Archive for June, 2010

It is rumored that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is likely to leave his post in the next six to eight months.  On Monday we asked you to weigh in your opinion on whether or not Emanuel retiring is a good or bad idea.

Above you can see that an overwhelming majority of voters (69%) graded the idea of Rahm Emanuel retiring from

Chief of Staff as an ‘A’.In the case of Rahm Emanuel’s departure, it is not a matter of if—but when.

Earlier this week politico wrote that Rahm Emanuel might not leave his position until 2011.

“It’s the opinion in the top levels of the White House that Rahm is going to be here longer than many people think,” said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

While Emanuel vacillates on his exit strategy, he is simultaneously dealing with a number of potentially embarrassing disclosures.  Politico reported that a top deputy dangled the possibility of administration jobs to a Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff in hopes of forcing Romanoff out of a Democratic primary in Colorado against Sen. Michael Bennet.  Further, on Tuesday the AP reported on an exchange between then-Rep. Emanuel and a top staffer to infamous Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2006.  It suggested Emanuel backed Blagojevich in a battle with a newspaper editorial board in exchange for a $2 million state grant for his district.

Rahm Emanuel’s style of politics stands in sharp contradiction to the escalating disenchantment that many feel with the deranged “idealism” of Obama’s politics.

As the President continues to surround himself with idealists and visionaries, the closer the administration is to self-destruction. And while it would be in the best interest of Obama and the White House if Emanuel stuck around, we’d like to see him gone.

By Samantha Cohen

In the wee hours of Friday morning, as the sun began to rise over the nation’s capitol, Congressional Democrats emerged from all night-negotiations in order to announce an agreement on a new financial reform bill which will impose new regulations on America’s financial sector, while doing virtually nothing to address the causes of the latest financial meltdown.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, even after locking themselves in a room for 20 straight hours, Democrats somehow managed to craft a bill which leaves government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “largely untouched.”

“Largely untouched”?  Weren’t these two government-sponsored lenders among the first to face government take-over?  Weren’t their lending practices at the heart of the sub-prime mortgage crisis?

They certainly were.  As Mark Calabria of The National Review has written

“had Fannie and Freddie not been there to buy these [subprime] loans, most of them would never have been made. And had the taxpayer not been standing behind Fannie and Freddie, they would have been unable to fund such large purchases of subprime mortgages.”

But it’s no surprise the bill doesn’t deal with Fannie or Freddie, given that the bill’s chief authors, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) have been backer’s of these lenders for a long time now. 

After all, it was Barney Frank who, back when the Bush administration was trying to reform Fannie and Freddie’s lending practices, quipped  that,  “These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis.”

And it’s Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking committee, who has been the top recipient of Fannie’s and Freddie’s campaign contributions.

The bill doesn’t just leave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out.  As Calabria writes, it “would fail to end the numerous government distortions of our financial and mortgage markets that led to the crisis…Nowhere in the final bill will you see even a pretense of rolling back the endless federal incentives and mandates to extend credit, particularly mortgages, to those who cannot afford to pay their loans back.”

Some “reform.”  Whatever role irresponsible banking practices played in the recent financial meltdown, it is undeniable that government played an equal, if not more influential, part.  Under the Clinton administration, poor government policy encouraged lending to those who manifestly could not pay their mortgages.  When the Bush administration sought to address this irresponsible lending, Congressional Democrats fought them, and American taxpayers paid the price.

I will close with Calabira’s wise advice to our lawmakers:

“Until Washington takes a long, deep look at its own role in causing the financial crisis, we will have little hope for avoiding another one. And the Dodd-Frank legislation, sure to be heralded as strong medicine for perfidious financiers, is actually not even a modest step in the right direction.”

Congress ought to vote against this failure of a bill–and then get to work on real reform.

By Avi Snyder

Over the last fifty years the modern conservative movement has gained momentum.  Now more than ever, people are more skeptical about ‘politics as usual’ that has infiltrated our government in Washington.

A Gallup Poll today reported that so far in 2010, conservatives outnumber both moderates and liberals.  Gallup finds that 42% of Americans choose to describe themselves as either conservative or very conservative.

These results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June of 2010, including interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% who identified as conservative is representative of a substantial edge conservatives held over moderates in 2009.  In fact, if percentages remain this high throughout the rest of 2010, it would represent Gallup’s highest annual percentages of conservative identifiers since 1992.

Similar to 2009 results, currently 7 in 10 Republicans consider themselves conservative–an increase of 10 points since 2002.

The Republican Party understands that smaller government means a more efficient government, as the government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.  The men who founded our great nation believed in this, and subsequently, the GOP has made it the cornerstone of the party.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 48% of adults in America believe their individual rights are threatened by the government, rather than protected.  Nearly half of Americans.  What does it say about the course our nation is taking if almost half of its people believe that our individual rights are threatened by our government?

Ronald Reagan once explained the roll of government as this: “government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”  That’s exactly what this administration has been trying to do–protect us from making our own decisions and exercising our own rights.  And by the looks of this poll, we’re about tired of it.

By Samantha Cohen and Leah Dow

With our nation’s stagnant economic growth, the staggering unemployment rate, and the government’s lackluster response to the catastrophic oil spill that has devastated the Gulf of Mexico since April 20, it is no wonder that America is dissatisfied with the “changes” Obama promised. Consequently, trust in President Barack Obama’s leadership has officially hit an all-time low.  Following this week’s musical chairs incident with General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation, a jointly conducted Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey shows that the nation’s disapproval over President Obama’s performance continues to spell trouble for midterm elections.

The poll indicates that 48 percent of those who were polled disapprove of Obama’s performance.  Since he took office in January 2009, his job approval rating has consistently been in a free fall–reaching a new low at an impressive 45 percent.

His lagging approval ratings show that Americans are worried more about the state of our country now (five months out from pivotal midterm elections) than at any other point during his presidency.  Not surprisingly, the survey also shows that 62 percent of adults believe that the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction.

This shouldn’t be too surprising.  After all, this president has shown that what Americans want come second to his agenda.  His first legislative “victory”–the 787 billion dollar stimulus bill–was just the beginning of a series of bills that outraged the majority of Americans…and subject us further to a growing debt that will haunt us for years.  Next came cap and trade, health care reform, and now we’ve seen just in the past couple of weeks bills calling for more spending and increased regulation that is sure to stifle economic growth.

Bill McInturff, a GOP pollster, responded to the results by saying, “[The results show] a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate. The voters are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for Democrats.”  Funny how it was this exact sentiment that ushered in the Obama era–and it looks quite possible that it will also throw them out.

Americans are looking for a reliable, trustworthy president and Congress that will keep their campaign promises–and that listen to what constituents have to say.  That’s what we were supposed to get with Obama.  Unfortunately, as this and other polls are beginning to show regularly, we’re not getting it.  Come November, they’ll hear us–and maybe then, we’ll get the “change” we voted for in the first place.

By Adam Welsh and Leah Dow

The latest roundup of news, commentary and analysis from around the web

By: Avi Snyder

Tony Blankley demonstrates how President Obama is moving America off the world stage and becoming an “accidentally isolationist” president.  Blankley ably demonstrates why this is a dangerous direction for the country to take and details the potentially disastrous consequences of this shift in American foreign policy.

Speaking of Obama’s dangerous foreign policy, Iran continues to successfully move ahead with its nuclear program.

Some back and forth between Eliot Abrams in the Wall Street Journal and the Editors of the Washington Post about whether Obama should fire General McChrystal.  Abrams is in favor of the firing, the Post against.  Though the articles were written before the general’s “resignation,” they make important points on both sides of the debate.

Turning stateside…Great article about how states like California and New York will face the day of budget reckoning before the Federal Government.  Morris and McGann encourage Republicans, should they win in November, to preserve federalism by not bailing them out, but instead allowing “the states declare bankruptcy and cleanse themselves of the union agreements that got them into trouble in the first place.”

Does the monstrous growth of the welfare state amount to a government-run Ponzi Scheme?  Absolutely.  Howard Rich looks to the excesses of Greece and Spain to show where the U.S. could be headed, and how the scheme could get busted.

Think Republicans are still the party of racist, old, white men?  Nikki Haley and Tim Scott won their respective primaries in South Carolina.  This story highlights how historic it is that an Indian-American woman and an African American will be representing the South Carolina GOP in the elections.  The Republican Party is expanding, reaching out to new constituencies and shattering stereotypes.

More on growing Republican diversity.  Focusing on African American Tim Scott’s victory over segregationist Strom Thurmond’s son, Paul Thurmond.

Mexico is now suing Arizona over its new immigrations law.  This is not only a completely inappropriate meddling in American immigration policy; it is also wildly hypocritical given Mexico’s draconian immigration laws.

Larry Elder’s exceptional defense of Arizona’s eminently reasonable immigration law.

He promised hope. He demanded change. He swept you off your feet.

And then he betrayed you.

Since taking office, the American people have becoming increasingly disenchanted with Barack Obama.  Americans are less confident in Obama’s performance, and are much more concerned with the safety and state of our nation. The future of our nation is threatened by a catastrophic oil spill, record high levels of deficit and debt, and a perpetually failing economy.

And for the first time, more people disapprove of Obama’s job performance than approve.  The Wall Street Journal reported that 62 % of adults believe the country is on the wrong track; the highest level since before the 2008 election.  Further, 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress rather than re-elect their current representative, the highest in eighteen years.

Obama was right: he would bring change–just not the change even he was anticipating.

The continuing devastation of the oil spill and the sluggish economy are the biggest concerns Americans have.  Because of the deep-seeded dissatisfaction with the Obama administration and the frustration Americans have with how he’s dealt with both issues, the Democrats are likely to see major losses in November.

The future, however, does not look as grim for the Republican Party.  Through strong fundraising efforts and the recruitment of quality candidates, it’s increasingly looking like the GOP has a realistic shot at gaining major seats in both chambers of congress.

Back when Obama won the presidency, the majority of the United States erupted in celebration. His message reverberated around the nation; he would do whatever it takes to get the economy moving again, keeping unemployment low and job creation steady.  My friends, this has not been the case.  With the oil spill aggravating an economy already slow on the rebound, Americans are no longer starry-eyed and in awe of our president.

They are furious.

Here is an indication of the overwhelming dissatisfaction Americans are feeling towards Obama and his administration:

In a poll taken from the Wall Street Journal, 30% said feel they simply “do not relate” to Obama; only 8% believed this at the start of his presidency. When Obama took office, 70% of voters believed he held strong leadership qualities; only 49% of voters believe this still holds true.  Currently, 40% rate him positively on his ability to handle a crisis.  Half of voters disapprove of how Obama has handled the oil spill.

As one poll respondent said:

As a Democrat and as a woman, I am disappointed in him,” said poll respondent Melissa Riner, a woman currently residing in Mesa, Arizona. Referring to the oil spill, she continued, “I don’t think he’s handling it. He doesn’t seem to be doing anything. He just talks.

Ms. Riner, you are not alone in this thought.  The Wall Street Journal reports that:

Out of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 or indicated that they would vote for him, just 44% express high interest in the midterm elections–down 38 points from this stage in the 2008 campaign.  On the other hand, 71% of voters who supported John McCain in 2008 expressed high interest in the upcoming midterm elections.

Coincidentally, the Democratic National Committee has committed to over $50 million in campaigning in hopes of coaxing Obama voters back to the polls come November.  The midterm elections in November will be a pivotal moment for the Republican Party; more importantly, however, it will serve as a painful and substantial reality check for Obama and the Democratic leadership.

As the saying goes: fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Be rest assured, the American people will not be fooled again.

By Samantha Cohen

“It wasn’t that Americans have this highly ideological demand for less government.  Americans don’t think that way; this isn’t an ideological country.  Americans accepted less government as a solution to [their] problems.”

So said former Bush speechwriter David Frum in 2008 about the Republican successes of the last three decades.  And he was correct.  The vast majority of Americans don’t think in the ideological terms of liberal vs. conservative.  They think in terms of what works and what doesn’t.

Americans almost always throw out the incumbent party when the economy is hurting.  They threw out the Democrats 1980, the Republicans in 1992, and the Republicans once again in 2008.

The key voters in all of these elections were the non-ideological moderates; the voters who had allegiance not to a party, but only to a stable and prosperous economy.  The party that won their votes won the election.  And it is these same voters who will be the key in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

In the immediate run-up to the 2008 elections, the housing market collapsed and took the rest of the economy with it.  What caused the crisis?  In reality, years of pressure from Democratic lawmakers on semi-public lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give mortgages to people who manifestly could never pay for them brought about the crisis.  But, alas, there was a Republican president, and his party took the flack for the tanking economy.

It’s no surprise then that Barack Obama won 60% of the self-identified “moderate” voters.   When moderates thought Republicans weren’t delivering on the economy, they turned to the Democrats.

But it didn’t take long for them to get buyer’s remorse.

A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows that 49% of independents think the economy has gotten worse in the last year, and 27% think it is about the same (which is certainly not a good assessment).

Data further shows that “the independents who think the economy’s gotten worse in the least year are planning to vote for the GOP by a 53-6 margin. The ones who think it’s about the same say they’ll vote Republican 34-24.”

Now that’s quite a turnaround!

It took less than two years of Democrats in power for Americans to learn that big government won’t solve the nation’s economic woes.

Government doesn’t create jobs; entrepreneurs do.  Government doesn’t stimulate the economy; tax cuts and fewer regulations do.  Government doesn’t lift us out of a recession; freedom and American ingenuity do.

Non-ideological Americans want a government that can put our economy back on track, and the Democrats’ plans to tax and spend us out of this recession haven’t worked.  What America needs is tax relief for entrepreneurs and the middle class, a plan to balance our budget, and strong leaders who will make the tough decisions needed to protect the young people from having to pick up this generation’s tab.

The College Republicans have been working on behalf of the candidates pursuing these goals all around the country.  We aren’t preaching to the choir any more.  The country is listening.  It’s time to take back our country.

By Avi Snyder

This week has ushered in news of broken promises, fiscal irresponsibility and tax hikes.  Sounds like just another week with the Democrats in power.

In the midst of his announcement that House Democrats won’t be passing a budget for next year, House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also announced that “at a minimum,” the House would not extend the tax cuts to taxpayers above $250,000.

At a minimum?  Didn’t Barack Obama promise that middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase?

But Democrats have never been good at keeping their promises.  On issues from transparency in government to the nature of health care reform, Democrats have been deceiving the American people left and right.  And now, they break their promises on taxes.

The Hill reports that:

“You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, concurred, saying, “I don’t think there’s any magic in the number, whether it’s $250,000, $200,000 or $225,000.

“The larger question is whether we’ll be able to extend the tax cuts for middle-income folks,” Dorgan said. “The answer, I expect, would be yes, but we don’t quite know how it all fits in the larger picture.”

Senator Feinstein says you can’t make promises to people—but isn’t that what gets you elected in the first place?  It’s what you tell the people you’ll do in office that gets you elected.

But all this talk about tax cuts isn’t just worrisome because of Obama’s campaign promises—it’s just plain bad economic policy.  After all, we are in the midst of a recession.  Less money in the hands of Americans means a lower demand for goods, higher unemployment, and a weaker economy.

Democrats have placed an extremely misleading ultimatum before the American people: face higher taxes, or watch the national debt soar.  This kind of ultimatum, however, is seriously flawed for more than one reason.

First, lower tax rates do not always lead to falling government revenues.  The massive tax cuts implemented by the Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan administrations showed us that tax cuts can often stimulate and grow the economy–so much so that they eventually increase the tax base to a point where tax revenues actually increase due to tax cuts.  Alas, this Democratic congress has proven they don’t take kindly to learning from history.

But more importantly, even if Democrats are right and the tax rates that will be a result of their tax hikes will still not be large enough to significantly shrink the tax base.  Meaning that this in no way validates the assumption that deficit and debt reduction requires raising taxes and robbing hard-working Americans of their hard-earned money.

Interestingly enough, the 2010 Federal budget contained 9,000 earmarks.  9,000! Some of the more entertaining ones include building sidewalks in Texas and pig odor research in Iowa.  Laugh now, but if this is what the federal government spends our money on, it does not warrant getting a cent more necessity dictates.

And how about these numbers from the CATO Institute:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development […] will spend $63 billion in 2010, or about $530 for every U.S. household. It employs 9,500 workers, and operates 108 different subsidy programs.

The Department of Education […] will spend $107 billion in 2010, or about $900 for every U.S. household. It employs 4,100 workers and operates 169 different subsidy programs.

The Department of Agriculture […] will spend $142 billion in 2010, or about $1,200 for every U.S. household. It operates 237 different subsidy programs and employs 96,000 workers in about 7,000 offices across the nation.

Hundreds of billions dollars are spent every year to maintain a monstrously-sized federal government that our founders could never have imagined.  Not to mention that last month’s job report stated that government employment rose by a “mere” 390,000 positions.  This is what tax hikes are paying for—more career bureaucrats that will only inflate the size of government.

Democrats aren’t interested in balancing the budget.  They are, however, forever trying to substantiate their need for government funds in order to engage in social experimentation programs (i.e. Obamacare).  The only way to stop irresponsible government spending is to stop electing those who see no problem with it.  And when November comes, we’ll have that chance.  Run with it.

By Avi Snyder and Leah Dow

Last weekend, College Republicans in Ohio attended the 2010 Ohio Republican State Dinner with the Ohio GOP Chairman Kevin DeWine.  The Ohio College Republican Federation won the award for the Republican Organization of the Year.  Congratulations to the OCRF from the CRNC!

Ohio CRs

Tired of Democrats in Washington who are pursuing tax increases, policy changes, and regulatory actions that are stymieing job growth and crippling our economy?

You’re not the only one.

Ivan Seidenberg openly criticized the Obama administration, saying the president and Democratic lawmakers have created an “increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.”  Seidenberg is the chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of top corporate executives and close business allies of Obama.  His opinion is a profound reflection of corporate America’s discontent with Obama and his policies.

An opinion, I might add, that is not new.  Last month Seidenberg expressed his concerns about the Democrats economic policy in a meeting with Peter Orszag; the WH budget director who just announced resignation would come in the not-so-distant future. In response to his concern, Orszag requested specific instances of dissatisfaction.

He went on:

In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore.  By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses.

The Roundtable was the only major business group that supported Obamacare, and has for the most part stood behind his policies.  However, with unemployment consistently hovering just below 10% and the federal government usurping more control in the “free market” economy, they’re reconsidering their allegiance to the BHO agenda.

In particular, Roundtable president John Castellani has had enough.  Two pieces of legislation still pending in Congress are exceptionally at odds with business interests.

The first is a provision of the administration’s financial regulation overhaul that makes it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members.  This issue–called “proxy access”–gives shareholders more say in nominating board directors. Under current law, if shareholders want to nominate their own board directors, they have to pay the costly price for publicizing candidates and mailing ballots. With the Senate’s financial regulation bill, proxy access would force companies to fund efforts for outside nominees; discouraging shareholders from making the effort at the get go.

The second raises taxes on multinational corporations.  This has been a contentious issue between industries and President Obama, who has repeatedly vowed to fight the off shoring of jobs by raising taxes on U.S. companies that operate overseas. The bill would extract $14 billion from multinationals in order to cover the cost of extending unemployment benefits and renewing a series of expired tax credits.

Now an alliance of big companies, including Microsoft, IBM and General Electric, is speaking out against the bill, arguing it will undoubtedly make U.S. businesses less competitive abroad.  Another concern this alliance has with the bill is that any decline in profit at U.S. multinationals hinders their ability to hire American workers.

Castellani, Seidenberg, and members of the Roundtable believe that these two pieces of legislation are fundamentally counterproductive.  To get the economy moving again and spur job creation does not mean the government must stick its nose in places its not needed.  On the contrary, Mr. President; I implore you to leave this job to the experts.

By Samantha Cohen