Phillips Philes

Presidential White Papers: Newt Gingrich By Club For Growth

2012-01-23T14:05:00.004-05:00

Source: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=903

INTRODUCTION

Print off a PDF version

of this paper, complete with footnotes.

Among all likely candidates for President in 2012, none has a record in public office or in commentary on public affairs as long or as thorough as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He has been voting or commenting on every important issue facing American politics, almost without interruption, for more than 30 years. An exhaustive analysis of every nuance of each proposal is neither possible here, nor terribly useful for our purposes. This report will focus on the highlights of his 19-year congressional voting record, as well as the economic policy positions he has most consistently championed in his post-congressional writings up to the present day.

Gingrich is best known for leading the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that swept the GOP into the House majority for the first time in over forty years, and he deserves immense credit for that. His actual voting record in the House, however, was somewhat less stellar.

The Club for Growth did not have its own scorecard for members of Congress during Gingrich’s tenure from 1979-98, but the non-partisan and pro-free market National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been issuing a congressional scorecard for decades and Gingrich’s record on economic issues, as provided by NTU, is worth analyzing. From 1979-98, Gingrich had an average score of 61% (with 100% being a perfect score on supporting lower taxes and limited government). The average Republican score over this time period was slightly lower at 56%.

TAXES

The Club for Growth is committed to lower taxes – especially lower tax rates – across the board. Lower taxes on work, savings, and investments lead to greater levels of these activities, thus encouraging greater economic growth.

From an economic growth perspective, Newt Gingrich is excellent on tax issues, except when he’s not. In general, Gingrich does favor lower, flatter tax rates, and has a pro-growth instinct toward reforms that lower rates and broaden the base. But he also has a persistent habit of supporting big-government tinkering that manifests itself in many unhelpful ways.

First, the good stuff. On various high-profile tax votes in Congress, Gingrich amassed the following pro-growth tax record:

Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981

Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986

Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush “Read My Lips” tax hike in 1990.

Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.

Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.

His vote and leadership against the 1990 Bush tax increase is especially praiseworthy, as it exhibited political courage to fight against a bad policy that was promoted by the president and congressional leadership of his own party.

Further, Gingrich can be one of the most clear-eyed and forceful advocates for supply-side economics and the value of free enterprise. He has most recently favored:

an immediate and permanent repeal of the Death Tax;

elimination of all capital gains taxes;

reduction of the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent;

a 50 percent payroll tax cut for both employers and employees;

a 100 percent tax write off for businesses’ equipment purchases.

Gingrich also favors broader fundamental tax reform. In a 2008 op-ed, he enthusiastically praised the idea of an optional, single-rate income tax reform proposal. According to Gingrich, “[a]n optional flat tax would save taxpayers more than $100 billion per year and reduce compliance costs by over 90 percent. This is a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect on our American economy.”

In addition, Gingrich has advocated a near flat tax proposal that would lower the current 25 percent income tax rate to 15 percent. This would, in Gingrich’s words, “in effect, establish a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers.” Both of these options would be enormously good for our economy.

Now the bad stuff. Gingrich has an affinity – all too common even among conservative politicians – for gimmicky, special interest tax incentives that empower politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. His favorite device is the tax credit.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Gingrich proposed a six month, $1,000-per person tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of personal travel more than 100 miles from one’s home. The idea sounds nice, but just as Cash for Clunkers only expedited the purchase of cars people were going to buy anyway (at non-car buying taxpayers’ expense), Gingrich’s Cash for Getaways would only have subsidized trips people were going to make anyway, enabling a transfer payment to frequent travelers from families without the time or inclination to travel. This proposal would also require more government to administer and oversee compliance. It is not a fiscally conservative policy. While perhaps not a large issue in itself, this is indicative of an approach Gingrich has frequently advocated. At times he has sponsored bills or issued proposals to do the following:

A tax credit for the purchase of home computers used for educational or professional purposes.

A $1,000 tax credit for low-income first-time homebuyers.

Refundable tax credits for auto companies for the cost of flex-fuels cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars.

Tax credits to encourage investment in biofuels and “renewable forms of energy.”

A permanent 50 percent tax credit for research and development, or at least for “companies that are willing to take on government's ‘grand challenges’ (for example, the first inhabitable moon base).”

A special business tax credit for “corporations that fund basic research in science and technology at our nation's universities.”

Along with these gimmicky tax proposals, Gingrich voted for at least one tax increase during his time in Congress. In 1984, he supported a $50 billion tax bill that closed $15 billion in loopholes, eliminated a tax break on interest income, increased cigarette taxes, and raised taxes on distilled liquor.

SPENDING

The Club for Growth is committed to reducing government spending. Less spending enhances economic growth by enabling lower taxes and diminishing the government’s economically inefficient allocation of resources.

Gingrich’s record is mostly supportive of smaller government, but he likes to tinker with the economy using more federal government involvement in areas that he is most passionate about. This is most pronounced on spending issues, and has led him to some very bad positions.

During his time in Congress, he had an exemplary voting record on a lot of the top spending proposals:

Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979

Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985

Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the “Contract for America” effort that he led) in 1995

Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.

Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996

Gingrich has also been a vocal opponent of most of the big spending habits pushed by the White House and Congress over the past few years. He opposed the $787 billion stimulus proposal, the auto bailout, and Cash for Clunkers.

But Gingrich also has a recurring impulse to insert the government into the private economy. A particularly bad mark on his record came in 2003, when he urged “every conservative member of Congress” to support the Medicare drug benefit bill. He called it the “most important reorganization of our nation's healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965.” The drug benefit now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

This flaw appeared again in late 2008, when he backed the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.   While he was initially opposed to it, he “reluctantly” endorsed it when successful passage was uncertain in Congress.

Prior to those big errors, and somewhat since then, Gingrich has shown an odd condescension toward fiscal conservatives who do not share his views. In 1998, he derided a group of House conservatives by calling them the “the perfectionist caucus” for opposing a 4,000-page omnibus spending bill, adding that “those of us who have grown up and matured in this process understand after the last four years that we have to work together on big issues.”

FREE TRADE

Free trade is a vital policy necessary for maximizing economic growth. In recent decades, America’s commitment to expanding trade has resulted in lower costs for consumers, job growth, and higher levels of productivity and innovation.

In 1994, William F. Buckley, Jr. called Gingrich a “profoundly committed free trader,” and his record and rhetoric over the years bears out that characterization.   Gingrich has been a reliable advocate for free international trade, and a critic of both the politics and economics of protectionism.

In 1993, Gingrich supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, and later argued for including Chile into the deal, with the eventual goal of having the entire Western Hemisphere as a free trade zone.

In 1994, Gingrich supported passage of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, which established fast track authority for the president and the World Trade Organization.

In 1998, Gingrich supported Most Favored Nation (now Permanent Normal Trade Relations) status with China. And he supported free trade legislation between the United States and sub-Saharan African nations.

In 2010, Gingrich called for the creation of “Free Cities,” Hong Kong-style free trade zones, developed from scratch according to agreements reached between the United States and the “receptive governments” controlling the agreed-upon spots.

Evidence of any pro-protectionism support is scant. However, Gingrich did vote YES to keep trade-distorting peanut subsidies in 1985, although he later redeemed himself by voting against them in 1990.

REGULATION

Excessive government regulation stymies individual and business innovation necessary for strong economic expansion. The Club for Growth supports less and more sensible government regulation as a critical step toward increasing freedom and growth in the marketplace.

There’s a long list of big government regulations that Gingrich has opposed. Commendably, he advocates full repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley.   He vocally opposed ObamaCare and favors repeal. He supports lifting restrictions on energy production like offshore drilling, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and nuclear plant construction.

Gingrich opposes the “Employee Free Choice Act,” or “card check,” especially its binding arbitration provision.   And he opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill in 2010, calling it “another big government power grab.”

Once again, however, Gingrich’s penchant for tinkering undermines his otherwise very strong record of pro-growth deregulation.

He fought President Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme and wants to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.   He also opposes the Obama EPA’s controversial plan to regulate carbon emissions via the Clean Air Act, and has urged Congress to prevent its implementation.   But previously, in 2008, he starred in a television ad with Nancy Pelosi urging a bipartisan solution to climate change. In a debate with Senator John Kerry in 2007, Gingrich said, “the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." While he insisted that government regulation wasn’t the answer, he said, “I would agree you would get more change more rapidly with an incentivized market rather than a laissez-faire approach.” That’s Gingrich-speak for government involvement.

More recently, Gingrich defended federal ethanol policies. Even Al Gore now admits ethanol subsidies hurt the environment and that he only supported them because of Iowa’s influential presidential caucuses. Gingrich singled out a Wall Street Journal editorial critical of ethanol policies, and suggested ethanol’s “big city” critics get their facts straight.   Responding to the fact that, without subsidies, tariffs, and federal mandates, there would be no ethanol market, Gingrich said, “If they’re prepared to insist on a flex-fuel vehicle and every car in America capable of buying ethanol, I think the industry can stand on its own.” Thus, Gingrich would favor eliminating ethanol subsidies only after Congress mandates that everyone buy ethanol cars.

Gingrich has also long endorsed a federal role in supporting renewable energy projects and the development of clean energy technologies.

These inconsistencies are notable because they are inconsistencies. Gingrich’s default approach to regulatory issues is usually to favor the free market and empower entrepreneurs and consumers. Despite that good record, too often Gingrich seems overly compelled to find government answers to complex issues when the hurdles to free market solutions appear too high.

ENTITLEMENT REFORM

America’s major entitlement programs are already insolvent. The Club for Growth supports entitlement reforms that enable personal ownership of retirement and health care programs, benefit from market returns, and diminish dependency on government.

Gingrich has long advocated reforms, of one sort or another, of the federal government’s three major entitlement programs – Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But he has three glaring mistakes in his record that can’t be overlooked.

On Social Security, Gingrich has been consistently pro-growth and pro-reform and for all the right reasons. He favors personal Social Security savings accounts owned by individual taxpayers and off limits to congressional spendthrifts. He has written:

“With large personal social security savings accounts, even low- and moderate-income workers will accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars by retirement and will be able to leave a financial legacy to their children or other heirs. Personal social security savings accounts offer workers far greater personal choice, ownership and control than the current system.”

In addition to his own plans, Gingrich supported President Bush’s effort in 2005 to reform Social Security with personal accounts, and a 2004 plan offered by Congressman Paul Ryan and then- Senator John Sununu that would have done much the same.

Gingrich also favors comprehensive reform of the notoriously inefficient Medicaid program. He originally proposed the idea of block-granting the program back to the states in 1995, giving them more flexibility to administer it.

He has long advocated expanded health savings accounts, tax free accounts coupled with high-deductible catastrophic coverage to allow people to build a medical nest egg, like a health care 401(k) plan.

As noted above, however, Gingrich has a few doozies in his record. First, in his 2008 book Real Change, Gingrich advocated an individual mandate for health insurance – a similar mandate is central to ObamaCare and is being challenged by 26 states in court as being unconstitutional. Gingrich wrote:

“[I]ndividuals are expected to help pay for their care. Everyone should be required to have coverage. Those with very low incomes should receive vouchers or tax credits to help them buy insurance. Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be required to post a bond to cover costs.”

The second large error in Gingrich’s entitlement record was equally troubling: the former Speaker played a high profile advocacy role on behalf of President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit bill in 2003. Gingrich penned several op-eds supporting the general thrust and specific provisions of the bill, urging House Republicans to pass what was billed at the time to be a $400 billion expansion of the federal government.

Among the lowlights of his advocacy:

“Every conservative member of Congress should vote for this Medicare bill. It is the most important reorganization of our nation’s healthcare system since the original Medicare Bill of 1965 and the largest and most positive change in direction for the health system in 60 years for people over 65.”

“Congress should allow seniors to get the drugs they need by adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.”

Gingrich still maintains his support for Medicare Part D, and in a 2006 op-ed lauded the virtues of the first year of its implementation.

Finally, Gingrich supported the creation and eventual expansion of SCHIP, the government-run health care program for children of low-income families.

SCHOOL CHOICE

The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools and voucher programs that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. More competition in education will lead to higher quality and lower costs.

Education reform is another area that perfectly illustrates Gingrich’s dual (and occasionally contradictory) tendencies toward both pro-growth conservatism and big-government meddler.

For decades, Gingrich has been an unequivocal advocate for school choice, writing in a 2006 op-ed:

“The status quo is failing our students, and to truly see real change, we need to enact real change. The simplest and surest way to transform education is to give students and parents the freedom to choose where they will go to school. This means eliminating restrictive zoning laws that force kids into schools simply because they live nearby. This means introducing free-market forces into education, encouraging schools to compete for students, much like businesses compete for customers. This means that schools that do not perform will either improve or close their doors — which is as it should be. There is no middle ground.”

Gingrich admirably advocates charter schools, vouchers for families with children trapped in failing schools, and greater flexibility in rewarding good teachers and dismissing bad ones.

But Gingrich’s tinkering side reveals itself when he suggests that the federal government “save the children.” In 2006, he wrote:

“Finally, Congress should tie education funding to school accountability. The No Child Left Behind law is making it blaringly obvious just how many schools are crippling and destroying children. We should save the children. Congress should require school systems to institute metrics-based performance standards in order to receive federal funding to ensure that every child is getting the education that they deserve.”

Demanding that the federal government get involved in what most conservatives believe is a state or local issue is something that Gingrich doesn’t seem to appreciate.

TORT REFORM

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Gingrich has been a clear and consistent advocate for lawsuit abuse reform for years. The “Common Sense Legal Reform Act” was part of the Contract with America in 1994, and was passed by both the House and Senate, but vetoed by President Bill Clinton.    The bill would have reformed the tort system by penalizing frivolous and predatory lawsuits by imposing “loser pays” rules and capping punitive damages.

More recently, Gingrich has supported tort reform in the context of health care reform and cost-containment. In 2009, Gingrich criticized President Obama’s health care overhaul for skirting the issue of lawsuit abuse reform: “The “plain and simple truth” is that leaving the tort system ‘as is’ ignores more than $200 billion in potential savings annually in health care.”   Specifically, Gingrich cited statistics pertaining to the expensive and wasteful practice of “defensive medicine,” in which doctors perform unnecessary tests solely to protect themselves from predatory lawsuits.

In 2002, Gingrich called for a cap on “pain and suffering” awards in medical malpractice suits, and cited the dangerous shortage of doctors in many states that had not – to date – reformed their liability laws.   In 2006, Gingrich noted the quick reversal of Texas’ trend of losing doctors after the state passed medical malpractice reform.

Gingrich has also called for the establishment of special “health courts” to manage the glut and exploding costs of medical malpractice litigation.

POLITICAL FREE SPEECH

Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.

Except for one large blemish, Gingrich has what seems to be a clear, strong, and positive stand on behalf of political free speech.

In 1995, he countered calls for spending restrictions in campaigns by noting the 1992 presidential campaigns combined spent half of the major television networks’ news budgets. He said giving journalists free, unlimited access to the public while restricting campaign contributions represented “a nonsensical socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise system.”

Gingrich has rightly been a harsh critic of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, saying in 2006 that it ought to have been named the “McCain-Feingold censorship law” and compared it to the Sedition Act of 1798.

According to Gingrich,

“A truly functioning campaign system would take power out of Washington and return it to its owners—the American people. Such a system would allow individuals to make unlimited contributions to candidates for Congress in their district, so long as it is reported immediately on the Internet and is transparent and accessible.”

Gingrich strongly supported Citizens United in their challenge against the constitutionality of the McCain Feingold bill, and recently appeared in a video produced by Citizen United commemorating the anniversary of the successful ruling.

Nevertheless, Gingrich supported the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987, a proposal that would force broadcasters to air all sides of a controversial issue. It obviously infringes 1st Amendment rights and it can only lead to bigger government as bureaucrats haggle over what’s controversial, what’s “fair”, and other details.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY & ENDORSEMENTS

Robust political activity is essential to producing a federal government that is more respectful of free markets and produces more pro-economic growth policies. The Club for Growth’s PAC has been active in some of the more central battles within the Republican Party nominating process in recent years, supporting pro-growth candidates over pro-government ones.

Whereas in most policy areas Gingrich’s record has been consistently or largely good, his record of involvement in political activity in which a clear pro-growth and anti-growth choice was available has been frequently poor.

In the 2009 special election for Congress in New York’s 23rd district, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of liberal Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava, up to the moment she finally quit the race after center-right voters rallied behind Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman. Long after most prominent conservatives had endorsed Hoffman, Gingrich held firm in his advocacy for a liberal candidate who supported Obama’s stimulus plan and the pro-union “card check” proposal, among other bad positions.

In 2010, Gingrich openly campaigned for embattled U.S. Senator Robert Bennett in Utah, whom Gingrich’s wrongly called “a true-blue conservative.” In 2008, Gingrich aggressively supported and campaigned for liberal Congressman Wayne Gilchrist (R-MD) when he faced a conservative challenge from now-Congressman Andy Harris. In 2006, same thing, when Gingrich backed liberal Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-MI) when he was challenged by conservative now-Congressman Tim Walberg.

It is of course common for leading Republicans to support incumbent Republicans who face primary opposition. However, Gingrich has taken this to another level, supporting incumbents even when he had long been out of office himself, and doing so with a vigor and passion that is entirely inconsistent with the level of conservatism that the candidates themselves espouse.

In Gingrich’s worldview, he appears to elevate partisanship to principle. His conflation of party expansion with genuine political or policy success is a common mistake, especially among establishment leaders and Washington insiders. This mistake can easily morph into a strange contempt for serious conservative reformers within the GOP. After all, from a pro-growth perspective, it is clear that the candidates Gingrich strongly opposed, Senator Mike Lee and Congressmen Andy Harris and Tim Walberg are far superior to the RINO incumbents they defeated.

Here again, Gingrich’s penchant for condescension appears. In that NY-23 race, for instance, Gingrich went so far as to attack conservatives who supported Hoffman (whom Gingrich belatedly endorsed himself), saying: “So I say to my conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they’re from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don’t think so.”

SUMMATION

As a historical figure, it is undeniable that Newt Gingrich has played leading roles in some of the most important battles on behalf of economic growth and limited government in the last quarter century.

His opposition and momentary defeat of the 1990 Bush tax increase, his leadership of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and his spearheading of the provisions of the Contract With America are major league achievements. His consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech also evidence a clear and impressive understanding of the fundamentals that underlie the free enterprise system that has made America prosperous.

Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.

The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be. Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment. One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.

11 Natural Ways to Stop a Crohn’s Disease Flare By Carole Jacobs

2012-01-02T08:48:00.002-05:00

Source: http://www.lifescript.com/health/centers/crohns/articles/11_natural_ways_to_stop_a_crohns_disease_flare.aspx

June 10, 2011

You may have been told eating a bland, low-fiber, white-flour diet is unhealthy. But when symptoms of Crohn’s disease flare, it can lead to relief. What are some other ways to avoid and soothe symptoms of the disease? Read on for 11 tips from top experts. Plus, how well do you understand Chron’s disease? Take our quiz to find out…

It’s important to eat a rainbow-like variety of high-fiber foods such as fruits and vegetables, right? Not if you have Crohn’s disease. Those foods might actually aggravate your condition, dietitians say.

Potato products, bread and bananas were least likely to cause problems for people suffering symptoms of Crohn’s disease, according to a 2006 study from Utrecht University and University Medical Center, Netherlands.

“It sounds really unhealthy, but it’s only temporary,” says Susie Ofria, R.D., a registered dietitian at Gottlieb Memorial in Melrose Park, Ill. “Once you’re out of your flare, you can start reintroducing whole grains and raw veggies into your diet one item at a time.”

Besides white foods, “eating smaller meals and avoiding certain foods also can dramatically decrease pain and symptoms,” says Laura Jeffers, R.D., M.Ed., outpatient nutrition manager at the Cleveland Clinic.

Read on for 11 ways to minimize pain and discomfort during a Crohn’s disease flare.

1. Consult a doctor or dietitian who specializes in Crohn’s treatment.
The pain and inflammation of Crohn’s disease can ruin your appetite and make it hard to digest and absorb nutrients, says Armen Simonian, M.D., a Trenton-based gastroenterologist at Capital Health Regional Medical Center and director of the Center for Digestive Health in New Jersey.

That’s why women with Crohn’s disease are sitting ducks for nutritional deficiencies.

Dietitians can order blood tests to help you correct nutritional problems and pinpoint foods that exacerbate symptoms.

“A dietitian can help you figure out which foods are safe to eat and those that cause symptoms,” says Nicole Kuhl, R.D., a registered dietitian in Santa Monica, Calif.

2. Determine what triggers your flares.
Triggers can vary, says Susy Weems, Ph.D., R.D., director of nutrition sciences at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

That’s why Crohn’s patients are advised to “keep a food diary to track what you’re eating and how you feel,” advises Lisa Moskowitz, R.D., a New York-based dietitian.Write down everything you eat for a month or two, including quantity, time and the symptoms you have. That will help you and your doctor or dietitian create a balanced diet that avoids foods that exacerbate symptoms of Crohn’s disease, like cramping, gas and diarrhea, she says.

“If a certain food bothers you, remove it from your diet for about a month and see if symptoms of Crohn’s disease improve,” Kuhl says.

Experts agree, however, that when symptoms flare, forget about normal healthy eating and stick to a “Wonder Bread” diet.

3. Don’t skimp on calories.
You’ll lose necessary nutrients if you have chronic diarrhea and possibly vomiting, according to the Crohn’s & Ulcerative Colitis Foundation (CCFA), a nonprofit organization for people with these digestive disorders.

That’s why your body needs more calories to fight Crohn’s disease.

Medications also work better if you’re well nourished, says the CCFA.

“With Crohn's disease, you need to eat a high-calorie, high-protein diet, even when you don't feel like eating,” Simonian says.

But big meals can overstress your digestive system, increasing gas, pain and diarrhea.

That’s why Weems advises sticking to “five or six small meals daily to ensure you get enough protein, calories and nutrients to replenish and repair your body.”

To aid digestion, take small bites of food and chew it really well, says Ofria.

“Also take vitamins and minerals that your physician recommends,” Weems says.

4. Cut back on fiber.
High-fiber foods like fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains are not your friends during Crohn’s flare, says Jeffers.“Stick to a low-fiber diet that revolves around white bread and other refined white flour products, smooth and bland cooked cereals like Cream of Wheat, white rice and pastas, and well-cooked or steamed veggies (not cruciferous) that are soft enough to cut with the side of a fork,“ she says.

Here are more tips from Jeffers:

Avoid vegetables like lentils, beans, legumes, cabbage, broccoli and onions. They’re difficult to digest and cause gas, bloating and pain.

Avoid crunchy foods, such as raw veggies and fruits, which irritate your intestines and increase diarrhea.

Steer clear of anything with hulls or seeds, such as nuts, seeds, popcorn, strawberries, watermelon, grapes and crunchy nut butters. (Smooth nut butters are an excellent alternative and a great source of protein.)

Limit fruit to bananas. (Avoid fruits with skins, such as apples.)

Canned fruit is fine if it doesn’t contain high fructose corn syrup, which can aggravate diarrhea.

Avoid dried fruit, which is hard to digest and may get stuck in the intestines.

Steer clear of citrus fruits, which have seeds and are also very acidic, because these may increase pain and irritation.

5. Eat healthy fats.
Foods rich in polyunsaturated fats (walnuts, olive, flaxseed oils and butters) and omega-3 fatty acids (salmon, tuna and mackerel), can promote healing, says Christian Renna, D.O., an integrated medicine physician who specializes in autoimmune diseases with Lifespan Medicine in Santa Monica, Calif.

The anti-inflammatory nature of omega-3 fatty acids eases Crohn’s symptoms, according to a 2011 study conducted at the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at St. Panteleimon General Hospital in Nicea, Greece.

6. Drink plenty of liquids.
“People with Crohn’s disease are at increased risk for diarrhea, so drink lots of water with and in between meals to avoid dehydration,” says Jeffers, who also offers these tips:

For each pound you weigh, drink one half-ounce of water per day, in addition to water-based foods, such as soups.

Also avoid highly acidic fruit juices made with citrus, cranberries and pineapple, which increase inflammation.

You may be able to tolerate low-acid juices made with bananas, pears, mangoes, grapes, watermelon, coconut and apricots. Avoid fruit-flavored juices and drinks that contain high fructose corn syrup, which also increases inflammation.

Sip beverages rather than gulp them. Gulping introduces air into the digestive system, causing discomfort.

Avoid carbonated beverages like soft drinks and sparkling waters because they increase gas and flatulence. Most soft drinks also contain high fructose corn syrup.

Avoid caffeinated beverages like coffee, tea and chocolate-based drinks, which increase inflammation and exacerbate diarrhea.

Stay away from alcohol, including beer, wine and hard liquor, which irritates intestines and increases pain.

So what can you drink? Sip homemade chicken or vegetable broth.

“You’re getting a really nutritious drink that’s easy to digest,” Kuhl says.

7. Focus on lean protein.
Your body needs protein to build and heal tissue. If you have Crohn’s disease, you may not absorb enough to promote healing and prevent muscle wasting, says Moskowitz.To reduce pain, gas and other symptoms, try these tips:

If red meat makes you feel queasy and exacerbates diarrhea, switch to leaner cuts like sirloin or ground round, or stick to fish or poultry without the skin, says Moskowitz.

Avoid fatty hot dogs, sausage, pork and anything with a tough skin. The fat can cause diarrhea and their skin can be difficult to digest, says Jeffers.

Liquid formulas like Ensure, Glucerna and Pulmocare, which are absorbed in the upper rather than in the lower intestine, help some Crohn’s patients, says Jeffers.

8. Watch out for dairy products.
You may feel better if you limit or avoid dairy products during your flare.

“They may cause gas, abdominal pain and diarrhea in some women with Crohn’s,” says Jeffers.

Can’t live without your milk mustache? Try lactose-free varieties or add an enzyme product, such as Lactaid, which breaks down lactose, suggests the CCFA.

Or for a healthy, easy-to-digest protein, eat plain yogurt. It contains acidophilus, a probiotic that has been shown to ease Crohn’s symptoms.

9. Get plenty of vitamin D.
Vitamin-D deficiency, which is more common in northern climates that get less sun, can lead to Crohn’s disease, according to a 2010 study conducted at McGill University and the Université de Montréal.

If Crohn’s disease runs in your immediate family, you may be able to ward it off by getting enough vitamin D, the study advises.

If you already have Crohn’s, this powerful anti-inflammatory vitamin and hormone can relieve inflammation and ease symptoms, says Michael Holick, Ph.D., M.D., professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics at Boston University Medical School, prominent vitamin-D researcher and author of The Vitamin D Solution (Penguin).

The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommends getting 600 International Units (IUs) of vitamin D daily.

The best source of vitamin D is the sun, which activates the body’s production of vitamin D, says Holick.If you don’t get enough sun, eat foods rich in vitamin D, including beef liver, egg yolks, sardines, salmon, shrimp, cod and, if you’re able to, fortified milk. Also take a vitamin-D supplement.

10. Avoid hot spices and fake sugar.
Spicy foods like four-alarm Mexican, Thai or Indian cuisine, as well as whole spices, can irritate the lining of your intestines and increase pain, says Jeffers.

Avoid hot spices like chili powder, ginger, horseradish, Chinese mustard and black pepper.

But if you’re going to use whole spices in cooking, make sure they’re very mild and finely ground,” Jeffers says.

And avoid artificial sugar substitutes.

“Sorbitol, found in sports drinks, soft drinks and many processed foods, can really put you over the edge if you have Crohn’s disease,” Moskowitz says.

That’s because sorbitol can damage the intestinal mucosa, trigger spasms and increase inflammation, according to a 2009 Brown University study.

11. Embrace probiotics, not prebiotics.
Pro- and pre-biotics are all the rage for improving digestion, but will they relieve symptoms of Crohn’s disease? Probiotics are friendly bacteria that live in your gut and aid digestion, while prebiotics help stimulate the growth of the beneficial bacteria, says the Mayo Clinic.

A 2011 study conducted by the Center for Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Saint Panteleimon General Hospital in Nicea, Greece found that probiotics relieved Crohn’s symptoms.

But prebiotics appear to add fuel to the fire. A 2010 Harvard study found that prebiotics didn’t ease Crohn’s symptoms, and increased flatulence.

How Well Do You Understand Chron's Disease?
A diagnosis of Crohn’s disease comes as a shock for many people, some who never suspected their abdominal discomfort could be something serious. This inflammatory disorder has far-ranging – and often serious – symptoms. Find out how much you know about it.

Loved by media, Barney Frank Helped Cause Financial Crisis

2011-11-29T09:16:00.002-05:00

Source: http://news.investors.com/Article/593006/201111281824/liberal-frank-leaves-legacy-of-financial-failure.htm

11/28/2011

Congress: Establishment media are swooning over the unexpected departure of ultraliberal Barney Frank. But this "champion of the little guy" actually helped cause the mortgage disaster, then kept the system broken.

'Congress will now be a little dumber," was the kind of nonsense we heard from the mainstream liberal media after Frank, D-Mass., former chairman of the House Banking Committee, said no to running for re-election next year.

Formally reprimanded by a heavily Democratic House on a 408-to-18 vote in 1990 for ethics offenses regarding his financial relationship with a male prostitute, Frank has for decades been a fast-talking, acidic presence in House debates.

But he wasn't smart enough to realize that the politically correct poisoning of mortgages would lead to a calamity rivaling the Great Depression. "I, like many others, did not see the crisis coming," Frank said Monday.

He sure didn't. Back in 2003, what did he say when the Bush administration proposed what the New York Times described as "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago," including a new agency to supervise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Frank said: "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Fannie and Freddie, of course, are those corrupt public-private hybrid monstrosities that gave lots of mortgages to people with horrendous credit ratings.

After 1996's welfare reform, liberals like Frank found other ways to redistribute wealth. Yet even after the politicization of mortgages led to the financial crisis, last year's Dodd-Frank reform kept "too big to fail" and other defects in our federally mismanaged banking system.

Manhattan Institute scholar and "After the Fall" author Nicole Gelinas warned before Dodd-Frank's passage that the law "encourages wild risk-taking — and penalizes prudence" by making well-run banks pay to bail out poorly run ones.

As a result, Gelinas said: "Every firm will take more risks, guaranteeing another crisis down the line, and more taxpayer bailouts."

The media would have us believe this is the departure of a great statesman. But as the 17th House Democrat to announce his departure, Frank becomes just another liberal who realizes his party has little chance of winning in 2012 after the mess they've spent the economy into.

With Frank's district newly re-carved after the 2010 Census, Sean Bielat, the smart ex-Marine who gave him a run for his money in 2010, might just win this time.

Making sense of Barney Frank's departure isn't hard. A once-powerful liberal who loved to make congressional witnesses look dumb, he leaves a legacy of failure that, with time, makes him look dumber and dumber.

The Gingrich Education Plan

2011-11-20T11:11:00.001-05:00

Source: http://www.newt.org/solutions/21st-century-learning-system

“We must envision a 21st century system of lifetime learning more flexible, more productive, more individualized and more capable than any bureaucracy could achieve.”

– Newt Gingrich

The continued growth of American jobs and American prosperity in a knowledge-based, internet-connected, globally-competitive world will be determined by quality of America's schools. If America is going to remain competitive with China and India in the 21st century, then we must commit to improving education, especially in math and science, and moving from a bureaucrat-dominated status quo to an innovative system that emphasizes accountability, transparency, and parental choice:

Empower parents to pick the right school for their child. Parents had the right to choose the school that is best for their child, and should never be trapped in a failing school against their will.

Institute a Pell Grant-style system for Kindergarten through 12th Grade. Per-pupil school district funding should go into each child’s backpack, and follow them to the school their parents wish to attend. Parents who home school their children should receive a tax credit or be allowed to keep the Pell Grant.

Require transparency and accountability about achievement. Each state must set a rigorous standard that allows every student everywhere to master the skills they will need to be competitive, and develop a process for grading the effectiveness of every school.

Implement a “no limits” charter system.

All of the money allocated for student education goes directly to the school.

The school manages its own staff, whereby it is exempt from laws regarding tenure, and need not unionize.

The school defines its own curriculum, in line with the state standards and assessments. Students in charters are not exempt from state assessments. The schools are not exempt from reporting requirements, nor should they be.

State law allows the school to "franchise" its model without limitation. That means they need not apply for a new school every time they can build a new one. If they have the demand, they must be able to serve it.

The state has NO CAPS on the number of charter schools that can be approved, and the process for approving charter schools is smooth and efficient.

Establish a pay for performance system. States and school governing boards should lift all existing prohibitions that prevent a principal from evaluating teachers based in part on student achievement.

Welcome business talent in our communities into the classroom. Every state should open their systems up to part-time teachers so that retired physicists, neighborhood pharmacists, or local accountants could teach one or two hours a day and bring knowledge to the classroom, and business-like adult expectations to the students. And programs like Teach For America should be encouraged and not limited.

Restore American history and values into the classroom. America is a learned civilization and every American, including immigrants, should learn American history and the principles of American self-government, productivity and prosperity. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1820: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Every student must learn to read and much of what they read should reinforce American civilization.

Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.

Encourage states to think outside outdated boundaries of education. States have developed very innovative models:

Students who graduate early should get the cost of the years they skip as an automatic scholarship, following the model of Governor Daniels’s program in Indiana.

Every state should have a work-study college that enables students to graduate debt free, following the model of the College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

Individualized, 24/7 learning should be universally available online, with the Florida Virtual School (over 120,000 students for K-12) as a model.

Shrink the federal Department of Education and return power to states and communities. The Department's only role will be to collect research and data, and help find new and innovative approaches to then be adopted voluntarily at the local level.

David Axelrod's Pattern Of Sexual Misbehavior By Ann Coulter

2011-11-16T17:58:00.004-05:00

Source: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-09.html

November 9, 2011

Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

Herman Cain:My Plan to Revive Economic Growth: It is inherently American to work, to risk and to dream.Our government's policies should encourage that

2011-11-14T18:11:00.004-05:00

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904265504576569023689099648.html

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.

Last week, President Obama unveiled his eagerly anticipated jobs plan. After 43 minutes of his speechifying, Americans were left wondering: We waited 30 months for this?

Indeed, it seems Mr. Obama's first term has been spent advancing a legislative agenda that pays no mind to our ailing economy and the Americans whose sufferings are casualties in his ideological war. After a failed stimulus package, preferential industry bailouts, and the disastrous government overhaul of the health-care industry, it seems the plight of the American worker has remained an afterthought.

This is the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression. If the Obama administration's aim was to merely tie for last place with the previous worst recovery, it would have created eight million more jobs, based on comparative data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If our recovery were more typical of the
postwar era, as former Sen. Phil Gramm reported on this page in April, we would have 14 million more jobs today.

As a longtime leader in the business community, I know firsthand that government does not create jobs. It can only create the conditions in which businesses operate. These conditions can spur growth, or they can suppress it. The conditions imposed by the current administration have suppressed growth.

Still, there is hope. That hope begins with economic certainty, a sort of assurance the president seems unwilling to provide. I, on the other hand, have proposed a plan that would stabilize and grow our economy:

"Cain's Vision for Economic Growth," also known as the 9-9-9 Plan, is founded upon three guiding economic principles: Production drives the economy. Risk-taking creates growth. Units of measurement must be dependable.

The plan begins with restructuring the tax code to include the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rate. The elements are:

• A 9% corporate flat tax. Businesses would deduct purchases from other businesses and all capital investment. The resulting gross income is taxed at 9%.

• A 9% personal flat tax. Individuals would deduct charitable contributions, then pay 9% on the rest of their income. Capital gains are excluded.

• A 9% national sales tax. This levy would be placed on the consumption of all new goods. Used goods purchased would be excluded.

My plan would also permanently eliminate taxes on repatriated profits, as well as payroll taxes and the estate tax.

All of these measures would free up capital, spur production, and incentivize risk-taking, thereby fueling the economy and creating jobs. The plan has been designed to be revenue neutral initially, and then revenues would grow in line with the economy.

But these policies must be coupled with sound money. A dollar must be worth the same tomorrow as it is today. Stabilizing the dollar's value starts with the federal government taking significant measures to rein in its spending and pay down the national debt. Americans must be assured that the federal government will live
within its means and get serious about eliminating our crippling debt. Repealing ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Dodd-Frank bank-regulation bill would be critical steps.

Finally, my plan promotes enterprise zones, also known as "empowerment zones." Coupled with tax reform and monetary stabilization, empowerment zones would revitalize inner cities by providing tax credits to businesses that hire workers living and working in underprivileged areas.

Some of the most tragic unemployment numbers can be found in minority communities and in urban centers around the country. Empowerment zones would create a whole new generation of wage-earners providing for their families. The late Jack Kemp, a secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development and a dear friend, was one of the first lawmakers to propose empowerment zones. He understood the tremendous economic benefits they would provide.

Each job lost today is not merely a statistic. Americans are struggling to determine whether to pay their mortgages or buy groceries, whether to buy school uniforms or pay the electric bill.

Such despair is unfitting for the greatest nation the world has ever known. After all, it is inherently American to work, to risk and to dream. Our government's policies should encourage that, not stifle it.

Mr. Cain, a Republican, is running for president of the United States. He is a former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and a former chairman of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Romney: My plan to turn around the U.S. economy

2011-11-08T16:21:00.005-05:00

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-05/Romney-My-10-point-plan-to-create-American-jobs/50265720/1

9/6/2011

Barack Obama has had his turn at fixing the American economy. Millions of unemployed Americans can judge by their own experiences what he has done and failed to do.

For my part, I believe America can do better. I have spent most of my career in the private sector starting new businesses and turning around ailing ones. Unlike career politicians who've never met a payroll, I know why jobs come and go.

Today, I'm introducing a plan consisting of 59 specific proposals — including 10 concrete actions I will take on my first day in office — to turn around America's economy. Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.

Only the individual initiative of entrepreneurs, workers, investors and inventors enables companies, and our economy as a whole, to flourish. We must once again unleash the tremendous economic potential of the American people. The contrast between what the Obama administration has done and what I would do as president could not be starker.

First, President Obama has raised or threatened to raise taxes on both individuals and businesses. I would press hard in the opposite direction. Marginal income tax rates and tax rates on savings and investment must be kept low. Further, taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains for middle-income taxpayers should be eliminated. Our corporate tax rate is among the world's highest. It leaves U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage and induces them to park their profits abroad, benefiting the rest of the world at our expense. I will fix these problems with permanent solutions. Ultimately, I will press for a total overhaul of our overly complex and inefficient system of taxation.

With scant regard for the costs imposed on consumers and businesses, President Obama has vastly expanded the regulatory reach of government. The federal government has estimated the price tag for its regulations at $1.75 trillion. I will pare back regulation, including eliminating "ObamaCare." I will direct every government agency to limit annual increases in regulatory costs to zero. The impact of any proposed new regulation must be offset by removing another regulation of equivalent cost. Every one of President Obama's regulations must be scrutinized, and those that unduly burden job creation must be axed.

Where President Obama left America's trade interests untended, I recognize the job-creating potential of international commerce. I will create the "Reagan Economic Zone," a partnership among countries committed to free enterprise and free trade. It will serve as a powerful engine for opening markets to our goods and services, and also a mechanism for confronting nations like China that violate trade rules while free-riding on the international system. I will not stand by while China pursues an economic development policy that relies on the unfair treatment of U.S. companies and the theft of their intellectual property. I have no interest in starting a trade war with China, but I cannot accept our current trade surrender.

The Obama administration has severely restricted domestic energy production. I will ensure we utilize to the fullest extent our nation's nuclear know-how and immense reserves in oil, gas and coal. By rationalizing and streamlining regulation, we will harness these resources everywhere it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns. A huge number of jobs is at stake. So, too, is the price of energy, which strongly influences economic growth. We are an energy-rich country that, thanks to environmental extremism, has chosen to live like an energy-poor country. That has to end.

Seeking to pay back political favors, President Obama has catered to the institutional interests of union bosses at the expense of both workers and businesses. I will fight against measures that deprive workers of basic rights, such as the secret ballot. And I will not tolerate federal intrusions of the kind that the National Labor Relations Board initiated when it filed suit against Boeing for opening a plant in a right-to-work state.

We also need a rational system for worker retraining, instead of the existing 47 separate programs run by nine federal agencies. America can have the world's most competitive workforce, and under my leadership, we will.

Finally, President Obama has engaged in a massive spending binge of choice. He threw dollars at every problem he encountered, running up the national debt and accomplishing worse than nothing in exchange. I will restore fiscal discipline by cutting the federal budget and placing an ironclad cap on spending. I will also press for a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Tellingly, while the private sector shed 1.8 million jobs since Barack Obama took office, the federal workforce grew by 142,500, or almost 7%. A rollback is urgently required.

As this catalogue of differences makes clear, our country has arrived at a fork in the road. In one direction lies the heavy hand of the state, indebtedness and decline. In the other direction lies limited government, free enterprise and economic growth. I know which direction is the American way. And I know in which direction lie the millions of jobs we need.

Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, was a Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division By Paul Ryan

2011-10-27T20:30:00.004-04:00

Source: http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=266160

October 26, 2011

The Heritage Foundation – Washington, D.C.

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Thank you so much, Ed, for that kind introduction.

We’re here today to explore the American Idea, and I can’t think of a better venue for this topic. The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

These are the principles that define the American Idea. And this mission has never been timelier, because these principles are very much under threat from policies here in Washington.

The American Idea belongs to all of us – inherited from our nation’s Founders, preserved by the countless sacrifices of our veterans, and advanced by visionary leaders, past and present.

What makes America exceptional – what gives life to the American Idea – is our dedication to the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, giving us equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that means opportunity.

The perfection of our union, especially our commitment to equality of opportunity, has been a story of constant striving to live up to our Founding principles. This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said, “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.”

This commitment to liberty and equality is something we take for granted during times of prosperity, when a growing economic pie gives all Americans the opportunity to pursue their dreams, to provide brighter futures for their kids, or maybe just to meet their families’ needs.

These are tough times. We know all too well that too many Americans are hurting today. And these hardships have reopened our longstanding national debate over what it means to be an exceptional nation. Have those periods of unprecedented prosperity in America’s past been the product of our Founding principles?

Or, as some would argue, have we made it this far only in spite of our outdated values? Are we still an exceptional nation? Should we even seek to be unique? Or should we become more like the rest of the world – more bureaucratic, less hopeful, and less free?

The American Idea is not tried in times of prosperity. Instead, it is tested when times are tough: when the pie is shrinking, when businesses are closing, and when workers are losing their jobs.

Those are the times when America’s commitment to equality of opportunity is called into question. That’s when the temptation to exploit fear and envy returns – when many in Washington use the politics of division to evade responsibility for their failures and to advance their own narrow political interests.

To my great disappointment, it appears that the politics of division are making a big comeback. Many Americans share my disappointment – especially those who were filled with great hope a few years ago, when then-Senator Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois.

Do you remember what he said? He said that what’s stopped us from meeting our nation’s greatest challenges is “the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics – the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.”

I couldn’t agree more.

And yet, nearly three years into his presidency, look at where we are now:

Petty and trivial? Just last week, the President told a crowd in North Carolina that Republicans are in favor of “dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance.” Can you think of a pettier way to describe sincere disagreements between the two parties on regulation and health care?

Chronic avoidance of tough decisions? The President still has not put forward a credible plan to tackle the threat of ever-rising spending and debt, and it’s been over 900 days since his party passed a budget in the Senate.

A preference for scoring cheap political points instead of consensus-building? This is the same President who is currently campaigning against a do-nothing Congress, when in fact, the House of Representatives has passed over a dozen bills to help get the economy moving and deal with the debt, only to see the President’s party kill those bills in the do-nothing Senate.

Look, we put our cards on the table. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives advanced a far-reaching plan filled with common-sense reforms aimed at putting the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity.

But instead of working together where we agree, the President has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past. He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.

The tax increases proposed by Senate Democrats and endorsed by the President – when combined with the new taxes in the health-care law, and the President’s other tax preferences – would push the top federal tax rate to roughly 50 percent in just 14 months, while doing nothing to promote job creation.

This tax increase on so-called “millionaires and billionaires” would actually constitute a huge tax hike on the nation’s most successful small businesses. According to the Tax Foundation, the surtax would hit roughly 35 percent of small-business income.

As P.J. O’Rourke put it, “The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you’re rich.”

Actually, the news is even worse. As a practical matter, when you try to chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher tax increases, you eventually run into a brick wall of math.

The President has been talking a lot about math lately. He’s been saying that “If we’re not willing to ask those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit… the math says… we’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor.”

This is really a stunning assertion from the President. When you look at the actual math, you quickly realize that the way out of this mess is to combine economic growth with reasonable, responsible spending restraint. Yet neither of these things factors into the President’s zero-sum logic.

According to the President’s logic, we should give up on trying to reform our tax code to grow the economy and get more revenue that way. Instead, these goals are taking a backseat to the President’s misguided understanding of fairness.

Remember that 2008 debate, when ABC’s Charlie Gibson pointed out that raising the capital gains tax rate actually tends to drive revenues down?

Obama replied: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” That’s the kind of logic we are unfortunately seeing today.

Also according to the President’s logic, spending restraint is incompatible with a strong, well-functioning safety net. The belief that recipients of government aid are better off the more we spend on them is remarkably persistent. No matter how many times this central tenet of liberalism gets debunked, like Brett Favre, it just keeps coming back.

The President has wrongly framed Republican efforts to get government spending under control as hard-hearted attacks on the poor. In reality, spending on programs for seniors and for lower-income families continues to grow every year under the House-passed budget – it just grows at a sustainable rate. We direct tax dollars where they’re needed most, and stop spending money we don’t have on boondoggles we don’t need.

The President’s political math is a muddled mix of false accusations and false choices. The actual math is apolitical, and it’s clear: By the time my kids are my age, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the size of government will be double what it is today.

Government health care programs alone will have grown to consume 45 percent of federal spending. The primary driver of this increase is runaway inflation in health care costs, which are rising at 2 to 3 times the rate of GDP.

It’s impossible to keep funding health care expenditures at this rate. Even President Obama has said, “If you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.”

So the real debate is about how best to control these unsustainable costs. And if I could sum up that disagreement in a couple of sentences, I would say this: Our plan is to empower patients. Their plan is to empower bureaucrats.

The Republican plan gives individuals the power to put market pressure on providers and make them compete.

The President’s plan is to give 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington the power to cut Medicare in ways that, according to Medicare’s own chief actuary, would simply drive providers out of business. This would result in harsh disruptions and denied care for seniors.

Pain like this simply can’t be sustained. So when it comes to out-of-control spending on entitlements, the President’s math simply doesn’t add up.

And his math is no better on the tax side. Let’s say we took all the income from those the President calls “rich” – those making $250,000 or more. A 100 percent tax rate on their total annual income would only fund the government for six months. Just six months!

What about some of the other tax hikes the President likes to talk about? Under the President’s policies, deficits are set to rise by a whopping $9.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Letting the top two tax rates expire would equal roughly 8 percent of that planned deficit increase.

Eliminating tax subsidies for oil and gas companies would only equal 0.5 percent of the President’s planned deficits.

And what about corporate jet owners? That provision would reduce those deficits by just 0.03 percent.

Look, I’m all for closing tax loopholes – but you can’t close our nation’s deficits by chasing ever-higher spending with politically motivated tax hikes here and there. Instead, tax reform must broaden the base and lower rates.

This policy approach, which has attracted strong bipartisan support, would bolster our fiscal health by increasing competitiveness and encouraging more investment and job creation.

Lately, the President has been fond of taking Ronald Reagan quotes out of context, in an effort to persuade Republicans that Reagan would have agreed with the idea of using fear and envy to push a partisan agenda of permanently higher taxes.

Every time he does this, I can picture Reagan shaking his head: “There you go again.”

Obama quotes Reagan as saying that bus drivers shouldn’t pay a higher effective tax rate than millionaires. Well, that’s a no-brainer. Nobody disagrees with that.

But it is simply disingenuous to use this quote as evidence that Reagan would have supported the tax increases that Obama wants Congress to pass.

Reagan was attempting to build support for the landmark 1986 tax reform, a revenue-neutral law that reformed the tax code by lowering tax rates while broadening the tax base.

Reagan’s point – which President Obama clearly missed – was not that we should raise tax rates to chase out-of-control spending in Washington.

His point was that we should get rid of loopholes that are exploited by the few, so that we could lower everyone’s tax rates and help the economy grow.

The House-passed budget includes this kind of tax reform, which many agree would provide an immediate boost to the economy. Our budget proposed getting rid of scores of loopholes, lowering the hurdles for job creation and economic growth, and making our tax code fair, simple, and competitive.

In his address to Congress last month, the President said he agrees in principle with this kind of reform, especially when it comes to the uncompetitive way we tax our businesses.

This made Republicans think, well, we might have an opportunity here for the kind of genuine consensus-building that the President talked about as a candidate.

Yet he chose not to pursue this kind of tax reform. Instead, he sent us a partisan bill filled with the same stimulus proposals that failed two years ago, only this time he also asked for permanent tax hikes to go with them.

He’s also failed to work with us on another area where one would think we could find common ground: ending the lavish subsidies and government benefits that go to those who are already successful.

The House-passed budget was full of proposals to get rid of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

Why are tax dollars being wasted on bankrupt, politically-connected solar energy firms?

Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?

Why have we extended an endless supply of taxpayer credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead of demanding that their government guarantee be wound down and their taxpayer subsidies ended?

Rather than raising taxes and making it more difficult for Americans to become wealthy, let’s lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive.

The President likes to use Warren Buffett and his secretary as an example of why we should raise taxes on the rich.

Well, Warren Buffett gets the same health and retirement benefits from the government as his secretary.

But our proposals to modestly income-adjust Social Security and Medicare benefits have been met with sheer demagoguery by leading members of the President’s party.

The politics of division have always struck me as odd: the eagerness to take more, combined with the refusal to subsidize less.

Instead of working with us on these common-sense reforms, the President is barnstorming swing states, pushing a divisive message that pits one group of Americans against another on the basis of class.

This just won’t work in America. Class is not a fixed designation in this country. We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.

The Treasury Department’s latest study on income mobility in America found that during the ten-year period starting in 1996, roughly half of the taxpayers who started in the bottom 20 percent had moved up to a higher income group by 2005.

Meanwhile, half of all taxpayers ended up in a different income group at the end of ten years. Many moved up, and some moved down, but economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most people over this period.

Another recent survey of over 500 successful entrepreneurs found that 93 percent came from middle-class or lower-class backgrounds. The majority were the first in their families to launch a business.

Their stories are the American story: Millions of immigrants fled from the closed societies of the Old World to the security of equal rights in this land of upward mobility.

Telling Americans they are stuck in their current station in life, that they are victims of circumstances beyond their control, and that government’s role is to help them cope with it – well, that’s not who we are. That’s not what we do.

Our Founding Fathers rejected this mentality. In societies marked by class structure, an elite class made up of rich and powerful patrons supplies the needs of a large client underclass that toils, but cannot own. The unfairness of closed societies is the kindling for class warfare, where the interests of “capital” and “labor” are perpetually in conflict. What one class wins, the other loses.

The legacy of this tradition can still be seen in Europe today: Top-heavy welfare states have replaced the traditional aristocracies, and masses of the long-term unemployed are locked into the new lower class.

The United States was destined to break out of this bleak history. Our future would not be staked on traditional class structures, but on civic solidarity. Gone would be the struggle of class against class.

Instead, Americans would work, compete, and co-operate in an open market, climb the ladder of opportunity, and keep the fruits of their efforts.

Self-government and the rule of law would secure our equal, God-given rights. Our political and economic systems – rooted in freedom and responsibility – would reward, and thus cultivate, traditional virtues.

Given that the President’s policies have moved us closer to the European model, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that his class-based rhetoric has followed suit.

We shouldn’t be surprised... but we have every right to be disappointed. Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment.

This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.

Ironically, equality of outcome is a form of inequality – one that is based on political influence and bureaucratic favoritism.

That’s the real class warfare that threatens us: A class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society. And their gains will come at the expense of working Americans, entrepreneurs, and that small businesswoman who has the gall to take on the corporate chieftain.

It’s disappointing that this President’s actions have exacerbated this form of class warfare in so many ways:

While the EPA is busy punishing commercially competitive sources of energy, a class of bureaucrats at the Department of Energy has been acting like the world’s worst venture capital fund, spending recklessly on politically favored alternatives.

While the unemployment rate remains stuck above 9 percent, a class of bureaucrats at the National Labor Relations Board is threatening hundreds of jobs by suing an American employer for politically motivated reasons.

And while millions of Americans are left wondering whether their employers will drop their health insurance because of the new health care law, a class of bureaucrats at HHS has handed out over 1,400 waivers to those firms and unions with the political connections to lobby for them.

These actions starkly highlight the difference between the two parties that lies at the heart of the matter: Whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that, and towards an insistence on equality of outcome.

If you believe in the former, you follow the American Idea that justice is done when we level the playing field at the starting line, and rewards are proportionate to merit and effort.

If you believe in the latter kind of equality, you think most differences in wealth and rewards are matters of luck or exploitation, and that few really deserve what they have.

That’s the moral basis of class warfare – a false morality that confuses fairness with redistribution, and promotes class envy instead of social mobility.

I’d like to introduce President Obama to the Ronald Reagan he isn’t so eager to quote – the man who said, “Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?”

President Reagan was absolutely right. Instead of policies that make it harder for Americans to rise, let’s lower the hurdles to upward mobility.

That’s what the American Idea is all about. You know, in the midst of all the joys and sorrows of our everyday lives, I think we sometimes forget why America was considered such an exceptional nation at its Founding, and why it remains so.

To me, the results of the Founders’ exceptional vision can be summed up in a single sentence: Throughout human history, the American Idea has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.

Americans, guided by our ideals, have sacrificed everything to combat tyranny and brutal dictators; we’ve expanded opportunity, opened markets, and inspired others to resist oppression; we’ve exported innovation and imagination; and we’ve welcomed immigrants seeking a fresh start.

Here in America – unlike most places on earth – all citizens have the right to rise.

Thank you.

My Tax and Spending Reform Plan:Individuals will have the option of paying a20% flat-rate income tax and I'll cap spending at 18% of GDP By Rick Perry

2011-10-26T17:59:00.003-04:00

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204777904576651330270547222-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html

The folks in Washington might not like to hear it, but the plain truth is the U.S. government spends too much. Taxes are too high, too complex, and too riddled with special interest loopholes. And our expensive entitlement system is unsustainable in the long run.

Without significant change quickly, our nation will go the way of some in Europe: mired in debt and unable to pay our bills. President Obama and many in Washington seem unable or unwilling to tackle these issues, either out of fear of alienating the left or because they want Americans to be dependent on big government.

On Tuesday I will announce my "Cut, Balance and Grow" plan to scrap the current tax code, lower and simplify tax rates, cut spending and balance the federal budget, reform entitlements, and grow jobs and economic opportunity.

The plan starts with giving Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20% or their current income tax rate. The new flat tax preserves mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 annually, and it increases the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.

This simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs. By eliminating the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, we will renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs, inspires Americans to work hard and forms the foundation of a strong economy. My plan also abolishes the death tax once and for all, providing needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.

My plan restores American competitiveness in the global marketplace and provides strong incentives for U.S.-based employers to build new factories and create thousands of jobs here at home.

First, we will lower the corporate tax rate to 20%—dropping it from the second highest in the developed world to a rate on par with our global competitors. Second, we will encourage the swift repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion estimated to be parked overseas by temporarily lowering the rate to 5.25%. And third, we will transition to a "territorial tax system"—as seen in Hong Kong and France, for example—that only taxes in-country income.

The mind-boggling complexity of the current tax code helps large corporations with lawyers and accountants devise the best tax-avoidance strategies money can buy. That is why Cut, Balance and Grow also phases out corporate loopholes and special-interest tax breaks to provide a level playing field for employers of all sizes.

To help older Americans, we will eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, boosting the incomes of 17 million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings.

We will eliminate the tax on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains to free up the billions of dollars Americans are sitting on to avoid taxes on the gain.

All of these tax cuts will be meaningless if we do not control federal spending. Last year the government spent $1.3 trillion more than it collected, and total federal debt now approaches $15 trillion. By the end of 2011, the Office of Management and Budget expects the gross amount of federal debt to exceed the size of America's entire economy for the first time in over 65 years.

Under my plan, we will establish a clear goal of balancing the budget by 2020. It will be an extremely difficult task exacerbated by the current economic crisis and our need for significant tax cuts to spur growth. But that growth is what will get us to balance, if we are willing to make the hard decisions of cutting.

We should start moving toward fiscal responsibility by capping federal spending at 18% of our gross domestic product, banning earmarks and future bailouts, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. My plan freezes federal civilian hiring and salaries until the budget is balanced. And to fix the regulatory excess of the Obama administration and its predecessors, my plan puts an immediate moratorium on pending federal regulations and provides a full audit of all regulations passed since 2008 to determine their need, impact and effect on job creation.

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley must be quickly repealed and, if necessary, replaced by market-oriented, common-sense measures.

America must also once and for all face up to entitlement reform. To preserve benefits for current and near-term Social Security beneficiaries, my plan permanently stops politicians from raiding the program's trust fund. Congressional IOUs are no substitute for workers' Social Security payments. We should use the federal Highway Trust Fund as a model for protecting the integrity of a pay-as-you-go system.

Cut, Balance and Grow also gives younger workers the option to own their Social Security contributions through personal retirement accounts that Washington politicians can never raid. Because young workers will own their contributions, they will be free to seek a market rate of return if they choose, and to leave their retirement savings to their dependents when they die.

Fixing America's tax, spending and entitlement cultures will not be easy. But the status quo of byzantine taxes, loose spending and the perpetual delay of entitlement reform is a recipe for disaster.

Cut, Balance and Grow strikes a major blow against the Washington-knows-best mindset. It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.

Mr. Perry, a Republican, is the governor of Texas and a candidate for president.

Columns By Herman Cain

2011-10-23T14:33:00.003-04:00

Universal Choice Can Fix the Health Care Roof

Mar 26, 2007

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/hermancain/2007/03/26/universal_choice_can_fix_the_health_care_roof/page/full/

A simple change in the antiquated tax code would create an avalanche of universal choice in health care, instead of current proposals that produce universal dependence on government. Namely, the U.S. should eliminate the deductibility discrimination between employers and employees for health insurance premiums.

The ideal solution would be to replace the tax code with the Fair Tax, which essentially replaces the income tax with a consumption tax. But since few politicians with a bully pulpit have shown the moral or political courage to lead the sizeable Fair Tax movement, let's start with the second best approach, universal deductibility.

Universal deductibility of health insurance premiums by employers, employees, the unemployed, individuals and business owners would connect the consumer to health care costs. When people spend their own money, they spend it more wisely. Most people will purchase health plans they can afford, instead of expecting more benefits from their employer or the government.

The flagrant flaw in most of the ideas proposed by the presidential candidates is that they are variations of socialized health care.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have all offered health care plans that eliminate individual choice and increase government mandates on employers, individuals and health care providers.

RomneyCare in Massachusetts is already experiencing a cost explosion. The only Republican to propose a market-based solution is Newt Gingrich, who has not yet declared his candidacy.

The proponents of socialized health care do not believe individuals and doctors possess the ability to make their own health care decisions. They would rather take advantage of what Steve Forbes recently described as "the abysmal ignorance of so many – including boatloads of business executives and entrepreneurs – about what it takes to bring rationality, productivity and lower prices to the U.S. health care market."

The greatest flaw of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and President's Bush's new proposal is that they are tied to the disastrously flawed tax code in the form of yet another tax deduction. These plans are improvements on the current discriminatory system, but they further complicate an already incomprehensible tax code.

The president's proposal, which allows deductibility of health insurance premiums, has a hidden "sneak-a-tax." Under the Bush plan, if your employer pays more than $15,000 for your annual health insurance premium, you pay tax on the excess coverage. Below that amount for a typical family, the plan provides only small, non-game-changing savings. Worse, the plan is not indexed to inflation. When inflation eventually catches up to the $15,000 deduction, families will suffer the same tax penalties posed by the Alternative Minimum Tax.

HSAs are another concept that was supposed to "move us in the right direction" of more affordability and accessibility of health insurance. HSAs have worked for many, but way too slowly as health care costs and insurance premiums have increased at annual double digit percentages.

The socialists among us object to universal choice because they fundamentally believe that government can spend people's hard-earned money better than the person who earned it. The bureaucrats object to universal choice because it would force them to cut wasteful spending to "offset" the "lost" revenue from allowing the deduction. That's political speak for "our job is to continue to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic."

Even with universal choice, the liberals will still scream about the 47 million people who do not have health care. They will ignore the 63 percent of the uninsured who work for small businesses that cannot afford health insurance coverage because the costs keep rising faster than their profits. Conservatives ought to counter with the 253 million people who have private health insurance that four of the presidential front runners want to take away.

As I stated on an NBC health care special in 1994, if you have a leak in the roof of a building and you know that the roof is leaking, you don’t blow up the building to fix the leak in the roof. That's what total government control would do to our health care system. The system will work if government would get out of the way. We don't have to blow up the system to fix a few leaks.

Universal deductibility would stimulate universal choice, which would fix the leak in our health care system's roof while making the building stronger.

The free market system, in which the consumer has access to information, choices and his own money, has driven down the prices of all goods and services that government has not overregulated or over-controlled. With a simple change in the current tax code to eliminate discriminatory deductibility for health insurance and eventually health care costs, free market dynamics can solve another problem that Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Romney want to make worse.

Universal choice in health care is a choice the public must demand. Otherwise, they will have to live with the disease of socialized health care.

Herman Cain is the National Chairman of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute. He is the former president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., and currently is CEO and president of T.H.E. New Voice, Inc., a business and leadership consulting company.

To fix America, start by solving the right problem

September 18th, 2011

The first step in solving a problem is to make sure you are working on the right problem. I know this observation sounds like common sense but it is void in the White House and Washington, D.C. We have become a nation of crises, and this administration continues to miss the target as to what the problems are, and therefore the crises get worse.

We have an economic crisis followed closely by crises in energy, immigration, foreign policy, national security and the most severe crisis – a deficiency of leadership.

The president’s recent jobs speech was just that, a speech. It was not a plan to stimulate jobs and economic growth, because it did not contain meaningful fuel for the economic engine of our economy, which is the business sector. His speech contained a lot more government spending and a few tax trinkets to businesses.

Stimulus I of nearly $1 trillion did not work. It is totally illogical to expect another package of nearly $450 billion to work. More spending is not the problem. Lack of economic growth is the problem. The economic outlook is dim.

This is why I have proposed my bold 9-9-9 economic growth and jobs plan discussed in previous commentaries, and on my website www.hermancain.com. It significantly reduces taxes on businesses and workers because of an expanded revenue base of corporate, individual and retail sales. It also eliminates the payroll, capital gains and death taxes, and reduces the tax on repatriated profits from a top rate of 35 percent to 9 percent.

The companion problem that’s holding economic growth back is uncertainty. Since the Congress and the president were only able to extend the 2009 tax rates for two years, it left businesses asking, “Then what?” They did not get an answer out of Washington, and now the president is hinting at substantial tax increases to pay for his nearly $450 billion spending speech.

We are nearly 70 percent dependent on foreign oil. Since the Congressional Research Service has documented repeatedly that we have enough natural resources in oil, coal, natural gas and shale oil to become energy independent, it would seem logical to remove barriers that are in the way. In this case, it’s government regulatory agencies such as the EPA, which has gone wild. Just ask any oil and gas businessman or farmer and they will give you an earful.

Illegal immigration is a four-part problem. We must secure the borders for real and stop claiming that the southern border is safe as the administration has said. Ask any of the sheriffs that work along the border, and again they will give you an accurate assessment. Secondly, we must promote the current path to citizenship and clean up the bureaucracy that discourages immigrants from coming through the front door. Thirdly, enforce the immigration laws but make it easier for businesses to obey the law with e-verify and other technologies. Fourthly, empower the states to enforce the federal immigration laws. The federal government has failed repeatedly at enforcing our immigration laws.

My approach to foreign policy is an extension of the Reagan philosophy, “Peace through strength.” In a world that is not safer by any measure, my philosophy is “peace through strength and clarity”. We must clearly identify our friends in the world, and clearly identify our enemies, and stop giving money to our enemies. Our enemies must clearly understand that we will stand with our friends, such as Israel.

This administration has weakened our national security by placing a priority on Defense cuts instead of a priority on enhancing our defense capabilities with advances in technology. The most memorable example was cancellation of the Ballistic Missile Defense system being built in Turkey. That decision made us and our friends more vulnerable in that part of the world.

Where there is no vision, there is no leadership and problems don’t get solved.

And the nation suffers.

Replacing President Obama in 2012 is definitely the right problem to work on.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan

2011-10-22T12:45:00.004-04:00

Source: http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

Vision for Economic Renewal

The natural state of our economy is prosperity. Freedom ensures that.

In order to return to prosperity, Government must get off our backs, out of our pockets and out of our way

Economic Guiding Principles

Production drives the economy, not spending. Production is the engine, consumption is the caboose.

We can not spend our way to prosperity.

Government spending is like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of the pool, pouring it in the shallow end.
Then they HOPE that the water level will CHANGE.

Risk taking drives growth.

Business formation and job creation are dependent on entrepreneurs taking risks.

Investors who fund those entrepreneurs likewise take risks.

Measurements must be dependable.

A dollar must always be a dollar just as an hour is always 60 minutes.

Sound money is crucial for prosperity.

UNITE, never DIVIDE; UNITED around ECONOMIC GROWTH

When one party is so focused on spending so that the other must focus on cutting, we must unite around economic growth

Unite income tax payers with payroll taxpayers so we all pull for low rates

Unite those wanting to eliminate deductions with those seeking lower rates.

Unite the Flat-Taxers with the Fair-Taxers

Phase One

Our current economic crisis calls for bold action to truly stimulate the economy and Renew America back to its greatness. The
9-9-9 Plan gets Washington D.C. out of the business of picking winners and losers, using the tax code to dole out favors, and
dividing the country with class warfare. It is fair, simple, transparent and efficient. It taxes everything once and nothing twice.
It taxes the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rates. It is neutral with respect to savings and consumption,capital and
labor, imports and exports and whether companies pay dividends or retain earnings.

9% Business Flat Tax

Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses, all capital investment, and net exports.

Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those employed in the zone

9% Individual Flat Tax.

Gross income less charitable deductions.

Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone.

9% National Sales Tax.

Unlike a state sales tax, which is an add-on tax that increases the price of goods and services, this is a
replacement tax. It replaces taxes that are already embedded in selling prices. By replacing higher marginal rates
in the production process with lower marginal rates, marginal production costs actually decline, which will lead to
prices being the same or lower, not higher.

Economic Impact

According to former Reagan Treasury official Gary Robbins, of Fiscal Associates, the 9-9-9 Plan will expand GDP
by $2 trillion, create 6 million new jobs, increase business investment by one third, and increase wages by 10%.

9-9-9 Plan: Summary

Removes all payroll taxes and unites all tax payers

Provides the least incentive to evade taxes and the fewest opportunities to do so

Lifts a $430 billion dead-weight burden on the economy due to compliance, enforcement, collection, etc…

Is fair, simple, efficient, neutral, and transparent

Ends nearly all deductions and special interest favors

Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits

Exports leave our shores without the Business Tax or the Sales Tax embedded in their cost, making them world class
competitive. Imports are subject to the same taxation as domestically produced goods, leveling the playing field.

Lowest marginal rates on production

Kills the Death Tax

Allows immediate expensing of business investments

Eliminates double taxation of dividends

Increases capital formation which aids capital availability for small businesses

Increased capital per worker drives productivity and wage growth

Features a platform to launch properly structured Empowerment Zones to renew our inner cities

The pro-growth, pro-job, pro-export economic policies of the 9-9-9 PLAN equals a strong dollar policy

Phase 2 – The Fair Tax

Amidst a backdrop of the economic renewal created by the 9-9-9 Plan, I will begin the process of educating the American people on the
benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair Tax.

Ultimately replaces individual and corporate income taxes

Ends the IRS as we know it and repeals the 16th Amendment

Meet Herman Cain

Mr. Cain has more than 40 years experience in the the private sector where he balanced budgets, created jobs and rescued failing companies. A no-nonsense business leader who has turned struggling companies around to renewed success, Mr. Cain’s policies will do the same for the United States of America.

How Obama Spent His Summer Vacation: The strangest PR debacle of a weird presidency.By John Hayward

2011-08-28T19:54:00.003-04:00

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45757

Barack Obama’s misadventures in Martha’s Vineyard are some of the stranger unforced public-relations errors in recent memory. Spending a fortune to jet off to a fabled playground of the rich, while the country suffers from his recessionary economic policies, was a bizarre slap in the face to an electorate that has already come to view this President as arrogant and out-of-touch. “Optics” matter. Camp David is a nice vacation spot, too.

Naturally, Obama played a lot of golf on vacation. Part of the problem with skipping off to the golf course so frequently is that when he plays a lot of golf on vacation, he gets heat for it. Upon learning that Obama “played the trifecta” by hitting all three of the big golf courses in Martha’s Vineyard, Downgrade America finds itself wondering how much that costs.

The snarky White House response of asking about Speaker John Boehner’s handicap was a disaster. It’s childish, it keeps people talking about the President’s incessant putting, it diminishes the stature of an office we like to think of as uniquely important, and it puts Obama in the middle of a very large glass house with stones in his hands.

Developments in Obama's Libyan war didn’t cut his vacation short, and the Great D.C. Quake didn’t even pull him off the links. The latter incident is a relatively minor criticism – nothing happening in post-apocalypse D.C. required him to scoot off to a command post – but it looks really bad in context. Repeated images of Obama’s disengagement produce the kind of “optics” that play on an IMAX screen.

The media launched a desperate effort to describe the Martha’s Vineyard misadventure as a “working vacation.” They’ve even tried congratulating him for “working in golf during his working vacation.” Photos of him looking serious while meeting with aides and taking phone calls proliferated. Try Googling the phrase “Obama working vacation” to get an idea of how earnest this effort at image control has been.

Speaking of earnest, White House spokesman John Earnest tried to wave off criticism of the Obama vacation as “cable chatter,” saying the President knows “this is a job that he’s responsible for doing wherever he is, whether he’s sitting in the Oval office, or whether he’s caught on the golf course when an emerging action takes place.”

One of the problems with this defense is that Americans see the current economic crisis as unique, a view the Obama Administration has strongly encouraged. I would imagine the increasingly disenchanted public remembers all those loud promises that the President “will not rest” until “everyone looking for a job can find one,” especially since they were made as recently as two weeks ago.

Unique challenges call for remarkable leadership and sacrifice, not scheduled vacation romps… much less a President who never seems to do anything except show himself a good time, and raise funds for his re-election campaign. He’s spent plenty of time hanging around with deep-pockets supporters during this “working vacation.”

Now the President is getting some flack for the possibility that he’ll go home early to avoid Hurricane Irene. It would be damned silly for the POTUS to sit there and get pummeled. A massive hurricane is a perfectly good reason to end the vacation early. The problem is that people keep thinking about all the perfectly good reasons he shouldn’t have gone in the first place.

As the vacation wraps up with tales of First Lady Michelle Obama’s “disgusting” spending sprees - said total over $10 million of taxpayer money over the past year - and reports that some residents of Martha’s Vineyard will be glad to see the Obamas go, you have to wonder how the White House political team failed to realize how awful all of this would look. Who thought it would be a good idea to cram the huge presidential entourage onto a small island, at massive taxpayer expense, in the middle of a seemingly endless recession? Is Obama basically daring his last few dead-end supporters to abandon him?

Someone at Martha’s Vineyard took that dare, and put up a sign on the route most often traveled by the presidential motorcade:

John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub.com.

Pledging To Work Toward A Stronger Future By Rick Perry and Nikki Haley

2011-08-20T14:25:00.003-04:00

Source: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/editorial/16403/

July 19, 2011

As governors of states whose citizens, like all Americans, are desperate for the restoration of fiscal responsibility in Washington, D.C., we are proud to have signed the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge in the midst of the ongoing debate over once again raising the federal debt ceiling.

Put simply, we oppose a federal debt limit increase unless all three of the following, common-sense conditions have been met: substantial cuts in spending; enforceable spending caps to put the country on the path to a balanced budget; and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment should also include a requirement for a super-majority vote of Congressional approval before taxes are ever raised.

At heart, the pledge represents the reality that yet another temporary, band-aid fix to our nation's budgetary woes is no fix at all. The time has come for all of us to begin holding the federal government to the same common-sense standards currently in place in most states, including South Carolina and Texas.

Just like most businesses and families, states like ours have a limited amount of money on hand with which to build their balanced budgets, and when times are hard - just like with businesses and families across the country - states have to prioritize, make sacrifices and figure out how to best provide essential services to their citizens.

In Texas, state leaders managed to balance our budget, hold the line on raising taxes, preserve billions in a rainy day fund and prioritize funding for public schools. That sort of philosophy is a big reason Texas accounts for 45 percent of net U.S. job creation since June 2009, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

In South Carolina, for the first time in history, legislators have to record their votes on every section of the budget, so that citizens can see their spending habits. And a new marker has been laid down - every dollar that falls after the budget is initially balanced should go to one of three things: tax relief, debt relief, or rebates directly to the taxpayer. No longer will South Carolina spend every single dollar every single year.

Washington's ability to continuously vote itself more fiscal breathing room may help Congress - at least in the short term - avoid making the kinds of tough decisions made by states, businesses and families. But ignoring economic realities will only lead to even more painful choices down the road and increases the potential for a financial collapse that could permanently cost America its role as the world's economic power.

Unfortunately for those of us hoping for real solutions, the system in Washington makes it easier for elected officials to bury their heads in the sand, avoid responsibility and make the easiest choice of all: borrow more, plunge our nation deeper into debt, and make this the first generation in America's history to punt the tough decisions to our children and grandchildren.

Such moves may be good politics, since they mean officials don't have to say "no" to anyone, but as a matter of policy they are indefensible.

The more money Washington prints and borrows to pay for pet projects and wasteful programs, the further our federal government gets from fulfilling its core missions: the missions that keep Americans safe, productive and employed.

Meanwhile, the more Washington spends money it doesn't have, the more it attaches strings to that money, dictating to states and communities exactly how they should run. It's an endless cycle: Washington borrows money on the good name of the taxpayer, then "gives" some of it back with mandates on how it is spent.

It is worth remembering that all government money, borrowed or not, comes from the taxpayers, and it's those taxpayers who will be left at the table when the check comes due.

Again, this approach is indefensible, and the only way to get the federal government to put an end to it is to draw a line and finally hold Washington accountable. The pledge we've signed represents an important step in this process.

It calls for the kinds of budget cuts Washington needs now, and for a hard cap on all future spending. And it finally moves us to a mandatory balanced budget that will end the era of national debt, raging deficits and failed "stimulus" programs that have negatively impacted nearly every aspect of American life.

As Americans, we need to continue to stand up for the principles we believe in and those that served as the foundation for our nation's unparalleled successes. The principles of a limited federal government and responsible fiscal leadership have sustained us during tough times before, and we have every confidence they can lead us out of this period of sluggish economic growth.

As governors, we have to ensure the voices of all Americans - not just of those in Washington who largely got us into this mess - are heard in this debate, and that we don't miss the opportunity to repair a part of our economy, and our political culture, that's been broken for far too long.

Written by Texas Governor Rick Perry and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

Take America Back From Obama And His Cronies - 2012 Solutions

2011-08-13T14:09:00.003-04:00

Source: http://michelebachmann.townhall.com/blog/g/80f86cd0-b1d7-494e-9024-294ad5c39b0e

Certainty through Tax Code Reform By Michele Bachmann
December 14, 2010

Uncertainty is in the air this holiday season, as lawmakers are yet to pass legislation preventing Obama’s tax hikes from affecting all taxpayers on January 1, 2011. Even though Congress likely will vote on a tax bill in the next 16 days, more uncertainty is just around the corner.

As a former federal tax attorney, I know our nation’s current tax system is onerous and confusing. The new majority must take a cold hard look at our way of doing business. According to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, we find ourselves in a perpetual state of temporary tax codes:

“In the late 1990s, there were typically fewer than a dozen tax provisions that had just a limited lease on life and needed to be renewed every year or so.

“Today there are 141.

“Now Congress, taking up a deal worked out between the Obama administration and Republican leaders, is poised to turn the whole personal income-tax system into something of a temporary structure. The plan embraces a broad range of provisions—an extension of Bush-era rates, a new estate-tax formula—but for only two years. A payroll-tax cut in the bill is for a single year.

“This means that if the compromise passes largely intact, the U.S. will have no permanent regime governing levies on salaries, capital gains and dividends, the Social Security tax, as well as a slew of targeted breaks for families, students and other groups. This on top of dozens of corporate-tax provisions that already were subject to annual renewal.

“The level of uncertainty, unusual for developed nations, complicates planning and discourages hiring and investment, many economists and corporate executives say.”

Our founding fathers never intended a larger-than-life government manipulating our very economy via the tax code. We can start to reverse this course by focusing on pro-growth measures that will provide needed certainty to businesses and families. The 112thCongress should consider cutting the corporate tax rate to make it more attractive for businesses seeking to operate in the industrialized world. I would also like to see the zeroing out of capital gains taxes. Then, let’s reduce all marginal personal income tax rates for individuals and start debate on ending the death tax. Better yet, given our nation’s dire economic situation, let’s begin a serious discussion about whether or not to scrap the current tax code and replace it with a fairer, flatter tax code. I think Americans would appreciate slashing the tax code to a fraction of its current length of more than 50,000 pages.

The American people have given Republicans a second chance. In the 112th Congress, it is my desire to see Congress bring greater simplicity to our tax policy. As a small business owner myself I know a pro-growth economy is possible and one place to start is through tax code certainty for small businesses, corporations and families.

Source: http://www.hermancain.com/the-issues#tab-2

Reduce Government Spending By Herman Cain

It is no secret that federal government spending is out of control. They view the American taxpayers as a bottomless piggybank for their wasteful programs and expansion of power. And we the people will not tolerate it any longer.

The massive debt caused by liberal policies will be passed onto our children and grandchildren if we do not stop it. They will be stuck with the tab for the government takeover of health care, industry bailouts and failed stimulus packages. They will be the ones approached with outstretched palms by the Chinese to pay back the billions upon billions we owe them. Each generation of Americans should seek to leave behind a better and more prosperous nation for the next, not saddle them with debt from reckless spending.

Though it might not be politically popular to modernize and eliminate some of our entitlement programs, responsible leaders should be willing to do it all the same. They must be prepared to make tough choices and learn to simply say “no.” This can only happen when our elected officials stop being politicians and start being leaders. Simply put: there is no “Department of Happy” in Washington, D.C.

Nothing should be off the table. Every federal agency, every government program and expenditure must be reviewed and revised with a keen eye and a red pen. Leaders should be willing to shrink budgets by target percentages, and those charged with implementing those changes must be held accountable.

And it works! I have served as an executive of several major corporations. When times were tough and money was tight, I asked our employees to cut back drastically, and explained why it was necessary, and they did. We have all had to make difficult decisions in our own household or at our work place. Serious but responsible belt tightening can save businesses, and it can also save our country with the right leadership.

Source: http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

The Gingrich Jobs and Prosperity Plan

America only works when Americans are working. Newt has a pro-growth strategy similar to the proven policies used when he was Speaker to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and create jobs. The plan includes:

Stop the 2013 tax increases to promote stability in the economy. Job creation improved after Congress extended tax relief for two years in December. We should make the rates permanent.

Make the United States the most desirable location for new business investment through a bold series of tax cuts, including: Eliminating the capital gains tax to make American entrepreneurs more competitive against those in other countries; Dramatically reducing the corporate income tax (among highest in the world) to 12.5%; Allowing for 100% expensing of new equipment to spur innovation and American manufacturing; Ending the death tax permanently.

Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year.

Strengthen the dollar by returning to the Reagan-era monetary policies that stopped runaway inflation and reforming the Federal Reserve to promote transparency.

Remove obstacles to job creation imposed by destructive and ineffective regulations, programs and bureaucracies. Steps include: Repealing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which did nothing to prevent the financial crisis and is holding companies back from making new investments in the U.S; Repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, the abuse of which helped cause the financial crisis; Repealing the Dodd-Frank Law which is killing small independent banks, crippling loans to small businesses and crippling home sales; Breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, moving their smaller successors off government guarantees and into the free market; Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency with an Environmental Solutions Agency that works collaboratively with local government and industry to achieve better results; and Modernizing the Food and Drug Administration to get lifesaving medicines and technologies to patients faster.

Implement an American energy plan that removes obstacles to responsible energy development and creates jobs in the United States.

Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches.

Repeal and replace Obamacare with a pro-jobs, pro-responsibility health plan that puts doctors and patients in charge of health decisions instead of bureaucrats.

Fundamental reform of entitlement programs with the advice and help of the American people.

http://mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Health Care By Mitt Romney

Our next president must repeal Obamacare and replace it with market-based reforms that empower states and individuals and reduce health care costs. States and private markets, not the federal government, hold the key to improving our health care system.

ObamaCare

Repeal and replace President Obama’s health care law

Mitt Romney believes that Obamacare must be repealed. On his first day in office, he will issue an executive order paving the way for waivers from Obamacare for all 50 states. Subsequently, he will call on Congress to fully repeal Obamacare, and advocate reforms that return power to the states, improve access by slowing health care cost increases, and make health insurance portable and flexible for today’s economy.

State leadership

Give states the responsibility, flexibility, and resources to act

The central advantage of our federalist system is that different states will experiment with and settle on the health care solutions that suit their residents best. We can empower states to expand health care access to low-income Americans by block-granting funds for Medicaid and the uninsured. Mitt Romney’s reforms also offer the states resources to help the chronically ill, to improve their access to care, and to improve the functioning of insurance markets for others.

Tax Reform

Empower individuals to purchase their own insurance

The tax code currently offers open-ended subsidies for the purchase of insurance through employers. Mitt Romney will expand the tax deduction to also include those who buy their own health insurance. This simple change creates the best of both worlds. Absolutely nothing will change for those who like their current coverage. And individuals who don't get coverage through their employers will have portable, lower-cost options.

Regulatory Reform

Focus federal regulation of health care on making markets work

Mitt Romney believes that the federal regulation of health care should be limited and focused. Obamacare takes an opposite approach and uses federal regulation in an all-encompassing manner. Mitt will use limited federal regulation to correct common failures in insurance markets, while eliminating counterproductive federal rules. For example, individuals who are continuously covered for a specified period of time may not be denied access to insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Mitt also believes that individuals should be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines, free from costly state benefit requirements. Finally, individuals and small businesses should be allowed to form purchasing pools to lower insurance costs and improve choice.

Medical Malpractice Reform

Reform the broken medical liability system

The current medical liability system encourages defensive medicine and drives up health care costs. To address these problems, Mitt Romney will cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation. He also believes in providing innovation grants to states for additional medical liability reforms, such as alternative dispute resolution or health care courts.

Market Forces

Make health care more like a market and less like a government program

Mitt Romney will strengthen health savings accounts (HSAs), which help consumers save for health expenses and choose cost-effective insurance. For example, he believes that we should permit HSA funds to be used to pay for health insurance premiums. The market reforms Mitt is proposing will drive down costs, better inform consumers, and improve the quality of health care in our nation.

Five Big Debt Debate Lies

2011-08-01T20:25:00.004-04:00

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/579929/201107291837/Five-Big-Debt-Debate-Lies.htm

07/29/2011

Transparency: After months of dire warnings about not raising the debt ceiling, the public is still not convinced it's a big deal. Maybe that's because they've been repeatedly lied to about what's at stake.

Even with the clock ticking down, twice as many Americans still say lawmakers should vote against a debt ceiling hike as say they should vote for it. President Obama has said this is because the public isn't paying attention.

Just as likely is that they are paying attention, but have been turned off by the many falsehoods being bandied about — most of them by Obama himself. The five big ones:

Aug. 2 is the drop-dead deadline: This has been the White House line for months, and it's so widely accepted that several news outlets have countdown clocks on their sites. It's not true.

The New York Times on Tuesday reported that the government will have enough cash to pay all its bills until Aug. 10. And Wells Fargo Securities chief economist John Silvia says the debt ceiling won't be hit until sometime in September.

We risk defaulting on the debt: Despite countless warnings, there's zero chance the federal government will default, since each month the government takes in far more in taxes and fees than it pays in interest.

The White House itself, while publicly clanging the default alarm, has been privately reassuring banks that it won't default on the debt, even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Social Security payments are at risk: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama claimed earlier this month.

Also a complete fabrication. In June, for example, the government took in more than $250 billion, according to Treasury's monthly report. That was enough to pay that month's worth of interest, plus all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits, and all Defense and Homeland Security costs, with billions of dollars left over.

A long-term debt ceiling hike is a must: Democrats refuse to sign a short-term hike, claiming that poses a risk to the economy. "A short-term extension would not provide the certainty the markets are looking for," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed. Obama has echoed that concern.

But it's a phony connection. For example, Congress raised the debt ceiling 17 times during President Reagan's eight years in office — an average of once every 5 1/2 months — and the economy boomed.

Obama wants a deal: We can't prove this is a lie, but Obama's given every indication that it is. After all, he's done nothing to lead this to a resolution and plenty to disrupt it, all while claiming he wants an agreement. More likely, Obama thinks a debt crisis he can pin on Republicans is the path to victory in 2012.

There's no question that failing to raise the debt ceiling in a timely fashion would be economically disruptive, if for no other reason than that the economy is so anemic it can ill afford any shock.

But it's also clear that, even if Congress misses the Tuesday deadline, the sun will still come up Aug. 3, and many of Obama's big lies will be exposed.

Take A Chainsaw To The Budget By John Stossel

2011-07-31T16:41:00.001-04:00

Source: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/07/29/take-chainsaw-budget-2

On my show tonight at 10pm, I lay out a way to completely get rid of the deficit.

I don't claim to be a budget expert. But others, such as Chris Edwards at Cato and Stuart Butler at Heritage, are. They found lots of serious cuts. My staff found a few more, and put together a list that would completely balance the budget:

Defense cut by 2/3: $475 billion (Federal Budget, pg. 58)

Medicare/Medicaid*: $441 billion (Cato Institute)

Social Security Means Testing: $170 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Dept. of Education (includes Pell Grants): $106.9 billion (Cato Institute)

Social Security*: $85.7 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Transportation: $84.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Tax Amnesty: $80 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

Eliminate Dept. of Labor*: $78.6 billion (Department of Labor and White House)

Eliminate HUD: $60.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Agriculture*: $33 billion (Cato Institute)

Cut civilian employee compensation: $30 billion (Cato Institute)

Stop maintaining vacant federal property: $25 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Foreign Aid: $21.2 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate Dept. of Energy*: $20.8 billion (Cato Institute)

Eliminate NASA: $19.6 billion (Cato Institute)

Federal Drug War: $15 billion (White House)

Earmark moratorium: $16 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Fannie/Freddie Subsidies: $14 billion (Federal Housing Finance Agency (p. 10))

Eliminate Dept. of Commerce: $13.9 billion (Department of Commerce)

Eliminate Dept. of Interior: $12 billion (White House)

Legalize Pot, Online gambling, Immigrants: $12 billion (Rep. Jared Polis D-Co.)

Privatize Army Corps of Engineers: $10.6 billion (Cato Institute)

Cut federal employee travel budget: $10 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate National Science Foundation: $7.4 billion (National Science Foundation)

End EPA’s State and Local grants: $6.5 billion (Cato Institute)

Repeal Davis-Bacon: $6 billion (Republican Study Committee)

Privatize TSA: $5.7 billion (Federal Budget)

Cut Dept. of Justice’s State and Local grants: $5 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Privatize Post Office: $4 billion (White House)

Eliminate Small Business Administration: $1.8 billion (Small Business Administration)

Lease coastal plain of ANWR: $1.5 billion (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate Federal Flood Insurance: $1.3 billion (CBO, pg. 3)

Abolish SEC: $1.3 billion (SEC)

Eliminate Corporation for National Community Service: $1 billion (Cato Institute)

Suspend acquisition of federal office space: $1 billion (Heritage Foundation)

End subsidies for public broadcasting: $500 million (Cato Institute)

Eliminate the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp: $480 million (Heritage Foundation)

Eliminate the FCC: $439 million (FCC)

Eliminate the Endowments for Arts/Humanities: $332 million (NEA/NEH)

Total Cut: $1,882,619,000,000

Current deficit: $1,645,000,000,000

Surplus Achieved: $237,619,000,000

(Research by Maxim Lott and Charles Couger.)

They don't need to drive us deeper in debt. They choose to. Tune in tonight at 10pm to see how they could choose differently.

*Notes

Department of Energy is eliminated except for Nuclear arms maintenance

Department of Agriculture is eliminated, except for food programs for the needy

Department of Labor is eliminated, except for 26-week unemployment benefits

Defense budget would still be $243 billion, more than twice what the next highest country (China) spends

Medicare and Medicaid savings breakdown:

Block grant Medicaid and freeze spending (226)

Repeal 2010 healthcare law (87)

Increase Medicare premiums (39.8)

Cut non-Medicare premiums (37.7)

Cut Medicare payment error rate by 50% (28.6)

Increase Medicare deductibles (12.6)

Tort Reform (10)

Social Security savings breakdown:

Price index initial benefits** 41.1

Raise the normal retirement age** 31.4

Cut Social Security disability program by 10% 13.2

Debt-Ceiling Myths: The world will not end if we take our time on the debt limit By Michael Tanner

2011-07-30T11:14:00.003-04:00

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266865/debt-ceiling-myths-michael-tanner

May 11, 2011

Now that Osama bin Laden has been successfully dispatched to the eternal damnation he so richly deserves, Washington is ready to return to the more mundane question of whether the Obama administration will be allowed to spend this country into oblivion.

The next big fiscal fight will be over when and how to increase the debt limit. The administration has been hard at work trying to shape the message and public opinion. Unsurprisingly, much of that message is less than 100 percent accurate. Here are some myths about the debt ceiling and the upcoming debate about raising it:

1. Failure to pass means defaulting on our debts. If there has been consistent message from the White House, it that the United States can’t afford to “default on our debts.” That is almost certainly true. However, refusing to raise the debt limit does not mean defaulting on our debts. The U.S. Treasury currently takes in more than enough revenue to pay both the interest and the principal on the debts we currently owe. And if the Obama administration is truly worried about whether it will do so, then it should urge Congress to pass the legislation proposed by Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) requiring the Treasury Department to pay those bills first. It is true that, once we had paid our debt-service bills, there wouldn’t be enough money left over to pay for everything else the Obama administration wants to spend money on. The government would have to prioritize its expenditures — sending out checks for the troops’ pay and Social Security first. Other spending would have to wait. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says that not spending money Congress has appropriated is “the same as default.” It is not. It is economizing, which is what you do when you are out of money.

2. Failure to pass the debt-ceiling increase on time would be unprecedented. Both the administration and the media sound as if we are at the edge of zero hour, the time at which economic Armageddon will erupt if we have not raised the debt ceiling. That’s not quite so. It is true that Congress has never refused to raise the debt ceiling. But it has, in fact, frequently taken its time doing so. In 1985, Congress waited nearly three months after the debt limit was reached before it authorized a permanent increase. In 1995, four and a half months passed between the time the government hit its statutory limit and the time Congress acted. And in 2002, Congress delayed raising the debt ceiling for three months. In none of those cases did the world end. It won’t this time, either.

3. It’s always a “clean bill.” The administration is also insisting that it would be shocking for Congress to add any conditions to the debt-ceiling increase. But such conditions are far from unprecedented. There have been numerous amendments and conditions attached to debt-ceiling bills throughout the years. Remember Gramm-Rudman-Hollings? The classic spending-control plan was added to the debt-ceiling vote in 1985.

4. This is not about future spending. The administration insists that raising the debt ceiling is just about paying for spending that’s already occurred. Not quite. Depending on how high it is raised, it may be about paying only for spending that is already authorized — or much more. Authorized and spent are not the same thing. There is nothing wrong with forcing government not to spend money that it had planned on spending. Moreover, Tim Geithner is reportedly calling for an increase in the debt ceiling big enough to last through the 2012 election, which would enable a lot of new spending.

5. Only Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling. The media and the administration want to turn this into a partisan fight. The ongoing narrative is that radical Republicans in thrall to the Tea Party want to wreck our finances, while Democrats responsibly want to pay our bills. In truth, a number of prominent Democrats are on record opposing a debt-limit increase without substantial reductions in spending. They include Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), Mark Pryor (D., Ark.), and Joe Manchin (D., W. Va.). Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) normally a reliable liberal vote, has been expressing ambivalence. And the most prominent spending limit liable to be offered as a condition for raising the limit, the CAP Amendment proposed by Sen. Bob Corker (R. Tenn.) is cosponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.). The real story is that a small group of extreme liberals wants to keep spending more in the face of bipartisan opposition.

So far, Republicans have not been very good about presenting their message. If they want to win this fight, they are going to have to do a lot more to correct the record.

— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Hensarling Gives GOP Weekly: "Cut Up The Credit Cards Once And For All"

2011-07-23T14:59:00.001-04:00

Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/23/hensarling_gives_gop_weekly_cut_up_the_credit_cards_once_and_for_all.html

"Hello, I’m Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas and I serve as the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

"You know, unfortunately, every day we hear about some friend or some neighbor who just got laid off or still can’t find a job. The Obama Administration promised its ‘stimulus’ plan would help keep unemployment below eight percent.

"And instead, unemployment has been above eight percent for 29 straight months, the longest such stretch since the Great Depression. 14 million of our fellow citizens remain out of work. So is it any surprise that the number one question in America remains, ‘where are the jobs?’

"You know, by and large, it’s a lack of confidence in our nation’s future that’s holding our economy back, whether it’s uncertainty about our national debt, uncertainty about taxes, uncertainty about all the regulations and mandates that just keep pouring out of Washington. Small business owners are pleading for the government to stop the reckless spending, balance the budget, and then just get out of the way.

"That’s why the Republican-led House is focused on removing government barriers to private-sector job growth – the kind of growth the President promised with his ‘stimulus’ but failed to deliver. As part of our Plan for America’s Job Creators, we’ve passed a series of jobs bills to cut wasteful Washington spending, rein in needless red tape, and increase American energy production.

"Our plan includes the budget, written by Chairman Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee that actually pays down our debt over time and paves a path to prosperity and economic growth.

"We Americans are the best entrepreneurs and workers in the world. Given a level playing field, we can compete and win against anyone, anywhere, anytime.

"But not as long as the policies coming out of Washington remain harmful to jobs. What we need to do is get government out of the way so our economy can get back to creating jobs.

"That’s what makes this debate we’re having about America’s fiscal future so important. Our government has gotten so big, so expensive it’s keeping our economy from recovering as it should. Job creators are fearful that our $14 trillion debt is going to lead to higher taxes, which could harm their businesses and destroy even more jobs.

"Just this week the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, when he was asked what’s the ‘single biggest impediment to job growth,’ he answered: ‘The U.S. government.’ He went on to say: ‘If we don’t lower spending and if we don’t deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes … [and ] when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.’ This sentiment is echoed by small business people and entrepreneurs from coast to coast.

"The American people have long since said, ‘It’s time to quit spending money we don’t have. It’s time to stop borrowing 42 cents on the dollar – much of it from the Chinese – and then sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.’

"Credit rating agencies have spelled out the consequences of failing to heed this message, warning that even if we’re able to avoid any type of default, that may very well downgrade our status unless we take serious action to get our fiscal house in order.

"That’s why the House this week passed ‘cut, cap, and balance’ legislation.

"First, the legislation immediately cuts government spending to 2008 levels. You know, I just haven’t really met anybody who thought government was too small before President Obama became president.

"Second, it puts caps in place to ensure government spending is put on a glide path to be no more than 20 percent of our economy, as it has been on average since World War II.

"Last, but not least, it amends the Constitution to balance the budget once and for all. Every family, small business, and almost every state has to balance their budget. Why should the federal government be any different? And our plan accomplishes this without imposing job-crushing tax hikes.

"Now unfortunately, the Democratic-led Senate tabled this common-sense measure despite the fact it received bipartisan backing in the House and overwhelming support from the American people.

"You know, the Democrats who run Washington are pretty good at telling us what they’re against, but they have yet to put a plan on the table that tells us what they’re for. Speeches and press releases won’t do the trick. It’s time for some action. Senator Reid, if you don’t like our plan to deal with the debt crisis, where is your plan? Mr. President, if you don’t like our plan to deal with the debt crisis, where is your plan?

"If we’re going to avoid any type of default and downgrade – if we’re going to resume job creation in America – the president and his allies need to listen to the people and work with Republicans to cut up the credit cards once and for all.

"It’s time to ‘cut, cap, and balance.’ That’s what will give us jobs, hope, and opportunity. Thank you for listening."

Obama Owns the Debt-Ceiling Fiasco By Karl Rove

2011-07-14T22:18:00.002-04:00

It doesn't help that he's declared high-speed rail and even unspent stimulus funds as untouchable..

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443863077227784.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

JULY 14, 2011

President Barack Obama and Congress face a mess if the federal government hits the debt ceiling Aug. 2. The Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank, projects that the government will receive $172 billion in revenues between Aug. 3 and Aug. 31, but it is on the hook to spend $306 billion, leaving a shortfall of $134 billion.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama told Scott Pelley of CBS News that "there may simply not be the money in the coffers" to issue Social Security, veterans and disability checks after Aug. 3.

Not so. The $172 billion in revenues collected over the rest of the month can pay the $29 billion interest charges on the national debt, Social Security benefits ($49 billion), Medicaid and Medicare ($50 billion), active duty military pay ($2.9 billion), Department of Defense vendors ($31.7 billion), IRS refunds ($3.9 billion), and about a quarter of the $12.8 billion in unemployment checks due that month.

There will, however, be no cash for highway construction, no checks for federal workers or retirees, no agriculture payments, no open national parks. Interest rates are also likely to rise if U.S. debt is downgraded, adding massively to the deficit and further damaging the economy. This would be a disaster with no political winners.

The president wants a $2.4 trillion debt-ceiling increase to get him past next year's election—and the deal he's proposing is based on promised future cuts paired with substantial tax increases on households earning more than $250,000 a year.

House Speaker John Boehner proposed matching a debt-ceiling hike with substantial spending cuts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending at $46.1 trillion over the next 10 years, a dramatic escalation from projections before Mr. Obama took office. Mr. Boehner's modest proposal was to trim that back 5.2% over the decade, but the president balked.

Yet the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that Mr. Obama talks about is shy on details. No one who's attended his frequent negotiating sessions knows what his proposal really is.

The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama's "untouchable" list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on "green" jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.

Mr. Obama has offered no evidence since becoming president that he wants to restrain the upward trajectory of government spending. He does want higher taxes to pay for significantly higher federal spending. But he wants Republicans to deliver the tax increases, since Democrats couldn't pass them last year despite controlling both chambers of Congress.

Republicans have wisely declined. Demanding the GOP vote for immediate tax increases that would be offset by vague, future tax cuts conjures up images of Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. The tax increases would be real—the future tax rate cuts would be imaginary. And Mr. Obama has opposed any serious spending enforcement mechanisms, such as a balanced budget amendment or hard caps on spending.

Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.

Smith sworn-in as Superior Court judge By Danielle Camilli

2011-07-14T18:40:00.004-04:00

Janet Z. Smith of Cinnaminson is sworn in as a New Jersey Superior Court judge Wednesday at the Burlington County Courthouse in Mount Holly in a private ceremony. Burlington County Assignment Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder swore her in as her husband, Brad Smith (left), held the bible. Photo/Donna Mazzanti

Source: http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/smith-sworn-in-as-superior-court-judge/article_776f5345-74f6-5791-b41e-6c7b349020e4.html

July 14, 2011

MOUNT HOLLY — New Superior Court Judge Janet Z. Smith was sworn in Tuesday during a private ceremony at the Burlington County Courthouse.

Burlington County Assignment Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder administered the oath of office to Smith as her husband, Brad, held the Bible. The Cinnaminson resident was welcomed to the county bench by other judges and court staff.

Smith, who was confirmed by the state Senate on June 29, will serve in the family division of the county courts, joining five other judges there. Gov. Chris Christie nominated the fellow Republican for the post in March.

Smith, who was admitted to the bar in 1976, had been in private practice since 1992 with her husband, and has served as a municipal prosecutor and solicitor. Brad Smith is a former township mayor and former state senator, and served as a county freeholder from 1985 to 1992.

The new judge also is a former deputy assistant public defender. She spent 12 years with the New Jersey Public Defender’s Office, serving in Burlington County courts.

Bookbinder said Smith brings to the bench integrity, honesty and a desire to serve and help the public. Her appointment also helps ease a shortage of judges on the county bench, and particularly the family division, he said.

“With the number of filings, the family division really needs seven judges and now we have six,” Bookbinder said. “At one point, we were as low as four judges within the last year.”

The county’s top judge hopes two more attorneys will be nominated to the judiciary and be assigned to Burlington County to bring the bench to its full complement of 18.

“We are happy to be back at 16. We need to be at 17. We are hoping that we get 18 that our workload requires,” Bookbinder said.

Since taking office in 2010, Christie has nominated two judges to the county bench — Smith and Superior Court Judge Philip Haines, who was sworn in last October.

However, Christie also left the county courts with one less experienced judge when he choose not to renominate now-retired Judge James Morley, a registered Democrat, last summer. At the time, Morley was the county’s presiding judge of its criminal division and decisions and comments he made from the bench in two-high profile cases appeared to be a factor, but the governor never explained his reasoning.

White House fumbles towards debt disaster By Charles Krauthammer

2011-07-13T16:47:00.002-04:00

Source: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/07/08/charles-krauthammer-white-house-fumbles-towards-debt-disaster/

Jul 8, 2011

WASHINGTON — Here we go again. An approaching crisis. A looming deadline. Nervous markets. And then, from the miasma of gridlock, rises the president, calling upon those unruly congressional children to quit squabbling, stop kicking the can down the road and get serious about debt.

This from the man who:

• Ignored the debt problem for two years by kicking the can to a commission.

• Promptly ignored the commission’s December 2010 report.

• Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn’t even mention the word “debt” until 35 minutes in.

• Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing — it actually increased the deficit — that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97-0.

• Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt-plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new “budget framework” would affect the actual federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating “We don’t estimate speeches.” You can’t assign numbers to air.

President Obama assailed the lesser mortals who inhabit Congress for not having seriously dealt with a problem he had not dealt with at all, then scolded Congress for being even less responsible than his own children. They apparently get their homework done on time.

My compliments. But the Republican House did do its homework. It’s called a budget. It passed the House on April 15. The Democratic Senate has produced no budget. Not just this year, but for two years running. As for the schoolmaster-in-chief, he produced two 2012 budget facsimiles: The first (February) was a farce and the second (April) was empty, dismissed by the CBO as nothing but words untethered to real numbers.

Obama has run disastrous annual deficits of around $1.5 trillion while insisting for months on a “clean” debt-ceiling increase, i.e., with no budget cuts at all. Yet suddenly he now rises to champion major long-term debt reduction, scorning any suggestions of a short-term debt-limit deal as can-kicking.

The flip-flop is transparently political. A short-term deal means another debt-ceiling fight before Election Day, a debate that would put Obama on the defensive and distract from the Mediscare campaign to which the Democrats are clinging to save them in 2012.

A clever strategy it is: Do nothing (see above); invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do — voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform — demagogue them to death.

And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So: First you get the GOP to seize the left’s third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right’s third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full-spectrum electrocution. Brilliant.

And what have been Obama’s own debt-reduction ideas? In last week’s news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners — six times.

I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years — that is not a typo — it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since — first in shekels, then in dollars — we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

Obama’s other favorite debt-reduction refrain is canceling an oil-company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years — you will not yet have offset Obama’s deficit spending for February 2011.

After his Thursday meeting with bipartisan Congressional leadership, Obama adopted yet another persona: Cynic-in-chief became compromiser-in-chief. Highly placed leaks are portraying him as heroically prepared to offer Social Security and Medicare cuts.

We shall see. It’s no mystery what is needed. First, entitlement reform that changes the inflation measure, introduces means testing, then syncs the (lower) Medicare eligibility age with Social Security’s and indexes them both to longevity. And second, real tax reform, both corporate and individual, that eliminates myriad loopholes in return for lower tax rates for everyone.

That’s real debt reduction. Yet even now, we don’t know where the president stands on any of this. Until we do, I’ll follow the Elmendorf Rule: We don’t estimate leaks. Let’s see if Obama can suspend his 2012 electioneering long enough to keep the economy from going over the debt cliff.

Charles Krauthammer’s email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Holiday Wishes

2011-07-04T16:43:00.000-04:00

Hi Everyone,
I just wanted to take a moment and wish everyone a safe and Happy July 4th holiday. Thank you for stopping by, and take care!

Bill

What 2012 Republican Contenders Can Learn From Rory McIlroy

2011-07-04T14:54:00.002-04:00

Source: http://republicanparty.electioncandidates.com/uncategorized/what-2012-republican-contenders-can-learn-from-rory-mcilroy/

June 28, 2011

Before Rory McIlroy’s triumph fades in our memories, it’s worth considering the lessons the young Irishman’s U.S. Open victory offers for the 2012 presidential race.

As he headed into the U.S. Open weekend, McIlroy explained that his strategy was to set an overall goal, do his best, play things out in small segments on the course (in his mind, three holes or so at a time), and not pay much attention to the leaderboard. This strategy served him well since he was able to hold the Open trophy after setting tournament scoring records.

His approach could be a model for Republicans who want to take on President Obama in the 2012 general election. Setting a goal and then playing it out day by day is also great advice for living our lives.

Republican election candidates need to let the overall goal of winning the presidency sink in and then realize that day-to-day decisions tie together as part of this broad goal. They need to remember that you can’t just isolate each key event and not think it affects the overall goal. For example, the idea that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman can basically skip the Iowa caucuses is foolhardy. It is a misunderstanding of the momentum this caucus will give to the winner heading into subsequent primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.

Momentum is the most crucial resource in the race for the nomination. If I had a choice between momentum, money, or manpower, I would choose momentum every time. Money follows momentum; money doesn’t create momentum, which comes from doing well in the key moments in a campaign. If you have momentum going for you, five paid staffers in California or Florida are of limited value, and if you are on the wrong side of momentum, those staffers can’t save you.

Furthermore, in spite of media focus and pundit conversation, paid media in presidential contests is one of the least effective methods of building momentum. The narrative and conversation in the press and among target voter groups, whether in gatherings or on the Internet, is a powerful force. But paid media is like a long drive off the tee. It feels good and everyone says “wow,” but the scoring always takes place within one hundred yards of the pin. Paid media rarely drives the conversation.

To accurately understand the political process, you need to pay attention to what is right in front of you and what today will bring. For the election candidates to focus too much on what the pin placements on Sunday might be (meaning the strategy to beat President Obama or what the political environment will be a year from now) could cause them to miss the cut and never even play on the weekend. Take the race in small segments as McIlroy did, and know that doing well in those segments adds up to achieving the overall goal.

The Ames, Iowa straw vote in August won’t decide the rest of the race, but it will be part of the equation. An individual debate performance will not be everything, though it can begin to add up to a larger story and have an impact (see Tim Pawlenty as a negative example and Michele Bachmann as a positive example, based on their performances in the CNN debate earlier this month). A speech to a gathering of target voters won’t be the most important moment, but it can help create momentum (see Texas Gov. Rick Perry as a case in point).

The nomination process for Republicans will be determined by many factors. But the election candidate who approaches the contest as McIlroy did is likely to end up playing in the final twosome in the fall of 2012 against President Obama. In the process, the election candidates should stay grounded and not take themselves too seriously. As McIlroy’s mom reportedly said to him over and over again growing up, and as I heard in my Irish household many, many times: “Get over yourself.”

Embattled & Immodest Obama Showboats Osama Assassination

2011-05-08T21:10:00.002-04:00

Editorial: ‘Dumb’ War In Iraq Led Obama To Bin Laden

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/571001/201105031849/Editorial-Dumb-War-In-Iraq-Led-Obama-To-Bin-Laden.aspx

05/03/2011

Leadership: If President Bush had not invaded Iraq, President Obama likely would not have found Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida operative who fingered bin Laden's courier was caught in Iraq helping terrorists in 2004.

It was a line Obama never got tired of. Most infamously, he used it during an anti-war rally at Chicago's Federal Plaza in October 2002: "I don't oppose all wars," the state senator said as President Bush was preparing to attack Saddam Hussein. "What I am opposed to is a dumb war."

Obama accused "political hacks like Karl Rove" of launching the Iraq War for the purpose of distracting Americans from their economic hardships.

A decade later we know Obama was dead wrong. The successful manhunt that delivered justice from the barrel of a gun to the elusive head of al-Qaida wouldn't have happened without an indispensable piece of the puzzle that the U.S. got because of its presence in Iraq.

In January 2004, Kurdish forces near the Iranian border apprehended Hassan Ghul, a top al-Qaida lieutenant once under the direct command of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. After quickly being handed over to U.S. forces, Ghul was sent to one of the CIA's foreign "black site" prisons. It wasn't long before this particular terrorist canary started singing.

Ghul told the CIA that "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti" — determined years later to be Sheikh Abu Ahmed — was a high-value courier for al-Qaida and key associate of KSM successor Faraj al-Libi. When al-Libi was captured and interrogated the next year, U.S. intelligence began putting together the pieces, finally concluding that al-Kuwaiti was a courier to bin Laden himself.

This early key puzzle piece, without which other pieces might not have been found, came from an al-Qaida operative whose sole purpose for being in Iraq was to organize armed opposition to the U.S. presence there.

Iraq had indeed, as Bush frequently said, become "the central front in the global war on terror," and the Iraq War success of capturing Ghul led to the success of killing the central personage of global terror, at least symbolically, Osama bin Laden.

Had America not invaded, al-Kuwaiti and the valuable information inside his head would have been someplace else, probably where it was a lot easier to remain on the loose. He might never have been caught.

So we have another reason it was wise to go into Iraq. Not only did the Iraq invasion topple Saddam, who used chemical weapons to commit genocide against his own people, and sought nuclear weapons to slaughter others; not only did it give the Iraqi people their first opportunity for freedom and prosperity, providing a model of liberty for other Mideast Islamic nations. On top of all that, it led to the death of bin Laden.

As a bonus, Ghul's role in the elimination of bin Laden is another validation of the wisdom of Bush's authorization for the CIA's black sites, where harsh interrogation methods against terrorists could be practiced.

Iraq a dumb war? That falsity is another thing for which President Obama owes President Bush an apology — and a thank you on behalf of the American people.

Reagan Made Killing Bin Laden Possible By Thomas McArdle

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=571447&p=1

05/06/2011

Much was written last week about how much thanks George W. Bush deserves in tracking down Osama bin Laden. The answer is: a great deal.

Information extracted from al-Qaida operatives under Bush's interrogation policies ultimately led us to the compound in Abbottabad. But he did more. As an IBD editorial ("'Dumb' War In Iraq Led Obama To Bin Laden") noted last week, a crucial piece of the puzzle in identifying bin Laden's courier came from an al-Qaida lieutenant who was caught only because of Bush's decision to liberate Iraq.

Someone else also belongs on the list of people to thank, along with the heroic Navy SEALs and the current commander in chief. He is the president we have to applaud for so many other things, like saving the U.S. economy from a government-induced malaise, and winning the Cold War: Ronald Reagan.

With the same visionary perseverance employed in his commitment to replace mutual assured nuclear destruction with missile defense, President Reagan executed a long-term strategy to build an array of elite, high-tech special forces units that could carry out operations like the one that snuffed out bin Laden.

As documented by Marc Celmer in the 1987 study "Terrorism, U.S. Strategy, and Reagan Policies," a 1990 target was set by the Reagan administration to increase special operations forces by 50% from 1981 levels. By 1987, a U.S. Special Operations Command was established to oversee the special-ops forces of the various branches of the military.

The birth of modernized special ops wasn't smooth. During America's victorious invasion of Grenada in 1983, the Army's Delta Force was humiliated trying to commandeer the island's Richmond Hill prison. Even the now-legendary Navy SEAL Team Six — which aced the bin Laden operation last week and which became operational only during Reagan's first year in office — experienced disaster during the Grenada operation. Off-course transport planes and bad weather off the coast led to four of eight SEALs drowning.

Also in 1983 came the terrorist bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. servicemen. Adm. Robert Long's investigative commission found that "the United States, and specifically the Department of Defense, is inadequately prepared to deal with" terrorist warfare.

Reagan was faced with two challenges demanding that the U.S. perfect a new kind of warfare. One was Mideast Islamist terrorism, eventually culminating in 9/11. The other was Soviet subversion in Central America.

The Reagan administration "associated the terror tactics of the Middle East with the Salvadoran guerrillas and Nicaragua's beleaguered government," left-leaning human rights activist Michael McClintock complained in his 1992 book "Instruments of Statecraft." "Shiite terrorism in Beirut was used to promote the renewal of police assistance to Central America and to pump up political support for the United States' global programs to combat insurgencies and undesirable regimes."

A new term was coined: "low-intensity conflict." According to McClintock, it "was adopted by the Reagan administration in 1981 as an umbrella term for the interrelated doctrines of counterinsurgency, special operations, and unconventional warfare." In taking this prescient route, Reagan fought off the liberal Democrats accusing him of wasting taxpayers' money on training and arming more special-ops commandos, and he had to fight the military itself.

"The foundation of many of the obstacles to the formulation of effective U.S. (special operations forces)," according to Celmer, "is the traditional military dislike for anything that is unconventional, irregular and elite." In the 1970s and 1980s, "Special forces units were viewed as the backwaters of the armed forces, ones to be avoided by those officers and enlisted personnel seeking successful careers." Today the public recognizes special forces as the best of the best.

Had Reagan not opposed dovish Democrats and Pentagon status-quoists, special forces would never have become the miracle workers they are today. As he warned in March 1986: "We must not let all that we have accomplished in the last five years be undermined by careless slashing at the defense budget. America must never again slide back into helpless insecurity. America must never become, as it looked like it was becoming in the late '70s, a paper tiger."

America today can shoot a nuclear missile out of the sky — and shoot Osama bin Laden between the eyes — thanks to Ronald Reagan.

• McArdle is an IBD senior writer.

OSAMA ASSASSINATED EASTER 2011!! - Bin Laden death a victory for special ops By Gregg Zoroya

2011-05-07T12:13:00.004-04:00

bomb osama mp3 | lyrics

free music downloads | music videos | pictures

Source: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/05/usat-bin-laden-death-a-victory-for-special-ops-050211/

May 2, 2011

For the elite troops who have hunted Osama bin Laden since 9/11, the daring attack by a team of Navy SEALs that ended his life was the Holy Grail of special operations missions.

“Within hours of the announcement, I had dozens of phone calls and text messages from fellow SEALs celebrating this victory,” says Eric Greitens, a SEAL and lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve.

“Every SEAL that I know would have wanted to have taken part in that operation,” says Greitens, author of the book The Heart and the Fist.

Kyle Lamb, a retired sergeant major with the Army’s elite Delta Force, which carries out similar missions, said it was the one mission any special operations member dreams about.

“I mean they’ve trained for it. They’ve thought about it. They’ve lived it since 9/11,” says Lamb, a retired sergeant major with the Army’s elite Delta Force, which carries out similar missions.

“You go through the ranks for all these years chasing bad guys and then you’re there when the ultimate part of history is made. That would be awesome,” says Lamb, who today owns Viking Tactics, a Fayetteville, N.C., company that offers training in leadership, tactics and firearms.

“Obviously, I wish it was Army guys,” Lamb adds with a chuckle. “But good for them (the SEALs).”

In the hours after a team of Navy SEALs overran the compound north of Islamabad where bin Laden was hiding, word of the raid spread like wildfire through the 68,000-member special operations community including Navy SEAL teams and Army Delta Force commandos, Green Berets and Rangers.

“It was very personal to go into his house and kill him where he slept,” Lamb says. “That means more to me than dropping bombs on him.We want these guys to be scared that at any moment, they’re wondering if a bomb is going to drop on them or the doors are going to blow off the hingesand guys come in and do what they do.”

“Obviously, the SEAL community takes a lot of pride in what happened,” Greitens says.

“For a lot of the men in this community who are undertaking operations day after day, month after month that the public never hears about, this was an operation that could be celebrated by all Americans. So I think that makes it special,” he says.

And the SEAL who fired the bullet that killed bin Laden? “He will be revered for the rest of his life as the guy who, at the most important moment, took one of the most important shots in the history of the global war on terrorism,” Greitens says.

John Nagl, a retired Army officer and expert on counterinsurgency, said “those SEALs will never have to buy another beer for the rest of their lives.”

———

Tom Vanden Brook contributed to this report.

Bin Laden Killing: How the White House, Pentagon and CIA Botched the Storyline By James Rosen

2011-05-07T11:40:00.002-04:00

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/06/bin-laden-killing-white-house-pentagon-cia-botched-storyline/

May 06, 2011

From the very first moment the world learned that American forces had killed Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, even the tiniest details from the momentous event have captivated the nation. Every single nugget of data has been the stuff of breaking news, handheld "alerts" and watercooler discussion, in a way the country has never previously witnessed.

No landmark event of the 20th century, from World Wars I and II to the Cuban missile crisis, from the moon landing to the fall of the Soviet Union – not even the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- have been as widely transmitted, reported on, written about, and talked about by as many people, across so many different platforms of communication, as the killing of bin Laden. Within days, it has become a singular event of the Information Age.

President Obama's decision to withhold the classified photographs and video associated with the mission has ironically served to deny this most modern of events one of the key ingredients present in virtually all other watershed news events in recent memory: pictures. We've had them from the Kennedy assassination and its Zapruder film to 9/11 and its camcorders. The Arab Spring comes via YouTube cell phone video, linked to from Twitter.

Indeed, in their sheer number of rate of disclosure, the details of the bin Laden mission have formed their own digital assault: They've poured forth virtually non-stop since the president finished speaking in the East Room of the White House, at 11:44 p.m. Eastern Time on Sunday night, May 1, nine minutes after he had begun.

The riotous cacophony of claims and counter-claims has emanated from official podiums and anonymous sources, reputable reporters and unknown websites, everything, it seems, equipped with a screen, a speaker, or a mouth. Yet so grandly cinematic is our collective vision of the heroism displayed by the U.S. Navy SEALs and intelligence operatives who pulled off this astonishing mission that we have hung on every word of their exploits. As TIME magazine's Michael Crowley tweeted on Tuesday: "Impossible to focus today: every 10 minutes some new fact comes along that would be the most interesting thing I've heard in a typical week."

The true irony is: From the first moments, a good number of the details about bin Laden's killing, on points large and small, have been wrong.

* * *

President Obama was the first senior U.S. official to disclose the operation, formally, in his East Room address. It was from his lips that we first heard that a "firefight" had taken place during the raid on bin Laden's fortified compound in Abbottabad.

The president's lone sentence describing what happened -- "After a firefight, they killed Usama bin Laden and took custody of his body" – did not specify whether the 9/11 mastermind had actually participated in the firefight; but it seemed to imply that he had.

In a conference call with reporters convened by the White House less than twenty minutes after Obama finished speaking, a trio of “senior administration officials” took things a few steps further. Asked if bin Laden was "involved in firing [a weapon] himself or defending himself," one of the briefers replied: "He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight."

That answer marked a significant elaboration on the president’s baseline narrative: Now bin Laden had perished not after a firefight, but in one. In addition to altering the timeline of events, this assertion also strongly implied that bin Laden had been an armed participant in the firefight.

Elsewhere in the transcript of the late-night call, presided over by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, one of the senior officials brazenly mischaracterized what President Obama had told the nation. The briefer stated: “As the President said this evening, bin Laden was killed in a firefight as our operators came onto the compound.”

In fact, the president had told us only that bin Laden had been killed “after a firefight.” How long after the firefight? Was the lethal bullet the last shot fired in the exchange of gunfire? Or had the killing of bin Laden truly come after the firefight – by ten or fifteen minutes, or an hour or two? With reports still trickling in from Pakistan, the president’s studiedly vague formulation had wisely left all that unclear. Now his aides were committing him to a more distinct narrative.

Before wrapping up their conference call at 12:24 a.m. on Monday morning, May 2, one of the briefers added another detail that was to prove problematic. After noting the presence of “several” women and children at the scene, the senior official related: “One woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant.”

* * *

Amazingly, for those select Obama administration officials entrusted with the solemn duty of relating the official storyline of the great event to the news media, the next twelve hours – the critical first overnight period during which the Navy SEALs and their superiors were reporting back to Washington – produced not greater clarity about what had happened, but less.

At 11:30 a.m. on Monday morning, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell convened another press briefing, this one featuring “senior Defense officials” and, participating via conference call, “senior intelligence officials.” Here for the first time, the Obama administration advanced the notion that the “resistance” bin Laden had exhibited, against what the White House briefer had called “the assault force,” had come during this fabled firefight.

One reporter asked: “Last night, you said that he had resisted, but you didn't specify what the resistance was. What was the resistance that the American team met in that compound?” “The American team engaged in a firefight, and as indicated last night, Usama bin Laden did resist,” one of the senior Pentagon officers said. The implication was clear: that bin Laden had resisted during the firefight. To mention a firefight and then, in the next breath, the resistance of the central figure at the scene is effectively to link the one to the other.

This same official then elaborated on the statement made during the White House briefing about a woman having been killed “when she was used as a shield by a male combatant.” After scoffing at bin Laden’s luxury lifestyle compared to his surroundings, the Defense briefer picked up on this thread: “He and some other male combatants on the target appeared to use – certainly did use women as shields.”

Note here that the number of offenders has at least tripled, from solely bin Laden to “[bin Laden] and some other male combatants” – a formulation that suggests that at least three men demonstrated this particular brand of cowardice. Presumably, as well, bin Laden and his cohorts did not all hide behind the same woman; thus the briefer’s pluralized reference to “women.”

Note also the Pentagon officer’s mid-sentence recalibration, which saw him jettison the cautious construction “appeared to use…women as shields” for the ostentatiously more confident “certainly did use women as shields.” This certainty was to prove misplaced.

A few other discordant notes were struck before Morrell wrapped the group. One of the intelligence briefers, responding to a question about whether bin Laden died “peacefully” or “violently,” repeated his Pentagon colleague’s earlier line and answered somewhat impatiently: “He died during a firefight, Barbara.” A Pentagon official volunteered that “two women were wounded” in addition to the one killed. Finally, a DOD briefer provided the first estimate of how long the gunfire lasted. “[T]hrough most of the 40 minutes during which U.S. special operators were on the compound,” he said, “they were engaged in a firefight.”

Two hours later, the president’s Assistant for Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism, John Brennan, joined White House Press Secretary Jay Carney in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, determined to add still greater detail to the administration’s narrative of the momentous event. Here the problems with that narrative were compounded.

Establishing his intimate level of familiarity with the details, Brennan described to the White House press corps how he, Obama, and the rest of the national security team had kept tabs on the action. “We were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates and to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation,” Brennan said. “I'm not going to go into details about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was -- it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis.”

This tantalizing account of Brennan’s “real time” tracking of the SEALs, as they fought their way up to the third floor of the compound – bin Laden’s floor – imbued his other assertions with greater authority. The Al Qaeda chief, he said, “was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house,” and “was killed in that firefight.” The image of bin Laden going down in a hail of bullets, while firing off his own as-yet-unspecified weaponry, was now indelible.

Brennan also scorned the late terrorist for “hiding behind women who were put in front of him as shields” – evidence, to the White House’s eyes, of “how false [bin Laden’s] narrative has been over the years.”

Yet it was Brennan’s own narrative, of the last twenty-four hours, that was soon shown to be false.

* * *

The storyline came under attack the next day. “So Brennan in his briefing yesterday made a couple of, I guess, misstatements – or statements that later appeared to be somewhat incorrect,” began the first question at Carney’s televised press briefing. The reporter listed as false both the idea that bin Laden’s wife had been used as a shield – that anyone at all had been used as a shield – and also that bin Laden had been armed, and a participant in the firefight. “Are you guys in a fog of war in this,” Carney was asked, “or what gives?”

Still new to the job, Carney, a respected former TIME magazine Washington bureau chief, defended the administration’s record of disclosure on the story, even as he tacitly – though not explicitly – admitted that key parts of it had been wrong.

“[W]hat is true,” he began with a touch of defensiveness, “is that we provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you and, through you, the American public about the operation and how it transpired…And obviously some of the information was -- came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on.”

Then Carney retreated to a prepared statement, drafted by officials at the Department of Defense, beyond which he would spend the rest of the briefing refusing to stray. “I have a narrative that I can provide to you on the raid itself,” he said. (Precisely because it emerged in such tangled form, the record of the bin Laden killing is replete with uses, by both officials and reporters alike, of the word “narrative.”)

What followed was an account of the mission, 349 words long (including Carney’s momentary stumbles), that comprised the most extensive chronicle of the events in Abbottabad yet offered. And it contained this crucial new detail: that bin Laden was “not armed.”

This opened up a world of new questions Carney did not want to have to face. “[I]f he didn’t have his hand on a gun, how was he resisting?” asked one member of the press corps. “I think resistance does not require a firearm,” Carney shot back. “But the information I gave you is what I can tell you about it. I’m sure more details will be provided as they come available.”

Still, Carney clung to the notion that the “volatile” firefight, which he said had comprised “a great deal of resistance,” had persisted “throughout the operation.” This left the impression that although bin Laden himself was unarmed, the shooting battle had taken place throughout the forty-minute duration of the raid.

Pursuing the question of how many women had been used as human shields, and which ones, the reporters bore in on the “discrepancy” in “the narrative.” Carney grew flustered and effectively called a time out. “I apologize,” he told reporters. “Even I’m getting confused.”

And it was at this point that the press secretary allowed himself to be bulled into doing something he had repeatedly vowed he wouldn’t: yielding information about the operation that had not been contained in the DOD “narrative.” “Bin Laden’s wife was unarmed as well?” a reporter asked. “That is my understanding,” Carney replied. The DOD account had not mentioned whether Mrs. Bin Laden was armed or not. Was anyone else in the room with bin Laden and his wife? “I don’t know that,” Carney admitted.

“In the narrative,” a reporter continued, “which of those women was being used a human shield, as Mr. Brennan suggested yesterday?” Here, at last, Carney acknowledged the haziness of “the narrative.” “[W]hat I would say about that is…to use your phrase, fog of war, fog of combat,” Carney said. “[T]here was a lot of information coming in. It is still unclear. The woman I believe you’re talking about might have been the one on the first floor who was caught in the crossfire [and killed]. Whether or not she was being used as a shield or trying to use herself as a shield or simply caught in crossfire is unclear. And we’re working on getting the details that we can.”

* * *

President Obama, meanwhile, had not proven entirely immune to the fog. His misstep came while he was addressing a bipartisan dinner with congressional leaders in the East Room on Monday night. The president introduced the subject of the week’s great accomplishment in the war on terror by mentioning the “sense of unity” that had prevailed in the country after Americans learned about the “operation that resulted in the capture and death of Usama bin Laden.”

Applause at that moment obscured the detail the president had let slip: that bin Laden had been subjected not only to death but also to “capture.” One of bin Laden’s daughters, only twelve years old, breathed further life into this notion when she told Al-Arabiya that U.S. forces had indeed captured her father, and shot him dead within the first few minutes of the raid. CIA officials soon waved reporters off the claim, dismissing Obama’s remark to the lawmakers as a simple misstatement.

By the following night, one of the heaviest hitters on the president’s national security team – CIA Director Leon Panetta – would join the fray, and add some final touches to the degree of confusion surrounding the raid and its aftermath.

The contributions to the confusion by Panetta, a savvy operator whose public service stretches back to the first term of the Nixon administration, were notable for their setting as much as their content. The CIA director, freshly nominated to succeed Robert Gates as defense secretary, spoke out as the first member of the national security team to consent to an extended sit-down interview. That format, unlike the helter-skelter of a conference call or a crowded briefing room, offers the questioner the opportunity for subtle and skilled follow-up, and therefore makes the interviewee more susceptible to errors of speech.

Panetta, in fact, conducted two extended sit-down interviews. The first was with PBS’ Jim Lehrer, who pressed for more information about how Obama and his aides were able to track the progress of the mission. “Did you have access to video of what was actually happening in the compound, et cetera?” asked Lehrer. “We had live-time intelligence information that we were dealing with,” Panetta replied cagily.

“Did you actually see Usama bin Laden get shot?” Lehrer followed up. “No,” Panetta answered. “No, not at all. We - you know, we had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

Here was the first time any senior Obama aide admitted to being in the dark for some parts of the raid – to enjoying access to something less than what Brennan had described, with deliberate broadness, as “real-time visibility into the progress of the operation.”

Since Panetta had tracked events from a special command post at CIA headquarters in Langley, Lehrer pressed the issue still further. “So…did the president see the shots fired at Usama bin Laden?” the veteran newsman asked. “No,” Panetta answered again. “No, not at all….[W]e knew that the helicopters had - were on the ground, that the teams were going into the compound. And that was the kind of information that we were following. Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost twenty or twenty-five minutes where we - you know, we really didn't know just exactly what was going on.”

Again, this represented a stark contrast with Brennan’s description of the vantage point enjoyed by Obama and his aides. It was the counter-terrorism adviser who had assured the White House press corps, the day before, that while he couldn’t go into detail about “what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there,” they did have “the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis.” Now here on PBS was Panetta, the head of CIA, acknowledging that the president and his advisers had spent approximately 63 percent of the operation – the majority of it – in a state of ignorance where they “really didn't know just exactly what was going on.”

Panetta was the first official to disclose the number of Navy SEALs deployed in the mission – twenty-five – and also the first to refer to the exchange of gunfire in the plural. He told Lehrer “there were some firefights that were going on as these guys were making their way up the staircase in that compound.”

On NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Panetta went a step further, venturing into territory no Obama aide had yet trodden: the question of whether any of the photographs of bin Laden’s corpse would be released. “I don't think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public,” Panetta told Williams, adding: “[W]e got Bin Laden and I think we have to reveal [that] to the rest of the world.”

* * *

Of course, President Obama would reach a contrary decision where the photographs were concerned, explaining to Steve Kroft of CBS’ “60 Minutes” on Wednesday – now it was the president himself who was braving the perils of the extended interview – that release of such grisly documents might endanger U.S. troops abroad. “[W]e don't need,” the commander-in-chief said, “to spike the football.”

That forced Carney, at the daily press briefing on May 4, to dodge some pointed questions about the CIA director:

QUESTION: So was [Panetta] misinformed, or was he overruled? And what --

MR. CARNEY: The decision -- a final decision had not been made.

QUESTION: So he spoke out of line, out of turn?

MR. CARNEY: The President made a decision. It was -- there are obviously arguments to be made on each side of this, but the final decision was not made until today.

QUESTION: So he was wrong?

MR. CARNEY: The final decision was not made until today.

As reporters worked government sources outside of those entrusted with briefing them, a fuller, more accurate picture of the raid began to emerge – albeit in piecemeal fashion, with reporters within and amongst different news organizations often contradicting one another.

Still, as the raid is now commonly understood to have transpired, the “firefight” that was said to have lasted for “most” of the forty-minute operation (as the senior DOD briefer alleged), or “throughout” it (as the statement that DOD prepared for Jay Carney stated), which was said to have persisted even as the SEALs “were making their way up the staircase in that compound” (as Leon Panetta told PBS), and which was believed to have “killed” bin Laden (as John Brennan claimed), was later revealed to have been, in fact, a volley of gunfire that erupted at the very outset of the raid; ended quickly; and involved only one resident of the compound: Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwaiti, the courier to bin Laden who was the first to confront the Navy SEALs. The Americans shot and killed Al-Kuwaiti, and a woman with him, in a guesthouse they had to traverse before reaching the main house, on whose third floor bin Laden himself awaited. After the shoot-out with Al-Kuwaiti, the U.S. forces were never fired upon again.

It was in the main house that the SEALs encountered Al-Kuwaiti’s brother, whom they shot and killed before he could reach a weapon; bin Laden’s adult son, Khaled, who lunged at them, and was also shot to death; and finally bin Laden himself, in the presence of his wife. She is said to rushed the assault team, at which point she was shot in the leg. Here, bin Laden was said to have exhibited the “resistance” officials had cited, later reported to have been a reach for one of two nearby weapons – an AK-47 assault rifle and a Russian-made 9 millimeter Makarov semi-automatic pistol – that led the Americans to shoot and kill him.

Citing two sources involved in the mission, Fox News has reported that bin Laden behaved in a “confused…scared…cowardly” manner, and that in a desperate bid to fend off the SEALs, he “shoved” his wife at them. This is what may have given rise to the notion that one or more women had been used as “shields” during the raid.

From a somewhat more official source – the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee – came still another version of events. Late Thursday, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) told reporters, in separate interviews with the Atlanta Journal Constitution and National Journal, that the SEALs had first fired on bin Laden when they saw him poke his head out of his room and observe them down the third-floor hallway. This first round of fire missed bin Laden, Chambliss said, adding that the SEALs fired again – and killed the Al Qaeda leader – once they reached his room and looked inside to see him near the two weapons.

Chambliss expressed irritation at the shifting “narrative” of the raid offered by the White House, the Pentagon, and CIA. “Every day it seems like somebody is having to straighten out some fact,” he told the AJC. “You’d think that twenty-four hours after the fact, they’d be able to ferret things out a little more.” He told NJ, more sharply: “Twenty-four hours after it happened there should have been more clarification than what I heard coming out of Brennan.”

* * *

On Thursday morning, May 5, as he and President Obama flew aboard Air Force One to Manhattan to commemorate the killing of bin Laden at Ground Zero, Carney again faced the news media. “Can you talk about the latest revision to the Sunday narrative,” asked one reporter, “that in fact it was not a 40-minute firefight, as White House officials had initially said?”

“I don't have any updates on the narrative,” Carney said wearily. He mounted another defense of his efforts to dispense information as quickly as he could, under trying circumstances – a process, he admitted, that had “resulted in the need to clarify some facts.” But Carney allowed as how it “is to our credit that when we discovered that clarification was needed we did put them [sic] out.“ But the White House has not clarified this point on the record, the reporter pressed. Carney, unwilling to be pushed into divulging information again, punted. “As I said yesterday, the Defense Department can take questions you have about further details on the mission or clarifications. We're still in a process of gathering all the facts of that operation.”

One individual who had stood where Carney was, had faced the intense pressure he was receiving from the relentless press corps, and who empathized with him now – without excusing the Obama administration for its flawed handling of the public disclosure of the mission – was Dana Perino, the last White House press secretary under President George W. Bush.

“In a crisis or an unfolding news situation, first reports are almost always wrong,” she explained in an interview with Fox News, where she is a contributor. “And you can understand when you get the tide of the media calls coming in and you want to provide information as quickly as possible. You want to be responsive and you want to frame the argument first. Sometimes though, if then you end up having to redefine that narrative, or correct things that you originally said, you end up sullying your original message. And I think that's what's happened to them.

“I am perplexed how they got so much wrong,” she added. “I don't think it takes away from their achievement. I think that criticism will be relatively short-lived. However, for those people who might be critics of the administration, or have a little bit of distrust for the stories that are coming out of the White House, this will feed that. And it doesn't help build credibility.”

Fox News' Anne Marie Riha and Steve Carlson contributed to this report.

Official Royal Wedding Portraits Revealed By Simon Perry and Kristin Boehm

2011-04-30T16:44:00.004-04:00

Source: http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20395222_20486243,00.html

April 30, 2011

As the new Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were whisked by helicopter to a secret weekend destination, the palace released three official Royal Wedding photographs.

The images were taken by Hugo Burnand in the Throne Room of Buckingham Palace on Friday afternoon – shortly after Prince William made Kate Middleton his wife.

PHOTOS: All the Details of Catherine's Bridal Look!

Of course, there is a main image of the newlyweds. But even more fun, is an adorable one with the children of the bridal party including: The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Miss Eliza Lopes, Miss Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Master Tom Pettifer, Master William Lowther-Pinkerton.

The now-merged family is featured in entirety in the final shot, with everyone from Queen Elizabeth II to Carole Middleton.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with their family

Hugo Burnand/Clarence House/PA/Landov

Flanking William and Kate are as follows.
Front row (left to right): Miss Grace van Cutsem, Miss Eliza Lopes, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, HM The Queen, The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Lady Louise Windsor, Master William Lowther-Pinkerton.

Back Row (left to right): Master Tom Pettifer, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, HRH The Prince of Wales, HRH Prince Henry of Wales, Mr Michael Middleton, Mrs Michael Middleton, Mr James Middleton, Miss Philippa Middleton.

So very regal!

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with attendants

Hugo Burnand / Clarence House / PA / Landov

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Hugo Burnand / Clarence House / PA / Landov

http://www.people.com/people/videos/0,,20485951,00.html

How Do You Explain This Certificate Mr. Obama?

2011-04-28T08:58:00.003-04:00

DOCUMENT ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED IN KENYA SENT TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS

by Sharon Rondeau

(Sept. 5, 2010) — Lucas Daniel Smith has just completed a mailing to each member of Congress a copy of a document which he stated is a certified copy of the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II showing that Obama was born in Kenya, Africa. Each birth certificate copy was sent with a seven-page, individually-notarized letter by certified mail. The project was completed on August 31, 2010.

Smith said that he obtained the document from the Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya in February 2009. The document became part of a lawsuit filed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., in California which was denied a hearing in October 2009 by Judge David O. Carter.

Mr. Smith’s declaration to the court, taken under oath, is here.

A video produced by “On Second Thought” TV following one of the preliminary court hearings last summer depicts Mr. Smith discussing some of the details of the document is here. A video which Mr. Smith produced himself showing close-ups of the document details is here.

In an interview with the Christian News Review on July 13, 2010, Mr. Smith described his background as a sociologist studying in Africa, how he obtained the document from Coast Province General Hospital, the cost, and the military and police presence there. A second interview with Steve Cooper of The Conservative Monster from August 18, 2010 can be found here.

The Post & Email had previously reported that the spelling of “Mombasa” had been “Mombassa” in 1961, but Mr. Smith has refuted that statement. Indeed, this writer has performed a five-page search using the words “history of Mombasa, Kenya,” and found no evidence of its being spelled “Mombassa.”

Page 635 of the Encyclopedia Britannica (pictured below) utilized by Smith for his research on the history of Kenya also refers to the port city as “Mombasa.” However, one website which has been following the Obama eligibility controversy incorrectly reports the spelling on the document as “Mombassa.”

Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963.

The document which Mr. Smith has reported is a certified copy of the original birth certificate appears below:

Document allegedly obtained from the Coast Province General Hospital on February 19, 2009 by Lucas Smith

The Post & Email asked Mr. Smith a number of questions regarding his travels to Africa, how he obtained the document, and his decision to send it to every member of Congress, a project which was completed on August 31, 2010. Our questions are in bold.

1. Would you be willing to send The Post & Email anything that proves your travel to Kenya (or whatever country was your first destination in Africa) before you accessed the personnel at the Mombasa hospital (the stub of an airline ticket, hotel receipt, etc.)? Do you have anything that shows when you re-entered the U.S. from Kenya after you obtained the document?

I have a plethora of documentation which puts me in the following countries in February of 2009: Democratic Republic of the Congo, The People’s Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Kenya. I will provide this documentation in person to both Congress and attorneys. I will not distribute electronic copies of this documentation until the documentation has been reviewed by members of Congress or disclosed during Congressional investigations/hearings or entered in as evidence in eligibility litigation here in the United States or the United Kingdom.

2. How long were you in Kenya before you approached hospital personnel about obtaining Obama’s record?

Less than 10 days.

3. What convinces you that the document you have in your possession is a copy of his original hospital record? Is there any chance someone gave you a fake document and passed it off as real?

I have been analyzing Barack Obama’s Kenyan CPGH hospital birth certificate for more than one year. This document has withstood the test of time. It has never been discredited. On February 19, 2009 I personally entered Coast Province General Hospital under the guise that I was looking for my sister that had fallen ill while she was working Kenya. It wasn’t until I was inside of the hospital and face to face with administrative staff that I mentioned anything regarding my desire to procure (or purloin) a certified copy of Barack Obama’s original birth record. The significance of the guise was to eliminate any possibility that the hospital’s staff (seeing dollar signs) would be “waiting” for me with a forged or fake document.

4. How long did it take for hospital personnel to procure the document once you approached them about it (e.g., did it occur over a matter of weeks, or did you simply approach them one day, offer them money, and they got the document out of the files)?

On February 19th I personally entered Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. While inside of the hospital I presented a member of the hospital’s administrative staff with $5000 US dollars, cash. I set the money down in front of them and told them that the money was theirs if they could bring me a certified copy of US President Barack Obama’s original hospital birth record. I stipulated that I was only allotting a small window of time for the staff member to fetch me the document. This member of the administrative staff returned, within the allotted time, with the certified copy of Obama’s original hospital birth record. I am not, at this time, disclosing to the public the specific time allotment. However, I can tell you that the time allotment was less than 45 minutes. The significance of the time allotment was to eliminate any possibility that the hospital’s staff (again seeing dollar signs) would have sufficient time to create a forged or fake document.

5. Since you have had the document since last summer, is there a reason why you chose to hold off on contacting Congress until now?

Going as far back as March of 2009 I have been contacting members of the United States Congress and other federal and state officials as well as attorneys. I actively contacted members of Congress and attorneys during March, April, May and June of 2009. I will use the euphemism of “unfavorable and unsuccessful” to effectively, and respectfully, articulate the responses that I received.

It was at that point, June 2009, that I ascertained that eBay was my only opportunity to garner publicity and bring Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate to the attention of the whole world. I never had any intentions of selling the document. The world would have never known about Barack Obama’s original 1961 hospital birth record from the Protectorate of Kenya if it weren’t for the June – July 2009 eBay auctions.

The Lucas Daniel Smith 4th of July (2010) Letter to Congress is intended to serve as an official record of having informed all of Congress, each member, of Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth and the existence of the 2009 certified copy of Barack Obama’s 1961 Coast Province General Hospital Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya, birth record. The letter also directs their attention to a document that they themselves, i.e., US Congress, published in the 1990s which questioned the eligibility of individuals born abroad, of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS, to hold the Office of President of the United States of America.

————————–

On September 1, 2010, Mr. Smith reported to The Post & Email that letters containing the document he obtained from Kenya have been sent by certified mail to all members of Congress, funded by a private donor. The complete mailing, which is 3,945 pages long, is divided into eight links due to its size.

The letter to Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa begins:

Lucas Daniel Smith
1626 5th Avenue SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52403
Lucas_d_Smith@live.com
319-804-0440

07.04.2010

United States Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3744

RE: Barack Obama was born in Kenya. I personally obtained from his birth hospital and now have in my possession a certified copy of his original birth record from the British Protectorate of Kenya.

Dear Senator Charles Grassley,

I am writing to you today regarding a matter of national security.

We may have spoken before. This letter will, in part, serve as my official record of my having contacted you regarding the above referenced subject matter.

The President of the United States of America is not eligible to serve as our President.

President Barack Hussein Obama II is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America. President Obama was born in Mombasa, British Protectorate of Kenya at the Coast Province General Hospital in 1961.

I, Lucas Smith, have proof of this.

Mr. Smith points out the following in regard to page 7 of the letter to members of the House of Representatives and Senate:

Senate Publication 103-21 (US Constitution) was sent to me almost 10 years ago from US Senator Charles Grassley. Last year, while in Africa, when I learned of Barack Obama’s Kenyan birth it was page 18 of this Senate published edition of the US Constitution that popped into the forefront my mind. Page 18 was instrumental in my decision to pursue this story of President Obama’s birth place and attempt to procure some sort of official Kenyan birth record of Mr. Barack Obama.

It was page 18 which contains the words of the late Johnny H. Killian:

This clause requires that in order to take oath of office a president must be 35, a resident within the United States for 14 years, and a natural-born citizen. This last requirement (natural-born citizen) raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office (emphasis added by The Post & Email).

Mr. Johnny H. Killian advised Congress for more than 44 years on constitutional matters. As senior specialist in American public law at the Congressional Research Service, Mr. Killian was the person most often called upon when the constitutionality of a proposal was in question. Mr. Killian was also the editor of and major contributor to the 1972, 1982, 1992 and 2002 editions of “Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation,” nicknamed the Annotated, a seminal work on the judicial history of all constitutional amendments that is a standard text in U.S. law schools.”

More information on Johnny H. Killian can be found here.

Some have questioned the date format and other aspects of the document which Mr. Smith obtained, stating that it would have been written in the European format of day/month/year. However, Smith has provided an envelope which he claims is from Mombasa from 1897 showing a month/day/year format:

Envelope which Mr. Smith claims is from Mombasa (British East Africa/East Africa Protectorate from 1897 and shows the date in month/day/year format

and made the following statement:

The stamps on the envelope are specifically from 1897. Furthermore, and more importantly, the British ran out of their own stamps sometime in 1897 and overprinted these Zanzibar stamps with the wording of “British East Africa”. A close look at the stamps on the envelope shows the “British East Africa” overprint. The overprint on the far right stamp has the easiest overprint to make out.

Change of Status.—During this period of strain the change from a protectorate to a crown colony was effected (July 1920). The new colony was named after Mount Kenya, the most commanding natural feature of the country. The coast lands which formed part of the Sultanate of Zanzibar were not annexed but became the Kenya Protectorate.

What will the members of Congress do once all of the letters are received? Can they continue to stonewall, insist that Obama has shown a valid birth certificate from Hawaii, and refuse to investigate? What other document issued in the United States comes close to resembling the document which Smith procured?

No hospital in the United States has claimed that Obama was born there. Only Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii has stated that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, but a person formerly employed in the Hawaii Elections Office says that Obama “was not born in Hawaii” and that “the government there knows this.”

What if Dr. Fukino has been obfuscating and lying to keep the truth from the American people?

Can the judges continue to defend Obama’s right to keep his records hidden? If Obama is a fraud and ineligible to serve as president, what should be done?

Edge City Celebrates Passover 2011

2011-04-26T09:07:00.008-04:00

AP declared Obama “Kenyan-Born” By John Carlton

2011-04-23T16:10:00.001-04:00

Source: http://www.infowars.com/ap-declared-obama-kenyan-born/

October 16, 2009

What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don’t know that is in 2004, the AP was a “birther” news organization.

How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available at

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

The AP reporter stated the following:

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004, that he was born in Kenya.

The difficulty in finding this gem of a story is hampered by Google, which is running flak for Obama: because if you search for “Kenyan-born US Senate” you wont find it, but if you search for the phrase without quotes you will find links which talk about it.

For those who believe what they see, here is the screen capture of the page from the Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004 — Just in case that page is scrubbed from the Web Archive:

Readers should take note that this AP story, was syndicated world-wide, so you should be able to find it in major newspapers, archived in libraries world-wide. If any reader does this, please let The Post & Email know, so that we can publish a follow up-story. You can scrub the net, but scrubbing libraries world-wide is not so easy.

[efoods]Hanen of Sentinel Blog Radio broke the public news of the existence of this AP story at on October 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm. However, The Post & Email can confirm that a professional investigator had uncovered this story months ago, and that certified and authenticated copies of this report, meeting Federal Rules of evidence, have already been prepared and archived at many locations nationwide.

It should be noted that on January 8, 2006, the Honolulu Advertiser also reported that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the United States.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html

A Chronology of Deceit

One can now ask an important question which has not yet been emphasized enough: “Just when did Obama begin to publically claim he was born in Hawaii?” This question is distinct from the question, “Just where in fact was Obama born?”, and from the other question, “What do official documents say about where he was born?”

Regarding his claims, we can summarize what is known:

1. As of Monday, Aug. 28, 2006, Obama’s Campaign was putting out that he was born in Hawaii. This is known from the introductory speech given by Prof. George A. O. Magoha, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi, on the occasion of a speech given there by Senator Obama that day. (One presumes that the Vice-Chancellor was given notes from the Obama campaign, as is customary on such occasions)

2. From the newspaper reports above, it is clear that the Obama campaign was putting out that he was born in Kenya, or overseas, during the period of June 27, 2004, until January 8, 2006.

3. In October of 2004, during the ABC Chicago Affiliate’s broadcast of the Obama-Keyes debates, Obama openly admitted — he conceded — that he was not a natural born citizen. (C-Span aired the uncut version of the debates, which contained this exchange, in the second half of April, 2005)

4. It is known from a classmate of Obama at Harvard University, that while at Harvard, Obama at least on one occasion admitted that he was born in Kenya. (This friend went on record on a call in radio program in Idaho in early July, 2009)

If any reader can find a link which documents a claim to a birth location before Aug. 28th, 2006, which differs from this timeline or which supports it; please let The Post & Email know of it, by posting it in the comment section below.

In a follow up report, The Post & Email has published a brief analysis of the Google Newspaper archive, which shows that Obama’s story changed after June 27, 2004.

Finally, that the AP did cover this story, reprinted by the East African Standard, can be seen from the citation made to AP stories about it (Jack Ryan dropping out of the race), in the following contemporary news articles, which however are incomplete:

June 25, 2004 — http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html

June 26, 2004 — Bellview News Democrat

June 26, 2004 — AP Online Story by Michael Tarm

June 25, 2004 — AP Syndicated Story by Maura Kelly Lannan

(Second Source on June 26, 2009, which cites Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo and reporter Dennis Conrad as contributors to this report)

(Third Source, The Ledger, print edition of June 26, 2009: partial republication)

5th Annual Man-O-Manischewitz Contest

2011-04-17T14:40:00.010-04:00

General Tsos Chicken Song - watch more funny videos

Source: http://joyof.kosher.com/2011/04/06/5th-annual-man-o-manischewitz-contest/

April 6, 2011

Jamie Geller was one of the judges at the 5th Annual Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-off at which Stuart Davis, 45, from Cherry Hill, NJ with his Chicken and Egg Donburi (recipe can be found on the Manischewitz website) was crowned King of Kosher on Thursday March 31 2011. Davis received a grand prize worth $25,000 which includes: state of the art kitchen appliances, cash, over night stay in NYC, crystal trophy, and Manischewitz product.

Stuart was selected as a finalist through the “Online Voting” component that allowed consumers to have a say in the finalist selection process. The other four contestants were selected from thousands of entries.

Stuart is a father of three girls and one boy. Although cooking is his passion, this is the first contest he has ever entered! Stuart was a mortgage banker for 10 years and now teaches a class called “Digesting Hebrew” at Temple Beth Shalom in his hometown. Previously, he taught English in Japan (the inspiration for this dish) and speaks the language fluently. Entries were judged on appearance, taste, ease of preparation and originality & creativity.

The five contestants competed live in NYC at The JCC In Manhattan, in front of hundreds of guests and a prestigious panel of judges including Epicurious.com, FoodNetwork.com, Weight Watchers, Kosher Cookbook author Jamie Geller, the Culinary Arts Director at The JCC In Manhattan, spearheaded by legendary Chef Jacques Pepin.

The five finalists, selected from over thousands of entries, were challenged to prepare family-friendly recipes incorporating one of the Manischewitz All-Natural broth flavors including the new Vegetable Broth which joins the existing line of Beef, Chicken and Reduced-Sodium Chicken flavors. In addition, Mayor Bloomberg has proclaimed the date as “Man-O-Manischewitz” Cook-Off day!

“What a thrill and honor to be named the Manischewitz Cook-Off Champion.” said Stuart Davis, Grand Prize Winner. “I have loved Manischewitz products all my life and to think they have made me a “cooking champion” is a dream come true.”

The dishes prepared by the other contestants were: Moroccan Chicken Bowl by Naylet LaRochelle of Miami FL; Shallot Smothered Chicken by Dina Burcat, Baltimore MD; Simple Fisherman’s Stew by Suzanne Banfield, Basking Ridge NJ; and Golden Sweet Potato Tagine by Jeanette Nelson, Sophia WV.

To see more photos from the event, please go to our Facebook album.

Freedom in the kitchen: Manichewitz Cookoff winner likes to take traditional recipes and turn them upside down

Source: http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011104130301

Apr. 12, 2011

Steam rises as Stuart Davis of Cherry Hill, winner of the Manischewitz Cook-Off, prepares a pot of Chicken-and -Egg Donburi. Davis has adapted the Asian comfort food for a kosher kitchen. Davis developed a taste for Chicken-and-Egg Donburi while working in Japan as an English teacher. He says the dish is a big hit with kids. / JOHN ZIOMEK Courier-Post

Stuart Davis didn't even test the recipe he threw together just in time to beat the Man-O-Manischewitz Cookoff deadline on Dec. 31.

Things were crazy-busy for the married father of four, what with his daughter's bat mitzvah and all.

"I was confident enough that it would work," said Davis, 45.

Lucky for him, it did.

Just in time for Passover, the Cherry Hill resident recently took the grand prize in the cooking contest, beating out thousands of hopefuls with his version of Japanese comfort food he called Chicken-and-Egg Donburi. He used Manischewitz chicken stock and wasabi sauce to reinterpret the dish for the kosher kitchen.

"It was an easy dish to prepare," said Davis.

And yummy, too. A few weeks ago, he whipped up the dish alongside four other finalists in New York City, where he served it to discerning judges such as Jacques Pepin.

An amateur foodie, Davis entered the cooking contest at the insistence of a family friend.

Davis was forever riffing off world cuisines in his kosher kitchen, switching out this or that ingredient, playing with ideas and flavors he experienced while working in Japan as an English teacher.

The former mortgage broker does the same at Temple Beth Sholom, where he teaches a class for kids called "Digesting Hebrew," using food to teach the language.

Stuart Davis developed a taste for Chicken-and-Egg Donburi while working in Japan as an English teacher. He says the dish is a big hit with kids. / JOHN ZIOMEK/Courier-Post

With his glass trophy perched on the kitchen counter, Davis demonstrated the dish on a recent morning, cutting chicken breast into chunks before dumping it into a pan of simmering chicken stock, soy sauce, mirin, wasabi and sugar. As the chicken poached, he scrambled four eggs, cracking each and checking for blood spots before adding them to the bowl.

Stirred into the chicken, the eggs became a silky thickener for the poaching liquid. When the eggs were cooked, he poured the mixture over white rice and topped it all with chopped scallions, red bell pepper, and some pickled daikon radish.

The basic recipe gives him room to play; there are other ways he can prepare the chicken, other ingredients he can throw in.

Scallions and chicken simmer in broth made by Stuart Davis in his Cherry Hill kitchen. / JOHN ZIOMEK/Courier-Post

"Kids in Japan love this," said Davis. His kids -- ages 3, 6, 10 and 13 -- approve, too.

"If all your kids like it, then it's a winner," said Davis, with a laugh.

Davis' win is translating into professional cooking opportunities, and he's already been hired to cook privately during the 10-day Passover holiday.

Recently, he demonstrated his fresh take on Passover cooking at the Voorhees Town Center, where he prepared his own "East meets West" recipes: a chicken soup filled with Turkish-style meatballs and leeks; charoset with dates, almonds, wine, ginger, apples and raisins; a chicken tangine of apricots, prunes, cinnamon and ginger; quinoa pilaf; and a crustless quiche of broccoli, leeks, mushrooms and eggs.

"I like to take tradition and turn it upside down," said Davis. "Passover is the festival of freedom. You should feel liberated and try different things."

"One of the commandments is actually all who are hungry should come and eat, and invite those who are hungry," he said. "So why shouldn't you try other foods and embrace flavors from all over?"

Reach Kim Mulford at (856) 486-2448 or kmulford@camden.gannett.com

ABC cancels longtime soap operas By David Bauder

2011-04-17T13:10:00.001-04:00

Source: http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_17852197

4/15/2011

NEW YORK - ABC canceled two of its three soap operas on Thursday, consigning "One Life to Live" and "All My Children" - and Susan Lucci, daytime's most famous actress - to television history.

The move leaves "General Hospital" as ABC's only daytime drama, one of only four that will remain on ABC, CBS and NBC's daytime schedule.

Soap operas have slowly been fading as a TV force, with many of the women who made up the target audience now in the work force. In place of the two canceled dramas, ABC will air shows about food and lifestyle transformations.

Brian Frons, head of ABC's daytime department, went to the California set of "All My Children" to deliver the news on Thursday, where a video link was also set up to the New York set of "One Life to Live." He said the shows were doing well creatively, but falling ratings indicated they had a bleak future.

"If you have a show in severe decline, you're trying to catch a falling knife," Frons said.

Daytime dramas have suffered recently as cable networks like TLC, Bravo and Oxygen aggressively seek viewers in those hours, he said. Soaps are popular with viewers from the post-World War II baby boom, but younger viewers are more interested in other programming, he said.

Both canceled shows were created by Agnes Nixon, one of daytime TV's most famous creative forces, and modeled after fictional Philadelphia-area towns. "One Life to Live" debuted on July 15, 1968, as a half-hour, expanding to an hour 10 years later. "All My Children" premiered on Jan. 5, 1970, expanding to an hour seven years later.

They were both known for incorporating social issues into their stories, with Lucci's character of Erica Kane the first regular TV character to undergo a legal abortion in 1973, said Carolyn Hinsey, author of "Afternoon Delight: Why Soaps Still Matter," due to be published next month.

Lucci became more famous for an offstage drama when she was nominated 18 years for a Daytime Emmy Award as best actress without winning, until she finally took home a trophy in 1999.

"It's been a fantastic journey," Lucci said.

"All My Children" was based in New York for many years until production was moved to Los Angeles in 2009. Two of its leading actors, David Canary and Thorsten Kaye, left the show because they wouldn't make the move.

"They weren't able to save the money they wanted to save, clearly," Hinsey said. Frons said the move did save money, but the show wasn't gaining viewers.

"One Life to Live" is the last soap opera produced in New York, once the thriving center of the industry. Two New York-based dramas on CBS, "Guiding Light" and "As the World Turns," went off the air within the past two years.

"All My Children" is averaging 2.5 million viewers a day, down 9 percent from the last TV season, and the median age of a typical viewer was nearly 57, the Nielsen Co. said. "One Life to Live" is at 2.6 million, its numbers off only slightly.

Hinsey said the schedule changes are risky for ABC stations, particularly as Regis Philbin and Oprah Winfrey are also leaving.

"Why would you drive millions of other people away from your lineup?" she asked. "If you want to save money, cut your costs, cut your sets. You can't be so cavalier with your daytime eyeballs that you let two, three, four million people disappear."

"All My Children" will go off the air in September, replaced by "The Chew," a live one-hour show about food and nutrition, featuring two cast members from "Iron Chef America" and nutrition expert Daphne Oz, Dr. Mehmet Oz's daughter. Frons described it as a cross between "The View" and a cooking show.

"One Life to Live" lasts until January. Its replacement is "The Revolution," made by the producers behind "The Biggest Loser," and will be a health and lifestyle show featuring fashion expert Tim Gunn. Each week the show will focus on the weight loss transformation of one woman.

Besides "General Hospital," ABC's decision will leave CBS' "The Young and the Restless" and "The Bold and the Beautiful" and NBC's "Days of Our Lives" as the only daytime dramas left on the air. Each appears to be in no imminent danger, Hinsey said.

Asked what message fans of "General Hospital" should take from Thursday's announcement, Frons said, "they should feel like they are fans of one of the most powerful franchises in television. It's in good creative shape, it's in good financial shape and they should ask as many of their friends to watch the show as possible."

Phlashback: Government Bailouts Inspired Taxed Enough Already (T.E.A.) Revolt

2011-04-15T23:06:00.008-04:00

CNBC's Rick Santilli on February 19, 2009

Daniel Hannan's March 26, 2009 European Parliment speech

Mark Levin's Liberty And Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

T.E.A. Party Tax Day - April 15, 2009

With a song in her heart By Gail T. Boatman

2011-04-13T16:40:00.010-04:00

Source: http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/with-a-song-in-her-heart/article_e73862a8-d6ab-5875-b8e1-e1784a390cb6.html

April 13, 2011

Nancy Rokos/Staff Photographer
Sandra Messinger of Willingboro is the cantor at Adath Emanu-El in Mount Laurel. "I see my job as creating an atmosphere that encourages participation and shows everyone that there is joy in prayer."

Music has been a part of Sandra Messinger's life from the time she was a child growing up in Willingboro.

It led her to studies in jazz and opera in New York and Rome, and the potential for a career onstage. But something was lacking, she said during a recent interview, "and I didn't know what it was."

Surrounded by songs and piano playing in her music-loving family, Messinger began to study music and pick out basic chords and tunes on the piano when she was barely 4.

Later, in the performing arts department of the Willingboro public schools, her talent was developed and encouraged. She danced and sang, and played the flute and piccolo, which remain her favorite instruments.

Music performance was the focus of her classes at Glassboro State College, now Rowan University. After graduation, more music studies followed at the International Academy in Rome.

Messinger was encouraged to study opera but resisted at first, choosing jazz instead. Eventually, the beauty of opera and the star status that opera singers are accorded won her over.

"It was all about me. I admit I liked the adulation. I was the center of attention, the diva," the Willingboro woman said.

But when the applause stopped, the feeling that something was not quite right began to edge its way into her consciousness.

She soon would find a new way to express herself.

"Cantor Sandra Messinger at Adath Emanu-El" Nancy Rokos/Staff Photographer
"I've been here since I was 5," Messinger said. "I received my religious training here. It's my home.""

In 1997, Richard Levine, then head rabbi at Adath Emanu-El on Elbo Lane in Mount Laurel, needed a cantor and asked Messinger if she could fill in as needed. Since the congregation originated in Willingboro and had been her spiritual home for her entire life, she agreed. Three years later, she was performing cantor duties at
the temple full time.

"I've been here since I was 5," Messinger said. "I received my
religious training here. It's my home."

Still, the prospect was daunting.

"I was terrified," she said.

Messinger saw the cantor's role as very different from being onstage playing a character in an opera. Onstage, she could hide behind the person she was portraying. A cantor can't do that.

"It was very foreign to me. In an opera, you are the character. As cantor, it's you," she said.

Over time, with experience, she grew into the position and learned to deal with her new responsibility to lead the congregation in musical prayer.

"I see my job as creating an atmosphere that encourages participation and shows everyone that there is joy in prayer," she said.

Before the regular Friday night Sabbath services, Messinger selects the music that will be sung. She then confers with the rabbi, Stacy Offner, who approves her choices. She will do the same for next week's Passover observance.

Passover, which begins at sundown Monday, is the most family centered holiday for Jews, she said.

"It's about taking time to be a family," Messinger said

The most important part of the services for Messinger is the cantor's song, which follows the rabbi's sermon and affirms its central message.

Messinger likes to arrive at the synagogue early on Fridays to attend to administrative duties in her small office near the sanctuary. Then she checks on the music for that night and warms up.

During services, she wears business attire and a kippah, the wire and beaded skullcap she pins to the back of her long, dark hair. She also dons a tallit, or prayer shawl, which fulfills an Old Testament commandment that we should wrap ourselves while in the sanctuary.

In addition to her formal role during services, the cantor directs three choirs at the reform synagogue, which has about 500 families in its congregation.

Divided by age, the three choirs - youth, teen and adult - come to the music with different perspectives.

"I try to teach the youngest children about life and the holidays. I show them the calming, healing side of prayer," Messinger said.

The life lessons go deeper with the teens; for the adults, she
has a special message: Everyone can sing.

"Some people tell me they can't sing, but I tell them they are having trouble accessing their voice," Messinger said.

The cantor continues to study her art and spends several days every week in New York, where she meets with her voice coach.

Young people with old souls prefer records to CDs By Leanne Italie

2011-04-10T11:37:00.004-04:00

Sarah McCarthy and her boyfriend, Jack Carroll, 19, of Bowie, Md., pose for a photograph at KA-CHUNK!! Records. McCarthy's love of music led her to visit the record store. Now she works there and dates a co-worker.

Source: http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20110403/WIRE/110409950/1086/NEWS?Title=Young-people-with-old-souls-prefer-records-to-CDs

April 3, 2011

NEW YORK — In most ways, Sarah McCarthy is your average high schooler. She has a job, college plans, but also a peculiar passion for a 16-year-old: She's a vinyl junkie.

That's right, analog. And none of that hipster new stuff or a USB-ready turntable from Urban Outfitters.

To this senior from Centreville, Md., there's nothing like the raw crackle, the depth of sound, her delicate hand on diamond-tipped stylus to spin from the dusty stash of records she found in the basement of her grandfather — yes, grandfather.

“He gave me his receiver and speaker system and told me to listen to it the way it was made to be listened to,” McCarthy said. “I've turned a lot of my friends on to it. They come over a lot to listen with me.”

At a time when parents feel positively prehistoric as they explain how to use plastic ice-cube trays or speak of phones with cords and dials, this teen knows what a record is.

Not only that, she knows the difference between a 45 and an LP. She met her boyfriend in a record shop and now works there!

Sure, she has an iPod, but she also has a vinyl collection of 250 records and counting. Sure, there's a broader '70s renaissance in the air, but buying bellbottoms doesn't touch the commitment of teens unearthing old turntables and records, then convincing friends to listen, too, like a pack of crazy little anthropologists.

“Listening to old music remastered to a newer format is almost comical,” Sarah said. “They weren't meant to be digitalized. Listening to Jimi Hendrix on my iPod doesn't capture his endlessly deep guitar solos quite like a 33 LP of ‘Blues' does.”

This girl's in love with vinyl, and she's not the only member of Generation Digital with an ear for analog.

“My dad always had these old records in the garage and I never got to use them until just recently, when my uncle let me have his old record player,” said 14-year-old Nick Spates, a Los Angeles eighth grader who plays guitar and piano.

What'd he find in his dad's two milk crates?

A lot of George Clinton — “He's a genius. I swear,” declared Nick. And Funkadelic. Of the band's Eddie Hazel: “'Maggot Brain' is like my favorite song ever. The original is a 10-minute guitar solo.” There was also “Spiral” by The Crusaders. “It has a lot of horns. I love horns.” And “Carmel” by Joe Sample, Hendrix on “Voodoo Child” and a trove of Stanley Clarke.

“My friends think it's cool,” Nick said.

“Before I had the vinyls I used to Google older musicians and see what songs they made, and I'd look for them on YouTube.

“We're all musicians and old music is like our favorite stuff in the world.”

Wayyyy back when, he said, the message of the music was “definitely more to benefit society and people's knowledge and what's going on in the world.” Now, he said, “It's more about what rappers have.”

Jeremy Robinson, co-owner of the plantation-size Ditch Records & CDs in Victoria, British Columbia, has up to 20,000 records in stock — half old and half new pressings from reissue labels and indie bands.

“Our vinyl sales have probably doubled in the last couple of years,” he said.

“The bulk of that has been young people, the iPod generation. They want to collect things, own things, which is the opposite of digital culture. They want to belong to the past.”

The uptick in interest over several years includes nostalgic “nerdy superfans” looking for a way around the more sanitized sound of digital, he said, but also savvy young people with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Fleetwood Mac, Iron Maiden and a host of obscure post-punk music on their minds.

“The younger kids that come in the store know what they want,” Robinson said. “They usually want the best albums by the best classic bands.”

Matt Melvin, a 22-year-old college senior in Orlando, Fla., began taking vinyl seriously when he was 17 and still in high school.

His interest was fed by buddies in search of pressings from new artists but also his dad's collection of old staples like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Dylan.

“With vinyl, one is forced to slow down and take in an album as a whole piece of work as the artist intended,” he said.

Melvin's constantly on the hunt for exclusive, hard-to-find tracks like special B sides or limited-edition color pressings. The White Stripes, for example, released a series of singles on vinyl from their last album with acoustic and Spanish versions on B sides. A vinyl version of Radiohead's latest album can be ordered from its website.

But he's interested in older music, too.

“Going through the countless stacks of different record stores, my eyes usually get caught by old funk and jazz records that I would have otherwise had little exposure to had it not been for their eccentric and colorful cover art.”

While the recording industry dukes it out over downloads and mourns the CD, 2.5 million vinyl LPs were sold in 2009, up 33 percent from the year before. Vinyl sales are a blip among total revenue from U.S. music sales and licensing, but that's a healthy increase in its own right.

“Young people are leading the way back to analog through vinyl and turntables,” Melvin said. “I think young people are demanding a product that is more tangible, the thrill of hunting through a store for that perfect record, the simple satisfaction of turning that record over.”

Young people who listen and young people who mix.

Tina Turnbull, 28, travels the world as a DJ. Last year, she opened a weeklong DJ summer camp in Ojai, Calif., for tweens and teens, many who attend on scholarship. Coming up in the business at age 15, Turnbull carted around crates of vinyl to gigs. “Now I bring two records with me and my laptop. Technology has taken over.”

At Camp Spin-Off, she and a staff of working DJs try to bridge past and present through vinyl. “We use records. We teach them the fundamentals. Where they go from there is wherever they want.”

On the first day of camp, her charges watch a documentary tracing the birth of hip-hop, when the first DJs inspired break dancing and rap, and invented scratching and “beat-juggling” on vinyl. The movie takes them straight through to “turntablism,” the more recent explosion of using one or more turntables combined with one or more mixers to create original music.

Turnbull invites guest DJs young (Samantha Ronson will stop by in August) and older to share their expertise and memories of decades past with the 50 campers, ages 12 to 17.

“You have to learn the basics on turntables,” she said. “It kind of bums me that people who are learning how to DJ will never touch a record, but that's an opinionated thing.”

Sarah McCarthy, who like Nick plays guitar and piano, holds the same opinion. She doesn't have much use for the vinyl-to-MP3 converter her mother, Mary, gave her as a gift.

“It doesn't come from me,” mom said. “She's just kind of an old soul and always has been.”

The GOP Path to Prosperity By Paul D. Ryan

2011-04-08T17:44:00.004-04:00

Our budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years and puts the nation on track to pay off our national debt.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703806304576242612172357504-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwNTEwNDUyWj.html

APRIL 5, 2011

Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.

But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

The president's recent budget proposal would accelerate America's descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage's analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.

Here are its major components:

• Reducing spending: This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.

• Welfare reform: This budget will build upon the historic welfare reforms of the late 1990s by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets states create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. It proposes similar reforms to the food-stamp program, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the rolls. Finally, this budget recognizes that the best welfare program is one that ends with a job—it consolidates dozens of duplicative job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships that will better serve people looking for work.

As we strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don't. Our budget targets corporate welfare, starting by ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year. And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.

• Health and retirement security: This budget's reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked. But because government should not force people to reorganize their lives, its reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.

Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options. This is not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.

In addition, Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals—with more help for the poor and the sick—will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's seniors.

We must also reform Social Security to prevent severe cuts to future benefits. This budget forces policy makers to work together to enact common-sense reforms. The goal of this proposal is to save Social Security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations by building upon ideas offered by the president's bipartisan fiscal commission.

• Budget enforcement: This budget recognizes that it is not enough to change how much government spends. We must also change how government spends. It proposes budget-process reforms—including real, enforceable caps on spending—to make sure government spends and taxes only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.

• Tax reform: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation's outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

This is America's moment to advance a plan for prosperity. Our budget offers the nation a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the American idea: free-market democracy, open competition, a robust private sector bound by rules of honesty and fairness, a secure safety net, and equal opportunity for all under a limited constitutional government of popular consent.

We can reform government so that people don't have to reorient their lives for less. We can grow our economy, promote opportunity, and encourage upward mobility. This budget is the new House majority's answer to history's call. It is now up to all of us to keep America exceptional.

Mr. Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin's first congressional district and serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Davis set for Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-Off By Erik Sokolowski

2011-04-06T16:33:00.004-04:00

Source: http://cherryhill.sunne.ws/2011/02/27/davis-set-for-man-o-manischewitz-cook-off/

February 27, 2011

Cherry Hill’s Stuart Davis was voted in as one of the top five finalists of the Manischewitz Company’s Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-Off recently.

The cook off, scheduled for March 31, is the only national kosher cooking competition in America, and challenges contestants to prepare family-friendly recipes incorporating one of Manischewitz’s all-natural broth flavors.

Davis, a father of four and instructor at Temple Beth Shalom, was the only finalist to be voted on by the general public, he also received a little help from his friends and neighbors.

“I have been part of the community for long time,” Davis said. “Parents spread the word, and Facebook is wonderful, so we rallied the troops and got the word out. It was definitely a community effort.”

Davis’ dish, Chicken and Egg Donburi, often considered the fast food of Japan, was inspired by his time working as an ESL teacher in the country.

“I was inspired by Asian cuisine,” Davis said. “It is Japanese comfort food, with many variations, so to keep it kosher, I had to be creative.”

To make the dish Manischewitz friendly, Davis substitutes a low-sodium broth. “I used low-sodium chicken broth due to the soy sauce,” Davis said. “I didn’t want it to be over salty, and I wanted the chicken flavor to come through.”

The home cook says he has always been passionate about food, and felt that this particular dish would stand out.

“Most kosher cooks aren’t familiar with Donbori,” Davis said. “I wanted something that highlighted a different ethnic profile. In my head I wanted to submit many different recipes, but I thought this was the most delicious and would differentiate me from the rest. Most kosher folks aren’t cooking these things.”

During the voting period, Davis received help from all over the world.
“My adoptive family in Japan checked out Facebook, and they voted from Japan,” Davis said. “I also had a first cousin in Austria, friends from Israel, and Canada vote. It was amazing how the word got out.”

Davis said he was both excited and nervous about the competition, but mostly excited.
“It is exciting to be validated and see where this takes me,” Davis said. “I like the journey and the challenge, and my kids are excited and looking forward to the excursion. I teach at Temple Beth Sholom in the teen education Hebrew school so my students are excited. My wife also teaches at the Kellman Brown Academy, and all the students and teachers are all eager to know what happens. During the voting period everyone was checking the percentages online and constantly telling me what percentage of the vote I had. I really want to thank everyone for their support.”

The purpose of the competition is to encourage home chefs to experiment with kosher products while preparing delicious recipes that could become a new family favorite or that have been shared from generation to generation. The five finalists were selected from over thousands of entries nationwide and will compete live at the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan for the $25,000 Grand Prize, which includes GE Profile kitchen appliances and cash.

The grand prize winner will be selected on site by a panel of prestigious foodies led by legendary chef Jacques Pepin, who for the second consecutive year will be the celebrity guest of honor. Chef Pépin is one of America’s best-known chefs, widely recognized as the host of eleven acclaimed public television cooking series and the author and publisher of 26 cookbooks.

He is also a founder of The American Institute of Wine and Food and has been the Dean of Special Programs at the French Culinary Institute (New York) since 1988.

A winner in kosher cook-off

2011-04-06T09:54:00.009-04:00

Source: http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-05/news/29384685_1_cooking-competition-chefs-dish

April 05, 2011

By Tirdad Derakhshani

Cherry Hill's Stuart Davis beat nine other finalists Thursday to win the fifth annual Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-off with a recipe inspired by a Japanese rice-bowl dish called oyakodon ("parent and child donburi").

"The Japanese dish uses a fish stock," Davis says of his chicken and egg donburi, "this was made with a chicken stock."

Davis says he felt confident throughout his ordeal, which had him execute his recipe at the JCC in Manhattan before international culinary megastar Jacques Pepin and a panel of judges featuring representatives from Weight Watchers, Epicurious.com, and FoodNetwork.com.

"Obviously, it was intimidating," says Davis, 45, who has worked in mortgage banking for a decade. He says he became fascinated with Japanese cuisine when he taught English in Japan for four years.

Was it a dream to enter the kosher-cooking contest? "It was a fluke, my mother's friend told me I should apply," says Davis, who has three girls and a boy with his wife, Sarina, an English teacher. The couple, Davis says, split the cooking 60 [percent] to 40 [percent]," he says, "with me doing the 60."

Though he doesn't see himself opening a restaurant, Davis says he'd love to pursue a new career "developing recipes and marketing food products."

The contest had amateur chefs invent a dish using two Manischewitz products.

"I used the low-sodium chicken broth and their wasabi sauce," says Davis, who won a prize package of cash and kitchen appliances totaling $25,000.

You Don’t Have To Be Jewish...Manischewitz contest draws mixed crowd, but the top prize goes to a Hebrew school teacher with a Japanese recipe. By Amy Spiro

Source: http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/you_dont_have_be_jewish

April 5, 2011

Three of the competitors at the fifth annual Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-Off last week couldn’t turn their ovens on.

That wasn’t due to technical difficulties. But since these competitors weren’t Jewish, they had to have others start the cooking process for them, so that all the food at the event could remain kosher.

Amid much fanfare in the basement of the JCC in Manhattan on a rainy Thursday last week, the five contestants — narrowed down from a field of more than 3,000 applicants — chopped, fried, sautéed and simmered their submitted recipes in front of an eager crowd.

Each dish had to include two products — one of which was broth — made by Manischewitz, a century-old company known for matzah and wine in addition to cookies, soups and pasta. The day began with a proclamation from Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office, naming the day “Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-Off Day.”

In the end, Stuart Davis of Cherry Hill, N.J., took home the top prize after cooking his “Chicken and Egg Donburi,” a Japanese dish that he started preparing when he taught English in Japan. He used a wasabi dip made by Manischewitz to round out the recipe.

Davis, the lone male and one of two Jewish participants in the competition, wasn’t selected as a finalist by the judges. Instead he was voted in by online users, from among four other semifinalists posted on the Manischewitz website.

“I had my students [at Temple Beth Sholom in Cherry Hill] voting, and my wife had her students voting,” said Davis, of his online success. The 45-year-old father of four, who teaches Hebrew at the Conservative congregation, took home the $25,000 prize package, which includes a new dishwasher, oven and fridge from General Electric.

The panel of judges, headed by celebrity chef Jacques Pepin, awarded Davis the trophy and prize by a tiny margin; he received only a half point more than the second-place contestant.

The other finalists, who hailed from Florida, Maryland, New Jersey and West Virginia, brought an eclectic mix of flavors. One contestant’s “Simple Fisherman’s Stew” featured fennel and saffron, while another’s “Golden Sweet Potato Tagine” was flavored with plums, honey and garam masala.

Luckily, the 100-member audience didn’t have to wait until the contestants were done cooking for a sample: each of the competitors’ recipes was recreated by a catering service and available for tasting.

As the contenders cooked their dishes, the hosts, judges and viewers watched their kitchen skills and techniques. “I just like to see how comfortable contestants are in the kitchen,” said Lauren Salked, an editor at Epicurious.com and one of the judges. “I want to see if it seems doable for the home cook.”

Though the contestants came from varied backgrounds, they all were eager to adapt to kosher ingredients. “It would be ignorant to limit myself to one cuisine,” said Naylet LaRochelle, as she chopped pistachios for her “Moroccan Chicken Bowl.” LaRochelle, a competitor from Miami who said she is Catholic and of Cuban heritage, was inspired to enter by her Jewish co-worker, and sees Moroccan flavors as a new trend. “It packs a lot of flavor without being too complicated.”

Suzanne Banfield, a contestant from Basking Ridge, N.J., who cooked a fisherman’s stew, said she discovered kosher food after she was diagnosed with Celiac disease, and cut gluten and dairy out of her diet. “I’ve become an obsessive label reader,” she said. “I go nuts at Passover,” when many items are gluten free.

Other competitors received inspiration from TV personalities, like Dina Burcat, a Baltimore contestant who created her “Shallot Smothered Chicken” after seeing celebrity chef Rachael Ray use shallots in a pasta dish. “I’ve cooked this for Shabbat dinner with my friends,” she said.

The diverse backgrounds of the contestants came as no surprise to Alain Bankier, co-CEO of Manischewitz. “It says that Manischewitz products are good for everybody,” said Bankier. “It’s just great food that happens to be kosher.”

E-mail: amy@jewishweek.org

Japanese Rice Bowl Takes Top Honors at Kosher Cook-off By Leslie Albrecht

Source: http://www.dnainfo.com/20110331/upper-west-side/japanese-rice-bowl-takes-top-honors-at-kosher-cookoff

March 31, 2011

Donburi, a traditional Japanese dish, won the Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-Off.

UPPER WEST SIDE — Kosher chefs, grab your chopsticks.

Donburi, a traditional Japanese dish, was crowned the winner Thursday of the Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-off, an annual event that showcases recipes made with ingredients from Manischewitz, the country's largest purveyor of kosher food.

More than 3,000 cooks submitted recipes for the competition, which awarded $25,000 worth of GE appliances to the grand prize winner, Stuart Davis of Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

Davis, who prepared a chicken and egg donburi, also called a rice bowl, cooked his dish along with four other finalists at the Manhattan Jewish Community Center on Thursday.

The five culinary competitors had one hour to whip up their kosher creations at stoves set up in the JCC auditorium. Then a panel of celebrity judges, including French chef Jacques Pepin, rated the dishes.

Competitors had to use two Manischewitz ingredients, including the company's new Ready to Serve Broth. Dishes were limited to nine ingredients, and were scored on taste, ease of preparation, creativity and originality.

As the five cooks bent over their cutting boards Thursday afternoon to cook fresh versions of their recipes for the judges, a crowd of Manischewitz executives and contestants' families and friends sampled versions of the dishes that had been prepared by caterers.

Manischewitz CEO Paul Bensabat said he was partial to the two recipes with a Moroccan theme — a golden sweet potato tagine and a Moroccan chicken bowl — because he was born in Casablanca.

Jeanette Nelson, a mother of three with a Southern drawl from Sophia, West Virginia, made the tagine, and Naylet LaRochelle of Miami cooked the Moroccan chicken bowl.

The two other finalists were Dina Burcat of Baltimore, who cooked shallot-smothered chicken, and Suzanne Banfield of Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who made fisherman's stew.

"The beauty is that we have contestants who are male, female, East Coast, West Coast, Jewish, not Jewish," Bensabat said, adding that only two of the five finalists were Jewish.

"We want to demonstrate the incredible versatility of kosher cooking. Kosher food should not be boring. It should be a culinary pleasure."

As the crowd feasted on the final recipes, Pepin walked to each station and chatted with the contestants. A veteran of cooking on camera for several TV cooking shows, Pepin told DNAinfo he had advice on how contestants could stay calm under pressure. "Have a glass of wine," he said. "You have to relax."

When the hour of cooking ended, each finalist presented their dish to the judges.

"Just like every Jewish mother has their version of chicken soup with matzo balls, every Japanese mother has a version of this," said Davis, who lived for several years in Japan.

When he was announced as the winner a few minutes later, he beamed and encouraged the crowd to try his recipe. "Make it at home, the low sodium broth works great," Davis said.

Gov. taps Cinnaminson attorney as next county Superior Court judge By Danielle Camilli

2011-03-31T18:51:00.002-04:00

Source: http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/burlington_county_times_news/gov-taps-cinnaminson-attorney-as-next-county-superior-court-judge/article_559e1f68-5a48-11e0-a358-00127992bc8b.html

Mar 30, 2011

TRENTON — A former deputy assistant public defender from Cinnaminson is expected to be formally nominated as the next judge on the Superior Court bench in Mount Holly.

Gov. Chris Christie filed a letter of intent to nominate Janet Zoltanski Smith, a fellow Republican, on Monday with state Secretary of the Senate Kent M. Hicks. A formal nomination is expected to follow in about a week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee would then hold a hearing on the nomination and could then recommend approval to the full Senate.

Zoltanski Smith, who was admitted to the bar in 1976, has been in private practice with husband Brad with Smith & Smith in Cinnaminson since 1992. A former township mayor, Brad Smith also is a former state senator and served as a county freeholder from 1985 to 1992.

Zoltanski Smith said Tuesday they have a general practice firm, but that she does a lot of estate work and guardianships. The mother of four also is the solicitor forthe Riverton Zoning Board. She previously was the attorney for the Cinnaminson Sewerage Authority, the Palmyra Planning Board, and has been the attorney for other local governing bodies.

The Duquesne University graduate has also previously served as associate counsel for the Burlington County Board of Social Services, according to her resume provided by Christie’s office.

In addition, Zoltanski Smith has served as an appointed municipal prosecutor and public defender, and spent 12 years with the New Jersey Public Defender’s Office, including eight years in Superior Court in Burlington County. From 1979 to 1991, she serves as a deputy assistant public defender.

“Janet Zoltanski Smith is an outstanding trial lawyer. She has tried cases in my courtroom, and I have appointed her as a guardian many times because of her honesty and diligence,” Burlington County Assignment Judge Ronald E. Bookbinder said.

The native of the Yardville section of Hamilton Township said she was honored by the nomination.

“I’m pleased the governor has supported me, and I feel privileged that he has confidence in me for this position,” she said. “I am also excited at the prospects of the new challenges this role will bring.”

Danielle Camilli can be reach at 609-267-7586 or dcamilli@phillyBurbs.com
Follow Danielle on Twitter at twitter.com/dcamilli

'Baby' goes to the movies By Tirdad Derakhshani

2011-03-31T18:37:00.002-04:00

The 1904 Wanamaker Organ puts the pedals to the "Metropolis" Saturday.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/118286904.html

Mar. 19, 2011

On Saturday night in Center City, the world's greatest musical instrument will accompany the greatest silent film ever made.

Hyperbole? Perhaps.

The screening, at the Grand Court in Macy's at 13th and Market Streets, will feature Fritz Lang's 1927 feature Metropolis shown on a 15-by-20-foot screen to an improvised score performed on the Wanamaker Organ by chief organist Peter Richard Conte.

"It's the first time in [the organ's] history it'll be played with a film," says Ray Biswanger, executive director of the Friends of the Wanamaker Organ, which is cosponsoring the evening with the Philadelphia Film Society.

The sold-out show is part of a months-long series of events celebrating the 100th anniversary of the organ's Philly debut on June 22, 1911.

Widely recognized to be the world's largest working organ, the Wanamaker Organ boasts 28,543 pipes stretching from the second to the seventh floor of the historic department store, founded by John Wanamaker and now owned by Macy's.

(The Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ in Atlantic City is in fact the largest organ in the world with 32,000 pipes, but it is nonfunctional.)

Biswanger is in his element when discussing the organ's history. He reels off facts, figures, and numbers with facility, and not a little pride.

The Wanamaker Organ was designed by architect George Ashdown Audsley for the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair, he recounts. Initially outfitted with 10,000 pipes, it was bought by John Wanamaker in 1909 and shipped east to his famed department store.

"It took a 13-car freight train to fit it all," says Biswanger, whose 1,000-member group helps with the organ's ongoing restoration.

In Biswanger's telling, John Wanamaker was unhappy with the organ's grandeur.

"It was grand-sounding but it wasn't really impressive once it was installed," he says. Over the next two decades, John and later his son, Rodman, expanded the organ to triple its original size.

"John Wanamaker loved music and felt [the organ] should be a part of Philadelphia's daily life," Biswanger says. True to his pledge, Wanamaker's organ "has played every business day," Mondays through Saturdays, "since 1911" at least once, usually twice a day.

"It's kind of the voice of Philadelphia, and the Grand Court is the meeting place of the city."

Conte has been Wanamaker's chief organist since 1989. ("It's one of the best gigs in the world for an organist to have," he says.)

He says Baby, as he and other insiders call the organ, is special because it has capacity to reproduce all the sounds, tones, and colors - strings, brass, percussion - of three symphony orchestras.

"It has 469 different voices, or 'ranks,' as we call them," he says. "Most organs will have up to 100 . . . usually church organs have 50 at the most."

It's the perfect instrument, he says, for an epic film as richly textured as Metropolis. Fritz Lang's sophisticated dystopian tale is about a city of the future so advanced and beautiful one almost forgets it is held aloft by near-destitute laborers tied, like cogs in a wheel, to industrial machines hidden beneath in a giant, ugly netherworld.

Saturday's screening will feature a new cut of Lang's film with 25 minutes of recently discovered material. It means Conte will have to improvise for more than 21/2 hours.

It's uniquely challenging, Conte says. His plan of attack is to weave his musical tale around recurring motifs from Gottfried Huppertz's original film score.

He says he realizes that Saturday's event will be a battle of titans of sorts: An expressive musical monster with 28,000 tentacles going up against an expressionist masterpiece filled with some of the most awe-inspiring and terrifying science-fiction imagery in cinema.

The "organ is a giant," Conte concedes, "but it has great subtleties as well."

It can evoke "incredibly tender moments of love and incredibly spooky moments," he says. "I can, with the push of a button, go from a faint whisper to a terrifying roar."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information on the Wanamaker Organ visit www.wanamakerorgan.com.

Contact staff writer Tirdad Derakhshani at 215-854-2736 or tirdad@phillynews.com.

Income Opportunity

2011-03-30T12:08:00.000-04:00

Hi,

Holy Cow! This is going absolutely ballistic!
PLEASE DO NOT MISS OUT on a very easy $22,800!

This Program Really WORKS And PAYS YOU 100%!

Turn $5 Into $22,800 Real Fast!
No Sponsoring Needed To Get Paid!
Revolutionary, Unique And Realistic PayPlan!
No Monthly Or Admin Fees!
Instant And Direct Payments To YOU!
Fast Filling 3 x 4 Forced Matrix And Unique Cash Gifting Combined!

Join Here Now: http://forcedgifting.com/?ref=wnpjr475

Have fun...

Regards,

William N.Phillips, Jr.

Stuart Davis aims for top prize at upcoming Manischewitz Cook-Off By Fredda Sacharow

2011-03-25T12:06:00.006-04:00

Source: http://www.jewishvoicesnj.org/news/2011-03-23/Home/Stuart_Davis_aims_for_top_prize_at_upcoming_Manisc.html

March 23, 2011

Stuart Davis of Cherry Hill, a finalist in the Man-OManischewitz Cook-Off, displays Chicken and Egg Donburi, which will compete for honors later this month in New York. Photo by Steve Stern

Two decades ago, Stuart Davis introduced chocolate cheesecake and rugelach to a bakery in Kobe, Japan, where he was living while teaching English as a Second Language at a Jesuit school for boys. The confections quickly won raves from palates unfamiliar with the Jewish-inflected goodies.

Now the Cherry Hill resident is hoping a dish inspired by his Asian sojourn will find favor with famed chef Jacques Pepin and fellow judges later this month, when he competes in the fifth Man-O-Manischewitz Cook-Off at the Jewish Community Center of the Upper West Side in Manhattan.

At stake are a $25,000 grand prize, including a set of GE kitchen appliances, and a year’s worth of kvelling rights.

Four of the finalists in the cutthroat competition were selected by a panel of judges; the fifth—Davis—won on the basis of an on-line vote on Manischewitz’s web site in polling that ran from Jan. 17 through Jan. 31.

He’s not sure how many votes he received, but Davis does know that ballots flooded the site from friends in Israel, Canada, Vienna and Japan, as well as from students at Temple Beth Sholom in Cherry Hill, where he teaches, and Kellman Brown Academy, where his wife Sarina teaches.

It may take a village to raise a child, but for Davis it took a global effort to win a finalist’s slot in the live competition.

To qualify for the event, contestants were challenged to prepare kosher family-friendly recipes incorporating at least two of Manischewitz’s products, including the company’s line of broth. The dishes had to be easy to make and take no more than an hour; only original works created by the entrant were eligible.

Piece of cake—or rather, rice cake—for Davis, who says he splits the household cooking duties with Sarina and who loves trying out new and often daring concoctions on his four children. Reinterpreting the classics and experimenting with international flavors are among his favored cooking techniques.

He calls it “going beyond brisket and potatoes.”

“I grew up in a house where food was certainly important. To this day, my mother makes a seder for 50 every year,” Davis said.

Mom is attorney and Jewish communal leader Debbie Davis, who among other achievements edited a Hadassah cookbook that her son still keeps in his well-appointed gourmet kitchen.

Stuart Davis faces hefty competition in the March 31 event.

Fellow finalist Naylet LaRochelle of Miami, who previously won a “Build A Burger” cook-off and a Cozy Shack Pudding competition, is bringing her Moroccan Chicken Bowl; and Jeanette Nelson of Sophia, West Virginia, a semifinalist in the second Manischewitz contest, will be there with her Golden Sweet Potato Tagine.

Other contestants, also winners of previous competitions, will prepare such main courses as Shallot Smothered Chicken and Simple Fisherman’s Stew.

It’s the maiden voyage for Davis, who heard about the cook-off from his mother’s friend, Shirley Tannenbaum.

He’s looking to bring home the honors with his Chicken and Egg Donburi. Adapted from a rice-based Japanese dish— “Every family has its own donburi recipe,” he noted—the concoction takes a half hour from start to table and incorporates as many vegetables as the individual cook desires.

Japanese children love the one-dish meal with its velvety sauce and bite-sized pieces of chicken, Davis said.

Tweaking the traditional approach to donburi, Davis replaced the stock usually made with bonita, kelp and seaweed with Manischewitz’s low-sodium broth, adding a dollop of the company’s Wasabi sauce as an accompanying dip.

CHICKEN AND EGG DONBURI

1/4 cup creamy wasabi sauce
5 Tbs. soy sauce/broth ingredient
2 1/2 Tbs. sugar/broth ingredient
2 1/2 tsp. mirin/broth ingredient
16 oz. boneless breast of chicken
1 cup green onions cut on diagonal
4 eggs
2 1/2 cups Japanese
Sticky rice
1 cup Manischewitz® Reduced-Sodium Chicken Broth
Salt
Pepper
Water

Heat the broth ingredients in a saucepan until the sugar dissolves. Into a small frying pan over low heat, pour about a 1/4 cup of the heated broth. Add four ounces of chicken and 1/4 cup of the green onions. Cook the chicken pieces, turning them over for about three minutes, then beat an egg and stir in. In the meantime, have ready one portion of steamed rice in a deep bowl. When the egg has set, in about 50 seconds, slip the mixture over one serving of rice. Repeat this process for the remaining servings. The creamy wasabi sauce is used as a dipping sauce for the chicken. This recipe serves four.

The goal for Davis was to make the staple of Asian cuisine not only kosher, but also Western-friendly.

“A lot of Japanese food is popular in America—think sushi and teriyaki—but the rest is more obscure,” Davis observed. “I had made this version for my family before, and I remembered they liked it—and I liked it.

“I didn’t enter the cook-off for the money, but for the fun and to see where it will take me,” said Davis, a veteran of 10 years in the mortgage world who now teaches a course called (what else?) “Digesting Hebrew” at TBS.

The self-described foodie is also looking forward to meeting the legendary Pepin, now in his second year as celebrity guest of honor for the contest.

A graduate of Kellman Academy (now Kellman Brown) and the Columbia University/Jewish Theological Seminary Joint Program, Davis received a degree in international marketing from St. Joseph’s University. He’s hoping his extensive post-graduate travels throughout Asia, including the four-year stay in Japan, will add to his edge in the competition.

If it’s any encouragement, last year’s Grand-Prize winning dish represented a similar corner of the world: Mandarin Dumpling Soup, featuring turkey-stuffed wontons simmered in a ginger-sherry broth, brought national acclaim to its creator, Sarah Freedman- Izquierdo of Miami Beach.

Support for Japan Crosses Ethnic Lines, Historical Divides

2011-03-20T13:02:00.000-04:00

Source: http://newamericamedia.org/2011/03/support-for-japan-crosses-ethnic-lines-historical-divides.php

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- The devastation wrought by last week’s 8.9 magnitude earthquake and tsunami in the Tohoku region of northeastern Japan, and the subsequent nuclear threat, has sparked an equally massive outpouring of support and community fundraising both here in the United States and overseas. Recent headlines from the ethnic media convey the extent to which these efforts have cut across ethnic lines and in some cases, deep historical divides.

Nichi Bei Weekly, one of the country’s first non-profit ethnic newspapers, responded to the tragedy by publishing a special edition, in which managing editor Heather Horiuchi observes that the “nikkei”, or people of Japanese descent living outside of Japan, including U.S. immigrants, are again showing solidarity with the Japanese people, as has been the case historically.

“The Japanese-American and Japanese communities have come to one another’s aid for more than a century,” writes Horiuchi, in reference to the Japanese Americans who came together to provide help for war-torn Japan after World War II. Editor-in-Chief Kenji Taguma also points out that one of the founders of Nichi Bei Weekly’s predecessor, Nichi Bei Times, used the newspaper to raise awareness, funds and much needed aid, after being established in 1946.

Forty years earlier, when Japanese Americans needed help after the Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, Japan provided the largest amount of foreign contributions to the city, according to Paul Osaki, Executive Director of the Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California (JCCCNC), a group that is now at the forefront of fundraising for the Tohoku quake & tsunami victims. JCCCNC has already received more than $150,000 in donations, just days after launching their Northern Japan Earthquake Relief Fund on March 11, the day the earthquake struck. The fund drive was also reported by the Pan-Asian news site, AsianWeek.

Aside from the multitude of community-based and civic organizations that are either collaborating with this relief fund or doing their own donation drives, small local churches, some in Sacramento, and a host of Facebook causes and community events are providing ways for everyone to give help. Nichi Bei Weekly’s partial list of aid groups across the country primarily within to the Japanese-American community include the Minami Tamaki LLP law firm, who together with other non-profits is aiming to raise $50,000 by this weekend. This year’s Northern California Cherry Blossom Festival to be held on April 9-10 & 16-17 in San Francisco’s Japantown will also keep the focus on supporting the quake & tsunami victims.

Japanese-American community figures have also stepped up, including Olympic gold medal figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi who pledged $10,000 while actor and community leader George Takei conveyed a message of sympathy on his website saying, “Today, we are all Japanese.”

In Los Angeles, The Rafu Shimpo daily newspaper reported on a relief drive for Japan held outside L.A. City Hall on March 17, a photo showing one of the volunteers clad in full samurai armor. The fundraising effort for the Red Cross was organized by Councilmembers Bernard Parks and Jan Perry, whose district includes Little Tokyo. Consul General Junichi Ihara and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa stopped by to express support.

The paper also reported that the Southern California town of Riverside is reaching out to its sister city of Sendai, considered ground zero of the quake. Mayor Ron Loveridge says that Riverside “sends its prayers and thoughts to Japan…and it stands ready to provide any assistance requested by the federal agencies coordinating the earthquake relief and support efforts.”

Another southern California fundraising event is being spearheaded by the Indian American Associations of Southern California, and is scheduled for Saturday, March 19, at the Sanatan Dharma Temple in Norwalk. The event ad is running on the India West news website serving the South Asian community, and aims to discuss a collective effort to help the victims.

Widely reported in the Korean and Korean-American media outlets - such as Korea Times, Korea Daily, Paran and KBS - as well as in Japanese media, was one of the biggest individual donations to date, given by Korean movie actor Bae Yong-joon. The actor’s donation was reportedly in the ballpark of one million dollars. According to the Chosun Ilbo website, the 39-year old actor, who became hugely popular in Japan via the soap opera, “Winter Sonata,” made the decision when he heard there was a shortage of relief and recovery supplies. He says he will continue to look for more ways to help. Aptly, he is considered one of the first “Korean Wave” stars, and now he has inspired a wave of support from his peers. JoonAng Daily reports that other Korean celebrities have followed Bae’s example and are also pledging their own donations.

NAM writer and Korean media monitor, Aruna Lee believes Bae Yong-joon’s contribution is a significant symbol of what many perceive as the setting aside of hostilities between Korea and Japan. The two countries have been locked in bitter disputes for more than 6 decades over history and territory, but those seem to be taking a back seat in the face of this tragedy. Lee cites that Seoul dispatched 100 rescue workers to the disaster area, while civic organizations in Korea have rallied for donations.

Behrouz Saba believes that the same can be said for China – that despite being “Japan's fiercest detractor since it was occupied by Japanese forces from 1937 to 1945 with a human toll of 20 million, the Chinese government has offered its formal condolences as well as a variety of aid.” Chinese media report that in total, the Chinese government, China’s Red Cross and various groups have pledged millions of dollars in cash and emergency supplies.

For Filipinos, their history with Japan is long and complex, writes columnist Benjamin Pimentel on Filipino news wire Inquirer.net. Pimental hopes this tragedy expands the lens by which Filipinos view the Japanese, which was defined by their experiences during World War II. Filipinos came to see the Japanese primarily as brutal soldiers, but Pimentel also points out that “Filipino war-era bitterness later turned to admiration for the way Japan not only recovered from the devastation of World War II, but also thrived and emerged as an economic powerhouse in the 70s and 80s.”

The Filipino-American community feels deeply for the victims, as they also remember with gratitude the outpouring of international aid in the wake of the devastating Typhoon Ketsana [Ondoy] in the Philippines in 2009, and are exploring various ways to help. Filipino Channel news reporter Henni Espinosa confirmed with NAM that Philippine Consul General to San Francisco, Marciano Paynor Jr. recently met with officials at the Japanese consulate to discuss the most effective ways of extending support. The National Federation of Filipino-American Associations [NaFFAA] is also asking Filipinos to donate to the Red Cross.

Sing Tao Daily reports that the Tzu Chi Foundation, based in Taiwan and with offices in San Francisco and San Jose, held a street fundraiser last weekend. Hundreds of volunteers stood outside Chinese supermarkets and restaurants all over the Bay Area, asking for donations. The foundation also raised awareness of disaster preparedness by holding an earthquake drill at Martin Luther King School in San Francisco’s Portola District.

This concern for California’s vulnerability to earthquakes was echoed in La Opinion’s editorial column last Monday, which called on Californians to prepare for disasters, while also encouraging solidarity and international assistance for Japan.

Meantime, the Arab-American community in Dearborn, Michigan is also organizing relief efforts for Japan led by the Center for Arab American Philanthropy [CAAP], which is encouraging community members to collectively help through CAAP’s donor site. The Anti Arab Discrimination Committee [ADC] also expressed condolences and support for the people of Japan.

Pacific Islander groups are also reaching out to Japan. SF SAMOA founder Manufou Anoai says Bay Area Benefit is planning to partner with Japan Center to hold a fundraiser. At a rally in San Francisco on March 16, speaking out against injustices against the Rapa Nui or native people of Easter Island, demonstrators also took time to remember the victims in Japan. Anoai explains that the ties between Japan and the Pacific Islander community are deeply intertwined: “We are all people of the Ocean…we share the same waves.”

- With reporting inputs from Summer Chiang, Vivian Po, Jin Kim, Andrew Lam, Elena Shore, Viji Sundaram, Suzanne Manneh

Bachmann Exclusive: Obama, Reid and Pelosi 'Deceitfully' Hid $105 Billion in Obamacare By Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella

2011-03-15T11:33:00.001-04:00

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/michele-bachmann-obama-health/2011/03/05/id/388453

March 5, 2011

Rep. Michele Bachmann tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi should apologize to the American people for the $105 billion appropriation they “deceitfully” hid in the healthcare reform legislation.

The Minnesota Republican declares that the “stunning revelation” of the expenditure points to “one of the biggest lies we have ever seen.”

Bachmann, founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, also asserts that Obama wants $8-a-gallon gasoline to drive America toward green energy, says Republicans should hire their own lawyer to represent the Defense of Marriage Act in court, and warns that a second Obama term would be “even worse” than a second Jimmy Carter term would have been.

In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Bachmann expressed her anger over the $105 billion appropriation that has only now come to light in an updated Congressional Research Service report on the Obamacare legislation.

“What we need to do is defund Obamacare,” she says. “The House has the power of the purse.

“But we’ve just found out startling information, and I am calling on President Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to apologize to the American people and explain why in the bill known as Obamacare they put in over $105 billion in appropriations.

“The funny thing is, they forgot to tell the members of the Senate that there was $105 billion in spending in that bill. They forgot to tell members of the House.

“Since when do we pass a transformative piece of legislation like the government takeover of healthcare and just happen to drop in $105 billion in appropriations, the purpose of which will be to implement this massive new bill? No one knew. We have just found out in the last week or so.

“This is a stunning revelation. It’s shocking. We’ve been fighting to cut $100 billion out of the budget and then we find out that the Democrats led by President Obama have already spent $105 billion and didn’t bother to tell Congress.

“This is unbelievable. I don’t think anyone has ever heard of anything like this before. That’s why the president needs to answer to the American people. What an insult to the American people to not tell us this was in the bill. That amount of money could fund the whole state government in Minnesota for over three years.

“And I think the reason President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did this is because they knew this bill would be unpopular and they wanted to make sure that the whole bill could be implemented because they provided the implementation money through 2019.

“So unless we rescind this money, it will be spent.”

Bachmann proposes this course of action to deal with the appropriation: “The government runs out of money on March 18 of 2011. Before we Republicans agree to fund the government one day further, we need to get an agreement from Barack Obama and Harry Reid that they will give back the $105 billion that they deceitfully put into that bill. They need to give that money back and then we need to defund Obamacare after the next election.

“No Republican voted for Obamacare. If I was a Democrat who voted for this bill, I would be furious at Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and Harry Reid. This is one of the biggest lies we have ever seen.

“This is why Speaker Pelosi said we need to pass the bill to know what’s in it. Truer words were never spoken. But this shows why it’s absolutely wrong. They wouldn’t let us read the bill. They put it on our desks and said, vote. Harry Reid did the same thing in the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009.

“It’s reprehensible. Republicans have to draw a line in the sand and say we will refuse to give you one red cent to fund this government until you give back the $105 billion that you deceitfully spent and put in the Obamacare bill.”

With gasoline prices skyrocketing, Bachmann was asked her view of President Obama’s handling of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East.

“I don’t think the president has handled this well at all,” she responds.

“There is incredible instability in the Middle East. President Obama’s policies have made us more vulnerable than ever due to our dependence on foreign oil. And what is he doing? He’s approved only one [oil drilling] lease — and that one was in the last week — since he’s come into office.

“As soon as he took office his new Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases. And now that oil is trading at over $100 a barrel, it is time that we open up American energy interests. We need to go for shale oil or natural gas. We have 25 percent of the world’s coal. So we need to access our own energy so we can become less dependent on these unstable regions.

“Remember the president’s current energy secretary, Steven Chu, said that we want the United States to have the same price of gasoline as Europe has. When he made that comment, Europe had gas at $8 a gallon. This is exactly what the ambition of the Obama administration is, because they want to move people toward green energy.

“Well, I’m for all energy. Let’s access all energy in the United States. No one is helped by having gasoline at $8 a gallon. I think that’s a very unwise strategy on the part of the Obama administration.”

Bachmann is sharply critical of Obama’s decision not to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“I think what Congress should do is defend the law that it passed,” she tells Newsmax.

“We need to hire a super lawyer and if the president of the United States won’t defend our laws, then the House of Representatives should defend our laws. So we need to hire a lawyer to represent DOMA in court.”

Bachmann opposes raising debt ceiling, noting that the federal government has raised the ceiling 10 times in the last 10 years and equating that with people continually having their credit card maximum raised even though they can’t afford to pay the bills.

“I think we need to put pressure on Congress to actually do some real cutting because we cannot continue to spend this money,” she adds. “We’re absolutely broke, and we can’t just run the printing presses because that will induce inflation.”

Turning to Iran, Bachmann says the Obama administration should have gotten involved in the Green movement back in 2009 “when there was more of a chance for the United States to have a positive involvement.

“Now with the instability we’re seeing across the Middle East region, we see a rise in the influence of Iran in that area,” she observes, warning that the Middle East turmoil could ultimately lead to Islamic fundamentalist regimes.

Bachmann says she has not decided whether or not she will run for president in 2012.

“Right now I’m involved in the narrative of why we cannot have a second term for Barack Obama. Your viewers remember Jimmy Carter and they remember that was not a good time for our country. Imagine if we’d had a second term for Jimmy Carter. A second Barack Obama term would be even worse.

“We need to have a candidate who understands the times that we live in and who has the political courage to make really tough decisions, even if that means they will serve only one term. We are at a turning point in our nation’s history.”

Finally, Bachmann — who has five children and has raised 23 foster children in her home — says she is “very concerned that they have a vital future available for them.

“We are the indispensable nation of the world and it’s important that we maintain not only our economic might, our military might, but also remain a force for good in the world.”

Bachmann Exposes $105 Billion Secret By Phyllis Schlafly

2011-03-15T11:17:00.002-04:00

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2011/03/15/bachmann_exposes_$105_billion_secret/page/full/

March 15, 2011

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has again demonstrated her extraordinary leadership in the U.S. House. She discovered $105 billion of taxpayers' money that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi had hidden in ObamaCare.

Now, Bachmann wants her colleagues to refuse to pass must-pass bills, such as the Continuing Resolution or raising the debt limit, unless they include recapturing that secret money. What a great idea!

After all, the new Congress was elected last November to cut spending and put the federal government back within the bounds of the Constitution. The new members of Congress promised not only to cut overall spending but specifically to repeal and defund ObamaCare, so thank you, Michele, for showing the new Congress where to start.

When ObamaCare was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve of 2009, senators had less than 72 hours to compare a 383-page package of amendments to the 2,074-page bill. Public outrage over backroom deals (such as the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase) led to the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

Democrats then cooked up a plan to link the now-2,409-page Senate-passed ObamaCare bill to dozens of amendments contained in a separate 150-page Budget Reconciliation bill that could pass both houses by a simple majority. That's when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously told the then-Democratic majority, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

When President Obama signed ObamaCare into law, that set in motion a series of funding triggers and money transfers that add up to $105,464,000,000 in pre-authorized appropriations that are scheduled to be paid up through FY2019. In laymen's language, that means writing postdated checks that are guaranteed to be paid out over the next eight years.

This money was divided into dozens of smaller amounts so the big total would not be apparent. For example, Section 2953 of ObamaCare included a pre-funded appropriation of $75 million a year for five years to "educate adolescents" in "adult preparation subjects" such as "stress management" and "the development of healthy attitudes and values about adolescent growth and development, body image, racial and ethnic diversity, and other related subjects."

Section 4101(a) of ObamaCare prefunded $200 million a year over four years for the construction of school-based health centers. In Section 4002, a total of $17,750,000,000 will be deposited over 10 years to a discretionary account controlled by the HHS secretary (currently Kathleen Sebelius), who may spend that money "to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention" and to "help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs."

At a hearing last week before the House Health Subcommittee, former Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., likened ObamaCare to a 2,700-page haystack in which a lot of needles are still being discovered. He urged Congress to place a stop-payment order on the massive postdated checks hidden in ObamaCare.

The Pelosi bunch's strategy was devious and highhanded. They bypassed the customary appropriations process and prefunded ObamaCare on passage, knowing that House Rules would restrict a future Congress from defunding an already enacted law.

This makes it more difficult for Congress to deal with, but not impossible. Congress will both have to include the defunding language in the FY2011 Continuing Resolution and also pass a rule that makes this defunding language OK under House Rules.

There is not only adequate precedent for this procedure, but it also is common sense. Congress, in its constitutional role, can completely stop this secret funding of discretionary funds.

What Pelosi did was like setting up online a way to pay your monthly utility bills out of your bank checking account. Each new date triggers the bank to pay the bill out of your bank account.

ObamaCare is very similar. The law Congress passed without reading it lists the dates up to 2019 on which payments totaling $105 billion are to be paid out of the U.S. Treasury.

Bachmann and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. are asking their colleagues to join them in signing a letter to the House leadership stating that the $105 billion in postdated checks drawn on the U.S. Treasury must be stopped, and stopped now, by including the necessary language in the continuing resolution.

It is an insult to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the House the power to originate all revenue bills, and to current and future Congresses, for ObamaCare to try to handcuff Congress in regard to future appropriations up through 2019.

We are fortunate that Bachmann is smart enough to figure out the cost of the secret money in ObamaCare. One of the smartest members of Congess, she was a tax attorney before being elected to Congress.

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.

Why I'm Fighting in Wisconsin: We can avoid mass teacher layoffs and reward our best performers. But we have to act now. By Scott Walker

2011-03-12T14:36:00.004-05:00

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576190260787805984.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

MARCH 10, 2011

In 2010, Megan Sampson was named an Outstanding First Year Teacher in Wisconsin. A week later, she got a layoff notice from the Milwaukee Public Schools. Why would one of the best new teachers in the state be one of the first let go? Because her collective-bargaining contract requires staffing decisions to be made based on seniority.

Ms. Sampson got a layoff notice because the union leadership would not accept reasonable changes to their contract. Instead, they hid behind a collective-bargaining agreement that costs the taxpayers $101,091 per year for each teacher, protects a 0% contribution for health-insurance premiums, and forces schools to hire and fire based on seniority and union rules.

My state's budget-repair bill, which passed the Assembly on Feb. 25 and awaits a vote in the Senate, reforms this union-controlled hiring and firing process by allowing school districts to assign staff based on merit and performance. That keeps great teachers like Ms. Sampson in the classroom.

Most states in the country are facing a major budget deficit. Many are cutting billions of dollars of aid to schools and local governments. These cuts lead to massive layoffs or increases in property taxes—or both.

In Wisconsin, we have a better approach to tackling our $3.6 billion deficit. We are reforming the way government works, as well as balancing our budget. Our reform plan gives state and local governments the tools to balance the budget through reasonable benefit contributions. In total, our budget-repair bill saves local governments almost $1.5 billion, outweighing the reductions in state aid in our budget.

While it might be a bold political move, the changes are modest. We ask government workers to make a 5.8% contribution to their pensions and a 12.6% contribution to their health-insurance premium, both of which are well below what other workers pay for benefits. Our plan calls for Wisconsin state workers to contribute half of what federal employees pay for their health-insurance premiums. (It's also worth noting that most federal workers don't have collective bargaining for wages and benefits.)

For example, my brother works as a banquet manager at a hotel and occasionally works as a bartender. My sister-in-law works at a department store. They have two beautiful kids. They are a typical middle-class Wisconsin family. At the start of this debate, David reminded me that he pays nearly $800 per month for his family's health-insurance premium and a modest 401(k) contribution. He said most workers in Wisconsin would love a deal like the one we are proposing.

The unions say they are ready to accept concessions, yet their actions speak louder than words. Over the past three weeks, local unions across the state have pursued contracts without new pension or health-insurance contributions. Their rhetoric does not match their record on this issue.

Local governments can't pass budgets on a hope and a prayer. Beyond balancing budgets, our reforms give schools—as well as state and local governments—the tools to reward productive workers and improve their operations. Most crucially, our reforms confront the barriers of collective bargaining that currently block innovation and reform.

When Gov. Mitch Daniels repealed collective bargaining in Indiana six years ago, it helped government become more efficient and responsive. The average pay for Indiana state employees has actually increased, and high-performing employees are rewarded with pay increases or bonuses when they do something exceptional.

Passing our budget-repair bill will help put similar reforms into place in Wisconsin. This will be good for the Badger State's hard-working taxpayers. It will also be good for state and local government employees who overwhelmingly want to do their jobs well.

In Wisconsin, we can avoid the massive teacher layoffs that schools are facing across America. Our budget-repair bill is a commitment to the future so our children won't face even more dire consequences than we face today, and teachers like Ms. Sampson are rewarded—not laid off.

Taking on the status quo is no easy task. Each day, there are protesters in and around our state Capitol. They have every right to be heard. But their voices cannot drown out the voices of the countless taxpayers who want us to balance our budgets and, more importantly, to make government work for each of them.

Mr. Walker, a Republican, is the governor of Wisconsin.

Democrats In The Pocket Of Big Labor

2011-03-09T18:08:00.002-05:00

Source: http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2011/03/democrats-in-pocket-of-big-labor.html

There is nothing like using their own words to condemn them.

Coolidge-Reagan-Walker? By Cal Thomas

2011-02-25T12:51:00.001-05:00

Source: http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=3183

February 22, 2011

When three-fourths of the Boston police department went on strike in 1919, leading to broken shop windows and looting, then-Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge called out the state militia and broke the strike. Coolidge declared, “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time.”

His courage propelled him to the vice presidency and eventually to the presidency.

Fast forward to Aug. 3, 1981 when the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) called a strike over better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In doing so, the union violated a law that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a “peril to national safety” and ordered them back to work under terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike to resume work within 48 hours, or forfeit their jobs. On Aug. 5, following the PATCO workers’ refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order and banned them from federal service for life. Pro-labor Democratic president Bill Clinton rescinded this ban in 1993.

Now it’s the turn of Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker. So far, the 43-year-old governor, in office less than two months, has stood his ground against schoolteachers who called in sick (nice example for the kids) and other union members — many of them bussed into Madison from outside the state.

When the federal government runs out of money, it can print and borrow more. When states run out of money they must cut spending to balance their budgets, or raise taxes.

The days of constant increases in pay and benefits — including expanding pensions — are over, not only in Wisconsin, but also in many other states.

One pro-union demonstrator in Madison carried a sign: “This is what democracy looks like.” No, the last election is what democracy looks like. Governor Walker and the new Republican state legislators ran on platforms to reduce the state’s debt. They are refreshingly living up to their promises. If voters decide they don’t like their methods for getting out of debt, they can vote Republicans out of office in the next election.

“We won” and “elections have consequences,” crowed President Obama as he and his once-solid Democratic congressional majority pushed through legislation that polls show most Americans oppose. Republicans seem to be getting more support now in their quest to force us to live within our means.

This is the Republican Party’s moment. More Americans are coming to a “Prodigal Son” understanding of our financial predicament. In the biblical account, a young man leaves his father’s house and squanders his inheritance on riotous living. When he runs out of money, the son finds himself in a hog pen, eating pig food. It says, “He came to his senses.” Wisconsin residents and the nation are coming to our senses in the face of massive public debt.

If Wisconsin’s Democratic legislators stop playing political theater, come back to Madison from their hiding places in Illinois and fulfill their responsibilities as elected officials, perhaps a solution to the standoff can be worked out.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Walker said between 10,000 and 12,000 of the state’s nearly 300,000 public sector employees will lose their jobs if changes aren’t made in benefit contributions paid by union members. The unions have said they are willing to make some concessions, but Walker has rejected their offer as insufficient.

Democrats in Wisconsin may be overplaying their hand, just as congressional Democrats may be overplaying their hand with threats to shutdown the federal government if Republicans don’t see things their way.

Standing firm and having the courage of one’s convictions worked before. So far, Governor Walker has stood firm and explained what he is doing and why. If he doesn’t cave, perhaps he might be the national leader Republicans have been looking for, either now, or in the near future. It worked for Coolidge and Reagan.

(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.