2012 Presidential Election

-By Warner Todd Huston Mark Tapscott has an odd idea of a fun time, but I’m glad he does. He was casually tooling through the info posted on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau and decided to see how many welfare bureaucrats there were working in the states . I know, I know, Tapscott needs to take up bowling or something. But, still, the numbers he found are instructive. He found, for instance, that out of every 100,000 residents, the State of New York has 256 welfare bureaucrats and Wisconsin has 249. That’s quite a number, isn’t it? That means that New York, having 19,541,453 residents, has at least 50,026 welfare bureaucrats feeding off the taxpayers. Wisconsin, why it employs 14,080 welfare workers. These number are, well, idiotic. But they are true nonetheless. Here are the top ten as Tapscott calculated: New York – 256 Wisconsin – 249 New Hampshire – 241 Ohio – 228 Minnesota – 208 California – 189 Pennsylvania – 178 North Carolina – 174 North Dakota – 164 New Jersey – 146 Tapscott also had an excellent point. He asked what the readers thought this proved? He then answered saying that it proved that just about anyone with an Internet connection could find this information. That ought to scare the dickens out of government employees everywhere because it represents a level of transparency and, ultimately, accountability that is unprecedented. Indeed it should. But will our politicians be wary of this fact and act in a more upright manner? I doubt it. Still, it was a good exercise and more people should try it out.

See the rest here:
Welfare Bureaucrats Swarm Like Locusts Upon The States

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Monday dismissed the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque as a “political smokescreen.” The liberal anchor derided opponents of the planned construction who live in other states, sneering that there are ” people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying ‘Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end!’” He compared, “But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” Earlier in the segment, Ratigan wondered, “But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions.” The co-host talked to Nate Silver of the website Fivethirtyeight.com. As he pointed out, while 61 percent of voters believe that the Muslim group behind the mosque has a right to put it there, 64 percent oppose the plan. Yet, Ratigan seemed to put all the responsibility for tolerance on those who oppose the construction. He again wondered, “But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque?” A transcript of the August 16 segment, which aired at 4:01pm EDT, follows: DYLAN RATIGAN: Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat feeling the same way, apparently. Within the past hour, Majority Leader Harry Reid became the highest profile Dem, so far, to break ranks with the White House and publicly oppose the mosque. But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions. Can you have the legal right to do something and at the same time a moral obligation not to? And why is it that the people who that live the closest to Ground Zero seem to be the least resistant to the mosque? And those who may be the furthest away, maybe have never even visited New York City in their lives, are the most adamantly against it? Our first guest this afternoon, Nate Silver who has been crunching the numbers, a founder of 538.com. It’s a pleasure to see you again, sir. Your data basically falls into three categories in your poll. Tell us what you’ve come up with. NATE SILVER: Well, I mean, the distinction, like you said, that Obama was struggling with on Friday night is the same ones Americans struggle with themselves, right? Where about two thirds of people think they have the right to build the mosque. Not terribly controversial. About two thirds of those people also think it’s in poor taste. Right? So, you look at the overlap. And there’s this one third in between who thinks, “They have the right to do it. But, I’m not sure how I feel about it so much.” And especially with, I guess, with some of this hedging, or the some of the way the media portrayed it as hedging, Obama is in that middle camp, too, right now, but seeming to satisfy nobody in particular. RATIGAN: You say this falls politically into a similar category as flag burning. Can you explain what the parallels are? SILVER: Well, sure. Flag burning is something where if you ask people, “Hey, do you like flag burning, right?” I don’t think too many people would say- would yes. Or, “Hey, should they build a Hooters down at the shopping mall? You might say “No, I would rather they didn’t.” But they’re clearly within First Amendment rights. There’s not too much debate about that. I mean, you know, some people have said some groups have said, “No they actually don’t have the right.” Newt Gingrich said something along those lines this morning. But, for the most part, that’s not that controversial. I think Obama went a little bit far in saying “We not only look at the right, the First Amendment’s technicality. We should respect their ability to choose how they want to worship and not try and intervene and say, “No, I would rather you not believe a different thing.”  Or that you’d go worship at a different time or a different place. So, he did go a step further than just saying “Hey, it’s about the First Amendment.” But not quite saying, “Hey, I love this idea.” RATIGAN: What about the distinction between people like myself who have lived in lower Manhattan for many years and worked around Ground Zero, walking with past Ground Zero everyday to and from work for five years straight, who look at this as really not that big of a deal? We deal with a lot of other things. This isn’t that big of a big deal. Versus people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying “Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end.” But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” SILVER: Well, you know, I think part of it, it shows that polls it shows that people in Manhattan are supportive of the mosque- mosque. Not people in New York overall, but in Manhattan where it’s being built. I think it has to do with the geography of the city. I walked around Ground Zero when the controversy started and kind of scouted out the perimeter. And you would not see the mosque anywhere from the Ground Zero property. It’s not really on the way. It’s kind of on a side street where there’s a Burlington Coat Factory. It’s very dense. And it’s not like you’re on main street where there’s one road to Ground Zero. RATIGAN: But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque? SILVER: Well, hopefully some ambitious polls, do a poll of people in the financial district in Tribeca or do a poll of who were victims in 9/11. They’re the people who should have a larger say, frankly, than the former governor of Alaska, I think. It is a local issue.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

In late 2009, when high rates of unemployment began looking like a sad fact of life for the foreseeable future, the media started looking for ways to put a positive spin on the situation. Sure, many had predicted the next great depression when unemployment stood at around 6 percent in 2008, but with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, a number of reporters suddenly found the recession’s many silver linings. “All I Want for Christmas Is a Layoff” read the headline of one ABCNews.com column following employees who would rather get a nice severance package than continue in their dull vocations. Newsweek cheerily noted that since men had been hit harder by the recession than women, they would now be able to help out around the house. The Los Angeles Times coined possibly the most absurd term of the recession to date in ” funemployment ,” and discussed jobless Americans who prefer “hitting the beach” to “punching the clock.” Now the New York Times is celebrating the fact that the 90.5 percent of those who are employed are seeing a pleasant rise in their wages. See, the recession’s not that bad. After the obligatory introduction – a few paragraphs lamenting those Americans who have lost their jobs – the Times started searching for the upside: But since this recent recession began in December 2007, real average hourly pay has risen nearly 5 percent. Some employers, especially state and local governments, have cut wages. But many more employers have continued to increase pay. Something similar happened during the Great Depression, notes Bruce Judson of the Yale School of Management. Falling prices meant that workers who held their jobs received a surprisingly strong effective pay raise. This time around, nominal wages – the numbers people see in their paychecks – have risen throughout the slump, as companies have passed along some of the impressive productivity to their (remaining) workers. Meanwhile, inflation has been almost non-existent, except for parts of last year, when real wages did briefly fall. Obviously, real wages could begin falling again if inflation picks up or more employers cut pay. And many workers are already struggling with big debts and diminished 401(k) accounts. Still, the contrast is pretty stark. The typical jobless person has been out of work six months. The typical worker has received a raise. Yes, the typical worker has received a raise. In fact, fewer than ten percent do not have a job. Say, why isn’t anyone giving Obama credit for the 90.5 percent employment rate? After all, the typical person is still employed. During the Bush years, the Times was of course more concerned about actual employment during a recession. Throughout 2002, the paper bemoaned the “jobless recovery” – despite the fact that the unemployment rate was never more than two percent below pre-recession levels. The Times shunned good news outright, favoring to report the more glum details of the nation’s economic outlook. “Employers Balk at New Hirings, Despite Growth,” was a headline typical of the Times’s attitude. Paul Krugman consistently opined on the ” jobless recovery ,” and some Times reporters speculated that government accounting tricks had shielded the public from seeing just how bad the economy was. The recession beginning in late 2001, though less severe than the one in which the country finds itself now, lasted a good deal longer than this one has lasted so far, as you can see in this graph, courtesy of Calculated Risk .   That is not to say that the 2001 recession more serious. As you can see, our current economic downturn is much deeper, and if it continues on its current trajectory may last even longer than the early-2000s recession. It does mean, however, that the New York Times had ample opportunity to ponder all the benefits of recession economics in an economic environment that was far less severe than the current one. I wonder why we were never informed of all the upsides.

Read the rest here:
After Bashing Bush on Unemployment, NYT Now Touting ‘Benefits’ of High Unemployment

In late 2009, when high rates of unemployment began looking like a sad fact of life for the foreseeable future, the media started looking for ways to put a positive spin on the situation. Sure, many had predicted the next great depression when unemployment stood at around 6 percent in 2008, but with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, a number of reporters suddenly found the recession’s many silver linings. “All I Want for Christmas Is a Layoff” read the headline of one ABCNews.com column following employees who would rather get a nice severance package than continue in their dull vocations. Newsweek cheerily noted that since men had been hit harder by the recession than women, they would now be able to help out around the house. The Los Angeles Times coined possibly the most absurd term of the recession to date in ” funemployment ,” and discussed jobless Americans who prefer “hitting the beach” to “punching the clock.” Now the New York Times is celebrating the fact that the 90.5 percent of those who are employed are seeing a pleasant rise in their wages. See, the recession’s not that bad. After the obligatory introduction – a few paragraphs lamenting those Americans who have lost their jobs – the Times started searching for the upside: But since this recent recession began in December 2007, real average hourly pay has risen nearly 5 percent. Some employers, especially state and local governments, have cut wages. But many more employers have continued to increase pay. Something similar happened during the Great Depression, notes Bruce Judson of the Yale School of Management. Falling prices meant that workers who held their jobs received a surprisingly strong effective pay raise. This time around, nominal wages – the numbers people see in their paychecks – have risen throughout the slump, as companies have passed along some of the impressive productivity to their (remaining) workers. Meanwhile, inflation has been almost non-existent, except for parts of last year, when real wages did briefly fall. Obviously, real wages could begin falling again if inflation picks up or more employers cut pay. And many workers are already struggling with big debts and diminished 401(k) accounts. Still, the contrast is pretty stark. The typical jobless person has been out of work six months. The typical worker has received a raise. Yes, the typical worker has received a raise. In fact, fewer than ten percent do not have a job. Say, why isn’t anyone giving Obama credit for the 90.5 percent employment rate? After all, the typical person is still employed. During the Bush years, the Times was of course more concerned about actual employment during a recession. Throughout 2002, the paper bemoaned the “jobless recovery” – despite the fact that the unemployment rate was never more than two percent below pre-recession levels. The Times shunned good news outright, favoring to report the more glum details of the nation’s economic outlook. “Employers Balk at New Hirings, Despite Growth,” was a headline typical of the Times’s attitude. Paul Krugman consistently opined on the ” jobless recovery ,” and some Times reporters speculated that government accounting tricks had shielded the public from seeing just how bad the economy was. The recession beginning in late 2001, though less severe than the one in which the country finds itself now, lasted a good deal longer than this one has lasted so far, as you can see in this graph, courtesy of Calculated Risk .   That is not to say that the 2001 recession more serious. As you can see, our current economic downturn is much deeper, and if it continues on its current trajectory may last even longer than the early-2000s recession. It does mean, however, that the New York Times had ample opportunity to ponder all the benefits of recession economics in an economic environment that was far less severe than the current one. I wonder why we were never informed of all the upsides.

Read more from the original source:
After Bashing Bush on Unemployment, NYT Now Touting ‘Benefits’ of High Unemployment

I'd heard rumors, but I had no idea the numbers were this dramatic: From Jane Hamsher : According to Gallup, Obama's approval ratings among Hispanics has dropped 20 points this year. They note that “the two major drops in Hispanics' approval of Obama this year — in February and May — coincide with two periods when the president was under fire for not doing enough to promote comprehensive immigration reform in Congress.” The Democrats are now on an all-out crusade to blame the Republicans for blocking comprehensive immigration reform. But the truth is, they couldn't get their own caucus to support it. As Jonathan Martin wrote , “[F]or Democrats to pass immigration reform before November, party leaders would have to force members from conservative-leaning districts to cast yet another tough vote that could raise the ire of swing voters.” There was no way that was going to happen. And so we have cable news is full of attacks Sharron [Angle] for shutting out Hispanic media , and Harry Reid saying he doesn't know “how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.” With GOP establishment stalwarts like Lindsey Graham talking about repealing the 14th amendment, that's not without cause. Meanwhile, Reid reconvened the Senate this morning just to pass the $600 million border security bill that puts National Guard troops and drones on the border. [And] America's Voice reports that deportations have skyrocketed under the Obama administration[.] Hamsher suggests that the time-honored strategy of rhetorically backing base-pleasing legislation with no prayer of passage has worn thin, given that Obama has been able to twist arms on other bills of note. Though I think that A) immigration policy is harder, and B) I'm guessing there are other significant reasons for the double-digit plunge. Reason on immigration here .

Follow this link:
Did You Know the Democrats Had a Latino Problem?

In a report on Arizona’s immigration law for CBS’s Sunday Morning, correspondent John Blackstone declared: “In the heat of the Arizona summer, America’s long-simmering immigration debate is boiling over.” He portrayed it as the latest wave of anti-immigrant sentiment: “The often-angry debate….whether yet another influx of outsiders can be accepted into a nation of immigrants.”   At the top of the program, the Early Show’s Harry Smith, filling in for host Charles Osgood, teased Blackstone’s report this way: “‘The New Colossus’ is the name of the Emma Lazarus poem about the Statue of Liberty, the poem that speaks of a ‘golden door’ for immigrants to America. S.B.1070 is the name of the Arizona law that critics say betrays that promise , but which supporters say is necessitated by a tide of illegal immigration.” As Blackstone introduced his report later, a series of newspaper headlines flashed on screen: “Ariz. immigration law creates rift; Obama Blasts Arizona Law; Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.” He then profiled one illegal immigrant: “…the immigration debate…means everything to 23-year-old Hermann. He’s an undocumented immigrant we met at a church gathering….The current atmosphere leaves Hermann nervous but eager to tell his story.” A clip was played of Hermann fretting: “For eight years, I’ve been in the shadows, you know. It’s been to a point where you’re almost paranoid, walking around.” Blackstone touted Hermann’s accomplishments: “He went to high school and then college…The day of his college graduation, he was awarded not one degree, but two…And the speaker that day was President Obama.” Blackstone added: “It’s often said illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes. Hermann does pay taxes and showed me his returns.” Later in the story, after describing the “often-angry debate” over the issue, Blackstone observed: “In Arizona, fears that the state is being overrun by those who won’t wait and that the border is out of control don’t match reality, says Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano.” A clip was played of Napolitano: “There are more than twice as many border patrol agents at the border than just a few years ago. There’s more technology. There’s more infrastructure. There’s more air cover and there’s more every day on the way.” As she listed each border security effort, CBS was helpful enough to provide corresponding video footage to bolster her case. Blackstone continued: “Despite a perception that illegal immigrants are causing a crime wave, the FBI says violent crime near the border has actually fallen in the past decade….The Department of Homeland Security estimates the number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. dropped from 11.6 million in January 2008, to 10.8 million in January 2009.” Napolitano claimed: “…the numbers are all going in the right direction.” Nearing the end of his report, Blackstone did some lobbying for a particular piece of immigration legislation: “Many young undocumented immigrants, like Hermann, have their hopes pinned on the Dream Act – legislation first introduced in 2001 that has stalled in Congress. It would award residency to many brought here as children, younger than 16, who have graduated from high school. Hermann sees the Dream Act as his chance to make a life in the country where he studied, works, and pays taxes.” Here is a full transcript of the August 8 segment: 9:00AM TEASE HARRY SMITH: ‘The New Colossus’ is the name of the Emma Lazarus poem about the Statue of Liberty, the poem that speaks of a ‘golden door’ for immigrants to America. S.B.1070 is the name of the Arizona law that critics say betrays that promise, but which supporters say is necessitated by a tide of illegal immigration. The heated debate is almost certain to end up before the Supreme Court. John Blackstone will report our cover story. JOHN BLACKSTONE: Each year, some 700,000 people from around the world are sworn in as American citizens. The controversy in Arizona and elsewhere is about the 500,000 or so who come in illegally each year. Hermann is one of them. Just you being here, you’re breaking the law. HERMANN: Absolutely. And – and the thing is that it’s an outdated law. JOHN BLACKSTONE: The immigration debate in Arizona and across the country, later on Sunday Morning. 9:09AM SEGMENT HARRY SMITH: S.B.1070 is the controversial Arizona immigration law that a federal judge found partially unconstitutional last month. As the appeal of that decision works its way toward the Supreme Court, the argument in the court of public opinion goes on as well. Our cover story is reported by John Blackstone. JOHN BLACKSTONE: In the heat of the Arizona summer, America’s long-simmering immigration debate is boiling over. CROWD PROTESTING IMMIGRATION LAW: Si se puede! Si se puede! [ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC OF NEWSPAPER HEADLINE: Ariz. immigration law creates rift] BLACKSTONE: While protestors take to the streets, the state and federal governments are fighting in court over who can write and enforce immigration law. [ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC OF NEWSPAPER HEADLINE: Obama Blasts Arizona Law] UNIDENTIFIED MAN A: We will not comply. UNIDENTIFIED MAN B: We will enforce the law. BLACKSTONE: When Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer signed the state’s tough new immigration law in April, she said it was needed because of Washington’s failures. [ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC OF NEWSPAPER HEADLINE: Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration] She was angered by the court decision, that temporarily at least, blocked major parts of the measure. JAN BREWER: Now they’ve got this temporary injunction, they need to step up, the feds do, and do the job that they have the responsibility to do for the people of America, and for the people of Arizona. JANET NAPOLITANO: All allegiance and fidelity. BLACKSTONE: Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano now has responsibility for securing the border as secretary of Homeland Security. NAPOLITANO: There’s frustration out there. I think there’s a misconception that securing the border means sealing the border and anyone who’s been on the border knows that that’s just a physical impossibility among other things. You don’t seal the border but you secure the border. BLACKSTONE: Securing the border was Harold Beasley’s job for more than three decades. Now retired in Arizona, the current battle has him talking about putting on his uniform again. HAROLD BEASLEY: Why don’t you give it a try? Bring me out of retirement and give me 200 Border Patrol agents and I’ll show you how many people I can deport in a couple of months. You know, it’s – it’s – it’s – it’s a hard job, but you can do it. [CROWD PROTESTING IMMIGRATION LAW] BLACKSTONE: If the immigration debate means a lot to Harold Beasley, it means everything to 23-year-old Hermann. He’s an undocumented immigrant we met at a church gathering. He was brought here by his family when he was 15. HERMANN: And I completely fell in love with the country. I – I felt, you know, there’s so many opportunities. There’s so many things you can do here. I want to stay. I want to, you know, be someone. I want to go to school, be the best I can be. BEASLEY: I see people in my hometown of Phoenix, Arizona now demonstrating, carrying signs, saying that I owe them something. I owe them rights. I owe them, you know, welfare. I owe them this and I owe them that. BLACKSTONE: The estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona cost the state about $900 million dollars a year for education, health care, and incarceration, according to Arizona officials. And at a time when unemployment in Arizona is 9.6%, there are fears undocumented workers are taking jobs Americans should have. UNIDENTIFIED MAN C: We are America! Get over it! [SPLIT SCREEN: On Left: Protestor sign reading 'Land of the Free! Really?'; On Right: Police officer in riot gear]   BLACKSTONE: The current atmosphere leaves Hermann nervous but eager to tell his story. HERMANN: For eight years, I’ve been in the shadows, you know. It’s been to a point where you’re almost paranoid, walking around. But I think this is – it’s now or never, you know. You got to say what you got to say. BLACKSTONE: Hermann’s family came from Venezuela on tourist visas but never left. He went to high school and then college. HERMANN: And I worked full time while I was at school, almost 40 hours. Actually, my senior year, all throughout the – the year, I worked at nights, delivering newspapers. BLACKSTONE: The day of his college graduation, he was awarded not one degree, but two. HERMANN: Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Magna Cum Laude. And that’s my Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, Magna Cum Laude as well. BLACKSTONE: And the speaker that day was President Obama. BARACK OBAMA: We need young people like you to step up. We need your daring. We need your enthusiasm. We need your energy. We need your imagination. HERMANN: If there was a pathway for me to become legalized even right now, I would do it, I would do it. BLACKSTONE: It’s often said illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes. Hermann does pay taxes and showed me his returns. He doesn’t have a Social Security number; but the IRS gives undocumented workers a special taxpayer number, information that is not shared with immigration authorities. HERMANN: It’s funny how the system works. You know, they – they won’t give you that chance to work but they do want you to pay those taxes. BLACKSTONE: The often-angry debate here in Arizona reflects a discussion that’s been going on through much of America’s history. The country’s dilemma is whether yet another influx of outsiders can be accepted into a nation of immigrants. Each year, about 700,000 people raise their hands to be sworn in as American citizens. Getting into America legally isn’t quick or easy. Mumtaz Shamsee, from Pakistan, became an American citizen last month. MUMTAZ SHAMSEE: The whole process, since the day I arrived till the day I took my oath, is almost 19 years. BLACKSTONE: He came here first on a student visa. Then, after graduating as a computer engineer, he got a temporary work visa, and eventually citizenship. SHAMSEE: I feel like I earned my citizenship because the rule is if you are on work visa, H1, and you get laid off, you have to find another job or you are illegal, your status is illegal. You’re supposed to leave the country. BLACKSTONE: Fortunately for him, his skills were in demand in Silicon Valley so he could stay. Many other prospective immigrants have to wait patiently in their home countries. SUSAN CURDA: There has to be a visa number available, and sometimes that actually can take several years. BLACKSTONE: Susan Curda of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says to come here legally most immigrants need either a job offer or an immediate family member already living here. Then get in line. CURDA: The countries that have the most people wanting to come to the United States, the wait’s going to be longer. BLACKSTONE: In Arizona, fears that the state is being overrun by those who won’t wait and that the border is out of control don’t match reality, says Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano. NAPOLITANO: There are more than twice as many border patrol agents at the border than just a few years ago. There’s more technology. There’s more infrastructure. There’s more air cover and there’s more every day on the way. [ON-SCREEN: Footage of Border Patrol efforts as Napolitano lists them] BLACKSTONE: Despite a perception that illegal immigrants are causing a crime wave, the FBI says violent crime near the border has actually fallen in the past decade: in Phoenix down 10%, in San Diego down 17%, in El Paso, Texas, down 36%. In fact, illegal immigration as a whole is actually declining, although the poor economy may have as much to do with that as improved border security. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. dropped from 11.6 million in January 2008, to 10.8 million in January 2009. NAPOLITANO: Even as that has been going on and the numbers are all going in the right direction and – and all the rest, I think there’s a realization, particularly in border states, that the underlying immigration law needs to be updated, needs to be reformed. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN A: It’s a fight for the Dream Act- BLACKSTONE: Many young undocumented immigrants, like Hermann, have their hopes pinned on the Dream Act – legislation first introduced in 2001 that has stalled in Congress. It would award residency to many brought here as children, younger than 16, who have graduated from high school. Hermann sees the Dream Act as his chance to make a life in the country where he studied, works, and pays taxes. HERMANN: This is my home. I – I do feel like I’m an American. You know, I have a great love, a great respect for this country. I’ve always had it. BLACKSTONE: But Hermann’s wish to live here legally is one shared by millions around the world. CROWD: And to the Republic for which it stands- BLACKSTONE: Many immigrants think coming to America is like winning a lottery. And that’s exactly how Paras and Davita Upadhyay from Nepal got here. They were winners of the State Department’s Diversity Visa Lottery, which awards 55,000 visas a year to people in countries that send few immigrants to America. DAVITA UPADHYAY: He was all excited, yeah. It was exciting. We were not expecting that. PARAS UPDHYAY: Yeah, we were not expecting that. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN B: Raise your right hands. BLACKSTONE: More people want to come to the United States than to anywhere else and that is a challenge of immigration reform. Among all those who dream of becoming American, how do we choose who to accept?

Read the original post:
CBS’s Blackstone: Immigration Debate ‘Boiling Over,’ ‘Often-Angry’

Wouldn’t you say that an important part of any election story would be the numbers involved, especially in the case of landslides? Perhaps someone should give a heads up on this to Los Angeles Times writer Noam N. Levey of the Times’ Tribune Washington bureau. Although he does report that Missouri voters, whom he labels as “Republican voters,” voted to approve Proposition C yesterday which challenged ObamaCare’s requirement that Americans must purchase health insurance, the all important margin of the lopsided victory was noticeable by its absence. Reading Levey’s article you wouldn’t know if Proposition C was approved by 51 or 52 percent of Missouri voters or was the actual figure so much higher that Levey found it painful to relay that information? Reporting from Washington — Striking a largely symbolic blow at President Obama’s healthcare overhaul, Missouri voters approved a ballot measure Tuesday challenging the new law’s requirement that Americans buy health insurance starting in 2014. The proposition, which sought to deny the federal government the authority to penalize people for not getting insurance, is expected to have little practical effect on implementation of the healthcare law. But the Missouri measure represented the first electoral test for the landmark legislation that Obama signed in March. And it underscored continued hostility to the law from Republican voters. So what was the actual size of the number of “Republican voters” who approved of Proposition C in Missouri? Since Levey won’t provide that detail, let us turn to the Wall Street Journal for that information: With all precincts reporting, 71% of voters supported Proposition C , establishing a state law that says Missouri cannot compel people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage. Twenty-nine percent voted against the proposition. So an overwhelming 71% of Missouri voters supported proposition C and they were “Republican voters” according to Levey. No wonder he was embarrassed to reveal the actual number. 71% would mean a lot of voters other than “Republican voters” cast their ballots in favor of proposition C.  Despite this obvious fact, Levey continues with his Republican obsession: Opposition to the law has remained particularly intense among Republicans, with nearly 8 in 10 in a recent national USA Today/Gallup survey saying it was a “bad thing.” So it’s all the fault of “Republican voters” who must make up 71% of the Missouri electorate according to Levey’s premise. Of course, the absurdity of that premise is probably the reason why he declined to report on the actual details of the Proposition C landslide yesterday.

Originally posted here:
LAT Writer Declines to Give Details on Huge Defeat of ObamaCare by Missouri ‘Republican Voters’

Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) boasted Thursday of raising $2.2 million for his Senate run in the last quarter. His Democratic opponent, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, has yet to release her numbers. Blunt’s camp made the announcement first via Twitter , calling it his “largest quarter of the campaign.” Soon after, the campaign blasted a release to reporters noting it had more than $4.5 million cash on hand. Blunt received money from 5,000 individual donors in the second quarter. It’s also spent almost $1.1 million since March 31, according to its disclosure report. Blunt spokesman Rich Chrismer said their fundraising figures are a sign that Missouri voters are rejecting Democratic policies. “It is so clear to a huge and growing number of Missourians that the Carnahan, Pelosi, Reid and Obama policies are a disaster for jobs, the economy, healthcare and energy,” Chrismer said in a statement. A Carnahan spokesman said the campaign’s numbers would be released “soon.”

Read the original:
Blunt touts $2.2 million haul for Senate run

The Democrats’ woes continue to worsen. The Financial Times chronicles their decline: Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that. Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse. In the past few days polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over previously safe Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Indeed, given the uniformly negative direction in the numbers, it is now quite possible the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware. … [T]he Grand Old party has a good shot at taking control of both houses of Congress. Worse for Mr Obama, political scientists say that at this stage in the calendar, there is almost nothing he can do about it. “If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. Sweet. Then there is this: Next week, Mr Obama is likely to sign a historic Wall Street re-regulation bill into law. Earlier this year he did the same for healthcare. But polls show the public either does not care, or even opposes these otherwise big reforms. “The longer this goes on, the more it looks like Obama wasted his first year on healthcare,” said the outside adviser. “It’s still the economy, stupid.” I think that is right, at least in a political sense. Many liberals will say that Obama’s sacrifice was worthwhile if it allows the Left to commandeer the health care sector and make Americans dependent on government forever. For the moment, though, it’s fun to enjoy the Democrats’ discomfiture as November draws nearer.

See the article here:
Schadenfreude

Once again, it’s clear that reading editorials and op-eds at publications like the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily becomes a requirement to be truly informed when a Democratic administration in power. On July 6 , Peter Ferrara at IBD noted that the annual report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare system is long overdue, and wondered why: Are Overdue Reports Concealing ObamaCare Impact On Medicare? Every year, the Annual Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees comes out between mid-April and mid-May. Now it’s July, and there’s no sign of this year’s report. What is the Obama administration hiding? The annual report includes detailed information about Social Security and its financing over the next 75 years, produced by the Office of the Actuary of the Social Security Administration. The Congressional Budget Office reported last week in its Long Term Budget Outlook that Social Security was already running a deficit this year. According to last year’s Social Security Trustees Report, that was not supposed to happen until 2015, with the trust fund to run out completely by 2037. With the disastrous Obama economy, the great Social Security surplus that started in the Reagan administration is gone completely. Every year, the federal government has been raiding the Social Security trust funds to take that annual surplus and spend it on the rest of the federal government’s runaway spending, leaving the trust funds only with IOUs backed by nothing but politicians’ promise to pay it back when it’s needed. Now even that annual surplus is gone. How soon will the trust funds run out completely now? … (But) The implications for Social Security aren’t what the Obama administration is hiding by delaying the annual trustees reports. Those annual reports also include information regarding Medicare over the next 75 years. What the administration is trying to hide are sweeping draconian cuts to Medicare resulting from the ObamaCare legislation, which the annual report will document. The administration is trying to delay the report until mid-August, when it’s hoping the country will be on vacation and won’t notice. Or maybe the delay is because the White House is trying to bludgeon the chief actuaries for Medicare and Social Security into fudging the numbers. The Social Security “IOUs backed by nothing but politicians’ promise to pay it back when it’s needed” are from a government that itself has well over $10 trillion dollars in other debt, before counting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and a host of other off-the-books liabilities. Then there are the additional tens of trillions in actuarial liabilities. Ferrara didn’t note that the administration announced a delay until June 30 back on April 5 , “so that the new report can reflect the impact of the recently passed health care overhaul.” But they’re now almost two weeks late. What are they waiting for? A really, really busy news day? A Friday night midsummer doc dump? Meanwhile, no one in the rest of the press appears to be the least bit curious. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See more here:
IBD Op-Ed Wonders Where Social Security/Medicare Trustees’ Report Is; Rest of Media Doesn’t