Field Research California 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

Democratic Primary

• Jerry Brown 47% (26%)
• Gavin Newsom 27% (16%)

• Dianne Feinstein 40% (38%)
• Jerry Brown 27% (16%)
• Gavin Newsom 16% (10%)

Republican Primary

• Meg Whitman 22% (21%)
• Tom Campbell 20% (18%)
• Steve Poizner 9% (7%)

General Election

• Jerry Brown (D) 50%
• Meg Whitman (R) 29%

• Jerry Brown (D) 48%
• Tom Campbell (R) 27%

• Jerry Brown (D) 50%
• Steve Poizner (R) 25%

• Gavin Newsom (D) 40%
• Meg Whitman (R) 31%

• Gavin Newsom (D) 38%
• Tom Campbell (R) 33%

• Gavin Newsom (D) 39%
• Steve Poizner (R) 30%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Dianne Feinstein 52% / 36% {+16%}
• Jerry Brown 44% / 29% {+15%}
• Steve Poizner 22% / 17% {+5%}
• Meg Whitman 18% / 14% {+4%}
• Tom Campbell 20% / 21% {-1%}
• Gavin Newsom 30% / 40% {-10%}

Among Democrats

• Dianne Feinstein 68% / 22% {+46%}
• Jerry Brown 57% / 18% {+39%}
• Gavin Newsom 41% / 22% {+19%}

Among Republicans

• Meg Whitman 29% / 10% {+19%}
• Tom Campbell 25% / 15% {+10%}
• Steve Poizner 24% / 16% {+8%}

Survey of 1,005 registered voters, including 496 Democratic primary election voters and 373 Republican primary election voters, was conducted September 18 – October 5. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points, while findings from each subsample have a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted in March are in parentheses.

PPP (D) North Carolina 2010 Senatorial Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Republican Senator Richard Burr’s job performance?

• Approve 36% {38%} (38%) [36%]
• Disapprove 35% {32%} (32%) [29%]

Among Independents

• Approve 36% {34%} (35%) [33%]
• Disapprove 39% {29%} (37%) [35%]

Among Men

• Approve 45% {43%} (42%) [40%]
• Disapprove 35% {37%} (37%) [35%]

Among Women

• Approve 27% {35%} (34%) [32%]
• Disapprove 35% {28%} (28%) [24%]

Generally speaking, next year would you vote to reelect Republican Richard Burr or vote for his Democratic opponent?

• Richard Burr 45% {45%} (42%) [40%]
• Democrat 34% {38%} (35%) [38%]

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Democrat Cal Cunningham and Republican Richard Burr, who would you vote for?

• Richard Burr 46% {42%} (43%) [40%]
• Cal Cunningham 27% {30%} (28%) [31%]

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Democrat Bob Etheridge and Republican Richard Burr, who would you vote for?

• Richard Burr 44% {41%}
• Bob Etheridge 33% {34%}

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Democrat Kevin Foy and Republican Richard Burr, who would you vote for?

• Richard Burr 45% {43%} (43%)
• Kevin Foy 29% {29%} (27%)

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Democrat Kenneth Lewis and Republican Richard Burr, who would you vote for?

• Richard Burr 44% {43%} (43%) [42%]
• Kenneth Lewis 30% {27%} (27%) [31%]

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Democrat Elaine Marshall and Republican Richard Burr, who would you vote for?

• Richard Burr 44% {42%} (43%)
• Elaine Marshall 32% {31%} (31%)

If the candidates for US Senate next year were Democrat Dennis Wicker and Republican Richard Burr, who would you vote for?

• Richard Burr 44% {42%}
• Dennis Wicker 30% {31%}

Survey of 683 voters was conducted October 2-4. The margin of error is +/- 3.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 43% {46%} (44%) Democrat; 37% {35%} (37%) Republican; 20% {20%} (20%) Independent. Political views: 47% {43%} (38%) Conservative; 37% {39%} (47%) Moderate; 16% {18%} (15%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 2-8 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 4-10 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 10-12 are in brackets.

Here’s Mitt’s latest video for his issues series featured on his Free and Strong America PAC. This time the subject is Cap and Trade:

Momentum Analysis (D) 2010 Missouri U.S. Senate Poll

• 48% Robin Carnahan
• 45% Roy Blunt

Favorable / Unfavorable

• Robin Carnahan (D): 51/28 (+23)
• Roy Blunt (R): 44/33 (+11)

Survey was conducted between 9/15-19/09 among 802 registered voters with a 3.5% margin of error.

The “good news?” As Pollster notes, this poll was commissioned by “a group of organizations interested in ballot initiatives in Missouri.” So I wouldn’t feel too bad about a poll conducted by Democratic interest groups that show Blunt within the MoE among registered voters.

In a dream scenario for Republicans, former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson’s entry into the 2010 Senate race puts Russ Feingold’s tenure in mortal jeopardy:

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute / University of Wisconsin 2010 U.S. Senate Poll

• 43% Tommy Thompson
• 39% Russ Feingold

Survey conducted 9/27-29/09 among 700 adults with a 3.8% margin of error.

What can be done to encourage Thompson’s entry into the race?

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

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

• Approve 50% {50%} (57%) [59%]
• Disapprove 41% {42%} (33%) [31%]

Among Independents

• Approve 45% {45%} (52%) [57%]
• Disapprove 44% {45%} (37%) [30%]

Among Men

• Approve 46% {45%} (54%) [54%]
• Disapprove 45% {46%} (38%) [36%]

Among Women

• Approve 54% {54%} (59%) [64%]
• Disapprove 36% {38%} (29%) [26%]

Among Whites

• Approve 42% {43%} (51%) [52%]
• Disapprove 48% {48%} (39%) [37%]

Among Blacks

• Approve 93% {91%} (94%) [93%]
• Disapprove 3% {8%} (0%) [2%]

Among Jews

• Approve 46% {66%} (75%) [75%]
• Disapprove 47% {30%} (20%) [17%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 47% {45%} (52%)
• Disapprove 46% {49%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 40% {41%} (47%)
• Disapprove 51% {53%} (46%)

Among Jews

• Approve 42% {70%} (73%)
• Disapprove 51% {27%} (17%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 41% {39%} (46%)
• Disapprove 51% {52%} (42%)

Among Independents

• Approve 36% {34%} (37%)
• Disapprove 56% {60%} (48%)

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care reform plan?

• Support 40%
• Oppose 47%

Among Independents

• Support 35%
• Oppose 52%

President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?

• Will keep promise 19% {21%}
• Will add to deficit 71% {72%}

Among Independents

• Will keep promise 18% {17%}
• Will add to deficit 75% {77%}

Do you support or oppose requiring people to have health insurance?

• Support 50% (44%)
• Oppose 45% (51%)

Among Independents

• Support 46% (39%)
• Oppose 50% (56%)

Do you support or oppose requiring businesses to help pay the cost of health insurance for their employees?

• Support 73% (73%)
• Oppose 23% (24%)

Among Independents

• Support 71% (69%)
• Oppose 25% (28%)

Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?

• Support 61% {62%} (69%)
• Oppose 34% {32%} (26%)

Among Independents

• Support 59% {64%} (66%)
• Oppose 37% {30%} (29%)

Among Republicans

• Support 36% {40%} (50%)
• Oppose 58% {56%} (44%)

Who do you trust to do a better job handling health care – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• President Obama 47% {46%} (53%)
• Republicans in Congress 31% {37%} (33%)

Among Independents

• President Obama 41% {41%} (46%)
• Republicans in Congress 30% {36%} (36%)

Among Jews

• President Obama 48% {73%} (69%)
• Republicans in Congress 33% {25%} (22%)

Do you agree or disagree with the following: Congress should approve a health care overhaul plan even if only Democrats support it.

• Agree 37% {36%}
• Disagree 57% {59%}

Among Independents

• Agree 32% {33%}
• Disagree 62% {63%}

(more…)

ATTENTION ALLAHPUNDIT: COMPETENT GOP TALKING POINTS REGARDING THE CBO NUMBERS ARE IN THIS POST.

So, a lot has been made over the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the Baucus bill currently making the rounds in the Senate will cost roughly 830 billion dollars and lead to a net reduction in the deficit over the next ten years — 2010 to 2019. The CBO, of course, is required to make a ten-year estimate.

Wonderful. Except that the bill doesn’t take effect until 2013. And the first-year costs are only a few billion dollars since there are all sorts of provisions intact for first-year glitches and bumps.

The real costs will actually be upwards of a trillion dollars over the actual first ten years of the bill’s implementation.

Expect to hear virtually nothing about this (or about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate).

I came across this news while conducting my daily Google search for “nude 18 year old guys.”

Levi Johnston — ostensibly a father of Sarah Palin’s grandson, is going to pose nude for Playgirl.

With this move, Playgirl’s gay female subscribers all over the country are going to be salivating over his hockey stick. Although I guess in the Age of Lady Gaga, it’s now a disco stick. Well, whatever.

Well, I’ll be takin’ a look, at any rate. Either way, this joker’s on his fifteenth minute. Hoping for ephemeral political fame to build you a career is a bridge to nowhere.

Despite the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the reality is those that pay for government have very little say in it.

Because politicians have come to expect the complacent behavior from taxpaying public, those that pay for the cost of government have found that their tax contribution has very little influence on how a legislator will vote compared to much smaller campaign contributions. Campaign contributions are the reason that misguided legislation can be enacted that will be devastating to large segments of the population, but beneficial to a small but politically well connected group.

The enactment of the 16th amendment establishing a National Income Tax and subsequent employer withholding provisions effectively changed the government from one that serves the taxpayers, to one that serves the campaign contributors. In many cases, the contributor is also the recipient of taxpayer dollars insuring that its funding stream continues. In some cases, such as Amtrak and Fannie Mae, the campaign contributors are actually a governmental related entity that wants to continue subsidies for money loosing behavior (Amtrak) or exemption from regulatory controls (Fannie Mae). In other cases, the campaign contributions are from industries that want taxpayer money to subsidize its poor performance or judgment (General Motors, Chrysler and large banks).

For the first time in many years, taxpayers took to the streets on April 15th to demonstrate their opposition to politicians passing stimulus bills they didn’t read. In California, taxpayer of both parties continued their opposition by voting down propositions that would greatly increase taxes. On September 12th over a half million taxpayers demonstrated in Washington DC against legislation that will enrich campaign contributors at the expense of the taxpayer.

Unless taxpayers continue to demonstrate that their complacency is no longer guaranteed, government will continue to serve the interests of campaign contributors not the taxpayers.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-David Nace is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Rasmussen Louisiana Political Survey

2010 Senate Race

• David Vitter (R) 46%
• Charlie Melancon (D) 36%

• Jay Dardenne (R) 46%
• Charlie Melancon (D) 33%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Jay Dardenne 50% / 27% (+23%)
• David Vitter 56% / 34% (+22%)
• Charlie Melancon 43% / 39% (+4%)

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

• Strongly approve 34%
• Somewhat approve 7%
• Somewhat disapprove 8%
• Strongly disapprove 51%

How would you rate the job Bobby Jindal has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 28%
• Somewhat approve 37%
• Somewhat disapprove 17%
• Strongly disapprove 17%

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 23%
• Somewhat favor 13%
• Somewhat oppose 8%
• Strongly oppose 53%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 24%
• Worse 60%
• Stay the same 10%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• The cost of health care will go up 58%
• The cost will go down 18%
• Stay the same 14%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 67%
• Reduce the deficit 9%
• Have no impact on the deficit 15%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 65%
• Somewhat likely 18%
• Not very likely 9%
• Not at all likely 2%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 55%
• Federal government will not do enough 31%

Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

• Excellent 0%
• Good 6%
• Fair 43%
• Poor 49%

Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• Better 25%
• Worse 47%
• Staying the same 22%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted October 5. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Vitter earns at least somewhat favorable reviews from 81% of Republicans.

Liberals want power in the name of insects and fish but don’t dare burn coal for human warmth or Edison’s light bulb unless you save up enough of the lumps ObamaDems place in your Christmas stockings.

Given the 40+ year history of the Democratic Party’s advocacy of social and economic policies that have repeatedly failed to help the poor beyond were subsistence living dependency on government; given their opposition to Reagan supply side policies that have proven successful at lifting the poor out of poverty; and given ObamaDems’ advocacy of “energy/climate change/environmental” policies that raise gasoline, heating oil and food prices and cost jobs, I can only conclude that ObamaDems don’t care about the poor and middle class.

Or at least their “caring” takes forms with which I am not familiar and after 18 years a Democrat official until my conservative epiphany in 2000, before which I had to actively resist the party line lie that Republicans didn’t care about the old, inform and poor, I think it apropos that Democrats take some of their own medicine especially given the actual evidence against them.

Now, it seems, the politically correct, self-appointed protectors of Native Americans from sports mascots, have targeted the ones they claim to care for:

PHOENIX — The president of the Navajo Nation joined other Native American leaders this week in assailing environmentalists who have sought to block or shut down coal-fired power plants that provide vital jobs and revenue to tribes in northern Arizona.

“These are individuals and groups who claim to have put the welfare of fish and insects above the survival of the Navajo people when in fact their only goal is to stop the use of coal in the U.S. and the Navajo Nation,” said Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., who presides over America’s largest Indian reservation, which sprawls over three states and claims a population of about 250,000.

Shirley’s remarks came Wednesday after the Hopi Nation’s Tribal Council sent a message Monday to the Sierra Club and a handful of other environmental groups: Stay off the reservation.

Candidate Barack Obama threatened to bankrupt the coal industry and said We the People need to learn a lesson from high fuel prices. He had no problem with $4.00/gallon gasoline, but just wished the higher prices could have been achieved at a slower pace. We now see why, as his overreach of big government liberalism seems to have awakened us We the People lobsters with boiling water after we had been accepting the death of liberty via slowly warming lukewarm waters of creeping socialism.

But the water boiled before the vehicle to harm the poor called “Cap and Trade” could raise energy prices and before health care was socialized. But they wanted to pass both before we had 72 minutes to read them, much less the 72 hours Pelosi and Obama promised but didn’t live up to.

Yes, ObamaDems don’t care about the poor, much less the lower and middle class, and it wouldn’t hurt the GOP to say so in just those moral terms. I think the elderly are quite conducive to hear that argument now after the assault on Medicare, don’t you? And now most surely are Indians that want to stay warm and have light bulbs in Arizona.

And aren’t Obama’s allies in California also causing a drought there as well?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Rasmussen Survey on Health Care Penalty for Uninsured

Some young and healthy Americans have decided not to purchase health insurance. A proposal has been made that would require them to either purchase health insurance or pay a $750 penalty each year. Do you favor or oppose requiring young and healthy Americans to either purchase health insurance or pay a $750 penalty each year?

• Favor 32%
• Oppose 55%

Survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted October 4-5. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Among voters ages 18 to 29, 29% favor the provision, known as “the individual mandate,” while 57% are opposed to it.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of men oppose the enforced health insurance proposal, compared to 50% of women. African-American voters are nearly twice as likely as whites to support it.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose requiring young and healthy Americans to either buy health insurance or pay an annual penalty. Among Democrats, on the other hand, 46% think the provision is a good idea, while 33% oppose it.

PPP (D) North Carolina Political Survey

When you watch cable news, do you prefer CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC?

• Fox News 49%
• CNN 31%
• MSNBC 13%
• Never watch cable 7%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 45% {45%} (46%) [49%]
• Disapprove 49% {51%} (47%) [44%]

Among Independents

• Approve 41% {39%} (40%) [44%]
• Disapprove 51% {56%} (46%) [44%]

Among Fox News Viewers

• Approve 18%
• Disapprove 79%

Among CNN Viewers

• Approve 75%
• Disapprove 19%

Among MSNBC Viewers

• Approve 76%
• Disapprove 16%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 38% {40%} (39%)
• Oppose 53% {52%} (50%)

Among Independents

• Support 36% {34%} (43%)
• Oppose 58% {55%} (47%)

Among Fox News Viewers

• Support 11%
• Oppose 82%

Among CNN Viewers

• Support 66%
• Oppose 24%

Among MSNBC Viewers

• Support 70%
• Oppose 16%

Do you think that Barack Obama is a liberal, a moderate, or a conservative?

• Liberal 62%
• Moderate 32%
• Conservative 7%

Among Fox News Viewers

• Liberal 84%
• Moderate 10%
• Conservative 5%

Among CNN Viewers

• Liberal 40%
• Moderate 51%
• Conservative 9%

Among MSNBC Viewers

• Liberal 36%
• Moderate 54%
• Conservative 10%

Do you think that going to Denmark to campaign for the United States to host the Olympics was an appropriate use of President Obama’s time?

• Yes 38%
• No 55%

Among Fox News Viewers

• Yes 13%
• No 83%

Among CNN Viewers

• Yes 63%
• No 28%

Among MSNBC Viewers

• Yes 67%
• No 21%

Survey of 683 voters was conducted October 2-4. The margin of error is +/- 3.8 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 43% {46%} (44%) Democrat; 37% {35%} (37%) Republican; 20% {20%} (20%) Independent. Political views: 47% {43%} (38%) Conservative; 37% {39%} (47%) Moderate; 16% {18%} (15%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted September 2-8 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 4-10 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 10-12 are in brackets.

Sarah Palin remains the brightest star on the GOP roster, but another figure has emerged to galvanize America’s conservative base. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, 53, was elected in 2006 in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District, which includes the suburbs of Minneapolis/St. Paul, not the friendliest territory for a pro-life, pro-drilling, anti-tax increase critic of President Obama’s “economic Marxism.” Re-elected in 2008 — not the friendliest year for Republicans — Bachmann is attractive, outspoken, accomplished (mother, foster mother to over 20 children, tax attorney and businesswoman) and could well find herself contending for a spot on a future national ticket.

Or probably not. Bachmann, recently immortalized as an action- figure doll, has already provoked enough outrage from the left to be considered a lightning rod. A quick perusal of the Internet, at sites such as The Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Dump Michelle Bachmann and numerous others confirms it — they hate her. A detractor noted that when she speaks, people don’t just listen, they gape. She was chided by the head of the Minnesota Democratic Party for questioning the patriotism of Barack and Michelle Obama (Bachmann’s name and Joe McCarthy yield over 20,000 search results). She publicly expressed disdain for radical Muslims (after the famous ‘flying imams’ were allegedly subjected to unnecessary scrutiny) and even vowed to give as little information as possible to census takers. In opposing an energy tax, she announced that she wanted the people of Minnesota armed and dangerous, which her supporters claim meant armed with the truth.

Controversial remarks aside, capitalism and limited government mark her legislative agenda. She strongly favors domestic energy production (imagine her and Sarah Palin writing national energy policy — would liberals then finally up and move to France?), including sponsorship of a bill to allow private companies to build up to 50 nuclear power plants. She opposed a congressional pay hike and her support for state and local control of education stretches back to the early 90s when she opened a charter school. More recently, she opposed the financial bailouts. If conservative activism against the Obama agenda wanes, she could easily re-ignite the fires. In fact, she has attended countless Tea Party and anti-Obama Administration events. She is clearly one of conservatism’s most tireless messengers — small wonder that in the final days of the 2008 campaign the national Democrat machine redoubled its efforts to defeat her.

So would that be all the more reason to run her for VP in 2012 or ‘16? Should her possible ascension to national prominence be dismissed outright because the left has marginalized her? Should party faithful not consider her conviction and stamina, both of which she possesses in abundance?

Ultimately, of course, she will have to craft an image for herself distinct from the polarized caricatures courtesy of both supporters and detractors. She has served the conservative cause loyally (even conceding that her rhetoric could use some softening) — would the Republican hierarchy return the favor if she ran for the US Senate or governor — or an even higher post?

None of which may ever matter. Every political watcher vies to be the first to spot the next rising star, especially on the GOP side. Observing trends, however, becomes a sport unto itself, while the true mark of public service does not necessarily foretell a spot on a presidential ticket. How well does she serve her district? That, of course, depends on who you ask. Great leaders earn their distinction not by charisma or star potential but by forging ahead and staying true to principle. The day-to-day necessities of staving off the Obama agenda — proposing legislation, speaking to and for average Americans — she performs gleefully. Her take-no-prisoners approach to public discourse marks a bold contrast to the over-congeniality of President Bush and John McCain. The best advice conservatives can offer her is to not polish her image or hire a marketing firm but just keep on keeping’ on.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-David Bozeman is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Quinnipiac Survey on Afghanistan

Do you happen to know why the United States sent troops to Afghanistan 8 years ago?

CORRECT IS ANY ANSWER THAT REFERS TO: 9/11, Taliban, Twin Towers, terrorists, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.

• Yes/Correct 65%
• Don’t know/Wrong 33%

Percentage of brain dead Americans who don’t know why the U.S. sent troops to Afghanistan in 2001:

• Income > $100K 18%
• Men 22%
• Republicans 26%
• Independents 29%
• Whites 29%
• Hispanics 35%
• Democrats 42%
• Income < $50K 42%
• Women 43%
• Blacks 62%

Do you think the number of US troops in Afghanistan should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?

• Increased 38%
• Kept the same 21%
• Decreased 28%

Among Democrats

• Increased 24%
• Kept the same 26%
• Decreased 37%

Among Republicans

• Increased 54%
• Kept the same 19%
• Decreased 14%

Among Independents

• Increased 40%
• Kept the same 19%
• Decreased 28%

Do you think that the United States needs to increase American troops in Afghanistan in order to win the war or not?

• Yes 44%
• No 43%

Among Democrats

• Yes 29%
• No 57%

Among Republicans

• Yes 60%
• No 30%

Among Independents

• Yes 47%
• No 40%

How much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of US troops remain in Afghanistan – less than a year, one to two years, two to five years, five to ten years, or as long as it takes?

• Less than a year 28%
• One to two years 21%
• Two to five years 14%
• Five to ten years 2%
• As long as it takes 30%

Among Democrats

• Less than a year 38%
• One to two years 29%
• Two to five years 11%
• Five to ten years 1%
• As long as it takes 16%

Among Republicans

• Less than a year 13%
• One to two years 16%
• Two to five years 19%
• Five to ten years 1%
• As long as it takes 46%

Among Independents

• Less than a year 28%
• One to two years 18%
• Two to five years 15%
• Five to ten years 2%
• As long as it takes 31%

Do you trust the US military to make the right recommendations about U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan or not?

• Yes 81%
• No 15%

Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?

• Doing the right thing 52%
• Should not be involved 37%

Do you think eliminating the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for or not?

• Yes 65%
• No 28%

(more…)

There are multiple examples of how President Barack Obama has reneged on his promise to bring “transparency and accountability” to Washington, D.C., but fewer are more egregious than his cow-towing to labor leaders on the issue of union financial disclosure.

By rescinding Bush-era disclosure requirements for labor union leaders, Obama is swinging the door wide open to rampant corruption and systemic abuse. This decision represents a dangerous shift in federal policy – one that will no doubt be exacerbated by Obama’s appointment of top labor leaders to key enforcement positions within the federal government.

Instead of fulfilling his promise of “accountability,” Obama has now put the fox in charge of guarding the hen house with respect to U.S. labor policy. And instead of honoring his pledge of “transparency,” Obama has decided to strip away one of the few tools the public had at its disposal to hold union leaders accountable.

Why are these latest Obama hypocrisies worth noting?

First, they represent “pay-to-play” corruption on a sweeping, fundamental level. Labor unions gave Obama and Democratic Congressional candidates over $100 million during the last election cycle. In addition to these contributions, Obama and Democratic candidates also benefited from the efforts of a 450,000-strong “voter registration and mobilization” army of union employees.

This is where the most glaring hypocrisy comes into play.

Obama’s stunning reversal on the issue of union disclosure is more than just the latest “payback” to union leaders. Sadly, it’s a betrayal of the American workers whose money and sweat were tapped by union big-wigs to help elect Obama and his Democratic majority.

Take Tyrone Freeman, president of the Los Angeles local Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Freeman was forced to resign his post after federal filings showed that he spent hundreds of thousands of union dollars on companies owned by his family members. Freeman also billed the union $8,100 for expenses related to his wedding in Hawaii.

Then there is the case of Annelle Grajeda, executive VP of the national SEIU, who resigned after she was caught paying her boyfriend tens of thousands of dollars with union money, or Rickman Jackson, the Michigan-based SEIU leader who resigned his position after he was caught renting his home to a union-sponsored nonprofit and receiving nearly $200,000 in “surplus” compensation from non-Michigan unions.

Most recently, we have the stunning defeat of Ernie Duran, Jr. – the president of Colorado’s United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 – who was booted from office after it was revealed that he gave his son Ernie Duran III and daughter Crisanta Duran annual salaries of $134,000. Duran also expensed top-shelf margaritas, a new blue tooth and Denver Broncos’ tickets to union members.

All of these examples of waste and corruption came to light thanks to Bush-era disclosure requirements that enabled the public, press and union members to see how union leaders were spending their hard-earned dues. Unions are compelled to disclose given their various government-granted social powers (including the collection of mandatory dues) and their increasing institutional reliance on taxpayer-funded support services. Were it not for heavy federal involvement in labor policy, unions operating in a free market could insist on privacy and enter into whatever agreements with employers they like. But since the federal government dictates a wide range of rules and conditions (most favorable to the unions), they have assumed a corresponding responsibility to oversee them.

Unfortunately for rank-and-file members, Obama now wants to go back to the “Wild West” system in which union leaders were permitted to spend money on whatever items they wanted without worrying about their members ever becoming the wiser.

How does this approach benefit the workers whose sweat and financial clout ultimately helped elect Obama?

It doesn’t. In fact, it all but guarantees that union employees will never know how their leaders are spending their dues – which is an open invitation to nepotism, cronyism and every form of corruption imaginable.

According to a 2009 Heritage Foundation report, over the last eight years the Office of Labor Management Standards has won 929 convictions against union officials for fraud and embezzlement – resulting in $93 million worth of court-ordered restitution to union members.

Of course the real impact of the union disclosure laws wasn’t necessarily the number of abuses they exposed, but the number of abuses they prevented because union leaders knew that their members would be able to track individual financial expenditures.

Over the last three decades, American workers have been rejecting unions with increasing frequency – with corruption invariably ranking among the top reasons. Rather than living up to his rhetoric and rooting out this corruption, however, Obama seems intent on working with union leaders to cover it up.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-The author is Chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

There can be little doubt about who wears the black hats in the new, myopically focused, socialistically inspired drama of the Old West by, and starring, FCC Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd.

The villains in Lloyd’s saga are the commercial owners of radio stations, like Clear Channel Communications, who typically have “stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market.” Portrayed by him as being analogous to the cattle barons of the Old West, who greedily come into town and gobble up scarce resources and leave the local population in the lurch, these corporate station owners are represented as doing the same with the limited broadcast resources throughout the land.

And it just so happens, Lloyd’s research tells him, that the stations in the possession of these group owners “were statistically more likely to air conservative talk.” Furthermore, he claims that, in markets where there is “a clear demand and proven success of progressive talk” these dastardly bullies “still elect to stack the airwaves with one-sided broadcasting.” In short, the game plan of these feckless capitalists is to go broke.

These are just some of the inane conclusions reached in Mr. Lloyd’s much discussed article, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”

Elsewhere, Lloyd claims to take the side of his much maligned townsfolk in a piece called “Local Media Diversity Matters.” Ostensibly defending their “Constitutional rights of free speech” he claims, “Americans’ ability to learn about and debate local, state and national issues and to monitor our representatives depends upon our exposure to news and discussion that is not controlled by a small group of mostly like-minded corporations.”

Leaving aside that he somehow forgot to add the obligatory word “evil” before “corporations,” it seemingly never occurs to him that this “small group” may, in fact, express the free-market friendly views of the many ordinary Americans who choose to listen to their radio programming. He seems to ascribe to the Marxist illusion that views supportive of free-markets can’t be the real beliefs of ordinary people.

Meanwhile, back in town, some of the citizens, meeting at the local courthouse, are calling on Marshall Lloyd to save the day by making the FCC reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine.” Lloyd declines, explaining that he does not believe that repeal of the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987 caused conservative radio to dominate the airwaves. So, simply reinstating it will not fix the “problem.”

What he thinks really caused the consolidation of ownership in radio stations, and the explosion in numbers of conservative talk radio stations nationwide, was an action by the FCC in 2003 “that substantially relaxed a wide range of media ownership regulations,” in part by the creation of a new Diversity Index.

Now Lloyd intends to rectify the situation by applying a newly developed, anti-free-enterprise formula for measuring media diversity in local communities. He holds that it will, “measure media diversity according to democratic values, not market values” (Exactly which democratic values are diametrically opposed to market values he doesn’t make clear.)

And exactly what anti-democratic values will his diversity formula overcome. Well, in an article entitled “Forget the Fairness Doctrine” he observes that, even in its heyday in the 1960s, it did not address the fact that the mainstream media was “middle-class, anti-communist, Protestant, male and white.”

His earlier research tells him, that “stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.” So, he wishes to use the power of government, as embodied in his new diversity formula as a tool for wresting the licenses, and station ownership, of groups now supporting conservative talk radio so that he may redistribute them to those he considers worthy of his largesse.

What a fine example of the Marxist principle of the redistribution of wealth from someone who praised Chavez’ Communist takeover of Venezuela as an “incredible revolution” and who has voiced the view that Chavez had it right when he shrewdly took over 200 stations owned by land-owners who represented his political opposition. Mark Lloyd has, it seems, learned well from his de facto mentor.

And does anyone with one iota of common sense really think that Lloyd’s planned move to squelch the Left’s conservative talk radio opposition, no matter what its ostensible justification, is anything other than the same sort of stark political power grab that Chavez master-minded in Venezuela—under the guise, of course, of helping the people?

Conservative talk radio virtually saved the entire medium of AM radio from oblivion in the 1980s. If anything, its proponents are heroes for doing so. And I don’t therefore have a very good review to write of Lloyd’s western portraying them as the villains. I also don’t view him as wearing a white hat either. It is extremely alarming that someone whose core views are so obviously antagonistic to free-market capitalism has been given such a place of prominence in the increasingly bizarre Obama Administration.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Victor Morawski, a professor at Coppin State University, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Field Research California Political Survey

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

• Approve 60%
• Disapprove 31%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in handling the nation’s economy?

• Approve 60%
• Disapprove 35%

As you know, President Obama has proposed a plan to reform the nation’s health care system. Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the president’s health care reform package?

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in handling of the nation’s foreign policy?

• Approve 58%
• Disapprove 29%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in handling the war in Afghanistan?

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 31%

Do you think U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan should be increased, kept at about current levels or decreased?

• Increased 33%
• Kept at current levels 16%
• Decreased 37%

Survey of 1,005 registered voters was conducted September 18 – October 5. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percentage points.

SurveyUSA Kansas 2010 Senatorial Survey

• Jerry Moran 43% (38%)
• Todd Tiahrt 27% (32%)
• Undecided 30% (30%)

Survey of 475 likely GOP primary voters was conducted October 2-4. The margin of error is +/- 4.6 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 7-9 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Tiahrt, US Representative for Kansas’ 4th Congressional District, located toward the Southeastern part of the state, leads by 21 points in Southeastern Kansas. Moran, who represents Kansas’ 1st Congressional District, which takes up most of the Western two-thirds of the state, leads by 56 points in Western KS. In Northeastern KS, home to half the state’s population, 45% of likely voters are today undecided.

Kansas political parties decide before each primary whether the primary will be open to voters who are not affiliated with any political party; SurveyUSA includes unaffiliated voters here. They break 3:1 for Moran. Republicans break 4:3 for Moran.

AP/GfK Political Survey

Overall, please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president.

• Approve 56% [50%] (55%)
• Disapprove 39% [49%] (42%)

Overall, please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.

• Approve 33% [28%] (32%)
• Disapprove 64% [69%] (63%)

Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?

• Favor 33% (34%)
• Oppose 64% (63%)

Do you favor or oppose the war in Afghanistan?

• Favor 40% (44%)
• Oppose 57% (53%)

If you had to choose, which should be the primary focus of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan?

• Stabilizing the country, so that terrorists can’t use the country as a haven over the longer term 49%
• Identifying and eliminating existing terrorist threats, worrying about longer-term stability later 45%

Would you favor or oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan?

• Favor 46%
• Oppose 50%

Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling each of the following issues. How about…

The economy

• Approve 50% [44%] (50%)
• Disapprove 44% [52%] (46%)

Health care

• Approve 48% [42%] (50%)
• Disapprove 47% [52%] (43%)

Taxes

• Approve 47% [38%] (46%)
• Disapprove 41% [50%] (44%)

Federal budget deficit

• Approve 40% [33%] (39%)
• Disapprove 48% [56%] (51%)

Unemployment

• Approve 48% [40%] (49%)
• Disapprove 43% [49%] (40%)

Immigration

• Approve 39% [34%] (39%)
• Disapprove 42% [46%] (41%)

The situation in Afghanistan

• Approve 46% [46%] (55%)
• Disapprove 41% [40%] (32%)

The situation in Iraq

• Approve 50% [47%] (56%)
• Disapprove 37% [41%] (32%)

Terrorism

• Approve 53% [44%] (52%)
• Disapprove 35% [42%] (37%)

The environment

• Approve 54% [51%] (56%)
• Disapprove 28% [35%] (31%)

Energy

• Approve 55% [50%] (55%)
• Disapprove 30% [37%] (34%)

Gas prices

• Approve 49% [37%] (45%)
• Disapprove 28% [41%] (35%)

Relationships with other countries

• Approve 61% [53%] (58%)
• Disapprove 33% [37%] (33%)

Survey of 1,003 adults was conducted October 1-5. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 3-8 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 16-20 are in parentheses. Party ID breakdown: 43% (39%) Democrat; 32% (33%) Republican.

Obama’s safe school czar has been in some trouble lately.

Last week it came out that he encouraged a child to engage in risky sex with older men in train stations when he was a teacher a couple decades ago.

We know this because he has publicly spoken about it at homosexual activist events.

Some of his stranger comments at these homosexual activist events are starting to come out.

Now this is something that I’m sure many homosexual activists think and that’s fine.

However do we want a ‘safe school’ czar who feels the problem with the public school approach to sexual issues is that they promote heterosexuality?

Perhaps we ought to have a safe school czar that doesn’t have such a poor record of keeping students safe.

Perhaps we should have one who isn’t looking to pull a ‘code red‘ on the social conservative kids.

Rasmussen New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 47% <48%> {46%} (50%) [52%]
• Jon Corzine 44% <41%> {38%} (42%) [39%]
• Chris Daggett 6% <6%> {6%} (2%) [4%]
• Not sure 3% <5%> {10%} (7%) [5%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 44% <28%> {29%} / 27% <27%> {26%} {+17%}
• Chris Christie 46% <48%> {42%} (48%) [49%] / 50% <46%> {52%} (51%) [42%] {-4%}
• Jon Corzine 45% <39%> {45%} (36%) [37%] / 52% <60%> {54%} (61%) [62%] {-7%}

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 15% <14%> {13%} (14%) [11%]
• Somewhat approve 28% <24%> {27%} (21%) [26%]
• Somewhat disapprove 14% <16%> {21%} (24%) [19%]
• Strongly disapprove 41% <45%> {36%} (41%) [44%]

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

• Strongly approve 37% <39%> {34%} (35%) [36%]
• Somewhat approve 20% <14%> {19%} (20%) [20%]
• Somewhat disapprove 10% <9%> {16%} (9%) [8%]
• Strongly disapprove 32% <38%> {29%} (35%) [35%]

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Chris Christie 49% <47%> {46%} (48%) [45%]
• Jon Corzine 36% <33%> {31%} (28%) [35%]

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Chris Christie 48% <46%> {46%} (49%) [53%]
• Jon Corzine 28% <29%> {27%} (23%) [21%]

Which candidate is more likely to crack down on government corruption?

• Chris Christie 49% <48%> {44%} (47%) [50%]
• Jon Corzine 33% <28%> {32%} (25%) [28%]

Survey of 750 likely voters was conducted October 5. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 21 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 9 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 4 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

With less than a month to go until Election Day, one-third (33%) of New Jersey’s likely voters are either undecided or say they could change their minds about how they will vote for governor.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Garden State also finds that 21% of voters say they’d consider pulling the lever for a third party option, Chris Daggett. That includes 13% for whom Daggett is the first choice, five percent (5%) who current support Republican candidate Chris Christie and three percent (3%) who are planning to vote for Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine.

The latest polling shows that Corzine is within two points before leaners are included. Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate.

However, among voters who are certain of how they will vote and say they won’t change their minds, Christie does a bit better. The Republicans hopeful holds a five-point edge among those “certain” voters.

Where it gets especially interesting is among the third of the electorate who are undecided or could change their minds. Among these voters, Daggett is the first choice for 27%, Corzine for 24% and Christie for 22%. But most who prefer Daggett say they could change their minds before actually casting their votes.

Daggett is now viewed favorably by 44% and unfavorably by just 27%. However, just 15% have strong feelings about him, one way or the other.

Pew Research Survey on Iranian Nuclear Program (Bomb, Bomb Iran Edition)

In your opinion, which is more important — to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, or to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons?

• To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action 61%
• To avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons 24%

Among Democrats

• To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action 51%
• To avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons 31%

Among Republicans

• To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action 71%
• To avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons 16%

Among Independents

• To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action 66%
• To avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons 22%

From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the United States negotiating directly with Iran over the issue of its nuclear program?

• Approve 63%
• Disapprove 28%

From what you know, do you think the United States negotiating directly with Iran will or will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program?

• Will work 22%
• Will not work 64%

Among Democrats

• Will work 34%
• Will not work 47%

Among Republicans

• Will work 11%
• Will not work 81%

Among Independents

• Will work 19%
• Will not work 70%

Would you approve or disapprove of tougher international economic sanctions on Iran?

• Approve 78%
• Disapprove 12%

Do you think tougher international economic sanctions on Iran would or would not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program?

• Would work 32%
• Would not work 56%

How much confidence do you have in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with Iran?

• A great deal 17%
• A fair amount 34%
• Not too much 24%
• No confidence at all 20%

Survey of 1,500 adults was conducted September 30 – October 4. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% Independent; 34% Democrat; 23% Republican.

Rep. Mike Castle’s decision to challenge Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden in next year’s U.S. Senate race is significant because it tells us a lot about how GOP insiders feel regarding Republican prospects in next year’s midterms. Rumors have been swirling for months now that not only would Castle decline to run for this seat, but that he would retire from politics altogether. In giving up guaranteed reelection to his House seat, we can divine what Castle’s due diligence told him-2010 is shaping up to be a great cycle for the GOP.

The next important milestones are the results of the New Jersey and Virginia Governor’s races (among other scattered throughout the country.) Over 50% of winning Republican candidates in the 1994 cycle entered the race after the GOP successes of the November 1993 election. If Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell emerge victorious next month, expect a rush of announcements of A-List GOP candidates in House and Senate races, as well as retirement announcements of many current Democratic legislators in marginal districts.

For more on the Castle announcement, click the links below:

• Stu Rothenberg: “Cong. Mike Castle’s (R) entry into the U.S. Senate race to fill the remainder of Vice President Joe Biden’s term dramatically alters the dynamic of the race … We’re moving the Delaware Senate seat from Currently Safe for Democrats to Lean Takeover for the GOP.”

• Rasmussen: “The first Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 survey in the state finds that longtime Republican Congressman Mike Castle beats state Attorney General Beau Biden by five points – 47% to 42% – in a hypothetical match-up for the seat Biden’s father held for 36 years.”

• Sen. John Cornyn, Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC): “Mike Castle’s announcement today instantly transforms Delaware into one of the most competitive Senate races in the country in 2010.”

• Leon H. Wolf (Redstate): Castle’s expected entrance into the race instantly makes the race for one of the Democrats’ safest seats competitive.  It would also represent an important symbolic victory for the GOP if they can recapture the current VP’s old seat.

In 1932, FDR had an opportunity to change the conventional way that governments deal with a recession. His predecessor, Herbert Hoover, who also had a tendency towards central planning, had started the process. Instead of allowing markets to correct themselves as they had in all the previous panics, as depressions were then called, both men instituted programs of government intervention.

Hoover signed the Smoot Hawley tariff even after many of the leading economists of the time personally implored him not to sign it. A tariff would help improve farm prices, which was a cornerstone of the progressive movement. He asked businesses not to lower wages, as had been done in previous panics. Wages remained high but unemployment soared.

Although Roosevelt had campaigned on a platform of balanced budgets, once in office things changed. Many of his advisors were college professors and writers from within the progressive movement. Very few were trained economists, but several had been to Russia and seen Stalin’s central planning first hand. Others had an admiration of Benito Mussolini’s nationalization of industry in Italy. Once FDR was in office they were determined to apply what they had seen in America.

The utility industry had been one of the most highly leveraged industries to be affected by the Stock Market Crash, and was essential to industrial production. The newly developed utilities were grossly overvalued similar to the internet companies of the 1990’s or the housing industry of early last year. By 1932, utility stocks were worth a mere fraction of their 1929 value. FDR began to plan how the government would replace private utilities as a large scale electrical power producer. This would also enable him to take credit for providing thousands of construction jobs and control energy production. The first government utility was the Tennessee Valley Authority. It would provide power in the Appalachian region rather then allow private industry to electrify the area.

To prevent wages from going down in response to the demand for labor, FDR instituted the National Industrial Recovery Act, which allowed large business to form cartels in exchange for allowing unionization of their plants. This helped large businesses that had lower costs absorb the additional costs of unionization but was very damaging to small businesses. Wage rates were 25% higher than they should have been, but so was unemployment. Prices for goods were also 25% higher then they should have been.

When unemployment failed to go down as the result of the NIRA programs and the associated unionization, FDR instituted numerous make work programs through out America. These programs employed not only construction workers but also actors, artists and writers. These programs also greatly increased government expenditures and the national debt.

FDR and his progressive advisors generally resented those people that earn more then their college professor salaries, especially industrialists. They blamed industrialists for not hiring more people to reduce unemployment. This gave progressives justification to raise the marginal tax rates on the wealthy from 26% to above 90%. The wealthy responded by investing in other types of investments and their share of the total tax revenue actually fell during the Depression.

Even though the ideas and programs that FDR and the progressives instituted were not effective in preventing the stock market crash of 1929 from turning into the Great Depression, they were effective in creating a loyal voting base. By demonizing the wealthy, FDR was able to take credit for the government jobs his programs created at the expense of jobs in private industry that the provisions of the NIRA took away. FDR learned by 1935 that a crisis should never go to waste.

If this narrative sounds familiar, it should. The progressives of the 1920’s that had been shut out of politics since Wilson’s administration needed a crisis to return to power and institute their ideas of central planning in America. Today liberals are trying to do the same. Progressives of the 1930’s stifled industrial production with regulation and unionization and today they want to do the same. During the Depression, progressives wanted to control the production of energy, today they propose cap and trade to do the same thing.

Socialists then and now rely on the writings of the economist, John Maynard Keynes to justify large government spending programs to stimulate the economy. However, Keynes himself wrote to FDR in 1938 questioning his spending programs and why FDR would use only one aspect of his economic theories. The answer is very simple: government programs create the illusion of improving the economy. People only see the jobs created by government programs, never the jobs that are lost in the private sector to create them. Programs focus on the benefits that will be provided to a particular segment of society, never to who pays for those benefits. Progressive solutions buy votes but not economic prosperity.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

-David Nace is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

FDU PublicMind New Jersey 2009 Gubernatorial Election

In November there will be an election for governor. I know it’s early but if the election were held today who would you vote for … Jon Corzine, the Democrat or Chris Christie, the Republican?

• Jon Corzine 44% [42%] (39%)
• Chris Christie 43% [47%] (45%)
• Chris Daggett (vol.) 4%
• Neither/other (vol.) 4%
• Don’t know (vol.) 5%

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 52% [52%] (45%)
• Jon Corzine 30% [25%] (21%)
• Chris Daggett (vol.) 7%
• Neither/other (vol.) 6%
• Don’t know (vol.) 4%

Now let me ask that question in a slightly different way… if the election were held today, who would you vote for in a race between Jon Corzine, the Democrat, Chris Christie, the Republican, and Chris Daggett, the independent?

• Jon Corzine 38%
• Chris Christie 37%
• Chris Daggett 17%
• Neither/other (vol.) 2%
• Don’t know (vol.) 6%

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 45%
• Jon Corzine 24%
• Chris Daggett 23%
• Neither/other (vol.) 2%
• Don’t know (vol.) 6%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 16% / 7% {+9%}
• Chris Christie 35% [38%] (34%) / 42% [35%] (25%) {-7%}
• Jon Corzine 37% [37%] (31%) / 54% [54%] (54%) {-17%}

Among Independents

• Chris Daggett 23% / 6% {+17%}
• Chris Christie 40% [34%] (38%) / 40% [28%] (17%) {0%}
• Jon Corzine 33% [23%] (17%) / 59% [64%] (64%) {-26%}

Which candidate for New Jersey governor is better described by…?

Honest, trustworthy

• Jon Corzine 31% [31%] (24%)
• Chris Christie 28% [32%] (33%)

Understands the concerns of the average person

• Chris Christie 36% [43%] (40%)
• Jon Corzine 34% [30%] (28%)

Has the background and experience to be a good governor

• Jon Corzine 45% [45%] (42%)
• Chris Christie 29% [32%] (29%)

Regardless of which candidate you want to win, if you had to guess, who would you say is going to win the election for governor in November?

• Jon Corzine 49% [45%] (46%)
• Chris Christie 37% [41%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Jon Corzine 40% [36%] (34%)
• Chris Christie 38% [45%] (45%)

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Excellent 3% [3%] (2%)
• Good 26% [22%] (24%)
• Fair 35% [40%] (39%)
• Poor 34% [33%] (31%)

Among Independents

• Excellent 4% [2%] (2%)
• Good 15% [13%] (10%)
• Fair 31% [41%] (46%)
• Poor 51% [43%] (37%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Approve 38% [37%] (36%)
• Disapprove 50% [52%] (49%)

Among Independents

• Approve 33% [23%] (19%)
• Disapprove 60% [64%] (58%)

Survey of 667 likely voters was conducted September 28 – October 5. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 24-30 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 22-29 are in parentheses.

Viewed by some as a better alternative to ObamaCare because of its much-touted lack of the controversial Public Option, the Baucus plan may seem, with a little tweaking and fine-tuning, to be a promising route to a possible be-partisan compromise on Health Care Reform.

The Public Option in ObamaCare has given rise to fears of government rationing of Health Services.  Could the Baucus Plan now lay them to rest?  Clearly not everyone thinks so.  One mainstream news commentator has remarked that Republicans in particular were staying away from it, in part because it would make significant cuts to Medicare, hurting Seniors.

Those fears are justified and wildly understated.  BaucusCare launches an all-out frontal assault on Medicare and legally sanctions exactly the sort of rationing of health services most feared by those leery of the public option in ObamaCare.

The Comparative Effectiveness Research, which would recommend the provision of health services based on the results of a cost-benefit analysis, inevitably leads to rationing and denial of services.  These and similar phrases thus become mere euphemisms for rationing.

Senator Baucus showed awareness of this on June 9th when he quipped before a Brookings Institution-sponsored conference that the phrase “Comparative Effective Research” may just sound a little too ‘ominous’ and suggested substituting a softer expression like “patient-centered outcomes research” in its stead.  Or, he jokingly claimed,  just call it “Fred.”

According to a December 2007 CBO Paper Entitled “Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments,”  now “under current policy and law, Medicare generally covers any treatment or procedure that has net medical benefits—that is benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure—regardless of its costs….”(32).

Additionally “Medicare is effectively precluded from taking costs into account when making decisions about coverage” and would need “new legal authority”(29) to do so.  The Baucus Plan would give Medicare exactly this authority.

And what it now gives to Medicare it would like to see extended throughout the whole health system.  As pointed out in a White Paper outlining the essentials of BaucusCare entitled “Call to Action: Health Reform 2009,”  “Many of the proposals in the plan are based in the Medicare program because of its unique ability to lead the way for system-wide changes.”(36)

To carry out the comparative effectiveness research, the Baucus Plan would set up the “Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute” as an independent entity shielded from Congressional or other government oversight.(56)  It would perform functions similar to those of the British National Health Services’s  “National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), namely assessing “the full spectrum of clinical interventions, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, procedures, services and other therapies”(56) and making binding recommendations on its findings intended to guide clinical decisions by specifying a range of approved drugs and procedures.  But, the CBO paper observed, “to reduce health care spending, the results of comparative effectiveness analysis would ultimately have to change the behavior of doctors and patients—that is, to get them to use fewer…or less expensive services.”(30)

To force doctors to fall in line behind the Institute’s recommendations, the Baucus Plan would change Medicare’s payment structure from the current fee-for-service [pay-for-reporting] reimbursement system to what it calls a “pay for quality” model(42) because it says the former offers doctors little incentive to work toward quality and efficiency improvements(49).  The change would reward physicians for following the Institute’s recommendations and penalize them for not doing so, giving them a significant financial incentive for essentially rationing care.

Now, NICE is mentioned in the CBO paper as, “Perhaps the best known example of an agency that assesses comparative effectiveness….” (6)  Yet, it is for others also the best known example of a rationing board, because of its practice of screening drugs and procedures for approval via quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a decision procedure which decidedly favors the interests of the young over the old.  It is for Sarah Palin the very paradigm of a “Death Panel.”

Thus, if you would like to see health care decisions in the US governed by a rationing board similar to that which governs them in the British National Health Service then, for you, BaucusCare is a NICE alternative to ObamaCare!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Victor Morawski, a professor at Coppin State University, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Michigan has 14.1% unemployment. But don’t worry, because the state’s Democratic Party has a great plan.

The state chairman, Mark Brewer, wrote an op-ed for a local paper outlining the party’s plans for ballot initiatives, including:

• Raising the minimum hourly wage from $7.40 to $10.00
• Requiring all employers to provide health insurance
• Raising unemployment benefits by $100/week and extending them by an additional six months

That should just about finish Michigan off. A trifecta on increasing employment costs.

Assuming these things pass (and, given the track record of Michigan voters, they probably will) anybody want to speculate on where Michigan’s unemployment rate will top out?

Another ballot proposal is to cut utility rates by 20%, which might actually have a positive effect on business in the short term, by lowering energy costs, but will of course in the long run result in disinvestment and create energy shortages. And finally, a freeze on foreclosures, to discourage lenders from offering loans in the future.

If you have any more really great ideas for how to screw up a state, please send them to Mark Brewer. You can never have too many ways to discourage employment.

Andrew Sullivan, a British Tory through and through, posted a video on his site today in which he laments the dearth of Tory-style conservatism on the American Right. Andrew suggests, correctly in my view, that aside from a Jon Huntsman here and there, the Republican Party, and the American political scene in general, seem to be devoid of anything resembling an American version of Toryism, which Andrew considers the true conservatism, as opposed to Palinism, which he considers populist radicalism. I share Andrew’s desire for the Age of the American Tory (though I won’t be holding my breath), but I do not want to start a name-calling contest between the Sullivanites and the Palinistas over which are the “true conservatives.” The simple fact of the matter is that American conservatism will never look like the conservatism in other parts of the Anglosphere due largely to American culture, which is why guys like Andrew and John Derbyshire and, well, Yours Truly often feel like we don’t quite fit into the American political spectrum. Let’s just agree to agree that Palin and Sullivan are both conservatives, just different kinds of conservatives.

So what exactly is a Tory? Well, Kristofer Lorelli in a graphic from one of his posts last week gave us a perfect example of an American Tory: Tom Ridge. Another example is John McCain during his run for the White House in 2000. Because the American political spectrum is flat and one-dimensional, Tories have to be forced in, and are often mistaken for moderates because of this. But there’s a big difference between McCain/Ridge and Snowe/Collins. Tom Ridge enacted tax cuts as governor of Pennsylvania, kept spending growth to no more than three percent per year, supported charter schools, and tried to introduce competition in the arena of public utilities. McCain ’00 was so far to the right on spending that Bush ran to his left on the issue, claiming that McCain as president would defund important medical research. Can anyone imagine Republican moderates like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins doing any of this? McCain’s flinty ways led him to oppose Obama’s stimulus (which Snowe and Collins supported) and health care legislation (which Snowe flirted with). And yet McCain is a “moderate” simply because he supported doing something about health care during the 2008 campaign, which consisted of ending the tax advantage for employer-based plans in order to give tax credits to individuals to buy their own plans on the market.

Again, it’s not that we’re dealing with different types of moderates here. Snowe and Collins are centrists. McCain and Ridge are Tories. They are conservatives, just not anything that is recognized as right-wing in the American sense of the term. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost is the aspect of American culture that requires that a political or philosophical movement advocate big, sweeping changes. Toryism doesn’t do that. In fact, Toryism is the antithesis of grandiose changes introduced onto society from on high. But such a philosophy simply couldn’t make a movement in America, because Americans are the sorts of folks who simply won’t man the phone banks or go door-to-door on a cold New Hampshire morning unless they’re convinced that doing so will lead to the Human Life Amendment or to national, government-run health care.

Thus, American conservatism is one of sea change, while Toryism is a conservatism of caution. American conservatism is idealistic, while Toryism is skeptical. American conservatism seeks to save the world, while Toryism aims to prevent the world from collapsing in on itself for at least one more generation. American conservatism is radical, while Toryism is sober.

This is why the Am-Con views the Tory as a tepid and fair-weather friend: because the Tory is often simply against something while the Am-Con is also for something, and because the Tory is for organic and incremental change within society and government while the Am-Con demands radical change. The Am-Con and the Tory are both against judges acting as legislators, but the Am-Con is also for governmental policies that will advance tradition, or cultural conservatism, or sectarian values, while the Tory sees no role for government in such matters and is thus made the enemy of the Religious Right, a la John McCain in 2000. The Am-Con and the Tory are both against dramatic growth in government, but the Am-Con is also for big, sweeping tax cuts that the Tory often opposes given the Tory’s disgust for government debt. The Tory will modernize public policy when required, such as when the economy becomes so dynamic that a health care system solely based around employment makes no sense. But the Am-Con sees such revision of public policy as a validation of extra-constitutional government action and will have no part of it. The Am-Con wants the elimination of entitlements, the Tory knows they will never be eliminated and looks for ways to reorganize them. The Tory looks for ways to reduce abortions, the Am-Con will settle for nothing less than a total ban on abortions. The Tory is incremental, pragmatic, and practical, the Am-Con is philosophical, ideological, and absolute.

Unfortunately for American Tories, there really isn’t any chance that either political party will embrace their governing philosophy. America is an interesting organism. Americans demand that for something to be marketable, it be radical, and then they turn around and create a system of goverment that makes it next to impossible for anything radical to ever become law. It’s almost as if Americans are purposely electing True Believers on both ends of the political spectrum, pitting them against each other, and ending up with the gradual, incremental changes they really want, only with the True Believers doing all the work so that the pragmatic majority doesn’t have to. It’s actually quite clever. But that probably means that there won’t be any great American Tory presidents anytime soon.

SurveyUSA Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

• Bob McDonnell 54% {55%} (54%) [55%]
• Creigh Deeds 43% {41%} (42%) [40%]

Among Democrats

• Creigh Deeds 88% {85%} (80%) [86%]
• Bob McDonnell 11% {13%} (19%) [11%]

Among Moderates

• Creigh Deeds 56% {55%} (51%) [52%]
• Bob McDonnell 41% {41%} (42%) [44%]

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 54% {59%} (52%) [60%]
• Creigh Deeds 39% {35%} (41%) [35%]

Among Republicans

• Bob McDonnell 89% {89%} (88%) [88%]
• Creigh Deeds 9% {10%} (7%) [7%]

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 62% {57%} (56%) [61%]
• Creigh Deeds 36% {40%} (39%) [36%]

Among Women

• Creigh Deeds 49% {43%} (45%) [44%]
• Bob McDonnell 47% {53%} (52%) [49%]

Survey of 608 likely voters was conducted October 2-4. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 37% {37%} (36%) [38%] Republican; 32% {32%} (33%) [32%] Democrat; 30% {29%} (29%) [29%] Independent. Results from the poll conducted September 26-28 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 4 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 27-28 are in square brackets.