Story 1: Trust, But Verify: Paul Ryan Is No Conservative, But A Neoconservative Neither New Nor Conservative! — Ryan Is A Leader of Political Elitist Establishment–All Big Government Republicans that Support Work Status and Amnesty for Illegal Aliens — Conservatives and Libertarians Are Not Interested In Ryan As House Speaker! — Do Not Be Neoconned — Videos
Neocon Manifesto: Paul Ryan
“I worship the ground Paul Ryan walks on,” says Dick Cheney
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
No Saving Private Ryan! Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and the Betrayal of Ayn Rand
Paul Ryan…
Voted YES corporate welfare for big agriculture
Voted YES pm TARP
Voted YES for a bloated defense bill
Voted NO to repeal NDAA indefinite detention
Voted YES to prohibit reductions in nuclear weapons as required by START Treaty
Voted NO to limit military spending on the Afghanistan War
Voted YES to override military sequestration (spending cuts) negotiated in last year’s ‘let raise the debt limit bill’.
Voted YES on CISPA, the bill that attacks Internet liberty and the 1st amendment.
Voted YES on corporate welfare for the Keystone Pipeline which also authorized the use of Eminent Domain to seize private property for a private use.
Voted NO to extend payroll tax cuts which is effectively a tax increase on the poor and middle class.
Voted YES to increase the debt ceiling
Voted YES on war in Libya
Voted NO to limit funding of NATO for use in Libya
Voted NO on removing armed forces from Libya
Vote YES to extend the Patriot Act
Paul Ryan’s Budget:
Ryan’s “roadmap to prosperity” lays out $6.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years—not, sadly, cuts from what government spends today, but from what President Obama wanted to spend. Spending would actually increase by about a trillion dollars over the decade.
Ryan’s “radical” budget would only reduce government spending to 20% of GDP by 2015. Obama wants to cut it to 23%. It is currently at 25%. when Bill Clinton left office, it was 18 percent.
“The president’s plan will add about $11 trillion to the debt over 10 years,” Paul told me. “Congressman Ryan … is trying to do the right thing, but his plan will add $8 trillion to the debt over 10 years. We need to do something much more dramatic, or I think we’re in for a world of hurt.”
The inconvenient truth for conservatives is you cannot balance the budget if you eliminate (only) nonmilitary spending.
It would also reduce the federal workforce by 15 percent. Ryan’s figure is 10 percent. That’s a start. But they would do it by “attrition.” That’s cowardly. It’s not management. They should fire the worst 10 or 15 percent. That’s what private-sector managers do.
it grows revenues miraculously from $2.4 trillion to $4.6 trillion in 10 years by cutting taxes
– It led to 10 more years of deficit spending
– It added between $5-11 TRILLION dollars to the national debt
– It spent a total of $40 TRILLION over the next 10 years
– His plan REQUIRED the debt ceiling to be raised
– It was an obviously unbalanced budget (in fact it doesn’t fully balance until the year 2040)
– It increased spending over the next few years (it merely slows the rate of spending, not actually cutting spending anytime soon)
– It was was bigger than what we had under Bill Clinton
“I worship the ground Paul Ryan walks on,” says Dick Cheney
Sources Paul Ryan mulls House Speaker bid
Will Paul Ryan run for House speaker?
Paul Ryan, Not Interested in Speaker Position
What 6 House Conservatives Want From Their New Speaker
Candidates for House Speaker Try to Rally Conservative Support
Jason Chaffetz Announces House Speaker Bid
Jason Chaffetz Discusses Planned Parenthood
Rep. Jason Chaffetz Grills Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards | The Blaze
Kevin McCarthy | Rep. Kevin McCarthy Drops Out of House Speaker Race
House conservative group backs Webster, complicates Speaker race
Newsmax Prime | Rep. Daniel Webster on why he wants to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House
Rep. Dan Webster on running for Speaker of the House
Daniel Webster Commercial: Fixing Washington Together
Congressman Dan Webster says he would break Norquist pledge
Paul Ryan Pushes Back Against TPNN’s Scottie Hughes, Defends His Record as Conservative
Tom Woods: Is Paul Ryan a real fiscal conservative?
Laura Ingraham: Elizabeth Warren sounds more conservative than Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan Is Not a Libertarian!
Paul Ryan is more the architect and messenger of Irving Kristol’s “conservative welfare state” than a libertarian. Check out my blogpost series on the subject of Paul Ryan as neo-con not conservative:
Reality Check: Is Rep. Paul Ryan Actually A Big Spender? His “Principle” Problem
Paul Ryan on Immigration, Sequester, and the Budget
Paul Ryan Defends Immigration Bill: “We’re Going To Have Labor Shortages”
Ted Cruz on John Boehner: “I’m Going to Tell You Why He Resigned”
At some point or another, every voter has felt like they have been duped – sold a fake bill of goods. Politicians and candidates run the ads they do because they work. To cut through rhetoric and the smoke and mirrors, register for a Conservative Review® account, where you can TRACK your legislators and hold them ACCOUNTABLE using the Liberty Score® and our in-depth member profiles. Receive our hard-hitting analysis of the important policy issues.
Knowledge is power, and we seek to empower American conservatives with the information they need to make informed decisions and hold their elected representatives accountable.
If you want to know where your member of Congress is on the conservative spectrum, register today!
What is the Liberty Score®?
Conservative Review’s Liberty Score® grades members of Congress using long-term voting records. A letter grade is assigned to each member to help you quickly determine if a lawmaker is supporting conservative principles. The Liberty Score® helps evaluate your representatives and senators, providing the tools necessary to separate rhetoric from reality.
Why I Support Jason Chaffetz for Speaker of the House
Arthur Schaper
Yes, I know. Congressman Paul Ryan just penned support for California Congressman and current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House.
So what?!
Perhaps there’s a record there. He helped ban earmarks. So did US Senator John McCain, and conservatives want McAmnesty out of office. How about reforming entitlements? How about ending the War on Drugs? How about confrontation with a capital C?
I am a California conservative, and I want someone who is not connected to the Old Boys Club, the business of working the backrooms to get deals. John Boehner, tanned and now panned, stepped down because the Freedom Caucus, and more importantly their nationwide supporters, pushed him to step down, because he would not fight for and demand real reforms in the House, from the US Senate, and the President. The call for new leadership is more than about differing factions. This is more than Tea Party v. Establishment, or centrist v. conservative. Meadows forced a showdown again a Speaker who was simply not doing his job.
Period.
I spoke with representatives from McCarthy’s office during the CRomnibus back-and-forth in late 2014. I kept hearing about how the leadership did not want to shut the government down. “It would be emotionally satisfying, but would make us look bad.” Really? They wanted to avoid the fights and missteps which had “occurred” during the 2013 shutdown. By the way, in case anyone missed it, the Tea Party movement actually forced spending cuts, and they went through, no questions asked, because they refused to cave. Republicans wiped out Democrats across the country. We have fiscal conservatives in deep blue Maryland and Massachusetts, too. Now Washington needs the bluster that puts up rather than sits down.
Now more than ever, Republicans in Congress, and all liberty minded, libertarians, conservatives in general, must accept one sordid fact: Obama and his Democratic cohorts are not interested in governing by consent, consensus, or principled compromise. He lied during the 2010 meeting with members, when he declared: “I am not an ideologue”. Congressman Mick Mulvaney blasted the Fiscal Cliff fiasco in 2012: “They want to buy a home for one dollar. That is not compromise!” Obama is interested in conflict, confrontation, and conquest. He has incited a war of polar opposites, not a debate of reasoned opponents trying to forge the best outcomes for both sides. Such is the outcome when the Chief Executive refuses to recognize our Constitution or the Chief Lawgiver, Congress.
We don’t have Bubba in the White House, people (who would have to be a Republican today, since his party has left him). We have a rogue Occupier who does not respect the rule of law, his oath of office or the United States Constitution.
So, the back-slaps, the cigar parties, and the Wednesday night dinners with opposing sides are a thing of the past. Just as US Senate candidate Rand Paul refused to shake his 2010 Dem rival’s hand during their last debate, so too friendship among differing parties is a thing of the past.
We don’t know picture parties and cocktail dinners. We need reform, we need change that we can see as well as believe in. And I do not trust McCarthy to bring either.
So. . .why Chaffetz, then? Is this not the long ago Democrat-turned-Republican who has a fan in Michael Dukakis? Yes, and that’s a point worth celebrating: a liberal, mugged by reality, who embraced conservative values over time and became a staunch Republican. I like that.
Didn’t Oversight Committee Chairman Chaffetz try to remove Rep. Mark Meadows from his sub-committee chairmanship earlier this year? Yes, he did. Guess what? He backed off. I want leadership that will do what conservatives want. Don’t you? I don’t want a fully independent Speaker. I want a sock puppet who will do and say what conservatives, constitutionalists, and citizens in general want.
Is this not the guy who sought out my loathsome former Congressman Henry Waxman to emulate his confrontation style as House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman? Yes, and I even blasted his seeming selling out to “the Establishment”. Since then, I have looked over his current tenure as chairman. Come to think of it, I want a right-wing version of Henry Waxman, someone who will embrace rather than avoid confrontation. Maybe he will threaten to throw meandering Marylander Rep. Elijah Cummings off the committee if he refuses to stop frustrating investigations into government abuse.
Once again, readers, Chaffetz backed off his attempted overthrow of Rep. Meadows, who lived to serve on the committee, and then file the discharge petition ousting retiring Speaker Boehner. Inadvertently, we can thank Chaffetz for the little dust-up earlier this year.
I want Jason Chaffetz, the conservative who is the most electable. Not because he is perfect, not because he will be some savior to right the course of wrong-doing in Washington all by himself. He can communicate (McCarthy has already stumbled). He can count (McCarthy does not have 218 votes for the floor vote later in October or November), and as conservatives recognize their power to force change and influence outcomes in the House, I believe that Chaffetz will be easier to pressure to our cause, the country’s and the Constitution’s. Also, his win will further disrupt the Old Boys Club of Boehner-McCarthy, and further prove the individual voters’ muster. Now, I have learned another lesson about grassroots activism. It is not my job to make anyone, friend of acquaintance, support my choice for leadership. You make that decision for yourself.
So, I support for Chaffetz for Speaker. More importantly, I celebrate and continue to debate that conservatives can and must mobilize more effectively, not just propping up leaders whom we want, but getting more legislators, whether Republican or Democrat, to start accomplishing the right things: demanding constitutional rule which advances limited government, lower taxes, less spending, looser regulations, and most importantly individual liberty.
While top House Republicans are trying to push a reluctant Ryan into the job, on the grounds that he alone can unify the conference, conservative lawmakers gave a decidedly cool response Friday when asked if they want him to be their new leader.
ADVERTISEMENT
Several GOP lawmakers noted that Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the job, while appearing less than convinced that he is the only viable candidate.
“The name came out,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) after Friday’s private GOP meeting. “Last I knew, [Ryan] definitely didn’t want to do it.”
Huelskamp also criticized one of Ryan’s major legislative achievements in Congress, the two-year budget agreement he hammered out with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in 2013.
The Kansas Republican noted that he opposed the pact, “as did a lot of other people,” and pointed out lawmakers in both parties are now pushing to further ease the spending caps it established.
“A lot of folks want to break that up already,” Huelskamp said.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) declined to weigh in on Ryan as Speaker, noting only that his group had earlier backed Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) for the job.
And Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) dismissed the idea of a Ryan groundswell.
“I think that’s more media-driven. I think that’s you guys who keep talking about Paul Ryan,” he said. “Paul has made it clear he’s not interested.”
For his part, Ryan has repeatedly rebuffed calls for him to take over as the head House Republican. On Friday, a Ryan spokesman reiterated that the 2012 vice presidential candidate is “still not running for Speaker.”
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said the Freedom Caucus continues to back Webster. Still, he said Ryan would probably be a more palatable option compared to Boehner or House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who dropped out of the Speaker’s race on Thursday.
“I think that Paul Ryan would be a more acceptable candidate than the current leadership team, primarily because he’s not in the current leadership team. And I believe he’d provide a different approach,” Amash said.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said that if hardliners reject Ryan, “they would lose all credibility.”
“Listen, these guys don’t know what they’re doing anyway. They would prove to the American people they have no idea what they’re talking about,” King said.
The level of support for Ryan among conservatives is critical, given that it was rightward pressure that originally pushed out Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and helped upend the campaign by McCarthy to replace him.
Despite being broadly popular among House Republicans, McCarthy stunned his colleagues Thursday by dropping out of the race, minutes before a vote he was expected to win.
He told members he was removing himself because he did not think he would be able to unite the divided Republican conference and win over enough conservatives.
By Dana Bash, Manu Raju, Deirdre Walsh, Tom LoBianco, Dan Berman and Eugene Scott
Rep. Paul Ryan is telling House Republicans privately he is considering running for speaker, several members say.
Ryan informed several members on the House floor of his deliberations, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, told CNN. Stewart added that he urged Ryan to run, with the Wisconsin Republican replaying that he was “thinking and praying on it.”
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who shocked Capitol Hillby deciding Thursday not to try and succeed retiring Speaker John Boehner, also said Ryan is weighing a run.
“Paul’s looking at it but it’s his decision,” McCarthy said on CNN. “If he decides to do it, he’ll be an amazing speaker but he’s got to decide on his own.”
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, said that Ryan told him privately he is thinking about it as well. “I think he’s gone from a ‘hard no’ to he knows he has to consider it,” he said.
Ryan, the Ways and Means Committee chairman and Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate in 2012 is respected throughout the conference and on paper could bridge the gap between tea party-linked conservatives and more establishment Republicans.
Romney even called Ryan and asked him to run, an aide to the former presidential candidate said.
“I wouldn’t presume to tell Paul what to do, but I do know that he is a man of ideas who is driven to see them applied for the public good,” Romney said in a statement. “Every politician tries to convince people that they are that kind of leader; almost none are — Paul is. Paul has a driving passion to get America back on a path of growth and opportunity. With Paul, it’s not just words, it’s in his heart and soul.”
There may be no way for Ryan to avoid the calls to run.
“He needs to do this for the team,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Michigan.
“There’s going to be a lot of pressure on Paul,” said Rep. David Jolly, R-Florida. “If Paul really means no, he better keep his phone off the next two weeks. Or throw it in Lake Michigan.”
Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck issued a statement following Friday morning’s GOP conference meeting, that did not rule out a run. “Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he’s getting from his colleagues but is still not running for speaker,” Buck said.
Leaving Capitol Hill Friday afternoon, Ryan declined to comment on his decision.
“Right now I’m going to make my flight so I can make it home for dinner,” he told reporters. “Sorry guys I’m just going to go. The Packers are at home. They’re going to beat the Rams and cover the spread.”
Boehner’s plea: work together
Boehner indicated to his fellow Republicans on Friday morning he will stay as long as possible in the speaker’s job, although he still wants to “be out of here by the end of the month,” Rep. Dennis Ross said, adding that Boehner urged members to “hang in there.”
The speaker pled with his fellow Republicans to work together to break the impasse.
“While we go through this process, we’ve got to continue to address the people’s priorities. This institution cannot grind to a halt,” Boehner said in the meeting, according to a source in the room.
Several high-profile issues face Congress and the White House later this year, including the need to address the debt limit in early November and the federal government budget by December 11.
Boehner urged GOP lawmakers not to put up barriers between each other. “Don’t start erecting walls between us as members. We all came here to help advance the conservative cause,” he said.
“It’s not helpful for one group of members to say they will only vote for this candidate on the floor,” he added. “And it’s not helpful for another group of members to say they will only vote for different candidate on the floor. It’s up to the people in this room to listen to each other, come together, and figure this out.”
He later said: “Time for us to take the walls down, open up our ears and listen to each other.”
And addressing rumors that he might step down as majority leader, McCarthy told his fellow Republicans he plans to remain in the job, a source in the room said.
The meeting was centered on the rules and process going forward, members said.
“We are doing what needs to be done, said Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Virginia. “And Kevin (McCarthy) spoke very eloquently this morning and said, ‘if this causes us to do what we need to do in terms of reforming the rules and the House rules. Then that’s a good thing.”
As the surprise of McCarthy’s decision not to seek the top job wore off Thursday afternoon, eyes turned to Ryan, the former vice presidential nominee and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Influential and well-respected throughout the GOP caucus, Ryan could be a peacemaker between the warring factions.
Deputy Majority Whip Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, also wants Ryan in the job.
“I think eventually Paul Ryan will get into this thing, I really do,” Cole said Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think we’ve had two guys fall on their swords for the good of the conference. In this case it’s hard not to step up when there’s an overwhelming demand.”
And for good measure, he added an appeal to Ryan’s sense of duty.
“Paul’s got a strong sense of doing the right thing,” Cole said. “I’m just so confident he’ll make the right choice.”
Boehner and Ryan have a long relationship: Ryan volunteered for Boehner’s campaign when he was a student at Miami University in Ohio in the 1990s, before launching his own political career. But Boehner has not publicly called on Ryan to replace him.
On paper, Ryan is a strong candidate. But his backing among the current House leadership could be a drag on his candidacy, as the conservative backlash against Boehner’s team shows no sign of abating.
Conservatives do praise many of Ryan’s policy positions, yet are already warning Ryan would need to agree to a series of demands to change House rules and agree to their policy agenda.
Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate and critic of the Freedom Caucus, said more needs to change than just the man or woman in the chair.
“At the end of the day, it’s not who we put in that job,” Dent said on CNN. “If we don’t change the political dynamic, the next speaker will suffer the fate that John Boehner did.”
“We must assemble bipartisan coalitions to pass any meaningful legislation,” Dent added. “That’s the way this place has been operating. We have to accept that reality and move forward.”
Rep. Mimi Walters, a California Republican, called for compromise in selecting the next speaker. “I think we all need to give a little bit,” she said on CNN. “We’re never going to find the perfect person because nobody is perfect but what we have to remember is we have to put the American people first.”
Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez on MSNBC called Ryan one of the smartest men in the GOP.
“He would be good for the country,” Gutierrez said. “He would be good for the Republican Party. Paul Ryan is the kind of individual that would work with people on the other side of the aisle and that’s what we need.'”
Friday morning, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican whose candidacy helped draw people away from McCarthy, said he would drop out of the race if Ryan runs, a sign conservatives are willing to rally behind the Wisconsin Republican.
“He’s certainly in my mind the most qualified person to do it and I hope he’ll do it,” Chaffetz said on MSNBC.
Other names that Cole said could be viable if Ryan stands firm and doesn’t run include Minnesota Rep. John Kline and Georgia Reps. Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Price. Westmoreland told CNN he was considering it. And Cole’s own name has been floated by his peers — something he said Thursday he wouldn’t rule out, though he said there were “better” options than himself.
And Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Florida, who won the Freedom Caucus’ endorsement, also remains a candidate. Webster Friday said he is still running but left open the possibility of abandoning his bid if he does not win support in conference.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy drops out of race for House speaker
By Mike DeBonis, Robert Costa and Rosalind S. Helderman
The infamously fractious House Republican Conference sank deeper into chaos Thursday after Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy abruptly withdrew his bid to replace John A. Boehner as speaker, a stunning move that left the party scrambling to find a new leader and deeply uncertain about how to effectively manage the House.
McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced his surprise decision at a meeting of House Republicans who gathered to select their candidate for speaker ahead of the official floor vote scheduled for Oct. 29. McCarthy was widely expected to win the support of his colleagues.
Instead he emerged to declare: “We need a fresh face.” McCarthy said at a news conference that he did not want to burden his members with a tough vote for speaker.
“I don’t want to go to the floor and win with 220 votes,” he said. “I think the best thing for our party right now is that you have 247 votes on the floor.”
With his wife at his side, he said his decision was about promoting unity. “If we’re going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to help do that. So nothing more than that.”
[This contest is now wide open. Who’s next?]
McCarthy’s candidacy to succeed the retiring Boehner (R-Ohio) was damaged in recent days by a public gaffe — a television interview in which he seemed to suggest that the Select Committee on Benghazi, the panel assembled by Republicans to investigate the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya, was intended to damage Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential poll numbers.
“Well, that wasn’t helpful. I could have said it much better,” McCarthy acknowledged after dropping out of the race. “That’s part of the decision as well.” McCarthy said he will remain in his post as majority leader and seek reelection in 2016.
Still, McCarthy, who had been Boehner’s preferred successor, had been expected to earn the votes he needed before heading to a vote of the full House. That left significant confusion about his last-minute withdrawal — and whom Republicans might rally around as an alternative for the nation’s third-highest job.
There was an immediate push to recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former vice-presidential nominee and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Ryan is one of most widely respected members in the conference, with broad support among conservatives and moderates, as well as newcomers and veterans. But Ryan has repeatedly insisted he is not interested in the job, including in a new statement soon after McCarthy’s withdrawal. “While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate,” he said.
[Why Paul Ryan won’t run for speaker]
Over two long phone conversations Thursday, Boehner urged Ryan to reconsider, according to two sources familiar with the exchanges, insisting that Ryan is the only person who can unite the House GOP at a time of turmoil.
Boehner, who last month said he would resign the speakership after weeks of facing a near-certain revolt from conservatives, had been scheduled to step down Oct. 30. Following McCarthy’s declaration, Boehner promised to stay on until the House elects his replacement.
McCarthy: ‘It’s best we have a new face’
Play Video0:58
After dropping out of the race for speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif). said he did not want to be a “distraction” from the committee investigating the attack on Americans in Benghazi. (AP)
Reaction to McCarthy’s surprise departure from the speaker’s race reflected deep divisions within the Republican Party.
Some conservatives seized the moment as a victory, celebrating the downfall of one of the House’s fastest-rising but more moderate stars.
On the eve of Thursday’s planned vote, a group of 30 to 40 of the chamber’s most conservative members, known as the Freedom Caucus, significantly changed the dynamics of the race by promising to throw its weight behind low-profile Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) over McCarthy.
The move had jeopardized McCarthy’s chances to lock up the speakership on the floor, where he could not afford to lose more than 29 Republican votes if he wanted to win without Democratic support. In McCarthy’s place, they pledged to push for one of their own, a hard-liner on fiscal and social issues.
[The Fix: Republicans have a revolution on their hands]
More-moderate Republicans, including McCarthy allies from swing districts, also worked Thursday to draft a candidate.
Democrats tried to capitalize on the chaos, citing McCarthy’s withdrawal as a sign that the GOP is ungovernable — and unable to govern the country.
“There’s a minority group of conservative politicians that places their own extreme ideology ahead of everything else and certainly ahead of effective governance of the country, but also today of effective governance of the House Republican caucus,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
[House conservatives spurn McCarthy ahead of speaker vote]
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) urged Republican leaders to quickly move legislation that would lift the government’s debt limit, which the Treasury Department estimates will be hit around Nov. 5. “Republican chaos is likely to get worse before it gets better but the economic livelihood of the American people should not be threatened as a result of Republicans’ inability to govern,” he said in a statement.
Several lawmakers said they were caught off guard by McCarthy’s departure, and much of the day was spent speculating about McCarthy’s motives. Many believed he had simply concluded he could not win the job.
The California Republican had failed to woo conservatives, and some establishment Republicans threatened to oppose him, too, if he was likely to win the job only by a thin margin. Others attributed McCarthy’s downfall to the continuing anger at his comments about the Benghazi panel.
At a meeting Thursday morning that preceded the scheduled conference vote, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) publicly dressed down McCarthy for his Benghazi comments and described how they had harmed his ability to lead and be a forceful speaker in the 2016 campaign. Rohrabacher “went off on McCarthy on how bad and wrong it was” and how much his comments had embarrassed and politically kneecapped House Republicans, one lawmaker said.
Some also questioned whether McCarthy was chased from the race by a letter sent by Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), who chairs the Republican conference. In the letter, Jones called for any leadership candidate who had committed “misdeeds” since joining Congress to drop out of the running.
“I’m asking that any candidate for speaker of the House, majority leader, and majority whip, withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds committed since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican Conference, and the House of Representatives if they become public,” Jones urged.
He offered no further specifics in the letter, and in an interview after McCarthy’s announcement, Jones said his letter was not directed at McCarthy in particular. He also said he had no reason to believe the letter forced McCarthy’s exit. “Everybody wants to know why he stepped down, the man that was in the lead,” Jones said. “I don’t know why he would step down.”
McCarthy insisted the letter played no role in his decision. “Nah, nah. Come on,” he told a reporter who asked about it.
Without Ryan in the race, the ideal pick for both establishment and conservative Republicans was unclear.
Other hopefuls — including Webster, who was a state House speaker in Florida, and Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) — were working to convince colleagues that they were up to the job. Chaffetz had announced Sunday that he would challenge McCarthy for the position.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a Boehner ally floated Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a respected former House GOP campaign chairman, as a person who could be a calming presence.
Several conservatives suggested House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), a former member of the Boehner leadership team, as a contender with strong relationships with the party’s conservative bloc. Other names mentioned were Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the Benghazi committee, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Freedom Caucus. But Gowdy said he is backing Ryan and Jordan said he was not interested in running. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who preceded Chaffetz as chairman of the Oversight Committee, was also said to be considering a bid.
Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said he is considering a run for speaker. He told a group of his colleagues in a conference call that his experience in the state legislature prepared him for the role and that he planned to make calls Friday to seek support.
Most of the ambitious but less-seasoned Republicans who have considered leadership spent Thursday reacting to the news rather than quickly assembling coalitions.
Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who were already running for lower leadership spots should McCarthy have won the speakership, were encouraged to look higher up the chain of command but appear inclined to hold on to their current positions. Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.), who was a frontline participant in the latest talks about the GOP’s future, also mulled his options. So did McMorris Rodgers, the conference chair and the party’s highest-ranking woman, and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), who has harbored dreams of leadership and had previously run unsuccessfully.
Yet none of these members seemed poised Thursday to take McCarthy’s position as the front-runner. All are relatively popular in certain circles, but few carry the national political heft of Ryan or McCarthy.
EXCLUSIVE– MARK LEVIN WARNS HOUSE REPUBLICANS: DO NOT SUPPORT KEVIN MCCARTHY FOR SPEAKER
Popular talk radio host and best-selling author Mark Levin is warning Republicans in Washington: don’t replace outgoing House Speaker
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
37%
with
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
45%
.
Levin’s a tirelessly warrior against Speaker Boehner and the Washington establishment. “Kevin McCarthy is Eric Cantor with ten less IQ points,” Levin declares in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News.
The radio star adds Republicans must learn their lesson and not repeat the mistakes they made following Eric Cantor’s historic fall from power—namely that Republicans must replace Boehner with a “principled conservative.”
Levin explained that with the resounding defeat of the former-House Majority Leader, conservative voters made their voices heard and sent a clear message to the Republican establishment. Washington Republicans, however, refused to get the message.
“The Republican establishment never learned their lesson after Cantor… They replaced Cantor with McCarthy, who is a wheeler and dealer—he is not a principled conservative… My concern now is that they will do the same thing again,” Levin said.
Kevin McCarthy occupies the business wing of the Republican Party shared by other politicians like
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
58%
,
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
80%
, and
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
37%
. All seem to think that increasing corporate profits through large-scale immigration and globalist trade pacts like Obamatrade are more important than prioritizing the wages of Americans or preserving America’s cultural identity as a Western nation.
This vision is also in line with the donor-class idea of governing, which means lowering expectations and trying to manage the affairs of Congress in a smooth and non-confrontational way. For instance, only a few days ago, presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio dismissed attacks on Republican leadership in an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier. Rubio said, “expectations were raised unnecessarily high.”
In other words, that conservative voters were expecting too much when they sent their elected officials to Washington to represent them. This stands in contrast to his presidential competitor Sen. Ted Cruz, who recently suggested that
is the de facto leader of the Senate.” Breitbart News asked Levin about McCarthy’s repeated support for open-border policies.
As Politicoreported last year, McCarthy is viewed as the “go-to” guy for Silicon Valley because he listens to the tech giants’ concerns “100 percent” of the time. Silicon Valley billionaires such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg have lobbied for countless immigration expansion bills– including Marco Rubio’s new I-Squared bill, which would essentially lift the cap on university green cards, triple the number of guest workers admitted on H-1B visas, and substantially increase Muslim immigration into the country.
“These guys are such lightweights.” Levin declared. “We need true leaders. They have too much tied to Washington, too much tied to the Chamber of Commerce, corporatists and the donor class.”
Levin said that House conservatives—many of whom are a part of the House Freedom Caucus—need to demand better for their voters.
“Those thirty or so Republicans need to remain united” to elect a principled conservative leader who represents the interest of Republican voters, Levin explained. “Republicans could make a real difference now for the Party and for the country if we elect a Speaker or a Majority Leader who’s a conservative—such as
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
94%
. But he’s just one example.”
“We need leaders who are solid, who are intelligent, who are strategic, who are constitutionalists, who can bring in– not just the mainstay of the Party– but demonstrate to millions of us in the grassroots that the message has finally been received. [We need to see that] there is a serious effort—not just a PR effort—but a serious effort to try to govern and keep the President in check—that they are prepared to fight, prepared to show courage, and that they’re going to stop cutting deals with the inside the beltway crowd.”
Levin explained that House conservatives should not squander the opportunity this new leadership election affords them.
“I’ve been pushing very hard for the replacement of this leadership, not just to save the Republican Party, but to save the Republic itself against an out-of-control President.”
Levin predicted that Republican and media elites will try to use Boehner’s resignation as grounds to belittle and demean Republican voters, but that the Republican voters should continue making themselves heard.
“Today, Republican after Republican will lament what’s taking place. There will more trashing of conservatives, more trashing of the base—using liberal terminology to describe conservatives as ‘extreme right’ and they will not learn their lesson.”
“This is also the reason why you can see the rise of Donald Trump,” Levin explained. People are tired of donor class Republicans who refuse to represent the interests of their voters and they are ready for things to change.
Story 1: Part 3 of 3: American People Leaving Both Democratic and Republican Parties In Search of A Party With Principles and Leaders With Integrity and Defenders of The United States Constitution — A New Direction For America — Videos
Ageing population in U.S. skyrockets as baby boomers retire
Demographic Winter – the decline of the human family
Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family
One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree – we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.
A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy.
Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world – demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the worlds economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. These experts will discuss how:
The population bomb not only did not have the predicted consequences, but almost all of the developed countries of the world are now experiencing fertility rates far below replacement levels. Birthrates have fallen so low that even immigration cannot replace declining populations, and this migration is sapping strength from developing countries, the fertility rates for many of which are now falling at a faster pace than did those of the developed countries.
The economies of the world will continue to contract as the human capital spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained as the workers of today fail to replace themselves and are burdened by the responsibility to support an aging population.
View the entire documentary below
The New Economic Reality Demographic Winter Part 1
The New Economic Reality Demographic Winter Part 2
Ageing population in U.S. skyrockets as baby boomers retire
New Study: Many Americans Will Not Be Able to Retire Until Their 80s
Laziness, Greed, Entitlement – Baby Boomers Defined
The End of the World as We Know It, with Mark Steyn
Gallup: Partisan split at historic level
Gallup Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Want GOP Congress to Set Country’s Agenda, Not Obama
Most Political Independents Ever In USA
How Are Conservative And Liberal Brains Different?
Poll Record High 42 Percent Americans Identify As Independents
Against the USA, Naked Communist Conspiracy Is Unfolding, NWO
1.U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2.U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3.Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4.Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation
5.Extension of long-term loans to Russia & satellites.
6.Provide American aid to all nations regardless
7.Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8.Set up East and West Germany as separate states under supervision of the U.N.
9.Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10.Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11.Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. Demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
12.Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13.Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14.Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15.Capture one or both of the political parties.
16.Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17.Get control of the schools. Promote Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations.
18.Gain control of all student newspapers.
19.Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20.Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21.Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22.Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23.Control art critics and directors of art museums.
24.Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech.
25.Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity 26.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27.Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible as a “religious crutch.”
28.Eliminate prayer or religious expression in the schools
29.Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30.Discredit the American Founding Fathers.
31.Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history
32.Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture; education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33.Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of communism
34.Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35.Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36.Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37.Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38.Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
39.Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40.Discredit the family. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation, easy divorce.
41.Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding to suppressive influence of parents.
42.Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
43.Overthrow all colonial governments before natives are ready for self-government.
44.Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45.Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems and individuals alike.
Mind Control, Psychology of Brainwashing, Sex & Hypnosis
Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report
Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society
The Subversion Factor, Part 1: Moles In High Places
The Subversion Factor, Part 2: The Open Gates of Troy
CORPORATE FASCISM: The Destruction of America’s Middle Class
CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America
Countdown to Financial Collapse – A Conversation with G. Edward Griffin
WRCFresnoTV — G. Edward Griffin — The Federal Reserve, Taxes, The I.R.S. & Solutions
Rammstein “We’re all living in America” (HD) English Subtitle
Five Finger Death Punch – Wrong Side Of Heaven
Graphic shows number of births in the U.S. since
Just How Many Baby Boomers Are There?
(April 2014) Data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that there are 76.4 million baby boomers.
There were actually a total of 76 million births in the United States from 1946 to 1964, the 19 years usually called the “baby boom.” Of the 76 million baby boomers born, nearly 11 million had died by 2012, leaving some 65.2 million survivors. However, when immigrants are included (the number of people coming into the United States from other countries, minus those moving the other way), the number grows to an estimated 76.4 million because immigrants outweighed the number of baby-boomer deaths. The flow of immigrants greatly increased after passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, just as the baby boom was ending.
So one can use the figure 76.4 million (or round it down to 76 million) to approximate the number of baby boomers living in the U.S. today. But keep in mind that of the 76 million babies were born in the United States during the baby-boom years (1946 to 1964), only 65.2 million of those babies were still alive in 2012, and the baby-boom age group (ages 50 to 68 in 2014) stood at 76.4 million in 2012 with immigrants included in the count.
These 76.4 million baby boomers represent close to one-quarter of the estimated 2012 U.S. population of 314 million. The choices they make about whether to retire or continue to work will have profound implications for job openings and Social Security spending. According to American Community Survey data, about 68 percent of baby boomers were still in the labor force (including Armed Forces) in 2012.
The Census Bureau currently projects that the baby-boom population will total 61.3 million in 2029, when the youngest boomers reach age 65. By 2031, when the youngest baby boomers reach age 67 (the age at which persons born in 1964 can receive full Social Security benefits), the baby-boom population is projected to be even lower, at 58.2 million.
The aging of the baby boomers is creating a dramatic shift in the age composition of the U.S. population. Projections of the entire older population (which includes the pre-baby-boom cohorts born before 1946) suggest that 71.4 million people will be age 65 or older in 2029. This means that the elderly ages 65 and older will make up about 20 percent of the U.S. population by 2029, up from almost 14 percent in 2012.
Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After reaching a more than two-year high in early 2015, Americans’ satisfaction with the direction of the U.S. continues to fall. Twenty-six percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the nation in May, down slightly from 32% in January and February.
The latest data are from Gallup’s May 6-10 poll.
Satisfaction jumped nine points in January to 32%, a promising sign that Americans’ moods were improving after a year of lower figures throughout 2014, ranging between 20% and 27%. Since February, though, satisfaction has dipped only slightly each month, but these small drops have resulted in a six-point decline since the beginning of the year. Satisfaction remains below the 36% historical average for Gallup’s trend dating back to 1979.
The drop in Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going parallels the recent decline in economic confidence. Americans had a more positive outlook on the economy at the dawn of 2015, but these views, like satisfaction, have edged down in recent months.
Views of the nation’s direction have certainly been brighter in the past. Majorities of Americans were typically satisfied with the direction of the U.S. between 1998 and mid-2002 — including a record high of 71% in February 1999. But satisfaction declined steadily in the latter half of President George W. Bush’s presidency as the public grew disillusioned with the war in Iraq and the national economy suffered. This dip in satisfaction culminated in 7% of Americans, a record low, saying they were satisfied with the direction of the nation in October 2008 as the global economy collapsed and the U.S. stock market plummeted.
Satisfaction improved significantly during the first year of President Barack Obama’s term — reaching 36% in August 2009. It has not returned to that level since, ranging between 11% and 33% throughout Obama’s time in office.
Americans Still List Economy, Gov’t and Unemployment as Top Problems
Though the 14% of Americans who name dissatisfaction with government, Congress and politicians as the top problem facing the U.S. has fallen five points since April, it still remains the most commonly mentioned problem — a distinction it has held for six months.
The economy in general (12%) and unemployment (10%) have remained at the top of the list for several years. But mentions of these issues are down significantly from their recent peaks — the economy reached a high of 37% in 2012, and unemployment reached a high of 39% in 2011.
Race relations and racism (8%), immigration (6%), a decline in moral, religious and family ethics (6%), the state of the healthcare system (5%) and terrorism (5%) were also among the most frequently cited problems facing the nation.
Bottom Line
After years of dysfunctional government, the economy and unemployment dominating Americans’ mentions of the top problem facing the nation, fewer mention these problems now than in recent years. Still, these three problems remain at the forefront of Americans’ concerns, and may be driving Americans’ high level of dissatisfaction with the nation’s direction.
Although Americans’ confidence in the economy is higher this year than in recent years, it is still negative. And while fewer mention dysfunctional government as the nation’s top problem, Americans still strongly disapprove of Congress’ performance and remain divided on Obama’s.
Meanwhile, mentions of unemployment as a top problem have dipped as more U.S. workers report their workplaces are hiring and the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS declines. But unemployment still remains one of the most frequently cited problems.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 6-10, 2015, with a random sample of 1,024 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.
Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
Five Months Into GOP Congress, Approval Remains Low at 19%
by Andrew Dugan
Story Highlights
Congressional job approval at 19%, essentially unchanged
Approval of GOP Congress similar among Republicans and Democrats
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressional job approval, currently at 19%, remains stuck near historical lows, despite a number of recent high-profile legislative achievements.
Over the past month, Congress has confirmed the stalled nomination of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and both chambers passed a bill that was signed into law regarding Medicare. Bills that would authorize limited congressional oversight on any international agreement with Iran and help victims of human trafficking passed the Senate with little or no opposition. The uptick in activity, though hardly historic, is notable compared with the past two Congresses. Those Congresses, marked by divided control of the two chambers, were known for their entrenched partisan gridlock and few legislative accomplishments. And Americans didn’t care for their inability to agree — they gave Congress its lowest approval ever over this time period. Gallup found in June 2013, six months into the previous Congress, that gridlock and ineffectiveness were the most frequently cited reason for Americans’ disapproval of Congress.
Several months into this new Congress, the accomplishments that have been realized could give one the impression that the gridlock is softening, particularly over the past month. But these achievements have had virtually no impact on Congress’s job approval compared with early April (15%).
And, of course, Congress is far from working perfectly now, even if the pace of work appears to have increased. Most dramatically, the Senate failed to overcome a Democratic filibuster Tuesday afternoon that would give the president enhanced authority in negotiating trade bills, though the May survey was conducted before this occurrence. Legislation authorizing the use of military force in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS, proposed by the administration and which many members of Congress support, remains stalled.
GOP Congress Has Low Approval Among Republicans
A key reason the current 114th Congress appears to be having more legislative success than the two Congresses before it is that the House and Senate are now under one party’s control. Unified GOP control of Capitol Hill should, at least in theory, boost Republicans’ overall approval of Congress. But the expected “Republican rally” for Congress has yet to materialize — 21% of Republicans and Republican leaners approve of Congress, not much different from the 18% of independents and of Democrats who approve. Nor is Republican support notably higher than the 15% it reached in 2014, despite the decided Republican tilt of this year’s legislature.
Bottom Line
After years of dysfunction, Congress is moving forward on key pieces of legislation. No longer shackled by split control — though still facing a president of the opposite party — the legislative branch is suddenly finding some areas of agreement. But even if it appears that the gridlock is easing, the overwhelming majority of Americans still disapprove of Congress. If Congress continues passing bipartisan legislation, more Americans might soften their stance. Still, it may be that Americans are largely not aware of or impressed by Congress’ recent legislative successes. Or it may be that the hit to Congress’ reputation over the last several years — evident not only in dismal job approval ratings, but also fallinglevels of trust and confidence — will take a long time to reverse.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 6-10, 2015, with a random sample of 1,024 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.
Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
On Social Ideology, the Left Catches Up to the Right
by Jeffrey M. Jones
Story Highlights
31% say they are socially liberal, 31% socially conservative
This is the first time conservatives have not outnumbered liberals
Conservatives maintain edge on economic issues
PRINCETON, N.J. — Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999.
Gallup first asked Americans to describe their views on social issues in 1999, and has repeated the question at least annually since 2001. The broad trend has been toward a shrinking conservative advantage, although that was temporarily interrupted during the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency. Since then, the conservative advantage continued to diminish until it was wiped out this year.
The newfound parity on social ideology is a result of changes in the way both Democrats and Republicans describe their social views. The May 6-10 Gallup poll finds a new high of 53% of Democrats, including Democratic-leaning independents, describing their views on social issues as liberal.
Democrats were more likely to describe their views on social issues as moderate rather than liberal from 2001 to 2005. Since then, socially liberal Democrats have outnumbered socially moderate Democrats in all but one year.
Meanwhile, the 53% of Republicans and Republican leaners saying their views on social issues are conservative is the lowest in Gallup’s trend. The drop in Republicans’ self-identified social conservatism has been accompanied by an increase in moderate identification, to 34%, while the percentage identifying as socially liberal has been static near 10%.
These trends echo the pattern in Gallup’s overall ideology measure, which dates back to 1992 and shows increasing liberal identification in recent years. As with the social ideology measure, the longer-term shifts are mainly a result of increasing numbers of Democrats describing their views as liberal rather than moderate. That may reflect Democrats feeling more comfortable in describing themselves as liberal than they were in the past, as much as a more leftward shift in Democrats’ attitudes on political, economic and social issues.
Conservatives Still Lead Liberals on Economic Issues
In contrast to the way Americans describe their views on social issues, they still by a wide margin, 39% to 19%, describe their views on economic issues as conservative rather than liberal. However, as on social ideology, the gap between conservatives and liberals has been shrinking and is lower today than at any point since 1999, with the 39% saying they are economically conservative the lowest to date.
Currently, 64% of Republicans identify as conservative economically, which is down from 70% the previous two years and roughly 75% in the early years of the Obama presidency. During George W. Bush’s administration, Republicans were less likely to say they were economic conservatives, with as few as 58% doing so in 2004 and 2005. The trends suggest Republicans’ willingness to identify as economic conservatives, or economic moderates, is influenced by the party of the president in office, and perhaps the types of financial policies the presidential administration is pursuing at the time.
Democrats are also contributing to the trend in lower economic conservative identification. While the plurality of Democrats have consistently said they are economically moderate, Democrats have been more likely to identify as economic liberals than as economic conservatives since 2007. The last two years, there has been a 15-percentage-point gap in liberal versus conservative identification among Democrats on economic matters.
Implications
Americans’ growing social liberalism is evident not only in how they describe their views on social issues but also in changes in specific attitudes, such as increased support for same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana. These longer-term trends may be attributable to changing attitudes among Americans of all ages, but they also may be a result of population changes, with younger, more liberal Americans entering adulthood while older, more conservative adults pass on. Gallup found evidence that population replacement is a factor in explaining changes in overall ideology using an analysis of birth cohorts over time.
The 2016 presidential election will thus be contested in a more socially liberal electorate — and a less economically conservative one — than was true of prior elections. Economically and socially conservative candidates may still appeal to the Republican Party base in the primaries, but it may be more important now than in the past for the GOP nominee to be a bit less conservative on social issues in order to appeal to the broader general electorate.
And while Americans are less economically conservative than in the past, economic conservatives still outnumber economic liberals by about 2-to-1. As a result, Democrats must be careful not to nominate a candidate who is viewed as too liberal on economic matters if their party hopes to hold the White House beyond 2016.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 6-10, 2015, with a random sample of 1,024 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.
Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
Hillary Clinton is not the only Democratic comeback candidate on the 2016 ticket. Senate Democrats are betting on the past to rebuild their party for the future.
BY JOSH KRAUSHAAR
One of the most underappreciated stories in recent years is the deterioration of the Democratic bench under President Obama’s tenure in office. The party has become much more ideologically homogenous, losing most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections. By one new catch-all measure, a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler, Democrats are in their worst position since 1928. That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democratic presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.
But less attention has been paid to how the shrinking number of Democratic officeholders in the House and in statewide offices is affecting the party’s Senate races. It’s awfully unusual to see how dependent Democrats are in relying on former losing candidates as their standard-bearers in 2016. Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold, Pennsylvania’s Joe Sestak, Indiana’s Baron Hill, and Ohio’s Ted Strickland all ran underwhelming campaigns in losing office in 2010—and are looking to return to politics six years later. Party officials are courting former Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina to make a comeback bid, despite mediocre favorability ratings and the fact that she lost a race just months ago that most had expected her to win. All told, more than half of the Democrats’ Senate challengers in 2016 are comeback candidates.
On one hand, most of these candidates are the best choices Democrats have. Feingold and Strickland are running ahead of GOP Sens. Ron Johnson and Rob Portman in recent polls. Hill and Hagan boast proven crossover appeal in GOP-leaning states that would be challenging pickups. Their presence in the race gives the party a fighting chance to retake the Senate.
(RELATED: What’s Next In the House Benghazi Committee’s Hillary Clinton Investigation)
But look more closely, and the reliance on former failures is a direct result of the party having no one else to turn to. If the brand-name challengers didn’t run, the roster of up-and-coming prospects in the respective states is short. They’re also facing an ominous historical reality that only two defeated senators have successfully returned to the upper chamber in the last six decades. As political analyst Stu Rothenberg put it, they’re asking “voters to rehire them for a job from which they were fired.” Senate Democrats are relying on these repeat candidates for the exact same reason that Democrats are comfortable with anointing Hillary Clinton for their presidential nomination: There aren’t any better alternatives.
ADVERTISEMENT
For a portrait of the Democrats’ slim pickings, just look at the political breakdown in three of the most consequential battleground states. Republicans hold 12 of Ohio’s 16 House seats, and all six of their statewide offices. In Wisconsin, Republicans hold a majority of the state’s eight House seats and four of five statewide partisan offices. In Pennsylvania, 13 of the 18 representatives are Republicans, though Democrats hold all the statewide offices. (One major caveat: Kathleen Kane, the Democrats’ once-hyped attorney general in the state, is under criminal investigation and has become a political punchline.) These are all Democratic-friendly states that Obama carried twice.
If Strickland didn’t run, the party’s hopes against Portman would lie in the hands of 30-year-old Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who would make unexpected history as one of the nation’s youngest senators with a victory. (Sittenfeld is still mounting a long-shot primary campaign against Strickland.) Without Feingold in Wisconsin, the party’s only logical option would be Rep. Ron Kind, who has regularly passed up opportunities for a promotion. Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett already lost to Gov. Scott Walker twice, and businesswoman Mary Burke disappointed as a first-time gubernatorial candidate last year. And despite the Democratic establishment’s publicized carping over Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, the list of alternatives is equally underwhelming: His only current intra-party opposition is from the mayor of Allentown.
(RELATED: Hillary Clinton to Launch Her Campaign, Again)
In the more conservative states, the drop-off between favored recruits and alternatives is even more stark. Hagan would be a flawed nominee in North Carolina, but there’s no one else waiting in the wings. The strongest Democratic politician, Attorney General Roy Cooper, is running for governor instead. And in Indiana, the bench is so thin that even the GOP’s embattled governor, Mike Pence, isn’t facing formidable opposition. Hill, who lost congressional reelection campaigns in both 2004 and 2010, is not expected to face serious primary competition in the race to succeed retiring GOP Sen. Dan Coats.
Even in the two swing states where the party landed young, up-and-coming recruits to run, their options were awfully limited. In Florida, 32-year-old Rep. Patrick Murphy is one of only five House Democrats to represent a district that Mitt Romney carried in 2012—and his centrism has made him one of the most compelling candidates for higher office. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly rallied behind his campaign (in part to squelch potential opposition from firebrand congressman Alan Grayson). But if Murphy didn’t run, the alternatives would have been limited: freshman Rep. Gwen Graham and polarizing Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz being the most logical alternatives.
In Nevada, Democrats boast one of their strongest challengers in former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, vying to become the first Latina ever elected to the Senate. But her ascension is due, in part, to the fact that other talented officeholders lost in the 2014 statewide wipeout. Democratic lieutenant-governor nominee Lucy Flores, hyped by MSNBC as a “potential superstar,” lost by 26 points to her GOP opponent. Former Secretary of State Ross Miller, another fast-rising pol, badly lost his bid for attorney general against a nondescript Republican. By simply taking a break from politics, Cortez Masto avoided the wave and kept her prospects alive for 2016.
(RELATED: Newly Released Clinton Email Detail Benghazi Correspondence)
DON’T MISS TODAY’S TOP STORIES
“Concise coverage of everything I wish I had hours to read about.”Chuck, Graduate StudentSign up form for the newsletter
This isn’t an assessment of Democratic chances for a Senate majority in 2017; it’s a glaring warning for the party’s longer-term health. If Clinton can’t extend the Democrats’ presidential winning streak—a fundamental challenge, regardless of the political environment—the party’s barren bench will cause even more alarm for the next presidential campaign. And if the Democrats’ core constituencies don’t show up for midterm elections—an outlook that’s rapidly becoming conventional wisdom—Democrats have serious challenges in 2018 as well. It’s why The New Yorker’s liberal writer John Cassidy warned that a Clinton loss next year could “assign [Republicans] a position of dominance.”
By focusing on how the electorate’s rapid change would hand Democrats a clear advantage in presidential races, Obama’s advisers overlooked how the base-stroking moves would play in the states. Their optimistic view of the future has been adopted by Clinton, who has been running to the left even without serious primary competition.
But without a future generation of leaders able to compellingly carry the liberal message, there’s little guarantee that changing demographics will secure the party’s destiny. The irony of the 2016 Senate races is that Democrats are betting on the past, running veteran politicians to win them back the majority—with Clinton at the top of the ticket. If that formula doesn’t work, the rebuilding process will be long and arduous.
How Many Workers Support One Social Security Retiree?
Veronique de Rugy | May 22, 2012
With the Social Security Trust Fund exhausting faster than expected, another obstacle to the sustainability of the program is rearing its head: Social Security benefits rest on fewer and fewer taxpayers. This week’s chart by Mercatus senior research fellow Veronique de Rugy uses data from the 2012 Social Security Trustees Report to show the number of workers that need to contribute to the system to ensure the benefits for one retiree.
Most of the major shifts in worker-to-beneficiary ratios before the 1960s are attributable to the dynamics of the program’s maturity. In the early stages of the program, many paid in and few received benefits, and the revenue collected greatly exceeded the benefits being paid out. What appeared to be the program’s advantage, however, turned out to be misleading. Between 1945 and 1965, the decline in worker-to-beneficiary ratios went from 41 to 4 workers per beneficiary.
The Social Security program matured in the 1960s, when Americans were consistently having fewer children, living longer, and earning wages at a slower rate than the rate of growth in the number of retirees. As these trends have continued, today there are just 2.9 workers per retiree—and this amount is expected to drop to two workers per retiree by 2030.
The program was stable when there were more than 3 workers per beneficiary. However, future projections indicate that the ratio will continue to fall from two workers to one, at which point the program in its current structure becomes financially unsustainable.
*Note on the data: At the inception of Social Security in 1935, there were few beneficiaries and a lot of workers. (See the number of beneficiaries per 100 covered workers inTable IV.B2 of the Trustees Report). As the post-WWII baby boomers were born, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio increased. As birth rates decline and the baby boomers retire, the worker-to-beneficiary ratio is on the decline. The increased longevity of Americans only further compounds the problem.
Story 1: Queen Hillary Is Just Another Corrupt Lying Bought and Paid For Phony Politician — Clinton Cash Bribe Laundering — Democratic Party Can Do A Lot Better — Run Jerry Run — Videos
Quid pro quo
(“something for something” in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.
Did Hillary Clinton trade favors for cash – Latest WORLD News April,21/2015
Hillary Clinton Dodges Question About ‘Clinton Cash’ Book
Steve Moore on Hillary Clinton & “Clinton Cash”
Halperin: Don’t Let Clinton Stop Press From Printing News
“Clinton Cash” Asserts Foreign Donors Got State Dept Favors – Happening Now
“Clinton Cash”: New Book by Peter Schweizer Reportedly Details Clinton Corruption!
New Book Probes Clinton Charity Foreign Donations
John Podesta on Hillary and ‘Clinton Cash’ (Apr. 20, 2015) | Charlie Rose
Clinton Cash, Biden’s Bucks, Barack’s Billions | The Hotlist
Queen Hillary Clinton
Unsettling Truths About Bill and Hillary Clinton: Political Character, Tactics & Approach (1996)
CNN (Situation Room): Blitzer, Brazile, Castellanos Discuss Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton Admits Illuminati Front Group Council on Foreign Relations Runs Washington D.C.
America’s Forum | Dick Morris discusses the Hillary Clinton email scandal
Fighting Among Clinton Donors Shows Money Matters More Than Voters
Media rips Hillary Clinton over email scandal
Is Hillary Clinton going to slide through every scandal that surfaces? | ZoNation
Hillary Clinton E-mail Scandal Getting Worse Amid New Details
Hillary Wiped Email Server Clean!
Rep. Trey Gowdy: Clinton Wiped Server Clean — Why Hillary Can’t Shake The Email Scandal
Judge Nap to Megyn: Hillary Clinton Is on ‘Such Thin Ice’
FOX NEWS: Hillary’s Private E-Mail Server
Hillary the Scandals
Brown vs. Clinton in Illinois Primary Debate
Jerry Brown on Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton Endorses Jerry!
New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation
NEW YORK TIMES: CLINTON CASH ‘MOST ANTICIPATED AND FEARED BOOK OF A PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE’
by ALEXANDER MARLOW
The New York Timesreported Sunday evening that a forthcoming investigative bombshell book on Hillary and Bill Clinton will soon be the focus of major feature stories and is regarded as “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.”
The New York Times revealed that Clinton Cash describes how the Clintons’ income from 2001 to 2012 was at least $136.5 million, how Mr. Clinton would routinely fetch half-a-million dollar honorariums for speeches while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, and much more.
Despite the Clinton campaign’s ability to dismiss “critical books as conservative propaganda,” the Times says “Clinton Cash is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations are expected to pursue the story lines found in the book.”
The Times adds, “Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have been briefed about the book’s findings.”
Publishing giant HarperCollins said in a press release that the book represents the culmination of a one-year deep dive investigation by Schweizer’s GAI investigative unit. The GAI, which has quickly established itself as one of the nation’s most respected—and feared—Washington watchdog organizations, has gained notoriety for vigorously investigating both Republicans and Democrats, as well as releasing its investigative findings through major national mainstream media partners, such as CBS News’ 60 Minutes, New York Times, Politico, ABC News, and Fox News.
Indeed, GAI and Schweizer have already left their investigative mark on Capitol Hill. Schweizer, whom Newsweek dubbed “The Wonk Who Slays Washington,” was responsible for the ouster of former Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, after his book, Throw Them All Out, exposed insider trading by members of Congress.
The driving force behind the only significant bipartisan reform legislation to pass during the Obama presidency—the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act—Schweizer is, as David Weigel (then of Slate) put it, the “author of the book that started the STOCK Act stampede.” Schweizer partnered with veteran CBS News 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft for an insider trading report based on the book that resulted in CBS winning the coveted Joan Shorenstein Barone Award for excellence in Washington-based reporting on congressional political affairs.
Former Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) also knows the sting of a Schweizer book investigation. In October 2013, Schweizer once again partnered with CBS 60 Minutesand Steve Kroft to report the revelations of his book, Extortion, which exposed how Republicans and Democrats use leadership PAC “slush funds” to bankroll lavish lifestyles. The Sunday before the book’s release, CBS 60 Minutes did a story titled “Washington’s Open Secret” based on Schweizer’s book revelations that led to Andrews’ resignation from Congress.
Whether Schweizer’s soon-to-be-released book will spell the same political fate for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential aspirations remains to be seen. The Washington Post has already done two major stories based off the Clinton Cash press release’s revelation that Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a mining company that in 2012 received one of only two “gold exploitation permits” from the Haitian government—a coveted concession that was the first of its kind issued in over 50 years.
Now, with major media all preparing feature reports on Clinton Cash’s myriad revelations, Hillary Clinton’s defenders are already in damage control mode. “The newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job,” reports the Times.
That will be difficult, however, says the New York Times, because “Mr. Schweizer writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons.”
Story 1: Rand Paul Running — Libertarian and Fiscal Conservative Republicans and Independents Will Vote For Him — Big Government Republicans, Neoconservatives and Progressive Democrats Demonize and Fear Him — Can He Beat Senator Ted Cruz? — Time Will Tell — Two Clues For Rand Paul — Videos
Freedom lies in being bold.
Robert Frost
The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
Lao Tzu
Rand Paul 2016 Speech – Senator Rand Paul Announces Running For U.S. President |FULL SPEECH
One-On-One With GOP Presidential Candidate Kentucky Rand Paul America & Israel – Hannity
RAND PAUL Explains LIBERTARIANISM
Rand Paul: Republicans Can Only Win if “They Become More Live and Let Live”
Why is Rand Paul the right choice for America? Rand Paul 2016.
Three Clues For Rand Paul
FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)
America faces one of the greatest perils to her future: our broken economic engine. A simple tune-up won’t fix the problem. The FairTax would fuel economic growth, investment, and job creation throughout the nation. Learn why the FairTax will fuel our economic engine and create jobs.
“The Case for the Fair Tax”
John E. Linder
Former U.S. Representative
Co-author, “The Fair Tax Book”
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
The Truth About Immigration: What They Won’t Tell You!
The Presidential Contenders: Rand Paul
Pence on the Fair Tax
The Presidential Contenders: Gov. Mike Pence
Scoring the Immigration Reform Bill: An Analysis of the CBO’s Numbers
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism
Milton Friedman – Welfare State Dynamics
Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration only helps when its Illegal
Dan Mitchell explains the fair tax
Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax
How does the FairTax affect the economy?
How is the FairTax collected?
Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?
If people bring home their whole paychecks how can prices fall?
How does the “prebate” work?
Are any significant economies funded by a sales tax?
Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?
Krauthammer’s Take: Rand Paul is the 2016 Candidate Closest to Obama on Foreign Policy
Judge Napolitano: Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Gov’t is Dangerous
Ferguson and Napolitano – When “Fiscal” Conservatives Agree – Americas Debt Crisis
Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson and U.S. Federal Court Judge Andrew Napolitano would seem to be at odds on many topics. One they agree with is the spending of the U.S. government and the lack of fiscal responsibility. See how they explain the debt problem in the U.S. and the ways in which this crisis is harming america. Is the Obama administration oblivious, or not caring, when it comes to borrowing money to support social programs and defense spending? Will the Democrats and Republicans come together in time to defeat the massive overspending and budget deficit? See what these two men have to say.
Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard
Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
Why Neocons Won’t Be Too Pleased With Rand Paul’s Speech
Rand Paul takes aim at “war hawk” Hillary Clinton – Fox News Special Report
The Secret To Rand Paul’s Success
Judge Napolitano: Rand Paul Can Lead Us To An Era Of Prosperity, Happiness & Small Government
Who is the ideal presidential candidate?
Transcript: Read Full Text of Sen. Rand Paul’s Campaign Launch
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul launched his presidential campaign in Louisville Tuesday.
I have a message, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We have come to take our country back.
We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare.
The Washington machine that gobbles up our freedoms and invades every nook and cranny of our lives must be stopped.
Less than five years ago I stood just down the road in home town in Bowling Green and said those same words. I wasn’t supposed to win, no one thought I would.
PHOTOS: ON THE ROAD WITH RAND PAUL
Charles Ommanney for TIME
Senator Rand Paul talks to voters at the Horry County Republican Party in Myrtle Beach, S.C. on Sept. 30th, 2014.
Some people asked me, then why are you running? The answer is the same now as it was then. I have a vision for America. I want to be part of a return to prosperity, a true economic boom that lists all Americans, a return to a government restrained by the Constitution.
A return to privacy, opportunity, liberty. Too often when Republicans have won we have squandered our victory by becoming part of the Washington machine. That’s not who I am.
That’s not why I ran for office the first time just a few years ago. The truth is, I love my life as a small-town doctor. Every day I woke up, I felt lucky to be able to do the things I loved. More importantly, I was blessed to be able to do things that made a difference in people’s lives.
I never could have done any of this, though, without the help of my parents who are here today. I’d like you to join me and thank my mother and dad.
With my parents’ help, I was able to make it through long years of medical training to become an eye surgeon. For me there is nothing that compares with helping someone see better. Last August I was privileged to travel to Guatemala on a medical mission trip together with a team of surgeons from across the U.S.
We operated on more than 200 people who were blind or nearly blind from cataracts. I was grateful to be able to put my scrubs back on, peer into the oculars of the microscope, and focus on the task at hand, to take a surgical approach to fix a problem.
One day in Guatemala, a man arrived and told me that I’d operated on his wife the day before. His wife could see clearly for the first time in years, and she had begged him to get on the bus, travel the winding roads and come back to our surgery center. He too was nearly blind from hardened cataracts.
After his surgery, the next day, his wife sat next to me. As I unveiled the patch from his eyes, it was a powerful emotional moment for me to see them looking at each other clearly for the first time years to see the face they loved again.
As I saw the joy in their eyes, I thought, “This is why I became a doctor.”
In that moment, I also remembered my grandmother, who inspired me to become an eye surgeon. She spent hours with me as a kid. We would sort through her old coin collection, looking for wheat pennies and Indian heads. But as her vision began to fail, I became her eyes to inspect the faintness of the mint marks on the old weather-worn coins.
I went with my grandmother to the ophthalmologist as she had her corneas replaced. I was also with her when she received the sad news that macular generation had done irreparable harm to her eyes.
My hope… my hope that my grandmother would see again made me want to become an eye surgeon, to make a difference in people’s lives.
I’ve been fortunate. I’ve been able to enjoy the American Dream.
I worry, though, that the opportunity and hope are slipping away for our sons and daughters. As I watch our once-great economy collapse under mounting spending and debt, I think, “What kind of America will our grandchildren see”?
It seems to me that both parties and the entire political system are to blame.
Big government and debt doubled under a Republican administration.
And it’s now tripling under Barack Obama’s watch. President Obama is on course to add more debt than all of the previous presidents combined.
We borrow a million dollars a minute. This vast accumulation of debt threatens not just our economy, but our security.
We can wake up now and do the right thing. Quit spending money we don’t have.
This message of liberty is for all Americans, Americans from all walks of life. The message of liberty, opportunity and justice is for all Americans, whether you wear a suit, a uniform or overalls, whether you’re white or black, rich or poor.
In order to restore America, one thing is for certain, though: We cannot, we must not dilute our message or give up on our principles.
If we nominate a candidate who is simply Democrat Light, what’s the point?
Why bother?
We need to boldly proclaim our vision for America. We need to go boldly forth under the banner of liberty that clutches the Constitution in one hand and the Bill of Rights in the other.
Washington is horribly broken. I fear it can’t be fixed from within. We the people must rise up and demand action.
Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them to do so. Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.
I have been to Washington, and let me tell you, there is no monopoly on knowledge there.
I ran for office because we have too many career politicians. I believe it now more than ever.
We limit the President to two terms. It’s about time we limit the terms of Congress!
I want to reform Washington. I want common sense rules that will break the logjam in Congress.
That’s why I introduced a Read the Bills Act.
The bills are thousands of pages long. And no one reads them. They are often plopped on our desks only a few hours before a vote.
I’ve proposed something truly extraordinary — Let’s read the bills, every page!
The bills are 1,000 pages long and no one reads them. They are often plopped on our desk with only a few hours before a vote, so I propose something truly extraordinary. Let’s read the bills every day.
From the time I was a very young boy I was taught to love and appreciate America. Love of liberty pulses in my veins not because we have beautiful mountains or white sand beaches, although we do, and not because of our abundance of resources. It’s more visceral than that. Our great nation was founded upon the extraordinary notion that government should be restrained and freedom should be maximized.
America, to me, is that beacon. We are unique among the nations that our — that our country stands for freedom. Freedom nurtured our country from a rebellious group of colonies into the world’s greatest nation.
When tyranny threatened the world America led the way to rid the world of Nazis and fascist regimes. Resolutely we stood decade after decade against Communism, the engine of capitalism finally winning out against the sputtering, incompetent engine of socialism.
We won the Cold War.
America and freedom are so intertwined that people literally are dying to come here. The freedom we have fostered in America have unleashed genius and advancement like never before. Yet our great nation still needs new ideas and new answers to old problems.
From an early age I worked. I taught swimming lessons, I mowed lawns, I did landscaping, I put roofs on houses, I painted houses. I never saw work though as punishment. Who always gave me a sense of who I am.
Self-esteem cant be given; it must be earned.
Work is not punishment; work is the reward.
Two of my sons work minimum wage jobs while they go to college. I am proud of them as I see them realize the value of hard work. I can see their self-esteem grow as they cash their paychecks. I have a vision for America where everyone who wants to work will have a job.
Many Americans though are being left behind. The reward of work seems beyond their grasp. Under the watch of both parties, the poor seem to get poorer and the rich get richer. Trillion-dollar government stimulus packages has only widened the income gap.
Politically connected crones get taxpayer dollars by the hundreds of millions and poor families across America continue to suffer. I have a different vision, an ambitious vision, an ambitious vision, a vision that will offer opportunity to all Americans, especially those who have been left behind.
My plan includes economic freedom zones to allow impoverished areas like Detroit, West Louisville, Eastern Kentucky to prosper by leaving more money in the pockets of the people who live there.
Can you imagine what a billion-dollar stimulus could do for Detroit or for Appalachia? I’m convinced that most Americans want to work. I want to free up the great engine of American prosperity.
I want to see millions of Americans back at work. In my vision for America, we’ll bring back manufacturing jobs that pay well. How? We’ll dramatically lower the tax on American companies that wish to bring their profits home.
More than $2 trillion in American profit currently sits overseas. In my vision for America, new highways and bridges will be built across the country, not by raising your taxes, but by lowering the tax to bring this American profit home.
Even in this polarized Congress, we have a chance of passing this. I say let’s bring $2 trillion home to America, let’s bring it home now.
Liberal policies have failed our inner cities. Let’s just get the facts straight. They have failed our inner cities. Our schools are not equal, and the poverty gap continues to widen. Martin Luther King spoke of two Americas. He described them as two starkly different American experiences that exist side-by-side.
In one in America, people experience the opportunity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the other America, people experience a daily ugliness that dashes hope and leaves only the fatigue of despair.
Although I was born into the America that experiences and believes in opportunity, my trips to Detroit, to Appalachia, to Chicago have revealed what I call an undercurrent of unease.
It’s time for a new way, a way predicated on justice, opportunity and freedom.
Those of us who have enjoyed the American dream must break down the wall that separates us from the other America. I want all our children to have the same opportunities that I had. We need to stop limiting kids in poor neighborhoods to failing public schools and offer them school choice.
It won’t happen, though, unless we realize that we can’t borrow our way to prosperity. Currently some $3 trillion comes into the U.S. Treasury. Couldn’t the country just survive on $3 trillion?
I propose we do something extraordinary. Let’s just spend what comes in.
In my vision for America, freedom and prosperity at home can only be achieved if we defend against enemies who are dead set on attacking us.
Without question we must defend ourselves and American interests from our enemies, but until we name the enemy, we can’t win the war.
The enemy is radical Islam. You can’t get around it.
And not only will I name the enemy, I will do whatever it takes to defend America from these haters of mankind.
We need a national defense robust enough to defend against all attack, modern enough to deter all enemies, and nimble enough to defend our vital interests. But we also need a foreign policy that protects American interests and encourages stability, not chaos.
At home, conservatives understand that government is the problem, not the solution.
Conservatives should not succumb, though, to the notion that a government inept at home will somehow succeed in building nations abroad.
I envision an America with a national defense unparalleled, undefeatable and unencumbered by overseas nation-building.
I envision a national defense that promotes, as Reagan put it, peace through strength.
I believe in applying Reagan’s approach to foreign policy to the Iran issue. Successful negotiations with untrustworthy adversaries are only achieved from a position of strength.
We’ve brought Iran to the table through sanctions that I voted for. Now we must stay strong. That’s why I’ve cosponsored legislation that ensures that any deal between the U.S. and Iran must be approved by Congress.
Not — not only is that good policy, it’s the law.
It concerns me that the Iranians have a different interpretation of the agreement. They’re putting out statement that say completely the opposite of what we’re saying. It concerns me that we may attempt, or the president may attempt, to unilaterally and prematurely halt sanctions.
I will oppose any deal that does not end Iran’s nuclear ambitions and have strong verification measures.
And I will insist that the final version be brought before Congress.
The difference between President Obama and myself, he seems to think you can negotiate from a position of weakness. Yet everyone needs to realize that negotiations are not inherently bad. The trust (inaudible) verify is required in any negotiation, but then our goal always should be and always is peace, not war.
We must realize, though, that we do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan.
Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home.
It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting “Death to America” in countries that receive millions of dollars in our foreign aid.
I say it must end. I say not one penny more to these haters of America.
To defend our country, we do need to gather intelligence on the enemy. But when the intelligence director is not punished for lying under oath, how are we to trust our government agencies?
Warrantless searches of Americans’ phones and computer records are un-American and a threat to our civil liberties.
I say that your phone records are yours. I say the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business.
Is this where we light up the phones?
The president created this vast dragnet by executive order. And as president on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance.
I believe we can have liberty and security and I will not compromise your liberty for a false sense of security, not now, not ever.
We must defend ourselves, but we must never give up who we are as a people. We must never diminish the Bill of Rights as we fight this long war against evil. We must believe in our founding documents. We must protect economic and personal liberty again.
America has much greatness left in her. We are still exceptional and we are still a beacon for the world. We will thrive when we believe in ourselves again.
I see an America strong enough to deter foreign aggression, yet wise enough to avoid unnecessary intervention.
I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.
I see an America with a restrained IRS that cannot target, cannot harass American citizens for their political or religious beliefs.
I see our big cities once again shining and beckoning with creativity and ingenuity, with American companies offering American jobs. With your help, this message will ring from coast to coast, a message of liberty, justice and personal responsibility. Today begins the journey to take America back.
To rescue a great country now adrift, join me as together we seek a new vision for America. Today I announce with God’s help, with the help of liberty lovers everywhere, that I am putting myself forward as a candidate for president of the United States of America.
Story 1: It Is Time For A New Different Kind of President? Neither Democrat Nor Republican! — An Independent Constitutionalist — The Longer Senator Rand Paul Stays In Washington He Becomes More An Establishment Republican On Key Issues — Big Government Conservative Not Limited Government Libertarian — The Co-opting of Rand Paul — Videos
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted April 1-2, 2015
By Rasmussen Reports
1* Is the U.S. government too aggressive or not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally? Or is the number of deportations about right?
2* Suppose a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child in the United States. Should that child automatically become a citizen of the United States?
3* Should illegal immigrants who have American-born children be exempt from deportation?
4* Before anyone receives local, state or federal government services, should they be required to prove they are legally allowed to be in the United States?
5* How concerned are you that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens?
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence
Most Voters Want More Aggressive Deportation Policies
More voters than ever feel the United States is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are here illegally, even as President Obama continues to push his plan to make up to five million illegal immigrants safe from deportation.
Just 16% of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. government is too aggressive in deporting those who are in the country illegally. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% believe the government is not aggressive enough in deporting these illegal immigrants, up from 52% a year ago and 56%in November.Fifteen percent (15%) feel the current number of deportations is about right. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Thirty-two percent (32%) believe illegal immigrants who have American-born children should be exempt from deportation, an element of Obama’s plan, but 51% now disagree. In November, voters were much more closely divided: 38% said they should be exempt from deportation, and only 42% disagreed. Seventeen percent (17%) remain undecided.
But then most voters (54%) continue to feel that a child born to an illegal immigrant mother in the United States should not automatically become a U.S. citizen, as is now the case. Thirty-eight percent (38%) favor the current policy of automatic citizenship for these children. Opposition has ranged from 51% to 65% in surveys since April 2006. Support has been in the 28% to 41% range in that same period.
An overwhelming 83% of voters think someone should be required to prove they are legally allowed in the United States before receiving local, state or federal government services. Just 12% disagree. These findings have changed little over the past four years.
Still, 54% are concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-three percent (43%) don’t have that concern. This includes 25% who are Very Concerned about possible civil rights violations and 12% who are Not at All Concerned. This, too, is consistent with past surveying.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 1-2, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Most voters in nearly every demographic category agree that the federal government is not aggressive enough in its deportation policies. Most also believe very strongly that someone should have to prove they are a U.S. citizen before obtaining government benefits.
Most women and men agree that a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country should not automatically become a U.S. citizen.
Voters under 40 are only slightly less supportive than their elders of more aggressive deportation policies. But they are much more likely than those 40 and over to think that a child born to an illegal alien in this country should automatically become a U.S. citizen.
Sixty percent (60%) of whites oppose automatic citizenship; 51% of blacks and 56% of other minority voters favor it.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans and 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party think the government is not aggressive enough in deporting illegal immigrants. Just 40% of Democrats agree. But then Democrats are far more concerned than the others that deportation efforts may end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.
Democrats by a 51% to 33% margin believe illegals who have American-born children should be exempt from deportation. Sixty-two percent (62%) of GOP voters and 60% of unaffiliateds disagree.
Most voters continue to believe federal government policies encourage illegal immigration, but they still aren’t convinced states should go it alone in enforcing immigration laws.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally, the highest level of cynicism since June 2012. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, while 15% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
The number of voters who believe the federal government encourages illegal immigration reached a high of 62% in September 2010 but has mostly stayed in the mid-to high-50s in regular surveying for several years.
Still, 48% think relying on the federal government rather than states to enforce immigration laws is the best approach to dealing with illegal immigration. That’s down two points from last Augustbut is in line with findings since February 2011. Forty-two percent (42%) think it’s better to allow individual states to act on their own. Ten percent (10%) are undecided. Support for state action was slightly higher in 2011.
Voters remain more conflicted when it comes to landlords who rent or sell property to illegal immigrants. Forty-four percent (44%) favor strict government sanctions against them. Thirty-four percent (34%) are opposed, while 22% are undecided. These attitudes haven’t changed much over the years either.
But 57% believe if a police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer should automatically check to see if that person is in the country legally. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree, and 10% are not sure. These findings also have stayed fairly steady for years, although support for these checks hit a high of 73% in March 2009.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 4-5, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Seventy-five percent (75%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major political party believe the policies and practices of the federal government encourage illegal immigration. Democrats by a narrow 44% to 39% disagree. Most Republicans (62%) and unaffiliated voters by a 46% to 42% margin think states should be allowed to enforce immigration laws on their own, but 68% of Democrats think they should rely on the feds.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters who believe government policies encourage people to come here illegally favor allowing states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of those who don’t believe government policies encourage illegal immigration think enforcement of such laws should be left to the federal government.
White voters are generally more supportive of strict sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent or sell property to such individuals than black and other minority voters are. White voters also show stronger support for automatic police checks during traffic stops.
Story 1: Obama’s Cadillac Tax Crashes and Burns Killing Obamacare and Injuring MIT Professor Gruber — Rest In Peace — Obamacare Is Shovel Ready — Videos
ObamaCare a Trojan Horse for Single-Payer
Obama lies about “cadillac” plan taxation
36 Times Obama Said You Could Keep Your Health Care Plan | SuperCuts #18
ACA Architect Confession: Created Lies For Obama
Obamacare – Concerns “Cadillac Tax” Forcing Employers To Cut Back Health Plans
What is the “cadillac tax?”
Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax Pushing People To Plans With High Deductible- Union You Got What You Wanted
Obamacare – Concerns “Cadillac Tax” Forcing Employers To Cut Back Health Plans
The Five: Large Employers Cite ObamaCare “Cadillac” Tax In Reducing Benefits
SMOKING GUN! Gruber Admits Obama Was in Room During Planning of Cadillac Lie
GRUBER: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
GRUBER; Deceive Americans Critical to Pass Obamacare-Calls us ‘Stupid Americans’; Part 1 of 3
Gruber Remarks Puts Obama Administration on Scramble; Part 2 of 3
Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies
BookTV: Jonathan Gruber, “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works”
Jonathan Gruber admits Obamacare is inherently unaffordable
Obamacare – Concerns “Cadillac Tax” Forcing Employers To Cut Back Health Plans
Krauthammer rips Jonathan Gruber: “We’re hearing the true voice of liberal arrogance”
Megyn Slams ObamaCare Architect Who Declined to Appear on ‘Kelly File’
Democrats Loved Jonathan Gruber Before They Forgot Who He Was
Sen. Harry Reid, 2009: Gruber Is One Of The ‘Most Respected Economists’ Out There
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in a December 2009 floor speech on Capitol Hill lauded Jonathan Gruber as one of the most “respected economists in the world” as Reid cited facts defending the Senate’s Obamacare bill.
Nancy Pelosi In 2009: Americans Should Read Jonathan Gruber’s ObamaCare Analysis
Nancy Pelosi In 2009: Americans Should Read Jonathan Gruber’s ObamaCare Analysis (November 5, 2009)
AHEC 2013 Conference
As part of the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference hosted by PennLDI, Mark Pauly and Jonathan Gruber were featured in the Plenary Panel discussing the role of economics in shaping (and possibly reshaping) the ACA. See below for the conference agenda with links to working papers. See the full AHEC agenda: http://ldi.upenn.edu/ahec2013/agenda
Jonathan Gruber at Noblis – January 18, 2012
The Noblis Technology Tuesday speaker series covers a broad spectrum of political, technical and innovative ideas. Noblis is a nonprofit science, technology, and strategy organization that brings the best of scientific thought, management, and engineering expertise with a reputation for independence and objectivity. The opinions expressed in this video are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Noblis.
Jonathan Gruber spoke to a Noblis audience on January 18, 2012 Few experts know more about America’s dire need of health care reform than Gruber. And of that short list, he is the only one prepared to enter the pages of a comic book to make the case. To be clear: Gruber is not an expert; he is “the” expert. An award-winning MIT economist and the director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, he was a key architect of the ambitious health care reform effort in Massachusetts and is a member of the Health Connector Board now implementing it; in 2006 he was named by “Modern Healthcare” as the nineteenth most powerful person in health care in the United States. In 2008 he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards, and Obama presidential campaigns. The national legislation passed by Congress in 2009 derives directly from Gruber’s insights learned during the Massachusetts health care debate.
Honors Colloquium 2012 – Jonathan Gruber
Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the Director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a Research Associate. He is an Associate Editor of both the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics. In 2009 he was elected to the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the National Academy of Social Insurance.
Dr. Gruber received his B.S. in Economics from MIT, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. Dr. Gruber’s research focuses on the areas of public finance and health economics. He has published more than 140 research articles, has edited six research volumes, and is the author of Public Finance and Public Policy, a leading undergraduate text, and Health Care Reform, a graphic novel. In 2006 he received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. During the 1997-1998 academic year, Dr. Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. From 2003-2006 he was a key architect of Massachusetts’ ambitious health reform effort, and in 2006 became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main implementing body for that effort. In that year, he was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.
BookTV: Jonathan Gruber, “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works
Jonathan Gruber, economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and director of the health care program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, presents his thoughts on health care. Mr. Gruber a leading architect of Massachusetts’ health care reform also consulted with Congress and President Obama on the creation of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law by the President in 2010.
Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber suddenly recast as bit player after uproar
Nancy Pelosi, fellow Democrats scramble to distance themselves from MIT professor, economist
For years, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jonathan Gruber was deemed an architect of Obamacare and his economic modeling was cited regularly by the health care law’s defenders on Capitol Hill and in legal briefs defending the Affordable Care Act in federal courts.
But after tapes surfaced of the economist saying “stupid” voters needed to be bamboozled and the books cooked to get the legislation passed in 2010, Democrats are scrambling to reduce Mr. Gruber to a bit player — and raising questions about whether he needs to be expunged from their defense strategy as they face yet another Supreme Court review.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who as speaker in 2009 posted an Obamacare “myth buster” citing Mr. Gruber, vehemently distanced herself from him Thursday.
“I don’t who he is. He didn’t help write our bill,” she said, but added that Mr. Gruber’s comments were a year old and he had recanted them.
In the comments that have just come to light, Mr. Gruber said the health care bill was written in a “tortured” way to ensure the Congressional Budget Office didn’t score the individual mandate as a tax, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the mandate as constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Mr. Gruber said at the time. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass.”
Mr. Gruber said this week that he regretted the remarks. But House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Thursday that American voters are “anything but stupid” and oppose the health care system’s overhaul for valid reasons.
Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican selected as the next Senate majority leader, said Mr. Gruber made a classic “Washington gaffe — when a politician mistakenly tells you what he really thinks.”
However, Mr. Gruber’s explanation in 2012 of how Obamacare’s subsidies should be paid put the Justice Department in a tough spot.
In legal briefs submitted last year to a federal district court in Virginia, Obama administration attorneys cited Mr. Gruber in a case defending their ability to pay subsidies to enrollees regardless of whether they are part of state-run or federally run health care exchanges.
“According to the calculations of one health care economist, without the minimum coverage provision and subsidized insurance coverage, premiums for single individuals would be double the amount anticipated under the ACA,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last November, citing Mr. Gruber’s work in a footnote.
The Supreme Court decided this month to take up the case, King v. Burwell, after the challengers lost to the administration in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Neither the Justice Department nor the White House responded to questions about Mr. Gruber — who declined to comment for this story — and his role in their legal strategy.
But Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funding the administration’s opponents in the King case, said Mr. Gruber’s 2012 remarks about subsidies bolster their own arguments.
Mr. Gruber at the time said subsidies would flow only to states that set up their own exchanges.
“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” the economist told an audience.
That would mean consumers in most states wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies, which would puncture a big hole in Obamacare. The Obama administration has argued that even though the law says subsidies go to state exchanges, they also should include states that have opted for the federal exchange.
Mr. Kazman said the Gruber comments create a major problem for Mr. Obama.
“He’s not toxic to us,” Mr. Kazman said in an interview Thursday. “We may give him an award for public service.”
In a parallel case before the D.C. Circuit, the administration tried to downplay Mr. Gruber in its latest court filings. On Nov. 3, the Justice Department said in a footnote that “post-enactment statements by a non-legislator are entitled to no weight.”
“In any event, Professor Gruber has since clarified that the remarks on which plaintiffs rely were mistaken,” the attorneys told the D.C. Circuit, which has suspended its proceedings until the Supreme Court weighs in.
“Tellingly,” Mr. Carvin said in a reply brief, “the government also ignores that Jonathan Gruber — the ACA architect whose work it cited in every brief below but is nowhere mentioned now — articulated the incentive purpose of [subsidies] as early as 2012.”
Mr. Gruber has made hundreds of thousands of dollars off Obamacare, serving as a consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services and to states that used health care grant money to pay him for his services.
Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who closely tracks the health care law, said the controversy has been overblown.
“This whole thing just puzzles me,” he said. “He wasn’t a legislator. He didn’t write the bill. He didn’t vote on the bill.”
Transcending Obamacare: An Introduction To Patient-Centered, Consumer-Driven Health Reform
Avik Roy
Today, the Manhattan Institute is publishing my 20,000-word, 68-page health reform proposal entitled “Transcending Obamacare: A Patient-Centered Plan for Near-Universal Coverage and Permanent Fiscal Solvency.” It represents a novel approach to health reform: neither accepting Obamacare as is, nor requiring the law’s repeal to move forward. And yet its ambition is to permanently solve our health care entitlement problem, while also expanding coverage for the uninsured.
As most Apothecary readers know, I’ve long been critical of Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act. The law expands Medicaid, the worst health insurance program in the developed world. It significantly drives up the underlying cost of health insurance for those who shop for coverage on their own. And regardless of what John Roberts has to say about it, Obamacare’s individual mandate—forcing most Americans to buy government-certified health coverage—is an injury to the Constitution.
But I’ve also long supported the principle of universal coverage. Universal coverage, done right, is a core part of a conservative worldview that values equality of opportunity for the sick and the poor. If 10 of the 11 freest economies in the world can establish universal coverage, it’s not impossible for the United States to do so in a way that is consonant with economic freedom.
Switzerland and Singapore: Market-based health reform models
The most market-oriented health care systems in the developed world—those ofSwitzerland and Singapore—have much to teach us about how to achieve universal coverage in a way that spends far less than what the U.S. does. In 2012, U.S. government entities spent $4,160 per capita on health care. That’s more than twice as much as Switzerland, and nearly five times as much as Singapore.
And that brings us right back to Obamacare. The vast majority of the law is misguided and misconceived. But a handful of its provisions can provide the basis of constructive health care reform: in particular, its use of Swiss-style means-tested tax credits to subsidize private health insurance premiums. Most importantly, those tax credits are applied to insurance plans that people shop for on their own, substantially expanding the market for individually purchased health coverage.
The Swiss system is far from perfect, as I have discussed on many occasions. But the basic idea in Switzerland is to offer premium subsidies to the people who really need them. In Switzerland, one-fifth of the population gets subsidized health coverage. In the U.S., around four-fifths do. That’s the difference between a safety net and an entitlement leviathan.
Conservative health reform after Obamacare
One of the fundamental flaws in the conservative approach to health care policy is that few—if any—Republican leaders have articulated a vision of what a market-oriented health care system would look like. Hence, Republican proposals on health reform have often been tactical and political—in opposition to whatever Democrats were pitching—instead of strategic and serious.
Those days must come to an end. The problems with our health care system are too great. Health care is too expensive for the government, and too expensive for average Americans.
In 2012, as the Romney campaign came to a close, Rich Lowry, the editor ofNational Review, asked me to write an article with my thoughts about the best path forward for conservative health care reform. I outlined a four-step plan to take the entire gamish of government health care programs and reform them into something consumer-driven and fiscally sustainable: (1) deregulate Obamacare’s insurance exchanges, including repeal of the individual mandate, while preserving guaranteed issue for individuals with pre-existing conditions; (2) migrate future retirees onto the reformed exchanges; (3) repeal Obamacare’s employer mandate; (4) migrate Medicaid acute-care and dual-eligible enrollees onto the exchanges.
“After these four relatively simple steps,” I wrote, “we would be left with a health-care system that would look a lot like Switzerland’s. Rises in premium subsidies could be held to a sustainable growth rate to ensure their long-term fiscal stability. And Americans might finally have the opportunity to purchase insurance for themselves, gain control of their own health-care dollars, and enjoy a wide range of low-cost, high-quality coverage options.”
A few months later, former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and I wrote a similar piece for Reuters, which elicited a broad range of responses from both the left and the right.
It became clear that I had to do more than write op-eds, that I had to develop this idea in detail, with credible fiscal and economic modeling.
Modeling market-based health reform
So, over the last 18 months, I’ve done just that. Stephen Parente, a health economist at the University of Minnesota, and his team modeled the fiscal and coverage impact of the bulk of my proposed set of reforms. (I then modeled the remainder, using analyses from the Congressional Budget Office, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the like.)
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, where I am a Senior Fellow, raised money to fund Parente’s work on this project. Steve and his team and I went back and forth for months, refining and tweaking the proposal until it met five non-negotiable goals. The end result had to:
Reduce the deficit without raising taxes
Expand coverage meaningfully above ACA levels
Repeal the individual mandate
Reduce the cost of private health insurance
Improve health outcomes for the poor
Based on our modeling, the plan, over a thirty-year period, reduces federal spending by $10.5 trillion and federal revenue by $2.5 trillion, for a net deficit reduction of $8 trillion. We project that it will expand coverage by more than 12 million individuals over its first decade, despite the fact that it repeals the individual mandate. It reduces the cost of private-sector insurance policies by 17 percent for single policies and 4 percent for family policies.
But the most dramatic improvement, we estimate, is in the Medicaid population. A group that today receives substandard care and substandard access to care will see a dramatic increase in provider access and health outcomes, based on Parente-developed indices that measure these things.
Breaking free of the repeal-or-reform debate
Importantly, while this plan is compatible with “repealing and replacing” Obamacare, it does not require the repeal of Obamacare. To achieve the former, you would repeal Obamacare and replace it with a universal system of state-based health insurance exchanges. To achieve the latter, you’d reform the pre-existing ACA exchanges, and gradually migrate future retirees and Medicaid enrollees onto the reformed exchanges.
In this way, perhaps the plan can attract interest from both the right and the center.
Both clips reveal a gleefully dismissive attitude toward public concerns about the law, and offer a telling reminder of the attitude that played a crucial role in shaping and selling the law to the public.
In the first video, recorded in March of 2010, just a few days before the law would pass the House, Gruber argues that the public does not really care about the uninsured. What it cares about is cost control. Therefore, he says, the law had to be sold on the basis of its cost control.
Yet as Gruber admits in the video, the bill was not primarily focused on cost control—the bill “is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control.” Indeed, the problem with cost control, he says, is that “we don’t know how” to do it.
“Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay?” Gruber said in his remarks at the College of the Holy Cross on March 11, 2010. “He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn’t actually care that much about the uninsured….What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it’s going to lower the cost of health care, that’s all they talk about. Why? Because that’s what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs.”
Elsewhere in the same speech, Gruber says:
“The only way we’re going to stop our country from being a latter day Roman Empire and falling under its own weight is getting control of the growth rate of health care costs. The problem is we don’t know how.”
Remember, this is what Gruber was saying as the law was still being debated. It didn’tpass in the House, the critical step before hitting President Obama’s desk, until more than a week later. And what Gruber was saying, even before the bill was law, was that supporters had intentionally emphasized parts of the bill that were relatively minor, and that were not certain to even produce their intended effects.
This is not lying, exactly; the bill did in fact include some attempts at cost control, although as Gruber said, it was unclear at the time if or how well they would work. And Gruber may well have been right that the public was more concerned with cost control than expanding coverage. But, especially in combination with the other video released this week, it indicates that Gruber believed that the law’s advocates were not being completely straight with the public, that supporters of Obamacare were telling the public what they believed the public wanted to hear instead of giving them the full story, and that they were doing so on the understanding that telling the full story would make the bill impossible to pass.
What it shows, in other words, is Gruber openly embracing a strategy of messaging manipulation and misleading emphasis even while the bill was still being debated. If the public understood the bill clearly, he believed, they would reject it. It was more important to pass the bill.
Another video, posted today by The Daily Signal, shows Gruber taking a similarly dismissive attitude toward public concerns about the bill. At a meeting with the Vermont House Health Care Committee, Gruber is presented with a question about whether systems like those described in a report by Gruber and Harvard health economist William Hsiao, might result in “ballooning costs, increased taxes and bureaucratic outrages” as well “shabby facilities, disgruntled providers” and destructive price controls.
Gruber’s response begin with: “Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?” The Signal quotes two-term Vermont state senator and Reagan-adviser John McClaughry as saying that the question had been submitted “by a former senior policy adviser in the White House who knew something about health care systems.”
Gruber’s response is intended as a joke, and it reveals little about the health care law (the reforms in question are specific to Vermont). But it says plenty about Gruber, and the flippant, arrogant way he treats concerns and criticism.
This is the person whom the White House relied on to help craft the bill; he was paid handsomely to model its effects (a fact he did not disclose, even when asked), and he was in the room when important decisions were made about how it would work. He claims to have helped write specific portions of the law himself. Gruber was not the sole architect of the law, but he was one of its biggest single influences on both its design and on how the media, which quoted him repeatedly, reported and understood the law.
The White House and its allies are desperately trying to distance themselves from Gruber right now by downplaying his role in the law’s creation. But the record of his involvement is clear enough: At The Washington Post, Ezra Klein has variously described Gruber as “one of the key architects behind the structure of the Affordable Care Act” and “the most aggressive academic economist supporting the reform effort.” The New York Times in 2012 described his role as helping to design the overall structure as well as being “dispatched” by the White House to Congress to write the legislative text. Gruber’s work was cited repeatedly by the White House, Democratic leadership, and the media.
So when he describes the thinking about how the law was crafted and sold to the public, it’s worth taking note. This is the posture of one of the law’s authors and chief backers. It’s part of the spirit in which the law was created and passed. Gruber’s ideas were embedded in the law’s structure and language, and so was his attitude.
The White House is denouncing comments from key Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber that a lack of transparency and the stupidity of voters helped in the passage of the health care law and is instead pointing a finger at Republicans.
“The fact of the matter is, the process associated with the writing and passing and implementing of the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said during a news briefing in Myanmar, according to a transcript provided by the White House.
Story Continued Below
“I disagree vigorously with that assessment,” Earnest responded when asked about Gruber’s claim that Obamacare wouldn’t have passed if the administration was more transparent and voters more intelligent.
He added, “It is Republicans who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices are available to middle class families.”
Earnest said the president “is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law.”
The response from the White House comes as a third video of Gruber criticizing the intelligence of American voters has surfaced.
“We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said in remarks from 2012 that aired Wednesday evening on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”
Gruber has been causing headaches for the White House as conservatives have had a field day that began with comments the MIT professor made in 2013.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” Gruber said at the time, according to one of the videos that has recently come to light.
In another video clip of a separate event, while talking about tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, he said, “American voters are too stupid to understand the difference.”
Gruber apologized for the comments during an appearance earlier this week on MSNBC’s “Ronan Farrow Daily”:
(Also on POLITICO: Ted Cruz out on a limb on Obamacare repeal)
“I was speaking off the cuff, and I was basically speaking inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.”
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed Gruber’s role in Obamacare on Thursday, telling the press, “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.”
Many outlets were quick to point out that Pelosi cited Gruber in a “Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster” on her official website in 2009.
House Speaker John Boehner released a statement Thursday, slamming Gruber for his comments.
“If there was ever any doubt that ObamaCare was rammed through Congress with a heavy dose of arrogance, duplicity, and contempt for the will of the American people, recent comments by one of the law’s chief architects, Jonathan Gruber, put that to rest,” the top Republican said.
The statement continues, “The American people are anything but ‘stupid.’ They’re the ones bearing the consequences of the president’s health care law and, unsurprisingly, they continue to oppose it.” http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/jonathan-gruber-obamacare-voters-white-house-response-112856.html
Informally, a Cadillac plan is any unusually expensive health insurance plan, usually arising in discussions of medical-cost control measures in the United States.[1][2][3][4] The term derives from the Cadillac automobile, which has represented American luxury since its introduction in 1902,[1] and as a health care metaphor dates to the 1970s.[1] The term gained popularity in the early 1990s during the debate over the Clinton health care plan of 1993,[1] and was also widespread during debate over possible excise taxes on “Cadillac” plans during the health care reforms proposed during the Obama administration.[1] (Bills proposed by Clinton and Obama did not use the term “Cadillac”.)
Criticisms of these plans generally center on the small or nonexistent co-pays, deductibles, or caps that encourage the overuse of medical care, driving the cost up for the uninsured or those on other plans, which some say necessitates aCadillac tax.[citation needed]
A study published in Health Affairs in December 2009 found that high-cost health plans do not provide unusually rich benefits to enrollees. The researchers found that only 3.7% of the variation in the cost of family coverage in employer-sponsored health plans is attributable to differences in the actuarial value of benefits. Only 6.1% of the variation is attributable to the combination of benefit design and plan type (e.g., PPO, HMO, etc.). The employer’s industry and regional variations in health care costs explain part of the variation, but most is unexplained. The researchers conclude “…that analysts should not equate high-cost plans with Cadillac plans, but that in fact other factors—industry and cost of medical inputs—are as important in predicting whether a plan is a high-cost plan. Without appropriate adjustments, a simple cap may exacerbate rather than ameliorate current inequities.”[5]
How ObamaCare Taxes Affect You: New Taxes, Hikes, Breaks, Credits, and Other Changes
Here’s a full list of ObamaCare Taxes. The 21 new ObamaCare tax hikes and breaks impact us all, but which ObamaCare taxes will you actually pay? Find out how the tax related provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) will affect you, your family, your business, and your tax returns for 2013 and beyond.
The Bottom Line on the ObamaCare Tax Plan
The new tax related provisions in theAffordable Care Act(ObamaCare) include tax hikes, limits to deductions, tax credits, tax breaks, and other changes. While a few of the changes directly affect the average American, tax increases primarily affect high earners (those making over $200,000 as an individual or $250,000 as a family), large businesses (those making over $250,000), and the health care industry, while tax credits primarily affect low-to-middle income Americans and small businesses.
Here are some quick facts to help you understand how ObamaCare affects taxes:
• For the majority of the 85% of Americans with health insurance the percentage of income paid in taxes won’t change much, if at all. However, some of the changes may directly or indirectly affect specific groups.
• The majority of the 15% of Americans without health insurance will primarily be affected by the Individual Mandate (the requirement to buy health insurance), the Employer Mandate (the requirement for large employers to insure full-time employees), and Tax Credits (tax credits reduce premium costs for individuals, families, and small businesses).
• Many Americans will be affected by changes to new limits on medical tax deduction thresholds MSAs, FSAs, and HSAs.
• Small businesses will not be required to provide health insurance, but will gettax credits to reduce premium costs if they choose to offer group plans.
• Even if you won’t see higher taxes under the Affordable Care Act, it doesn’t mean there aren’t costs associated with the law. You’ll still need to buy health insurance, unless you qualify for Medicaid or an exemption, and that will cost you money.
• As a rule of thumb those who make less pay less and those who make more pay more, both in regard to health insurance costs and taxes under theAffordable Care Act.
• The Congressional Budget Office has shown that the revenue generated from the new taxes, along with cuts to spending, will help to pay for the Affordable Care Act’s many provisions, fund tax credits and lower the deficit by 2023.Learn More.
Why Does ObamaCare Create New Taxes?
ObamaCare includes many new benefits, rights, and protections including the requirement for health insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It also expands access to affordable health insurance to almost 50 million low-to-middle income men, women, and children across the country by offering reduced premiums via tax credits and expanding Medicaid and CHIP. Expanding the quality, affordability and availability of health insurance (along with other aspects of the law) come at a high cost. Assuming all tax provisions remain in place, the revenue generated from these new taxes help to cover the costs of the program and reduces the deficit. Learn more about the new benefits, rights, protections offered by the Affordable Care Act.
A Quick Overview of Key Taxes in the Affordable Care Act
Before we get to the full list of taxes here is a quick overview of the key tax related provisions that may affect those without insurance, those who plan to go without insurance, and those who are struggling to afford insurance now.
Individual Mandate (new tax): Americans who can afford to must obtain minimum essential health coverage for 2014, get an exemption or pay a per month fee.
Employer Mandate (new tax): Come 2015 large employers must insure full time employees or pay a per employee fee. Over half of Americans get their insurance through work and the largest group of uninsured is currently the working poor.
Taking all the tax provisions in the ACA into account ObamaCare technically provides the greatest middle class tax cut to healthcare in history.
Full List of All Taxes in ObamaCare / All Taxes in the Affordable Care Act
The following list of new ObamaCare taxes collectively raise over $800 billion by 2022. Here is a complete list of new fees and taxes contained withinObamaCare:
ObamaCare Taxes That Most Likely Won’t Directly Affect the Average American
• 2.3% Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers 2014
• 10% Tax on Indoor Tanning Services 2014
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
• Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals which fail to comply with the requirements of ObamaCare
• Tax on Brand Name Drugs
• Tax on Health Insurers
• $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
• Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
• Employer Mandate on business with over 50 full-time equivalent employees to provide health insurance to full-time employees. $2000 per employee $3000 if employee uses tax credits to buy insurance on the exchange (marketplace). (pushed back to 2015)
• Medicare Tax on Investment Income 3.8% over $200k/$250k
• Medicare Part A Tax increase of .9% over $200k/$250k
• Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (not a tax)
• Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (repealed)
• Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (not a tax)
ObamaCare Taxes That (may) Directly Affect the Average American
• 40% Excise Tax “Cadillac” on high-end Premium Health Insurance Plans 2018
• An annual $63 fee levied by ObamaCare on all plans (decreased each year until 2017 when pre-existing conditions are eliminated) to help pay for insurance companies covering the costs of high-risk pools.
• Medicine Cabinet Tax
Over the counter medicines no longer qualified as medical expenses for flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer Medical Saving accounts (MSAs).
• Additional Tax on HSA/MSA Distributions
Health savings account or an Archer medical savings account, penalties for spending money on non-qualified medical expenses. 10% to 20% in the case of a HSA and from 15% to 20% in the case of a MSA.
• Flexible Spending Account Cap 2013
Contributions to FSAs are reduced to $2,500 from $5,000.
• Medical Deduction Threshold tax increase 2013
Threshold to deduct medical expenses as an itemized deduction increases to 10% from 7.5%.
• Individual Mandate (the tax for not purchasing insurance if you can afford it) 2014
Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax at a rate of 1% or $95 in 2014 to 2.5% in 2016 on profitable income above the tax threshold. The total penalty amount cannot exceed the national average of the annual premiums of a “bronze level” health insurance plan on ObamaCare exchanges.
• Premium Tax Credits for Small Businesses 2014 (not a tax)
• Advanced Premium Tax Credits for Individuals and Families 2014 (not a tax)
• Medical Loss Ratio (MRL): Premium rebates (not a tax)
The link below provides a full list of ObamaCare Taxes by the IRS.
Let’s take a look at how ObamaCare’s taxes affect certain income groups.
ObamaCare Taxes for High Earners and Large Businesses
Most of the new taxes are on high-earners (individuals making over $200,000 and families making over $250,000), large businesses (over 50 full-time equivalent employees making over $250,000), and industries that profit from healthcare. Essentially those who will see gains under ObamaCare are required to put money back in the program via taxes.
FACT: Tax increases generally affect single filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) above $200,000 and married couples filing jointly above $250,000. Some of the tax increases don’t kick in until single AGI hits $400,000 and married filing jointly AGI hits $450,000.
ObamaCare Taxes for the Average American With Health insurance
For most of the 85% of Americans with health insurance, making less than $250,000, most of the new taxes won’t mean much of anything although certain taxes below will affect specific individuals and families.
ObamaCare Taxes for the Average American Without Health insurance
The 15% of Americans without health insurance will be required to obtain health insurance (Individual Mandate) or will face a “tax penalty”.
The good news is that many uninsured will be exempt from the Individual mandate due to income, offered cost assistance through the marketplaceincluding Tax Credits (also available to small businesses), qualify for Medicaid, or will get insurance through work (the Employer Mandaterequires large employers to insure full-time employees by 2015). Adults who are under 26 will be able to stay on their parents plan as well, this will help to limit the number of young people who will pay the fee. Both the employer and individual mandates are part of our “shared responsibility” to expand the quality and affordability of health insurance in the United States as a trade for our new benefits, rights and protections.
ObamaCare Taxes for Small Businesses
Small businesses with less than 25 full-time equivalent employees will have access to tax credits to reduce premium costs of group plans.
ObamaCare Taxes for Specific Groups With Health Insurance
Here are a few changes that my affect specific groups of Americans with health insurance:
• Other tax provisions such as changes medical deduction thresholds, HSAs, MSAs, and FSAs may impact some Americans by limiting tax deductions.
• The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR or 80/20 rule) will mean that some Americans may get rebates if health insurance companies spend on non-healthcare related expenses.
• Tax provisions like the 10% tanning bed tax, taxes on drug companies, taxes on medical devices and taxes on health insurance companies selling insurance on and off the exchange may affect the amount of money we pay for some health care related goods and services, but will not have a significant impact on our daily lives.
• The employer mandate has caused some companies to cut down full-time workers to part-time to avoid providing benefits, however major employers like Disney and Walmart have actually increased their full-time workforce in response to the looming 2015 deadline.
• Overall the benefits tend to outweigh the costs for the average American as even those who pay a little more, get a lot more in return due to the increased quality of their health insurance.
Will I pay More Taxes and High Premiums Because of ObamaCare?
As mentioned above premium rates and the taxes you will have to pay are primarily based on income. Aside from income premium prices are based on which plan you choose, family size, age, smoking status and geography. Subsidies reduce the overall rate of your premiums (however smoking is calculated after subsidies). Come 2018 there will be a 40% excise tax on high end health insurance plans.
Aside from the tax provisions that require Americans to obtain insurance and subsidize it’s costs, ObamaCare also includes a few tax related provisions that work as consumer protections including requirements for better reporting and the Medical Loss Ratio.
ObamaCare Tax Rebates
Some consumers in both individual and group markets will see tax rebates due to ObamaCare’s Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). Health insurance companies will have to provide rebates to consumers if they spend less than 80 to 85% of premium dollars on medical care.
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)
The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) means that Insurance companies are now required to spend at least 80% of premium dollars (85% in large group markets) on medical care and quality improvement activities. Insurance companies that are not meeting this standard will be required to provide rebates to their consumers. The MLR isn’t a tax, but it does have implications in regards to filing taxes and rebates can be given in the form of reduced premiums. See our page on ObamaCare Health Insurance Regulations for more details.
ObamaCare Income Tax Penalty For Not Having Insurance “Individual Mandate”
Starting in 2014, most people will have to have insurance or pay a “penalty deducted from your taxable income”. For individuals, penalty starts at $95 a year, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016.
For families the tax will be $2,085 or 2.5% percent of household income, whichever is greater. The requirement can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs. If the tax would exceed 8% of your income you are exempt, also some religious groups are exempt. That tax cannot exceed the cost of a “bronze plan” bought on the exchange.
Many individuals who are exempt from the mandate to buy insurance will still be eligible for free or low-cost insurance through the health insurance marketplace.
While some states, including Alabama, Wyoming and Montana, have passed laws to block the requirement to carry health insurance, those provisions do not override federal law. Get more information on the ObamaCare Individual Mandate.
The Individual Mandate is officially called the “individual shared responsibility provision”.
What Are ObamaCare Tax Credits?: Advanced Premium Tax Credits
Premium tax credits are a form of cost assistance that reduce premium costs for coverage purchased onyour State’s “health insurance marketplace” for individuals, families, and small businesses.
Advanced Premium Tax Credits for Individuals and Families
Individuals and families will have access to Advanced premium tax credits on the marketplace. Tax Credits are deducted from your premium cost by your health insurance provider and are adjusted on your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). You can choose how much advance credit payments to apply to your premiums each month, up to a maximum amount. If the amount of advance credit payments you get for the year is less than the tax credit you’re due, you’ll get the difference as a refundable credit when you file your federal income tax return. If your advance payments for the year are more than the amount of your credit, you must repay the excess advance payments with your tax return.
Aside from premium tax credits individuals and families can also get lower cost sharing on out-of-pocket expenses like coinsurance, copays, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums through the marketplace.
Eligibility for Tax Credits
In general, you may be eligible for the credit if you meet all of the following:
buy health insurance through the Marketplace;
are ineligible for coverage through an employer or government plan;
are within certain income limits;
file a joint return, if married; and
cannot be claimed as a dependent by another person.
If you are eligible for the credit, you can choose to:
Get It Now: have some or all of the estimated credit paid in advance directly to your insurance company to lower what you pay out-of-pocket for your monthly premiums during 2014; or
Get It Later: wait to get all of the credit when you file your 2014 tax return in 2015.
How Will Advanced Premium Tax Credits Affect My Health Insurance Costs?
Under the Affordable Care Act health insurance that costs less than 8% of your MAGI is considered affordable. Although the law doesn’t guarantee lower costs, premium tax credits help to ensure that more Americans will have access to affordable insurance.
s a rule of thumb most Americans will pay between 1.5% and 9.5% on their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) when using tax credits to buy a basic Silver Plan on the marketplace.
If the lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income are exempt from the individual mandate.
The amount you pay is on a sliding scale based on your income. Use the chart below to get an idea of what you and your family may pay for insurance purchased through the Health Insurance Marketplace. Make sure to check outObamaCare Subsidies for more detailed information on Premium Tax Credits.
The 2013 Federal Poverty Level Guidelines below are used to Determine if your percentage of the poverty level for both taxes and cost-assistance.
Household Size
100%
133%
150%
200%
300%
400%
1
$11,170
$14,856
$16,755
$22,340
$33,510
$44,680
2
15,130
20,123
22,695
30,260
45,390
60,520
3
19,090
25,390
28,635
38,180
57,270
76,360
4
23,050
30,657
34,575
46,100
69,150
92,200
5
27,010
35,923
40,515
54,020
81,030
108,040
6
30,970
41,190
46,455
61,940
92,910
123,880
7
34,930
46,457
52,395
69,860
104,790
139,720
8
38,890
51,724
58,335
77,780
116,670
155,560
For each additional person, add
$3,960
$5,267
$5,940
$7,920
$11,880
$15,840
This following table is an example of how premium tax credits work. Please note that the numbers below are purely for example and don’t reflect your personal rates.
Health Insurance Premiums and Cost Sharing under PPACA for Average Family of 4
For “Silver Plan”
Income % of federal poverty level
Premium Cap as a Share of Income
Income $ (family of 4)
Max Annual Out-of-Pocket Premium
Premium Savings
Additional Cost-Sharing Subsidy
133%
3% of income
$31,900
$992
$10,345
$5,040
150%
4% of income
$33,075
$1,323
$9,918
$5,040
200%
6.3% of income
$44,100
$2,778
$8,366
$4,000
250%
8.05% of income
$55,125
$4,438
$6,597
$1,930
300%
9.5% of income
$66,150
$6,284
$4,628
$1,480
350%
9.5% of income
$77,175
$7,332
$3,512
$1,480
400%
9.5% of income
$88,200
$8,379
$2,395
$1,480
In 2016, the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four. Use the Kaiser ObamaCare Cost Calculator for more information. DHHS and CBO estimate the average annual premium cost in 2014 to be $11,328 for family of 4 without the reform. Source: Wikipedia
ObamaCare Employer / Employee Taxes
ObamaCare’s taxes mean large employers will have to provide health insurance to their employees and will see a raised Medicare part A tax, small businesses may be eligible for tax breaks.
Medicare part A Tax Hike for Employers and Employees
The Medicare part A tax is paid by both employees and employers who earn over a certain amount. ObamaCare’s Medicare tax hike is a .9% increase (from 2.9% to 3.8%) on the current total Medicare part A tax. This tax is split between the employer and employee meaning that they will both see a .45% raise. Small businesses making under $250,000 are exempt from the tax. Employees making less than $200,000 as an individual or ($250,000) as a family are also exempt. Employers must withhold and report an additional 0.9 percent total on employee wages or compensation that exceed $200,000.
Tax Penalty for Not Providing Full-time Workers with Health Insurance the “Employer Mandate”
Employers with over 50 full-time equivalent employees must either insure their full-time employees or pay a penalty or “employer shared responsibility fee”. The penalty is $2000 per employee. If however, at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit because coverage is either unaffordable or does not cover 60 percent of total costs, the employer must pay the lesser of $3,000 for each of those employees receiving a credit or $750 for each of their full-time employees total.
Employers with under 25 full time employees, whose average income doesn’t exceed $50,000, can apply for tax credits of up to 50% for insuring their employees.
Tax Credits for Small Businesses
Small businesses with under 25 full-time equivalent employees with average annual wages of less than $50,000 can apply for tax breaks of up to 50% of their share of employee premium costs via ObamaCare’s Small Business Health Options Program (accessible through your State’s Health Insurance Marketplace). The credit can be as much as 50% of employer premiums (35% for not-for-profits in 2014). The credit is only available if the employer is paying at least 50% of the total premiums.
Small Business Health Options Program
Employers with 50 or fewer employees, you can purchase affordable insurance through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) even if they don’t qualify for tax credits.
Reporting
Along with the new law there are new requirements for reporting.
Effective for calendar year 2015, you must file an annual return reporting whether and what health insurance you offered your employees. This rule is optional for 2014. Learn more.
Effective for calendar year 2015, if you provide self-insured health coverage to your employees, you must file an annual return reporting certain information for each employee you cover. This rule is optional for 2014. Learn more.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2013, you must withhold and report an additional 0.9 percent on employee wages or compensation that exceed $200,000. Learn more.
Aside from having to adhere to the “employer mandate” ObamaCare also imposes taxes and fees that are unique to big business. ObamaCare taxes some medical device manufactures, drug companies and health insurance companies. Beginning in 2013, medical device manufacturers and importers must pay a 2.3% tax on the sale of a taxable medical device. This raises $29 billion over a 10 years. However, many states are asking to delay the medical device excise tax to protect jobs in states that produce the devices. An annual fee for health insurers is expected to raise more than $100 billion over 10 years, while a fee for brand name drugs will bring in another $34 billion.
Employers that have employees who earn more than $200,000 will have to look at the potential for additional Medicare withholding due to the Medicare part A tax.
Employers that issued 250 or more W-2 forms in 2012 must report the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage for 2013 on the 2013 W-2 forms.
Medical Device Excise Tax
There is a 2.3% medical excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers on the sale of taxable medical devices. Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer or importer of the device. The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after Dec. 31, 2012. You can learn more from the official IRS page on the Medical Device Tax.
What Increases Do the ObamaCare Taxes Include for The $200k/$250k Earners?
ObamaCare Medicare Part A Payroll Tax
Starting in 2013, individuals with earnings above $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000 will see an increase in the Medicare part A payroll tax. It’s an increase of 2.35%, up from the current 1.45% ( a .9% Medicare part A payroll tax hike), on adjusted income over the threshold.
ObamaCare Unearned Income Tax
This group will also pay a 3.8% unearned income (capital gains) tax on interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, and gains on the sale of investments over the threshold.
Taxable income under the $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 threshold for families is subject to the same benefits and tax cuts as those who make under the threshold.
ObamaCare Home Sales Tax / ObamaCare Real Estate Tax Increase
ObamaCare increases taxes on unearned income by 3.8% and this can add additional taxes to the sales of some homes, but many limitations apply which means it won’t affect most sellers. The 3.8% capital gains tax typically doesn’t apply to your primary residence. It also doesn’t usually apply to homes you have owned for over 5 years or on profits of less than $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for couples due to a capital gains tax exclusion rule for sales of a primary home.
In short the ObamaCare home sales tax isn’t something that most of us will pay, it is a tax is aimed at those selling non-primary residences in short term periods for profit and not at the average American buying and selling their primary residence.
ObamaCare Medical Expense Deductions
ObamaCare increases the medical expense deduction threshold. Unreimbursed medical expense deductions will now be available only for those medical expenses in excess of 10% of AGI, which has been raised from 7.5%. There is a temporary exemption for individuals ages 65 and older and their spouses from 2013 through 2016.
ObamaCare “Cadillac” Tax
Starting in 2018, the new health care law imposes a 40% excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (this excludes dental and vision) that exceed $10,200 a year and $27,500 for families. The tax has been dubbed a “Cadillac” tax because it hits only high-end “gold”, “platinum” and high-end health care plans not purchased on the exchange. The tax raises over $150 billion over the next 10 years.
New ObamaCare Taxes Summary
Going through the new ObamaCare taxes line by line is, in itself, taxing. The bottom line is that a majority of Americans will find themselves paying less for better healthcare, while higher-earners will pay tax rates closer to what they did in the Clinton years. ObamaCare pays for most of itself via the above taxes, reforms to Medicare, and health care as a whole, as well as cutting out billions in wasteful spending.
ObamaCare Taxes Moving Forward into 2014
We hope this helps you to understand the new ObamaCare taxes and how they work. Many of the ObamaCare’s taxes won’t be fully implemented until 2022, but most will be in effect by 2014. ObamaCare helps all Americans get access to quality affordable healthcare, and new benefits, rights and protections. Make sure to look out for ObamaCare tax breaks, credits, subsidies and breaks on up front costs moving forward into 2014. As we learn more we will update our full ObamaCare tax list.
Story 1: Part II More On Jonathan Gruber, Basically PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) on Healthcare, Obamacare and Lack of Transparency — The American Voters Were Not Stupid And Rejected Democrats Who Supported Obamacare By Voting Them Out of Office — But The Democratic Progressive Elitist Establishment Are Liars and Losers — Stupid Is As Stupid Does — Death Knell of Socialized Medicine — Repeal Obamacare Now! — Videos
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
~Jonathan Gruber
Stupid is as stupid does, Mrs. Blue..
How Did The Media Cover Jonathan Gruber
SMOKING GUN! Gruber Admits Obama Was in Room During Planning of Cadillac Lie
Gruber’s ObamaCare Remarks?
CNN airs New Video of Jonathan Gruber: Exploit the Lack of American Voters’ Economic Understanding
Trey Gowdy on Gruber comments
Megyn Kelly: Democrats Committed Fraud By Not Representing Obamacare as a Tax
Greater Boston Video: Jonathan Gruber Pushes Back
Krauthammer rips Jonathan Gruber: “We’re hearing the true voice of liberal arrogance”
GRUBER: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
The Worst of Jonathan Gruber
Flashback: Obama: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.
The Changing Touchstone of Transparency
Nets Ignore ObamaCare Architect Crediting Law’s Passage On ‘The Stupidity Of The American Voter’
Megyn Slams ObamaCare Architect Who Declined to Appear on ‘Kelly File’
WHY IS OBAMA NOT IN PRISON FOR STEALING TAXPAYER MONEY?
ObamaCare: Bill’s architect Gruber admits lies, deception necessary because Americans are stupid
Dems including Harry Reid, Sebelius, and Obama admit Single Payer Healthcare is ultimate goal
Democrats Push for a Single Payer Health Care System Katie Pavlich Charles Payne 8 12 13
Socialize Medicine! – Influential Democrat Calling For Single Payer System Amid Obamacare Trouble
“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” – Barack Obama
Jon Stewart on You Can Keep Your Plan. Period.
Jonathan Gruber on MSNBC says he “regrets” calling the American voter stupid
Conversation: “Health Care Reform,” The Comic Book
Gruber Files- Harvard University
The Cadillac Tax
Obama admits he DID raise taxes
Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax Pushing People To Plans With High Deductible- Union You Got What You Wanted
Jonathan Gruber brags about the “basic exploitation” of American voters
What is the “cadillac tax?” M3 Insurance HCR
Unions & Cadilac Health Care Plans
Obama’s Health Care Lies And Reversals
Obama lies about “cadillac” plan taxation.
Rep Joe Courtney Discusses “Cadillac Tax” with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business News Channel
HealthCare Reform – Modified Community Rating Part 1 – Federal Marketplace
HealthCare Reform – Modified Community Rating Part 2 – Federal Marketplace
Community Rating – How the Affordable Care Act Impacts Small Business Owners
Forrest Gump TRAILER
Honest Trailers – Forrest Gump
Forrest Gump’s most beautiful quote
Funeral Toll & Peal, Mount Angel Abbey
When a monk passes away during the night, the toll is sounded early the following morning. It is repeated after the funeral Mass, when the monks process down to the cemetery, and ends with a peal of all the bells. These are the last few tolls of the sequence on the largest bell in the Pacific Northwest.
Please pray for the eternal repose of the soul of this monk, that he may enter into everlasting life with Christ.
Martin Luther King – For whom the bell tolls
Nancy Pelosi says she doesn’t know who Jonathan Gruber is. She touted his work in 2009.
Many have pointed out since then that Pelosi’s office has cited Gruber’s work in the past. That’s notable, but it’s very unlikely Pelosi herself wrote those press releases herself or even participated in their drafting.
But then there’s this: Pelosi herself has also mentioned Gruber and his work — back in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.
Here’s the transcript, via Nexis:
Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.
PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies’ discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That’s scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don’t understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.
And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.
We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.
So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.
Pelosi’s office told the Washington Post that the minority leader meant that she didn’t know Gruber personally.
“She said she doesn’t ‘know who he is,’ not that she’s never heard of him,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.
Hammill added: “We’ve cited the work of dozens upon dozens of economists over the years. As the leader said today, Mr. Gruber played no role in drafting our bill.”
Pelosi clearly wants to distance herself and Obamacare from Gruber, given Gruber’s controversial comments about “the stupidity of the American voter,” and Democrats are going to argue that Gruber wasn’t instrumental in the bill. But, as an architect of the Massachusetts health-care law and a consultant to the White House on Obamacare, he’s been regularly cited by Democrats as an authority on this issue — including, apparently, by Pelosi.
This Philly-Based Investment Adviser Has Become Obamacare’s Digital Menace
Sam Stein
You could pardon Rich Weinstein for gloating. These past few days, he’s enjoyed the type of journalistic high that comes with unearthing a particularly meaty scoop.
Except Weinstein is no journalist. He’s a Philadelphia-based investment adviser approaching 50 who, until a half-year ago, was unknown to the political world. A set of videos he found of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played an important role in drafting the Affordable Care Act, changed all that. The videos have become rich context for a legal challenge to the law now heading to the Supreme Court, and they’ve made Weinstein the celebration of conservative circles.
“This is going to sound a little cocky and I don’t want it to be,” Weinstein told The Huffington Post Tuesday in one of the the media interviews he’s given on his feat. “But I’m not partially responsible for finding those clips. I’m completely responsible.”
Weinstein’s story, in some respects, would be the stuff of a made-for-TV movie — if the director is a member of the tea party and eager to dramatize the Affordable Care Act’s unraveling (those two points, admittedly, are redundant).
Weinstein, who runs his own company, and his family lost their health insurance after Obamacare forced higher standards for policies. On the exchange, the only plan with similar benefits was twice the cost of his old one. Irritated, he began looking into who put together the Affordable Care Act, searching Google with the term “ACA architects.” Days consumed with researching old videos became nights.
“Remember when the husbands used to come home at night in the ’50s and ’60s and grab a newspaper and read it?” said Weinstein. “Well, I’m like that with the iPad. It was a lot of time. For the past year, I put a lot of time into this.”
His break came last winter. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, outlined a long-shot legal argument that said a direct interpretation of Affordable Care Act precluded giving subsidies to people on federally run exchanges. Weinstein had seen that argument before, albeit from a different vantage point. Months earlier, he had stumbled across video of Gruber stating that the subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance are reserved for state-established exchanges, if only to give states an incentive to establish an exchange
Weinstein had a smoking gun, but no one to show it to.
“I’ve got the tinfoil hat,” Weinstein said, excusing the reporters who ignored his early entreaties. “People in the media must be overwhelmed with idiots like me who think they have something.”
So he took time off — three to four months — and watched his kids play lacrosse. Then, in July, two conservative justices on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the subsidies for those shopping on federally run exchanges were, indeed, illegal. People were talking about the issue again.
Weinstein dropped comments about his Gruber video onto The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog. Eventually, Ryan Radia, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, noticed and turned it into a blog post.
Dominos began to fall. Weinstein’s first video was included in the legal challenge to Obamacare. And that challenge — King v. Burwell — ended up making its way to the Supreme Court. “Which is crazy,” Weinstein said. “Crazy because I found it. Not crazy because it is a crazy legal case.”
This week, another of Weinstein’s videos emerged. This one is of Gruber saying that a bit of budgetary deception helped Obamacare pass in Congress (“call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever,” said the professor). This, too, found its way into the mainstream conversation. Gruber on Tuesday went on MSNBC to apologize for his language, though he may have return. Weinstein said he has another video of a similar comment that he will soon release.
Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule against subsidies being available on federally run insurance exchanges, it would, in some ways, make the perfect ending to a conservative-inspired Horatio Alger story.
“I’m kind of a nobody,” said Weinstein. “And, I think, people who are out there, just the average person who gets hacked off about something or has an interest about something, I think I’m a perfect lesson that any one person can make a difference. Anybody. Even guy with the tinfoil hat in his mom’s basement.”
Except life and politics aren’t that simple. There is texture. Weinstein doesn’t live in his mom’s basement. He just says it for rhetorical flair. For those who would like to dismiss him as a knee-jerk partisan, he’s not that, either. He voted for Bill Clinton, he said, before he cast a ballot for Ross Perot and, most recently, Mitt Romney. Certainly, he’s no longer a “nobody” in the fight against Obamacare. Elements of the conservative movement have geared up to both promote and protect his work.
Phil Kerpen, who founded the group American Commitment and formerly was vice president for the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, helped spread the second of Weinstein’s videos. Once Kerpen found out an article was in the works, he sent a tweet suggesting The Huffington Post was “doxxing” Weinstein for attacking Gruber. The tweet came just minutes after The Huffington Post asked Weinstein whether he had used an online alias before commenting on The Volokh Conspiracy.
But the real nuance is in the history and the policy details. Gruber was an architect of Obamacare. But he wasn’t the only architect. The staffs to former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), among others, deserve their fair share of credit or blame, depending on one’s perspective.
On the issue of subsidies, the Gruber statement that Weinstein unearthed remains a gem for a reason. It’s because it’s rare (Gruber called it a “speak-o” — like a typo). There has been one other instance unearthed of Gruber discussing tax incentives as a means of compelling a state to set up an exchange.
For defenders of the law, that’s still thin gruel compared with the widely accepted belief during and after the crafting of the bill that subsidies would be universal. (The IRS ruled this way in May 2012, five months after Gruber’s speech.)
For critics, it’s proof enough.
“I don’t think he misspoke at all. I don’t think he was taken out of context and I don’t think he misspoke,” said Weinstein.
And then there is the issue of practical outcomes. Weinstein became a digital archaeologist after the cost of his insurance went up two-fold. Should a lawsuit succeed in eliminating subsidies for those buying insurance on federally run exchanges, it would result in many people confronting similar, or worse, price hikes. It’s an outcome that Weinstein admitted weighs on him, even as he keeps scanning the Web for more Gruberisms.
“It does,” Weinstein said. “But the way you say it makes it sound like nothing else will happen. Like it is a straight line. Subsidies are taken away and the world ends. And I think that’s not fair. I think there will most certainly be a disruption. No doubt about it. I think some states will go build their own exchanges quickly. But, I think the markets would find a way to adjust.”
“It does bother me,” he added later. “I get it. I’m not an evil person. I just think people should see these videos. I just think people should know what’s going on. “
Hearings floated as Hill Republicans seize on Gruber Obamacare comments
By Robert Costa and Jose A. DelReal
Congressional Republicans seized Wednesday on controversial commentsmade by a former health-care consultant to the Obama administration, with one leading House conservative suggesting that hearings could be called in response as part of the GOP effort to dismantle the law in the next Congress and turn public opinion ahead of the 2016 election.
“We may want to have hearings on this,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an influential voice among GOP hardliners and a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in an interview at the Capitol. “We shouldn’t be surprised they were misleading us.”
The firestorm began when a video emerged showing Jonathan Gruber, a high-profile architect of the Affordable Care Act and one of its fiercest advocates, suggesting that the health reform law passed through Congress because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms. The remarks were originally made in 2013 during a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania but began heavy circulation on social media Monday.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
Gruber apologized for his incendiary remarks in an on-air interview with MSNBC Tuesday afternoon, calling his comments inappropriate and saying he was speaking “off the cuff.” On Tuesday evening, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly aired a second video, of Gruber calling voters stupid, also from 2013.
The controversy has lit a fire under conservatives eager to dismantle the law and has raised eyebrows among the law’s defenders, who are concerned that such comments will further damage the law’s already shaky standing with American voters. It also comes after a sweeping electoral victory for Republicans last Tuesday, who won control of the Senate and bolstered the size of their majority in the House.
Jordan said House Republicans have been sending each other a blizzard of e-mails and text messages this week, and he expects the interest in “bringing [Gruber] up here to talk” will gain traction as members return to Washington. House Republicans will gather Thursday evening for their first series of votes since the election.
“I just had a colleague text me saying, ‘We’ve got to look into this!” Jordan said as he glanced at his phone outside the House floor Wednesday morning.
The chatter among lawmakers echoes the outrage among the conservative grassroots over the comments. Sen. Ted Cruz in a speech last week said targeting ACA must remain the party’s top priority. “Now is the time to go after and do everything humanely possible to repeal Obamacare,” he said.
House GOP leadership aides expressed new optimism that their desire to target the ACA could get some momentum. While rhetorically committed to full repeal, in order to keep the party’s right flank on board, the party is looking more seriously at undermining specific parts of the law as it navigates divided government next year. Those moves could include repealing the medical device tax; watering down a requirement that employers offer full time workers coverage, which takes effect in January; and changing the definition of a full-time worker from someone who works at least 30 hours a week to someone who works at least 40 — all proposals which could win some Democratic support.
On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is slated to become chairman of the powerful Senate budget committee, also threw his support behind possible hearings. In a furious gaggle with reporters, Sessions said Gruber’s comments could make dealings with the White House more difficult, days after Republican leaders said they would seek areas of common ground.
“The strategy was to hide the truth from the American people,” Sessions said. “I’m not into this post-modern world where you can say whatever you want to in order to achieve your agenda. That is a threat to the American republic… This is far deeper and more significant than the fact that he just spoke.”
Other Senate Republicans expressed similar discomfort with Gruber, but warned conservatives to not get their hopes up about repealing the health-care law while President Obama remains in office, underscoring the tonal difference between the more rabble-rousing House GOP and the new and more even-tempered Republican Senate majority.
Heading into a party luncheon on Wednesday, retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said the health care law “is going to still be there regardless because we don’t have the votes” to undo it.
“We can talk all we want but he is going to veto whatever we send him,” Coburn said. “That’s the reality.”
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he was unsure of how Senate Republicans would use the Gruber kerfuffle to go after the law, if at all. For the moment, he said, Republicans should focus on using the episode to highlight how the national press has covered the president’s signature policy.
“What Gruber said should be read and reported on by every news organization,” he said. “People should be aware of how this administration thinks.”
Several Democrats said Wednesday that they were unaware of Gruber’s comments and declined to speculate on whether there could be political consequences, underscoring how much of the discussion is being driven by Republicans. One, however, did distance herself from the arguably aloof phrasing used by Gruber. “I have not seen them,” said Sen. Patty Murrary (D-Wash). “But I do think voters are pretty smart.”
The challenge for Republicans will be balancing the conservative ire surrounding Gruber with the leaders’ political imperative to establish themselves as a governing congressional majority. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-Ky.) have pledged to bring another repeal bill to floor, but are also focused on achieving incremental legislative gains on Keystone XL and trade agreements.
POSTED AT 6:01 PM ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014 BY NOAH ROTHMAN
On Saturday, Newsbusters was the first major website to feature a video posted to YouTube by AmericanCommitment of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber boasting in 2013 how he helped deceive the public via a lack of transparency about that bill. Some readers were anxious about that video being made better known to the public since at the time the article was published, there were only a couple of dozen views of the video on YouTube.
Well they needn’t have worried because since then the video has gone over the top viral to the extent that Rush Limbaugh led his show talking about it at length this morning as did Sean Hannity on his radio show. In addition, the video made it into the mainstream media other than Fox News when Jake Tapper showed the video today on The Lead and The Hill has an article about it as well. As of this writing the video has over 177,000 views and growing fast. Reason today had an excellent analysis of the Gruber revelations:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber was, by most accounts, one of the key figures in constructing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. He helped designed the Massachusetts health care law on which it was modeled, assisted the White House in laying out the foundation of the law, and, according to The New York Times, was eventually sent to Capitol Hill “to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” He provided the media with a stream of supportive quotes, and was paid almost $400,000 for his consulting work.
Jonathan Gruber, in other words, knows exactly what it took to get the health care law passed.
And that’s why you should take him seriously when he says, in the following video, that it was critical to not be transparent about the law’s costs and true effects, and to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” in order to get it passed:
Here’s the full quote:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
This validates much of what critics have said about the health care law, and the tactics used to pass it, for years.
For one thing, it is an explicit admission that the law was designed in such a way to avoid a CBO score that would have tanked the bill. Basically, the Democrats who wrote the bill knowingly gamed the CBO process.
It’s also an admission that the law’s authors understood that one of the effects of the bill would be to make healthy people pay for the sick, but declined to say this for fear that it would kill the bill’s chances. In other words, the law’s supporters believed the public would not like some of the bill’s consequences, and knowingly attempted to hide those consequences from the public.
Most importantly, however, it is an admission that Gruber thinks it’s acceptable to deceive people if he believes that’s the only way to achieve his policy preference. That’s not exactly surprising, given that he failed to disclose payments from the administration to consult on Obamacare even while providing the media with supposedly independent assessments of the law.
…Gruber may believe that American voters are stupid, but he was the one who was dumb enough to say all this on camera.
Now that various MSM outlets have begun to pay attention to the Gruber Obamacare deception video, it will be fascinating to see what type of excuses will be made by the pundits to cover for what he admitted. Bonus points to Jonathan Cohn at New Republic or Politico or any of a vast number of liberal sources for whoever can dream up the most entertaining spin control to explain away this viral video.
p.s. Did I mention that Newsbusters was the first major website to feature this video?
Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the Director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a Research Associate. He is an Associate Editor of both the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics. In 2009 he was elected to the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the National Academy of Social Insurance.
Dr. Gruber received his B.S. in Economics from MIT, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. Dr. Gruber’s research focuses on the areas of public finance and health economics. He has published more than 140 research articles, has edited six research volumes, and is the author of Public Finance and Public Policy, a leading undergraduate text, and Health Care Reform, a graphic novel. In 2006 he received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. During the 1997-1998 academic year, Dr. Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. From 2003-2006 he was a key architect of Massachusetts’ ambitious health reform effort, and in 2006 became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main implementing body for that effort. In that year, he was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.
2012-01-09 Jonathan Gruber on Mitt Romney and Health Care Reform
Jonathan Gruber Once Again Says Subsidies Are Tied to State-Based Exchanges
Jonathan Gruber discusses health care law’s next step
Healthcare Reform 101 Part 1.
Healthcare Reform 101 Part 2.
Healthcare Reform 101 Part 3.
Jonathan Gruber on Obamacare: Part 1 of 3
Jonathan Gruber on Obamacare: Part 2 of 3
Crafting ObamaCare
Obamacare Architect: No State Exchange = No Subsidies; Blatant Enough
#GruberGate: Tale of the Tapes
Rush Limbaugh – MIT Gruber Lied about Obamacare
Rush Limbaugh: Jonathan Gruber says you are Life’s Lottery Winners – Eugenics
Gwen and Jonathan Gruber Talk Health Care with Chris Matthews
Obama 2008: Bypassing Congress Unconstitutional; I’ll Reverse It
Lec 1 | MIT 14.01SC Principles of Microeconomics
Meet Jonathan Gruber, the man who’s willing to say what everyone else is only thinking about Obamacare
By Jason Millman
Jonathan Gruber might not be a household name, but in the world of health care policy, he’s a pretty big deal. And now he’s also known as the guy who’s credited “the stupidity of the American voter” for the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
An old video surfaced this week of Gruber saying that a lack of transparency was one of the reasons Obamacare got through Congress in 2010. Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist who’s credited as one of the intellectual godfathers of the Affordable Care Act, has apologized for speaking off the cuff, but critics of the law are eagerly highlighting his comments.
That’s because of what Gruber represents. He was one of the architects of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law, which became the basis for the ACA, and he helped craft the federal legislation that used a similar scheme of guaranteed coverage, financial assistance and insurance mandates. He was far from the only person who helped shape the ACA, but he has been one of its most vocal academic defenders in the nearly five years since it passed. (And he’s the only one to write a comic book about the law.)
It’s easy to see why Gruber’s comments get pored over by ACA opponents. There’s plenty of misunderstanding about what’s in the ACA and mistrust of the motivations for passing the law — just recall Nancy Pelosi’s infamous line about needing to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. So when someone like Gruber, who’s supposed to know the law inside and out, seemingly confirms critics’ worst suspicions, that makes for a powerful anecdote.
Gruber, who’s fiercely intelligent and passionate about the health reforms he helped create, also isn’t one to always sugarcoat things.
Earlier this year, a pretty important health policy study showed that the expansion of Medicaid coverage in Oregon was associated with a spike in emergency room visits. The research potentially undercut an argument by supporters of the law who said it would save money since giving more people health insurance meant patients would rely more on primary care providers, rather than expensive trips to the ER. And Gruber, commenting on the study, offered an uncomfortable truth.
“I would view [the study] as part of a broader set of evidence that covering people with health insurance doesn’t save money,” Gruber told the Washington Post at the time. “That was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn’t designed to save money. It’s designed to improve health, and that’s going to cost money.”
You may also remember Gruber from the last presidential campaign, when there was plenty of debate over just how similar Obamacare and Romneycare actually were to one another. It was Gruber who artfully cleared up the confusion. “They’re the same f—— bill,” he told Capital New York in what became a widely circulated interview three years ago. It’s probably what ACA supporters wanted to say all along, but only Gruber went ahead and did it.
His most potentially damaging comments surfaced just over the summer, when Gruber seemingly gave credence to the ACA challenge just taken up by the Supreme Court last week — a challenge that if successful couldtorpedo the law.
The case revolves around whether residents in states that refused to set up their own health insurance marketplaces should still be able to claim tax subsidies to help them afford their insurance. Opponents say no, Congress intentionally didn’t allow that under the law. Democrats say they never intended for people in these 36 states to not have access to the financial assistance.
Here was Gruber again, in January 2012, telling a health-care conference that states refusing to set up their own exchanges would deny their residents premium tax credits. The video wasn’t widely viewed until June of this year, but this is what he said at the time:
I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.
Here’s the video, with these comments near the 31:30 mark:
Critics of the law jumped on those comments as further validation of their challenge to the subsidies in the 36 states relying on the federal-run insurance marketplaces, or exchanges. Gruber later said that he misspoke, and that his own work always assumed all exchanges — whether run by the states or the federal government — would be eligible for subsidies.
Gruber’s latest comments have surfaced at an especially inopportune time for the Obama administration. The next enrollment period is approaching this weekend with lowered expectations, just as Republicans reclaimed the Senate and the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new Obamacare challengethat could seriously weaken the law.
The Democrats, realizing how harmful Gruber’s latest comments have become, are already out doing damage control. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today to put distance between Gruber and the health-care law, saying he’s not even sure that Gruber ever met with President Obama.
“He’s a consultant, not the architect [of Obamacare,” Dean said. “I’m not excusing the language — it’s terrible.”
Jonathan Holmes Gruber is a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a research associate. He is an associate editor of both the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics.
Gruber’s research has focused on public finance and health economics. He has published more than 140 research articles, and has edited six research volumes. He is a co-editor of the Journal of Public Economics, an associate editor of the Journal of Health Economics, and the author of Public Finance and Public Policy.[3] and Health Care Reform, a graphic novel delineating the Affordable Care Act.[citation needed]
Public service
During the 1997–1998 academic year, Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. From 2003–06 he was a key architect of Massachusetts health care reform, also known as “Romneycare”. In 2006 he became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main implementing body for that effort. In that year, he was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare magazine. During the 2008 election he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama presidential campaigns.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
In 2009–10 Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ACA or “Obamacare”.[4] The act was signed into law in March 2010, and Gruber has been described as an “architect”, “writer”, and “consultant” of the legislation. He was widely interviewed and quoted during the roll-out of the legislation. [5][6][7][8][9]
One heavily-scrutinized part of the ACA reads that subsidies should be given to healthcare recipients who are enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State”. Some have read this to mean that subsidies can be given only in states that have chosen to create their own healthcare exchanges, and do not use the federal exchange, while the Obama administration says that the wording applies to all states. This dispute is currently part of an ongoing series of lawsuits referred to collectively as King v. Burwell. In July 2014, two separate recordings of Gruber, both from January 2012, surfaced in which he seemed to contradict the administration’s position.[4] In one, Gruber states, in response to an audience question, that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits”,[14] while in the other he says, “if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.”[15] When these recordings emerged, Gruber called these statements mistaken, describing them as “just a speak-o — you know, like a typo”.[14]
In a panel discussion about the ACA at the University of Pennsylvania in October 2013, Gruber stated that the bill was deliberately written “in a tortured way” to disguise the fact that it created a system in which “healthy people pay in and sick people get money”. He stated that this obfuscation was necessary, due to “the stupidity of the American voter or whatever”, in order to get the bill passed and that a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”[16] His comments caused controversy after a video of them was placed on YouTubein November 2014.[17][18][19][20]
Published works
On February 15, 2006, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published an article by Gruber entitled “The Cost and Coverage Impact of the President’s Health Insurance Budget Proposals”[21]
In a December 4, 2008 New York Times op-ed, “Medicine for the Job Market”, he claimed that expanding health insurance, even in difficult financial times would stimulate the economy.[22]
On February 9, 2011, the Center for American Progress published an article by Gruber titled “Health Care Reform Without the Individual Mandate,” analyzing the health insurance coverage impacts of alternative policy options for encouraging purchase of health insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the mandate, a late penalty, and auto-enrollment.[23]
In 2006, Gruber received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under.[25] He was elected a member of the Institute of Medicine in 2005.[26] In 2009 he was elected to the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association.
In 2011 he was named “One of the Top 25 Most Innovative and Practical Thinkers of Our Time” by Slate Magazine. In both 2006 and 2012 he was rated as one of the top 100 most powerful people in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.
Breakthrough budget passed in US House of Representatives
Budget deal passes, what’s next?
Sen. Rand Paul on state of GOP, new budget deal
Senator Rubio React To Compromise Budget Deal Approved By House America’s Newsroom
JEFF SESSIONS: SENATE GOP TO FILIBUSTER PAUL RYAN’S BUDGET DEAL
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking GOP member of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that Senate Republicans plan to filibuster the budget deal that House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).
The deal passed the House 332-94, with 62 Republicans and 32 Democrats voting against it. The bill is expected to come up for votes in the Senate early next week, either Monday or Tuesday.
The type of filibuster Sessions spoke of is not the traditional “talking filibuster” like the one Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) launched earlier this year to protest Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama’s drone policies. It is a procedural filibuster, The Hill reports, that would require Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to at least twice obtain 60 votes to pass the bill.
“They’ll need 60 votes on cloture and 60 votes on the budget point of order,” Sessions said, according to The Hill.
Since there are only 55 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Reid will twice need at least five Republicans to break from their party and support the budget deal. Reid may need more Republicans if liberals like Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) or Bernie Sanders (I-VT) oppose the deal because it does not extend unemployment benefits. Considering 32 Democrats voted against the deal in the House, it seems plausible Reid may lose at least one, maybe two Democrats in the Senate.
Senate Republicans largely seem unified against the bill. As of late Thursday, not one Senate Republican confirmed suppot of the plan.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will vote against it, and Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn and GOP conference chairman John Thune have indicated their opposition to it as well. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) has said he opposes it. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Sessions each oppose it too.
Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Roger Wicker (R-MS), who usually support similar measures, have each announced their opposition.
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) is undecided as of this point, and while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)—easily the Senate’s most liberal Republican—has said he is leaning “yes,” he has not yet committed to voting for the deal, citing concerns with military pension cuts in it.
Appropriators like Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have not committed either, according to Roll Call.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Majority Whip in the Senate, confirmed to reporters on Thursday that the Democrats need GOP votes to make this happen.
“We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,” Durbin said. “We need at least five, and I’m hoping that there’ll be more than that. There are not five who Republicans have announced they’re for it, I mean to my knowledge, and I hope there are many more than that, and they’re just holding back for any number of reasons.”
While the deal is more likely to pass the Senate than not, the question becomes about which Republicans — if any — Reid will be able to attract to support the Ryan budget deal.
It’s war! Senate gears up for epic battle as ZERO Republicans line up to support budget agreement (and Democrats need to find at least five)
Congress needs to pass a new budget by January 15 to avoid another government shutdown
Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray negotiated a framework and tried to sell it to their respective majorities
The GOP-led House passed the plan Thursday night despite complaints from tea partiers and other budget hawks
But objections from Senate Republicans, including a claim that the plan restores spending cuts by shortchanging veterans’ pensions, could kill it
A landmark budget agreement that passed in the U.S. House on Thursday faces certain death in the Senate unless at least five Republicans step up to support it – but so far there are no takers at all.
The GOP’s Senate leaders plan to launch a procedural effort to kill the plan over a laundry list of objections – including a claim that it short-changes military veterans and other government retirees.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin conceded that he needs to find Republicans who will vote for the measure after Republicans announced their intention Thursday night to block the deal.
‘We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,’ Durbin told reporters on Thursday. ‘We need at least five. And I’m hoping that there will be more than that.’
Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and the third-most powerful Senate leader, acknowledged that ‘there are not five Republicans who have announced they’re for it.’
In fact, no Republican senators have publicly said that they will vote in favor of the agreement that Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray unveiled Tuesday evening.
Their plan would roll back $63 billion in mandatory cuts from the so-called budget sequester that took effect in March. Some of that restored spending would be offset by cuts to military and civilian government pensions.
Annual cost-of-living increases in most military veterans’ retirement benefits would be cut by 1 per cent, an amount that the Military Officers Association of America says could cost a typical former soldier or sailor $80,000 over a 20-year period.
The GOP’s three most senior senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have announced that they will vote ‘no.’
Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, all considered top-tier presidential contenders in 2016, are all lined up against the measure.
The proposal ‘spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare,’ Cruz said Thursday. ‘I cannot support it.’
Rubio emailed supporters on Wednesday, saying that the agreement Ryan and Murray negotiated over a six-week period ‘continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans.’
House Speaker John Boehner fanned the flames of a civil war inside the GOP by slamming conservative groups that opposed the budget deal — but it could all be for nought if his Senate colleagues decide to kill it
And Paul said in a statement that the March sequester cuts ‘were not nearly enough to address our deficit problem. Undoing tens of billions of this modest spending restraint is shameful and must be opposed.’
Other Republicans who face primary challenges from tea party-backed candidates are also vowing to cast ‘no’ votes.
‘After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,’ South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement.
‘Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.’
Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, echoed Graham’s complaint.
‘I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,’ Wicker’s Thursday statement read. ‘Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military. … The plan should be rejected.’
Other Republicans object to what one GOP Senate staffer told MailOnline is the agreement’s ‘pixie dust approach to budgeting.’
‘We’re doing what we always do,’ said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ‘We set out a ten-year plan while knowing full well that we have a decade to undo it and shift gears again.’
Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions explained that Democrats will need 60 ‘yes’ votes – on two separate procedural ballots – in order to pass it.
The GOP’s parliamentary roadblocks will have the same effect as a traditional filibuster without consuming countless hours of Senate time when the measure is considered early next week.
Even if Senate Democrats manage to find enough Republican support to pass the agreement, it won’t have the force of law.
What Ryan and Murray proposed Wednesday is merely a framework for a budget that has yet to be written. Members of Congress who sit on appropriation committees will still be required to craft – and pass in both houses – a final budget bill by January 15.
Unless they can pull it off, the federal government will be headed for its second shutdown in three months.
Segment 1: Democrats Go Nuclear And Eliminate 60 Vote Filibuster Rule — Videos
Raw: Senate Votes to Change Filibuster Rules
[Look] Sen. Rand Paul Slams Harry Reid A BIG BULLY, DICTATOR for Killing Filibuster, Breaing Rules
Mitch McConnell: Nuclear Option Doesn’t ‘Distract from Obamacare,’ It ‘Reminds’ Voters of It
Senate Democrats Vote To Change Filibuster Rules
Nuclear Filibuster option explained to Obama Voter
Reid, McConnell take drastically different views on US Senate filibuster rule change
Senate Votes To Change Filibuster Rules In Place Since 1789
Alexander colloquy with Sen. McConnell on filibuster rules change
Senate Invokes “Nuclear Option” To Soften Rules Ending Filibusters
Senate Votes To Change Filibuster Rules In Place Since 1789 – Invoking So Called “Nuclear Option”
The Nuclear Option: The Filibuster “Power Grab” in the Senate
Recent attention on what many believe to be a dysfunctional Senate has focused the national debate squarely on the institution’s complex parliamentary rules of procedure. Specifically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced plans to consider a legislative manuever known as the Nuclear Option to change the rules of the Senate in order to curtail the use of the filibuster and facilitate the confirmation of President Obama’s judicial and executive nominees. The filibuster allows senators to speak for as long as they wish, on any topic they choose, unless three-fifths of the Senate votes to end debate by invoking cloture. Opponents of the Nuclear Option argue that it is a power grab because it allows Senate majorities to circumvent the regular order and change the rules of the Senate with a simple majority vote over the objection of Senate minorities. This, proponents argue, inevitably undermines deliberation. The result is an errosion of one of the fundamental roles of the Senate. Join us as we debate and discuss the filibuster, proposed rules changes, and the traditional role of the United States Senate in the legislative process.
Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees
The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn Thursday, as Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.
Saying that “enough is enough,” President Obama welcomed the end of what he called the abuse of the Senate’s advise and consent function, which he said had turned into “a reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt.
While “neither party has been blameless for these tactics,” Obama said in a statement to reporters at the White House, “today’s pattern of obstruction . . . just isn’t normal; it’s not what our founders envisioned.” He cited filibusters against executive branch appointments and judicial nominees on grounds that he said were based simply on opposition to “the policies that the American people voted for in the last election.”
“This isn’t obstruction on substance, on qualifications,” he said. “It’s just to gum up the works.”
The rule change means that federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has long been required to end debate and proceed to an up-or-down majority vote to confirm or reject the nomination.
The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of a power grab and suggested that they will regret their decision if Republicans regain control of the chamber.
“We’re not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer,” McConnell said. “Some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.” McConnell then addressed Democrats directly, saying: “You may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”
He added later: “The solution to this problem is at the ballot box. We look forward to having a great election in 2014.”
In his remarks at the White House, Obama called the use of the filibuster over the five years of his tenure “an unprecedented pattern of obstruction in Congress that’s prevented too much of the American people’s business from getting done.” Saying that the tactic has blocked bipartisan compromises, prevented qualified people from filling critical posts and stymied legislation to create jobs and limit gun violence, he said: “It’s harmed our economy, and it’s been harmful to our democracy.”
“A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we can’t let it become normal,” Obama said.
“So the vote today I think is an indication that a majority of senators believe, as I believe, that enough is enough,” he said. He added: “The American people deserve better than politicians who run for election telling them how terrible government is, and then devoting their time in elected office to trying to make government not work as often as possible.” He did not take any questions after his remarks in the White House briefing room.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned Democrats against the rule change on Wednesday, saying that if the GOP reclaimed the Senate majority, Republicans would further alter the rules to include Supreme Court nominees, so that Democrats could not filibuster a Republican pick for the nation’s highest court.
Reacting to Republican criticism after the vote, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called the move “a huge step in the right direction” and denied that it somehow broke Senate rules.
“The Senate broke no rules,” he said in a floor speech. “We simply used the rules to make sure that the Senate could function and that we could get our nominees through.”
The vote to change the rule passed 52 to 48. Three Democrats — Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) — joined 45 Republicans in opposing the measure. Levin is a longtime senator who remembers well the years when Democratic filibusters blocked nominees of Republican presidents; Manchin and Pryor come from Republican-leaning states.
Levin denounced both Republicans and Democrats in a floor speech after the vote. He said GOP obstruction of Obama’s nominees has been “irresponsible” and “partisan gamesmanship.” Republicans “are contributing to the destruction of an important check against majority overreach,” he said.
But Democrats have used the filibuster in the past, and “changing the rules by fiat” means that “there are no rules” in the Senate any longer,” he said. “Today we are once again moving down a destructive path,” Levin said.
The Senate voted 57 to 40, with three abstentions, to reconsider Millett’s nomination. Several procedural votes followed. The Senate parliamentarian, speaking through Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chamber’s president pro tempore, then ruled that 60 votes are needed to cut off a filibuster and move to a final confirmation vote. Reid appealed that ruling, asking senators to decide whether it should stand.
The Democratic victory paved the way for the confirmation of Millett and two other nominees to the D.C. appeals court. All have recently been stymied by GOP filibusters, amid Republican assertions that the critical appellate court simply did not need any more judges.
Under its new rules, the Senate subsequently voted 55 to 43 Thursday afternoon to move ahead with Millett’s nomination. Two senators voted present.
Senate rules still require up to 30 hours of debate on the Millett nomination. So a final confirmation vote on the nomination is expected to be held in mid-December after the two-week Thanksgiving recess.
Many Senate majorities have thought about using this technical maneuver to get around centuries of parliamentary precedent, but none has done so in a unilateral move on a major change of rules or precedents. This simple-majority vote has been executed in the past to change relatively minor precedents involving how to handle amendments; for example, one such change short-circuited the number of filibusters that the minority party could deploy on nominations.
Reid has rattled his saber on the filibuster rules at least three other times in the past three years, yielding each time to a bipartisan compromise brokered by the chamber’s elder statesmen. But this time, no deal emerged.
The main protagonists for the rules change have been junior Democrats elected in the last six or seven years, who have alleged that Republicans have used the arcane filibuster rules to create a procedural logjam that has left the Senate deadlocked. Upon arriving in 2009, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said, he found that “the Senate was a graveyard for good ideas.”
As he recounted in a speech this week, Udall said, “I am sorry to say that little has changed. The digging continues.”
Reid’s move is a reversal of his position in 2005, when he was minority leader and fought the GOP majority’s bid to change rules on a party-line vote. A bipartisan, rump caucus led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defused that effort.
At the time, McConnell was the No. 2 GOP leader and helped push the effort to eliminate filibusters on the George W. Bush White House’s judicial selections. Eight years later, McConnell, now the minority leader, has grown publicly furious over Reid’s threats to use the same maneuver.
Democrats contend that this GOP minority, with a handful of senators elected as tea party heroes, has overrun McConnell’s institutional inclinations and served as a procedural roadblock on most rudimentary things. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1967 through 2012, majority leaders had to file motions to try to break a filibuster of a judicial nominee 67 times — and 31 of those, more than 46 percent — occurred in the last five years of an Obama White House and Democratic majority.
Republicans contend that their aggressive posture is merely a natural growth from a decades-long war over the federal judiciary, noting that what prompted the 2005 rules showdown were at least 10 filibusters of GOP judicial nominees. To date, only a handful of Obama’s judicial selections have gone to a vote and been filibustered by the minority.
However, many Republicans, weary from the third rules fight this year, seemed to have adopted a resigned indifference to this latest threat, as opposed to the heated rhetoric in mid-July when the issue last flared up.
Doug Wead: Romney Threatened Ron Paul with PR A-Bomb
Ron Paul’s Senior 2012 Campaign Adviser Doug Wead gives WeAreChange an exclusive interview about the Ron Paul RNC delegate controversy, criticism of Jesse Benton, and the real reason Ron Paul didn’t attack Mitt Romney during the campaign.
“In this exclusive 80 minute video interview, legendary conspiracy author G. Edward Griffin explains how his research, which spans no less than 5 decades, has revealed a banking elite obsessed with enforcing a world government under a collectivist model that will crush individualism and eventually institute martial law as a response to the inevitable backlash that will be generated as a result of a fundamental re-shaping of society.
Griffin discusses the similarities between the extreme left and the extreme right in the false political paradigm and how this highlights a recurring theme – collectivism. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism and believes that the interests of the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number, explains Griffin, uniting the doctrines of communism and fascism. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States are committed to advancing collectivism and this is why the same policies are followed no matter who is voted in to the White House.
“All collectivist systems eventually deteriorate into a police state because that’s the only way you can hold it together,” warns Griffin.
Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University Professor and mentor to former president Bill Clinton, explained in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, how the elite maintained a silent dictatorship while fooling people into thinking they had political freedom, by creating squabbles between the two parties in terms of slogans and leadership, while all the time controlling both from the top down and pursuing the same agenda. Griffin documents how the Tea Party, after its beginnings as a grass roots movement, was later hijacked by the Republicans through the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
Pointing out how Republicans and Democrats agree on the most important topics, such as US foreign policy, endless wars in the Middle East, and the dominance of the private banking system over the economy, Griffin lays out how the left-right hoax is used to steer the destiny of America.
Griffin also talks at length on a myriad of other important subjects, such as the move towards a Chinese-style censored Internet, the demonization of the John Birch Society as a racist extremist group, the Hegelian dialectic, the power of tax-exempt foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations, the movement towards world government, and the question of whether the elite are really worried about the growing awareness of their agenda amongst Americans.”
An Idea Whose Time Has Come – G. Edward Griffin – Freedom Force International – Full
There is no point in worrying about the erosion of personal freedom that is the reality of our present era if we can do nothing about it. They say that knowledge is power, but that is one of the greatest myths of all history. Knowledge without action is useless and leads only to apathy and despair. So the question is: what type of action can reverse this trend? Writing letters and signing petitions to the same people who have created the problem is not going to do it. Voting for candidates selected by power brokers with hidden agendas will not do it either. There have been many proposals to reverse the tide of totalitarianism but, after decades of effort, none of them have worked. In this address, G. Edward Griffin, Founder of Freedom Force, tells us why; and the reason is so simple, it will astound you. Once we clear away that single barrier, the plan for a pro-active counter-force falls quickly into place. This is the missing piece of the puzzle, the ultimate solution we have been seeking. Visit http://www.freedom-force.org
The solution is simple. It is to take back control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way they were captured in the first place. Replace the collectivists with people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and happiness that can be realized only in the absence of government oppression. However, to reach that goal, it will be necessary for those who cherish freedom to do more than complain and far more than just casting a vote every few years. They must reach for power. That is the reason for the motto of Freedom Force: Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which is Latin for “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4
The Best Enemies Money Can Buy – Prof. Antony C. Sutton
“…A classic interview by Professor Antony Sutton, who taught economics at California State University, and was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. In this talk, Prof. Sutton goes into his impeccable research on how a close-knit group of Western financiers and industrialists (centered around Morgan and Rockefeller in the US, and around Milner and the City financiers, in the UK) created and sustained their three supposed enemies right from the very beginning: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and FDR’s Fabian socialism.
Particularly, he goes into how Wall Street/City of London financiers used their banking institutions and their industrial enterprises to:
1) Help finance and sustain the Bolshevik Revolution. Build up Soviet industry during Lenin’s Five-Year Plans, both through finance, technology/industrial transfers and technical assistance. Continue to build the Soviets throughout the entire Cold War, through the same kinds of deals. This included the Korea and the Vietnam eras, during which American troops were being killed by… Western-made Soviet equipment.
2) Build up Nazi Germany, both financially and industrially;
3) Get FDR into power in America as their man, and even draw up the New Deal policies, especially FDR’s National Recovery Act — designed by Gerard Swopes of General Electric and deeply welcomed by Wall Streeters Morgan, Warburg and Rockefeller.
Sutton was not a wild speculator. He was a distinguished academic researcher who documented his conclusions impeccably in his several works. Not being able to counter his research, the establishment (including academia) simply attempts to ignore it, and pretend it isn’t there. The purpose for these Wall Street policies was very simple: to create, and globalize, what Sutton calls Corporate Socialism. A system under which everything in society is ruled by the state, and the state is, in its stead, controlled by financiers who, hence, get to rule and manage society, to their liking. In other words, to get society to work for the financiers, using a socialist state as an intermediary. This is what we now know as the globalization economic model. As a result of all the clashes of the 20th century, most notably WWII and the Cold War (fought between powers that were manipulated and controlled by these banker cliques), the world has been ‘globalized’. Meaning that it has been entirely taken over by these financiers, and is ever closer to being completely ruled by them, through not only the national states and national central banking systems, but mainly through supranational agencies and institutions.
Go into Professor Sutton’s books, most notably the Hoover Institute’s series on Western technological/industrial transfers to the Soviets and the ‘Wall Street’ trilogy. If you have a difficulty in purchasing the original books, you’ll find most of them are easily available online, on pdf form. …”
Capitalist Elites Funded the Bolshevik Revolution [Professor Antony Sutton]
Socialism – A Tool of the Capitalist Elite [Professor Antony Sutton]
George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”
Background Articles and Videos
The Creature From Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin)
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#1
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#2
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#3
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#4
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#5
Rare year 1982 video with G. Edward Griffin & Norman Dodds#6
Segment 4: Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party Movements Sold Out and Betrayed By Gang of Six and Progressive Republicans In Senate–Videos
Gang of 6 Plan Could Offer GOP Path to Debt Deal
The CBS Evening News w…: Clock ticking on debt reform plans
2011 07 19 Crapo on Bloomberg
Senator Warner calls for a bipartisan solution to the deficit
Face The Nation with B…: Coburn, Durbin agree debt compromise will be
Solving the Debt Ceiling Crisis
Obama Applauds ‘Gang Of Six’
Meet the Senate’s “Gang of Six”
Dr. Coburn on CNBC Kudlow Report: “Came to an impasse in Gang of Six negotiations”
Michael Bennet: Gang of Six ‘Not Dead’
Crapo on Fox News’ Special Report with Brett Baier
Grover Norquist Responds to Sen. Tom Coburn- MSNBC
Debt Ceiling: Chris Mathews Dukes it Out With ‘NO’ Mastermind, Republican Grover Norquist
Sen. Toomey Talks Debt Limit on Fox and Friends
Senator Pat Toomey Explains That Failing To Raise Debt Limit Doesn’t Cause Default
Sen. Toomey Gives a Speech on the Debt Limit at AEI
“Cut, Cap and Balance,” the Debt Ceiling and Federal Spending
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Conviction, Not Compromise!
Ron Paul to Congress If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It
The estimated total tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2012 are estimated to be between $2,500 billion and $2,600 billion.
The gang of six Fiscal Year 2012 budget will have outlays or spending between $3,500 billion to $3,700 billion
The Fiscal Year 2012 will result in a deficit of over $1,000 billion under the gang of six’s plan.
The Fiscal Year 2012 budget for outlays or spending needs to be reduced by $500 billion to $3,000 billion or less.
This would result in a deficit of about $500 billion.
Any politician who votes for the gang of six so-called compromise balanced approach of more taxes now and spending cuts in the out years will not be getting my vote.
Both President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush fell for a similar compromise of tax increases now for future spending cuts that never happened.
Reagan; Taxes and Budget Deficit: Revenue 19% of GDP; Spending is 23%; Revenue is sufficient
Cut spending and balance the budget in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013.
Pass the FairTax bill.
Tax increases will put the economy into another recession or depression.
Monetization of the debt by the Federal Reserve only leads to defaulting on the debt by debasing or devaluing of the currency which results in rising prices or inflation and a decrease in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.
Explanation of Fed Monetizing US Debt
Quantitative Easing Explained
The gang of six compromise is a betrayal of the American people.
No deal.
Background Articles and Videos
Debt hope: Obama praises ‘Gang of Six’ plan
Obama, some Republicans laud Senate ‘Gang of Six’ deficits plan as a way ahead on debt limit
“…President Barack Obama and a startling number of Republican senators lauded a bipartisan deficit-reduction plan Tuesday that includes $1 trillion in higher taxes, raising hopes of a last-minute compromise to repair the nation’s finances while averting a government default. Wall Street saluted as well. …”
“…Unlike Obama, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. was harshly critical, calling McConnell’s approach “smoke and mirrors.”
“If Republicans do not show the political will to stop the spending, and use the debt limit to make our case, the party is gone,” he was quoted as saying on National Review Online.
The Gang of Six envisioned a two-stage process in which $500 billion in savings would be enacted swiftly, with the more complicated changes in programs like Medicare and Medicaid to follow.
“…The proposal would cut spending, overhaul entitlement programs such as Medicare, rework the tax code, and make significant changes to Social Security. He said he still hadn’t read all the details of the plan, and said it will be difficult for all parties to reach agreement.
The plan is sweeping in its scope but was thought for months to be both overly ambitious and slightly ambiguous, which nearly led the effort to collapse in recent weeks. But the plan was revived, in part by its lead authors—Sens. Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.)—and the flood of bipartisan support coming out of the meeting surprised them both, the lawmakers said.
Mr. Obama’s endorsement of a bipartisan Senate deficit-reduction proposal, however, could isolate conservative House Republicans who have yet to embrace the president’s call for a deficit-cutting plan that includes tax-code changes. It faces an uncertain future in the House, and even in the Senate, however.
Senate Democratic leaders reacted cautiously, saying the Gang of Six plan had come too late to be incorporated into legislation increasing the debt ceiling.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill), one of six senators who helped crafted the plan, said it wouldn’t form part of a debt-ceiling package that must be passed by Congress before Aug. 2. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said he thought there could be elements of the plan that might be wrapped into the legislation increasing the debt ceiling.
Aides said the plan still lacked many crucial details. Its release, instead, would influence the budget landscape after Aug. 2, aides said. …”
“…Central parts of the plan would:
• Impose immediate spending cuts and caps that reduce the deficit by $500 billion over 10 years.
• Make changes to Social Security to make the program solvent over 75 years.
• Direct key congressional committees to find specific levels of deficit reduction within their areas of jurisdiction. If the committees fail, then five Democratic and five Republican senators would be able to offeKr their own deficit-reduction plan as a replacement.
Messrs. Warner and Chambliss said they asked the other lawmakers at the meeting to report back to them within 24 hours with any feedback, and several lawmakers said the group had already begun drafting legislation. …”
Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos
Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos
Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos
Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos
For additional information and videos on the above segments:
The tea party movement’s budget would require the Federal Government to have a balanced or surplus budget in every fiscal year starting in 2012 with a declining national debt starting in Fiscal Year 2017.
S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget
(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year
Outlays
Revenues
Surpluses
Debt Held By Public
2012
2,500
2,500
0
10,900
2013
2,800
2,800
0
10,900
2014
3,000
3,000
0
10,900
2015
3,200
3,200
0
10,900
2016
3,300
3,300
0
10,900
2017
3,400
3,500
100
10,800
2018
3,500
3,700
200
10,600
2019
3,600
3,900
300
10,300
2020
3,700
4,000
300
10,000
2021
3,800
4,300
500
9,500
2012-2021
32,800
34,200
1,400
n.a.
Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses
Fiscal Years 1980-2010
(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year
Outlays
Revenues (Receipts)
Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980
590,941
517,112
-73,830
1981
678,241
599,272
-78,968
1982
745,743
617,766
-127,977
1983
808,364
600,562
-207,802
1984
851,805
666,488
–185,367
1985
946,344
734,037
-212,308
1986
990,382
769,155
–221,277
1987
1,004,017
854,288
-149,730
1988
1,064,417
854,288
-155,178
1989
1,143,744
991,105
-152,639
1990
1,252,994
1,031,958
-221,036
1991
1,324,226
1,054,988
-269,238
1992
1,381,529
1,091,208
-290,321
1993
1,409,386
1,154,335
-255,051
1994
1,461,753
1,258,566
-203,186
1995
1,515,742
1,351,790
-163,392
1996
1,560,484
1,453,053
-107,431
1997
1,601,116
1,579,232
-21,884
1998
1,652,458
1,721,728
69,270
1999
1,701,842
1,827,452
125,610
2000
1,788,950
2,025,191
236,241
2001
1,862,846
1,991,082
128,236
2002
2,010,894
1,853,136
-157,758
2003
2,159,899
1,782,314
-377,585
2004
2,292,841
1,880,114
-412,727
2005
2,471,957
2,153,611
-318,346
2006
2,655,050
2,406,869
-248,181
2007
2,728,686
2,567,985
-160,701
2008
2,982,544
2,523,991
-458,553
2009
3,517,677
2,104,989
-1,412,688
2010
3,456,213
2,162,724
-1,293,489
For a history of the Federal Government’s Receipts (Revenues), Outlays, and Deficits and Surpluses
“…Historical Tables provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2012 or 2016.
To the extent feasible, the data have been adjusted to provide consistency with the 2012 Budget and to provide comparability over time.
To download the Historical Tables as a single PDF, click here (360 pages, 3.2 MB) …”
Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party is capable of living within the means of the American people.
The political class or elites are not serious and do not understand the problem.
If they did they would have a sense of urgency which is lacking in both the Democratic and Republican proposed budgets.
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
The Republicans are proposing a budget for Fiscal Year 2012 of $3,618 billion compared with the President Obama’s $3,729.
This results in a deficit of $995 billion for the Republican budget and $1,101 billion for President Obama’s budget.
As the above tables clearly show, neither party is capable of balancing the budget in the next ten years.
The above budgets are needed to support a warfare and welfare economy with a collectivist state.
The above budgets are not a pathway to a peace and prosperity economy with a constitutional republic.
The budget needs to be balanced starting in fiscal year 2012 at $2,500 billion or less.
The tea party movement demands that from here on out that all budgets be either balanced or in surplus with no tax increases.
Please do not tell me Congressman Ryan that the budget will me in primary balance by 2015.
Primary balance means you exclude interest on the national debt from expenditures or outlays.
A budget in primary balance is just a rather lame-duck president’s attempt to confuse the American people.
I am not confused or amused by President Obama totally irresponsible Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal.
Nor am I impressed with the so-called path to a balanced budget and a path to prosperity for the United States economy.
The tea party movement does not want a path to prosperity but a jet plane ride to a balanced budget in Fiscal Year 2012 without any new taxes.
Start permanently shutting down ten Federal Departments before you even begin to think about cutting mandatory spending or entitlements including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The American people want the FairTax not the continuation of an overly complicated Federal Income taxation system even with a lower rate of 25% for individuals and corporations.
The FairTax: It’s Time
President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget gets a F and it will cost him his re-election.
The American people have no intention of getting in the Democratic Party’s car driven by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama:
The American people have no intention of getting on the Republican Party’s path to prosperity either.
The Republican Fiscal Year 2012 budget gets a D+.
Milton Friedman would give you a D-:
The American people demand fiscal responsibility or living within ones means for the Federal Government starting with the Fiscal Year 2012 Federal Government Budget.
The American people were listening when the Republican establishment’s leadership said they heard the American people.
Republicans roll out “Pledge to America”
Pledge to America Preamble
“Pledge to America” Unveiled by Republicans (Full Text)
The Republican Pledge to America clearly stated that:
“We have a plan to impose fiscal discipline and cut government down to size.”
The Republican Pathway to Prosperity is that plan and it does not impose fiscal discipline nor does it cut down the size of the Federal Government.
Over the next ten fiscal years, there is not one single year in which the fiscal discipline of a balanced budget is met.
The Republican Pledge to America clearly stated that:
“With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We will also establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending from this point forward.”
For Fiscal Year 2008 the total actual outlays were $2,982 billion and total actual revenues or receipts from taxation were $2,523 billion for the U.S. Federal Government with a deficit of $458 billion.
The Republican Pathway to Prosperity proposes in Fiscal Year 2012 total estimated outlays of $3,529 billion and total estimated revenues of $2,533 billion resulting in a deficit of $997 billion.
The Republican Party establishment and leadership misled and lied to the American people and the tea party movement when it said it would “roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.”
Both the Democratic and Republican Party proposed U.S. Federal Government budgets are extremely dangerous for they generate increasing uncertainty among business owners and consumers as to where this ultimately leads the economy and nation.
“Extreme Spending”
The Republican establishment’s leadership in Washington D.C. needs to be replaced for they have refused to learn the lessons of the 2006 and 2008 elections and apparently need to learn another lesson in 2012.
If you are a tea party movement patriot challenge all House and Senate seats currently held by Republicans if they vote for this fiscally irresponsible and unbalanced budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
The tea party movement has been betrayed by the Republican Party leadership and establishment in Washington, D.C.
Dan Mitchell gets a A+.
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Controlling Leviathan: The Battle for Limited Government
Question and Answer Session: The Fight Against Big Government
I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.
The independents and the tea party movement have given up on both political parties.
The Pathway to Prosperity is the Republican Party’s timid attempt to capture the independents and tea party movement.
No sale.
The tea party movement will not be pleased.
They will be leaving on a jet plane.
I will be voting for Ron Paul for President in 2012 and Michele Bachmann for Vice-President.
SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America
P.S. You really disappointed me Congressman Ryan, your proposal is neither bold nor timid, it is fiscally irresponsible and gutless.
Suggest Paul Ryan talk to some Senators who understand the problem and what needs to be done now.
Rand Paul and Mike Lee on “Glenn Beck” with Judge Napolitano 03/07/11
“…I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. …”
~Senator Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of A Conservative (1960), p. 15
The Conscience Of A Conservative
“Man is not free unless government is limited.”
~President Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan on Limited Government
Ron Paul: A 2012 Revolution
Ron Paul On Morning Joe SLAMS Obama: “He’s A Warmonger”!
CPAC Poll Aftermath: Can Ron Paul Trump Critics in 2012?
Is CPAC Straw Poll Relevant?
“…LAKE JACKSON, TEXAS – After receiving news that he won the 2011 Presidential Preference Straw Poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“I am honored by the outpouring of support that I received in winning the CPAC Straw Poll. Events like this energize me and give me tremendous incentive to keep up the fight for Liberty and our Constitution.
“This win is bigger then just me, it is about the message of Liberty that resonates with so many across the country. Young people in particular, who participated so strongly in this poll, understand that restoring our Freedom is the key to our future prosperity. I remain optimistic that our message will spread and help the next generation recapture the wonderful traditions that made America the greatest nation in human history.”
CPAC is widely considered the largest and most important gathering of Conservatives in the country. Dr. Paul captured 30 percent of the vote, beating the second place finisher by 7 points. No one else in the field exceeded 6 percent. …”
Ron Paul won the 2011 CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Presidential Preference Straw Poll receiving 30% of the 3,742 votes cast.
Fox News released a poll on Friday, February 11, 2011 in which Ron Paul was excluded.
Here is the question and results from the raw data:
“…The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and
Shaw & Company Research (R). The poll is based on live telephone interviews with a national
sample of 911 registered voters, and was conducted February 7-9, 2011 in the evenings.
Landline and cell phone telephone numbers were randomly selected for inclusion in the survey
using a probability proportionate to size method, which means that phone numbers for each state
are proportional to the number of voters in each state.
Results based on the full sample have a margin of error of ± 3%. Results among subgroups have
larger sampling errors, including: Democrats (n = 389) ± 5%; Republicans (n = 354) ± 5%;
Independents (n = 147) ± 8%.
Results from Fox News polls before February 2011 were conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp.
Questions 1-2 released separately.
3. – 16. I’m going to read you a list of names — for each one please tell me if you think that
person would make a good president or not. If you have never heard of a person, please just say
so. (RANDOMIZE) SCALE: 1. Yes 2. No 3. (Don’t know – vol.) 4. Never heard of
*** YES Ratings Summary ***
% Yes – All % Yes – GOP
Mike Huckabee 34 55
Mitt Romney 33 54
Newt Gingrich 23 43
Sarah Palin 23 40
Jeb Bush 21 39
Donald Trump 19 23
Chris Christie 18 29
Tim Pawlenty 13 21
Haley Barbour 11 16
Michele Bachmann 10 16
Rick Santorum 9 15
Mitch Daniels 8 13
John Thune 6
Well the Republican establishment and their supporters at Fox News are at it again in trying to marginalize Ron Paul should he decide to run again 2012.
The Republican establishment and their supporters at Fox News should be sacred–real scared.
If Ron Paul runs he will win.
I consider myself a long time member of the conservative movement starting with Senator Goldwater in 1964 and finally seeing Governor Ronald Reagan elected in 1980 and again in 1984.
I am still waiting for another conservative or libertarian candidate to get the nomination of the Republican Party in 2012.
I am so fed up with the Republican Party that I now consider myself an independent.
The Republican establishment especially the country club or progressive Rockefeller/Bush Republicans opposed both Goldwater, Reagan, and Paul as candidates for President.
There is a long history of progressives in the Republican party and both Bushes and McCain are just recent examples.
The recent Fox News poll reflects this.
Neither Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney is among the top five conservative or libertarian choices for a candidate for President in 2012.
My choice in 2008 was Newt Gingrich.
My choice in 2012 is Ron Paul with Michele Bachmann as his Vice-President running mate on a Republican ticket.
Both Gingrich and Paul will most likely run in 2012.
I made the mistake many Republicans are again making in dismissing Ron Paul without first listening to his position on a number of issues.
When I finally did examine his positions on the issues, I had to admit, I had made a big mistake in not supporting him in 2008 and dismissing him.
Ron Paul has been a principled conservative and libertarian for decades.
He not only talks the talk but walks the walk.
When both Donald Trump and Bill Bennett dismiss him they are making the same mistake I did in 2008.
Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth
While neither Trump or Bennett have run for public office, Ron Paul has won 11 consecutive political races for Congress in progressive Bush country where Paul was also repeatedly dismissed by the Republican establishment.
Ron Paul’s message resonates with young, working and older voters as well as Republicans, Democrats and independents.
Ron Paul’s message is to transform the United States warfare and welfare economy with a massive and ever expanding collectivist government to a peace and prosperity economy with a limited in size and scope constitutional government.
Ron Paul wants a strong national defense where the military is used in declared wars as set forth in the United States Constitution.
Ron Paul is the choice of conservatives and libertarians who oppose government intervention both at home and abroad.
As both a conservative and tea party movement member I endorse a Ron Paul/Michele Bachmann Republican Party ticket in 2012.
Fox News Poll: Obama Crushing Jeb Bush, Beating 2012 GOP Field
“…The poll had Obama with 54 percent and Bush with 34 percent. A poll from Fox News taken back in September found it much closer with Obama at 45 percent and Bush at 37 percent.
The poll also had Obama leading other Republican candidates. He led former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 48 percent to 41 percent and led former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by a similar margin, 49 percent to 41 percent. Obama crushed former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by more than 20 points, 56 percent to 35 percent. The president was ahead of former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich by 20 points, beating him 55 percent to 35 percent.
The poll of 911 registered voters was taken between Feb. 7-9 and had a margin of error of +/- 3 percent. …”
I still stand by my wild ass guess (WAG) that the Republicans will win 77 seats in the House of Representatives for a total of 255 seats and 10 seats in the Senate for a total of 51 seats giving the Republican Party majority control of both the House and Senate.
There will also be 35 state Republican governors.
The Democratic Party led by President Obama have lost the independents, older voters, white voters, the unemployed and increasingly the young.
Since the core progressive/liberal base of the Democratic Party is between 20% and 25% of the voters, even in the best of turnout election years, they simply cannot win in districts that have a high percentage of Republican and Independent voters.
The conservative and libertarian movement is more than energized–they want to throw the bums out of office.
The major issues were jobs, spending, taxes, deficits, debt, bailouts, illegal immigration and Obamacare.
On all these issues the Democratic Party is simply on the minority side of the issue and their economic policies of a stimulus package, green jobs, and Obamacare have been an abject failure in creating jobs and reducing spending and deficits.
The tea party patriots have become a political force to be reckoned with by the political establishments of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The real test for the Republican Party will be in the next two to four years.
At a bare minimum the Republican Party must cut back spending and balance the budget with no tax or debt increases.
If the Republican Party does not deliver on this, more and more tea party patriots will look to forming a new political party instead of taking over the Republican Party.
I am simply not optimistic that the current Republican Party establishment is up to the job.
The Republican establishment lacks both vision and courage to do what needs to be done.
What the Republican Party should be doing is closing down entire Federal Departments and passing the FairTax.
Very few Republicans and Republican talk radio and television show hosts mention either.
Instead it is business as usually with the same talking points that we need to cut spending by x% and tax rates by y%.
This approach has failed time and time again for the simple reason that it is quickly reversed by the progressives in both the Democratic and Republican parties when they win majorities in the House and Senate.
Only by passing the FairTax and eliminating ten Federal Departments will the cancer of out-o-control government intervention be permanently stopped.
The time for a new political party that replaces either the Republican or Democratic Party is fast approaching.
Tea parties or rallies are great but results count and that requires MOMMA–Money, Organization, Message, Momentum and Ambition.
MOMMA is what is required to win elections.
A new political party that favors limited constitutional government is required–American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP on spending, deficits, debt, regulations, and taxes.
The American people are also waiting for its twenty-first century George Washington and Thomas Paine to emerge from the tea party patriots.
The election of 2016 is the one to watch out for.
By then I fully expect that both the Democratic and Republican parties will be so widely perceived as failures in delivering results that the American people will finally support candidates that want limited constitutional government and belong to another political party.
NRA Tribute to Charlton Heston
Background Articles and Videos
Elephants charging!
Brit Hume: Republican Gains could be into the 70’s or 80’s
Republicans Appear Poised to Win Big on Tuesday
Lead in generic ballot large enough to give Republicans solid majority control of U.S. House
by Frank Newport, Jeffrey M. Jones, and Lydia Saad
“…The results are from Gallup’s Oct. 28-31 survey of 1,539 likely voters. It finds 52% to 55% of likely voters preferring the Republican candidate and 40% to 42% for the Democratic candidate on the national generic ballot — depending on turnout assumptions. Gallup’s analysis of several indicators of voter turnout from the weekend poll suggests turnout will be slightly higher than in recent years, at 45%. This would give the Republicans a 55% to 40% lead on the generic ballot, with 5% undecided. …”
“…The Oct. 28-31 poll finds that nationally, 75% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican are “absolutely certain” they will vote in the 2010 midterms, compared with 68% of Democrats. While these figures are not the only indicator of relative turnout strength — this is just one question in Gallup’s seven-item likely voter model — the record-high seven-point gap between the parties is strongly indicative of a relative surge in GOP turnout. …’
Issue number 3 is Obamacare– the American people want it repealed as soon as possible and no money bills or appropriations to fund Obamacare.
Fight Obamacare Texas
Issue number 4 is illegal immigration–the American people want it stopped by immigration law enforcement and a completed border fence that is heavily patrolled.
What Are True Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration?
Stop Illegal Immigration
The American people expect the Republican Party to balance the Federal Budget by significantly reducing Government spending and permanently closing Federal Departments including Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Renewal, Interior, Labor, and Transportation.
The number of Federal employees should be cut from over 2,000,000 to less than 1,000,000.
3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy
The American people expect the Republican Party to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers and pass the FairTax–it is time!
The FairTax: It’s Time
Should the Republican Party fail to balance the budget and cut the size and scope of the Federal Government by permanently shutting down the above departments, these Republicans will be wiped out by the 2012 wave of tea party patriots.
Background Articles and Videos
Editor in Chief Insights: Obama’s Job Approval Trajectory
President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency
Two-thirds of Americans believe country going off on the wrong track
“…Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president’s downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency.
These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 3,084 adults surveyed online between October 11 and 18, 2010 by Harris Interactive.
It’s perhaps not surprising that nine in ten Republicans (90%) and Conservatives (89%) give the job the president is doing negative ratings. What may be surprising is that one-third of Democrats (34%) and Liberals (33%) also give him negative ratings, as do seven in ten Independents (70%) and six in ten Moderates (60%).
Americans who give the president the highest positive ratings are those with a post-graduate education (48%), a college education (47%), and those living in the West (42%). On the other end of the spectrum, almost three-quarters of those with a high school education or less (72%) and two-thirds of Midwesterners (66%) and Southerners (66%) give the President negative marks on his overall job.
While the president is at a low point, there is a political body with ratings much lower than his. Just one in ten Americans (11%) give Congress positive ratings on the job they are doing while nine in ten (89%) give them negative marks. While Congress may be under Democratic control, even four in five Democrats (81%) give them negative ratings.
Part of this negativity may have to do with the way Americans believe the country as a whole is going. Just one-third of U.S. adults (34%) say the country is going in the right direction while two-thirds (66%) say it is going off on the wrong track. While not close to the low it was before the 2008 election (11% said things were going in the right direction), this is one of the lower points of this year. …”
Voters Trust Republicans More on Eight of 10 Key Issues
“…Voters now trust Democrats over Republicans in only two areas – government ethics and corruption by a 41% to 36% margin and education where Democrats have a slight 42% to 40% edge.
The economy continues to be the most important issue on voters’ minds this election, and 49% place their trust in Republicans to handle this issue. Thirty-nine percent (39%) trust Democrats more. These findings show little change from early June 2009.
On the issue of health care, which voters place second on the list of important issues, Republicans hold a modest 47% to 40% advantage. Democrats were trusted more on this issue until the debate over a proposed national health care bill began to heat up in early September of last year.
Most voters continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, but the number of voters who expect the law to increase the deficit has fallen to the lowest point since its passage by Congress in March.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Two surveys of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters each were conducted October 12-13 and October 14-15, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Government ethics and corruption rate number three in terms of overall importance, but voters have been narrowly divided for the past several months over which party to trust more on this issue. Democrats have held small leads since February.
As for education, both parties have held very modest leads on the issue at different times for months now.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters nationwide place their trust in the hands of Republicans when it comes to the issue of taxes. Thirty-nine percent (39%) would rather the Democrats handle this issue. The GOP has held a solid lead over Democrats on this issue since early July 2009.
But most voters believe that Democrats in Congress want to raise taxes and spending, while Republicans in Congress want to cut taxes and spending.
When it comes to immigration, 45% trust Republicans, while 33% trust the Democrats more. The gap between the two parties has widened since the beginning of January as the debate over the immigration law in Arizona intensified. At the beginning of the year, voters were essentially evenly divided on which party to trust.
Voters feel more strongly than ever that the federal government is encouraging illegal immigration and that states like Arizona have the answer to the problem, but the Obama administration is challenging the Arizona law in federal court.
Republicans continue to be trusted more on national security issues and the war on terror, with 49% of voters trusting the GOP versus 39% who trust the Democrats more. When it comes the war in Afghanistan, Republicans hold a six-point advantage, 42% to 36%.
Similarly, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the war in Iraq, 43% to 37%. …”
“History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”
~ President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Republicans Outline ‘Pledge to America’
A Pledge To America
Paul Ryan on House Republicans’ Pledge To America
Paul Ryan: Stop all tax hikes
Fox News interview: A Pledge to America
GOP’s “Pledge to America”
Mike Pence discusses “A Pledge to America” on FOX
Roskam Talks Pledge For America on CNBC
GOP Pledge to America
GOP’s new ‘Pledge to America’
Laura Ingraham Interviews Paul Ryan On A Pledge To America
Full Text of Republican
A Pledge to America
a new governing agenda build on
The Priorities of Our Nation
The Principles We Stand For
&
America’s Founding Values
Preamble
America is more than a country.
America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers
are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with
the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any
man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their
families, and the common good.
America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to
determine their own destiny.
Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.
These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the
Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of
Americans.
In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the
governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined
to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding
laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues
mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.
2
Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds
among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.
Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it
can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out,
demanding that we realign our country’s compass with its founding principles and apply those
principles to solve our common problems for the common good.
The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people
cannot be overstated.
With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest
aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation
was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge
to America.
We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent
of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment,
which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense,
and national economic prAmerica is more than a country.
We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite
fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America. …”
The biggest problem with “A Pledge To American” is its failure to address in a bold and creative way the economic problems facing the United States and its people.
Does the Republican Pledge permanently close one or more Federal Departments?
No.
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
Debt bomb 12 How to cut federal spending
Ronald Reagan – “We the People”
Does the Republican Pledge offer comprehensive tax reform such as the national sales consumption tax to replace the Federal Income Tax, payroll, estate and gift taxes?
No.
The FairTax: It’s Time
Does the Republican Pledge produce annual surplus budgets by limiting Federal Government spending to 80% of FairTax revenue?
No.
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
Does the Republican Pledge transform Social Security and Medicare to an individually controlled and owned investment retirement account and health insurance plan.
No.
Social Security Ponzi Scheme
Does the Republican Pledge address illegal immigration by demanding immigration law enforcement and the removal and deportation of illegal aliens?
No.
Lou Dobbs – E-Verify & Border Fence may be canceled – Feb 16, 2009
Bilbray on the Cost of Illegal Immigration and Amnesty
Why not?
The Republican Pledge was vetted by political consultants and lobbyists on K street who oppose all of the above as do the Republican establishment.
The Republican Pledge is simply timid or more precisely the anti-Obama agenda.
The Republican Pledge is neither bold nor inspiring with the exception of the preamble.
Going back to 2008 in Federal spending levels and freezing Federal Government employee hiring is too little too late.
Why would we want to go back to where we were just two years ago?
Now if you want to go back to 1928 Federal spending levels under President Calvin Coolidge that would be ambitious.
A return to the Republican establishment status quo in 2008 is playing defense.
Both the economic policies and government intervention of Bush and Obama are responsible for the Great Recession.
This reminds me of the economic policies and government intervention of Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s that led to the Great Depression.
Time to go on the offense.
Independents and tea party patriots will not be impressed.
Yes, the Pledge is better than the agenda of progressive radical socialists Democratic Party led by Barack Obama.
This is a a very low bar or standard to exceed.
Time for a new third political party with the tea party patriots as its core base with independents and the young as its growth opportunity.
Glenn Beck nailed it, the Pledge tells you what you want to hear, but does not tell you the truth and what you need to hear.
Glenn Beck-09/23/10-A
Glenn Beck-09/23/10-B
Glenn Beck-09/23/10-C
Ron Paul is also right, a GOP victory in 2010 would bring no change.
It would take several election cycles before the mess in Washington is cleaned up and the economy on the road to recovery a growth.
American Morning: Ron Paul on the state of the GOP
Ron Paul: GOP 2010 Victory Would Bring No Change
our pledge
As government expands, liberty contracts.
~President Ronald Reagan
Background Articles and Videos
Ronald Reagan TV Ad: “Its morning in America again”
“…The Pledge places job creation front and center, promising to stop all tax hikes scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011 — not just those singled out by the Obama administration. The plan would also give small businesses the ability to deduct 20 percent of income from tax returns and, in an effort to tame productivity-stifling overregulation, would require congressional approval for any new administration rules that would impact the economy by $100 million or more.
Turning its attention to spending and the size of government, the Pledge proposes to immediately end TARP, cancel unspent stimulus dollars, and “roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels,” a move estimated to save $116 billion in the first year alone. It promises to end the government’s involvement in the revenue-sapping GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while shrinking their portfolios and establishing new capital standards.
To rein in the size of government, the document proposes a hiring freeze on non-security personnel, and calls for any new federal program to come with a “sunset” clause that would place the onus on legislators to routinely reassess its merits and justify new funding.
But the plan does not set specific spending targets, promising only to “significantly” reduce Congress’s next budget and place a “hard cap” on the growth of future discretionary spending.
And it is decidedly vague on entitlement reform, laying out in broad terms a commitment to “regularly review” and “fully account” for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid growth, but stopping well short of embracing specific entitlement reforms like those proposed in Wisconsin GOP congressman Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap.” …”
Ned Ryun discusses Tea Party Movement on Bill O’Reilly
Americans angry (71%) at federal government, Congress Cares Not, Just Sheep to be Run Over
AYN RAND’s message to GLENN BECK
Ron Paul Third Party Press Conference September 10, 2008
Second American Revolution: Howard Phillips (1 of 4)
Palin Supports Creation Of Third Party
Mainstream Media Takes Aim at Tea Party, Palin
“Competition is sin.”
~John D. Rockefeller
“If any of my competitors were drowning, I’d stick a hose in their mouth”
~Ray Kroc
“In the United States the competition to the railroads in the form of busses, automobiles, trucks, and airplanes has caused the railroads to suffer and to be almost completely defeated, as far as passenger transportation is concerned.”
~Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy, page 5
Third Parties in Two Party America – Dole Institute
In the United States those on the political left who identify themselves as progressive or liberal are mostly registered and vote as Democrats.
The progressive radical socialists dominate the education, entertainment, the legal profession, major media, unions, and governments.
The progressive radical socialists have a core political base of about 20% of the American voters.
For all practical purposes the Democratic Party has become and is led by progressive radical socialists.
This is the reason that over the last forty years many Americans that consider themselves conservatives and/or libertarians that were Democrats have changed their party registration and now vote Republican or consider themselves as Independents.
The challenge is the Republican Party establishment is permeated with what used to be called Rockefeller or country club Republicans and are now called Republicans in Name Only or Rhinos–progressives on many issues such as comprehensive immigration reform, government spending, taxation and social issues such as favoring abortion or the killing of unborn children.
Many movement conservatives and/or libertarians that were once supporters of the Republican Party, now when asked we tell you they consider themselves to be independents.
I am a classical liberal or what in the United States is called a libertarian.
While I am also a movement conservative, I am now an independent.
I come from a family that out of habit voted Democratic.
Many are breaking this bad habit for they want no part of a progressive radical socialist Democratic Party that puts government ahead of the individual and family.
Both the Republican and Democratic parties have been fiscally irresponsible and have only grown the size and scope of government.
Neither political party is advocating truly cutting Federal spending by shutting down permanently Federal Departments or eliminating all Federal taxes and replacing it a broad-based consumption sales tax that would encourage a strong work ethic, savings, job creation, economic growth and wealth creation.
Many independents loyalty is to the conservative and/or libertarian movement not the Republican or Democratic parties.
Many of them are active in organizing and attending Tea Parties across the nation.
I suspect that roughly 40% of the American electorate would vote for a Tea Party candidate over a Democrat or Republican.
Both political parties are threatened by the prospect of a competitive and viable third-party.
Unlike the majority of talk show radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Bill Bennett, who regularly discourage talk of a third-party and advocate movement conservatives take over the Republican Party, I for one think it would be very beneficial if the United States actually had three or even four viable political parties competing for public office.
Competition is good.
The more political competition the better.
A viable third political party in the United States would need to regularly get around 35% to 40% of the registered voters to consistently win elections.
This would require a minimum of twenty years to accomplish and a minimum of sixty billion dollars in contributions over these twenty years or about 3 billion dollars per year.
For this to happen the Tea Party movement needs to clearly articulate a core set of positions on issues of most concern to the American people such as the following:
1. Government Spending: surplus budgets to pay down the National Debt by restricting fiscal year spending budgets to 80% of previous year’s FairTax collections with the remaining 20% to pay down the debt.
2. Federal Tax Reform: The FairTax should replace all Federal taxes.
3. Size and scope of the government: At least ten Federal Departments and many Federal agencies should be closed permanently. The number of Federal employees need to cut by at least 50%.
4. National Defense: Budget 5% of our nation’s gross domestic product for national defense, securing our borders and homeland security.
5. Foreign Affairs: End US involvement with the United Nations and bring all the troops home from abroad including Europe, Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
6. Social Security and Medicare: Transform them from a government controlled and operated system to an individual controlled and investment system where benefits are based upon payments into a person’s account and investment performance. All person over the age of fifty would have the option to remain under the existing Social Security and Medicare programs or go into the new individual controlled system.
7. Immigration: immigration law enforcement, illegal alien removal and deportation, and controlled and limited legal immigration not to exceed 250,000 persons per year. All new citizens must speak, read and write English before becoming a United States citizen.
8. Promote competition in education: provide all parents with school vouchers that enable them to choose the school their children attend including home schooling and online schooling.
9. Health Care Reform: affordable, portable, individual, tax favored, and competitive health insurance plans and expanded health savings accounts.
10. End the Federal Reserve System and fiat money and institute a new gold/silver backed currency standard.
11. End all Federal subsidies to businesses no matter what form the subsidies take.
12. Eliminate Federal Government regulations that put U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
13. Energy Independence: repeal all laws and regulations that are impeding the growth and expansion of US energy production including oil and gas exploration and refining and nuclear electrical power generation plant construction and operation.
14. Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America: appoint judges and public servants that will uphold their oaths.
The above Fourteen Issue Positions should receive the support of the vast majority of the American people including Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and others.
However, both the Democratic and Republican Parties would not support these Fourteen Issue Positions in their entirety.
The Tea Party movement must transform itself into a viable political party that is fundamentally different from both the Democratic and Republican parties that are responsible for the economic, political and military mess the United States currently finds itself.
We the people must form a new political party.
We the people must fund a new political party.
We the people must run a new political party.
This new political party must be an alliance of former Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and independents who put individuals and families first and favor accountable, fiscally responsible and limited government.
I call this new political party the American Citizens Alliance Party or A Cap for short–A CAP on Government Spending, Taxes, Debts and Regulations!
Join the Second American Revolution.
Tea Party Time!
AMERICA IS ME – Anthem for “We the People” by Mack Hayes – Tea Party salute
The Meaning of Independence Day – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.”
~Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73
“There are many men of principle in both parties in America but there is no party of principle.”
~Alexis de Tocqueville
Background Articles and Videos
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 1 of 5
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 2 of 5
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 3 of 5
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 4 of 5
Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S. Pt. 5 of 5
Tea Party 48% Obama 44%
“…On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.
Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President. …”
“…Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That’s the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.
Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.
“Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.”
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
~Edmund Burke
Fall of the Republic HQ full length version
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 1
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 2
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 3
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 4
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 5
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 6
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 7
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 8
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 9
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 10
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 11
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 12
Fall of the Republic-The Presidency Of Barack H Obama-Part 13
“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern”
“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that.”
“Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought. “
~Lord Acton
Background Articles and Videos
Alex Jones
“…Alex Jones (born Alexander Emerich Jones, February 11, 1974) is a right-wing,[1][2][3] conservative[4][5][6][7] American talk radio host and filmmaker. Jones, however, views himself as a libertarian, not a right-winger,[8] and calls himself a paleoconservative.[9] In a promotional biography he is described as an “aggressive constitutionalist.”[10][11] His syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show, based out of Austin, Texas, airs via the Genesis Communication Network over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States and on the Internet.[12] His websites include Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.[13]
Mainstream news sources have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist.[14][15][16][17][18] Journalist Michelle Goldberg has stated in The New Republic that Jones represents “an old strain of American conservatism–isolationist, anti-Wall Street, paranoid about elite conspiracies–that last flowered during the John Birch Society’s heyday.”[19]
“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company. “
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
~ George Washington
Glenn Beck – Obama’s New Republic: SOLUTIONS 8/28/09 Part 1/5
Glenn Beck – Obama’s New Republic: SOLUTIONS 8/28/09 Part 2/5
Glenn Beck – Obama’s New Republic: SOLUTIONS 8/28/09 Part 3/5
Glenn Beck – Obama’s New Republic: SOLUTIONS 8/28/09 Part 4/5
Glenn Beck – Obama’s New Republic: SOLUTIONS 8/28/09 Part 5/5
Congratulations Glenn Beck for standing up for the American people.
Since the White House strongly objects to the title of Czar just call them Commissar.
The UN and the Federal Government WANT your guns
Glenn Beck Wayne LaPierre HR 2159 NRA Gun Control 2nd Amendment
Stephen Halbrook with CNN’s Lou Dobbs on Gun Control
Obama Pushes Anti Gun Treaty
Innocents betrayed
“…Mao Tse-Dung was arguably the most brutal dictator of the 20th century, and by extension all of history. My experimental documentary makes that argument. References come at the end. …”
THE GREAT LEAP BACKWARD
China Great Leap Forward Mao Zedong
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
~George Washington
The Beatles – Revolution (STEREO)
Background Articles and Videos
The Great Leap Forward
“…The Great Leap Forward (sometimes pejoratively called the Great Leap Backward)(simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; pinyin: Dàyuèjìn) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1961 which aimed to use China’s vast population to rapidly transform China from a primarily agrarian economy by peasant farmers into a modern communist society through the process of agriculturalization and industrialization. Mao Zedong based this program on the Theory of Productive Forces. It ended in catastrophe as it triggered a widespread famine that resulted in millions of deaths.[1]
“…Ironic considering its name, the Great Leap Forward is now widely seen, both within China and outside, as a major economic disaster, effectively being a “Great Leap Backward” that would affect China in the years to come. As inflated statistics reached planning authorities, orders were given to divert human resources into industry rather than agriculture. The official toll of excess deaths recorded in China for the years of the GLF is 14 million, but scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million [8].
The three years between 1959 and 1962 were known as the “Three Bitter Years” and the Three Years of Natural Disasters. Many local officials were tried and publicly executed for giving out misinformation[9].
Starting in the early 1980s, critics of the Great Leap added quantitative muscle to their arsenal. U.S. Government employee Judith Banister published what became an influential article in the China Quarterly, and since then estimates as high as 30 million deaths in the Great Leap became common in the U.S. press. However, Wim F Wertheim, emeritus professor from the University of Amsterdam, disagrees with the numbers presented on the basis that they lack scientific support.[10]. Critics of this position point to the numerous studies by individuals such as Aird in 1982, Ashton et al. in 1984, and Peng in 1987 that specifically sought to quantify the Great Leap’s demographic impact. A lingering problem that all scholars point to is the assumptions regarding birth rate used in the most widely cited projections of famine deaths. These assumptions make it difficult to precisely gauge the death toll with a high degree of accuracy. …”
“…After the death of Mao and the start of Chinese economic reform under Deng Xiaoping, the tendency within the Chinese government was to see the Great Leap Forward as a major economic disaster and to attribute it to the cult of personality under Mao Zedong, and to regard it as one of the serious errors he made after the founding of the PRC. ..”
“…Democide is a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.” Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the legal definition of genocide, and it has found currency among other scholars.[1][2][3]
According to Rummel, genocide has three different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes nonlethal acts that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. In order to avoid confusion over which meaning is intended, Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.[4]
Rummel defines democide as “The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. For example, government-sponsored killings for political reasons would be considered democide. Democide can also include deaths arising from “intentionally or knowingly reckless and depraved disregard for life”; this brings into account many deaths arising through various neglects and abuses, such as forced mass starvation. Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition. Capital punishment, actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or riot, and the deaths of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military, are not considered democide.[5]
He has further stated: “I use the civil definition of murder, where someone can be guilty of murder if they are responsible in a reckless and wanton way for the loss of life, as in incarcerating people in camps where they may soon die of malnutrition, unattended disease, and forced labor, or deporting them into wastelands where they may die rapidly from exposure and disease.”
Some examples of democide cited by Rummel include the Great Purges carried out by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union (despite those people were executed), the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State, and Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward resulting in a famine which killed millions of people. According to Rummel, these were not cases of genocide, because those who were killed were not selected on the basis of their race, but were killed in large numbers as a result of government policies. Famine is classified by Rummel as democide if it fits the definition above.
For instance, Rummel only recently classified Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward as democide. He believed that Mao’s policies were largely responsible for the famine, but he was misled about it, and finally when he found out, he stopped it and changed his policies. Thus, according to Rummel, is not an intentional famine and thus not a democide. However, contradictory claims from Jung Chang and John Halliday’s controversial Mao: the Unknown Story allege that Mao knew about the famine from the beginning but didn’t care, and eventually Mao had to be stopped by a meeting of 7,000 top Communist Party members. Based on the book’s claims, Rummel now views the famine as intentional and a democide.
…”
Bloodiest dictators for the millennium.Rummel, [2]. Dictator Dates Est. Deaths
Qing Dynasty,
mainly Empress Dowager Cixi 1859-64,
Tai Ping Rebellion 12,000,000
Genghis Khan 1215–1233 4,000,000
Adolf Hitler 1933–1945 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek 1921–1948 10,000,000
Kublai Khan 1252–1279 19,000,000
Vladimir Lenin 1917–1924 4,000,000
Leopold II of Belgium 1885–1908 10,000,000
Pol Pot 1968–1987 2,000,000
Joseph Stalin 1929–1953 43,000,000
Hideki Tojo 1941–1945 4,000,000
Mao Zedong 1923–1976 38,000,000
In May 2005, Rummel guessed the number for Darfur Conflict to be over 400,000.[citation needed]
In November 2005, he estimated the alleged democide in Mao’s China (1949–1975) at 73,000,000.[9]
In December 2005, he raised his estimate for colonial democide to 50,000,000 and estimated the democide in the Congo Free State to 10,000,000.
Beck has also received support from Sarah Palin, said Matea Gold in the Los Angeles Times. The former Alaska governor urged her 800,000-plus Facebook followers to watch his program to hear his insights on “who is actually running the White House.” And, with his ratings rising, Beck said on the air, “Even if the powers to be right now succeed in making me poor, drum me out—I will only be stronger for it.” …”
By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
“…Palin this week says on her Facebook page:
FOX News’ Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House. Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch.”
Beck has gained attention in recent months as liberal groups try to convince advertisers not to pay to support his show.
They’ve had plenty of success, notably because of Beck’s “racist” comment and his stance that Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”
As of Thursday, more than 16,000 people had used their Facebook accounts to say they liked what Palin had said about Beck.
And her comment on Beck had attracted more than 4,000 comments, most of them positive. …”
“Democrats can keep claiming all they want that illegal immigrants will not be covered in this bill. But their actions speak louder than their words. Democrats have rejected opportunities to close the gaping loopholes in this health care bill that will allow illegal immigrants to participate.
“If President Obama is committed to ensuring that illegal immigrants do not benefit from the bill – as he says he is – why not include the same verification mechanisms in this bill as already exist for other federal benefits programs?
“What’s more, the bill contains no provisions preventing illegal immigrants from participating in the Health Insurance Exchange that is to be created, including the government-run “public plan” that will be available through the federally-run and federally-subsidized Exchange. This is in direct conflict with the President’s claim that illegal immigrants will not be insured under his plan.
“The American people are more intelligent than the President gives them credit for. They understand that simply saying illegal immigrants can’t participate without providing verification is like putting a speed-limit sign on a road, then setting a policy that prohibits police from patrolling the road; it won’t stop speeders, and this bill won’t stop illegal immigrants from benefitting.”
BACKGROUND: IMMIGRATION LOOPHOLES IN HR 3200
Open access to Insurance Exchange: HR 3200 contains no provisions preventing illegal immigrants from participating in the Health Insurance Exchange that is to be created, including the government-run “public plan” that will be available through the federally-run and federally-subsidized Exchange.
According to CRS: “Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”
No verification mechanism: Democrats point to language in the House bill that says illegal immigrants cannot get benefits. While that may be technically accurate, it is far from the truth.
The fact is that the statement is meaningless because the bill contains no verification mechanism to ensure that illegal immigrants do not receive benefits. Democrats defeated amendments in two congressional committees to close this loophole, including amendments that would use the very same verification mechanism that already exist in statute for other federal programs. Why not include the same verification mechanisms in this bill as already exist for other federal benefits programs? Without the requirement that there be a verification mechanism or a specific verification mechanism provided in statute, the Commissioner could determine that the eligibility requirements could be met either without verification or with as little as a signed attestation.
According to CRS: “Some have expressed concerns that since H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status, the prohibitions on certain noncitizens (e.g, nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens) receiving the credits may not be enforced. However, others note that under §142(a)(3) of the bill, it is the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner) to administer the “individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.”
Family eligibility for affordability credits: Section 242(a)(2) of the bill provides that “[e]xcept as the Commissioner may otherwise provide, members of the same family who are affordable credit eligible individuals shall be treated as a single affordable credit individual eligible for the applicable credit for such a family under this subtitle.” This suggests that if one member of a family is legally eligible, every family member will be considered eligible. This is significant in terms of numbers — the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that there are almost two million families in the United States where illegal immigrant parents have U.S.-born children. That does not include other “mixed status families” – one legal parent, one illegal parent and illegal child, etc.
According to CRS: “There could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not. For example, in a family consisting of a U.S. citizen married to an unauthorized alien and a U.S. citizen child, the U.S. citizen spouse and child could meet the criteria for being a credit-eligible individual, while the unauthorized alien spouse would not meet the criteria. H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.” …”
“… Commissar is the English transliteration of an official title (Russian: комисса́р) used in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution.
The title was mostly associated with a number of Cheka and military functions in many Bolshevik and Soviet government military forces during the Russian Civil War; the White Army widely used the collective term bolsheviks and commissars for their opponents. After that, it was mostly used for People’s Commissar (or narkom) for government ministers, and political commissar in the military.
It is based on similar titles in a variety of languages (such as commissaire in French, Kommissar in German) most often attached to a criminal investigator in the police; they are usually translated as commissioner.
The term was also used in some other Communist countries…”
Thanks to KABC, there’s audio of Watson heaping praise on Castro, Guevara, and the Cuban health system at her town hall meeting last night — as well as injecting her usual racial poison into the health care debate. (For a reminder of what Cuban health care is really like, click here.)
wrote up a transcript of her remarks. Bring an airsickness bag before reading: …”
“…Diane Edith Watson (born November 12, 1933), American politician, has been a member of the United States House of Representatives since 2001. She represents California’s 33rd congressional district (map). It is entirely in Los Angeles County and includes much of Central Los Angeles, including some wealthy neighborhoods such as Los Feliz. She ran unopposed in the 2006 mid-term election. …”
“…Congresswoman Watson supports withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq[2], opposes media consolidation [3], supports expanding welfare coverage [4] and opposed President Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security[5]. Watson opposed the Bush tax cuts, saying they were unaffordable.
Glenn Beck Interviews Craig T. Nelson About Government Responsibilty”
Glenn Beck Clips 05-29-09 Ghandi Said Way to Topple Government Is To Withhold Taxes
As a member of the classical liberal or libertarian wing of the conservative movement I have given up on both political parties in the distain their leaders and party elite have for the American people.
I am now an independent and as the above chart clearly illustrates our numbers are growing daily.
Both political parties have been fiscally irresponsible in running up massive Federal government deficits year after year which in turn has led to the explosive growth in the National Debt and interest that must be paid each year.
US Federal Government Deficits
Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis
There needs to be a freeze or cap on all government spending followed by real cuts in the Federal budget.
The United States is massively in debt and it going broke.
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: A $53 Trillion Federal Financial Hole
Our Country is Broke – How You Can Fix It
Obama’s taxes will create mass unemployment
President Obama and the Democratic Party are now proposing a massive tax increase in energy called the cap and trade carbon dioxide tax.
(4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER
Cap and Trade: It’s an Energy Tax
They are also seriously considering a national sales or value added tax.
Obama’s Value Added Tax VAT On American Goods
The American people are fighting mad about both the irresponsible Federal Government spending, deficits, debts, and more and more taxes.
Had enough?
Time for an American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP) to put a cap on all government bailouts, spending, deficits, debts, taxes and regulations.
You are invited to attend a Tea Party on July 4, 2009, Indepedence Day!
“…Barack Obama’s presidency has ushered in an era of centrism, with the country experiencing such a boost in independent voters that they now make up the largest proportion of the electorate in 70 years.
This fickle group doesn’t have uniform opinions, so its dominance carries potential risks for emboldened Democrats and opportunities for out-of-power Republicans. …”
Michele Bachmann calls to question Napolitano DHS regarding right wing extremist document
Republicans take to the floor to call to question the recent Homeland Security department memo referring to conservatives as “right-wing extremists” who pose a potential threat to the security of the nation. Rep. Bachmann urges her to answer questions before Congress and potentially tender her resignation.
Bachmann: Has DHS Sec. Gone “Stark Raving Mad”?
Lou Dobbs Reports On Latest DHS Extremism Lexicon
Department of Homeland Security Calls Military Veterans “terrorist!”
Looks like the creative writing team of Obama/Ayers are at it again with a new mini-dictionary of domestic extremism.
Who better to prepare an extremist dictionary than an Alinsky community organizer and an unrepentant terrorist.
Michael Savage – DHS Monitoring “Right-Wing Extremism”
Michael Savage Files Lawsuit Against Dept. of Homeland Security Demanding Names on List
Right-Wing Extremist DHS Document EXPOSED!
Homeland Security targets Americans, are you next?
“…Those of you who are not in any of those groups mentioned in this fascist report may be thinking it is good to watch them you need to remember what Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote in reference to the Nazis in Europe:
“When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
For warned is forearmed, and remember: history DOES repeat itself. …”
EMERGENCY; Warning to All U.S.A. Citizens – Obama and Ayers
Napolitano Defends DHS’s Right-Wing Extremist Threat Report & Release of Terror Interrogation Memos
Some of definitions in the domestic extremism dictionary appear to describe citizens exercising their rights of free speech and assembly at Tea Parties:
aboveground (U//FOUO) A term used to describe extremist groups or individuals who operate overtly and portray themselves as
law-abiding.
alternative media (U//FOUO) A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.
anti-immigration extremism
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals. They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.
decentralized terrorist movement
(U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who pursue shared ideological goals through tactics of leaderless resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization.
leaderless resistance
(U//FOUO) A strategy that stresses the importance of individuals and small cells acting independently and anonymously outside formalized organizational structures to enhance operational security and avoid detection. It is used by many types of domestic extremists.
patriot movement (U//FOUO)
A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens.
(also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists, Constitutionist)
rightwing extremism (U//FOUO)
A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and
reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
(also known as far right, extreme right)
(U) Reporting Notice:
(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal
activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at
202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and
critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the
NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI
regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available,
each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of
equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated
point of contact.
(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
If you blog about the Tea Parties, call talk radio shows or host a talk radio show, you are definitely a member of the above-ground alternative media.
You are certainly not part of big mass media aka government propaganda.
If you are an individual organizing and/or attending Tea Party events you may be considered part of a leaderless resistence or be a member of the decentralized terrorist movement.
Remember the professional politicians of both political parties in Washington D.C. are terrorified that 3 million plus American people show up on July 4, 2009 in Washington, D.C.!
If you are like 3 out of 4 Americans who oppose illegal immigration and amnesty and are critical of the Federal Government’s unwillingness to enforce immigration laws you are a anti-immigration extremist.
If you oppose issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education for illegal immigrants, you are definitely an anti-immigration extremist.
If you are dedicated to a single issue such as pro-life and oppose abortion, you are now a right-wing extremist.
If you are a strict constructionist regarding the US constitution you are part of the patriot movement.
If you home school your children and have them read Bill Bennett’s and John T.E. Cribb’s The American Patriot’s Almanic, you and your children are part of the patriot movement.
The American Patriot’s Almanac by William J. Bennett and John T.E. Cribb
“…Best-selling author and educator Dr. William J. Bennett is a master of the story that is the United States. And in The American Patriot’s Almanac, Bennett distills the American drama into three hundred sixty-five entries-one for each day of the year. Fascinating in its detail and singular in its grasp of the big themes, Bennett’s Almanac will make anyone a fan of history, assembling even some of the most obscure details. Even better, it will make of everyone a patriot. …”
If you describe your activities as part of the Second American Revolution you are also part of the patriot movement and are a right-wing extremist.
Remember any one to the right of President Obama’s radical socialist Democrat Party is considered to be right-wing.
If you disagree with President Obama, you are obviously a right-wing extremist.
The American people are all right-wing extremists now.
The Obama/Ayers writing team are using the tactics of radical socialist Saul Alinsky:
Exposure is the best deterent against the lunatic left and their creative writing projects.
The Tea Party Americans are really getting on the nerves of the radical socialist Democratic Party.
The Domestic Extremism Lexicon was rescinded once the patriot’s movement above ground alternative media made the American people aware of it.
Domestic Extremism Lexicon
Prepared by the Strategic Analysis Group and the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland
Environment Threat Analysis Division.
(U//FOUO) Homeland Security Reference Aids—prepared by the DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)—provide baseline information on a variety of homeland security issues. This product is one in a series of reference aids designed to provide operational and intelligence advice and assistance to other elements of DHS, as well as state, local, and regional fusions centers. DHS/I&A intends this background information to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security and law enforcement officials in conducting analytic activities. This product provides definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States. Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials and unclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops with DHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism in the United States.
“…The public is asked to believe Obama wrote Dreams From My Father on his own, almost as though he were some sort of literary idiot savant. I do not buy this canard for a minute, not at all. Writing is as much a craft as, say, golf. To put this in perspective, imagine if a friend played a few rounds in the high 90s and then a few years later, without further practice, made the PGA Tour. It doesn’t happen. …”
“A steady attack on the white race… served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair.”
As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as “ballast” unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. Seaman Ayers most surely did. …”
“…A few weeks ago, the Obama administration made it clear to the world, that they do not consider people like Bin Laden, or organizations like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or Hamas, to be “terrorists” and went so far as to rename the international “war on terror,” the “overseas contingency operation,” so as not to further offend any of these folks.
Then, his Department of Homeland Security issued a new “terror report” redefining “terrorists” to include legal American citizens openly opposed to illegal immigration, abortion, socialism, and people who trample on their First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendment Rights, aka, “rightwing extremists.” The Founders were “Domestic Terrorists” According to Obama’s DHS
Now, Obama Seeks Equal Partnerships in Hemisphere, namely, with Castro’s Communist Cuba and Communist thug Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, both of whom despise everything America is or ever was… and always will. …”
“…The enemy can operate right out in the open if their agenda is so extreme that it is hard for the average citizen to believe. And that is exactly where America is today.
Despite literally hundreds of anti-American signals from the new administration, most Americans remain full of “hope” for “change,” without ever grasping the very real forms of “change” taking place right before their eyes.
Obama’s peeps are not average Americans. They are run of the mill anti-Americans, of both the foreign and domestic sorts. They are his birds of a feather, and together, they are indeed “making history.”
When the average Americans catches up, and realizes that the anti-American changes underway in America are of the sort that foreign enemies of our state welcome them with open arms, they will have second thoughts about the changes they had once hoped for… …”
“…Saul Alinsky, who died in 1972, at the age of 63, was a Chicago Marxist. Among his many books was one titled “Rules for Radicals,” in which he explained to his acolytes, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results.” It took Alinsky 11 words to paraphrase Karl Marx’s far more succinct “The ends justify the means.”
Alinsky, by the way, dedicated that particular book to Lucifer, whom he coyly referred to as “the first radical.”
The reason I’m bringing up Alinsky 26 years after he wound up in a place where he could personally autograph his book for Beelzebub is because his disciples are still very much with us. For instance, he just happened to be the subject of Hillary Rodham’s senior honors thesis at Wellesley College. It was such a glowing homage that, in 1968, a most appreciative Alinsky offered her a job in Chicago, but Ms. Rodham, as we all know, had bigger fish to fry. However, when she became America’s First Lady, the White House asked Wellesley to restrict access to the paper, and Wellesley wisely obliged, just as Princeton did when the Obamas requested that Michelle’s racist screed be removed from circulation.
Many people, once they grow up, would be embarrassed if people knew what they were drinking or smoking during their college days, but leftists don’t even want us to know what they were thinking.
But it wasn’t just young Ms. Rodham who had a connection to the late, unlamented Saul Alinsky. Thirteen years after the Chicago radical died, a group of his most devoted disciples hired 24-year-old Barack Obama to be a community organizer in South Chicago. …”
“…Alinsky’s personality fits the definition of a psychopath — someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, “Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents.”
Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.
A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.
Alinsky’s disciples — including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress. …”
“…Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909, Chicago, Illinois – June 12, 1972, Carmel, California) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing in America, the political practice of organizing communities to act in common self-interest.[1] Alinsky is sometimes said to have coined the term “Think globally, act locally.”[2]
“…The documentary The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy,[5] states that “Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America.” Many important community and labor organizers came from the “Alinsky School,” including Ed Chambers and Tom Gaudette. Alinsky formed the Industrial Areas Foundation in 1940. Chambers became its Executive Director after Alinsky died. Since its formation, hundreds of professional community and labor organizers and thousands of community and labor leaders have attended its workshops. Fred Ross, who worked for Alinsky, was the principal mentor for Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta.[6][7] In Hillary Clinton’s senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, Clinton noted that Alinsky’s personal efforts were a large part of his method.[8] She later noted that although she agreed with his notion of self-empowernment she disagreed with his assessment that the system could only change from the outside.[8] In her memoir, Living History, Hillary Clinton wrote that Alinsky offered her a job after she graduated from Wellesley College, but she chose instead to attend Yale Law School.Alinsky’s teachings influenced Barack Obama in his early career as a community organizer on the far South Side of Chicago.[7][8] Working for Gerald Kellman’s Developing Communities Project, Obama learned and taught Alinsky’s methods for community organizing.[7][9] Several prominent national leaders have been influenced by Alinsky’s teachings,[7] including Ed Chambers,[5] Tom Gaudette, Michael Gecan, Wade Rathke,[10][11], and Patrick Crowley.[12]
Alinsky is often credited with laying the foundation for the grassroots political organizing that dominated the 1960s.[5] Later in his life he encouraged stockholders in public corporations to lend their votes to “proxies”, who would vote at annual stockholders meetings in favor of social justice. While his grassroots style took hold in American activism, his call to stockholders to share their power with disenfranchised working poor only began to take hold in U.S. progressive (social liberalism) circles in the 1990s, when shareholder actions were organized against American corporations.
When describing power, Alinsky could be irreverent:
“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
Again, his views on power:
Alinsky advises his followers that the poor have no power and that the real target is the middle class: “Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. … Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the middle class majority.” …”
The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About
“…But had McCain really gone after Ayers AND Wright AND Alinsky-Lucifer, all at once, he would have had a strong argument that Obama was, and is, well out of the mainstream. And then all the information about Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, and the scandal-ridden Daley machine, would be all the more compelling to reporters and voters, because, as they would have to admit, a “pattern has emerged.”
And, for that matter, let’s talk about the great state of Illinois, where three governors in the last 40 years—Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, and George Ryan—ended up not only convicted, but imprisoned. And a fourth, incumbent Rod Blagojevich, may also end up in the clink. That’s quite a streak of corruption. And what does Obama have to say about any of that? And what did he know, and when did he know it?
If the McCain campaign had been on its game, its opposition researchers would have gone through every single day of Obama’s life since he first set foot in Chicago in 1987. Everyone he met, everything he did. And then, having amassed all that information, the McCainiacs would have made the rest of us know about it—in a sustained, organized, and unrelenting volley.
That’s how you win a presidential campaign, even amidst hard times for your party.”
“…The organizer must “rub raw the resentments of the people of the community, fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. . . . stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”
Alinsky trained his community organizers to adopt a “middle-class identity” and familiarity with their “values and problems.” After achieving “the priceless value of his middle-class experience,” he will “begin to dissect and examine that way of life as he never has before.”
Alinsky’s trainees are instructed to return to the suburban scene of the middle class with its variety of organizations, from PTAs to League of Women Voters, consumer groups, churches and clubs. Alinsky boasted: “With rare exceptions, our activists and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle-class society. . . . Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class.”
Put “Rules for Radicals” on your must-read list if you want to understand much of contemporary politics. …”
“First, the Department of Homeland Security came under fire for a memo that warned of “right-wing extremists” that that pose a danger to the First, First the Department of Homeland Security came under fire for a memo that warned of “right-wing extremists” that that pose a danger to the United States. Now, The Daily Beast publishes a new DHS memo that throws dozens more groups—Mexican separatists, black nationalists, Nordic mystics—under the bus.”
“…While the DHS offered no reason as to why the memo was recalled, the date of the decision coincides with a flap that broke out only days earlier, on March 23. Fox News found that a DHS fusion center, a satellite office used by the department to gather local intelligence on possible terrorist threats, was citing support for third-party candidates like Ron Paul or Bob Barr as a possible criteria for identifying “militia members.” It was the latest skirmish in an ongoing dispute over fusion centers, another of which had warned that Muslim advocacy groups deserved monitoring in order to block a possible conspiracy to implement Sharia law in America.
“This is just one of a series of these reports that have been leaking recently,” Mike German, policy counsel at the ACLU’s Washington DC legislative office, told The Daily Beast. “I guess I can understand the interest in making sure there is some common understanding of the terms they’re using. The problem with it obviously is the terms and descriptions are so overly broad that many people who are simply advocating for issues they believe in, or don’t even advocate but just hold opinions that are described here, would be greatly offended at being called an extremist and having their views being monitored by the government.” …”
“…On Feb. 20, 2009, Missouri’s Department of Public Safety issued a report to all law enforcement in the state entitled “Missouri Information Analysis Center Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement.”
The report linked people holding conservative views on immigration, abortion, the U.N., the New World Order, etc., to dangerous and violent “militias” that Missouri law enforcement were instructed to be on guard against. Conservative opinions were demonized and made the subject of law enforcement scrutiny.
The report was leaked. National and state public reaction was strong and negative, and Missouri retracted the report and apologized.
This victory was short lived. The substance of the report is back, this time distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials …” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Securityas an “assessment” dated April 7, 2009, entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” …”
“…This report smacks of profiling and harassing American citizens based on their political views, and specifically based on their opposition to the Obama administration’s proposals.
This used to be called “democracy” and “free speech” protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But under Obama, “Homeland Security” has become an instrument of oppression of opposing points of view.”
House Speaker John Boehner fanned the flames of a civil war inside the GOP by slamming conservative groups that opposed the budget deal — but it could all be for nought if his Senate colleagues decide to kill it
Pronk Palisades 
Trust, But Verify: Paul Ryan Is No Conservative, But A Neoconservative Neither New Nor Conservative! — Ryan Is A Leader of Political Elitist Establishment–All Big Government Republicans that Support Work Status and Amnesty for Illegal Aliens — Conservatives and Libertarians Are Not Interested In Ryan As House Speaker! — Do Not Be Neoconned — Videos
Posted on October 10, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Catholic Church, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Video, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 9 October 2015, America, articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, conservatives, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Daniel Webster, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, House Speaker, Individualism, Jason Chaffetz, Knowledge, liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, monetary policy, MPEG3, Neoconservatives, News, Opinions, Paul Ryan, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Republicans, Resources, Respect, rule of law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 550, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 544: September 30, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 543: September 29, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 542: September 28, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 541: September 25, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 540: September 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 539: September 23, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015
Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015
Story 1: Trust, But Verify: Paul Ryan Is No Conservative, But A Neoconservative Neither New Nor Conservative! — Ryan Is A Leader of Political Elitist Establishment–All Big Government Republicans that Support Work Status and Amnesty for Illegal Aliens — Conservatives and Libertarians Are Not Interested In Ryan As House Speaker! — Do Not Be Neoconned — Videos
Neocon Manifesto: Paul Ryan
“I worship the ground Paul Ryan walks on,” says Dick Cheney
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
No Saving Private Ryan! Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and the Betrayal of Ayn Rand
Paul Ryan…
Voted YES corporate welfare for big agriculture
Voted YES pm TARP
Voted YES for a bloated defense bill
Voted NO to repeal NDAA indefinite detention
Voted YES to prohibit reductions in nuclear weapons as required by START Treaty
Voted NO to limit military spending on the Afghanistan War
Voted YES to override military sequestration (spending cuts) negotiated in last year’s ‘let raise the debt limit bill’.
Voted YES on CISPA, the bill that attacks Internet liberty and the 1st amendment.
Voted YES on corporate welfare for the Keystone Pipeline which also authorized the use of Eminent Domain to seize private property for a private use.
Voted NO to extend payroll tax cuts which is effectively a tax increase on the poor and middle class.
Voted YES to increase the debt ceiling
Voted YES on war in Libya
Voted NO to limit funding of NATO for use in Libya
Voted NO on removing armed forces from Libya
Vote YES to extend the Patriot Act
Paul Ryan’s Budget:
Ryan’s “roadmap to prosperity” lays out $6.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years—not, sadly, cuts from what government spends today, but from what President Obama wanted to spend. Spending would actually increase by about a trillion dollars over the decade.
Ryan’s “radical” budget would only reduce government spending to 20% of GDP by 2015. Obama wants to cut it to 23%. It is currently at 25%. when Bill Clinton left office, it was 18 percent.
“The president’s plan will add about $11 trillion to the debt over 10 years,” Paul told me. “Congressman Ryan … is trying to do the right thing, but his plan will add $8 trillion to the debt over 10 years. We need to do something much more dramatic, or I think we’re in for a world of hurt.”
The inconvenient truth for conservatives is you cannot balance the budget if you eliminate (only) nonmilitary spending.
It would also reduce the federal workforce by 15 percent. Ryan’s figure is 10 percent. That’s a start. But they would do it by “attrition.” That’s cowardly. It’s not management. They should fire the worst 10 or 15 percent. That’s what private-sector managers do.
it grows revenues miraculously from $2.4 trillion to $4.6 trillion in 10 years by cutting taxes
– It led to 10 more years of deficit spending
– It added between $5-11 TRILLION dollars to the national debt
– It spent a total of $40 TRILLION over the next 10 years
– His plan REQUIRED the debt ceiling to be raised
– It was an obviously unbalanced budget (in fact it doesn’t fully balance until the year 2040)
– It increased spending over the next few years (it merely slows the rate of spending, not actually cutting spending anytime soon)
– It was was bigger than what we had under Bill Clinton
“I worship the ground Paul Ryan walks on,” says Dick Cheney
Sources Paul Ryan mulls House Speaker bid
Will Paul Ryan run for House speaker?
Paul Ryan, Not Interested in Speaker Position
What 6 House Conservatives Want From Their New Speaker
Candidates for House Speaker Try to Rally Conservative Support
Jason Chaffetz Announces House Speaker Bid
Jason Chaffetz Discusses Planned Parenthood
Rep. Jason Chaffetz Grills Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards | The Blaze
Kevin McCarthy | Rep. Kevin McCarthy Drops Out of House Speaker Race
House conservative group backs Webster, complicates Speaker race
Newsmax Prime | Rep. Daniel Webster on why he wants to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House
Rep. Dan Webster on running for Speaker of the House
Daniel Webster Commercial: Fixing Washington Together
Congressman Dan Webster says he would break Norquist pledge
Paul Ryan Pushes Back Against TPNN’s Scottie Hughes, Defends His Record as Conservative
Tom Woods: Is Paul Ryan a real fiscal conservative?
Laura Ingraham: Elizabeth Warren sounds more conservative than Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan Is Not a Libertarian!
Paul Ryan is more the architect and messenger of Irving Kristol’s “conservative welfare state” than a libertarian. Check out my blogpost series on the subject of Paul Ryan as neo-con not conservative:
Reality Check: Is Rep. Paul Ryan Actually A Big Spender? His “Principle” Problem
Paul Ryan on Immigration, Sequester, and the Budget
Paul Ryan Defends Immigration Bill: “We’re Going To Have Labor Shortages”
Ted Cruz on John Boehner: “I’m Going to Tell You Why He Resigned”
Real Conservatives
As Rated By Conservative Review scorecard
and NumberUSA immigration reduction grades.
Senator Ted Cruz
A 96% A
Sen. Ted Cruz’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: B
Senator Rand Paul
A 93% A
Sen. Rand Paul’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: B
Rep. Louie Gohmert
A 96% A
Rep. Louie Gohmert’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: A
Representative Mark Meadows
A 96% A
Rep. Mark Meadows’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: B
Representative Trey Gowdy
B 85% B
Rep. Trey Gowdy’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: A
Representative Jason Chaffetz
B 82% B
Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: B
Political Elitist Establishment
Phony Conservatives: Liberal/Progressives Big Government Republicans
D and F Rated By Conservative Review
Senator John Cornyn
F 57% F
Sen. John Cornyn’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: F
Senator Mitch McConnell
F 50% F
Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: F-
Representative Daniel Webster
D 64% D
Rep. Daniel Webster’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: A
Representative Paul Ryan
F 58% F
Rep. Paul Ryan’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: D-
Representative Darrell Issa
F 55% F
Rep. Darrell Issa’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: B
Representative Kevin McCarthy
F 45% F
Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: D-
Representative John Boehner
F 37% F
Rep. John Boehner’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: F–
Representative Peter King
F 35% F
Rep. Peter King’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: F
Liberal/Progressives Big Government Democrats
Senator Harry Reid
F 2% F
Sen. Harry Reid’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: C-
Representative Nancy Pelosi
F 9% F
Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card: C-
Why? Trust, but verify.®
At some point or another, every voter has felt like they have been duped – sold a fake bill of goods. Politicians and candidates run the ads they do because they work. To cut through rhetoric and the smoke and mirrors, register for a Conservative Review® account, where you can TRACK your legislators and hold them ACCOUNTABLE using the Liberty Score® and our in-depth member profiles. Receive our hard-hitting analysis of the important policy issues.
Knowledge is power, and we seek to empower American conservatives with the information they need to make informed decisions and hold their elected representatives accountable.
If you want to know where your member of Congress is on the conservative spectrum, register today!
What is the Liberty Score®?
Conservative Review’s Liberty Score® grades members of Congress using long-term voting records. A letter grade is assigned to each member to help you quickly determine if a lawmaker is supporting conservative principles. The Liberty Score® helps evaluate your representatives and senators, providing the tools necessary to separate rhetoric from reality.
– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/user/marketing-page-2?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=google%20branding&gclid=CJnfjLyVtsgCFQMJaQodoiwP-g#sthash.BdIzBBxt.dpuf
Why I Support Jason Chaffetz for Speaker of the House
Arthur Schaper
Yes, I know. Congressman Paul Ryan just penned support for California Congressman and current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House.
So what?!
Perhaps there’s a record there. He helped ban earmarks. So did US Senator John McCain, and conservatives want McAmnesty out of office. How about reforming entitlements? How about ending the War on Drugs? How about confrontation with a capital C?
I am a California conservative, and I want someone who is not connected to the Old Boys Club, the business of working the backrooms to get deals. John Boehner, tanned and now panned, stepped down because the Freedom Caucus, and more importantly their nationwide supporters, pushed him to step down, because he would not fight for and demand real reforms in the House, from the US Senate, and the President. The call for new leadership is more than about differing factions. This is more than Tea Party v. Establishment, or centrist v. conservative. Meadows forced a showdown again a Speaker who was simply not doing his job.
Period.
I spoke with representatives from McCarthy’s office during the CRomnibus back-and-forth in late 2014. I kept hearing about how the leadership did not want to shut the government down. “It would be emotionally satisfying, but would make us look bad.” Really? They wanted to avoid the fights and missteps which had “occurred” during the 2013 shutdown. By the way, in case anyone missed it, the Tea Party movement actually forced spending cuts, and they went through, no questions asked, because they refused to cave. Republicans wiped out Democrats across the country. We have fiscal conservatives in deep blue Maryland and Massachusetts, too. Now Washington needs the bluster that puts up rather than sits down.
Now more than ever, Republicans in Congress, and all liberty minded, libertarians, conservatives in general, must accept one sordid fact: Obama and his Democratic cohorts are not interested in governing by consent, consensus, or principled compromise. He lied during the 2010 meeting with members, when he declared: “I am not an ideologue”. Congressman Mick Mulvaney blasted the Fiscal Cliff fiasco in 2012: “They want to buy a home for one dollar. That is not compromise!” Obama is interested in conflict, confrontation, and conquest. He has incited a war of polar opposites, not a debate of reasoned opponents trying to forge the best outcomes for both sides. Such is the outcome when the Chief Executive refuses to recognize our Constitution or the Chief Lawgiver, Congress.
We don’t have Bubba in the White House, people (who would have to be a Republican today, since his party has left him). We have a rogue Occupier who does not respect the rule of law, his oath of office or the United States Constitution.
So, the back-slaps, the cigar parties, and the Wednesday night dinners with opposing sides are a thing of the past. Just as US Senate candidate Rand Paul refused to shake his 2010 Dem rival’s hand during their last debate, so too friendship among differing parties is a thing of the past.
We don’t know picture parties and cocktail dinners. We need reform, we need change that we can see as well as believe in. And I do not trust McCarthy to bring either.
Apparently, even the Los Angeles Times is having second thoughts about a McCarthy Speakership.
So. . .why Chaffetz, then? Is this not the long ago Democrat-turned-Republican who has a fan in Michael Dukakis? Yes, and that’s a point worth celebrating: a liberal, mugged by reality, who embraced conservative values over time and became a staunch Republican. I like that.
Didn’t Oversight Committee Chairman Chaffetz try to remove Rep. Mark Meadows from his sub-committee chairmanship earlier this year? Yes, he did. Guess what? He backed off. I want leadership that will do what conservatives want. Don’t you? I don’t want a fully independent Speaker. I want a sock puppet who will do and say what conservatives, constitutionalists, and citizens in general want.
Is this not the guy who sought out my loathsome former Congressman Henry Waxman to emulate his confrontation style as House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman? Yes, and I even blasted his seeming selling out to “the Establishment”. Since then, I have looked over his current tenure as chairman. Come to think of it, I want a right-wing version of Henry Waxman, someone who will embrace rather than avoid confrontation. Maybe he will threaten to throw meandering Marylander Rep. Elijah Cummings off the committee if he refuses to stop frustrating investigations into government abuse.
Once again, readers, Chaffetz backed off his attempted overthrow of Rep. Meadows, who lived to serve on the committee, and then file the discharge petition ousting retiring Speaker Boehner. Inadvertently, we can thank Chaffetz for the little dust-up earlier this year.
I want Jason Chaffetz, the conservative who is the most electable. Not because he is perfect, not because he will be some savior to right the course of wrong-doing in Washington all by himself. He can communicate (McCarthy has already stumbled). He can count (McCarthy does not have 218 votes for the floor vote later in October or November), and as conservatives recognize their power to force change and influence outcomes in the House, I believe that Chaffetz will be easier to pressure to our cause, the country’s and the Constitution’s. Also, his win will further disrupt the Old Boys Club of Boehner-McCarthy, and further prove the individual voters’ muster. Now, I have learned another lesson about grassroots activism. It is not my job to make anyone, friend of acquaintance, support my choice for leadership. You make that decision for yourself.
So, I support for Chaffetz for Speaker. More importantly, I celebrate and continue to debate that conservatives can and must mobilize more effectively, not just propping up leaders whom we want, but getting more legislators, whether Republican or Democrat, to start accomplishing the right things: demanding constitutional rule which advances limited government, lower taxes, less spending, looser regulations, and most importantly individual liberty.
http://townhall.com/columnists/arthurschaper/2015/10/07/why-i-support-jason-chaffetz-for-speaker-of-the-house-n2062184/page/full
–
Conservatives cool to Ryan as Speaker
By Peter Schroeder
While top House Republicans are trying to push a reluctant Ryan into the job, on the grounds that he alone can unify the conference, conservative lawmakers gave a decidedly cool response Friday when asked if they want him to be their new leader.
ADVERTISEMENT
Several GOP lawmakers noted that Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the job, while appearing less than convinced that he is the only viable candidate.
“The name came out,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) after Friday’s private GOP meeting. “Last I knew, [Ryan] definitely didn’t want to do it.”
Huelskamp also criticized one of Ryan’s major legislative achievements in Congress, the two-year budget agreement he hammered out with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in 2013.
The Kansas Republican noted that he opposed the pact, “as did a lot of other people,” and pointed out lawmakers in both parties are now pushing to further ease the spending caps it established.
“A lot of folks want to break that up already,” Huelskamp said.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) declined to weigh in on Ryan as Speaker, noting only that his group had earlier backed Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) for the job.
And Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) dismissed the idea of a Ryan groundswell.
“I think that’s more media-driven. I think that’s you guys who keep talking about Paul Ryan,” he said. “Paul has made it clear he’s not interested.”
For his part, Ryan has repeatedly rebuffed calls for him to take over as the head House Republican. On Friday, a Ryan spokesman reiterated that the 2012 vice presidential candidate is “still not running for Speaker.”
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said the Freedom Caucus continues to back Webster. Still, he said Ryan would probably be a more palatable option compared to Boehner or House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who dropped out of the Speaker’s race on Thursday.
“I think that Paul Ryan would be a more acceptable candidate than the current leadership team, primarily because he’s not in the current leadership team. And I believe he’d provide a different approach,” Amash said.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) said that if hardliners reject Ryan, “they would lose all credibility.”
“Listen, these guys don’t know what they’re doing anyway. They would prove to the American people they have no idea what they’re talking about,” King said.
The level of support for Ryan among conservatives is critical, given that it was rightward pressure that originally pushed out Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and helped upend the campaign by McCarthy to replace him.
Despite being broadly popular among House Republicans, McCarthy stunned his colleagues Thursday by dropping out of the race, minutes before a vote he was expected to win.
He told members he was removing himself because he did not think he would be able to unite the divided Republican conference and win over enough conservatives.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/256511-conservatives-cool-to-ryan-as-speaker
Paul Ryan considering running for House speaker
By Dana Bash, Manu Raju, Deirdre Walsh, Tom LoBianco, Dan Berman and Eugene Scott
Rep. Paul Ryan is telling House Republicans privately he is considering running for speaker, several members say.
Ryan informed several members on the House floor of his deliberations, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, told CNN. Stewart added that he urged Ryan to run, with the Wisconsin Republican replaying that he was “thinking and praying on it.”
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who shocked Capitol Hillby deciding Thursday not to try and succeed retiring Speaker John Boehner, also said Ryan is weighing a run.
“Paul’s looking at it but it’s his decision,” McCarthy said on CNN. “If he decides to do it, he’ll be an amazing speaker but he’s got to decide on his own.”
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, said that Ryan told him privately he is thinking about it as well. “I think he’s gone from a ‘hard no’ to he knows he has to consider it,” he said.
Ryan, the Ways and Means Committee chairman and Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate in 2012 is respected throughout the conference and on paper could bridge the gap between tea party-linked conservatives and more establishment Republicans.
Romney even called Ryan and asked him to run, an aide to the former presidential candidate said.
“I wouldn’t presume to tell Paul what to do, but I do know that he is a man of ideas who is driven to see them applied for the public good,” Romney said in a statement. “Every politician tries to convince people that they are that kind of leader; almost none are — Paul is. Paul has a driving passion to get America back on a path of growth and opportunity. With Paul, it’s not just words, it’s in his heart and soul.”
There may be no way for Ryan to avoid the calls to run.
“He needs to do this for the team,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Michigan.
“There’s going to be a lot of pressure on Paul,” said Rep. David Jolly, R-Florida. “If Paul really means no, he better keep his phone off the next two weeks. Or throw it in Lake Michigan.”
Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck issued a statement following Friday morning’s GOP conference meeting, that did not rule out a run. “Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he’s getting from his colleagues but is still not running for speaker,” Buck said.
Leaving Capitol Hill Friday afternoon, Ryan declined to comment on his decision.
“Right now I’m going to make my flight so I can make it home for dinner,” he told reporters. “Sorry guys I’m just going to go. The Packers are at home. They’re going to beat the Rams and cover the spread.”
Boehner’s plea: work together
Boehner indicated to his fellow Republicans on Friday morning he will stay as long as possible in the speaker’s job, although he still wants to “be out of here by the end of the month,” Rep. Dennis Ross said, adding that Boehner urged members to “hang in there.”
The speaker pled with his fellow Republicans to work together to break the impasse.
“While we go through this process, we’ve got to continue to address the people’s priorities. This institution cannot grind to a halt,” Boehner said in the meeting, according to a source in the room.
Several high-profile issues face Congress and the White House later this year, including the need to address the debt limit in early November and the federal government budget by December 11.
Boehner urged GOP lawmakers not to put up barriers between each other. “Don’t start erecting walls between us as members. We all came here to help advance the conservative cause,” he said.
“It’s not helpful for one group of members to say they will only vote for this candidate on the floor,” he added. “And it’s not helpful for another group of members to say they will only vote for different candidate on the floor. It’s up to the people in this room to listen to each other, come together, and figure this out.”
He later said: “Time for us to take the walls down, open up our ears and listen to each other.”
And addressing rumors that he might step down as majority leader, McCarthy told his fellow Republicans he plans to remain in the job, a source in the room said.
The meeting was centered on the rules and process going forward, members said.
“We are doing what needs to be done, said Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Virginia. “And Kevin (McCarthy) spoke very eloquently this morning and said, ‘if this causes us to do what we need to do in terms of reforming the rules and the House rules. Then that’s a good thing.”
Inside the GOP’s House of cards
Can Ryan unite the caucus?
As the surprise of McCarthy’s decision not to seek the top job wore off Thursday afternoon, eyes turned to Ryan, the former vice presidential nominee and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Influential and well-respected throughout the GOP caucus, Ryan could be a peacemaker between the warring factions.
Deputy Majority Whip Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, also wants Ryan in the job.
“I think eventually Paul Ryan will get into this thing, I really do,” Cole said Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I think we’ve had two guys fall on their swords for the good of the conference. In this case it’s hard not to step up when there’s an overwhelming demand.”
And for good measure, he added an appeal to Ryan’s sense of duty.
“Paul’s got a strong sense of doing the right thing,” Cole said. “I’m just so confident he’ll make the right choice.”
Boehner and Ryan have a long relationship: Ryan volunteered for Boehner’s campaign when he was a student at Miami University in Ohio in the 1990s, before launching his own political career. But Boehner has not publicly called on Ryan to replace him.
On paper, Ryan is a strong candidate. But his backing among the current House leadership could be a drag on his candidacy, as the conservative backlash against Boehner’s team shows no sign of abating.
Conservatives do praise many of Ryan’s policy positions, yet are already warning Ryan would need to agree to a series of demands to change House rules and agree to their policy agenda.
Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate and critic of the Freedom Caucus, said more needs to change than just the man or woman in the chair.
“At the end of the day, it’s not who we put in that job,” Dent said on CNN. “If we don’t change the political dynamic, the next speaker will suffer the fate that John Boehner did.”
“We must assemble bipartisan coalitions to pass any meaningful legislation,” Dent added. “That’s the way this place has been operating. We have to accept that reality and move forward.”
Rep. Mimi Walters, a California Republican, called for compromise in selecting the next speaker. “I think we all need to give a little bit,” she said on CNN. “We’re never going to find the perfect person because nobody is perfect but what we have to remember is we have to put the American people first.”
Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez on MSNBC called Ryan one of the smartest men in the GOP.
“He would be good for the country,” Gutierrez said. “He would be good for the Republican Party. Paul Ryan is the kind of individual that would work with people on the other side of the aisle and that’s what we need.'”
Conservatives celebrate McCarthy shocker
Chaffetz won’t run if Ryan does
Friday morning, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican whose candidacy helped draw people away from McCarthy, said he would drop out of the race if Ryan runs, a sign conservatives are willing to rally behind the Wisconsin Republican.
“He’s certainly in my mind the most qualified person to do it and I hope he’ll do it,” Chaffetz said on MSNBC.
Other names that Cole said could be viable if Ryan stands firm and doesn’t run include Minnesota Rep. John Kline and Georgia Reps. Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Price. Westmoreland told CNN he was considering it. And Cole’s own name has been floated by his peers — something he said Thursday he wouldn’t rule out, though he said there were “better” options than himself.
And Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Florida, who won the Freedom Caucus’ endorsement, also remains a candidate. Webster Friday said he is still running but left open the possibility of abandoning his bid if he does not win support in conference.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/politics/house-speaker-race-paul-ryan/index.html
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy drops out of race for House speaker
By Mike DeBonis, Robert Costa and Rosalind S. Helderman
The infamously fractious House Republican Conference sank deeper into chaos Thursday after Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy abruptly withdrew his bid to replace John A. Boehner as speaker, a stunning move that left the party scrambling to find a new leader and deeply uncertain about how to effectively manage the House.
McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced his surprise decision at a meeting of House Republicans who gathered to select their candidate for speaker ahead of the official floor vote scheduled for Oct. 29. McCarthy was widely expected to win the support of his colleagues.
Instead he emerged to declare: “We need a fresh face.” McCarthy said at a news conference that he did not want to burden his members with a tough vote for speaker.
“I don’t want to go to the floor and win with 220 votes,” he said. “I think the best thing for our party right now is that you have 247 votes on the floor.”
With his wife at his side, he said his decision was about promoting unity. “If we’re going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to help do that. So nothing more than that.”
[This contest is now wide open. Who’s next?]
McCarthy’s candidacy to succeed the retiring Boehner (R-Ohio) was damaged in recent days by a public gaffe — a television interview in which he seemed to suggest that the Select Committee on Benghazi, the panel assembled by Republicans to investigate the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya, was intended to damage Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential poll numbers.
“Well, that wasn’t helpful. I could have said it much better,” McCarthy acknowledged after dropping out of the race. “That’s part of the decision as well.” McCarthy said he will remain in his post as majority leader and seek reelection in 2016.
Still, McCarthy, who had been Boehner’s preferred successor, had been expected to earn the votes he needed before heading to a vote of the full House. That left significant confusion about his last-minute withdrawal — and whom Republicans might rally around as an alternative for the nation’s third-highest job.
There was an immediate push to recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former vice-presidential nominee and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Ryan is one of most widely respected members in the conference, with broad support among conservatives and moderates, as well as newcomers and veterans. But Ryan has repeatedly insisted he is not interested in the job, including in a new statement soon after McCarthy’s withdrawal. “While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate,” he said.
[Why Paul Ryan won’t run for speaker]
Over two long phone conversations Thursday, Boehner urged Ryan to reconsider, according to two sources familiar with the exchanges, insisting that Ryan is the only person who can unite the House GOP at a time of turmoil.
Boehner, who last month said he would resign the speakership after weeks of facing a near-certain revolt from conservatives, had been scheduled to step down Oct. 30. Following McCarthy’s declaration, Boehner promised to stay on until the House elects his replacement.
McCarthy: ‘It’s best we have a new face’
Play Video0:58
After dropping out of the race for speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif). said he did not want to be a “distraction” from the committee investigating the attack on Americans in Benghazi. (AP)
Reaction to McCarthy’s surprise departure from the speaker’s race reflected deep divisions within the Republican Party.
Some conservatives seized the moment as a victory, celebrating the downfall of one of the House’s fastest-rising but more moderate stars.
On the eve of Thursday’s planned vote, a group of 30 to 40 of the chamber’s most conservative members, known as the Freedom Caucus, significantly changed the dynamics of the race by promising to throw its weight behind low-profile Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) over McCarthy.
The move had jeopardized McCarthy’s chances to lock up the speakership on the floor, where he could not afford to lose more than 29 Republican votes if he wanted to win without Democratic support. In McCarthy’s place, they pledged to push for one of their own, a hard-liner on fiscal and social issues.
[The Fix: Republicans have a revolution on their hands]
More-moderate Republicans, including McCarthy allies from swing districts, also worked Thursday to draft a candidate.
Democrats tried to capitalize on the chaos, citing McCarthy’s withdrawal as a sign that the GOP is ungovernable — and unable to govern the country.
“There’s a minority group of conservative politicians that places their own extreme ideology ahead of everything else and certainly ahead of effective governance of the country, but also today of effective governance of the House Republican caucus,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
[House conservatives spurn McCarthy ahead of speaker vote]
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) urged Republican leaders to quickly move legislation that would lift the government’s debt limit, which the Treasury Department estimates will be hit around Nov. 5. “Republican chaos is likely to get worse before it gets better but the economic livelihood of the American people should not be threatened as a result of Republicans’ inability to govern,” he said in a statement.
Several lawmakers said they were caught off guard by McCarthy’s departure, and much of the day was spent speculating about McCarthy’s motives. Many believed he had simply concluded he could not win the job.
The California Republican had failed to woo conservatives, and some establishment Republicans threatened to oppose him, too, if he was likely to win the job only by a thin margin. Others attributed McCarthy’s downfall to the continuing anger at his comments about the Benghazi panel.
At a meeting Thursday morning that preceded the scheduled conference vote, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) publicly dressed down McCarthy for his Benghazi comments and described how they had harmed his ability to lead and be a forceful speaker in the 2016 campaign. Rohrabacher “went off on McCarthy on how bad and wrong it was” and how much his comments had embarrassed and politically kneecapped House Republicans, one lawmaker said.
Some also questioned whether McCarthy was chased from the race by a letter sent by Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), who chairs the Republican conference. In the letter, Jones called for any leadership candidate who had committed “misdeeds” since joining Congress to drop out of the running.
“I’m asking that any candidate for speaker of the House, majority leader, and majority whip, withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds committed since joining Congress that will embarrass himself, the Republican Conference, and the House of Representatives if they become public,” Jones urged.
He offered no further specifics in the letter, and in an interview after McCarthy’s announcement, Jones said his letter was not directed at McCarthy in particular. He also said he had no reason to believe the letter forced McCarthy’s exit. “Everybody wants to know why he stepped down, the man that was in the lead,” Jones said. “I don’t know why he would step down.”
McCarthy insisted the letter played no role in his decision. “Nah, nah. Come on,” he told a reporter who asked about it.
Without Ryan in the race, the ideal pick for both establishment and conservative Republicans was unclear.
Other hopefuls — including Webster, who was a state House speaker in Florida, and Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) — were working to convince colleagues that they were up to the job. Chaffetz had announced Sunday that he would challenge McCarthy for the position.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a Boehner ally floated Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a respected former House GOP campaign chairman, as a person who could be a calming presence.
Several conservatives suggested House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), a former member of the Boehner leadership team, as a contender with strong relationships with the party’s conservative bloc. Other names mentioned were Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the Benghazi committee, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Freedom Caucus. But Gowdy said he is backing Ryan and Jordan said he was not interested in running. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who preceded Chaffetz as chairman of the Oversight Committee, was also said to be considering a bid.
Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said he is considering a run for speaker. He told a group of his colleagues in a conference call that his experience in the state legislature prepared him for the role and that he planned to make calls Friday to seek support.
Most of the ambitious but less-seasoned Republicans who have considered leadership spent Thursday reacting to the news rather than quickly assembling coalitions.
Reps. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who were already running for lower leadership spots should McCarthy have won the speakership, were encouraged to look higher up the chain of command but appear inclined to hold on to their current positions. Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.), who was a frontline participant in the latest talks about the GOP’s future, also mulled his options. So did McMorris Rodgers, the conference chair and the party’s highest-ranking woman, and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), who has harbored dreams of leadership and had previously run unsuccessfully.
Yet none of these members seemed poised Thursday to take McCarthy’s position as the front-runner. All are relatively popular in certain circles, but few carry the national political heft of Ryan or McCarthy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/10/08/house-majority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-drops-out-of-race-for-house-speaker/
EXCLUSIVE– MARK LEVIN WARNS HOUSE REPUBLICANS: DO NOT SUPPORT KEVIN MCCARTHY FOR SPEAKER
Popular talk radio host and best-selling author Mark Levin is warning Republicans in Washington: don’t replace outgoing House Speaker
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
with
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
.
Levin’s a tirelessly warrior against Speaker Boehner and the Washington establishment. “Kevin McCarthy is Eric Cantor with ten less IQ points,” Levin declares in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News.
The radio star adds Republicans must learn their lesson and not repeat the mistakes they made following Eric Cantor’s historic fall from power—namely that Republicans must replace Boehner with a “principled conservative.”
Levin explained that with the resounding defeat of the former-House Majority Leader, conservative voters made their voices heard and sent a clear message to the Republican establishment. Washington Republicans, however, refused to get the message.
“The Republican establishment never learned their lesson after Cantor… They replaced Cantor with McCarthy, who is a wheeler and dealer—he is not a principled conservative… My concern now is that they will do the same thing again,” Levin said.
Kevin McCarthy occupies the business wing of the Republican Party shared by other politicians like
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
,
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
, and
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
. All seem to think that increasing corporate profits through large-scale immigration and globalist trade pacts like Obamatrade are more important than prioritizing the wages of Americans or preserving America’s cultural identity as a Western nation.
In other words, that conservative voters were expecting too much when they sent their elected officials to Washington to represent them. This stands in contrast to his presidential competitor Sen. Ted Cruz, who recently suggested that
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
has abdicated his position of power: “Today,
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
is the de facto leader of the Senate.” Breitbart News asked Levin about McCarthy’s repeated support for open-border policies.
“These guys are such lightweights.” Levin declared. “We need true leaders. They have too much tied to Washington, too much tied to the Chamber of Commerce, corporatists and the donor class.”
Levin said that House conservatives—many of whom are a part of the House Freedom Caucus—need to demand better for their voters.
“Those thirty or so Republicans need to remain united” to elect a principled conservative leader who represents the interest of Republican voters, Levin explained. “Republicans could make a real difference now for the Party and for the country if we elect a Speaker or a Majority Leader who’s a conservative—such as
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
. But he’s just one example.”
“We need leaders who are solid, who are intelligent, who are strategic, who are constitutionalists, who can bring in– not just the mainstay of the Party– but demonstrate to millions of us in the grassroots that the message has finally been received. [We need to see that] there is a serious effort—not just a PR effort—but a serious effort to try to govern and keep the President in check—that they are prepared to fight, prepared to show courage, and that they’re going to stop cutting deals with the inside the beltway crowd.”
Levin explained that House conservatives should not squander the opportunity this new leadership election affords them.
“I’ve been pushing very hard for the replacement of this leadership, not just to save the Republican Party, but to save the Republic itself against an out-of-control President.”
Levin predicted that Republican and media elites will try to use Boehner’s resignation as grounds to belittle and demean Republican voters, but that the Republican voters should continue making themselves heard.
“Today, Republican after Republican will lament what’s taking place. There will more trashing of conservatives, more trashing of the base—using liberal terminology to describe conservatives as ‘extreme right’ and they will not learn their lesson.”
“This is also the reason why you can see the rise of Donald Trump,” Levin explained. People are tired of donor class Republicans who refuse to represent the interests of their voters and they are ready for things to change.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/exclusive-mark-levin-warns-house-republicans-not-support-kevin-mccarthy-speaker/
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 546-550
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )