ST. CHARLES – The Randy Hultgren for Congress campaign issued the following statement today after the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 95,000 jobs were lost during the month of September.
“95,000 more Americans were handed a pink slip last month, and everyone is asking ‘when is this bleeding of jobs going to end?’” said State Senator Randy Hultgren, Republican candidate for Congress. “Bill Foster’s tenure in Congress has been nothing but a disappointment; the Foster-Pelosi economic agenda of spending, taxes and regulation has failed to get our economy moving and Illinoisans back to work.
“Bill Foster voted for the hundreds of billions of dollars of the so-called ‘stimulus’, which, we were told, would keep unemployment below 8 percent. The reality, however, is that unemployment has hovered just below 10 percent for more than a year, but Bill Foster continues to insist that the ‘stimulus’ worked.
“Bill Foster voted for every single spending bill, spending billions wastefully, but that didn’t stop the bleeding. He voted twice for a healthcare bill that has made small business owners uncertain, even fearful, and that has discouraged them from investing, expanding, or hiring, but that did nothing to control the cost of healthcare for struggling families. Bill Foster let Congress come home without voting on taxes, so that now working families and small business owners have no idea how much they’ll owe the IRS.
“It is painfully obvious that Bill Foster is part of the problem in Washington, and news that we’ve lost 95,000 more jobs is simply more evidence of that. The first step to putting Americans back to work will be putting an end to the Foster-Pelosi program of spending and economic stagnation.”
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Yes, President Bush, America does miss you
By Nile Gardiner
Several months ago a huge billboard appeared near Wyoming, Minnesota, with a beaming photo of George W. Bush with the caption “Miss me yet?” The answer to that question is clearly yes, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll, which shows the former president staging a remarkable political recovery despite having largely disappeared from public life since leaving office:
By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.
“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
This has to be one of the most extraordinary political comebacks in decades. And as this week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll showed, nearly 25 percent of Democrats now believe “a return to Bush’s policies would be good,” a staggeringly high figure. As The Post reports:
Obama and the Democrats have argued that if Republicans were to gain control of Congress, they would return to the policies of President George W. Bush. Two-thirds of Democrats share that view and say it would be bad for the country. But almost a quarter of Democrats say a GOP-led Congress would take the country in a new and better direction or say a return to Bush’s policies would be good.
The CNN poll is of course deeply humiliating for the White House, especially coming just three and a half weeks before the November mid-terms. George W. Bush’s resurgence is in large part due to mounting opposition to the Obama’s presidency’s left-wing agenda, but it is also spurred by Obama’s image as an out of touch, aloof and elitist president, divorced from economic and political reality on the ground.
A lot of Americans frankly miss the down-to-earth and significantly warmer leadership style promoted by President Bush, as well as his unfailing sense of optimism and heart-felt pride in America on the world stage. You certainly won’t ever find Bush apologising for his country or extending the hand of friendship to her enemies.
And when Bush’s memoir “Decision Points” is published on November 9th, I’m in no doubt it will storm The New York Times’ bestseller list riding a new wave of nostalgia for his time in office. George W. Bush is back in fashion with a vengeance, in marked contrast to his increasingly unpopular successor in the White House.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100058215/yes-president-bush-america-does-miss-you/
Several months ago a huge billboard appeared near Wyoming, Minnesota, with a beaming photo of George W. Bush with the caption “Miss me yet?” The answer to that question is clearly yes, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll, which shows the former president staging a remarkable political recovery despite having largely disappeared from public life since leaving office:
By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.
“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
This has to be one of the most extraordinary political comebacks in decades. And as this week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll showed, nearly 25 percent of Democrats now believe “a return to Bush’s policies would be good,” a staggeringly high figure. As The Post reports:
Obama and the Democrats have argued that if Republicans were to gain control of Congress, they would return to the policies of President George W. Bush. Two-thirds of Democrats share that view and say it would be bad for the country. But almost a quarter of Democrats say a GOP-led Congress would take the country in a new and better direction or say a return to Bush’s policies would be good.
The CNN poll is of course deeply humiliating for the White House, especially coming just three and a half weeks before the November mid-terms. George W. Bush’s resurgence is in large part due to mounting opposition to the Obama’s presidency’s left-wing agenda, but it is also spurred by Obama’s image as an out of touch, aloof and elitist president, divorced from economic and political reality on the ground.
A lot of Americans frankly miss the down-to-earth and significantly warmer leadership style promoted by President Bush, as well as his unfailing sense of optimism and heart-felt pride in America on the world stage. You certainly won’t ever find Bush apologising for his country or extending the hand of friendship to her enemies.
And when Bush’s memoir “Decision Points” is published on November 9th, I’m in no doubt it will storm The New York Times’ bestseller list riding a new wave of nostalgia for his time in office. George W. Bush is back in fashion with a vengeance, in marked contrast to his increasingly unpopular successor in the White House.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100058215/yes-president-bush-america-does-miss-you/
Supreme Court Considers Two Major 1st Amendment Cases
Thomas F. Roeser
1. Snyder v. Phelps Free Speech Case.
The irony here is this: Do heartless, stupid attention-grabbers have the right to free speech even as they denigrate the funerals of brave men and women who have laid down their lives to protect that right? The eccentric sliver of Protestants who attend the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas maintain that the U.S. is paying the price for immorality including toleration of homosexuality by the wars which take the lives of soldiers, which is evidence of God’s wrath.
The church charges that by accepting the legislative enactment of “don’t ask, don’t tell” instead of flatly banning homosexuals, the military is guilty of perverting God’s standards and hence everyone who serves is guilty and those killed in war are testimonials to God’s judgment in punishing America. Interestingly enough the Catholic church is cited since it alleges that Albert Snyder, father of fallen Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder taught his son to “defy his Creator by teaching him to support the largest pedophile machine in the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity.” Snyder is asking the Court to uphold a jury verdict of nearly $11 million (reduced later to $5 million) for intentional invasion of privacy
I would hope the Court rules that however repugnant, the church has a right under the 1st amendment to protest. Any tinkering with the 1st amendment even in this matter could lead to Court punishment of all sorts of unpopular statements including, under the rubric of “hate speech” (which I abjure) repression of homilies and speeches as seen in Sweden and Canada—usually on the side of censorship of expression of Natural Law-guaranteed rights. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is nothing more than a protection of privacy which we enjoy every day of our lives. Government should not have the right to pry into anyone’s private life.
It should be noted also that in the free marketplace of ideas where issues like this should be adjudicated, a group called “The Patriot Guard Riders”—motorcyclists who are military veterans—has organized to counter the ideas shouted by the Westboro-ites. There is another consideration that has to do with property rights. Assuming the cemetery is private property and the family purchased the burial plot, what Westboro is doing with its inflammatory signs (“God Hates Fags!” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”) could amount to trespass. Therefore the city could impose a reasonable distance away from the gravesite for these protesters similar to what Dearborn, Michigan does during its Islamic Day celebration. The worst thing that could happen is if Court liberals, using this isolated outrage as pretext, nudge the door open for further government regulation of dissent.
In this controversy someone who favors government regulation of speech is bound to cite…and misquote…Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dictum which purportedly held that freedom of speech does not give one the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre. The correct version of Holmes’ now cliché-ridden opinion contains the word “falsely”—one does not have the right to shout falsely “fire” in a crowded theatre. If the place is burning down you certainly do have the right but not to mislead.
2. Sossamon v. Texas.
Texas prison inmate Harvey Sossamon sued the state of Texas because he was not allowed to use the prison chapel which he alleges violated his religious freedom. It is true that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 protects the right of inmates to practice their faith and the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas had violated Sossamon’s rights by preventing him from using the chapel….but. But said the Court, Texas is not responsible for paying Sossamon damages. The Prison Fellowship argues, however, that by denying Sossamon the state cut him off from resources he needed to help him reform his life. The National Association of Evangelicals and the U. S. government filed briefs supporting him (Justice Kagan has recused herself).
I’m with the 5th Circuit. Chapel visits are not necessary to lead Sossamon to reform his life…even Catholic Mass and the sacraments (while desirable)… and while the state was culpable, he should not receive damages.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/supreme-court-considers-two-major-1st-amendment-cases/
1. Snyder v. Phelps Free Speech Case.
The irony here is this: Do heartless, stupid attention-grabbers have the right to free speech even as they denigrate the funerals of brave men and women who have laid down their lives to protect that right? The eccentric sliver of Protestants who attend the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas maintain that the U.S. is paying the price for immorality including toleration of homosexuality by the wars which take the lives of soldiers, which is evidence of God’s wrath.
The church charges that by accepting the legislative enactment of “don’t ask, don’t tell” instead of flatly banning homosexuals, the military is guilty of perverting God’s standards and hence everyone who serves is guilty and those killed in war are testimonials to God’s judgment in punishing America. Interestingly enough the Catholic church is cited since it alleges that Albert Snyder, father of fallen Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder taught his son to “defy his Creator by teaching him to support the largest pedophile machine in the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity.” Snyder is asking the Court to uphold a jury verdict of nearly $11 million (reduced later to $5 million) for intentional invasion of privacy
I would hope the Court rules that however repugnant, the church has a right under the 1st amendment to protest. Any tinkering with the 1st amendment even in this matter could lead to Court punishment of all sorts of unpopular statements including, under the rubric of “hate speech” (which I abjure) repression of homilies and speeches as seen in Sweden and Canada—usually on the side of censorship of expression of Natural Law-guaranteed rights. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is nothing more than a protection of privacy which we enjoy every day of our lives. Government should not have the right to pry into anyone’s private life.
It should be noted also that in the free marketplace of ideas where issues like this should be adjudicated, a group called “The Patriot Guard Riders”—motorcyclists who are military veterans—has organized to counter the ideas shouted by the Westboro-ites. There is another consideration that has to do with property rights. Assuming the cemetery is private property and the family purchased the burial plot, what Westboro is doing with its inflammatory signs (“God Hates Fags!” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”) could amount to trespass. Therefore the city could impose a reasonable distance away from the gravesite for these protesters similar to what Dearborn, Michigan does during its Islamic Day celebration. The worst thing that could happen is if Court liberals, using this isolated outrage as pretext, nudge the door open for further government regulation of dissent.
In this controversy someone who favors government regulation of speech is bound to cite…and misquote…Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dictum which purportedly held that freedom of speech does not give one the right to shout “fire!” in a crowded theatre. The correct version of Holmes’ now cliché-ridden opinion contains the word “falsely”—one does not have the right to shout falsely “fire” in a crowded theatre. If the place is burning down you certainly do have the right but not to mislead.
2. Sossamon v. Texas.
Texas prison inmate Harvey Sossamon sued the state of Texas because he was not allowed to use the prison chapel which he alleges violated his religious freedom. It is true that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 protects the right of inmates to practice their faith and the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas had violated Sossamon’s rights by preventing him from using the chapel….but. But said the Court, Texas is not responsible for paying Sossamon damages. The Prison Fellowship argues, however, that by denying Sossamon the state cut him off from resources he needed to help him reform his life. The National Association of Evangelicals and the U. S. government filed briefs supporting him (Justice Kagan has recused herself).
I’m with the 5th Circuit. Chapel visits are not necessary to lead Sossamon to reform his life…even Catholic Mass and the sacraments (while desirable)… and while the state was culpable, he should not receive damages.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/supreme-court-considers-two-major-1st-amendment-cases/
Rasmussen -Tea Party Participation Up As Election Nears
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Likely U.S. Voters now say they are Tea Party members or have close friends or family members who are part of the movement.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% describe themselves as members of the Tea Party, up four points from late August. Twelve percent (12%) more say they are not members themselves but have friends or family who are involved in the small government, anti-tax movement. (To see survey question wording, click here).
Just after Democrats in Congress passed the national health care bill in late March, 24% of voters said they were Tea Party members, with 10% more saying they had close friends or family members who were participants.
Unchanged from the previous survey are the 60% who now say they have no ties to the Tea Party, but that’s down from 69% in May. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 6-7, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Voters are now almost evenly divided in their views of the movement: 41% have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party; 40% view it unfavorably, and 19% are undecided. This is a slightly more critical assessment than was found in August.
Still, 47% believe the Tea Party movement is good for the country, a finding that hasn’t changed since May. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the movement is bad for America, while 14% say it’s neither.
The Tea Party movement arose out of voter unhappiness with the growth of government and spending under the Bush and Obama administrations. Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters now say they are angry at the policies of the federal government, with 43% who are Very Angry. Thirty-two percent (32%) don’t share that anger, with 14% who are Not At All Angry.
These findings show a continued lessening of anger overall, but the level of those who are Very Angry remains high. In previous surveys since last September, those angry at the government have ranged from 65% to 75%, with those who are Very Angry in the 33% to 46% range.
Thirty percent (30%) of Republicans and 17% of voters not affiliated with either major party say they are members of the Tea Party, compared to just five percent (5%) of Democrats.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement. Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats do not. Unaffiliateds are almost evenly divided in their views.
But then, most Democrats think most members of the Tea Party movement are racist. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters disagree.
A plurality (47%) of unaffiliateds agrees with the vast majority (77%) of Republicans that the Tea Party is good for the country. Most Democrats (57%) regard it as a bad thing.
Of course, 69% of unaffiliated voters, along with 89% of Republicans, are angry at the current policies of the federal government. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those in the president’s party are not very or not at all angry.
As is often the case, the gap is even wider between the Political Class and Mainstream voters. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Mainstream voters are angry about current government policies; 78% of the Political Class are not.
Most Mainstream voters (53%) have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Political Class voters view it unfavorably.
One-in-four Mainstream voters (24%) are members of the Tea Party, along with just two percent (2%) of those in the Political Class.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/tea_party_participation_up_as_election_nears
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% describe themselves as members of the Tea Party, up four points from late August. Twelve percent (12%) more say they are not members themselves but have friends or family who are involved in the small government, anti-tax movement. (To see survey question wording, click here).
Just after Democrats in Congress passed the national health care bill in late March, 24% of voters said they were Tea Party members, with 10% more saying they had close friends or family members who were participants.
Unchanged from the previous survey are the 60% who now say they have no ties to the Tea Party, but that’s down from 69% in May. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 6-7, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Voters are now almost evenly divided in their views of the movement: 41% have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party; 40% view it unfavorably, and 19% are undecided. This is a slightly more critical assessment than was found in August.
Still, 47% believe the Tea Party movement is good for the country, a finding that hasn’t changed since May. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the movement is bad for America, while 14% say it’s neither.
The Tea Party movement arose out of voter unhappiness with the growth of government and spending under the Bush and Obama administrations. Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters now say they are angry at the policies of the federal government, with 43% who are Very Angry. Thirty-two percent (32%) don’t share that anger, with 14% who are Not At All Angry.
These findings show a continued lessening of anger overall, but the level of those who are Very Angry remains high. In previous surveys since last September, those angry at the government have ranged from 65% to 75%, with those who are Very Angry in the 33% to 46% range.
Thirty percent (30%) of Republicans and 17% of voters not affiliated with either major party say they are members of the Tea Party, compared to just five percent (5%) of Democrats.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement. Seventy percent (70%) of Democrats do not. Unaffiliateds are almost evenly divided in their views.
But then, most Democrats think most members of the Tea Party movement are racist. Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters disagree.
A plurality (47%) of unaffiliateds agrees with the vast majority (77%) of Republicans that the Tea Party is good for the country. Most Democrats (57%) regard it as a bad thing.
Of course, 69% of unaffiliated voters, along with 89% of Republicans, are angry at the current policies of the federal government. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those in the president’s party are not very or not at all angry.
As is often the case, the gap is even wider between the Political Class and Mainstream voters. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Mainstream voters are angry about current government policies; 78% of the Political Class are not.
Most Mainstream voters (53%) have a favorable view of the Tea Party movement. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Political Class voters view it unfavorably.
One-in-four Mainstream voters (24%) are members of the Tea Party, along with just two percent (2%) of those in the Political Class.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/tea_party_participation_up_as_election_nears
Food Stamp Nation
By Pat Buchanan
The lessons of history ... show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address. FDR feared this self-reliant people might come to depend permanently upon government for the necessities of their daily lives. Like narcotics, such a dependency would destroy the fiber and spirit of the nation.
What brings his words to mind is news that 41.8 million Americans are on food stamps, and the White House estimates 43 million will soon be getting food stamps every month.
A seventh of the nation cannot even feed itself.
If you would chart America's decline, this program is a good place to begin. As a harbinger of the Great Society to come, in early 1964, a Food Stamp Act was signed into law by LBJ appropriating $75 million for 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three U.S. cities.
Yet, no one was starving. There had been no starvation since Jamestown, with such exceptions as the Donner Party caught in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846-47, who took to eating their dead.
Get Pat Buchanan's classic, "The Death of the West," autographed at low price
The Food Stamp Act became law half a decade after J.K. Galbraith in his best-seller had declared 1950s America to be the world's great Affluent Society.
Yet, when Richard Nixon took office, 3 million Americans were receiving food stamps at a cost of $270 million. Then CBS ran a program featuring a premature baby near death, and told us it was an infant starving to death in rich America. The nation demanded action, and Nixon acted.
By the time he left office in 1974, the food-stamp program was feeding 16 million Americans at an annual cost of $4 billion.
Fast forward to 2009. The cost to taxpayers of the U.S. food-stamp program hit $56 billion. The number of recipients and cost of the program exploded again last year.
Among the reasons is family disintegration. Forty percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent. Among African-Americans, it is 71 percent.
Food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers. Taxpayers are taking up the slack for America's deadbeat dads.
Have food stamps made America a healthier nation?
Consider New York City, where 1.7 million people, one in every five in the city, relies on food stamps for daily sustenance.
Obesity rates have soared. Forty percent of all the kids in city public schools from kindergarten through eighth grade are overweight or obese.
Among poor kids, whose families depend on food stamps, the percentages are far higher. Mothers of poor kids use food stamps to buy them sugar-heavy soda pop, candy and junk food.
Yet Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to the Department of Agriculture that recipients not be allowed to use food stamps to buy sugar-rich soft drinks has run into resistance.
"The world might be better ... if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages," said George Hacker of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not stigmatize people on food stamps."
The Department of Agriculture in 2004 denied a request by Minnesota that would have disallowed food stamp recipients from using them for junk food. To grant the request, said the department, would "perpetuate the myth" that food-stamps users make poor shopping decisions.
But is that a myth or an inconvenient truth?
What a changed country we have become in our expectations of ourselves. A less affluent America survived a Depression and world war without anything like the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, welfare payments, earned income tax credits, food stamps, rent supplements, day care, school lunches and Medicaid we have today.
Public or private charity were thought necessary, but were almost always to be temporary until a breadwinner could find work or a family could get back on its feet. The expectation was that almost everyone, with hard work and by keeping the nose to the grindstone, could make his or her own way in this free society. No more.
What we have accepted today is a vast permanent underclass of scores of millions who cannot cope and must be carried by the rest of society – fed, clothed, housed, tutored, medicated at taxpayers' expense for their entire lives. We have a new division in America: those who pay a double fare, and those who forever ride free.
We Americans are not only not the people our parents were, we are not the people we were. FDR was right about what would happen to the country if we did not get off the narcotic of welfare.
America has regrettably already undergone that "spiritual and moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national fiber."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=212741
The lessons of history ... show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address. FDR feared this self-reliant people might come to depend permanently upon government for the necessities of their daily lives. Like narcotics, such a dependency would destroy the fiber and spirit of the nation.
What brings his words to mind is news that 41.8 million Americans are on food stamps, and the White House estimates 43 million will soon be getting food stamps every month.
A seventh of the nation cannot even feed itself.
If you would chart America's decline, this program is a good place to begin. As a harbinger of the Great Society to come, in early 1964, a Food Stamp Act was signed into law by LBJ appropriating $75 million for 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three U.S. cities.
Yet, no one was starving. There had been no starvation since Jamestown, with such exceptions as the Donner Party caught in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846-47, who took to eating their dead.
Get Pat Buchanan's classic, "The Death of the West," autographed at low price
The Food Stamp Act became law half a decade after J.K. Galbraith in his best-seller had declared 1950s America to be the world's great Affluent Society.
Yet, when Richard Nixon took office, 3 million Americans were receiving food stamps at a cost of $270 million. Then CBS ran a program featuring a premature baby near death, and told us it was an infant starving to death in rich America. The nation demanded action, and Nixon acted.
By the time he left office in 1974, the food-stamp program was feeding 16 million Americans at an annual cost of $4 billion.
Fast forward to 2009. The cost to taxpayers of the U.S. food-stamp program hit $56 billion. The number of recipients and cost of the program exploded again last year.
Among the reasons is family disintegration. Forty percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent. Among African-Americans, it is 71 percent.
Food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers. Taxpayers are taking up the slack for America's deadbeat dads.
Have food stamps made America a healthier nation?
Consider New York City, where 1.7 million people, one in every five in the city, relies on food stamps for daily sustenance.
Obesity rates have soared. Forty percent of all the kids in city public schools from kindergarten through eighth grade are overweight or obese.
Among poor kids, whose families depend on food stamps, the percentages are far higher. Mothers of poor kids use food stamps to buy them sugar-heavy soda pop, candy and junk food.
Yet Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to the Department of Agriculture that recipients not be allowed to use food stamps to buy sugar-rich soft drinks has run into resistance.
"The world might be better ... if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages," said George Hacker of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not stigmatize people on food stamps."
The Department of Agriculture in 2004 denied a request by Minnesota that would have disallowed food stamp recipients from using them for junk food. To grant the request, said the department, would "perpetuate the myth" that food-stamps users make poor shopping decisions.
But is that a myth or an inconvenient truth?
What a changed country we have become in our expectations of ourselves. A less affluent America survived a Depression and world war without anything like the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, welfare payments, earned income tax credits, food stamps, rent supplements, day care, school lunches and Medicaid we have today.
Public or private charity were thought necessary, but were almost always to be temporary until a breadwinner could find work or a family could get back on its feet. The expectation was that almost everyone, with hard work and by keeping the nose to the grindstone, could make his or her own way in this free society. No more.
What we have accepted today is a vast permanent underclass of scores of millions who cannot cope and must be carried by the rest of society – fed, clothed, housed, tutored, medicated at taxpayers' expense for their entire lives. We have a new division in America: those who pay a double fare, and those who forever ride free.
We Americans are not only not the people our parents were, we are not the people we were. FDR was right about what would happen to the country if we did not get off the narcotic of welfare.
America has regrettably already undergone that "spiritual and moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national fiber."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=212741
The Marine Who Has Barney Frank Worried
In a district where Scott Brown won, Sean Bielat mounts a serious challenge.
By JAMES TARANTO
Fall River, Mass.
'I don't consider myself a tea party candidate," Sean Bielat tells me over dinner. "I don't know what it means." But an hour later Mr. Bielat, Rep. Barney Frank's Republican challenger, receives a hero's welcome at the Spindle City Tea Party, a gathering of nearly 200 citizen- activists in this economically depressed mill town. As he approaches the stage, they stand, applauding and chanting "Go, Sean, go!"
What he tells them is consistent with this reporter's view of the tea party: "I'm starting to think that people want to take this country back—that people no longer believe that the government has the answers for our betterment, that the government can tell them how they should use their money. People believe that they have the power to create their own opportunity, if only they are given the chance. . . . There is so much wrong in Washington, I almost don't know where to start."
Mr. Bielat holds some views that this crowd would find uncongenial. For one, he favors raising the "cap" on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a glaring exception to his opposition to tax hikes. Another comes up during the tea party event, when a portly man with a white beard asks him: "Will you introduce legislation creating term limits in the federal government?"
The crowd applauds the question, and Mr. Bielat tries to duck it. He points out that the event isn't supposed to be a Q&A and offers to speak with the man one-on-one later. "I think people are interested to know," the man persists, and others shout in assent.
Mr. Bielat relents—and responds with aplomb. "The answer's no. Here's why. I think that there's a real advantage to us bearing the responsibility of ensuring that there's turnover in the Congress. I think there's real advantage for us ensuring that we don't allow congressional staffers, who aren't elected, to have power because they stay there for generations. So I do understand the arguments for term limits. I personally oppose term limits." It's clear that he hasn't convinced everybody, but about half the crowd applauds. Not bad for a 35-year-old first-time candidate.
A native of Rochester, N.Y., Mr. Bielat caught the "political bug" as a teenager, when he did a stint as a House page. After earning a master's in public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, he went to work as a consultant at McKinsey & Co. and an executive for iRobot Corp., a defense contractor based in Bedford, Mass. He's also a new father; his wife gave birth to their son, Theodore, over the summer.
Before Harvard, Mr. Bielat served four years as an officer in the Marines. He's still a major in the reserves, but he left active duty in 2002 and hasn't served in combat. I ask if that is a source of regret, and he says yes: "I disagreed with us going into Iraq, but all my Marines were there, all my friends were there. I wanted to be there. Instead I was sitting at Harvard, watching it on TV."
Mr. Bielat's varied résumé is quite a contrast with that of Mr. Frank, who is twice the challenger's age yet has spent more than half his adult life in Congress. "Of his 45 years of work experience, 44 have been either in political office or working for somebody in political office," Mr. Bielat says of the incumbent. "The other one was teaching at the Harvard Kennedy School." (No, Mr. Bielat did not have the congressman as a professor.)
Can he win? In a district that gave 63% of its vote to Barack Obama, Mr. Frank has to be reckoned the heavy favorite. But Mr. Bielat's quest does not look quite as quixotic as it did last October, when he quit his job at iRobot to pursue it.
Then, Massachusetts had the biggest single-party congressional delegation in the country: 12 Democrats and no Republicans. By the time Mr. Bielat made his candidacy official in February, the numbers had improved to 11 to 1 with Scott Brown's election to the Senate the preceding month.
Mr. Brown narrowly outpolled Democrat Martha Coakley in the district, which is politically more diverse than the Massachusetts stereotype. In addition to the ultraliberal Boston suburbs of Brookline and Newton—where Mr. Bielat and Mr. Frank, respectively, live—it includes more conservative outer suburbs and the blue-collar area just east of Rhode Island, beset by unemployment (13.3% in Fall River) and rife with Reagan Democrats.
Mr. Bielat says Mr. Frank "hasn't been tested. His support isn't nearly as strong as people assume, because he hasn't had a real opponent since 1982." Last month Mr. Bielat released an internal poll showing Mr. Frank ahead by only 10 points, 48% to 38%.
Mr. Frank dismissed the survey, but his own actions suggest he is worried. Two weeks ago Bill Clinton traveled to the district to stump for Mr. Frank—a visit that backfired, to hear Mr. Bielat tell it: "The minute I heard that he was bringing Bill Clinton to campaign, I shouted for joy, because it said a lot about the state of this campaign. . . . I don't think Bill Clinton being here won him a whole lot of votes. It got me a lot of money and coverage." Mr. Bielat raised some $400,000 just in the two weeks after the Sept. 14 primary.
Mr. Bielat notes that Mr. Frank has "pretty steadily maintained a 10-to-1 advantage" in funding. But some of that money has helped Mr. Bielat's name recognition. In the car on the way to dinner, we heard Mr. Frank's first radio ad of the campaign, which attacks Mr. Bielat by name for opposing the eponymous Dodd-Frank "financial reform" law. Mr. Bielat laughed and said he's grateful to the incumbent for letting voters know who he is.
Mr. Taranto, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for OpinionJournal.com.
By JAMES TARANTO
Fall River, Mass.
'I don't consider myself a tea party candidate," Sean Bielat tells me over dinner. "I don't know what it means." But an hour later Mr. Bielat, Rep. Barney Frank's Republican challenger, receives a hero's welcome at the Spindle City Tea Party, a gathering of nearly 200 citizen- activists in this economically depressed mill town. As he approaches the stage, they stand, applauding and chanting "Go, Sean, go!"
What he tells them is consistent with this reporter's view of the tea party: "I'm starting to think that people want to take this country back—that people no longer believe that the government has the answers for our betterment, that the government can tell them how they should use their money. People believe that they have the power to create their own opportunity, if only they are given the chance. . . . There is so much wrong in Washington, I almost don't know where to start."
Mr. Bielat holds some views that this crowd would find uncongenial. For one, he favors raising the "cap" on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a glaring exception to his opposition to tax hikes. Another comes up during the tea party event, when a portly man with a white beard asks him: "Will you introduce legislation creating term limits in the federal government?"
The crowd applauds the question, and Mr. Bielat tries to duck it. He points out that the event isn't supposed to be a Q&A and offers to speak with the man one-on-one later. "I think people are interested to know," the man persists, and others shout in assent.
Mr. Bielat relents—and responds with aplomb. "The answer's no. Here's why. I think that there's a real advantage to us bearing the responsibility of ensuring that there's turnover in the Congress. I think there's real advantage for us ensuring that we don't allow congressional staffers, who aren't elected, to have power because they stay there for generations. So I do understand the arguments for term limits. I personally oppose term limits." It's clear that he hasn't convinced everybody, but about half the crowd applauds. Not bad for a 35-year-old first-time candidate.
A native of Rochester, N.Y., Mr. Bielat caught the "political bug" as a teenager, when he did a stint as a House page. After earning a master's in public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, he went to work as a consultant at McKinsey & Co. and an executive for iRobot Corp., a defense contractor based in Bedford, Mass. He's also a new father; his wife gave birth to their son, Theodore, over the summer.
Before Harvard, Mr. Bielat served four years as an officer in the Marines. He's still a major in the reserves, but he left active duty in 2002 and hasn't served in combat. I ask if that is a source of regret, and he says yes: "I disagreed with us going into Iraq, but all my Marines were there, all my friends were there. I wanted to be there. Instead I was sitting at Harvard, watching it on TV."
Mr. Bielat's varied résumé is quite a contrast with that of Mr. Frank, who is twice the challenger's age yet has spent more than half his adult life in Congress. "Of his 45 years of work experience, 44 have been either in political office or working for somebody in political office," Mr. Bielat says of the incumbent. "The other one was teaching at the Harvard Kennedy School." (No, Mr. Bielat did not have the congressman as a professor.)
Can he win? In a district that gave 63% of its vote to Barack Obama, Mr. Frank has to be reckoned the heavy favorite. But Mr. Bielat's quest does not look quite as quixotic as it did last October, when he quit his job at iRobot to pursue it.
Then, Massachusetts had the biggest single-party congressional delegation in the country: 12 Democrats and no Republicans. By the time Mr. Bielat made his candidacy official in February, the numbers had improved to 11 to 1 with Scott Brown's election to the Senate the preceding month.
Mr. Brown narrowly outpolled Democrat Martha Coakley in the district, which is politically more diverse than the Massachusetts stereotype. In addition to the ultraliberal Boston suburbs of Brookline and Newton—where Mr. Bielat and Mr. Frank, respectively, live—it includes more conservative outer suburbs and the blue-collar area just east of Rhode Island, beset by unemployment (13.3% in Fall River) and rife with Reagan Democrats.
Mr. Bielat says Mr. Frank "hasn't been tested. His support isn't nearly as strong as people assume, because he hasn't had a real opponent since 1982." Last month Mr. Bielat released an internal poll showing Mr. Frank ahead by only 10 points, 48% to 38%.
Mr. Frank dismissed the survey, but his own actions suggest he is worried. Two weeks ago Bill Clinton traveled to the district to stump for Mr. Frank—a visit that backfired, to hear Mr. Bielat tell it: "The minute I heard that he was bringing Bill Clinton to campaign, I shouted for joy, because it said a lot about the state of this campaign. . . . I don't think Bill Clinton being here won him a whole lot of votes. It got me a lot of money and coverage." Mr. Bielat raised some $400,000 just in the two weeks after the Sept. 14 primary.
Mr. Bielat notes that Mr. Frank has "pretty steadily maintained a 10-to-1 advantage" in funding. But some of that money has helped Mr. Bielat's name recognition. In the car on the way to dinner, we heard Mr. Frank's first radio ad of the campaign, which attacks Mr. Bielat by name for opposing the eponymous Dodd-Frank "financial reform" law. Mr. Bielat laughed and said he's grateful to the incumbent for letting voters know who he is.
Mr. Taranto, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for OpinionJournal.com.
Democrat Bastions Besieged by GOP
By NEIL KING JR. And PETER WALLSTEN
Republican challengers are suddenly threatening once-safe Democrats in New England and the Northwest, expanding the terrain for potential GOP gains and raising the party's hopes for a significant victory in next month's elections.Republican advances in traditionally Democratic states, including Connecticut, Oregon and Washington, may not translate into a wave of GOP victories. But they have rattled local campaigns and forced the Democrats to shift attention and money to races they didn't expect to be defending.
Rising sentiment against the party in power has washed ashore even in coastal Oregon, where Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio won his 10th re-election two years ago with 82% of the vote.
"I am having the same problem that Democrats are having across the country, which is ennui," he said, noting that his opponent's yard signs "are thick" across much of the district. Mr. DeFazio said he is facing the fight of his political life.
House Republican leaders in recent weeks have tamped down expectations, noting that Democrats still have significant financial resources and could prove resilient down the stretch. There is plenty of time for voter sentiment to shift, with three weeks before Election Day.
The expanded battlefield map, however, has prompted a shift in tone. Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, vice chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, bluntly predicted his party is heading toward a big win. "The Democrats are standing on a beach with the water going out and there is a tsunami coming their way," he said.
Some Democrats are signaling the potential for a rout, particularly in the House. A new survey by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg gives Republicans a six-point edge, 49% to 43%, when likely voters are asked which party they support in House races. That's a margin pollsters generally believe foreshadows large gains. "If the election were held today, it would produce a very unhappy night" for the Democrats, he said.
Mr. Greenberg said the gap is narrowing as the party base becomes more engaged and voters start paying attention to candidates and their television ads. But it must close quickly, he said, for Democrats to be in contention to save their House majority. "I do find movement," with the numbers narrowing a bit, Mr. Greenberg said.
Democrats are buying advertising in places they hadn't previously reserved it, a strong indication the battlefield is expanding. That includes New England, which hasn't a single Republican House member. A new ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began airing this week in the Massachusetts district covering Cape Cod, where Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt is retiring and ex-police sergeant Jeff Perry is posting a strong GOP challenge.
In Connecticut, polls published this week show Democratic Reps. Chris Murphy and Jim Himes in dead heats with their GOP rivals. The non-partisan Cook Political Report on Friday moved Mr. Murphy's race into a more competitive category, from a "likely" win to "lean" Democratic.
"It's obviously a sign of the times that these are competitive races," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, chairman of the House Democrats' campaign committee.
Mr. Van Hollen said many of these contested districts would be swing races most years. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Himes beat GOP incumbents in 2006 and 2008, respectively.
"These have never been slam-dunk Democratic districts, and in this political environment you take nothing for granted," he said.
Republicans need a net gain of 39 seats to take control of the House. The party could also lose as many as four House seats they now hold. Republicans have fainter hopes of gaining the 10 seats needed to take the Senate.
Nonpartisan handicappers say the GOP appears all but certain to gain about 30 House seats, largely from conservative or depressed districts in the South, Northeast and industrial Midwest. Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York look particularly vulnerable.
Now, pollsters and analysts say the pressure building in liberal corners of the country points to the potential for a so-called wave election, similar to the drubbing Democrats took in 1994. That could deliver a huge turnover in the House.
Democratic voters remain less interested in the race, a big factor behind the party's woes. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 66% of Republicans reporting intense interest, versus 52% of Democrats.
"What we know in a wave election is, the losing side is discouraged and fails to show up at the polling places," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, co-director of the Journal poll. In recent weeks, "the crest appears to be going higher and higher with few signs that it will abate."
GOP strategists said the party's focus this year on fiscal issues rather than social wedges such as abortion and gay marriage has helped give centrists comfort in backing Republicans.
In Connecticut, a new survey by the Democratic firm Merriman River Group found Mr. Himes in a statistical tie with his GOP challenger, state Sen. Dan Debicella. The race has turned nasty in recent days on television and in direct mail pieces. One flier from the state Democratic Party features a picture of Mr. Debicella with the words "Reckless Radical" scrawled across his face. Mr. Debicella describes himself as a moderate who supports abortion rights.
"This race is a toss-up, and I think it's going to be seats like this that determine if Republicans will pick up 30 seats or 60 seats," Mr. Debicella said.
In the Northwest, freshman Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader is in a tight race with state Rep. Scott Bruun. To the north, in a district that includes Portland suburbs, six-term Democratic Rep. David Wu is under pressure from GOP sports consultant Rob Cornilles.
Washington State GOP Senate challenger Dino Rossi has pulled even or ahead of Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. Some Republicans view Washington state as a potential breaking point in the battle for control of the Senate.
Many Democrats are stunned that Mr. DeFazio has a race on his hands in a district that includes the liberal bastion of Eugene. Mr. DeFazio, facing a political newcomer, biochemist Art Robinson, says he isn't surprised.
It "is certainly not a district to be taken for granted," he says, "especially not in an election year like this."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657304575540300424055286.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Republican challengers are suddenly threatening once-safe Democrats in New England and the Northwest, expanding the terrain for potential GOP gains and raising the party's hopes for a significant victory in next month's elections.Republican advances in traditionally Democratic states, including Connecticut, Oregon and Washington, may not translate into a wave of GOP victories. But they have rattled local campaigns and forced the Democrats to shift attention and money to races they didn't expect to be defending.
Rising sentiment against the party in power has washed ashore even in coastal Oregon, where Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio won his 10th re-election two years ago with 82% of the vote.
"I am having the same problem that Democrats are having across the country, which is ennui," he said, noting that his opponent's yard signs "are thick" across much of the district. Mr. DeFazio said he is facing the fight of his political life.
House Republican leaders in recent weeks have tamped down expectations, noting that Democrats still have significant financial resources and could prove resilient down the stretch. There is plenty of time for voter sentiment to shift, with three weeks before Election Day.
The expanded battlefield map, however, has prompted a shift in tone. Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, vice chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, bluntly predicted his party is heading toward a big win. "The Democrats are standing on a beach with the water going out and there is a tsunami coming their way," he said.
Some Democrats are signaling the potential for a rout, particularly in the House. A new survey by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg gives Republicans a six-point edge, 49% to 43%, when likely voters are asked which party they support in House races. That's a margin pollsters generally believe foreshadows large gains. "If the election were held today, it would produce a very unhappy night" for the Democrats, he said.
Mr. Greenberg said the gap is narrowing as the party base becomes more engaged and voters start paying attention to candidates and their television ads. But it must close quickly, he said, for Democrats to be in contention to save their House majority. "I do find movement," with the numbers narrowing a bit, Mr. Greenberg said.
Democrats are buying advertising in places they hadn't previously reserved it, a strong indication the battlefield is expanding. That includes New England, which hasn't a single Republican House member. A new ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began airing this week in the Massachusetts district covering Cape Cod, where Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt is retiring and ex-police sergeant Jeff Perry is posting a strong GOP challenge.
In Connecticut, polls published this week show Democratic Reps. Chris Murphy and Jim Himes in dead heats with their GOP rivals. The non-partisan Cook Political Report on Friday moved Mr. Murphy's race into a more competitive category, from a "likely" win to "lean" Democratic.
"It's obviously a sign of the times that these are competitive races," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, chairman of the House Democrats' campaign committee.
Mr. Van Hollen said many of these contested districts would be swing races most years. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Himes beat GOP incumbents in 2006 and 2008, respectively.
"These have never been slam-dunk Democratic districts, and in this political environment you take nothing for granted," he said.
Republicans need a net gain of 39 seats to take control of the House. The party could also lose as many as four House seats they now hold. Republicans have fainter hopes of gaining the 10 seats needed to take the Senate.
Nonpartisan handicappers say the GOP appears all but certain to gain about 30 House seats, largely from conservative or depressed districts in the South, Northeast and industrial Midwest. Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York look particularly vulnerable.
Now, pollsters and analysts say the pressure building in liberal corners of the country points to the potential for a so-called wave election, similar to the drubbing Democrats took in 1994. That could deliver a huge turnover in the House.
Democratic voters remain less interested in the race, a big factor behind the party's woes. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 66% of Republicans reporting intense interest, versus 52% of Democrats.
"What we know in a wave election is, the losing side is discouraged and fails to show up at the polling places," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, co-director of the Journal poll. In recent weeks, "the crest appears to be going higher and higher with few signs that it will abate."
GOP strategists said the party's focus this year on fiscal issues rather than social wedges such as abortion and gay marriage has helped give centrists comfort in backing Republicans.
In Connecticut, a new survey by the Democratic firm Merriman River Group found Mr. Himes in a statistical tie with his GOP challenger, state Sen. Dan Debicella. The race has turned nasty in recent days on television and in direct mail pieces. One flier from the state Democratic Party features a picture of Mr. Debicella with the words "Reckless Radical" scrawled across his face. Mr. Debicella describes himself as a moderate who supports abortion rights.
"This race is a toss-up, and I think it's going to be seats like this that determine if Republicans will pick up 30 seats or 60 seats," Mr. Debicella said.
In the Northwest, freshman Oregon Rep. Kurt Schrader is in a tight race with state Rep. Scott Bruun. To the north, in a district that includes Portland suburbs, six-term Democratic Rep. David Wu is under pressure from GOP sports consultant Rob Cornilles.
Washington State GOP Senate challenger Dino Rossi has pulled even or ahead of Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. Some Republicans view Washington state as a potential breaking point in the battle for control of the Senate.
Many Democrats are stunned that Mr. DeFazio has a race on his hands in a district that includes the liberal bastion of Eugene. Mr. DeFazio, facing a political newcomer, biochemist Art Robinson, says he isn't surprised.
It "is certainly not a district to be taken for granted," he says, "especially not in an election year like this."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657304575540300424055286.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)