FreedomWorks

While researching another blog post, I came across an article that truly shocked me - which is really hard to do, given my familiarity with the Obama administration's free-spending ways.Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States government spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services. "According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."  (emphasis added) This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note. The article goes on to note that, "The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011." Now, look, as a Tea Party guy, I'm rather acutely aware of how much money Barack Obama has spent in his 4 years as President, but these numbers are just staggering - even for policy wonks and political veterans. One would think that all this spending on welfare programs would produce an appreciable decrease in poverty rates. After all, when spending per household on welfare programs is over 300% of the poverty level, the beneficiary households should be very comfortable indeed. One would, sadly, be wrong. According to the US Census, individuals below the poverty line have increased from just under 40 million in 2008 to over 46 million in 2010, an increase from 13.2% to 15.1% of our population. In other words, we've thrown WAY more money at the problem, which has paradoxically only made the problem worse. See, that's the problem. Government is presumed to know better how to spend your money better than you do. Reminds me of the quote from Bill Clinton: In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's response: "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In 2013 -- that's just 14 years away -- taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?' " (emphasis added)     Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999 Typifying the arrogance and conceit of DC elites, this quote also reveals a mindset that couldn't possibly conceive of waste, fraud and abuse inherent in their Rube Goldberg contraptions disguised as public assistance agencies. As Daniel Greenfield puts it, What the class warriors know and their critics often don’t understand is that the real welfare queens aren’t the ones shouting about voting for Obama because they’re getting free phones. They’re the ones who administer the free phone programs. The welfare state isn’t run for the benefit of welfare recipients, it’s run for the bureaucracy that dispenses welfare and their contractors, with the welfare recipients as the pretext for the whole scam.

In a recent report, the Congressional Research Service revealed that welfare spending has increased by 33% under Barack Obama, topping out at over $1 Trillion annually. As I pointed out in my previous post on the report, baseline spending on social programs has deliberately been driven up by the Obama administration, despite (or perhaps due to) the fact that they have failed to pass a budget in nearly four years. Table 2 in this report revealed something that should be obvious, but is lost on Keynsians and the bureaucrats who rely on their arguments to justify their existence. A classic argument from the Left is that in order to fix our economy, we must invest in education and job training. The logic goes a little like this: Train unemployed people for a new jobTax corporations and the rich to pay for itFunnel the money through government bureaucracy???NEW JOBS ARE CREATED! For those of us living in the real world, it seems obvious that merely increasing the pool of available workers might not be sufficient to create jobs. In fact, the Employment and Training section of Table 2 reveals just that: Note the increase in new obligations in worker training programs:  $22.8 BILLION from 2009 – 2011. Meanwhile, in that same period, the workforce participation rate has dropped from 65.6% to 63.6%. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is the lowest workforce participation rate since Ronald Reagan was cleaning up Jimmy Carter’s economy. You remember that – an economy so bad that a new word, stagflation, had to be invented to describe it. This should disabuse anyone of the notion that government creates jobs. Of course, the inherent conflict of interest that exists in the halls of government dictates that they have to sell themselves as essential to the public interest, lest bureacrats’ paychecks vanish and they be forced to survive in the free market.

In this episode, Rep. Tom Price focuses on another pair of policy areas in which he is heavily involved - taxes and energy. He talks about the tendency of politicians to just want to tinker with government controls in the economy, rather than shrinking government and leaving people to make economic decisions for themselves. Tea Time Interviewee:  Tom Price

Earlier yesterday, Team Obama was in full campaign mode despite the impending perils of the historical Hurricane Sandy.  Bill Clinton fired the original shot, fully politicizing the disastrous storm that was wreaking havoc on the east coast, essentially going with an 'if you think this storm is bad, wait until you see what happens if you vote Republican' blast.   No doubt, had this been a Romney surrogate making such comparisons, the Republican candidate would quickly be scolded as out of touch, and not ready to take the reins of the Presidency. Instead we have a completely different approach with your liberal media.  The Huffington Post ran a fact-less piece in which they accuse Romney of wanting to abolish the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  MSNBC also took their cue from the Obama campaign, politicizing the disaster by running an article explaining why Romney (as if he is the current President) is not ready for Hurricane Sandy. And lest you thought this talking point was simply going to melt into the background as word of the devastating impact of the storm began to circulate, the New York Times echoed the theme with a major op-ed published today on why Big Government is necessary to deal with a big storm, specifically attacking Mitt Romney while hailing the efforts of President Obama. The problem here is that the story is unfounded, and the real story of devastating cuts to FEMA are being completely ignored. In all of the above media examples, the Republican candidate is portrayed as wanting to decimate FEMA, with the Times even going so far as to say that Republicans in general oppose "the idea of free aid for poor people".  By contrast, the President is painted as the savior for such a necessary big government entity. Since Clinton and the media have opened the door however, let's go ahead and kick it in with a healthy dose of reality, analyzing exactly what the Obama administration will mean in terms of disaster relief through the President's budget sequestration proposal. Its effects on FEMA will be, in a word, disastrous. First off, we'll begin by noting that the idea of sequestration generated from the White House itself, despite efforts by the President to place blame on Congress. The Washington Post's fact-checker flatly called the idea of sequestration "a White House gambit", buoyed by a Bob Woodward book called The Price of Politics, in which members of the Obama administration proposed the idea to Senator Harry Reid.  The following excerpt (p. 339) explains the idea as presented by White House staff: “Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seemed tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from defense, and the other half from domestic programs." So what exactly do these sequestration budget cuts to domestic programs entail? According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):The Federal Emergency Management Agency Will Be Hit With $878 Million In Cuts.FEMA’s Disaster Relief Funding Will Be Hit With The Largest Cut At $580 MillionFEMA’s State & Local Programs Would Receive $183 Million In Cuts What's more, the OMB report explains just how devastating the Obama sequestration will be in other areas, along with FEMA: “On the nondefense side, sequestration would undermine investments vital to economic growth, threaten the safety and security of the American people, and cause severe harm to programs that benefit the middle-class, seniors, and children. … The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s ability to respond to incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events would be undermined.” Read that again.  The ability to respond to catastrophic events - such as Sandy - would be undermined by a political gambit straight from the Whit

In a completely deceitful report, the Center for American Progress Action Fund continued its disinformation campaign covering what the Center appears to believe are presidential election battleground states.  This particular report targeted voters in Colorado. The Center hired avowed communist and conspiracy theorist Van Jones after he was forced to resign as White House "Green Jobs Czar", the CAP Action Fund is its political arm. The CAP disinformation campaign involves a series of reports aimed at targeted groups of voters in swing states, attempting to persuade people to vote for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Here is the first paragraph of this particular report, with emphasis added to highlight the disputed portion: Behind dramatically different economic visions and a deluge of attack ads, this election comes down to numbers. Many Coloradans—and many families across the United States—are asking what this will mean at the kitchen table. What will be the cost of a second term of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden or a first term led by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)?  The answer is that, in concrete and quantifiable ways, a Romney-Ryan presidency would mean higher taxes for the middle class, out-of-pocket health expenses for current seniors, fewer college loans and fewer health care options for young people, and the re-introduction of corporate outsourcing tax loopholes that have sent so many jobs overseas. Let's take a look at each of these claims, because as silly as each of them is, someone has to say they're silly.Higher taxes for the middle class The Romney tax plan is explicitly to lower marginal rates for all earners, including those for middle income earners. He plans to lower tax rates for higher income earners, as well, doing away with deductions to simplify interaction with the government. Romney says he will lead Congress to limit deductions in such a way that lowering rates for upper income earners is revenue-neutral. The Tax Policy Center study on which the CAP claims are largely based doesn't contemplate a dynamic economy that grows more when taxation is lower.   The claim that Romney will raise taxes on middle income earners (despite his plan actually lowering them) relies on bitter pessimism that the economy won't rebound, even, or especially, with lower tax rates. Out-of-pocket health expenses for current seniors The Ryan plan, and all other Medicare reform plans supported by the Romney/Ryan campaign, do not apply to current seniors. CAP, and the rest of the Obama campaign machine, are simply lying. Obamacare, on the other hand, does apply to current seniors. While Obamacare doesn't cut benefits to seniors directly, it does slash reimbursement rates for doctors, so that they will stop seeing Medicare patients.  Seniors will be forced to wait longer and longer to see a doctor.  In addition, Obamacare cuts back on Medicare Advantage, one of the more market-based parts of Medicare. The cuts are being illegally masked until after the election.  Fewer college loans This is another scare tactic from CAP. Despite the inflationary nature of college loans, Romney has no plans to reduce them. As part of repealing Obamacare, however, Romney would get rid of the virtual government monopoly on student loans. Before Obamacare nationalized them, such loans were popular, and banks were happy to offer them. Easy student loans are a primary cause of increased college costs, as schools know they can charge outrageous sums for tuition and innocent students will continue to pay them. The painful, decade-long battle people have repaying their student loans make it difficult to see how saddling people with more of them is a good thing, but neither candidate for President is talking about cutting back on them. Fewer health care options for young people  Obamacare forces young people to buy full-ride health insurance i

In this episode, Congressman Price talks more about his medical background, and how government intrusion into health care affected his ability to run his private practice.  He talks about his ideas for health care reform that focuses on patient-centered care.  Tea Time Interviewee:  Tom Price

James O'Keefe has conducted many operations that expose attempts to commit voter fraud. Today, he's out with a bombshell.Watch our Project Veritas reporter being educated on how to properly commit massive voter fraud by the son of a sitting US Congressman. Patrick Moran, son of Congressman James Moran, discusses forging utility bills and impersonating pollsters, all for the goal of circumventing voter ID laws in Virginia and casting ballots for unsuspecting inactive voters within the state for Barack Obama. Patrick Moran holds the salaried title of Field Director for his father's congressional campaign, and assures our reporter that "committee" lawyers will defend his fraud if the forged documents "look good". Here are the important points of the transcript of the conversation between a reporter and Patrick Moran: Reporter:   Do you know two people … Can you give me two names to help us with that?  Two names of people who are fervent, who maybe I can trust?  Moran:   I don't know.  It’s going to be tough.  It’s going to be tough with the … you got to stuff that card.  Reporter:   Okay. He actually double voted in 2008 and got away with it.  Moran:   Did he?  Reporter:   Yeah.  Moran:   (Laughs) So it’s going to be with the new voter ID laws as well… Reporter:   He’s got a few in D.C. He’s got some in Maryland as well.  Moran:   And I imagine he’ll be using… Reporter:   You and me.  Moran:   Yeah.  But like utility bills or something like that.  He’ll need bills.  He’ll need something with the name and their address on it.  Reporter:   He’s telling me if they’re going to be hesitant to enforce it.  He’s telling me it’s a law but there’s law and then there’s enforcement.  Moran:   And there will be a lot of voter protection.  So if they just have the utility bill or a statement (inaud.) will obviously be tough … but they can fake a utility bill with ease.  Reporter:   How would you do that?  Moran:   I mean I would just buy (inaud.) Reporter:   Microsoft Word and type it up.  Moran:   Yeah, something like that.  I don't know, but that’s tough man.  I mean, like … I feel like all the energy that you’re going to be putting into this, I think it would be much better suited finding out with just the in place GOTB (ph.) stuff, because all that stuff you’re kind of getting people that haven’t voted in a long time and that energy that you’d be putting in in trying to like ensure that it went through without a hitch and the risk to your name, I feel like plug it in and going to some underperforming districts. There’s a push down in Mount Vernon and like Prince William and places like that where OFA is trying to get it going, but they, you know, it’s largely minority population, people that just haven’t been plugged in and people that have been plugged in like Republican districts and they’re just not enthused.   And he straight up says "you'll have to forge" a utility bill in order to comply with the new voter ID laws. From page 9-10: Reporter:   If we get some people to help us.  We won’t have to go, maybe someone else will and we’ll scale up elsewhere.  But he’s got name and address, that’s the best bet?  Moran:   Well, no, you need … it has to be … look at the law.  Reporter:   Okay. M:   But it has to be like a utility bill or something like that.  So you have to forge it.   Then, he encourages them to pretend to be pollsters and call the people they're planning on voting for ahead of time. From page 14: R:   Pretend to be a pollster?  M:   Yeah.  Do you guys plan on voting, on November 6th?  And go on from there and then depending on their answer j

In this morning's Washington Post, economist Robert J. Samuelson notes that even as campaign 2012 enters its final fortnight, the wheels of President Obama's bureaucracy are turning furiously to implement the president's controversial health care law. The IRS, Samuelson notes, has "issued an 18-page, single-spaced notice explaining how to distinguish between full-time and part-time workers under" ObamaCare. Samuelson pulls a typical quote from the mind-numbing regulation: This notice expands the safe harbor method described in a previous notice to provide employers the option to use a look-back measurement period of up to 12 months to determine whether new variable hour employees or seasonal employees are full-time employees, without being subject to a payment under section 4980H for this period with respect to those employees. Samuelson comments: Obamacare’s relentless march to full-fledged introduction in 2014 demonstrates that, for all its good intentions, it will make the health-care system more confusing, costly and contentious. It won’t control health spending — the system’s main problem — and will weaken job creation. ObamaCare dominated the 2010 elections, and arguably remains the most powerful domestic policy issue of this election.  We're now two full years into the "implementation phase" of the government takeover of health care. During that time, the case for full repeal has only gotten stronger. That's why we've prepared a new publication for activists, bloggers, and interested citizens: Top Ten Reasons to Repeal ObamaCare:It’s unconstitutional.It will drive up health insurance costs.It will cause millions of Americans to lose their workplace health benefits.It will force us to purchase government-controlled health insurance.It will greatly increase the deficit.It imposes 18 new taxes, including an expensive tax on medical devices and the first-ever tax on workplace health benefits.It will lead to bureaucratic rationing of health care.It violates freedom of conscience.It’s unpopular.There’s a better way. For more information, check our the full document.  Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy. He leads our efforts to reverse the government takeover of health care and adopt a patient-centered approach. MORE INFORMATION Top Ten Reasons to Repeal ObamaCare Freedomworks' Five-Point Plan to Fully Repeal ObamaCare FreedomWorks' Health Care Strategy MemosFreedomWorks: Our Favorite Bills to Replace ObamaCare Ben Domenech: The Media's 'Republicans Have No Obamacare Replacement' Myth FreedomWorks Live: The "How to Beat ObamaCare" Series Health Reform in One Lesson ObamaCare in One Image File Attachments Top_10_ObamaCare_Repeal_-_2012_-_long_version.pdf923.75 KB

By Rachel Pulaski and Jim Hoft On Thursday, the Senate Budget Committee released a startling welfare spending report based on a new Congressional Research Study.  According to the report in 2011 the United States spent $1.028 trillion dollars on welfare, which is more than the states and federal government spent on Social Security, Non-Military Defense or Medicare.   The federal spending on welfare entitlements now accounts for one fifth of the federal budget and consumes over 5% of the GDP.  This is almost a 30% spending increase since the start of the Obama Administration.  The CRS report focused on over 80 benefit programs for low-income families including food stamps, low incomes housing, cash assistance, energy assistance and tax credits for low income families. The federal government spent 745.84 billion in 2011 on welfare programs, a 32% increase since 2008 and the individual states spent $282.7 billion in 2011 showing a 29% increase since 2008.  The CRS report also points out that the food assistance program had the greatest increase, from 2008 to 2011 the United States increased its spending by 71% and the spending for energy assistance programs increased 67% from 2008 to 2011.  The most expensive program on the list is Medicaid which jumped from $82 billion in federal spending in 2008 to $296 billion in 2011.  According to washingtontimes.com the majority of the funds that boosted these programs came from the 2009 stimulus. Fox News reported on some of the reasons for such dramatic increases in spending on these programs: The number of people enrolling in these benefits program has risen in part due to the recession and its aftermath. Record numbers of people, for example, have gone on food stamps as unemployment continues to hover near the 8 percent mark. Sessions office acknowledges that "persistently weak GDP growth" is "unquestionably a factor" in the rising budget for benefits programs. However, Sessions office claims federal policy has "explicitly encouraged growth in welfare enrollment -- combined with a weakening of welfare standards and rules." Republicans have, for example, accused the Obama administration of trying to loosen welfare requirements, though the administration claims it is just trying to give states the kind of flexibility they have sought. Sessions has also claimed that food stamp administrators have proactively tried to enroll people even when they might not necessarily need the assistance. Once intended as a temporary  “band aid” to help those during tough personal times or during recessions, entitlements have become permanent.   They inhibit one’s personal growth in life and undermine a person's own decisions, resulting in weakened family foundations.  These entitlements may have first started with good intentions to help those in need instead it has increased America’s need for more.  As the saying goes, “The road to hell was paved with good intentions”.  Unfortunately, unless the country changes direction and stops moving "forward" this great country will soon be that road to hell.  This was certainly not the “ hope and change” we were all looking for.

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representative and ask him or her to cosponsor H.R. 6567, the State Nutrition Assistance Flexibility Act. Introduced by Reps. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Paul Broun (R-GA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), and Jim Jordan (R-OH), it would enact much-needed reform of federal food welfare programs. The bill would specifically make food and nutrition programs more effective and affordable by combining the six food welfare programs contained within the Farm Bill into a single block grant to the states. The State Nutrition Assistance Flexibility Act would roll federal funding for this block grant back to FY2008 levels. This will save taxpayers money and encourage states to use the funds in an efficient manner. Taxpayers deserve to know how exactly their money is being spent. All of the money spent will be subjected to annual independent audits that will be made available to the general public. In order to discourage states from wasting funds, misused funds must be repaid to American taxpayers with an additional 10% penalty. Current federal food welfare programs are based on top-down regulatory controls from Washington. The State Nutrition Assistance would replace the following federal welfare programs: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) Community Food Projects, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. This would enable states to create their own nutrition programs based on the unique needs of their population. The State Nutrition Assistance Flexibility Act would save taxpayers money and grant states more flexibility to design the food welfare programs according to the needs and priorities of their own citizens. I urge you to call your representative and ask him or her to cosponsor H.R. 6567, the State Nutrition Assistance Flexibility Act. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this letter.] Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} File Attachments StateNutritionAssistanceFlexibilityAct.pdf27.35 KB

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia is the Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee (the 5th ranking Republican leadership spot). In this first episode, Congressman Price talks about his personal background, his medical experience, and his love for cooking and baseball. Rep. Price is also an orthopedic surgeon, and he talks from experience about how President Obama's takeover of health care affects doctors and hospitals. Tea Time Interviewee:  Tom Price

Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz, two Caucasian women, were denied admission to the University of Texas and subsequently filed suit alleging that the university’s selection process discriminated against them on the basis of race. Lower courts upheld its constitutionality in accordance with the Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) ruling. Michalewicz withdrew her suit, but Fisher filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in 2011. According to the plaintiff’s legal representation, the university’s “reintroduction of racial preferences is blatant racial balancing.” Fisher’s petition was granted in February. What follows is a background of the ongoing case. Fisher v. University of Texas The Supreme Court listened to oral arguments Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal reported the hearing in real time. I’ll excerpt a few of the most important details.11:06 am | Much of the attention today will fall on Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom both sides see as the deciding vote. 11:28 am | A 4-4 split is possible. If the court does split, the lower-court ruling upholding the UT affirmative-action program will stand. 12:12 pm | Justice Kennedy, however, also appeared interested in the concerns raised by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito: How does the university know when it’s reached a critical mass of minority students? Remember, the court has ruled that quotas or targets aren't allowed. 12:26 pm | Justice Sotomayor suggests UT’s policy was motivated at least in part by a study showing that minority students felt isolated in the classroom. 12:42 pm | Does a 1/4 Hispanic check the Hispanic box or the ‘multiracial’ box on the application form?, Chief Justice Roberts asked. When [UT’s legal representation] said it was the applicant’s choice, the chief was ready with a follow-up: What about 1/8? Sidebar (yes, a brilliantly intended pun) — the succeeding 20- to 30-minute discussion on the ease of ‘affirmative action fraud’ is worth reading verbatim on the Journal’s website.1:16 pm | [Solicitor General Donald] Verrilli filed a brief on behalf of several government departments, including the Defense, Education, Commerce and Labor departments, asserting a “compelling” government interest in promoting racial and ethnic diversity. 1:26 pm | Justice Alito asks: Do you believe that black and Hispanic students from privileged backgrounds deserve a preference? Mr. Verrilli says that’s not how he understands the UT program. And, thus, oral arguments end here. The Journal predicts that a ruling will take at least a few months, but we can always try to forecast what will happen. Select Quotes from Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia (1995):To pursue the concept of racial entitlement — even for the most admirable and benign of purposes — is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. Clarence Thomas (2008):[Affirmative action] has become this mantra and there almost has become this secular religiosity about it. I think it almost trumps thinking. … We’re going to run into problems if we say the Constitution says we can consider race sometimes. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (2000):…discrepancies in racial well-being in the United States noted by the United Nations report demand affirmative government attention. … We are the losers if we neglect what others can tell us about endeavors to eradicate bias against women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups. Stephen Bryer (2004), on Grutter v. Bollinger’s upholding of affirmative action:I think it’s the most important case that I’ve participated in since I was appointed to the Supreme Court. … And if we cannot bring a degree of diversity into institutions across the United States, we will not have a country that will function as a democracy. John G. Roberts (2007):For schools that never segregated on the basis of race … or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation … the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the pub

It was just a few months ago that Fox News contributor Juan Williams was following the lead of his liberal media cohorts in pretending that voter fraud was a non-existent phenomenon.  He brushed the concept off as nothing more than an attempt to suppress Democrat voters in general, and minority voters more specifically.  Williams called GOP demands for voter ID laws a "fictional controversy", the equivalent of "yelling 'fire' when there is no fire". The fiction however, has long been reality, and thanks to an undercover investigative video from James O'Keefe, a new fire is raging, and it is Obama campaign staffers left holding the match. O'Keefe's Project Veritas has released multiple videos which show officials from President Obama's re-election campaign and a paid employee from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) conspiring to aid a 'supporter' in committing voter fraud across multiple states. In one video, Stephanie Caballero can be seen assisting an undercover reporter in registering to vote for President Obama in Florida, despite the fact that the reporter is making it clear they intend to vote twice (Florida and Texas). Caballero is a salaried employee of the DNC and the Regional Field Director for Obama's Organizing For America (OFA) in Houston, Texas.  The reporter states her intentions and adds, “it just really concerns me that if we don’t do everything we can we’re not going to win.”  Caballero, seemingly in agreement, indicates she will print out a Florida absentee ballot, which she indeed provides in a follow-up visit a few weeks later. The Daily Caller provides this exchange: Caballero gave her a Florida absentee ballot application to “help her vote twice.” After Caballero sets the videographer up to vote in Florida, she asked the Project Veritas investigator: “Are you going to do what I think you’re going do?” The videographer responded: “Well, I mean, if no one’s gonna know…” Caballero audibly laughed, then said: “You’re so hilarious!” “Okay I’m just going to print this out for you,” Caballero then said. Voter fraud.  Criminal activity.  Hilarious.   A second video shows OFA staffers providing undercover journalists with further advice on how to execute a successful double vote, as well as providing the paperwork to do so.  It also includes testimony from one Erin Haust, who despite not having lived in the state of Florida in over fourteen years cannot get her name removed from the voter rolls.   Watchdog.org explains the legal ramifications of what we are seeing in these stunning videos. "Casting more than one ballot in the same election is a violation of federal and state statutes. Experts said helping someone violate election law is also a crime." The  Franklin Center provided the specific legal statutes: “Federally, 42 USC § 1973gg is the strongest as it penalizes attempts to deprive residents of a fair election through false voter registration forms. 42 USC 1973i(c) is your other strong bet. There are more (like the antiquated 18 USC 597), but these 1973gg and 1973i(c) are your strongest federal options. Remember, policing election integrity occurs first at the state level, then goes up to the federal level. Under Texas law, pay attention to Section 273.001 of the Texas Election Code. It provides that if two or more registered voters present affidavits alleging criminal conduct in connection with the election to the county prosecutor, he shall investigate the matter. If the conduct concerns activities beyond one county, the state attorney general may be properly involved. And Texas imposes duties upon state registrars to ensure that voter registration forms are complete and true — see Tex. Elec. Code 15.021, 15.112, 15.051(a). Texas election law also permits voting contests to occur when there is evidence of fraud or mistake in connection with the administration of an election (e.g. registering false voters). See Tex. Elec. Code 221.003″ Upon viewi

During Wednesday night's presidential debate, President Obama and Mitt Romney disputed over the military budget.  Obama accused Romney of supporting “$2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for.” Instead of denying the repeated claim, Romney asserted that “I do not believe in cutting our military.” By refusing to cut military spending, Mitt Romney just took about 19 percent of  federal government spending off the table. The pie chart below produced by the Cato Institute’s Downsizing the Federal Government project shows that Pentagon spending is a large chunk of the federal budget:   As the American Conservative’s Jack Hunter writes in his recent column, it will be impossible to balance the federal budget with a $2 trillion increase in military spending. Of course, no one is advocating that the troops shouldn’t be properly paid. He goes on to say:If our soldiers are not paid enough, do not receive proper benefits, or do not have necessary weapons or essentials it is not because we don’t spend enough on the military. We currently spend more on our military than we ever have—and most of that money goes to fund a massive bureaucracy that has little to do with our actual defense. At a time when the official U.S. national debt has surpassed $16 trillion, it is time to put all federal spending on the table. More military spending won’t necessarily make us any safer. Hunter further writes that: America’s youth aren’t better educated isn’t because we don’t spend enough on education. Conservatives rightly understand this government dynamic when it comes to agencies like the Department of Education. They need to start understanding it when it comes to the Department of Defense. Jack Hunter is exactly right. We need more serious Republicans who are willing to eliminate unnecessary items in the Pentagon budget. It's good policy and good politics as over 74 percent of the American people favor cutting the Pentagon's budget. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

The following study demonstrates that the proposed revenue and tax increases being championed by President Obama will have a negligible impact on the ability of the federal government to finance entitlement programs over the next 15 years. Raising taxes risks economic growth without alleviating the budgetary crisis. Click HERE to read the study. File Attachments MTG.pdf744.24 KB