<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Paul Ryan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/paul-ryan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Poor Regulations</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/poor-regulations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=poor-regulations</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/poor-regulations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 04:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lloyd Billingsley]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal bureaucracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Victims]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=238995</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul Ryan shines a light on the biggest victims of federal bureaucracy.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/red-tape_2810803b.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-239013" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/red-tape_2810803b-450x334.jpg" alt="red-tape_2810803b" width="304" height="226" /></a>“Paul Ryan is moving to reframe the debate on regulations,” <a href="http://thehill.com/regulation/215486-paul-ryan-opens-new-front-in-war-on-poverty"><span style="color: #0433ff;">notes <i>The Hill</i></span></a>, “arguing that the nation’s poor are the real victims of the red tape spewing from Washington.” The Wisconsin Republican’s “Expanding Opportunity in America” initiative intends to address what the Obama administration calls “income equality,” which persists despite massive federal efforts.</p>
<p>According to the House Budget Committee majority staff, <a href="http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">at least 92 federal programs purport to help lower-income Americans</span></a><span style="color: #343434;">. These include dozens of education and job-training programs, 17 food-aid programs, and more than 20 housing programs. In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $799 billion on these programs. Ryan is hardly alone in charging that some of these programs hurt the poor. </span>He cites Creighton University economics professor Diana Thomas, who says that Department of Transportation regulations requiring rear-view cameras will impact low-income car buyers, who prefer to spend their money elsewhere.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;"><span style="color: #000000;">Those in the lowest fifth of income spend the greatest share of their incomes on energy. </span>Earners in the lowest income quintile spend 24 percent of their pre-tax income on energy, as opposed to 4 percent in the highest quintile. Therefore, as this analysis from the Manhattan Institute notes, “<a href="http://budget.house.gov/waronpoverty/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">America’s poorest citizens will be hurt most by the new EPA regulations</span></a>” on emissions and “it is the poor who will have their budgets squeezed as they struggle to pay for gas and electricity.”</p>
<p>Sofie E. Miller, senior policy analyst at the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center,<i> </i>writes that federal<i> </i>regulations <a href="http://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/opinion-paul-ryan-anti-poverty-plan-targets-regressive-regulation"><span style="color: #0433ff;">“often leave low-income Americans paying a heavier price than their neighbors.”</span></a> Energy standards for appliances “cause prices to increase and push some low-income consumers out of the market.” Likewise, Diana Thomas says “regulation has a regressive effect: It redistributes wealth from lower-income households to higher-income households by causing lower-income households to pay for risk reduction worth more to the wealthy.”</p>
<p><span style="color: #0433ff;"><a href="http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Furchtgott-Roth-EPA-emission-carbon/2014/06/02/id/574557/">Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist for the Department of Labor</a></span> argues that new “cap and trade” environmental regulations “will reduce opportunities for the poorest Americans.” The regulations “impose real costs on the economy,” and deprive workers of  “the security of employment that comes from industrial activity.” Citing rent control, <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/stephanie-slade/2013/07/22/dc-and-new-yorks-real-estate-regulations-hurt-the-poor"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Stephanie Slade charges</span></a> that “<span style="color: #1a1a1a;">it’s liberals who continue to support laws that, whatever their intentions, have turned out to be disproportionately harmful to the poorest members of society.”</span></p>
<p style="color: #272727;"><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">As Patrick Fagan and Robert Rector observed nearly 20 years ago, it’s not exactly news that War on <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/06/bg1084nbsp-how-welfare-harms-kids"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Poverty programs such as Aid to Families With Dependent Children have been a bust</span></a>. </span>Welfare dependency “has a negative effect on the earnings and employment capacity of young men.” The more welfare income received in childhood, the lower the earnings as an adult, the very “income inequality” lamented by the Obama administration.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Beyond the consequences of those laws and regulations stands the regulatory establishment and its enormous cost. As the late William F. Buckley observed, a tax dollar cannot travel to Washington DC, go out on the town, and return intact to the needy in the form of benefits. Even low-income workers must support the vast bureaucratic establishment churning out regulations that Paul Ryan charges are detrimental to the poor.</p>
<p><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">His plan would require agencies to </span>conduct a “distributional analysis” on proposed regulations to see if they would have a disproportionate economic effect on low-income households or low-wage workers.  He wants block grants to replace federal welfare programs, expand the Earned-Income Tax Credit and make it work better. Ryan wants to get rid of regressive regulation and emphasize “evidence-based policy-making.”</p>
<p>Some Democrats welcome Ryan’s initiative but Chris Van Hollen, ranking Democrat on the budget committee, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/24/paul-ryan-poverty_n_5616609.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">told reporters it was “nothing more than a block grant gussied up with some bells and whistles”</span></a> and “<span style="color: #272727;">would dramatically slash the resources available to help struggling families.”</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #272727;">Advocates of limited government might note that Ryan did </span>not announce plans to eliminate any federal agencies, not even the federal Department of Education, which dates from 1980 and was a payoff to the National Education Association for endorsing Jimmy Carter. Ryan wants to fix federal education funding and make it more flexible, so even if given the chance, his plan might not deliver. But as it gets the hearing it deserves, Americans might recall the back story, <span style="color: #272727;">the 50-year federal War on Poverty whose strategic weapons were federal spending and federal regulation.</span></p>
<p>On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson, famously declared a “War on Poverty.”  In his State of the Union address, LBJ said, <span style="color: #343434;">“Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” </span>Fifty years later, those curious about how the war came out should consult Sasha Abramsky, leftist author of <i>The American Way of Poverty</i> and who also writes for the <i>Nation</i>. Abramsky concedes that LBJ’s war “failed,” and “not since the Great Depression have so many people been beaten down by vast, destructive forces.”</p>
<p>He wants Obama to do it all again, only more so, a War on Poverty Mark II.  The enemy is the anti-tax, anti-government movement that has managed to convince people “that taxes are a mugging rather than an investment.” In this vision, government regulations and government spending are always the solution, and Big Brother always knows best.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lloyd-billingsley/poor-regulations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conservatives Balk at Ryan Gov. Funding Plan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/another-gop-plan-for-ending-the-shutdown/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=another-gop-plan-for-ending-the-shutdown</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/another-gop-plan-for-ending-the-shutdown/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 04:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shutdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While the president may be showing signs of cracking. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/120718_paul_ryan_westcott.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-206889" alt="120718_paul_ryan_westcott" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/120718_paul_ryan_westcott.jpg" width="296" height="223" /></a>Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/327533-ryan-offers-plan-to-end-standoff">come up</a> with a two-step plan aimed at lifting the debt ceiling, and then opening the government long enough to pass meaningful entitlement reforms. In a <i>Wall Street Journal</i> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303442004579123943669167898.html">op-ed</a> published Tuesday, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee insisted that &#8220;both sides should agree to common-sense reforms of the country&#8217;s entitlement programs and tax code.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ryan formally presented his idea at a meeting Wednesday afternoon with the conservative Republican Study Committee. He presented a plan that was ostensibly more detailed than what he outlined in the <i>Journal, </i>but those are the only details currently available. In his op-ed, Ryan said he believed <i>&#8220;</i>most of us agree that gradual, structural reforms are better than sudden, arbitrary cuts.&#8221;</p>
<p>He went on to explain why such reforms are vital, noting that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates for spending over the next 10 years reveal how much more important it is to get mandatory spending under control than discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, which consists of everything other than debt service and entitlement programs, will increase by $202 billion, or roughly 17 percent over the next decade. By contrast, mandatory spending, which consists mostly of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security funding will skyrocket by an additional $1.6 trillion or roughly 79 percent.</p>
<p>Ryan notes that it is not impossible to reach a bipartisan consensus on an entitlement program, citing the historical <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/02/bipartisan-reagan-oneill-social-security-deal-in-1983-showed-it-can-be-done">agreement</a> reached in 1983. Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democrat House Speaker Tip O&#8217;Neill came up with a plan to save Social Security after the plan&#8217;s trustees warned that it was headed for bankruptcy. By raising the payroll tax, phasing in an increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67, requiring government employees to contribute to the system, and delaying a cost of living increase for six months, the agreement extended the fund&#8217;s solvency for an additional two generations.</p>
<p>According to Ryan, these changes didn&#8217;t save any money for the first five years. But after that, the savings were significant, reaching $100 billion through 2012, and as much as $4.6 trillion over the next 75 years.</p>
<p>Ryan&#8217;s &#8220;conversation starter&#8221; for the current impasse includes asking wealthier Americans to pay higher premiums for Medicare, reforming Medigap plans by incentivizing efficiency and reducing costs, and having federal employees make greater contributions to their own retirement packages.</p>
<p>He envisions additional funding for programs coming from &#8220;pro-growth&#8221; reforms &#8220;that put people back to work.&#8221; These include the development of America&#8217;s &#8220;vast energy reserves,&#8221; and bipartisan tax code reform based on efforts undertaken by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT). As of September, the Camp–Baucus plan has apparently reached <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-09/business/41901672_1_tax-overhaul-tax-code-camp">some consensus</a> with regard to corporate tax reform. But the two chairmen of the Congressional tax-writing committees both say that such reform will not proceed unless they can build a consensus for reframing tax laws that affect individual Americans.</p>
<p>Ryan explains his plan isn&#8217;t a &#8220;grand bargain,&#8221; insisting that Congress needs to undertake a &#8220;complete rethinking of government&#8217;s approach to helping the most vulnerable, and a complete rethinking of government&#8217;s approach to health care.&#8221; But for now, he believes it is more important to open the government, pay our bills, and find a way to make sure we can pay them in the future. &#8220;All it takes is leadership—and for the president to come to the table,&#8221; Ryan concludes.</p>
<p>Conspicuously missing from Ryan&#8217;s plan is any mention of the healthcare bill. That omission didn&#8217;t sit well with several Republicans. Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham was<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/327469-conservative-leader-paul-ryans-shutdown-offer-off-target"> intransigent.</a> &#8220;The only acceptable way out of this is some sort of deal that funds the federal government without funding ObamaCare,&#8221; he insisted. Amanda Carpenter, the senior communications adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservatives-bash-paul-ryans-shutdown-op-ed-missing-one-important-word/">echoed</a> that sentiment. &#8220;There is one big word missing from this op-ed. It starts with an O and ends with BAMACARE,&#8221; she tweeted. Conservative <i>New York Times</i> columnist Ross Douthat had a far more pertinent tweet, which he addressed to National Review editor Robert Costa. &#8220;Who is Paul Ryan speaking for in his WSJ op-ed?&#8221; he wondered.</p>
<p>Apparently it wasn&#8217;t those who attended the Republican Study Committee meeting, many of whom seemed less than thrilled by Ryan&#8217;s ideas. “Somebody needs to convince me why we need to raise the debt ceiling,” said Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL).  “This would not be without some agreement already reached,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), explaining that Ryan&#8217;s plan to concede a short-term increase in the debt ceiling would not be &#8220;clean.&#8221; “It would only give us time to go through the order necessary to get the agreed-upon goals through a conference committee.” Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) said that he and his colleagues &#8220;aren’t going to solve the long-term challenges in a week.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who revealed that Ryan had defended downplaying ObamaCare at the meeting, was apparently put off as well. “When you’re talking about continuing to have the largest deficits in our history, how could you not talk about the biggest deficit driver that we have ever had?” he wondered.</p>
<p>Fortunately, there were some revelations about the healthcare plan that emerged yesterday. The privacy policy included the Maryland Health Connection (MHC), the state&#8217;s ObamaCare marketplace was <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-marketplace-personal-data-can-be-used-law-enforcement-and-audit-activities_762237.html">deeply troubling</a>. While it promised never to sell one&#8217;s health information to others, and that personal information will only be used to carry out MHC functions, it revealed that &#8220;we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities.&#8221; The privacy statement further noted that if one communicated with one&#8217;s insurance carrier by email, that communication &#8220;may become a public record&#8230;in accordance with Maryland’s Public Information Act.&#8221;</p>
<p>That may be the MHC&#8217;s definition of privacy, but one suspects the possibility of having one’s health records examined by government officials, or used as part of an IRS audit, might have Marylanders believing otherwise.</p>
<p>In Illinois, residents were <a href="http://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/local/navigators-raise-identity-theft-risk/article_e528f016-2f09-11e3-847a-001a4bcf6878.html">warned</a> by the State&#8217;s Department of Insurance that fraud and identity theft could become a problem due to the emergence of phony healthcare navigators. “We have been made aware that scams are possible,” said Kimberly Parker, a Department of Insurance spokesperson. “If someone is at your door, err on the side of caution.” They also warned people not to give out personal information via “unsolicited telephone calls of any kind.”</p>
<p>Such efforts may be quixotic at best. In 2012, there were 13,000 identity thefts in Illinois, 40 percent of which involved “government documents or benefits fraud.”</p>
<p>Since Americans are being forced to buy insurance at these marketplaces, that number could increase exponentially.</p>
<p>And, as has been the case since its launch nine days ago, the online rollout of ObamaCare continues to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/many-remain-locked-out-of-federal-health-care-web-site/2013/10/08/be8e71e6-302c-11e3-bbed-a8a60c601153_story.html">frustrate</a> Americans. Millions are attempting to navigate a poorly designed, prematurely introduced system aimed at signing up people for insurance that even ObamaCare supporters have <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area">discovered</a> could be far more expensive that advertised. Californian Cindy Vinson, whose new individual insurance policy will cost an additional $1800, epitomized the mindset of many of those supporters. &#8220;Of course, I want people to have health care,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I just didn&#8217;t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.&#8221;</p>
<p>What every American is currently paying for is the unseemly intransigence of a president who steadfastly refuses to negotiate anything. On Tuesday, Obama <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/8/obama-calls-boehner-still-refuses-negotiate/">called</a> House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to reiterate his refusal to bargain. The same day he <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/live-stream-president-obama-holds-news-conference-government-shutdown-article-1.1479547">contended</a> that he’s fighting the budget battle because “we can’t make extortion routine as part of our democracy.” At a White House press conference, he <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&amp;CTIME=2013-10-08-18-24-20">upped</a> the ante. &#8220;The greatest nation on earth shouldn&#8217;t have to get permission from a few irresponsible members of Congress every couple months just to keep our government open or to prevent an economic catastrophe,&#8221; he contended. Yesterday, he reportedly <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-house-democrats-white-house-meeting-98047.html">pushed</a> the envelope one more time, telling House Democrats he would negotiate with Republicans but “not with a gun at my head.”</p>
<p>Thus, Republicans are expected to negotiate with a president who has characterized them as irresponsible, gun-toting extortionists determined to bring the nation to economic catastrophe. That’s quite the “ice-breaker.”</p>
<p>Perhaps the nation is slowly catching on. While Republicans still get the most of the blame for the shutdown&#8211;a Washington Post/ABC News <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/07/republican-disapproval-grows-in-budget-battle-post-abc-poll-finds/">poll</a> showed 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the GOP&#8217;s handling of budget negotiations, compared to 61 percent for Democrats&#8211;the president is also getting a thumbs down from 51 percent of Americans. Moreover, his approval rating has <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/09/ap-poll-obama-at-37-approval/">sunk</a> to 37 percent, and 52 percent of Americans said the president isn&#8217;t doing enough to cooperate with Republicans in ending the shutdown.</p>
<p>Perhaps Obama is catching on. Late Wednesday, he <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/10/09/obama-plans-meet-with-gop-lawmakers-shutdown/myxCeKK0y0pjSGmL34DAVJ/story.html">invited</a> Republicans to White House meeting on Thursday. &#8220;It is our hope that this will be a constructive meeting and that the president finally recognizes Americans expect their leaders to be able to sit down and resolve their differences,’’ said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. Maybe it will be, but the odds aren’t good. Stay tuned.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/another-gop-plan-for-ending-the-shutdown/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ObamaCare: Still a Disaster</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/obamacare-still-a-disaster-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacare-still-a-disaster-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/obamacare-still-a-disaster-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ronn Torossian]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michele bachmann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=204949</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From politicians to ordinary Americans, the president's signature bill is despised. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/142006784.jpg.CROP_.rectangle3-large.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-204950" alt="142006784.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/142006784.jpg.CROP_.rectangle3-large-450x342.jpg" width="270" height="205" /></a>Amidst the news of the House vote to keep the government open through mid-December contingent on Congress stripping funding from Obamacare, there are Americans of many political stripes who are opposed to what some have deemed this “rare strain of ‘flesh-eating bacteria’ that if not stopped and stopped now threatens the very life of our Republic.”</p>
<p>While the majority of Americans continue to oppose Obamacare, there have been a wide variety of powerful quotes detailing the opposition, which are important to note:</p>
<p>• “Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country.” &#8211; <em>Paul Ryan</em></p>
<p>• “People might not think that, but the Republicans have all of the cards. And this is the time to get rid of Obamacare. This is the time to make the great deal.” &#8212; <em>Donald Trump</em></p>
<p>• “42 percent of Americans remain unaware of Obamacare – which will radically reduce Medicare benefits, and ensure significant new taxes and fees imposed on Americans throughout America.”<em> &#8211; <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chauncey-W.-Crandall/e/B003T9DGMI">Dr. Chauncey Crandall</a></em></p>
<p>• “Unfortunately, President Obama&#8217;s failed policies of new regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare and his anti-business rhetoric have hit Hispanics especially hard. Big government really hurts those who are trying to make it.” <em>&#8211; Marco Rubio</em></p>
<p>• “Americans were outraged and horrified by this president&#8217;s reckless spending and his endless assaults on the Constitution, but no issue drove them to rise up and fight back like Obamacare &#8212; both the abominable legislative monstrosity itself and the tyrannical, corrupt manner by which Obama crammed it through the legislative process.” <em>&#8211; David Limbaugh</em></p>
<p>• “I think the first and principle objective is to repeal Obamacare before it does lasting, fundamental damage to our health care system, to our individual liberty, to the relationship each of us has with his or her doctor.” <em>&#8211; Ted Cruz</em></p>
<p>• “After the Democrats shoved the 2700 pages of ObamaCare down our throats &#8212; and we did find out how expensive, controlling, and coercive the legislation was &#8212; a majority of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to toss it aside as unconstitutional.” <em>&#8211; Bob Beauprez</em></p>
<p>• “By 2014, we will have no fewer than four health care systems: Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and private-employer-provided insurance. In the long term, this is probably three too many. There is zero chance that the situation will be rationalized, and united, anytime soon &#8211; and it shouldn&#8217;t be. We should drift into health care rationality over time.” <em>&#8211; Joe Klein</em></p>
<p>• “Obamacare represents a shocking display of political arrogance. It&#8217;s about time Washington started listening to Americans&#8217; common sense voices.” <em>&#8211; Fred Upton</em></p>
<p>• “What I want to do is to make sure that we fully repeal Obamacare. This will be one of the largest spending initiatives we will ever see in our country. And also, it will take away choice from the American people.” <em>&#8211; Michele Bachmann</em></p>
<p>• “The Obama Administration intends to bust the federal budget by potentially providing subsidies to millions of Americans who don’t qualify. Even liberals are frustrated that ObamaCare isn’t working.” <em>&#8211; <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0782919/bio">Jay Sekulow, ACLJ</a></em></p>
<p>• “The failed stimulus, along with Obamacare&#8217;s long list of failures, show what happens when Congress passes laws in a rush.” <em>&#8211; John Barrasso</em></p>
<p>• “Obamacare. Get rid of it. Period.” <em>&#8211; Tim Scott</em></p>
<p>• “Simply put, ObamaCare cost Americans jobs through uncertainty and now implementation threatens even more jobs. No wonder the majority of Americans continue to oppose it.” <em>&#8211; Pete Sessions</em></p>
<p>Obamacare is yet another one of Obama’s terrible ideas and initiatives.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ronn-torossian/obamacare-still-a-disaster-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Ryan: &#8220;Amnesty is Not Amnesty Because You Pay a Fine&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/paul-ryan-amnesty-is-not-amnesty-because-you-pay-a-fine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=paul-ryan-amnesty-is-not-amnesty-because-you-pay-a-fine</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/paul-ryan-amnesty-is-not-amnesty-because-you-pay-a-fine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amnesty for illegal aliens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=193164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul Ryan, who has supported forms of immigration reform since he was a House staffer in the 1990s, declared that he would "debate anybody" who calls the current bipartisan effort "amnesty."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ruby-slippers-wizard-of-oz_thumb2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-193165" alt="ruby-slippers-wizard-of-oz_thumb[2]" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ruby-slippers-wizard-of-oz_thumb2.jpg" width="372" height="252" /></a></p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paul-ryan-debate-anybody-says-immigration-bill-amnesty-195916824.html">On Wednesday</a>, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who has supported forms of immigration reform since he was a House staffer in the 1990s, declared that he would &#8220;debate anybody&#8221; who calls the current bipartisan effort &#8220;amnesty.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Earned legalization is not amnesty,&#8221; Ryan said during a forum on immigration sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers. &#8220;I will debate anybody who tries to suggest that these ideas that are moving through Congress are amnesty. They&#8217;re not. Amnesty is wiping the slate clean and not paying any penalty for having done something wrong.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>I think that&#8217;s a fine position Paul Ryan has taken here. To be equally consistent, he should stop complaining about entitlements. After all people who get them pay something, even if they get back more than they paid, like the millions of illegal aliens that the amnesty (oops) will cover will do as shown by the Heritage Study.</p>
<p>Exactly what is &#8220;earned&#8221; about the amnesty? Bueller? Bueller?</p>
<p>If you broke the law and then reap the benefits of that law-breaking through an act of congress, that act is amnesty. It&#8217;s that simple. Criminals are not allowed to benefit from their crimes. You can&#8217;t break into someone&#8217;s house, steal a million dollars, keep it  and then pay a hundred dollar fine.</p>
<p>That would be amnesty, even with the fine.</p>
<blockquote><p>Earlier this year, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul warned lawmakers not to trip over loaded phrases like &#8220;pathway to citizenship&#8221; and &#8220;amnesty&#8221; to describe the effort to overhaul immigration. Doing so, Paul said, would polarize the debate over reform</p></blockquote>
<p>Is there a path to citizenship or isn&#8217;t there? It&#8217;s that simple.</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s people didn&#8217;t want any references to nationalizing health care because that would be polarizing. But polarizing doesn&#8217;t matter. True or false does.</p>
<p>People who complain about polarizing rhetoric want to stem public outrage over a sellout.</p>
<blockquote><p>Ryan pointed to provisions baked into the Senate bill from the beginning that require those in the United States to pay a fine, back taxes, undergo background checks and enter a years-long probationary period before earning citizenship, a process that can take up to 15 years.</p>
<p>&#8220;That,&#8221; Ryan said, &#8220;is not amnesty.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>1. The back taxes provision is meaningless. <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/24/todays-gang-of-8-fraud-back-taxes/">It&#8217;s been meaningless for a while</a>. Ryan knows it.</p>
<blockquote><p>Negotiators had to choose between a hard-line approach favored by Republicans, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), that would have required immigrants and employers to painstakingly piece together a tax history so the government could collect what is owed and a less burdensome option of focusing on people who already have a past-due bill with the Internal Revenue Service.</p>
<p>They chose the milder approach and punted the details to the Treasury Department and IRS to hash out down the road.</p></blockquote>
<p>2. The<a href="http://cis.org/mortensen/schumer-rubio-1000-penalty-bargain"> fine is a thousand dollars</a>. It won&#8217;t even cover their first Earned Income Credit refund. It&#8217;s cheaper than the full cost of legally immigrating to the country. If that&#8217;s a fine, so is a visa application.</p>
<p>3. The background checks will be administered by the same administration <a href="http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/homeland-security-documents-reveal-dhs-abandoned-required-illegal-alien-background-checks-to-meet-flood-of-amnesty-requests-following-obamas-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-directive/">that failed to conduct background checks of its DREAMers</a>.</p>
<p>4. The probationary period is in flux and will be made as short as possible once the actual bill is passed due to the powers granted by it to Janet Napolitano.</p>
<p>But if Paul Ryan wants to debate someone on the meaning of &#8220;amnesty&#8221; or &#8220;is&#8221;, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/author/mickeykaus/">I&#8217;m sure Mickey Kaus will be</a> happy to take him up on it.</p>
<p>Still if Paul Ryan supported &#8220;immigration reform&#8221;, yet failed to win the Latino vote on the ticket, doesn&#8217;t this suggest the entire quest for amnesty as Republican  catnip for Latinos is doomed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/paul-ryan-amnesty-is-not-amnesty-because-you-pay-a-fine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Budget Battle Begins</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-budget-battle-begins/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-budget-battle-begins</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-budget-battle-begins/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 04:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=181148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrats and Republicans: worlds apart.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-budget-battle-begins/ap13031215369-fcaabc814aaf280a1c668e0c884e507e2d3818db-s6-c10/" rel="attachment wp-att-181150"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-181150" title="ap13031215369-fcaabc814aaf280a1c668e0c884e507e2d3818db-s6-c10" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ap13031215369-fcaabc814aaf280a1c668e0c884e507e2d3818db-s6-c10-436x350.jpg" alt="" width="262" height="210" /></a>On Tuesday, House Republicans and Democrats <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/us/politics/ryans-plan-aims-to-balance-budget-in-10-years.html?_r=0">unveiled</a> budget plans that illuminate the wide ideological divide between the parties when it comes to dealing with the nation&#8217;s burgeoning debt and unsustainable entitlement programs. Despite that divide, both parties contend that a bipartisan deal can be reached.</p>
<p>The House Democratic <a href="http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/dem_alt_summary_3.pdf">budget</a>, written by Rep. Chris Holland (D-MD), the House Budget Committee’s top Democrat, is an effort to offer a different vision than the one proposed by Republican Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Holland&#8217;s plan focuses on <a href="http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/democrats.budget.house.gov/files/documents/dem_alt_tables.pdf">reducing</a> the percentage of the deficit relative to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 6.1 percent in 2013, to 2.7 percent by 2022. Yet despite Holland&#8217;s contention that his plan will &#8220;reduce the deficit in a balanced and credible way, making difficult choices while providing investments that help create jobs now and build an even stronger economy for the future,” there is no point in his timeline where a balanced budget is achieved. After the year 2017, the point where the debt as a percentage of GDP reaches a low of 2.3 percent, and remains there through 2018, that percentage begins to rise again, reaching 2.7 by 2022.</p>
<p>The same goes for the level of deficit spending. The <em>lowest</em> level of deficit spending Holland&#8217;s budget achieves is $451 billion in 2017. (For perspective&#8217;s sake it is worth noting that the <em>highest</em> level of deficit spending during the <a href="http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/12/10/09/u-s-officially-records">eight years</a> of the Bush administration was $458 billion). After 2017, the deficit begins to rise again, reaching $675 billion in 2022. As for the national debt, Holland&#8217;s plan burdens the nation with another $6 trillion-plus, added to the already unconscionable $16.7 trillion debt we have already accrued.</p>
<p>The short-term aspects of Holland&#8217;s plan are a rehash of President Obama&#8217;s proposals. On the spending side, the plan includes $80 billion education spending, $5 billion for police and firefighters, and $50 billion for infrastructure. Apparently the $865 billion stimulus program, purportedly aimed at the same targets, was insufficient. On the tax side, class warfare remains in play, as the &#8220;Bush tax cuts&#8221; would remain permanent for the &#8220;middle class,&#8221; while another $1 trillion will be raised by raising taxes on &#8220;millionaires,&#8221; closing tax loopholes, and enacting the so-called “Buffett Rule,” where millionaires will not be able to pay lower tax rates than the middle class. With respect to spending cuts, Holland proposes $80 billion in reductions to mandatory government programs, including &#8220;agriculture direct payments, improvements to the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,&#8221; and &#8220;no funding for Overseas contingency Operations after 2014.&#8221; In other words, unspent money on un-fought wars is also counted as a &#8220;reduction&#8221; in spending.</p>
<p>Entitlement programs? Nothing in this budget proposes any concrete reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) program, despite the reality that those programs, along with military spending, are the main drivers of our unsustainable debt load.</p>
<p>The House Republican budget, authored by Paul Ryan, is a 91-page <a href="http://www.c-span.org/Events/House-Budget-Chairman-Releases-Budget-Proposal/10737438723/">plan</a> designed to balance the federal budget by 2023, cutting $4.6 trillion in federal spending over the same period. In Ryan&#8217;s plan, projected revenue would <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2013/03/12/ryan-plan-seeks-balanced-budget-in-10.html">remain</a> the same, including the recent tax increase on upper income earners that was part of the fiscal cliff deal. And like Holland, Ryan proposes an overhaul of the tax code, eliminating a number of deductions that Americans currently enjoy. Ryan gets more specific on the end game, proposing only two different tax brackets of 10 and 25 percent for individual Americans, and lowering the corporate tax rate from its current 35 percent, the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/30/no-joke-obama-corporate-tax-rates-are-worst-in-world/">world&#8217;s highest</a> when state taxes are included, to 25 percent.</p>
<p>Unlike Holland, Ryan tackles entitlements. First and foremost, he would repeal Obamacare, eliminating the insurance exchanges the administration tried to make mandatory before they were ruled unconstitutional. A $750 billion reduction in Medicare spending enacted as part of health care reform would be used to shore up the Medicare trust fund. Medicare&#8217;s retirement age would eventually be increased for Americans under age 55, and its costs would be controlled by offering seniors federally funded vouchers to buy private insurance at a level that would be capped. Spending on Medicaid and food stamp programs would be would be sent back to the states in the form of block grants, reducing overall spending on the programs in the process.</p>
<p>Regarding deficit spending, the plan <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE92B0ZE20130312">envisions</a> deficits of  $528 billion in 2014, $125 billion in 2015 and $69 billion in 2016, as well as a $700 billion reduction in interest payments on the debt, due to less borrowing.</p>
<p>A third plan is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/12/dueling-budget-plans-opening-gambits-in-bigger-fight/1982555/">reportedly</a> in the works, courtesy of Senate Democrats who will unveil the details today. Anything proposed by them would be an improvement on their recent track record, in that they have failed to produced a budget of any kind in over four years. Their plan will call for a $1.85 trillion reduction over the next decade, achieved through a fifty-fifty combination of taxes and spending cuts. the $85 billion in cuts triggered by the sequester will be replaced by &#8220;targeted cuts&#8221; that give the president more flexibility. Yet once again, like their counterparts in the House, Senate Democrats will keep Medicare spending off the table.</p>
<p>As for President Obama&#8217;s budget plan, right now there isn&#8217;t one. Yesterday the White House <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/12/obama-delays-budget-until-april-slams-ryans-plan/">announced</a> it would delay the release of it budget until early April&#8211;even though that is two months past the legal deadline for doing so. In other words, once again Obama is &#8220;leading from behind.&#8221; Yet even as Obama the took a pass on his legally required duty, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was sent out to read a statement <a href="http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/03/12/White-House-slams-GOP-budget-plan/UPI-53581363089335/">trashing</a> Ryan&#8217;s proposal. &#8220;While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit, the math just doesn&#8217;t add up,&#8221; it said. &#8220;Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class. By choosing to give the wealthiest Americans a new tax cut, this budget as written will either fail to achieve any meaningful deficit reduction, raise taxes on middle class families by more than $2,000&#8211;or both.&#8221;</p>
<p>Thus, the battle begins, with the idea of reaching an agreement by late July or early August. Considering that both sides remain at ideological loggerheads, such a timeline may be optimistic. Add  an overhaul of the tax code to the mix, a gargantuan effort despite being an idea shared by both parties, and the timeline becomes almost fantastical.</p>
<p>As for the public, two surveys show that Americans have a real appetite for reducing government spending&#8211;as long those reductions are applied to &#8220;someone else&#8217;s&#8221; programs. A <a href="http://images.politico.com/global/2012/12/07/121207_battlegroundpoll.html">poll </a>taken in December 2012 by <em>Politico/</em>GWU/Battleground revealed that more than three-out-of-four Americans favored cutting government spending &#8220;across the board.&#8221; Pew Research Center <a href="http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/02-22-13%20Spending%20Release.pdf">survey</a> taken a month ago reveals that &#8220;across the board&#8221; is a euphemism. Of the 19 categories surveyed, including such items as aid to the world&#8217;s needy (foreign aid), environmental protection, Medicare, education and 14 others, not a <em>single item</em> garnered a majority of Americans willing to cut spending. The closest was foreign aid with 48 percent of Americans willing to cut back spending overseas. Yet 49 percent said keep it the same or increase it.</p>
<p>The ideological divide between the parties can only be exacerbated by such a public disconnect&#8211;meaning genuine leadership will be necessary to bring the public around. Around to what remains a mystery. Yet one thing remains completely <em>un</em>-mysterious: our current fiscal course is unsustainable, and despite all contentions to the contrary, entitlement programs <em>must</em> be overhauled. Democrats may call that reality &#8220;draconian.&#8221; Yet absent draconian changes, nothing less than bankruptcy awaits. Denying reality may be politically advantageous for Democrats&#8211;but only until reality itself can no longer be denied.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/the-budget-battle-begins/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joe Biden&#8217;s Religion: Catholicism or Leftism?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dennis-prager/joe-bidens-religion-catholicism-or-leftism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=joe-bidens-religion-catholicism-or-leftism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dennis-prager/joe-bidens-religion-catholicism-or-leftism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dennis Prager]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Catholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social doctrine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=149049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The vice president's bad faith arguments. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dennis-prager/joe-bidens-religion-catholicism-or-leftism/gty_joe_biden_paul_ryan_debate_ll_121012_wg/" rel="attachment wp-att-149053"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-149053" title="gty_joe_biden_paul_ryan_debate_ll_121012_wg" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/gty_joe_biden_paul_ryan_debate_ll_121012_wg.gif" alt="" width="315" height="223" /></a>In the vice presidential debate, the two candidates, both Roman Catholics, were asked about their religious beliefs, how they impact the candidates&#8217; political positions and specifically about abortion. This was the response of Vice President Joe Biden:</p>
<p>&#8220;My religion defines who I am. And I&#8217;ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can&#8217;t take care of themselves, people who need help.</p>
<p>&#8220;With regard to abortion, I accept my church&#8217;s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. That&#8217;s the church&#8217;s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.</p>
<p>&#8220;But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.</p>
<p>&#8220;I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women, they can&#8217;t control their body. It&#8217;s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I&#8217;m not going to interfere with that.&#8221;</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s analyze this response.</p>
<p>1. &#8220;My religion defines who I am.&#8221;</p>
<p>If a conservative, evangelical Christian candidate for national office said that he defined himself by his religious beliefs, liberals would be screaming that the wall between church and state was in danger of being taken down.</p>
<p>Here is the rule in American politics: When the left uses religion to promote liberal policies, it is a beautiful thing. When the right uses religion to promote conservative policies, it threatens the separation of church and state and may lead to the creation of a theocracy.</p>
<p>2. &#8220;It has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can&#8217;t take care of themselves, people who need help.&#8221;</p>
<p>This illustrates my previous point. Biden&#8217;s Catholicism leads him to promote liberal social policies, specifically an ever-expanding state to take care of &#8220;people who need help.&#8221; What else could his statement mean? After all, what religion doesn&#8217;t expect its adherents to take &#8220;care of those who can&#8217;t take care of themselves&#8221;? Protestant Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Mitt Romney&#8217;s Mormonism?</p>
<p>Since all religions do, what is the difference between Romney&#8217;s religious call to help the less fortunate and Biden&#8217;s religious call to help these people?</p>
<p>The difference, as seen in the enormous difference between Biden&#8217;s charitable donations and Romney&#8217;s, is the difference between conservatism and liberalism: Conservatism holds that we all have to take care of ourselves and our fellow citizens; liberalism holds that the state — funded by some of us — has to.</p>
<p>3. &#8220;I accept my church&#8217;s position on abortion &#8230; I just refuse to impose that on others.&#8221;</p>
<p>This sounds beautiful to liberals. But it is as un-thought-through as it is un-Catholic.</p>
<p>Why is Mr. Biden completely comfortable with policies that &#8220;impose on others&#8221; what he understands as Catholic &#8220;social doctrine&#8221;? He will use the government to forcefully take people&#8217;s money away and impose whatever policies he thinks Catholic social doctrine favors. Why, then, will he not impose on others his church&#8217;s definition of the worth of human life from conception?</p>
<p>There are three possible answers. One is that he doesn&#8217;t really believe in his church&#8217;s position on abortion. A second is that he does believe in it but would have to leave the Democratic Party if he tried to implement that policy. The third is that he believes that the Church&#8217;s views on abortion only pertain to Catholics — and even then, only on a &#8220;personal&#8221; basis.</p>
<p>If we are to take him at his word, that latter is what he believes: that his church&#8217;s view on abortion only applies to him personally: &#8220;Life begins at conception. That&#8217;s the church&#8217;s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.&#8221; But if that is his opinion, his religiosity is not morally meaningful. If an act is moral or immoral only for him, then it is not moral or immoral. Either something is immoral for everyone (in the same circumstance) or it is not immoral.</p>
<p>Which is why the Church&#8217;s teaching is that abortion is morally wrong for everyone, just as neglecting the needy is morally wrong for everyone.</p>
<p>But Joe Biden would never say that the Catholic Church&#8217;s social doctrine is only valid &#8220;in my personal life.&#8221; So, what does Joe Biden, the Catholic, believe about abortion?</p>
<p>These statements by the vice-president of the United States provide one more example of the fact that leftism — not Christianity, not Catholicism, and not Islam — has been the most influential religion in the world for the last century.</p>
<p>Only when Catholicism agrees with leftism is Joe Biden prepared to impose it. When his Catholicism does not agree with leftism, it is reduced to being a matter of personal matter of faith, no more binding on non-Catholics than receiving the Eucharist.</p>
<p>And in this regard he is no different from many Jews and Protestant Christians. Their religious expression may be Judaism or Christianity, but their religion, like Biden&#8217;s, is leftism. Which is why liberal Jews and liberal Christians have much more in common than liberal Jews have with conservative Jews or liberal Christians have with conservative Christians. They share what they deem truly important — leftism.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dennis-prager/joe-bidens-religion-catholicism-or-leftism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joe Biden Unhinged</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/joe-biden-unhinged/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=joe-biden-unhinged</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/joe-biden-unhinged/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:55:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sneer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[snicker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=148063</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although much younger than Biden, Ryan was the only adult sitting at the VP debate table.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/joe-biden-unhinged/1juz6o-em-156/" rel="attachment wp-att-148093"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-148093" title="1juZ6o.Em.156" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/1juZ6o.Em_.156.gif" alt="" width="315" height="233" /></a>As I observed the words and demeanor of Vice President Joe Biden all throughout last night&#8217;s debate, a line from <em>Hamlet</em> kept running through my mind.</p>
<p>&#8220;That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain,&#8221; William Shakespeare wrote. How better to sum up the most unctuous, disingenuous vice president in this writer&#8217;s lifetime?</p>
<p>The radical left-wing Delawarean showed the same loathsome traits that he displayed during his debate with Sarah Palin four years ago. But this time, because he wasn&#8217;t facing a woman he wasn&#8217;t walking on eggshells, terrified of offending female voters. This allowed his worst characteristics to rise to the surface, unburdened by natural inhibitions.</p>
<p>While his opponent, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), was relatively relaxed, Biden was everyone&#8217;s obnoxious, overbearing, opinionated relative who makes up for the weakness of his arguments by making them loudly.  As conservative comedian Brian Sack tweeted, the debate was &#8220;Too Chill Boy vs. Obnoxious Grandaddy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Throughout the debate Biden made no attempt to conceal his contempt for Ryan. It is hard to say if Biden showed greater disdain for his adversary than President Obama showed for Mitt Romney in the Colorado conversation last week.</p>
<p>Some observers, buoyed by impossibly high expectations, were destined to be disappointed unless Ryan landed a devastating knockout. Ryan did well but such a punch never came. A knockout always seemed unlikely because Biden is so well known for exaggerating, telling tall tales, and saying downright absurd things.</p>
<p>&#8220;The vice president knows sometimes the words don&#8217;t come out of your mouth the right way,&#8221; Ryan said.</p>
<p>Even though Ryan clearly seemed to be feeling the pressure, he wasn&#8217;t cowed by Biden. He taunted the vice president, noting that Biden is &#8220;under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground&#8221; after Romney pulverized Obama during the debate last week.</p>
<p>Ryan lamented that &#8220;hope and change&#8221; had been replaced by &#8220;attack, blame, and defame.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;President Obama had his chance,&#8221; Ryan said. &#8220;He made his choices.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ryan rejected the fundamental transformation of America sought by Obama. &#8220;We will not try to replace our founding principles,&#8221; Ryan said. &#8220;We will reapply our founding principles.&#8221; Although much younger than Biden, Ryan was the only adult sitting at the table.</p>
<p>One thing is for sure: both Obama and Biden are hardcore haters whose self-esteem exceeds their actual abilities.</p>
<p>Last night the senescent Biden resented being taken on by the sometimes brash, young, handsome, genuinely brilliant lawmaker from Wisconsin.</p>
<p>Never before was so much pricey dental porcelain displayed on live television as the unstatesmanlike Biden, chuckled, mocked, and guffawed his way through the 90-minute encounter. His constant, obnoxious interruptions were tolerated by the moderator, left-wing journalist Martha Raddatz, who frequently challenged Ryan, demanding specifics from the challenger. Raddatz asked little of Biden.</p>
<p>Barely a word of truth escaped the vice president&#8217;s lips.</p>
<p>Biden threw the intelligence community under the bus in order to support the Obama administration&#8217;s ongoing coverup of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. From the start the administration portrayed the assault as a spontaneous uprising sparked by anger over an anti-Islam video. For two weeks officials tried to pretend that terrorists weren&#8217;t involved.</p>
<p>In the debate Biden said intelligence agencies failed to do their jobs and fed the White House bad information.</p>
<p>The administration didn&#8217;t initially know the attack was instigated by terrorists and hadn&#8217;t received requests from officials for additional security, Biden said, lying on both counts. Evidence now establishes that the administration learned about the attack before it happened. There is also proof that the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, believing he was marked for death by terrorists, pleaded with the administration to provide additional security. Each day brings new revelations of administration malfeasance in the sorry affair.</p>
<p>Biden dramatically swore to find the killers. &#8220;We will track you to the gates of Hell,&#8221; he vowed.</p>
<p>Ryan countered that what happened in Benghazi was proof of the &#8220;unravelling&#8221; of Obama&#8217;s foreign policy of weakness and appeasement. Obama has refused to admit that the Islamic world hasn&#8217;t abandoned its hostility to the U.S. That would conflict with his messianic narrative in which diverse peoples across the planet are united and inspired by the president.</p>
<p>Romney&#8217;s controversial criticism of the Obama administration&#8217;s condemnation of an anti-Muslim video nobody saw and that apparently played no role in the Benghazi attack was admirable, Ryan explained.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s never too early to speak up for our values,&#8221; Ryan said.</p>
<p>The best Biden could do was to note that left-wing journalists agreed that Romney should have kept his mouth shut. Romney&#8217;s criticism of Obama&#8217;s apology for the video was &#8220;panned by the media all around the world.&#8221;</p>
<p>Predictably, the Vice President made a number of characteristically ridiculous assertions.</p>
<p>Biden said that Syria was five times larger than Libya. As Newt Gingrich tweeted, Biden was &#8220;absurdly&#8221; and &#8220;totally&#8221; wrong. Libya, a huge North African country, is 679,362 square miles compared to Syria which is merely 71,500 square miles in size.</p>
<p>Biden condemned super PACs as &#8220;abominations&#8221; even though the Obama-Biden team uses them enthusiastically. Priorities USA Action super PAC unleashed the Joe Soptic ad, probably the most dishonest –and certainly the most vicious – presidential campaign ad since Lyndon Johnson’s apocalyptic “Daisy” ad in 1964 painted Barry Goldwater as a budding Dr. Strangelove.</p>
<p>The ad features Soptic explaining directly to the camera how his wife died after Bain Capital, the firm Romney once ran, bought the steel company he worked for and dissolved it. Soptic blames Romney for the loss of his health insurance and subsequent death of his wife.</p>
<p>The Soptic ad was funded by the super PAC’s donors. Among those donors are the alleged comedian Bill Maher and the Service Employees International Union.</p>
<p>Biden invoked class warfare too many times to count and blamed Republicans for the nation&#8217;s ballooning debt levels. He said Democrats had saved Medicare by cutting $700-odd billion from the program, a lie Ryan nailed him on. Democrats &#8220;got caught with their hands in the cookie jar,&#8221; taking the $700 billion and using it to fund Obamacare, Ryan said. If the cuts aren&#8217;t reversed Medicare patients will have a much harder time getting seen by doctors.</p>
<p>It wasn&#8217;t so much a debate as an argument between a mature person and a toddler.</p>
<p>Clint Eastwood seems to understand what a nonentity Biden is.</p>
<p>During his surprise appearance at the Republican convention in Florida, Eastwood seemed to share my frame of mind about the Cheshire Cat temporarily residing in the U.S. Naval Observatory.</p>
<p>In his extemporaneous riff before an empty chair representing the empty suit that is Barack Obama, Eastwood said, “You’re getting as bad as Biden. Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic Party. Just kind of a grin with a body behind it.”</p>
<p>The more Joe Biden smiles, the more voters realize he&#8217;s not the man the media built him up to be.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/joe-biden-unhinged/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>127</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Biden, Obama and the Politics of Personal Destruction</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martha Raddatz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=148126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The vice president's debate nastiness is the new Obama campaign strategy. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate/" rel="attachment wp-att-148133"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-148133" title="joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/joe-biden-paul-ryan-debate.gif" alt="" width="315" height="230" /></a>Visit <a href="http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/10/biden-obama-and-the-politics-o.php">CarolineGlick.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p>Thursday the <em>Wall Street Journal&#8217;s</em> Daniel Henninger published a column called <a href="http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443749204578048682120159150.html?mg=reno64-wsj">&#8220;Obama and the L-word.&#8221;</a> In it he described with disgust and dismay the way the Obama administration has been playing fast and loose with the term &#8220;liar&#8221; to describe Mitt Romney since Romney trounced Obama in last week&#8217;s presidential debate.</p>
<p>Henninger noted that the use of the term cheapens and coarsens the political discourse in the US in a manner that is unprecedented in US politics. He also noted rightly that this is not part of the American political tradition. It is of a piece with the propaganda of totalitarian regimes.</p>
<p>As he explained:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Obama campaign&#8217;s resurrection of &#8220;liar&#8221; as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s. It was part of the milieu of stooges, show trials and dupes. These were people willing to say anything to defeat their opposition. Denouncing people as liars was at the center of it. The idea was never to elevate political debate but to debauch it.</p>
<p>The purpose of calling someone a liar then was not merely to refute their ideas or arguments. It was to nullify them, to eliminate them from participation in politics. That&#8217;s what is so unsettling about a David Axelrod or David Plouffe following accusations of dishonesty and lies with &#8220;whether that person should sit in the Oval Office.&#8221; And that is followed by President Obama himself feeding the new line in stump speeches without himself ever using the L-word.</p>
<p>This Obama campaign is saying, &#8220;We don&#8217;t want to compete with Mitt Romney. We want to obliterate him.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Henninger ended his column by wondering how the Obama campaign&#8217;s post-presidential debate employment of this tactic against Romney would impact Biden&#8217;s debate performance.</p>
<p>And last night we got the answer. Throughout the debate, Biden treated Rep. Paul Ryan with contempt. He never responded to any of Ryan&#8217;s reasoned, substantive criticisms of Obama&#8217;s policies. He simply called him a liar, repeatedly. With no justification. He sneered. He guffawed. And he maligned Ryan for 90 minutes.</p>
<p>I watched the debate on Fox News. I suppose the commentators hadn&#8217;t read Henninger&#8217;s article. They were all expressing shock at Biden&#8217;s nastiness. They didn&#8217;t seem to recognize that it is part of the Obama campaign&#8217;s strategy.</p>
<p>Another aspect of this that both Henninger and the Fox commentators were too gentle to mention outright &#8211; although Henninger nearly did &#8212; is that the politics of personal destruction are based on projection. The side doing it is accusing their opponents of doing precisely what they are doing.</p>
<p>In last night&#8217;s debate, Biden lied, flat out lied, repeatedly. He lied about what the military thinks of the sequestration policy of gutting military budgets. He lied about what the intelligence community said about the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. He lied about how Medicare is impacted by Obamacare.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s just off the top of my head.</p>
<p>A word about those lies. At least in the case of the Benghazi lie, Biden&#8217;s actions show how lies are part and parcel of how the Obama administration does its business on a daily basis.</p>
<p>The only basis for the claim that US intelligence said the attack on the consulate wasn&#8217;t a terror attack but a response to that stupid, irrelevant anti-Islam film on YouTube was a statement by James Clapper, Obama&#8217;s appointed Director of National Intelligence.</p>
<p>It must be said, Clapper is not a credible source.</p>
<p>Clapper has abused his office repeatedly to politicize intelligence and facts in order to advance the appeasement-of-Islamic-terrorists agenda of the president he serves.</p>
<p>This came across <a href="http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/07/the-muslim-brotherhoods-americ.php">most brazenly</a> during the uprising against longtime US ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. On Feb 10, 2011, the day before the Obama administration forced Hosni Mubarak to resign from the Egyptian presidency, Clapper appeared before the House Select Committee on Intelligence and told the Congressmen that the Muslim Brotherhood is a &#8220;largely secular&#8221; movement.</p>
<p>In his words, &#8220;The term &#8216;Muslim Brotherhood&#8217; is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaida as a perversion of Islam. They have pursued social ends, betterment of the political order in Egypt, etc.&#8221;</p>
<p>This was a complete lie and anyone with even a modicum of awareness about the Brotherhood &#8211; even without the benefit of classified information &#8211; knows that it is a lie. He should have been fired for saying such nonsense because it isn&#8217;t just wrong, it is dangerous, as we see today with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt.</p>
<p>But this is par for the course for Obama appointees. And it shows the depths to which its officials will sink in order to push the President&#8217;s agenda.</p>
<p>Lies are not simply a campaigning tactic or strategy. They are the heart of how this administration does business.</p>
<p>Steven Hayes on Fox made the important point that in the space of just a couple of minutes Biden said US intelligence misled the administration on Libya and could be totally trusted to get Iran&#8217;s nuclear capabilities just right.</p>
<p>Do you feel safe with that assessment?</p>
<p>I was dismayed that Ryan didn&#8217;t just come out and attack Biden for doing what he was doing. But he was in a tight spot. Martha Raddatz, the moderator was there playing interference for Biden the whole time. Every time Ryan started making a point, she&#8217;d interrupt him and change the subject.</p>
<p>Aside from that I felt the age disparity worked in Biden&#8217;s favor because Ryan was obviously  trying to be deferential to his elder who clearly did not deserve any deference from him. Ryan was playing by the old rule book, treating his opponent with respect. Biden was playing by the Obama rulebook and treated his opponent with contempt as a means of destroying him personally.</p>
<p>Commentators all say that Ryan held his own. And that&#8217;s true and good for him, as far as that goes. But that isn&#8217;t the point.</p>
<p>The point is that Romney has been warned by Biden and the campaign. He needs to stay on offense. And that doesn&#8217;t just mean to defend his positions or call Obama on the failure of his policies. It means he needs to confront Obama on what he is doing in his campaign and refuse to pretend that this is business as usual.</p>
<p>The ugliness we saw last night is just a foretaste of what will come in the next three weeks and Romney better be ready.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/caroline-glick/biden-obama-and-the-politics-of-personal-destruction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Ryan’s Medicare Is Better for Seniors Than Obamacare’s Medicare</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/peter-thomas-and-peter-ferrara/why-ryan%e2%80%99s-medicare-is-better-for-seniors-than-obamacare%e2%80%99s-medicare/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-ryan%25e2%2580%2599s-medicare-is-better-for-seniors-than-obamacare%25e2%2580%2599s-medicare</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/peter-thomas-and-peter-ferrara/why-ryan%e2%80%99s-medicare-is-better-for-seniors-than-obamacare%e2%80%99s-medicare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 04:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Thomas and Peter Ferrara]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[welfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=146902</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The plan that really turns the government program into a "death trap" for its beneficiaries. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Paul_Ryan6295.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-146945" title="Paul_Ryan6295" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Paul_Ryan6295.gif" alt="" width="375" height="248" /></a>Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz described the Medicare reforms proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as “literally a death trap for seniors.”  White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that Ryan’s reforms would “change Medicare as we know it.”</p>
<p>But it was Obamacare that already changed Medicare as we know it, transforming it literally into a death trap for seniors.  Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion over the next 10 years alone, mostly by slashing Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals.  And that is just a downpayment on what is to come.</p>
<p>Medicare’s Chief Actuary Rick Foster reports that by the end of this decade, Medicare will be paying less to doctors and hospitals for health care for seniors than Medicaid pays for health care for the poor.  And Medicare will be falling farther and farther behind Medicaid each year.</p>
<p>Already, Medicaid does not pay enough for the poor on the program to get timely, essential health care, particularly the sickest and those most in need of the best health care.  Academic studies show that the poor suffer worse health outcomes as a result, including premature death.</p>
<p>But under Obamacare, soon enough, seniors will be lined up behind welfare mothers in trying to find doctors who will see them, and hospitals that will admit them.  These cuts affect seniors already retired today, not just those years into the future.</p>
<p>Foster reports that, even before these cuts, two-thirds of hospitals were already losing money on Medicare patients.  In a few short years, hospitals serving seniors in particular will begin closing, and retirees will have increasing difficulty obtaining access to care.  As Harvard University health economist Joe Newhouse explains, seniors will likely have to seek care at community health centers and safety net hospitals.</p>
<p>And this does not even count any further cuts that may be adopted by Obamacare’s Medicare “death panel,” the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).  That Board will be composed of unelected, appointed, Washington bureaucrats with the power to adopt still more Medicare cuts that would become effective even without the approval of Congress.</p>
<p>Contrary to the childish silliness of Wasserman Schulz and Carney, Ryan’s Medicare reforms, in sharp contrast, would simply extend the more modern, popular, and successful policies of Medicare Parts C and D to the old fashioned Medicare Parts A and B.</p>
<p>Medicare Part D is the prescription drug program.  Just like Ryan’s proposed Medicare reforms, Part D provides premium support payments to seniors, which they use to purchase the private prescription drug coverage of their choice.  Because of private market competition, and incentives for seniors to choose lower cost plans, Part D costs have run 40% below projections.  Compare that to Parts A and B, which, by 1990, cost 10 times the original projections for that year when the program was adopted.</p>
<p>Medicare Part C is Medicare Advantage, under which nearly 25% of seniors have already chosen private insurance to provide all of their Medicare coverage.  Seniors believe they get a better deal through this highly popular program due to choice and competition.</p>
<p>Ryan would empower workers under age 55 today, when they retire in the future, with the choice of a private plan competing alongside traditional Medicare.  Medicare would provide these seniors with a premium support payment they could use to pay for, or offset, the premium of the private health insurance they chose, providing at least the exact same benefits as Medicare.  That premium support payment is set by competitive bidding under rules ensuring it will be enough to pay for at least two of the competing plans providing at least the same benefits as Medicare.  Or seniors, even in the future, could just stay in Medicare just like it is today.</p>
<p>Unlike under Obamacare, these reforms would involve no change for anyone retired today.  This plan was actually developed by a bi-partisan commission under President Clinton and chaired by Democrat Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana.</p>
<p>Ryan’s reforms are better for seniors than Obamacare’s Medicare, most of all because they free seniors from the cuts and government health care rationing involved in Obamacare’s mangling of Medicare, by allowing them to choose private insurance, paying market rates instead.  Only through such private insurance will seniors be able to continue to enjoy the high-quality, most advanced care they have come to expect from Medicare.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/peter-thomas-and-peter-ferrara/why-ryan%e2%80%99s-medicare-is-better-for-seniors-than-obamacare%e2%80%99s-medicare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media&#8217;s Creepy Stalking of Ryan&#8217;s Black Ex-Girlfriend</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/medias-creepy-stalking-of-ryans-black-ex-girlfriend/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=medias-creepy-stalking-of-ryans-black-ex-girlfriend</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/medias-creepy-stalking-of-ryans-black-ex-girlfriend/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you ever sat on a shaky bridge over the waters of a jungle lake swarming with flesh-eating piranhas and innocently began throwing them some Cracker Jack treats, then you already know what a feeding frenzy looks like. The piranhas swarm and keep on swarming hoping for a taste even after there are no more treats.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/paul_ryandeneeta_pope2012-wide.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-142610" title="paul_ryandeneeta_pope2012-wide" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/paul_ryandeneeta_pope2012-wide-300x211.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="211" /></a></p>
<p>If you ever sat on a shaky bridge over the waters of a jungle lake swarming with flesh-eating piranhas and innocently began throwing them some Cracker Jack treats, then you already know what a feeding frenzy looks like. The piranhas swarm and keep on swarming hoping for a taste even after there are no more treats.</p>
<p>The media is kind of like that with Paul Ryan. After spending a week trying to dodgily tie him to Richard Nixon, of all people, the ravenous and hungry media hordes headed off after rumors of a black ex-girlfriend in college that he mentioned seven years ago. The same government-media complex which will get around to verifying any untruthful aspect of Obama&#8217;s biography in the year 2062, decided that the girlfriend had been made up, because it fit with the Tricky Dick story that they began telling themselves.</p>
<p>The girlfriend turned out to be real, a Democrat who supported Obama, but was on good terms with Ryan. Supporting Obama should have won her a pass, but her unwillingness to tell the media about the time that Paul Ryan took off his face to reveal Richard Nixon&#8217;s face underneath doomed her. The media, now following a complete non-story about a girl that Ryan had dated in college and broken up with long ago, dug into her past to try and find anything that they could lynch her with.</p>
<p>Reason <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/02/wheres-media-criticism-of-tmzs-racist-ji">picks up the story, but</a> future <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/02/wheres-media-criticism-of-tmzs-racist-ji">ex-girlfriends of </a>Republican stars have now learned that if they are asked about their ex, they need to reply that he was a devil worshiper who often told her about his hatred for grandmothers and black people. Or they&#8217;ll get the Deneeta D. Pope treatment. Pope wouldn&#8217;t provide useful attack material, so a past crime that she admitted to is now being used to turn her into attack material.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/medias-creepy-stalking-of-ryans-black-ex-girlfriend/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Ryan Was Right on Obama&#8217;s GM Plant Abandonment</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/paul-ryan-was-right-on-obamas-gm-plant-abandonment/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=paul-ryan-was-right-on-obamas-gm-plant-abandonment</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/paul-ryan-was-right-on-obamas-gm-plant-abandonment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 04:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[close]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Motors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Janesville]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142601</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plant closing demonstrates the president will say anything to get elected. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/janesville-wi-gm-plant-closed.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-142628" title="janesville-wi-gm-plant-closed" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/janesville-wi-gm-plant-closed.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a>The Obama spin machine, which includes much of the mainstream press, is shadowboxing against its own false rendition of what Congressman Paul Ryan, the Republican nominee for Vice President, actually said about the closing of the GM plant in Ryan&#8217;s hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin. According to the Obama campaign and its allies, Ryan falsely accused the Obama administration of being responsible for the closing, when GM had already made the decision to close the plant in December 2008, and let go most of its workers, before the Obama presidency even began.</p>
<p>The trouble is that Ryan never claimed in his acceptance speech that the Janesville plant closed on Obama&#8217;s watch, even though in point of fact it technically did.  Cars were still being produced there during the spring of 2009.  Ryan&#8217;s point was that the Obama campaign had demagogued the anticipated closing and made a promise to keep the plant open with government help &#8211; a promise President Obama bailed out on after taking office.</p>
<p>Obama said on February 13, 2008, during a visit to the Janesville plant: &#8220;I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.&#8221;</p>
<p>In October 2008, Obama commented on GM&#8217;s announced intention to wind down production at Janesville and close the plant altogether by 2010:</p>
<blockquote><p>Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country&#8230;As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here is where things get interesting and demonstrate that Obama reneged on his campaign promise, just as Ryan had said. The Janesville plant remained on stand-by status and was being considered for use in producing the &#8220;small car of the future&#8221; according to a <a href="http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2009/Jun/0626_SmallCarPlants.html">GM press release issued in June 2009</a> &#8211; well after Obama had taken office.</p>
<p>In fact, <a href="http://m.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html">as recently as September 2011 </a>the Janesville plant was still ready to be put back into use for production of cars if demand warranted, according to GM.</p>
<p>In other words, Obama still had a chance to make good on his campaign promise to &#8220;lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville&#8221; and ended up abandoning Janesville instead.</p>
<p>With GM being really Government Motors after the Obama bailout (for which U.S. taxpayers are still on the hook for many billions of dollars), why didn&#8217;t Obama keep his campaign promise and see to it that the Janesville plant went from stand-by to actual small car production and thereby keep it open?  Because he&#8217;ll say anything during the campaign and then do nothing to follow through when he had the power to do so. Obama&#8217;s so-called GM bailout and green energy policies, including government incentives for cars of the future such as the failed Chevrolet Volt,  have not saved the Janesville plant, Obama&#8217;s campaign promises to the contrary.</p>
<p>If anything, Paul Ryan was too easy on Obama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/paul-ryan-was-right-on-obamas-gm-plant-abandonment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t Let the Media Fool You About Ryan&#8217;s Ratings</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/dont-let-the-media-fool-you-about-ryans-ratings/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dont-let-the-media-fool-you-about-ryans-ratings</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/dont-let-the-media-fool-you-about-ryans-ratings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don't let the media fool you into thinking that Ryan's speech pulled in low ratings. A convention held in 2012 is not going to have the same ratings as a convention held in 2008. If you watched any part of the 2012 RNC over the internet, then you already know why.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/analog-tv.thumbnail.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-142283" title="analog-tv.thumbnail" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/analog-tv.thumbnail.jpg" alt="" width="185" height="166" /></a></p>
<p>Don&#8217;t let the media fool you into thinking that Ryan&#8217;s speech pulled in low ratings. This story is running in a number of outlets and <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/30/minus-palin-conventions-tv-ratings-plunge/">it relies on a comparison </a>between the ratings for Palin&#8217;s speech in 2008 and Ryan&#8217;s now.</p>
<blockquote><p>An average of 21.9 million viewers tuned into the nine broadcast and cable networks that were broadcasting convention proceedings Wednesday night between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., according to Nielsen. That was 41% less than the 37.2 million who tuned in the same night four years ago, the research firm said.</p></blockquote>
<p>This would be significant if not for the fact that TV viewership has been falling for a while. A convention held in 2012 is not going to have the same ratings as a convention held in 2008. If you watched any part of the 2012 RNC over the internet, then you already know why.</p>
<p>Television ratings have fallen as internet use has gone up and internet viewership ratings are still not reliable. YouTube ratings will have to be factored in along with traditional ratings and that still will not give us the whole picture. The traditional measures of viewership just don&#8217;t apply anymore and that&#8217;s neither good nor bad, it&#8217;s just the way it is. We have no idea how Ryan&#8217;s viewership compares to Palin&#8217;s. We just don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Of the most-watched television events, almost all of them took place before the dominance of the internet. No Super Bowl that took place since the mid 90&#8242;s has scored anywhere near the same ratings.</p>
<p>Compare Super Bowl XLII in 2008 at 48.66 million with Super Bowl XlVI with 50.15 million in 1983. You can see the same difference with television finales. The newer a broadcast is, the lower its ratings are by comparison. This doesn&#8217;t mean that it&#8217;s unpopular, it just means that the way we watch things has changed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/dont-let-the-media-fool-you-about-ryans-ratings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Electrified RNC: &#8216;We Can Do This&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joe-kaufman/electrified-rnc-we-can-do-this/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=electrified-rnc-we-can-do-this</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joe-kaufman/electrified-rnc-we-can-do-this/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe Kaufman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[condoleezza rice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republican national convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RNC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tampa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A night of intensely anticipated speakers brings down the house. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RNC174_1551039e.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-142195" title="RNC174_1551039e" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RNC174_1551039e.gif" alt="" width="375" height="253" /></a>It took the second day of the Republican convention in Tampa for the fireworks to go off. Condoleezza Rice got a rise from the crowd, and Paul Ryan brought down the house. There were a number of themes, but the one that seemed most prevalent was that Romney and Ryan can win. This produced elation from the political right and left progressives noticeably shaken.</p>
<p>The night began with a peace offering to the convention’s numerous Ron Paul supporters in the form of a short Ron Paul video, lauding the longtime U.S. Senator, soon to be followed by a speech by Paul’s son, Rand. Paul supporters have been upset due to a disagreement with the Republican Party over the presidential nomination process.</p>
<p>Rand Paul’s speech included a number of issues, first of which was President Obama’s health care law. Paul stated that, after the Supreme Court ruling, “I still think it’s unconstitutional… The whole damn thing is still unconstitutional.”  He mentioned the “You didn’t build that” line that was the tag line of the previous night’s speeches and which was peppered throughout this second night. As well, he made a number of veiled references to his opposition of the Patriot Act, which appeared out of place at this convention but was red meat for his dad’s followers. “We should never trade our liberty for any promise of security,” he stated to large applause.</p>
<p>It seemed appropriate that, right after Rand Paul, a video presentation was shown featuring President George W. Bush along with a reference to the 9/11 attacks spoken by former First Lady Laura Bush.</p>
<p>Senator John McCain excoriated President Obama on actions regarding defense and foreign policy. He took issue with the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel (“a nation under existential threat”), Russia and China policy, the leaking of military secrets, and massive cuts to America’s defense. He stated that the President “missed an opportunity” regarding Iran and failed to protect Syrians from the Assad government, which he described as a “savage and unfair fight.” McCain spoke with the toughness that many consider was lacking in his personal run for President in 2008.</p>
<p>The issue of energy independence was only mentioned in passing the first night, but the issue was given a little more prominence on Wednesday. Tad True, the Vice President of Belle Fourche and Bridger Pipelines, located in Caspar, Wyoming, criticized Obama during his speech, stating that the President’s “policies are driving us away from energy independence, not towards it.” He spoke about “rebuilding a nation that can once again power itself” and that he believes Mitt Romney “understands that America needs that pipeline,” alluding to the Keystone Project that Obama shut down.</p>
<p>Senator Rob Portman of Ohio spoke of the differences between Governor Romney and President Obama. He stated that Obama hasn’t passed a budget in the nearly four years he has been in office. Portman said, in that same time period, “FDR and Truman won an entire war.” He reminded the audience that Obama “got zero votes” for his personal budget and called it a “lack of leadership.”</p>
<p>The Hispanic community was featured prominently Wednesday night, as it was the night before. Governor Luis Fortuno of Puerto Rico spoke, stating that “Freedom is the essence of who we are as Americans.” And Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico spoke, voicing in Spanish, “En America todo es possible” (“In America everything is possible”). She said that, if President Obama can “take credit for government building small business, then he can accept responsibility for breaking his promise and adding $5 trillion to the national debt – <em>because he did build that.”</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joe-kaufman/electrified-rnc-we-can-do-this/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>75</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama: The Great Divider</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/obama-the-great-divider/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-the-great-divider</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/obama-the-great-divider/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Flynn]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bipartisan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polarizing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The President has spent more time talking about bipartisanship than actually pursuing it. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/obama_economy_onpage.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-142171" title="obama_economy_onpage" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/obama_economy_onpage.gif" alt="" width="375" height="252" /></a>Supporters of Barack Obama hailed their candidate’s ascension to America’s highest political office as ushering in a “post-partisan presidency.” The reasoning behind this wasn’t without reason. After all, Obama had announced at his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote address, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America,” and had promised upon his inauguration “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” But almost four years into his presidency, Barack Obama presides over a more polarized America than any the Pew Research Center has polled in its quarter century of surveying political division on 48 separate issues.</p>
<p>President Obama failed to convince a single Republican to vote for his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act, and garnered just a handful of GOP supporters for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As former Democratic Congressman Artur Davis told the Republicans gathered in Tampa Tuesday night, “Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson reached out across the aisle and said meet me in the middle. But [Democrats] rammed through a healthcare bill that took over one-sixth of our economy, without accepting a single Republican idea, without winning a single vote in either house from a party whose constituents make up about 50 percent of the country.”</p>
<p>On day three of the Obama presidency, the post-partisan president had entered the post-post-partisan stage of his administration. “Elections have consequences,” he told Eric Cantor upon hearing ideas from the then-House Minority Leader, “and, Eric, I won.” Not until more than two years into his administration did Barack Obama hold a one-on-one meeting with the Republican leader of the House or Senate. He routinely submits budgets not to win passage but to enhance his bona fides with the liberal base. When the democratic process rebuked his arrogance in the fall of 2010 he arrogantly rebuked the democratic process. Going to war in Libya after consulting the United Nations but not Congress, slipping carbon limits into Environmental Protection Agency regulations that had failed to pass muster with Congress, and placing controversial end-of-life-counseling into the Federal Register after Congress had explicitly rejected it substantively sums up the my-way-or-the-highway approach. His ongoing “We Can’t Wait” initiative symbolically sums it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/obama-the-great-divider/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Al Jazeera Attacks Paul Ryan over Women&#8217;s Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/al-jazeera-attacks-paul-ryan-over-womens-rights/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=al-jazeera-attacks-paul-ryan-over-womens-rights</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/al-jazeera-attacks-paul-ryan-over-womens-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 03:39:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Qatar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=142130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some kinds of rape are acceptable in Qatar. "The law criminalizes domestic violence and rape but does not address spousal rape. " Beating your wife is also fine. "There is no law criminalizing domestic violence."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/burqa-women-lots-of1.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-142136 alignnone" title="burqa-women-lots-of1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/burqa-women-lots-of1-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" /></a></p>
<p>Al Jazeera, the Muslim propaganda channel operated by Qatar, for some reason decided to attack Paul Ryan over abortion, running an op-ed which accused him of extremism and victimizing raped women.</p>
<p>For some context, let&#8217;s look at how friendly Muslim Qatar is to women. Under Qatari law, abortion is punishable by five years in jail. Meanwhile there&#8217;s Prince Hamid bin Abdal Sani who is still wanted in Czechoslovakia for statutory rape.</p>
<p>The State Department&#8217;s Human Rights report stated that, &#8220;the application of Sharia denied women equal status in certain civil proceedings such as marriage, divorce, and witness testimony. In such instances, a women&#8217;s testimony was equal to half of a man&#8217;s.&#8221;</p>
<p>Women are generally happy in Qatar. &#8220;A 2007 Qatar University study found that 63 percent of 2,778 surveyed citizen and noncitizen female students reported they had been victims of physical abuse, with 52 reporting cases of &#8220;strong violence,&#8221; such as rape, and 120 reporting sexual harassment. Approximately 50 women reported they had considered suicide because they were afraid of the repercussions if they notified authorities.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some kinds of rape are acceptable in Qatar. &#8220;The law criminalizes domestic violence and rape but does not address spousal rape. &#8221; Beating your wife is also fine. &#8220;There is no law criminalizing domestic violence.&#8221;</p>
<p>And this is how Al Jazeera treats its female staff. &#8220;In May five Arab women presenters resigned from al-Jazeera after complaining that they were harassed by senior managers for not dressing modestly enough. An internal inquiry cleared the al-Jazeera official and asserted that the channel has the right to dictate how its presenters appear and that it held Arab and Qatari women broadcasters to much higher dress-standards.&#8221;</p>
<p>If Al Jazeera is going to run attacks on Paul Ryan, they may want to skip the feminist angle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/al-jazeera-attacks-paul-ryan-over-womens-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Ryan &#8216;Bounce&#8217; Is Real</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/jlaksin/the-ryan-bounce-is-real/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-ryan-bounce-is-real</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/jlaksin/the-ryan-bounce-is-real/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 04:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediscare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[swing states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=141147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contrary to the Democrats' spin, Paul Ryan is proving an asset to the Romney campaign. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/romney_ryan_5_rect-460x307.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-141150" title="romney_ryan_5_rect-460x307" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/romney_ryan_5_rect-460x307-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" /></a>Paul Ryan’s selection to the GOP presidential ticket has sent the Democratic spin machine into overdrive. Democratic pollsters and partisans alike have been at pains to claim that the Ryan pick has brought no political &#8220;bounce&#8221; to the Romney campaign, that his addition does not put a single new swing state in play. Obama pollster Joel Benenson went so far as to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/no-ryan-poll-bounce-romney-obama-202326710.html">claim</a> that Ryan has &#8220;had virtually no impact on Romney&#8217;s position in the polls.&#8221; It&#8217;s a flattering reading of the political map, one that has already influenced <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=news+liberal+media+bias&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8#hl=en&amp;client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;sclient=psy-ab&amp;q=%22no+ryan+bounce%22&amp;oq=%22no+ryan+bounce%22&amp;gs_l=serp.3...6537.12879.3.13102.29.24.5.0.0.0.172.1931.17j7.24.0.les%3B..0.0...1c._h3-hJylZMk&amp;pbx=1&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=55ab4df3ea5a6e31&amp;biw=1211&amp;bih=610">media coverage</a> of the presidential campaign.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for the Obama camp, it&#8217;s also false. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that Ryan has done nothing to boost Romney&#8217;s standing, the latest evidence suggests that he is already helping the campaign seize the advantage in key swing states while increasing its appeal to the Republican base and boosting its fundraising fortunes.</p>
<p>Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin is a case in point. In its first poll since the Ryan announcement, Democratic polling form Public Policy Polling (PPP) <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_WI_082112.pdf">finds</a> that Romney now has a small lead over Barack Obama in the Badger State. After being down 50 percent to 44 percent to Obama as recently as last month, Romney now has a small but significant one-point lead over the president. That represents a remarkable 7-point swing for Romney. While the race remains close, it&#8217;s now clearly competitive. Wisconsin is no exception. Since Ryan joined the campaign, Romney has seen his poll numbers rise in battlegrounds like <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/15/swing-state-poll-after-picking-ryan-romney-now-leads-in-ohio-virginia-and-florida/">Ohio, Virginia, Florida</a> and <a href="http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19329562/new-michigan-poll-has-romney-ahead-of-obama">Michigan</a>.</p>
<p>Credit for the turnaround is due to Ryan. With Ryan&#8217;s addition, the Romney campaign is beginning to unite Republicans in a way that previously it had failed to do. PPP&#8217;s poll finds that Romney now wins support from 88 percent of Republicans, as compared to the 78 percent he was winning before Ryan joined the ticket. If part of the logic of the Ryan pick was to shore up the GOP base, it seems to be working.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/jlaksin/the-ryan-bounce-is-real/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Rage Against the Machine&#8217; Clueless About Paul Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/humberto-fontova/rage-against-the-machine-clueless-about-paul-ryan/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rage-against-the-machine-clueless-about-paul-ryan</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/humberto-fontova/rage-against-the-machine-clueless-about-paul-ryan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Humberto Fontova]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[band]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Che Guevera]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cuba]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rage against the machine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=141025</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[...And worships mass murderer Che Guevara. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/che-t-shirt.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-141043" title="che-t-shirt" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/che-t-shirt.gif" alt="" width="375" height="265" /></a>Paul Ryan claims fondness for the music of Rage Against the Machine, a hard-left, union-backing and &#8220;peace-marching,&#8221; grunge group. Ryan specified that the music &#8212; rather than lyrics &#8212; forms the attraction. For this, the band&#8217;s outraged lead guitarist, Harvard-graduate Tom Morello, recently took to the pages of Rolling Stone magazine to denounce Ryan as &#8220;clueless.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Ryan is the embodiment of the Machine our music Rages against!&#8221; raved an ungrateful Morello, proving that for leftists it’s “politics über alles.” (Can you imagine Ted Nugent or Trace Adkins insulting their customers?) &#8220;Paul Ryan&#8217;s love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing,” continued the scandalized Morello. &#8220;Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn&#8217;t understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn&#8217;t understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.&#8221;</p>
<p>Rage Against the Machine honors Che Guevara as their icon and “fifth band member.”  &#8220;We&#8217;ve considered Che a fifth band member for a long time now,&#8221; gushed (Harvard-graduate) Tom Morello, &#8220;for the simple reason that he exemplifies the integrity and revolutionary ideals to which we aspire.&#8221; The Stalinist mass-murderer’s image features prominently on RATM’s amps and album covers.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s consider the two issues and determine who’s genuinely “clueless” here.</p>
<p>A Rock group (RATM) boasts that the central inspiration of their &#8220;irreverent” music and “anti-authority” image is the co-founder of a totalitarian regime that outlawed Rock Music, Graffiti and &#8220;disrespect to authorities&#8221; &#8212; all under penalty of forced labor, torture and firing squad.</p>
<p>“Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates,” commanded Che Guevara in a famous speech in 1961 where he denounced the very “spirit of rebellion” as “reprehensible.” “Youth must dedicate themselves to study, work and military service. Youth must learn to think and act as a mass…it is criminal to think of individuals!”</p>
<p>&#8220;Union activists&#8221; RATM musicians have made central to their music and image a Stalinist who outlawed strikes under penalty of prison and firing squad.</p>
<p>&#8220;By no means can Cuban workers go on strike!&#8221; declared Cuba&#8217;s &#8220;Minister of Industries&#8221; (Che Guevara) on June 26, 1961. &#8220;Cuban workers must adjust to life in a collectivist social order!&#8221;</p>
<p>The &#8220;Peace activists&#8221; of RATM have made central to their music and image the boastful blusterer of the following:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>We reject any peaceful approach!&#8230; </em>My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood!..Violence is inevitable! To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!</p></blockquote>
<p>Tom Morello also professes immense pride in his black heritage and in Obama’s presidency. &#8220;I honestly thought I&#8217;d never live to see this day,&#8221; he gushed in Nov. 2008. “Obama&#8217;s election is a huge step towards civilization for a country whose past is so steeped in racism.&#8221;  But the icon on his guitar, amplifier and album cover went on record to say that: &#8220;The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities and drink. The European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent&#8230;The Negro has maintained his racial purity by his well known habit of avoiding baths.&#8221; The regime Che co-founded jailed and tortured the longest-suffering black political prisoners in modern history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/humberto-fontova/rage-against-the-machine-clueless-about-paul-ryan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rand vs. Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/rand-vs-ryan/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rand-vs-ryan</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/rand-vs-ryan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Flynn]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ayn rand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libertarian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Objectivist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vice president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140774</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why media scaremongering over the Russian novelist misrepresents the congressman.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rob_ryan_ayn_81512.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140776" title="rob_ryan_ayn_81512" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/rob_ryan_ayn_81512.gif" alt="" width="375" height="244" /></a>Mitt Romney named Ayn Rand as his runningmate last weekend—at least that’s the way numerous scribes see it.</p>
<p>In a piece called “Ayn Rand Joins the Ticket,” the <em>New Yorker</em>’s Jane Mayer argues that by naming Paul Ryan his runningmate, Romney adds “the ghostly presence of the controversial Russian Émigré philosopher and writer Ayn Rand.” “Ryan’s devotion to Rand is yet another Republican insult and injury to classic American ideas of fairness, squareness, and civic-mindedness,” writes Jamie Stiehm at USNews.com. “In fact, the Ryan-authored House Republican budget document, which cuts the heart out of our body politic, ripping social services and Medicare to shreds, is a pledge to the Rand coat of arms, standing against people who need a little help from other people.” The <em>Christian Science Monitor</em>’s Husna Haq calls Ryan “an ardent Randian.”</p>
<p>But “an ardent Randian” fakes a Russian accent, chain smokes Tareytons, and extols the Partridge Family’s “C’mon, Get Happy” while condemning Beethoven. Even Rand recognized the fanaticism she inspired. “Do not underestimate the admirers of <em>The Fountainhead</em>,” she told a Warner Bros. producer. “[They are] becoming a kind of cult.” Paul Ryan’s chiseled physique may recall the shirtless Howard Roark smashing rocks in a quarry. But for ways better and worse, Mitt Romney’s runningmate is no Randian.</p>
<p>Certainly Ryan told the Atlas Society in 2005 that “the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” He has also boasted of requiring his interns to read Rand’s magnum opus, 1957’s <em>Atlas Shrugged</em>, and of giving the dystopian book as a Christmas present (Rand, incidentally, was an enthusiast of neither Christ nor handouts). But the Wisconsin representative also supported both the banker and automotive bailouts, and consistently casts pro-life votes in Congress. The puppeteer disapproving of the marionette’s words and deeds suggests that she’s not the one pulling the strings.</p>
<p>Consider the differences between Ryan’s reaction, and Rand’s anticipation, of President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” scolding of businessmen. “If you have a small business—you did build that,” Ryan remarked at his coming-out party last weekend. “We Americans look at one another’s success with pride, not resentment, because we know, as more Americans work hard, take risks, and succeed, more people will prosper, our communities will benefit, and individual lives will be improved and uplifted.” Rand, by way of comparison, writes in <em>The Fountainhead</em>, that “Roger Enright had started life as a coal miner in Pennsylvania. On his way to the millions he now owned, no one had ever helped him.” The congressman’s positive remarks mesh with common sense. The novelist’s depiction of a social-atom businessman seems as divorced from reality as President Obama’s flipside fantasy of entrepreneurs as creations of the state.</p>
<p>What the Wisconsin congressman and the Russian refugee share in common is the contempt of the Left. Where they differ is in their reactions to that venom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/daniel-flynn/rand-vs-ryan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>86</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Republican War on Hollywood</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/the-republican-war-on-hollywood/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-republican-war-on-hollywood</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/the-republican-war-on-hollywood/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tinseltown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the GOP can turn the tide with Tinseltown. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/paul.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140709" title="paul" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/paul.jpg" alt="" width="292" height="244" /></a>This week, the <em>Los Angeles Times</em> ran a dismissive hit piece against Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Ryan, it turns out, stood against subsidies for Hollywood while serving in Congress by fighting, in 2007, against a Centers for Disease Control initiative designed to ladle health information into shows including <em>Sesame Street</em> and <em>Grey’s Anatomy</em>. The CDC had already shelled out big bucks to support the Hollywood Health &amp; Society, a subsidiary of the Norman Lear Center at USC. The CDC was handing over nearly $200,000 in taxpayer cash to the program.</p>
<p>Ryan tried to slash the entire program from the CDC budget. He said it was “clearly an expense that should have been covered by the successful, for-profit television shows, not by our hard-earned tax dollars.”</p>
<p>Ryan, of course, was absolutely right. Hollywood is wealthy beyond belief, an industry that rakes in billions per year. Shows like <em>Sesame Street </em>and <em>Grey’s Anatomy</em> don’t need taxpayer subsidies any more than Kobe Bryant does.</p>
<p>But Ryan’s response was also indicative of a general coolness between the Republican Party and Hollywood. Republicans tend to oppose tax credits for Hollywood, even while they support tax credits for other industries. There’s a reason for that: Hollywood is a propaganda machine for the left. Why would the GOP support an industry that churns out pro-Obama agitprop like <em>Zero Dark Thirty</em>, the story of the Osama Bin Laden killing designed to hit the advertising market just before the election? Why would Republicans want to back an industry that seeks to paint conservatives as redneck rubes who might go psycho at any moment and slaughter entire families?</p>
<p>They wouldn’t. But a long time ago, they did.</p>
<p>Back in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, even Republicans were fans of Hollywood. Republicans thought that Hollywood was a uniquely American industry, and that production of film and television would do the country significant good on the world stage. Promoting film and TV with tax cuts was a signal goal of both parties.</p>
<p>All that changed over the course of the 1960s. While in the 1930s through the 1950s, the executives in charge of the movie and television industry were businessmen first – old <em>schmatta </em>salesmen like General Sarnoff and Leonard Goldberg – the new executives of the 1960s, the folks you see on <em>Mad Men</em>, were affected by the leftist ideas of that era. They let their creative juices flow. And often, that meant that their TV shows pushed the line, targeting traditional values. By the end of the 1960s, American television and movies were undergoing a sea change – so much so that during the 1968 election, they went all out for the anti-Nixon agenda.</p>
<p>Nixon responded by attacking Hollywood. In 1971, Nixon threatened to break apart the three major networks of the time (NBC, ABC, CBS). “If the threat of screwing them is going to help us more with their programming than doing it,” he said, “then keep the threat. As far as screwing them is concerned, I’m very glad to do it.” And no wonder. Television’s treatment of Nixon was brutal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ben-shapiro/the-republican-war-on-hollywood/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Medicare May Be Obama’s &#8216;Waterloo&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/medicare-may-be-obama%e2%80%99s-waterloo/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=medicare-may-be-obama%25e2%2580%2599s-waterloo</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/medicare-may-be-obama%e2%80%99s-waterloo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 04:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankrupt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Republicans confront a golden opportunity to address the forbidden "third rail" of politics. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ap_barack_obama_mr_120813_wblog.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140734" title="ap_barack_obama_mr_120813_wblog" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ap_barack_obama_mr_120813_wblog.gif" alt="" width="375" height="242" /></a>In the Battle of Waterloo a resolute leader defeated a dangerous, imperious tyrant. The metaphor lives on today in American politics.</p>
<p>During congressional hostilities over Obamacare Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) famously urged Republicans to push hard “to stop” President Obama’s signature legislation because killing the bill would “break him.” It would be Obama’s “Waterloo.” It would “show that we can, along with the American people, begin to push those freedom solutions that work in every area of our society.”</p>
<p>After Democrats used gangster tactics that made defeat impossible, former Bush speech writer David Frum <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo/">scolded</a> “conservatives and Republicans.” He blamed “[c]onservative talkers on Fox and talk radio [who] had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible.”</p>
<p>“We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat,” he wrote. The process ended in “Waterloo all right: ours.”</p>
<p>It now appears both DeMint and Frum were wrong.</p>
<p>Obamacare, it turns out, is not Obama’s Waterloo – but Medicare just might be.</p>
<p>Through a preternatural confluence of events Republican Mitt Romney could evict the Saul Alinsky radical in the White House by running a successful campaign on reining in the obscenely expensive Medicare program and introducing market reforms.</p>
<p>Yes, you read that right.</p>
<p>Moreover, Romney may be able not only to touch this supposed “third rail” of American politics and survive but to ride the lightning all the way into the history books.</p>
<p>This is because the coolest, smartest president ever is hellbent on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/">extracting</a> $716 billion from the popular health care entitlement for senior citizens. The effect on Medicare patients will be devastating but Obama doesn’t care. He’s got to have the money in order to pay for Obamacare, an unproven, unpopular, and largely unknowable program that makes patients and businesses justifiably nervous and alienates seniors, a hugely important voting bloc.</p>
<p>And he’s locked into the ultra-toxic Medicare cuts. In late 2009 Obama gave an authoritative “yes” as an answer when Jake Tapper of ABC News asked if he would “veto any bill that tries to restore funding you took from Medicare?” The election is now less than three months away. Obama is committed.</p>
<p>In 2008 candidate Obama went on record against a similarly sized Medicare cut.</p>
<p>“How would your golden years turn out under John McCain? His health care plan would cut Medicare by $800 billion &#8212; that means a 22 percent cut in benefits. Higher premiums and co-pays &#8230; after a lifetime of work, senior’s health care shouldn’t be a gamble. John McCain’s plan, it’s not the change we need.”</p>
<p>All of this is a political godsend. Republicans get a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to play Santa Claus while normally spendthrift Democrats become Christmas-stealing grinches. Paradoxically, GOPers also get to position themselves as compassionate defenders of Medicare while acting like fiscally responsible grownups saving America from the monster of Obamacare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/medicare-may-be-obama%e2%80%99s-waterloo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1414/1488 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 04:57:52 by W3 Total Cache -->