Rasmussen Survey on Guantanamo Bay

Do you agree or disagree with President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo prison camp for suspected terrorists in Cuba?

• Agree 32% (38%) [44%]
• Disagree 55% (49%) [42%]

How likely is it that the Guantanamo prison camp will actually be closed by next January?

• Very likely 17% (15%)
• Somewhat likely 33% (35%)
• Not very likely 27% (30%)
• Not at all likely 7% (6%)

A proposal has been made to house some Guantanamo prison inmates in Michigan. Do you favor or oppose housing Guantanamo prisoners in Michigan?

• Favor 28%
• Oppose 58%

Will the closing of the Guantanamo prison camp improve America’s relationship with the Muslim world?

• Yes 18%
• No 57%

If the Guantanamo prison camp is closed and some prisoners are transferred to other countries, how concerned are you dangerous terrorists will be set free?

• Very concerned 56%
• Somewhat concerned 19%
• Not very concerned 20%
• Not at all concerned 4%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted August 21-22. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 22-23 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted January 25-26 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Most Democrats (56%) support closing the prison, but even more Republicans (84%) and unaffiliateds (62%) are opposed.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans and 58% of voters not affiliated with either major party are very concerned that closing the camp and transferring the prisoners will allow dangerous terrorists to be set free. Only 36% of Democrats agree.

From the official release:

The alarm bells on our nation’s fiscal condition have now become a siren. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports the deficit for this year alone is already nearly as high as the last five years—combined—and is only getting bigger. And, if anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they’re gone. Spending, borrowing and debt are out of control. Even the President’s own advisors acknowledge that the deficit in the coming years will be trillions more than projected just a few months ago.

The massive national debt threatens long term fiscal health as a nation, our national security and our ability to meet our commitments to seniors, veterans and working families. There are two immediate steps we should take. We should review the trillion dollars in borrowed stimulus money with an eye towards applying it to paying off the federal credit card. And we must take the bipartisan step of reforming entitlements to strengthen the fiscal state of our existing commitments.

And just think, we only have two more housing bubbles yet to burst before 2011…

Happy 54th birthday to Gov. Huckabee!

You can send your own B-Day wishes to Mike at http://www.huckpac.com/ .

Dear David Paterson,

If you want to know that someone’s a big, fat, giant stinking loser, you can look at whether he’s attacking the policy prescriptions of his detractors — or the mean old media. Ignoring the question of whether the media is actually being fair to a candidate or not — and in John McCain’s case, it’s fairly obvious that it wasn’t — you ought to remember that only losers attack the press. It will not and cannot work. Whether it’s leftists railing about how the media played “lapdogs” to George W. Bush in the run-up to the war, John McCain whining about the media’s bias toward Barack Obama, Sarah Palin complaining about David Letterman, or David Paterson alleging that the media are systematically racist, a common thread runs through all of their stories: L-O-S-E.R.

Why doesn’t it work?

1)  Nobody cares. You’re wasting precious time and energy talking about this rather than about the issues that made your approval ratings slump in the first place. Paterson, your constituents are mad at you. If you want them to stop being mad at you, figure out why and then do something to change it. If you are unwilling or unable to, maybe there’s a good reason that your approval ratings are low. Speaking to how life is so unfair rather than about issues that the citizenry cares about is going to make you a loser faster than Pennsylvania was called for Obama in November.

2) The media are better-equipped than you. This is where the phrase “don’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel” comes from. They shape the narrative, not you. You’re not politically savvy enough to shape the narrative. So don’t try.

3) You’re insulting your constituents. They don’t really dislike you; they just have their racism spoken to by a mean media. Yeah, okay. And then you ask for their support: please support me, racists. Please apologize, racists — you look whiny. Stop sniveling!

Please take this advice, for we need to keep your approval ratings high enough that Andrew Cuomo stays out of the race to succeed you. There are a number of reasons that he might stay out, but you and I both want that list to grow longer, don’t we, governor?

Signed,

Alex Knepper

PS: Can you make some room next to your portrait for Rudy Giuliani’s? He’ll be needing space soon.

Rasmussen Massachusetts Survey on Health Care Reform

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 33%
• Somewhat favor 20%
• Somewhat oppose 9%
• Strongly oppose 36%

When it comes to health care decisions, who do you fear the most: the federal government or private insurance companies?

• The federal government 43%
• Private insurance companies 50%

Has healthcare reform in Massachusetts been a success or a failure?

• Success 32% (26%)
• Failure 34% (37%)

Has healthcare reform in Massachusetts made healthcare more affordable, less affordable or has there been no change?

• More affordable 22% (21%)
• Less affordable 25% (27%)
• There has been no change 40% (44%)

Under healthcare reform is the quality of healthcare getting better, getting worse or is it about the same?

• Getting better 20% (10%)
• Getting worse 27% (29%)
• It’s about the same 49% (53%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted August 20. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted April 16 are in parentheses.

This slightly-tanned man with vaguely African features says that there’s a campaign to tear down minorities in office. People get “nervous” when there’s too many minorities in office.

“Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous,” Paterson told political blogger Gerson Borrero over the weekend.

I guess there’s still a lot of prejudice against blind people.

Let’s take a look at the governor:

One-drop rule, everyone!

If David Paterson went to sub-Saharan Africa, would he still be black? By what standard? By our standards, he’d be white, there, right (given that black is the norm in Africa)? So is he white or black?

Who cares?

More:

He said he understands the criticism over the budget and the Senate leadership battle, but Paterson suggested to Borrero that he is held to a different standard.

“It seems I have to work twice as hard as others,” he said.

No one tell Arnold Schwarzenegger!

And it still bothers him that people refer to him as the “accidental governor.” He took office in 2008 after former Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned amid a prostitution scandal.

“It was not an accident. It is a constitutional mandate,” he said. “I became governor by a constitutional mandate.”

Clearly the governor is right that it has to do with race. This has historical precedent: it harkens back to the president appointed by a constitutional mandate, known as His Accidency. He was also black, as you can see:

RNC Chairman Michael Steele provides the GOP’s statement of principles on health care and outlines the GOP’s stand regarding the rights of our nation’s senior citizens in an Op-Ed in today’s Washington Post:

Americans are engaged in a critical debate over reforming our health-care system. While Republicans believe that reforms are necessary, President Obama’s plan for a government-run health-care system is the wrong prescription. The Democrats’ plan will hurt American families, small businesses and health-care providers by raising care costs, increasing the deficit, and not allowing patients to keep a doctor or insurance plan of their choice. Furthermore, under the Democrats’ plan, senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed.

Republicans want reform that should, first, do no harm, especially to our seniors. That is why Republicans support a Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights, which we are introducing today, to ensure that our greatest generation will receive access to quality health care. We also believe that any health-care reform should be fully paid for, but not funded on the backs of our nation’s senior citizens.

The Republican Party’s Seniors’ Health Care Bill Of Rights reads as follows:

America’s senior citizens deserve access to quality health care and coverage that will not bankrupt them. Republicans believe that reforms to America’s health care system are necessary, but that reform should first do no harm, especially to our seniors.

That’s why Republicans are calling for a Seniors’ Health Care Bill Of Rights that will:

PROTECT MEDICARE AND NOT CUT IT IN THE NAME OF HEALTH CARE REFORM: President Obama and Congressional Democrats are promoting a government-run health care experiment that will cut over $500 billion from Medicare to be used to pay for their plan. Medicare should not be raided to pay for another entitlement.

PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM GETTING BETWEEN SENIORS AND THEIR DOCTORS: The Democrats’ government-run health care experiment will give patients less power to control their own medical decisions, and create government boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn’t be funded. Republicans believe in patient-centered reforms that put the priorities of seniors before government.

PROHIBIT EFFORTS TO RATION HEALTH CARE BASED ON AGE: The Democrats’ government-run health care experiment would set up a “comparative effectiveness research commission” where health care treatment decisions could be limited based on a patient’s age. Republicans believe that health care decisions are best left up to seniors and their doctors.

PREVENT GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING WITH END-OF-LIFE CARE DISCUSSIONS: The Democrats’ government-run health care experiment would have seniors meet with a doctor to discuss end-of-life care that could mean limiting treatment. Republicans believe that government should not interfere with end-of-life care discussions between a patient and a doctor.

ENSURE SENIORS CAN KEEP THEIR CURRENT COVERAGE: As Democrats continue to propose steep cuts to Medicare in order to pay for their government-run health care experiment, these cuts threaten millions of seniors with being forced from their current Medicare Advantage plans. Republicans believe that seniors should not be targeted by a government-run health care bill and forced out of their current Medicare coverage.

PROTECT VETERANS BY PRESERVING TRICARE AND OTHER BENEFIT PROGRAMS FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: Democrats recently proposed raising veterans’ costs for the Tricare For Life program that many veterans rely on for treatment. Republicans oppose increasing the burden on our veterans and believe America should honor our promises to them.

Siena New York 2010 Political Survey

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 65% (69%)
• David Paterson 23% (16%)

GOP Gubernatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 73%
• Chris Collins 8%
• Rick Lazio 6%

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 56% (57%) [59%]
• David Paterson 33% (27%) [31%]

• David Paterson 38%
• Rick Lazio 37%

• David Paterson 38%
• Chris Collins 30%

• Andrew Cuomo 53% (49%) [53%]
• Rudy Giuliani 40% (40%) [41%]

• Andrew Cuomo 66%
• Rick Lazio 16%

• Andrew Cuomo 64%
• Chris Collins 14%

GOP Senatorial Primary

• George Pataki 57%
• Peter King 26%

Senatorial General Election

• George Pataki 42%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 39%

• Kirsten Gillibrand 46%
• Peter King 24%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 70% (71%) [66%] / 14% (17%) [20%] {+56%}
• Barack Obama 70% / 23% {+47%}
• Rudy Giuliani 57% (62%) [61%] / 35% (33%) [35%] {+22%}
• George Pataki 53% / 35% {+18%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 29% / 20% {+9%}
• Peter King 20% / 17% {+3%}
• Chris Collins 11% / 9% {+2%}
• Rick Lazio 21% / 22% {-1%}
• David Paterson 32% (31%) [27%] / 55% (57%) [60%] {-23%}

How would you rate the job that David Paterson is doing as Governor?

• Excellent 3% (2%) [2%]
• Good 20% (18%) [16%]
• Fair 38% (39%) [43%]
• Poor 38% (39%) [38%]

If David Paterson runs for Governor in 2010, would you vote to elect him or would you prefer someone else?

• Elect Paterson 15% (15%)
• Prefer someone else 68% (70%)

(Among registered Democrats) Would you prefer to see Attorney General Andrew Cuomo run for re-election as Attorney General next year or would you prefer to see him run for Governor instead?

• Re-election as Attorney General 30% (28%)
• Run for Governor 53% (56%)

(Among registered Democrats) If Kirsten Gillibrand runs for Senator in 2010, would you vote to elect her or would you prefer someone else?

• Elect Gillibrand 27%
• Prefer someone else 33%

The State Assembly has passed a bill to legalize same sex marriages in New York State. Governor Paterson has said he supports it. To date, the State Senate has not voted on the bill. Do you support or oppose the State Senate passing a bill to legalize same sex marriages, virtually ensuring it would become law in New York?

• Support 50% (50%) [46%]
• Oppose 44% (43%) [46%]

Survey of 621 registered voters was conducted August 17-20. The margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points. Click here for crosstabs. Results from the poll conducted June 15-18 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted May 18-21 are in brackets.

Rasmussen Massachusetts 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

• Christy Mihos (R) 40% (41%)
• Deval Patrick (D) 35% (40%)
• Some other candidate 11% (10%)
• Not sure 15% (9%)

• Deval Patrick (D) 40% (41%)
• Charlie Baker (R) 39% (36%)
• Some other candidate 7% (12%)
• Not sure 15% (11%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Christy Mihos 50% / 30% [+20%]
• Charlie Baker 40%/ 30% [+10%]
• Deval Patrick 40% / 56% [-16%]

How would you rate the job Deval Patrick has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 7% (11%)
• Somewhat approve 32% (31%)
• Somewhat disapprove 26% (25%)
• Strongly disapprove 34% (32%)

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 39% (40%)
• Somewhat approve 20% (23%)
• Somewhat disapprove 11% (12%)
• Strongly disapprove 30% (24%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted August 20. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted June 24 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

In a match-up with Mihos, Patrick picks up 56% of the Democratic vote. Against Baker, the governor earns 66% support from his own party. Both Republicans have the backing of more than 75% of GOP voters.

Voters not affiliated with either party favor either of the Republicans by 30 points over Patrick.

Right now, Patrick comes in last on a list of four when Massachusetts voters are asked which of the state’s politicians they most respect. Fifty percent (50%) say longtime Democratic Senator Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy, while 35% prefer former Republican Governor Mitt Romney. John Kerry, the state’s other U.S. senator and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, is respected most by just five percent (5%), with Patrick at three percent (3%).

This high regard for Kennedy helps explain why 52% of the state’s voters agree with the terminally ill senator that the governor should name an interim senator to take his place until a special election can be held.

Among James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain, or Conan O’Brien — surely, at least one of them would have something memorable to say about the federal government being involved in nation-wide circumcision.

I’ll note that a good amount of thought went naming these two groups:  Operation Abraham and Intact America.

New York Times:

Circumcision will be discussed this week at the C.D.C.’s National H.I.V. Prevention Conference in Atlanta, which will be attended by thousands of health professionals and H.I.V. service providers.

Among the speakers is a physician from Operation Abraham, an organization based in Israel and named after the biblical figure who was circumcised at an advanced age, according to the book of Genesis. The group trains doctors in Africa to perform circumcisions on adult men to reduce the spread of H.I.V.

Members of Intact America, a group that opposes newborn circumcision, have rented mobile billboards that will drive around Atlanta carrying their message that “circumcising babies doesn’t prevent H.I.V.,” said Georganne Chapin, who leads the organization.

Mason-Dixon/Las Vegas Review-Journal Nevada Political Survey

2010 Senate Race

GOP Primary

• Danny Tarkanian 33%
• Sue Lowden 14%
• Sharron Angle 5%
• Chuck Kozak 1%
• Undecided 47%

General Election

• Danny Tarkanian 49%
• Harry Reid 38%
• Undecided 13%

• Sue Lowden 45%
• Harry Reid 40%
• Undecided 15%

• Dean Heller 50%
• Harry Reid 40%
• Undecided 10%

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Barack Obama 44% (49%) / 43% (32%) [+1%]
• John Ensign 30% (39%) / 37% (37%) [-7%]
• Harry Reid 37% (34%) / 50% (46%) [-13%]
• Jim Gibbons 15% (10%) / 54% (57%) [-39%]

If the 2012 election for Nevada’s U.S. Senate seat were held today, would you vote to re-elect incumbent John Ensign, would you consider voting for a challenger, or would you definitely vote to replace Ensign?

• Re-elect Ensign 30% {28%} (31%)
• Consider a challenger 23% {30%} (31%)
• Definitely replace 37% {31%} (28%)

Do you support or oppose Barack Obama’s proposal to reform health care?

• Support 40%
• Oppose 50%

Among Democrats

• Support 70%
• Oppose 18%

Among Republicans

• Support 10%
• Oppose 84%

Do you think it is necessary or not necessary to make major structural changes in the nation’s health care system in order to provide affordable health insurance for all Americans and to reduce the overall cost of health care services?

• Necessary 65%
• Not necessary 29%

Among Democrats

• Necessary 86%
• Not necessary 7%

Among Republicans

• Necessary 44%
• Not necessary 52%

Survey of 400 registered voters was conducted August 17-18. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points; +/- 6 percentage points among GOP primary voters. Results from the poll conducted July 14-15 are in curly brackets; from June 18-19, in parentheses.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports:

It’s the highest stakes ever for a Nevada election, and former boxer Sen. Harry Reid is on the ropes early. Either Republican Danny Tarkanian or Sue Lowden would knock out Reid in a general election, according to a recent poll of Nevada voters.

The results suggest the Democratic Senate majority leader will have to punch hard and often in order to retain his position as the most accomplished politician in state history, in terms of job status.

Nevadans favored Tarkanian over Reid 49 percent to 38 percent and Lowden over Reid 45 percent to 40 percent, according to the poll.

Reid’s status makes him an icon of the Democratic Party and ties him to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and President Barack Obama, both of whom are losing ground among centrist and right-leaning voters in the country.

Winning “becomes more difficult when you are actually the one having to carry the water for the president,” said Richard Davis, a professor of political science at Brigham Young University in Utah. “He (Reid) has got to get something out of the Obama administration that he can claim as his own.”

Reid is in definite danger of being Daschled by his Purple State Constituency. Symbolically, the most important Senate Seats for Republicans to pick-up are this one, the President’s seat in Illinois, and Biden’s seat in Deleware. The only downside of Reid losing would be that Richard Durbin would most likely ascend as Senate Majority leader and Durbin is far more likely to try and make far left stupid moves than Reid.

A few days ago, I posted on the subject of RealDVD software and made some arguments from the rise of  ”Pirate Parties” in Europe. That got me thinking more in depth, and as things are a little lazy around here on Sundays, I thought it would be fun to have a straight-up debate about the developing anti-copyright, anti-patent ideology of “Pirateism”. Specifically - just how dangerous are these people, does their movement have long term potential, and (most important) should we be expecting U.S politics to be commandeered by Pirates in the near future?

So, here’s how I want to do this. I’m going to provide one or two quick links to a few key resources on Pirate politics - your job is to glance at the material and then come back here to discuss. I’m going to hold off on personal commentary until we get into the comments section.

So – what do your think of these Pirates, and where (if anywhere) do you think this ideology will fit into the U.S. spectrum when it hits our shores? I highly doubt we will see a big Pirate Party here - but could Pirate ideology find a home in any of the parties here?

———-

Resources:

1. CNN Interview with Christian Engstrom – Swedish member of the European Union Parliament for the Pirate Party.

2. Wikipedia article on Swedish Pirate Party - basic overview of most successful party, now the third largest party in Sweden in terms of membership.

3. Pirate Party of the UK - Probably the biggest English-Language Pirate Party – so listen to them in their own words.

From Breitbart.

MIAMI (AP) – Florida Sen. Mel Martinez’s resignation closes the latest chapter in the Republican Party’s tumultuous, decade-long effort to woo the nation’s Hispanic voters.

The Cuban-American’s impending departure could leave no Hispanic Republicans in the Senate and three in the House—compared to 21 Democrats in Congress—and a sense that the national GOP is at a major crossroads with the nation’s fastest-growing demographic group…

Although most Hispanics outside of Florida have long leaned Democratic, the Republican Party earned the trust of many at the beginning of the decade by tapping into socially conservative, religious and pro-business sentiment. Martinez both rode and propelled that wave.

“He symbolized trying to reach out to Latinos and being more moderate,” said Marisa A. Abrajano, a University of California, San Diego professor and co-author of an upcoming book on Hispanic political behavior in the U.S…

“In the vast majority of their values, this party resonates with who I am—except they don’t want me,” lamented the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, which represents more than 25,000 Hispanic evangelical churches across the country.

U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., said Hispanics have a natural affinity with the Republican Party’s principles but acknowledged the GOP has a lot of work to do.

Of course political fortunes rise and fall quickly. A Democratic failure to achieve meaningful health care or immigration reform or an economic recovery that doesn’t help average Hispanics could encourage them to give Republicans another chance.

“Republicans have to be able to get the Hispanic community to focus on issues where Republicans have the right solutions—and these are critical issues: the economy being number one,” he said.

But experts say the GOP has good reason to be worried.

“One election and one resignation is not the end of an era, but it does signify tremendous problems in appealing to Hispanics in Florida, and nationwide,” said Florida International University political science Professor Dario Moreno.

If only there was a Hispanic running for a prominent office (perhaps even in Florida?) who folks like Rodriguez and Diaz-Balart could support to improve the GOP’s outreach to the Hispanic community.  But, alas that is not where we are.

Here is the full text (from the Telegraph):

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion.”

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion.” Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years–in some cases a full career–to see justice done.

But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988. You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution. You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification–the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.

You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy. Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to “the need for compassion.”

You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand. You have given Megrahi a “jubilant welcome” in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

Please see my website The Atheist Conservative and read my article ‘A Lonely, Brave and Saintly Politician?’

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative and former Director of the Institute for the Study of Terrorism in the UK

My latest column is at Pajamas Media:

British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan appeared on Glenn Beck’s show to opine on ObamaCare. His advice: “Don’t do it.”

He called the NHS “a 60-year failure” and pointed out that Britain had adopted its health care system in the midst of World War II when rationing was in vogue — not only for health care, but for food and gasoline. That America was considering a move towards socialized medicine in peacetime was unbelievable to Hannan.

Across the pond, the reaction from Conservative Party leadership was chilly, to say the least. Conservative leader David Cameron called Hannan “eccentric” and stated that “’no one should be in any doubt, for the Conservative Party, the NHS is our number one priority.” Meanwhile, critics on the left were far less kind, calling Hannan “unpatriotic.”

Now one can wonder what has happened to Great Britain to turn it into a nation where loving one’s country requires loving every bureaucracy that operates within it. However, there’s a larger scope to this row. Cameron and Hannan ultimately represent two archetypal visions of conservatism that are in conflict not only in Britain, but in the United States as well.

Hannan favors ending the National Health Service and creating a system of private accounts. The idea may seem like common sense to American conservatives, but Britain’s National Health Service is the third largest employer on the face of the Earth. That Hannan believes such a bureaucracy should be dismantled is a radical concept.

However, Cameron sees that the Conservative Party’s easiest path to victory in the next election is to accept the status quo regarding the National Health Service. And anyone who thinks otherwise is, at best, “eccentric.”

Thus, we see the fundamental conflict within conservatism on either side of the Atlantic. Hannan and those who identify with Hannan-style conservatism have a clear vision of what government should be like, what functions it should have, and what it shouldn’t do. Cameron conservatives are pragmatists who seek to keep the world the way it is. They’ll oppose the introduction of bad government programs, however once those bad government programs are established, they will accept them as a fact of life and even defend them.

If you need evidence of this, look no further than the U.S. Department of Education, a gift from the Carter administration. Ronald Reagan opposed it, as did the GOP platform. Everything critics said about the Department of Education at the time it was created was correct. In fact, in 1994 the GOP promised to eliminate the Department of Education. However, due to repeated failures at the 2000 Republican Convention, opposition to the existence of the Department of Education was pulled from the Republican Party platform. In 2008, even Ron Paul was silent about getting rid of the Department of Education even though it still does not educate children after thirty years of existence. Its only useful function is to release statistics throughout the year that indicate its total lack of effectiveness.

Greetings Race 4 2012. It has been a long time since I have FPP’d here, but I have a truly important announcement to make.

As some of you have known, HuckPac had a goal to make 10,000 phone calls for Bob McDonnell today. As of right now, we have successfully completed 10,223, not including the paper tallies that are still rolling in.

The power of HuckPac is not in campaign contributions (although are nice), but rather in the ability to mobilize and coordinate efforts to assist candidates via Grassroots participation.

This was an overwhelming success and I am very proud to be associated with HuckPac.

All Pacs have issues, and this one is no different, but we work through them, and we press on to promote the common agenda.

Way to go, and thanks to everyone who made calls today.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Social Conservatives are united by a pro-family, traditional outlook that favors strong societies defined by family, sacrifice and propriety.

Social conservatives generally are united in opposition to the millions of frivolous abortions performed every year. They also tend to unite in opposition to redefining marriage into a contract or a merely romantic institution (I think we lost this when we created no-fault divorce and other policies which cheapen marriage). Government efforts to expose inappropriate sexual material to children also raise social conservative ire.

Radicals demagogue this as “God, guns, gays and abortion”.

This is extremely odd to me. Family breakdown began before social liberal policies. Our social ills are just as often the result of family breakdown as the cause of it.

Why are social conservatives so ambivalent about the role of economic policies in family breakdown and decay?

Dealing with family breakdown will require attacking a series of economic, regulatory and welfare issues.

Largely social conservatives have defaulted to mild economic libertarianism, mild economic liberalism, or some amorphous thing in between.

None of these economic ideologies are self-consciously family friendly.

This calls for the creation of Socially Conservative Economics.

This would be an outlook that supports family leave laws, higher and refundable child tax credits, and tax credits for stay-at-home mothers and families who care for their elderly parents.

This would be an outlook that supported incentives for businesses to develop flex-schedule and telecommuting, giving workers more flexibility in caring for their family.

This would be an ideology that favored enabling families to do most of what the welfare state is supposed to. The government should be the safety net of last resort.

Individuals in need used to rely on family, mutual aid societies, churches, charity and local governments. Now they skip right to the federal welfare state. No wonder two-parent homes are so rare in government-dependent ghettos.

A Socially Conservative Economics wouldn’t be libertarian although it would tend to oppose the current size and scope of the welfare state based in Washington DC.

Social Conservatives need to take economics seriously and not just treat it as an afterthought. The decay of families and communities calls for an economic agenda along with a purely social one.

A Stupid Obama rumor.

Change: Canada considers health care reform.

AARP loses tens of thousands of members over perceived Obamacare sellout.

The NHS cost saving: women give birth outside hospital. (Hat Tip: Red State.)

Pedophile given Viagra by the NHS. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)

Cash for Clunkers hurt charities.

White House funds off-shore drilling–in Brazil.

Mexican farmers exploit Mexicans by making them believe their U.S. Illegal immigrants.

The Islamic Bank Account. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

Milwaukee Mayor fights man attacking a woman and a baby. (Hat Tip: Don Surber.)

Massachusetts man stabs pregnant girlfriend after she refuses an abortion.

Evangelical Lutherans take another step towards apostasy.

Sweden outlaws homeschooling.

Brazil offers STD e-mails.

Music by Linda Holzer via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen.

Earlier this week, Public Policy Polling released a survey of potential 2012 general election matchups, pitting The One against the Big Three on the Republican side, and adding Newt Gingrich for good measure. The results were telling, with Huckabee doing best against Obama, trailing the president by only three points. Huck supporters will assuredly view this as a Huckaboom of sorts, though I would argue (and will proceed to do so more extensively later in the article) that Huckabee is essentially a proxy for Pawlenty in presidential polling right now due to the short memory of the electorate, which likes Huck up until he actually enters the fray. More on this later. First, let’s look at where the candidates stand.

The race for 2012 on the GOP side seems to be breaking down far more cleanly than did the race for 2008, which was a mixed up mish-mash of a race, where first Rudy was the establishment candidate and the moderate candidate (except on economics), then McCain was the establishment candidate and the moderate candidate (especially on economics), and where Thompson was the True Conservative in the race, until Huck was, which was right before Romney was, but only because he was the only one left who could stop McCain. Confused? So was the entirety of the Republican electorate.

This time around, though, the battle lines are much clearer. On the right, we have Sarah Palin, who is adored by conservatives and Republicans but not by moderates and Independents. On the left, there’s Mitt Romney, who appears to be the candidate of moderates/Independents this time around, but, interestingly, not of Republicans/conservatives. Then there’s Newt, who runs as poorly among GOPers as Romney, and as poorly among Indies as Sarah. And finally there’s Huck, who runs as strongly among conservatives as Sarah and is actually stronger among moderates than Mitt. In other words, Sarah’s got the right, Mitt’s got the center, Huck’s got everyone, and Newt has no one.

To get a better idea of how cleanly this breaks down, let’s look at how each of the candidates rank among the various partisan and ideological subgroups mentioned above.

Among moderates, Huckabee has a +10 favorability rating, followed by Mitt with a -2 rating. Both are trailed by Newt, who has a -25 favorability rating, and Sarah, whose rating is -29.

Among conservatives, Palin and Huckabee tie with a +48 favorability rating. Newt has a +32 rating and Mitt has a +27 rating, the lowest of all the contenders among conservatives.

Among Independents, Huckabee has a +24 favorability rating, followed by Mitt with a +9 rating. Both are trailed by Newt, who has a -11 favorability rating, and Sarah, whose rating is -12.

Among Republicans, Palin has a +56 rating, edging Huckabee, who has a +53 favorability rating. Newt has a +35 rating and Mitt has a +34 rating, the lowest of all the contenders among Republicans.

This explains why Huckabee loses to Obama by only 3 points while Romney, Gingrich, and Palin lose to the president by 7, 8, and 14 points, respectively. Only a candidate like Huckabee can excite the base while also winning sufficient portions of moderates and right-leaning Independents to give Obama a run for his money. Pundits can speculate endlessly on why this is, but whatever the reason, the data seems to suggest that what beats Obama is the center-right, compassionate, communicative, cuddly cultural conservative that Huckabee has been able to package himself as over the past couple of years.

The reason that I remain skeptical of Huckabee’s chances, though, and suspect that what voters may actually be looking for is a Pawlenty lies in Huckabee’s difficulties during the race for 2008. Those who followed the race closely will remember how Huckabee came out of nowhere to win the Ames straw poll in August of 2007, and who experienced a Huckaboom that winter, with polls showing Republican primary voters flocking to the former governor in the weeks leading up to the start of primary season. This led Huck’s opponents like Matt Drudge to work overtime, posting immoderate and controversial quotes by the governor from over the course of his political and pastoral career that made both the right and the center queasy, for different reasons. The problem with Huck is that he comes with a lot of baggage, baggage which has been forgotten because it has lied dormant for 18 months. The average apathetic voter who vaguely remembers Huck’s campaign and who catches him every now and then on Fox News will naturally view Huck as a well-spoken, soft-around-the-edges cultural conservative who is willing to propose solutions to non-traditional Republican issues, like health care. This makes him an attractive candidate to voters across the board who aren’t happy with Obama. But once Matt Drudge and others start reminding us of Huck’s past commentary regarding things like fiscal conservatives (“faux-cons?”) and the quarantining of individuals with AIDS, it’s probable that the same people who are now warming to Huckabee will remember why they didn’t embrace him in ’08.

But that leaves a huge opening for Tim Pawlenty. Like the current version of Huck, Pawlenty is a communicative, center-right, cuddly cultural conservative who talks about issues that Republicans usually don’t, and proposes solutions that Republicans generally won’t. But unlike Huck, Pawlenty has a cool head and minimal baggage, and if there were any snarky remarks attacking the religious beliefs of Mitt Romney (and of lots of regular Republican voters), or out of context quotes on women submitting to their husbands, they would have been brought out in Minnesota, where Pawlenty won two statewide races in Purple America without any dirt or controversy coming into play. To be sure, I’m not saying any of this to dump on Huckabee; he’s a man with strong, specific convictions, and a guy who can probably get a little hot under the collar when attacked. But what this article is about is electability against Obama in 2012, and if Huckabee has it on paper, then Pawlenty has it in reality. That’s because Pawlenty is the guy that Americans currently think Huckabee is.

But what about Mitt, Sarah, and Newt? Well, voters’ minds have been known to change, and it’s certainly possible that Romney could finally close the deal with conservatives, or that Palin could finally win over Independents, or that Gingrich could…well, we all love Newt. But at present, the data does suggest that it may take someone like Huckabee to beat someone like Obama in 2012.

The Economist/YouGov Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

• Strongly approve 26.8%
• Somewhat approve 22.3%
• Somewhat disapprove 15.7%
• Strongly disapprove 28.2%

Among Democrats

• Strongly approve 53.7%
• Somewhat approve 32.4%
• Somewhat disapprove 7.7%
• Strongly disapprove 2.5%

Among Republicans

• Strongly approve 2.6%
• Somewhat approve 8.4%
• Somewhat disapprove 23.2%
• Strongly disapprove 61.9%

Among Independents

• Strongly approve 22.3%
• Somewhat approve 22.4%
• Somewhat disapprove 17.2%
• Strongly disapprove 35.5%

Favorable Ratings

Among Democrats

• Hillary Clinton 89.8%
• Barack Obama 86.7%
• Nancy Pelosi 51.5%
• Sarah Palin 10.8%
• John Boehner 10.5%
• George W. Bush 10.2%
• Rush Limbaugh 7.0%

Among Republicans

• George W. Bush 81.3%
• Sarah Palin 77.5%
• Rush Limbaugh 69.6%
• John Boehner 27.4%
• Hillary Clinton 22.2%
• Barack Obama 12.8%
• Nancy Pelosi 7.3%

Among Independents

• Hillary Clinton 49.5%
• Barack Obama 47.0%
• Sarah Palin 43.8%
• George W. Bush 34.2%
• Rush Limbaugh 32.1%
• John Boehner 20.0%
• Nancy Pelosi 16.4%

Overall, do you approve of the way the U.S. Congress is handling its job?

Among Democrats

• Strongly approve 3.6%
• Somewhat approve 29.1%
• Somewhat disapprove 28.8%
• Strongly disapprove 12.8%

Among Republicans

• Strongly approve 1.3%
• Somewhat approve 7.4%
• Somewhat disapprove 19.4%
• Strongly disapprove 58.3%

Among Independents

• Strongly approve 0.2%
• Somewhat approve 6.2%
• Somewhat disapprove 22.2%
• Strongly disapprove 55.7%

If the 2010 elections for U.S. Congress were being held today, who would you vote for in the district where you live?

Among Independents

• Republican 29.8%
• Lean Republican 13.0%
• Democrat 26.4%
• Lean Democrat 7.1%

Among Moderates

• Republican 23.9%
• Lean Republican 8.7%
• Democrat 44.3%
• Lean Democrat 7.0%

How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?

Among Democrats

• Just about always 3.3%
• Most of the time 25.3%
• Some of the time 53.1%
• Almost never 16.9%

Among Republicans

• Just about always 0.0%
• Most of the time 4.8%
• Some of the time 38.3%
• Almost never 54.3%

Among Independents

• Just about always 0.0%
• Most of the time 11.1%
• Some of the time 44.4%
• Almost never 42.5%

What do you think is more of a threat — Big Business or Big Government?

Among Democrats

• Big Business 62.6%
• Big Government 37.4%

Among Republicans

• Big Business 7.3%
• Big Government 92.7%

Among Independents

• Big Business 32.7%
• Big Government 67.3%

About six months ago, Congress passed President Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Do you think the stimulus bill is working?

Among Democrats

• Yes 58.7%
• No 21.2%

Among Republicans

• Yes 4.4%
• No 85.9%

Among Independents

• Yes 28.9%
• No 56.4%

Do you think the stimulus bill WILL work? (Asked of respondents who said the stimulus is not working or were not sure if it is working)

Among Democrats

• Yes 21.5%
• No 39.1%

Among Republicans

• Yes 3.5%
• No 84.0%

Among Independents

• Yes 7.4%
• No 71.4%

(more…)

For sheer, blind stupidity one can hardly match the actions of Thad McCotter (MI-11), who, in the midst of a national debate/confrontation over health care for human beings, has the effrontery to introduce a bill to provide a $3500 annual health care tax deduction … for pets.

Would I kid about something like this? To make it worse, it’s called “The HAPPY Act” (Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years). A case of truth that would be impossible to parody.

Does McCotter, who apparently opposes ObamaCare (good for him), have any idea how this is going to play? What an idiot!

Ok, ok, I’ve just gotten to the computer today.  I’ve been busy being responsive to my (wife’s) vast network of international clients, and it can take a little bit!  A couple of random thoughts for people.

• Iran’s mullah dictators appear to have quelled the vast majority of the Iranian uprising.  To me, this was a major news event, and it’s almost a criminal indictment of our media that they bowed so easily to the threats of the regime and didn’t report on it after the first week.  It is a very sad day in the region, indeed, that the corrupt system that is in place remains.
• Can Pres Obama make up his mind about what he wants in the gov’t healthcare takeover?  If there’s no public option, why is this thing STILL over $1 trillion over 10 years?  All of us need to make sure our representatives know their seat is on the line in ’10, and voting yes on this thing is a sure way to lose their seat.
• Speaking of the healthcare debate, why is it portrayed that these townhalls are supposed to be about discussion and debate?  Isn’t the purpose of these meetings to let the politicians know what our thoughts are on the legislation they’re voting on?

A few other administrative items.  Bob Hovik, I will happily lease you the rights to an open thread.  I will be sending you the informational packet via email, along with an invoice.  Matthew Miller, your check didn’t clear for your Friday thread license, so I will be sending you a revised invoice.  Other than that, once again, forgive the lateness of the posting.

Okay, if Richard Murray isn’t going to do his job, I guess I’ll have to fill in. But, given his litigious nature, I’ll avoid copyright infringement by taking a mildly different direction and title.

There was a fascinating story in The New York Times a few days ago about Miller introducing their High Life brand into Vietnam and doing so through an ad campaign that specifically celebrates the fact that it’s an American brand — the theme is “It’s American time, it’s Miller time.”

The campaign — which is to include ads on television, in print, outdoors and online as well as promotions — is based on a popular campaign for Miller High Life in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s, known as “Miller time” and “Welcome to Miller time.”

The addition to the slogan of the phrase “It’s American time” reflects the increasing appeal in Vietnam of products that originate in the United States. For instance, the Coca-Cola Company has invested more than $160 million in Vietnam since returning to the country in 1994, and its bottler there operates three plants to make soft drinks like Coca-Cola — the best-selling soda in Vietnam.

Research among the Vietnamese found that “an American brand means quality,” Sally Brophy, president for marketing at SABMiller Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City, said in a telephone interview.

I particularly love that the TV ads will feature the Statue of Liberty. And of course, the concept that sex sells is universal:

Another promotion in Vietnam will feature what Ms. Brophy described as “Miller girls: tall, good-looking American girls, who will take a mobile tour of the big restaurants.”

From techpresident:

Here’s a metric that might get your attention. Here in these doggiest of August days, Sarah Palin’s Facebook page has accumulated roughly the same number of brand new supporters in the last week as Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal each have in total. That’s gotta sting.

(Go here for our live version of the Facebook chart above, which I can’t seem to embed correctly.)

Palin’s up to more than 805,000 Facebook fans across the board. This latest bump is, likely, thanks to the fact that Palin is using Facebook as a podium. She’s been posting op-eds (or maybe we should call them op-wall posts) on everything from the U.S.’s use of foreign oil to health care reform. Oh, and what she charmingly called “Obama’s ‘death panels’” that “[her] baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of” to justify his care. Such is a system is “downright evil,” wrote Palin. Those last statements caught the attention of the White House, which saw fit to respond to Palin’s critique. The White House doesn’t respond to any ol’ body. And you can bet that Palin’s Facebook megaphone is as much a factor in their attention as her 3/4 of a term as Alaska’s governor.

Inside Facebook has more.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Combined with his trip to Israel, this week has been one of Huckabee’s strongest on foreign policy.

I’m normally not much of a consumer reporting guy, and I really am not a techie. However, one issue that I have been following is the legal battle over RealDVD, a software program which would allow people to make legal copies of their personal DVDs.
 
In my opinion, it’s actually a good concept because it allows customers to take their movies anywhere their laptop goes, but has enough safeguards and encryptions to make sure that there is absolutely no way to redistribute the files. In fact, some Hollywood studios have actually started building similar capabilities into their DVDs (20thCentury Fox did it with The Day The Earth Stood Still.)
 
However, the studios disagree with me, and they sued to keep the product of the market on the grounds that it enables piracy – despite the fact that there are better and cheaper illegal programs available. Seriously, what pirate in their right mind is going to pay for RealDVD’s safeguards when they can just go download “Jack the Ripper” for free. Unfortunately, the lawsuit is moving forward, and last Tuesday, a judge granted a temporary injunction on the sale of RealDVD

Now, I can see the studios’ motivation here – they don’t want RealDVD cornering a market that they are trying to expand into themselves. But from a public relations standpoint, is it worth it?  Probably not.
 
Hollywood’s decision to sue seems to have sparked a major backlash, as public opinion seems to be nearly unanimous in support of this technology.

Of course, free market conservative sites like Townhall and Big Hollywood have questioned the wisdom of Hollywood’s decision to sue.  But perhaps the most compelling rebuke came from the normally leftist LA Times, which editorialized,

RealNetworks’ RealDVDsoftware … drew fire in part because they can make permanent copies of the rented or borrowed discs. But people who are so inclined can do that already with tools that are cheaper and less restrictive. More important to the studios, RealNetworks and Kaleidescape add value to a movie collection by making it easier to manage and watch. In so doing, they increase the incentive to own a movie rather than just rent it.

One lesson from the technology industry is that there is a trade-off between controlling products and unleashing the innovation that spurs growth. Just look at how well the iPhone has fared since Apple invited independent developers to create applications for it. Hollywood should remember the principle underlying the case against China: Centralized control stifles a market. Rather than trying to stop potentially disruptive technologies and business models, Hollywood should find a way to harness them. 

Frankly, the studios are only going to make life more difficult on themselves, and if they want to do right by themselves, they should drop this case like a hot potato. I can guarantee you that this sort of heavy-handedness is not going to work out – because it has already backfired massively in Europe.
 
Across the pond, music producers are suffering mightily because of their legal action to shut down the file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. Now, I think getting rid of flagrant copyright violators like The Pirate Bay is entirely justified – but lots of young Europeans didn’t, and they reacted by starting anti-copyright political parties. The Pirate Party of Sweden shocked Europe this year by winning a Swedish seat in the European Union Parliament. The German Pirate Party has also enjoyed success, gaining a member of the Bundestag (Parliament) through the mutiny of a legislator from the Social Democratic Party – and they could actually win seats in next month’s parliamentary election.
 
Now, I’m not saying that the Pirate Party of the United States (yes, it exists) will ever get off the ground. I am, however, saying that the Pirate Movement already has legs in Europe and we are kidding ourselves if  we think that it won’t eventually show up here in some form.

The success of Pirate Parties overseas should serve as a warning to the Hollywood studios.  They are only pouring gasoline on a potential fire by trying to stop perfectly legit products like RealDVD – and they should save their battles for legitimate piracy (with a lower-case P). If they don’t wise up, they will only hasten the rise of (capital P) Pirate politics here in the States – and if that thought doesn’t shiver their timbers, I don’t know what will.

Considering the impact on the 2010 midterm elections, are the Democrats politically better off by either;

1) Forcing through a government health care insurance program, on a party line vote?

or;

2) Based on the public opposition, not keeping their primary election promise and allowing the legislation to fail? 

—-

Update: or, option ‘C’

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

This, from the WSJ:

There were 14 states that had unemployment rates in double digits last month, with three including California setting all-time highs, the Labor Department reported Friday.

The report, which gives a regional breakdown of the national employment data released earlier this month, again put Michigan in the lead with the highest jobless rate: 15%.  The state, reeling from auto industry’s the shutdowns, registered a gain of 38,100 nonfarm payrolls since June but has lost 280,800 in the past year. Rhode Island followed with a jobless rate of 12.7%. Nevada, at 12.5%, had the third-worst rate. The District of Columbia also had a double-digit rate, of 10.6%.

Jobless rates in California, at 11.9%, as well as Nevada and Rhode Island set highs for the state surveys, which go back to 1976. Georgia’s rate of 10.3% was also a record high.  Workers had the best shot at finding employment in North Dakota, which again had the lowest rate: 4.2%. 

As the US government acquires most of the available capital by running a 2 trillion dollar deficit, American companies will continue to be unable to access loans for investing in infrastructure and job creation projects.  While many economists have warned us of the threat of rising inflation in 2010, I believe the greatest threat to the American economy may be an economic recovery that fails to create jobs for those who are underemployed, a number that currently may be as high as 20%. 

Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted that the impending economic recovery will not create new private sector jobs. 

Bernanke did not state the reasons why our country faces a jobless recovery, but presumably because his intention is to provide political cover for our President.  The pending economic rebound will be devoid of job growth because the Obama administration is determined to raise taxes on small business owners, the wealthy and large corporations.  Unlike former Chairman Greenspan, Barnanke refuses to speak the truth on the impact President Obama’s spending and tax policies will continue to have on our economy.  The majority of economists believe the proposed tax increases, the closing of corporate tax loopholes and the pending cap and trade legislation, could cost the US economy as many as 4 million private sector jobs.   

In addition to moving our tax structure to a non-competitive position in the global economy, President Obama has failed to stabilize the financial sector.  Most financial institutions are still carrying the toxic assets and high risk loans from 2008 and as a result they are refusing to extend credit to the private  market.  Although many lending institutions have avoided bankruptcy by liquidating profitable assets and acquiring corporate welfare from Federal and State governments, 77 banks have declared bankruptcy thus far, with many analysts predicting this number will reach 100 by the end of 2009.  President Obama’s failure to stabilize the financial sector will further restrict the availability of capital to our private sector and first-time home buyers.        

One program that has reached the American consumer, is Obama’s mortgage refinance plan.  This legislation has allowed families to re-negotiate their lending rates and terms with their financial institution.  That said, even though the plan has assisted families with avoiding bankruptcy, once inflation rates do begin to rise and mortgage rates are adjusted accordingly, many of these families will face a more significant threat to their primary investment, once their loans come to term.  Forcing institutions to negotiate more favorable loans to high risk clients will only delay the inevitable housing market crash.  President Obama must take steps to reform (not further regular) the lending market instead of focusing on using taxpayers money to assist people in reaching their home ownership dreams.

If families are not purchasing homes and businesses cannot blend their revenue and lines of credit to expand operations, unemployment will not decrease to the levels of the mid-1990′s.  What we will face is stagnation in our economy and growth rates that hover around 1.5% 

A jobless recovery not only threatens the economic security of families and communities, but it will fuel the growing deficit.  With one in 10 unemployed, Federal and State governments will lack the tax revenue to fund social and defense programs.  This may be one of the reasons why President Obama is proposing hundreds of million of dollars of cuts to Medicare and defense acquisition projects.  Although he describes the measures as necessary ‘reforms’, in actual fact he understands that his high level objective to re-distribute wealth will result in diminished private sector output and falling tax revenues.  The decline in revenue has already begun.            

President Reagan understood that reducing taxes and regulation on business would ultimately increase government revenue.  The chart below illustrates the dramatic increase in government revenue that began two years into his administration.  President Reagan’s economic policies provided the United States with revenue to rebuild our military, defeat the Soviet empire and fund entitlement programs throughout the 1980′s and 1990′s.

Reagan’s blueprint for economic stability and growth was certainly not without critics.  In the early months of 1982, the Gipper faced immense pressure from the media and unions, as job growth and government revenue flat-lined.  But Reagan refused to concede defeat.  Instead of bribing the media and public with stimulus plans, new czar’s and new entitlement programs, he asked the American people for patience.  His idea of reforming the tax code was not to close loopholes and force the rich to pay more, he wanted ever person and every business to pay less, regardless of income, employment and social status.  His idea for creating employment was to stand aside from the private sector, not in front of it.     

President Obama’s economic philosophy and motivation could not be any more different than Reagan’s.

Facing the threat of a private sector that will be unable to create employment and State governments lacking revenue to fund essential services, we can expect President Obama to announce one or two additional stimulus bills over the next three years.  President Obama will be desperate to avoid public sector layoffs at the State level and will continue to bailout banks and home-owners who are incapable of managing their assets.  To ensure re-election, President Obama will refuse to splash spending and allow financially unqualified home owners to default on their mortgages.  What appears to be the ONLY feasible solution to re-ignite our economic, is unnaccaeptable to a man who’s solemn focus is to join the exclusive group of two-term Presidents.        

—

Update: It is worse than I thought. 

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.