Speak Up: Medicare Entitlement

February 22nd, 2010

Over the next five weeks the CRNC will be looking into the growing entitlements that left unreformed will doom this country’s fiscal future. We must realize that government is not the solution to the problem…it IS the problem.

This Week’s Theme: Medicare

The Promise: “What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further,” he said. “We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.”

The Reality:  We’re kicking the can down the road. Obama’s budget does nothing to reform a Medicare entitlement that will create huge deficits for the foreseeable future. Rather than seek fundamental reforms the White House budget proposal actually proposes major increases in Medicare spending. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

Fact 1: Medicare Entitlement Spending Threatens to Bankrupt Our Generation

Currently the federal government spends 21.7% of the national budget on two major health entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, which represents 15.2% of the nation’s GDP. If the status quo continues unaltered, these two programs will consume 20% of GDP by 2016.

When President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law has said,

“No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out deep moral obligations to their parents.”

But as Congressman Paul Ryan wrote,

“Absent reform, the program will end up delivering exactly what it was created to avoid: it will consume the prosperity of today’s younger generation to finance an unsustainable path of spending”

Read More: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/challenges.htm

Fact 2: What’s Worse? Insolvency Looms

The Medicare program is simply going bankrupt. Trustees for Social Security and Medicare, the government’s two biggest benefit programs, have issued a new report saying that the Medicare will pay out more benefits than it collects and will be insolvent by 2017. That’s only 7 years from now. The reason (in addition to waste and fraud) has been Medicare’s inability to control costs. A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office found that total spending per Medicare enrollee grew at 10.6% annually while the privately insured grew at 7.7%. Moreover the report predicts,

“In the absence of an unprecedented change in the long term trends, national spending on health care will grow substantially over the coming decades.”

Democrats so far have proposed nothing resembling fundamental change. Rather than focus on the spending side of the equation, to reign in bloated government programs. they have emphasized the tax side of the formula by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Eventually we will come to a point where increasing taxes simply is not an option. What then Mr. President?

Fact 3: Our Generation is Resigned to Failure

A recent Zogby poll which asked whether people believe Medicare will be there for you or your children found that:

Overall

18-29

30-49

50-64

65+

You

Your Children

You

Your Children

You

Your Children

You

Your Children

You

Your Children

Yes

50

18

39

20

33

15

60

17

89

24

No

23

45

31

47

34

55

13

41

2

25

Not Sure

26

37

30

33

32

31

27

43

9

51

Unsurprisingly, a minority of young adults believe that Medicare will survive long enough for them to receive benefits.  The minority grows even smaller, a mere 20%, who believe that their children will ever be able to receive Medicare’s assistance. Young adults have lost faith in one of government’s key programs and one of the closest analogues we have to what government health care will look like. How, given the government’s track record, could we expect different results!

Bottom Line: The federal government is simply not equipped to handle huge entitlement programs without unacceptable levels of waste, fraud, and inefficiency. Reforms are necessary. But more important is a fundamental change in the role of government. These entitlements must return to their initial mission – safety nets meant to catch those who fall, not anyone who chooses to jump.

Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Posted in 1 | No Comments »

A Little Late to the Center

February 16th, 2010

A wolf in sheep’s clothing. The metaphor has taken on newfound meaning after Carly Fiorina’s “demon sheep” ad turned viral-video-gone-wrong. But if we get rid of the glowing red eyes and the guy who chose to dress up and crawl around a pasture, the metaphor is still useful in politics. Does it accurately describe the recently retired Evan Bayh?

The reason he gave for his sudden retirement is that “[t]here is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving.” “Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples’ business is not being done.” One could view this as Bayh suffering angst amid the partisanship, disdaining the gridlock that has been the hallmark of Washington in recent years. Another view, that of the devils’ advocate, or in this case, liberal blogger Lee Siegel, is that

The times demand leaders, fighters, principled tacticians and creative conceptualizers. Bayh’s response? In that case, I’m outta here! What a terrible mediocrity this man is.

But assuming we take Bayh’s at his word – that his retirement was because his tiny moderate hammer was not making a dent in the partisan walls growing up around him – do his votes back him up? As a senator you make votes and those votes define who you are. Evan Bayh over the years carefully honed a reputation as a centrist Blue Dog Democrat who appealed to reason rather than ideology. But his voting record tells a much different story.

In 2008 the National Taxpayers Union gave him an F rating, in 2008 a D. In 2007 he supported the interests of American’s for Tax Reform only 10% of the time, indicating a largely tax and spend policy. In 2008 Club for Growth, a group which advocates policies which promote economic freedom, gave him an 11% score on fiscal responsibility and limited government issues. He voted against reducing death taxes, extending 2001 income tax cuts. He voted for the Fannie/Freddie bailout, the Wall Street bailout, and the 2008 omnibus spending bill. Moreover, he was an ardent advocate for the recent health care reform bill who “helped rally Dems’ troops” despite his public protestations that he would not vote to proceed with debate “if there are things in the bill I think are just beyond the pale.”

Many will point to his recent policy stands as evidence of his centrist leanings. But a closer look shows that the change came after (and likely because of) the surprising defeat in Massachusetts.  It is true he opposed raising the federal debt ceiling saying,

“Washington can’t keep maxing out the national credit card with borrowed money from China.  It’s time to take away the credit card from politicians who just want to spend, spend, spend and begin to restore our country’s fiscal health,”

But it is also true that he voted for measures that forced us to raise the debt limit such as the bail out and stimulus. It seems that Bayh’s centrist tack was more a reaction to growing conservative momentum rather than enlightened reason.

He was simply a kinder, gentler version of the left wing tilt of his party. In the end, it his votes that define Evan Bayh and not his rhetoric.

by Ricky Fraxedas, hat tip to Brandon Greife, Political Director

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in 1 | No Comments »

Speak Up! Entitlement Reform

February 16th, 2010

Over the next five weeks the CRNC will be looking into the growing entitlements that left unreformed will doom this country’s fiscal future. We must realize that government is not the solution to the problem…it IS the problem.

This Week’s Theme: Medicaid

The Promise: “[T]he biggest costs in our budget are entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that get more and more expensive every year . . . So if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline – and I do – then we are going to not only have to trim waste out of our discretionary budget, a process we have already begun – but we will also have to get serious about entitlement reform.”

The Reality: President Obama’s recently proposed budget does nothing to improve the solvency of the program – instead choosing to throw an additional $25 billion into the problem

Fact 1: State governments, the largest funding source for most public universities, are in big trouble

Medicaid is a health program for people with low incomes. It is managed and paid for by the states and the federal government defers some of the cost by matching state contributions to a certain level. As Medicaid rolls expand, the federal contribution grows, but so too does the strain placed on state budgets – meaning less money for education, law enforcement, and other state services.

Just considering federal spending, Medicaid cost the government approximately $200 billion a year – up from $14 billion in 1980. But the federal government has shown that it is comfortable with incredible deficits. On the other hand, states, which lack the financial backing of China, must attempt to balance their budgets. Being forced to match federal funds is essentially bankrupting them.

Read More: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed041502b.cfm

Fact 2: The result of runaway costs have had an adverse impact on the poor and elderly who the program is designed to help

As state’s realize they must control costs they cut reimbursement rates to physicians. Physicians, in turn make the financial decision to refuse Medicaid patients rather than lose money. A recent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission survey discovered that “more than 30% of all physicians now refusing to accept any new Medicaid patients.”

The reason for the exploding costs? The problems inherent in a bloated bureaucracy with no immediate motivation to reform. First, fraud and abuse. As James Mehmet, former chief of state investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City, said,

“Fraud equals about 10 percent of total Medicaid dollars spent each year. In addition, the use of medically unnecessary services and procedures that probably doesn’t rise to the level of criminality siphons off an additional 20 to 30 percent.”

Second, the rigid and outdated federal-state structure incentivizes states to cheat the system. Throughout the Medicaid program there is poor targeting of resources, federal formulas that are unresponsive to changing conditions, and competition between states that lead to incentivizing increased costs. These problems and countless others have left taxpayers with an increasingly bloated program that costs more and functions worse.

Read more: http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1863.cfm

Fact 3: Without reform young adults will pay higher taxes for fewer benefits

As Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Elmendorf recently wrote about the 2010 budget,

“The federal budget is on an unsustainable path because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. . . Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.”

Pretty grim. One of the biggest reasons of the budget deficits has been Medicaid and Medciare. Federal spending on these two entitlement programs has grown from roughly 5% of GDP to 20% by 2035. By 2080, when our generation will reach old age, the government will be spending as much on these two programs alone as it has spent on ALL of its programs today.

Unfortunately the government is not in a position to fund Medicaid at the projected levels without the country falling into default. Without drastic reform or huge tax increases young adults will not be able to see the same level of Medicaid coverage that today’s generations are enjoying

Debt Public

Read more: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

Bottom Line: The federal government is simply not equipped to handle huge entitlement programs without unacceptable levels of waste, fraud, and inefficiency. Reforms are necessary. But more important is a fundamental change in the role of government. These entitlements must return to their initial mission – safety nets meant to catch those who fall, not anyone who chooses to jump.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

Tags: , , ,
Posted in 1 | No Comments »

Mr. Smith Defends the Filibuster

February 15th, 2010

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington should be considered required viewing for anyone with even a passing interest in politics. The film – about an idealistic youth leader who suddenly finds himself appointed to the U.S. Senate – is the best example of how reality often does not stack up with perceptions. Mr. Smith travels to the nation’s capital, his mouth agape at the majesty of the Capitol dome, his eyes wide with the grandeur of the Lincoln Memorial, but his mind appalled at the corruption of the people.

While fighting against a crooked back-door deal in the Senate he finds that his only weapon is the filibuster. In a movie filled with monologues, a journalist, reporting on lowly Senator Smith’s battle, is one of the best.

Half of official Washington is here to see democracy’s finest show, the filibuster, the right to talk your head off, the American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. The least man in that chamber, once he gets and holds that floor by the rules, can hold it and talk as long as he can stand on his feet providing always, first, that he does not sit down, second, that he does not leave the chamber or stop talking. The galleries are packed. In the diplomatic gallery are the envoys of two dictator powers. They have come here to see what they can’t see at home. DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

Democracy’s finest show. Free speech in its most dramatic form. Democracy in action. You would be hard-pressed to find such similar sentiment about the filibuster today. As influential liberal thinker Paul Krugman writes,

“The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster.”

Nancy Pelosi was a little less blunt in her attack, saying

“A constitutional majority is 51 votes.”

Some Democratic Senators have advanced amendment to reform the long-standing process. Tom Udall (D-NM) introduced a “nuclear option” which would call for the Vice President to declare that the Senate does not have to abide by rules passed decades ago and that a simple majority is all that is needed. Senators Harkin and Shaheen (D-NH) introduced a less explosive option which outlines a four-step process that over the course of prescribed number of days would lower the number of votes required to end a filibuster down to a bare majority.

But is the filibuster being abused? Is it merely a procedural relic unsuited to today’s Senate? These are the questions many pundits have been asking. These are the wrong questions. They focus on the procedural process rather than the people who are employing it.

Political scientist Barbara Sinclair did some historical research and found that 8% of major legislation faced a filibuster in the 1960s. Today that number is closer to 70%. But what has changed in that time? It is not the procedure. The filibuster rule has actually softened. Up until 1975, 67 votes were required (rather than the current 60) to break a filibuster. So it must be the people invoking it. In that vein, Jay Cost put together a chart demonstrating the polarization of the parties over the past 45 years. Growing Partisan Divide

As the graph shows, there is a glaring hole in the middle of the ideological spectrum. Unlike past Congress’ almost no Senator toes the moderate line and no Senator has dared break the ideological mold.

In a governing body that demands broad consensus to get anything done, growing partisanship (on both sides of the aisle) is the finger that pulls the filibuster trigger. To that end we should expect a rise in the use of the filibuster. As Cost explains,

As the parties drift apart ideologically, the majority party will more likely introduce legislation that the minority party can’t accept, giving the latter a stronger incentive to block it via the filibuster. . . In other words, thanks to the filibuster an ideologically extreme majority party cannot simply enact its policy preferences as it sees fit. Instead, it must either find common ground with some on the other side, or do nothing.

In other words, Republicans have dramatically increased the use of the filibuster, but only in response to attempts by Democrats to push through increasingly liberal legislation. Moreover, this is a carefully weighted system. With Democrats holding 59 votes – they only need be slightly bipartisan – a reward for their overwhelming wins in 2008. in fact they only need to win over one Republican vote in the Senate.

Rather than win GOP votes, Democratic initiatives have been bleeding from within their own party. On nearly every key piece of legislation there have been massive defections from centrist Democrats that threatened to derail the bill. For instance, 39 Democrats voted against health care reform in the House. 38 Democrats voted against the new jobs bill. 37 Democrats voted against an increase in the debt limit. Some may want to lay “blame” on Republicans for marching lock-step against these bills, but the fact that centrist Democrats often join them is evidence that the ideological bent of the legislation was too far Left to court any votes.

Regardless of who we point the finger at, both parties would be wise to take lessons from the increasing use of the filibuster. Democrats must learn that it is not being wielded as a purely partisan weapon, but is being used as a defensive tool against a too liberal agenda. Republicans must learn to limit its use to fighting partisan overreaching in the legislative agenda. Both sides must tone down the vocal attacks.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) who now supports eliminating the filibuster was once laid out a defense that would have made Mr. Smith proud. In true Jimmy Stewart form he said,

“[A]t this moment there are those who are planning what I consider to be an assault on the very principles of this Constitution. There are those who wish to change the rules of the Senate and in changing the rules of the Senate, defy tradition, change the rules in the middle of the game, and have a full frontal assault on the unique nature of this institution. That, I think, is an abuse of power. I think it goes way too far. It ignores our Founding Fathers. This nuclear option ignores the Constitution.. . . It is an assault on the principle and value of checks and balances. It is an attempt by the majority party in the Senate to ram through nominees who will not pledge to protect the most important rights of the American people. It is an attempt to say we cannot demand of the President’s nominees that each person be balanced and moderate and committed to the goals of ordinary Americans.”

Like the Capitol Dome and Lincoln Memorial which Mr. Smith stared at with a sense of wonder, the filibuster remains a monument to Democracy. But as Mr. Smith realized, it is the people that exist within and around these monuments that must change if we are to live up to their grandeur.

by Brandon Greife,  Political Director of the College Republican National Committee.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in 1 | 1 Comment »

Bye, Bye Bayh

February 15th, 2010

Evan Bayh (D-In) has announced his intention to retire rather than seek reelection. Bayh becomes the latest Democrat to jump off what is increasingly looking like a sinking ship. However, unlike many of the other Democratic retirements to date, Bayh was still considered a solid favorite to win reelection. Until Bayh’s announcement, Republicans had faced an uphill battle against a well known incumbent with a massive war chest.

Indiana, which had previously been a Republican stronghold, has been turning purple in recent history. As race analyst Charlie Cook points out,

“At the start of the 109th Congress, Repblicans held seven of the state’s nine congressional seats. Democrats hold five of the nine CDs today.”

The state has also been trending blue in recent presidential elections as well. Although Bush won the state by comfortable margins, Barack Obama was able to eke out a narrow win in 2008. Finally, a string or recruiting disappointments, with Gov. Mitch Daniels and Rep. Mike Pence deciding to not challenge Bayh, and a lack of conservative enthusiasm for former Senator Dan Coats, left the GOP looking for some good news.

Nevetheless, there were some growing cracks in the Bayh armor. A decided shift in the national political mood, best evidenced by the recent race in Massachusetts, has every Democrat shaking in their boots. The Democratic losses appeared to affect Bayh who has recently become very vocal about his opposition to much of Barack Obama’s agenda.

For instance, he was the only Democrat to vote against the increase in the debt ceiling saying,

“I would not support raising the debt ceiling because Congress has not adopted a credible process to restrain spending and eliminate red ink . . . When your child overspends on your credit card, you have to do two things: pay the bill and take away the card.  Washington is doing the former but not the latter.”

After Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts he chastised his party for pushing their agenda too far to the left saying,

“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up. Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Democratic Party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country, that’s not going to work too well.”

Prepared remarks issued by Bayh suggested he was not “motivated by political concern.” Adding that “even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.” Instead, he suggests that the growing partisan divide in Washington was a prime motivator for his retirement, saying

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens in undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned.”

The decision will shock Democrats and Republicans alike. Democrats will be left scrambling to find a candidate as well liked and respected as Bayh in a state that still leans Right. On the other hand Republicans will work to harness the growing momentum behind their presumptive nominee Dan Coats. Another day, another surprise, leading up to what is sure to be a fun ride for Republicans in November 2010.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Tags: , , ,
Posted in 1 | 3 Comments »

A Roadmap for America’s Future

February 11th, 2010

Harry Truman was full of good quotes. Two of my favorite: “If you want a friend in Washington get a dog” and “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.” Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) can likely sympathize with Truman – because he’s givin’ Democrats hell and it isn’t making him many friends.

He’s recently charted a course, determined to change the image of the GOP from “an opposition party to being the alternative party.” As he recently told the New York Times,

“[T]he problem in the minority [is that] you sometimes revert into a posture where ‘I don’t have to do anything controversial, I just can be against that and win by default.’ I’m not interested in winning by default.”

Sometimes the truth is tough to swallow. Unlike many in Washington, Rep. Ryan backs up his words with action. His sweeping Roadmap for America’s Future is a comprehensive reform package that stands in sharp contrast to the crushing budget President Obama unveiled last week. Although, as he never forgets to remind us, he didn’t get us completely into this mess, his budget didn’t exactly provide a plan to get out of it.

The problem is deep and multi-faceted, a combination of bloated entitlements, an aging population, and an ever-growing bureaucracy. There’s the iceberg and we’re headed right for it. Obama’s budget does nothing to turn the steering wheel, instead choosing to slam on the accelerator. Under the president’s plan spending will top $4 trillion in the upcoming year, the nation’s debt will double in five years, and triple in ten. In just the 10th year of Obama’s budget the federal government will be spending nearly $1 trillion a year on interest alone. In other words…we’re sunk.

Ryan’s plan is comprehensive, tackling everything from health care reform, the tax code, Medicare, and Social Security. I don’t dare to it injustice by attempting to explain it in its entirety, but here are some key points of the Roadmap:

  • Freeze all discretionary spending except national defense and veteran’s health care for five years
  • Simplify the income tax code by creating a two-tiered flat tax – 10% for incomes up to $100,000 and 25% on higher incomes
  • Replace corporate income taxes, currently the world’s second highest, with a corporate consumption tax of 8.5% – about half the tax burden other nations place on average
  • Overhaul Medicare to give seniors premium support through vouchers for private insurance in order to draw more people into the market and eliminate hidden subsidies
  • Index the retirement age for Social Security to today’s lengthened life-expectancy
  • Make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent

After implementing these changes you are left with a streamlined federal government, a solution to the economic crisis, and all without the burden of huge tax increases. But the Roadmap for America’s Future is greater than the sum of its parts. It represents a wholesale change in philosophy for a government growing more unwieldy by the day. As captured by the Washington Post’s Michael Gerson,

“[I]t represents an alternative political philosophy. . . For decades, culminating in the Obama health reform proposal, Democrats have attempted to build a political constituency for the welfare state by expanding its provisions to larger and larger portions of the middle class. Ryan proposes a federal system that focuses on helping the poor, while encouraging the middle class to take more personal responsibility in a dynamic economy. It is the appeal of security vs. the appeal of independence and enterprise.

The results of this alternative philosophy are astounding. The CBO, who analyzed the Roadmap, said

“The lower budget deficits under your proposal would result in much less federal debt than under the alternative fiscal scenario and thereby a much more favorable macro-economic outlook. . . The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path, generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080.”

Words may not do justice. To understand the plan’s real impact, simply take a glimpse into the future comparing the proposed Democratic budgets and the Republican alternative:

Glimpse of Our Future

This is our generation’s future we’re talking about. This is our chance to actually  receive the benefits of programs such as Medicare and Social Security that we are paying in to. This is the opportunity to avert a fiscal course in which we face tax increases simply so that our government can make interest payments on its debt. Moreover, we will play an important role in this fight because it is shaping up to be a generational struggle. Seniors, even conservative seniors, will view this as a threat to Medicare and Social Security. But those programs, which are already facing a $500 billion cut in the Democratic health bill, are insolvent as they currently stand. We have no hope of seeing benefits if the status quo remains. So we must make our voices heard on the issue. After all, the plan is entitled Roadmap for America’s Future, and we, College Republicans, are America’s future.

by Brandon Greife,  Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in 1 | 3 Comments »

Losing the Public’s Confidence, the Left Throws a Temper Tantrum

February 10th, 2010

by Brandon Greife

Some things don’t deserve a response. They are just so wrongheaded that it doesn’t make sense to legitimize them with an answer. A recent article by Steve Benen called “Rewarding Idiocy” is one of those things. It doesn’t deserve a response, but it’s going to get one from me, if for no other reason than it really frustrated me. Actually I’ll drop the decorum and political correctness, it didn’t frustrate me…it pissed me off.

Benen begins by saying,

By most measures, Republicans have spent the last year acting like children — reckless, disturbed children who fiddle with matches and take pleasure in playing in traffic.

For nearly 13 months, GOP officials on the Hill have engaged in unprecedented abuse of the political process, blocking good legislation, offering insane ideas in response to major national challenges, rejecting their own ideas when embraced by Democrats, and generally being an embarrassment to themselves and the country.

Believe it or not, this is the part I can accept. A liberal pundit insulting Republicans is neither new nor unprecedented. I will quibble with a few things that he said. First, the “unprecedented abuse” that Mr. Benen speaks of isn’t really all that unprecedented. If we rewind 6 years, when Democrats were the minority, they were lauding the praises of the filibuster. In fact, Democrats who are now threatening to unilaterally end the long standing practice took up arms when Republicans threatened to do the same. As Harry Reid so eloquently put it,

“If they, for whatever reason, decide to [eliminate the filibuster], it’s not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back. . .I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up.”

My how times have changed.

Second, Republicans have not blocked anything close to what could be deemed “good legislation.”  The Democratic health care reform bill was a catastrophe. It simultaneously forced health insurance coverage on everyone while doing nothing to rein in costs. Making low income people, including young adults, sign up for coverage which they will be unable to afford is what I like to call “bad legislation”

Third, I’m not sure how he can characterize any of the Republican solutions presented thus far as “insane.” The health care alternative presented by Republicans, when scored by the CBO, was found to reduce premiums through increased private sector competition while also reducing the national debt. Moreover, the GOP budget proposal was found to “lower budget deficits,” “result in much less federal debt” and create “a much more favorable macroeconomic outlook.” I know the idea of efficiency and lower spending is ”insane” to many liberals, fortunately Americans disagree. As a recent Rasmussen polls shows, voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on nine out of ten key issues, and have a double digit lead on health care.

Now for the part that infuriates me. Not content to continue with the usual diatribe against Republicans, Mr. Benen turns his wrath on the public. Sarcastically he says,

“Naturally, then Republicans are making major gains in the polls.”

That little line was enough to set me off. It insinuates that Americans are too stupid to realize how awesome the Democrats are. It is a situation best described by Gerard Alexander, who recently wrote in the Washington Post

“American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.”

However, I’ll take Alexander’s insight one logical step further. Many Liberals (because I refuse to fall into the same trap of overgeneralization) don’t merely view conservative positions as stupid – they view the holders of those opinions as stupid. There is no other conclusion from how dumbfounded and ultimately dismissive many Democrats are that the people are not flocking to their ideas and the polls are not going in their favor. They attempt to cast us as a movement of uneducated, gun-toting, redneck, birthers. Influential liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos, went as far as to say:

“Can we cram them all into the Texas Panhandle, create the state of Dumbfuckistan, and build a wall around them to keep them from coming into America illegally.”

We’re going to need a bigger place than the panhandle because he, like others who attempt to equate the conservative movement with morons, ignores the fact that the majority of people, smart and stupid alike, are unhappy with the direction that President Obama and the Democratic leadership are taking us.

Call Congressional Republicans dumb all you want. It’s probably not good politics in a nation that is tired of partisanship, but it’s your right. But lay off Americans. Perhaps if you took some time to reflect, you’d find it is not a majority of citizens who are stupid, it’s the majority of your ideas.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in 1 | No Comments »

Murtha’s Passing Creates Opportunity for Republicans

February 10th, 2010

by Brandon Greife

Rep. John Murtha, the outspoken and influential Democrat who was the first Vietnam War veteran elected to Congress, passed away on Tuesday. As Pennsylvanians come to terms with the loss of a longtime Congressman their attention will turn to what is certain to be a hard-fought special election.

Democrats have held the seat comfortably since Murtha won a special election in 1974. Since taking office he never won a reelection bid with less than 58% of the vote and most recently won by 17% despite calling his district “racist” and “redneck.” But, after losing Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat, Democrats understand that things will not be as easy this time around.

There is certainly reason for them to fear. After all, this is the only district in the country that voted for John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008. The area is politically complicated and no one snapshot tells the entire story. For instance, Democrats enjoy a 2-to-1 advantage in registered voters over Republicans. But it is an area with social conservative roots and a voting pool best labeled as “Reagan Democrats.” As Terry Madonna, professor and pollster from Franklin & Marshall College described the district,

“This is a hardscrabble, blue-collar, ethnic, culturally conservative, pro-life,pro-gun, very patriotic district. . . These folks have deep concerns about the social proclivities of [Democrats] in recent years on abortion rights, gay rights and guns.”

Although Democrats could call this seat “safe” as recently as 2004, Republicans have a clear chance to take advantage of the convergence of two forces: a district trending Republican and a nation fed up with one-party rule.  But we cannot fall into the same trap that has led to recent Democratic defeats – arrogance and overconfidence. After all, the special election is likely to be held on the same day as the state’s primary, a significant advantage for Democrats who will use the big-ticket day to equalize the growing enthusiasm gap.

Building enthusiasm should be no trouble for Republicans who have been presented with the opportunity for another symbolic win in a traditional Democratic stronghold. Moreover, this is an exciting chance to turn the recent tide of House special elections – which Democrats have now won five in a row. College Republicans will be on the ground making sure the growing enthusiasm amongst conservatives turns into votes come election day. Just as in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, College Republicans will be the volunteers on the ground knocking on the doors, making the phone calls, and educating voters to ensure we keep the momentum going into a key midterm season.

Now is our chance to drive the final stake into Democratic overconfidence. In a recent interview House Speaker Nancy Pelosi literally laughed off the suggestion that House Democrats would lose their majority in the midterm elections. Well, we’ll see who is laughing come May when College Republicans help gain back Pennsylvania’s 12th district on the way to a Republican majority in 2010.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in 1 | 1 Comment »

The Obama Touch

February 8th, 2010

The Midas Touch. Very few people have it. Off the top of my head I think of: Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, and Phil Jackson. Wherever they go, and whatever they do, they succeed. Most people don’t. The first person I think of: Barack Obama. Following his meteoric climb to the presidency he has become political poison to nearly everything he has come into contact with.

The “Obama Touch” begain with the New Jersey Gubernatorial race. The President campaigned heavily for the Democratic incumbent John Corzine in a state that should have been a lock regardless of his cameo.  A deep-pocketed incumbent in a blue state that Obama won by 16% up against an underfunded Republican who didn’t even run a great campaign. But five appearances and a slew of quotes like “[Corzine] is one of the best partners I have in the White House” later, Democrats had lost the governor’s mansion.

Same story, same result in Massachusetts where Martha Coakley fell from a 17% lead in the polls to be defeated by an upstart Republican candidate. Obama was there as well, campaigning for Coakley when the race was a statistical dead heat, hoping his popularity would save the day in the land of Kennedy’s. It didn’t. By the time Obama left, Scott Brown had established a firm 9% lead over the Democrat.

He called the 19-0 Kentucky basketball team to congratulate them on their “Hoops for Haiti” program. They promptly lost. He made countless speeches and appearances to spread the word about health care reform. It’s looking more dead by the day. He wanted to pass a comprehensive energy and environmental reform bill. Then came “Climategate” and an ongoing investigation into the science of global warming. Tough year.

A new Gallup poll shows the depth of the Obama Touch,

Issue Approval Obama’s lowest job approval ratings come in the areas of healthcare policy, the economy, and the federal budget deficit, which coincidentally are the three issues he has devoted the most face-time to. To some degree, this is exactly as you would expect it. The President can be seen as devoting his popularity in an attempt to rally support for unpopular portions of his agenda. It wouldn’t make sense for him to expend all of his political capital to hammer home issues that people already agree with. But this would overlook a key point behind these latest poll numbers – almost all of them represent Obama’s lowest popularity on the issue since he became President.

The more he tries to sell health care, the more people refuse to buy into it:

Healthcare Approval

The more he says he’s going to work to fix the economy, the less people believe him:

Economy Approval

What the President and Congressional Democrats must understand is that it’s nothing personal. Although it certainly cannot be said that he has the Midas Touch, it is not Obama’s mere association that is dragging candidates and policies into the abyss. It’s that Obama’s attempts to emphasize an issue are acting to highlight the flaws in the Democrats plans. People learned that although health care reform sounds great, any attempt that fails to bend the cost-curve is kinda pointless. People figured out that Obama’s plan to fix the economy, well…wait, what is Obama’s plan to fix the economy?

The Obama Touch, anything he touches suffers an immediate drop in approval ratings. But it’s a curable disease. Step 1: under-promise and over-deliver. Step 2: consult with Republicans – they have ideas that will surprise you. Step 3: align your policy goals with the public – i.e. GET MOVING ON THE ECONOMY!

- Brandon Greife, Political Director

Posted in 1 | 2 Comments »

Debt-The Speak Up Memo For Feb. 8th

February 8th, 2010

Republican are armed with ideas to defeat the debt and deficit crisis, which the Democrats are only exacerbating. Read more in the weekly speak up memo found here.


Posted in 1 | No Comments »

« Older Entries