffrey H. Anderson

November 28, 2012

As hard as it is to believe, it’s been only a little over three weeks since Election Day. But there are already plenty of signs that Republicans are learning many of the wrong lessons from that debacle. For starters, there’s been a lot of excessive emphasis on racial demographics, which actually changed very little from 2008.  According to exit polling, the portion of Hispanic voters went up just 1 percentage point, the portion of Asian voters went up just 1 point, and the portion of black voters stayed the same.  Meanwhile, the portion of white voters fell 2 points — largely because, as Sean Trende notes, Mitt Romney failed to turn out several million such voters.

Now Senator John McCain says that, when it comes to the life-or-death matter of abortion, Republicans should “leave the issue alone.” Well, it would be hard to have left the issue any more alone than Romney did, and what did it get him? On an issue on which Americans are typically split pretty much right down the middle, exit polling showed that voters favored the legality (59 percent), rather than illegality (36 percent), of abortion in “most” or “all” cases. This suggests that Romney’s silence in the face of Obama’s pro-abortion rhetoric caused some swing voters to shift their position leftward (as people are inclined to do when they hear only one side of an issue advanced) — while millions of pro-life voters apparently sat this one out.

In truth, the Romney strategy on essentially every issue — and especially on Obamacare — could aptly be summarized as “leave the issue alone.”  Even on the economy, the one issue on which the Romney camp generally seemed eager to engage, the campaign left alone the question of how we got into this mess in the first place.  Relatedly, it left alone the crucially important claim that Bill Clinton made at the Democratic convention:  “Listen to me now.  No president, no president — not me, not any of my predecessors — no one could have fully repaired all the damage that [Obama] found in just four years.”  This, of course, was ridiculous.  FDR had inherited the Great Depression, and yet, in the year that he first sought reelection, real economic growth was over 13 percent — more than six times what it’s been this year under Obama.  But Romney characteristically left that one alone, and — more than three years into the Obama “recovery” — exit polling indicated that voters still blamed George W. Bush (53 percent), not Obama (38 percent), for the stagnant economy.

As a result of Romney’s failure to make the case on essentially any issue — either against Obama’s abysmal record or on behalf of his own proposals — we ended up with this very strange result:  In an election pitting perhaps the most liberal president in American history against a moderate Republican who was never fully trusted by the conservative wing of his own party, likely voters polled by Pew Research less than two weeks before the election said that Obama (50 percent), not Romney (38 percent), takes the “more moderate positions.”  And in an election pitting a Democratic president who rammed Obamacare through on a straight party-line vote and then spent the next two years demagoguing Republicans, versus the former Republican governor of heavily Democratic Massachusetts, likely voters in that same poll said that Obama (47 percent), not Romney (41 percent), was more “willing to work with leaders from the other party.”

As such polling suggests, Republicans didn’t lose this election because of demographics, and they didn’t lose it because of the positions they took on the issues.  They lost it because they failed to make the case against Obama or on behalf of their own ideas and principles.  As a result, they failed to rally independents to their side to the extent that they should have, and they failed to turn out their own base.  Far from leaving key issues alone in the future, Republicans need to engage the American public on matters of importance and make their case in persuasive language.

Read more: http://goo.gl/Z8EUE

AMERICAN THINKER
The Governing Class and the Decline of America
by Steve McCann
November 29, 2012

The United States will not reverse its descent into the abyss of financial and societal bankruptcy until the current political and governing establishment is replaced. That will not happen until the American people, who have been deliberately ill-educated and deceived, experience first-hand the early stages of the turmoil and suffering extant in Europe and elsewhere.

While professing to care for the interests of the average person, the underlying motivation for the vast majority of the governing class or Establishment is first and foremost self-aggrandizement and the acquisition of wealth. While a few may be motivated by ideology, the preponderance are not.

There are no offices on Connecticut Avenue in Washington D.C. with signs reading "The Republican Establishment" or the "The Democratic Establishment"; rather it is an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: the control of the government purse-strings and the attendant power contained within.

The Republican and Democratic political establishments are made up of the following:

1) many current and nearly all retired national office holders whose livelihood and narcissistic demands depends upon fealty to Party and access to government largesse;

2) the majority of the media elite, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York whose proximity to power and access is vital to their continued standard of living;

3) academia, numerous think-tanks, so-called non-government organizations, and lobbyists who fasten onto those in the administration and Congress for employment, grants, favorable legislation and ego-gratification;

4) the reliable deep pocket political contributors and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of the Party; and

5) the crony capitalists, i.e. leaders of the corporate and financial community as well as unions whose entities are dependent on or subject to government oversight and/or benevolence .

The current iteration of the Democratic establishment was begun during Franklin Roosevelt's 12 years in office as the Party chose to follow the lead of those such as Benito Mussolini in Italy, who promoted government as the source of all salvation and survival. This philosophy fit in nicely with those whose egos and drive was directed toward the aggregation of power and wealth.

The Republican members of the governing class, with the exception of the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the Republican controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1998, have been content since 1946 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats, while publically decrying their tax and spend policies. However, in truth, many have been comfortable with reaping the financial and ego-gratifying rewards of such indifference.

Since the1950's this overall scenario has been tolerated and generally ignored as the nation was experiencing overwhelming and seemingly endless prosperity. The Democrats, with the tacit consent of the Republican establishment, promoted an ever-increasing litany of government programs to ostensibly help the people, under the rubric that the nation could not only afford it but was, in fact, obligated to guarantee a "decent" standard of living for everyone. Further, in the 1960's the American left, as the Republican establishment turned a blind eye, began to dominate the education agenda. The public's children were no longer taught American history and the importance of individual liberty; instead, the basics of capitalism and wealth creation were demonized. Additionally, the essential characteristic of a flourishing republic -- a society wedded to honor, decency and integrity -- was demeaned and ridiculed.

Thus the citizenry has become more willing to not only vote for whoever promises the most financial security, but they are now easily susceptible to unconscionable demagoguery and are increasingly tolerant of dishonesty as well as unethical behavior. Today, with the advent of welfare, food stamps, near endless unemployment benefits, free health care (Medicaid), and a myriad of other state and federal programs, the Democrats have succeeded in creating a virtually permanent voting bloc. One the Republican Establishment now claims, if they wish to win future elections, they must pander to as part of a new strategy of inclusion. Yet, by their acquiescence and indifference over the years, they helped create their electoral dilemma.

How have all these promises and deceptions perpetrated on the American people placed the nation's financial future in jeopardy? Since 1956 the United States has seen a phenomenal growth in its Gross Domestic Product from $3,700 Billion (inflation adjusted) to $16,100 Billion (+335%). However, government spending at all levels has grown from $978 Billion (inflation adjusted) to $6,400 Billion (+554%) and the nation's debt, $2,250 Billion in 1956 (inflation adjusted) is now $16,300 Billion (+625%). (source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)

As of today, the nation's true indebtedness (promises that have been made for spending obligations, less all the taxes the Treasury expects to collect) exceeds $222,000 Billion. The indebtedness to Gross Domestic Product ($16,100 Billion) is a staggering 13.8 to 1. The United States is not facing bankruptcy, it is bankrupt.

Yet there is no sense of urgency or desire on the part of the governing class to level with the American people. This nation is living on the residue of the economic growth begun in the 1950's and accelerated in the 1980's. That tidal wave of prosperity has ebbed. The United States has entered into a death spiral of unrestrained spending, excessive taxation, printing near worthless money, and stagnant economic activity. Rather than be straightforward with the populace, the governing class is content to paper over the problem by the usual shell games of phony long-term spending cuts, more borrowing, and prevarications about the efficacy of raising taxes on "the rich."

The true nature of the GOP establishment's motivation has been exposed by their reaction to the Tea Party movement. This grassroots rebellion was the first manifestation of the awareness by a large portion of the American public of the nation's problems and ultimate consequences. Despite the overwhelming success of the Tea Party working within the Republican Party in the 2010 mid-term elections, nearly all of the Republican elites downplayed their success and fell-in with the mainstream media and the Democrats in their well-worn and gratuitous aspersions against these concerned and patriotic Americans. The Tea Party movement poses a threat to not only the accumulated power of the governing class but their livelihoods, thus the concerted effort to marginalize them by any vile or preposterous means possible.

The United States finds itself in a circumstance once thought unthinkable. An ill-educated and near morally bankrupt society increasingly made up of those dependent on government combined with a governing class whose primary interest is themselves. The nation cannot, therefore, make any meaningful course correction unless and until the people finally understand they have been lied to and conned by the current establishment. That will, in all likelihood, not occur until America faces imminent collapse and the citizenry turns on those who brought the nation to its knees.

Read more: http://goo.gl/VYDg0

November 26, 2012

REAL CLEAR POLITICS
ObamaCare Faces the Implementation Iceberg
by Paul Howard and Stephen Parente
November 26, 2012

Defenders of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, can be forgiven for some post-election triumphalism. But their joy is likely to be short lived. Because the law put off implementation of most key provisions until after the 2012 election, voters cast their ballots on November 6 without knowing what Obamacare’s true effect will be on their tax bills, insurance costs, or access to care.

Delaying implementation until 2014 helped the president win re-election, but now the bill is coming due. The administration can’t forestall Obamacare’s massive regulatory impact any longer, and the result will keep Congress and the media occupied for months and years to come.

The administration has just begun to issue guidance (proposed rules) to the insurance industry on Obamacare’s most important (and expensive) insurance market “reforms.” Insurance plans must have clarity on these issues if they are to develop and price plans for the individual and small group markets both inside and outside of the exchanges.

Right now, insurance companies don’t have answers to some of the most critical questions. Dozens of other smaller, but still important rules are also outstanding from HHS that will affect what kinds of plans are available on the exchanges, and how much they will cost insurers and taxpayers.

Some of the recently issued rules, particularly on community rating (charging the same price to everyone regardless of health status) and limiting the premium difference between older and younger applicants are likely to increase prices for young people – and over half (55%) of the uninsured are under age 35.

If prices rise sharply for this group, they’re much less likely to buy coverage, since Obamacare lets them buy insurance for the same price even after they become sick. And if young people pass up coverage, the rates will rise for everyone else in the exchange – and for taxpayers who are footing the final bill.

The administration’s “damn the torpedoes” attitude toward implementation of Obamacare also ignores the significant amount of time it will take for stakeholders to comment on provisional regulations and for HHS to issue its final rules. Keep in mind that the law requires exchanges to begin enrolling people by next October.

To call this deadline ambitious given the enormous uncertainty facing the industry and state regulators is a massive understatement.

Many states are still evaluating their options. According to a recent report from Avalere Health, only 20 states are actively building insurance exchanges, with as many as 13 states of those states opting for some sort of partnership model with the federal government. The rest are simply going to allow the federal government to run their exchanges. That’s hardly a winning record for the exchanges, supposedly the crown jewel of Obamacare.

As for the federal exchanges that are supposed to be up and running in states that don’t want to or aren’t ready to operate their own exchanges, the outlook is equally uncertain. As health care consultant Robert Laszewski recently put it, “[T]he Obama Administration has said emphatically that they will be ready [to run federal exchanges], but so far they’ve produced no information about how they are going to do it.”

The virtual veil of secrecy surrounding creation of the federal exchange has led to skepticism that it will be in any position to operate as advertised.

Beyond insurance rules and insurance exchanges, Obamacare faces other enormous uncertainties, like how many states will embrace its Medicaid expansion after the Supreme Court decision last summer allowed them to opt-out. Currently, six states (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas) are saying they’ll sit out the expansion. Large states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania are on the fence.

Since Medicaid accounts for about half of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, and the exchanges are supposed to facilitate Medicaid enrollment, governors have leverage to push for changes to the program that will help them manage expenses.

So what’s the bottom line? The Obama Administration is just beginning to issue critical guidance to states and insurance companies about how insurance markets and insurance exchanges are supposed to operate. The majority of states aren’t in any position to operate their own exchanges, and the federal government isn’t prepared to step in and operate the exchanges for them—at least not according to the schedule laid out in the ACA. The Medicaid expansion is a giant question mark.

And, we haven’t even mentioned how looming tax and budget negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” and sequestration might affect implementation of Obamacare.

Here’s our prediction. HHS has already pushed the deadline on the state exchanges from December 14, and in some cases to mid-February. We expect that deadline to slide again in the coming months.

But we shouldn’t wait that long to address the underlying problem. Delaying exchange implementation has important federal budget implications, and may make it easier for Republicans and Democrats to agree on serious budget and entitlement reforms. If Republican governors can coalesce around demands for exchange flexibility and Medicaid reform, they can also give their colleagues in Congress more leverage to press for entitlement reforms.

Ironically, the president and his Democratic allies may have to grant more flexibility in operationalizing Obamacare than they ever did while ramming it through Congress in 2010. On the other hand, if Republicans want to maximize their own policy leverage and develop a credible health policy platform for 2016, they will have to figure out an “endgame” for health care reform that increases coverage and lowers costs.

The good news is that we’ll finally get to find out “what’s in” the Obamacare law. Won’t that be fun?

Read more: http://goo.gl/cYpjO

AMERICAN THINKER

The GOP must fight for its principles, or die
by David Garth
November 25, 2012
Today seems to be a day for pessimism.

A quick run around the internet and Twitter can reveal quite a bit. The words being spoken are by no means encouraging.

Moderates are blaming conservatives. Tea Partiers are blaming moderates. Various people are taking broadsides at Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Chris Christie, Grover Norquist, and, above all, Mitt Romney. The Paul supporters are promising to withhold any support from the GOP unless they support libertarian ideas. The establishment wants the party to slide to the left in an effort to woo minority voters. Some are saying that it is time to raise taxes, others are furious at the suggestion. Many are claiming that a strong third party is necessary to ensure survival.

It goes without saying that a third party may provide a means to restore America to conservative ideals. It may, however, guarantee that conservatives never win a national election again.

At this moment I am convinced that my party doesn't even know what it believes in anymore.

This is a lot bigger than an election. This is a matter of principle, of ideology. Planks are more than just parts of a ship. A political party must have a clearly defined and articulated set of values. If potential voters are drawn to those values the party wins. If not, they lose.

You never, ever, abdicate your fundamental worldview for a win in an election. This is called selling your soul. What is said about people that do that?

What is wrong with the Republican Party? Why is it that they feel that they have to dance around conservative principles? Which is more important - the principles themselves, or forsaking them for a victory?

It is really a simple premise. You believe that the U.S. Constitution is the rock on which or country is founded. You believe that a large federal government is a threat to individual liberty. You believe that the free enterprise system is the best system to ensure prosperity to the most people possible. You believe that socialism is dangerous.

If you believe it, THEN SAY IT. Plainly. Unabashedly. Without reservation.

These are the basic premises that our candidates must run on. They must offer examples from history on why they are right. They have to offer facts and solutions. Show the citizenry the record of big government/high taxes versus small government/low taxes. We have proven methods of success - run on them! The truth is more important than egos, more important than electoral success.

This is not the time for moderates or moderation. Republicans must provide a crystal clear alternative to the voters - a leviathan, intrusive federal government or a small, responsive government that believes in the individual and the rights of the individual states. Let the moderates decide what kind of future they want. Because the truth is that if the United States does not rediscover the basic tenets that made us great we are done. If we are at the point where a majority of our citizens are more concerned about getting things than preserving freedom the game is up. We may already be there, the last election said a lot.

So we may have one more chance. Are Republicans going to offer an alternative, or are they going to compromise with the forces and ideals that are causing our demise? The future of our nation is more important than electing a quasi liberal that happens to have an R by his or her name.

Our present situation reminds me of a quote from Abraham Lincoln:

"As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Did you catch that, Republicans? It is all up to you now. You are the only thing between the United States and the aforementioned suicide. Pull yourself together, gird your loins, and get ready to fight for the principles you supposedly espouse.

Unfortunately, we know what will happen if you don't.

Read more: http://goo.gl/a0F36

THE NATIONAL REVIEW

American Mismatch - There are plenty of jobs in manufacturing, but too few people with the necessary skills.

by Jillian Kay Melchior

November 26, 2012

In September, 238,000 American jobs went unfilled, despite employers’ best efforts. At the same time, unemployment was at 7.8 percent nationally. And believe it or not, this was no statistical oddity.

The manufacturing sector has long had trouble finding skilled applicants for its jobs. Around 48 percent of manufacturing companies are looking to hire, according to the most recent report from ThomasNet, a company that helps connect producers and suppliers. But 67 percent of manufacturing companies see a moderate to severe shortage of skilled workers, and last year, as many as 600,000 jobs went unfilled, according to a report from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute.

This mismatch embodies the best and worst of American culture. On the one hand, American manufacturers have bested their international competition, becoming even more efficient after their recent struggles. On the other, there’s been a cultural shift that denigrates the value of manufacturing work, instead pushing young people into ever more impractical fields of study.

The manufacturing sector’s triumph is pretty remarkable. The U.S. is the world’s largest manufacturer, contributing 18.2 percent of the total value added in worldwide production. (China, despite its abundance of cheap labor, comes in second at 17.6 percent.) Though other sectors are panicking about a fiscal cliff and putting expansion on hold, American manufacturing is plowing ahead. Ninety percent of manufacturers told ThomasNet they’re optimistic about the future, and 75 percent planned to expand their operations this year.

The manufacturing sector is also almost uniquely good to its employees. “No longer dirty, dark, or dangerous” has become an industry catchphrase. Careers in manufacturing are not, contrary to popular belief, merely monotonous assembly-line work; today, workers have to be good at problem solving, abstract thinking, and technology. And the pay is good. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that a manufacturing worker makes an average of $23.97 on hour as of October 2012. Manufacturing jobs are also more likely to come with good benefits than jobs in other industries, the Brookings Institute has reported. Furthermore, the manufacturing sector offers high-pay positions for people with low educational attainment; one manufacturing firm told National Review Online that it would pay a $54,000 starting salary to a high-school graduate who could competently repair and maintain machinery.

These job perks are partly caused by demand. Older manufacturing workers are retiring fast, and the work has become more high-tech, says Thomas Holdsworth, a spokesman for SkillsUSA, an organization that provides training for high school and college students. SkillsUSA works closely with the manufacturing sector, connecting it with prospective workers.

“We hear about skill shortage and skill gap,” Holdsworth explained. “Manufacturers say . . . ‘We have a shortage of workers, a shortage of people coming into our profession.’”

The skilled-worker shortage is an education problem. High schools have cut their shop classes, and students are pushed to attain at least a four-year college degree, no matter the major, says Linda Rigano, spokesperson for ThomasNet.

In high schools, “there’s been such a focus on — and this is going to sound terrible — kids going to school,” she said. “Not every kid is meant to go to college.” Meanwhile, manufacturing companies “are paying six figures. You’ve got all these kids who are coming out of college, and they can’t find a job. It’s heartbreaking.”

Young people are told that a four-year college degree is a minimal requirement for career success, but the numbers simply don’t bear this out.

Read more: http://goo.gl/8iunv

November 22, 2012

BREITBART

Study: By 2050, 60% of American Production Will Go to Government

by Ben Shapiro

November 21, 2012

According to Michael D. Tanner of the CATO Institute, America isn’t just headed for a fiscal cliff – we flew off it long ago like Thelma and Louise thanks to our out-of-control spending habit. Tanner writes: “federal spending is set to rise to 46 percent of GDP by 2050. When you add in state and local spending, government at all levels will be consuming more than 60 percent of everything produced in this country. We cannot long remain economically productive or personally free with a government of that size.”

That vast spending increase makes every “fiscally responsible” suggestion by President Obama into a laugh line. Obama’s $1.6 trillion tax hikes wouldn’t cover even one fifth of the projected deficit; it won’t even cover his proposed spending increases. And as for Social Security and Medicare, which are massive unfunded liabilities, that cost clocks in at a hefty $78.5 trillion to $128.2 trillion. “You could confiscate – not tax but confiscate – every penny belonging to every millionaire and billionaire in America,” says Tanner, “and still not have anywhere near enough money to pay for all that we owe.” And all that assumes that Obama’s assumption that higher taxes create higher revenues is correct. Every time that’s tried, though, tax receipts end up dropping off.

We don’t have a taxation shortage. We have a spending problem. And Obama and the Democrats don’t want to admit it, just like any other addict.

Read more: http://goo.gl/V4C0Q

THE DAILY CALLER

Dozen arrested at Thanksgiving SEIU Los Angeles airport protest 

by Christopher Bedford

November 21, 2012

Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) protested at entrances to the Los Angeles International Airport on Wednesday — the biggest travel day of the year — delaying people trying to spend time with their families and leading to a dozen arrests.

Union members blocked a busy intersection after their permit had expired, The Los Angeles Times reported, leading to their arrests.

“At least two of those arrested are City Council candidates,” the Times added in a separate report, listing Ana Grande and Ana Cubas of the 13th and 9th districts, respectively.

The union is protesting Aviation Safeguards, which they say illegally broke a contract. The company, which employs 450 people, denies the allegations, and says “52 percent of its workers voted to decertify the SEIU,” Fox News reports. “It also says employee pay has increased by more than $2 million since workers kicked the union out to compensate for changes in their health care policies.”

SEIU spokesman Ernesto Guerrero told Fox News that “we understand the inconvenience, but workers here are making the decisions of life.

“Unfortunately,” he continued, “[union members] are being forced to do these extreme measures because otherwise no one is listening to them. The airport is not listening to them. The mayor of the city is not listening to them. We are being forced to take these extreme actions.”

The news comes hours after Hostess — the maker of Twinkies — announced that it was unable to come to terms with the union representing its bakers, and will likely have to sell of its iconic American brands.

Read more: http://goo.gl/dtNC1

THE BLAZE

What Should America’s Children Be Taught About Thanksgiving? These People’s Answers Might Shock You

by Jason Howerton

November 22, 2012

Even with a sluggish economy and painfully high unemployment rates, the United States of America is still undoubtedly the greatest nation on earth. Many Americans would argue that the Thanksgiving holiday is a great opportunity to teach children about the importance of coming together as one country and being, well, thankful.

But not everyone agrees with that assessment.

Revealing Politics conducted a number of man-on-the-street interviews and asked people what our schools should be teaching America’s students about Thanksgiving. In fact, some were asked what young kindergarteners should be taught about Thanksgiving. Their answers just might put a damper on your holiday spirit.

“What do you think we should teach our kindergarteners about Thanksgiving,” Revealing Politics’ Caleb Bonham asks in the video.

“The truth,” one man replies. “They need to know about the racism and the violence that went on.”

n response to the same exact question, another woman said we should teach kindergarteners that Thanksgiving is “totally meaningless” and “we massacred millions and millions of Native Americans.” Ouch. That’s quite a heavy kindergarten lesson.

“Well, our nation was founded on slavery, genocide, murder, theft and mass injustice and it continues to this day,” yet another female respondent said.


Some were asked to respond what “students” in general should be learning about Thanksgiving, while others were a little more indifferent to the holiday.

“Personally, I don’t really give a sh*t about Thanksgiving,” another man said. Another gentleman echoed his feelings, saying America should just do away with Thanksgiving all together.


The video’s producer Ben Howe, a RedState contributor and Revealing Politics creative director, told TheBlaze on Wednesday that the respondents in the video displayed “repulsive anti-Americanism and thought.”

“No nation on earth is blameless. No people are blameless,” he added. “Ideally something like Thanksgiving is an opportunity for us to share in our common humanity not our common feelings of guilt.  But given that it is a uniquely American holiday, I guess these people just can’t pass up the opportunity to trash her.”

Howe went on: “I’m not saying we don’t bear any responsibility for any scars that were left in our history. Clearly America has had its moral failings. The point is that Thanksgiving is supposed to be a time of coming together, but for these people and so many like them they just can’t let go and prefer to live in a world where blame always rests on the shoulders of someone else.”

Exit Question: What do you think we should be teaching America’s children about Thanksgiving?

Read more: http://goo.gl/NUiKv

November 19, 2012

THE DAILY CALLER
Homeland Security promotes welfare to new immigrants in government ‘welcome’ materials
by Caroline May
November 18, 2012

Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your new country can do for you.

“Welcome to USA.gov,” a website maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), bills itself as the “primary gateway for new immigrants to find basic information on how to settle in the United States” — featuring a prominent section for new immigrants about how to access government benefits.

“Depending on your immigration status, length of time in the United States, and income, you may be eligible for some federal benefit programs,” the Web page reads.

“Government assistance programs can be critically important to the well-being of some immigrants and their families. Frequently, however, there is a lack of information about how to access such benefits. Benefit programs can be complicated and you may be given misleading information about how they operate.”

The DHS page offers links to government websites that explain how to access benefits including food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the “official website with information on all available federal benefit programs,” with a nonworking link to Benefits.gov.

WelcometoUSA.gov also boasts to immigrants that “[f]ree public education for children is one reason many immigrants come to the United States.”

Though the website appears to advertise benefits, new immigrants are not necessarily eligible for the benefits displayed on the website; enrollment in SSI and TANF may also serve as impediments to future immigration status adjustments.

USCIS spokesman Bill Wright told The Daily Caller that the site is not intended to advise individuals on their eligibility.

“The website seeks to improve access to federal government information on the Internet by consolidating information into helpful categories and highlight new resources available to immigrants and the organizations that serve them,” Wright explained in an email.

Read more: http://goo.gl/DV8Lt

THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR

Never Has Less Cost More - Dismal economic growth is the flip side of trillion dollar deficits -- so expect more of the same, if not worse, indefinitely.
by J.T. Young
November 19, 2012

The official verdict is in: Washington has never paid so much for so little. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released its final tally on the federal government's "fourth consecutive year with a deficit above $1 trillion." And in return, America finished the fourth year of its worst peacetime economic recovery since the Depression.

If government spending was supposed to equal prosperity, America has not gotten what it's paid for. Not that it hasn't paid a lot.

The federal government spent $3.5 trillion in fiscal year 2012. As CBO observes: "Federal spending has totaled between $3.5 trillion and $3.6 trillion in each of the past four years…" Prior to these four years, government spending had never broken $3 trillion.

Put into perspective, the entire federal debt held by the public did not reach the last four years' levels of annual spending until 1995.

Little surprise then that Washington racked up mind-boggling deficits over these last four years. Before these last four years, Washington's annual deficit had peaked at $459 billion. Last year's deficit? $1.1 trillion -- well more than twice the record high before these last four years' -- and the lowest of the four.

Put into perspective, total federal spending did not equal last year's deficit spending until 1989.

Not surprising these spending-stoked deficits have resulted in an enormous debt increase. Prior to these past four years, federal debt held by the public equaled $5.8 trillion. CBO projected that at the end of 2012, it would equal $11.3 trillion. In four years, this debt has essentially doubled.

Put into perspective, the last four years of federal spending's deficits have accumulated federal debt equal to all that had been accumulated previously.

For all this federal spending, deficits, and debt, what has America gotten in return? The worst economic recovery of any post-Depression period. In 2009, the economy shrank 3.1 percent. In 2010, it grew 2.4 percent; in 2011, 1.8 percent; and in 2012, it is projected to rise 2.1 percent.

Average the real economic growth of these four years, and you come up with less than 1 percent growth -- just 0.8 percent! Even dropping 2009's negative growth and you get just over 2 percent -- a level that would equal weak growth if it were just one year's, let alone a 3-year average.

If anything could make this all seem worse, it is that Washington is not done. CBO's latest estimate for federal spending is $3.6 trillion -- slightly higher than 2012's. If Washington avoids the so-called "fiscal cliff," whereby spending is automatically cut and taxes raised at year's end, then the deficit will again exceed $1 trillion -- for a fifth consecutive year.

And the American economy? Even avoiding the fiscal cliff's projected recessionary impact, CBO estimates the economy will only grow 1.7 percent -- less than in any of the three previous years!

Economics is called the dismal science for a reason, but it has nothing on recent federal budgeting when it comes to dismal.

Washington has just closed the books on the worst chapters in its budget and economic peacetime history. Over the last four years, it has spent like never before, rung up deficits like never before, and accumulated debt equal to all it had run up before.

What has it gotten in return? The worst economic recovery in its peacetime history.

And as though this was not more than enough, Washington is already hard at work on the next installment in this sordid story.

It is said America is afraid of uncertainty arising from the fiscal cliff, wait until it gets a load of fiscal repetition. America has not gotten what it paid for, but it is unquestionably going to be paying for what little it gets. And paying, and paying, and paying.

Read more: http://goo.gl/blRxJ

NEWSMAX
S&P 500 Has Lost $806 Billion Since Obama's Re-election
by Bloomberg News
November 19, 2012

The post-election rout in U.S. stocks has driven the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index down so far that it would have to advance 26 percent to reach the valuation of bull markets since John F. Kennedy was in the White House.

Investors have seen $806 billion erased from the value of American equities since President Barack Obama was re-elected Nov. 6 in the biggest decline since May. The combination of falling stocks and rising profits as the economy recovers has left the S&P 500’s price-earnings ratio below the ending level of eight of the nine bull markets since 1962 and beneath the average of any since Ronald Reagan was in power.

Bears say the 4.8 drop in the S&P 500 and valuations show investors are losing confidence that Congress and Obama will reach a budget compromise that would keep the recovery from stalling. Bulls, including the top strategists at six Wall Street firms, say that the declines are another reason to buy and that stock prices from Apple Inc. to Dollar Tree Inc. are bound to improve as earnings increase.

“The stock market looks cheap because people are way too pessimistic about what growth looks like for the next 10 years,” said Brian Jacobsen, who helps oversee $208 billion as chief strategist at Wells Fargo Advantage Funds and predicts the S&P 500 will rise 47 percent to 2,000 in 2014. “You can get big and rapid moves in the market when expectations are so low.”

Concern about the so-called fiscal cliff -- $607 billion of spending cuts and tax increases that automatically go into effect Jan. 1 -- overshadowed better-than-estimated profit reports from Cisco Systems Inc. and Home Depot Inc. last week, sending the S&P 500 down 1.5 percent to 1,359.88. Obama began face-to-face talks with top Republicans and Democrats on Nov. 16 after he and House Speaker John Boehner said they will work toward an agreement. Boehner and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney described the meeting as “constructive.”

Read more: http://goo.gl/HFE8G