Racial divide worse under Obama

Star Parker

Townhall - The headline of a recent article by the Washington Post’s Peter Wallsten capsulizes, inadvertently, the supreme paradox of the Obama presidency. “Obama struggles to balance African America’s hopes with country’s as a whole,” it says.
The story documents Obama’s struggles over the last four years, which continue today, to avoid overplaying his hand as the first black president, yet to also not ignore this fact.
But nowhere does Wallsten note the irony that four years ago many understood the meaning of Obama’s election as the beginning of the end of the perception of black America as a world apart from the rest of America.
There was exhilaration that the nightmare was over – finally. That wrongs have been righted, that we can get on with America’s business without the ongoing issue of race looming, and that we can stop looking at blacks politically as a special class of Americans.
Yet here we are now at the end of four years of the presidency of this first black president and attitudes about race seem to have hardly changed at all. There is still the sense that black America and the rest of America are not on the same page and that blacks and the country “as a whole” have different needs and different agendas.
Wasn’t Obama’s election supposed to have changed all of this? Not only have racial tensions not improved, but the racial divide appears to have widened.
“Win or lose,” Wallsten continues, “the electorate that decides his fate November 6 will be far more racially divided than the one that propelled him into the history books.” Read full column here: News New Mexico

Racial divide worse under Obama

What the debates taught us

Mitt Romney

Townhall - Commentary by Victor Davis Hanson - The president of the United States in the last debate chose to go on the attack against his challenger, Mitt Romney -- and once again largely failed to convince the American people that he was the more presidential alternative.

But how did the once-messianic incumbent find himself in this fix of playing the catch-up role of a bar-room-brawling challenger rather than a calm and confident president? Despite running ahead in the polls for most of the year, Barack Obama has rarely achieved a 50 percent favorability rating, largely because of four years of dismal economic news. Obama himself had warned us four years ago that if he didn't restore prosperity, he would be a one-term president -- and the debates taught us that he was probably right.

Barack Obama

Promises about halving the annual deficit, getting unemployment below 6 percent and increasing middle-class incomes were never met. The recent unrest in the Middle East and the killing of an American ambassador and three other Americans in Libya did not help convince anyone that Obama's foreign policy was so successful that they could afford to overlook an anemic economy.

Yet the American people always wanted a viable alternative before they admitted their mistake and dumped a president whom they had voted in with such adulation in 2008. Obama sensed that hesitancy, and so he spent nearly $1 billion in a largely negative campaign to convince voters that Romney was insensitive to women, callous to the poor and, in general, a heartless, out-of-touch capitalist. Read full column here: News New Mexico

What the debates taught us

Sowell: Libya and Lies

Townhall - Commentary by Thomas Sowell - It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was "offended" by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Thomas Sowell

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States -- followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a "transparent" government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them, so that everybody would know what was happening? This was followed by an ObamaCare bill so huge and passed so fast that even members of Congress did not have time to read it.

Remember his claims that previous administrations had arrogantly interfered in the internal affairs of other nations -- and then his demands that Israel stop building settlements and give away land outside its 1967 borders, as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians, on whom there were no preconditions?

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an "investigation" under way. An "on-going investigation" sounds so much better than "stonewalling" to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this "investigation" will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.
The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of September 11th were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, "in real time," as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming "investigation" to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.
The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don't need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don't need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud. Read entire column here: News New Mexico

Sowell: Libya and Lies

Were You Better Off 6-years Ago?

Jim Harbison

Commentary by Jim Harbison - The political pundits keep asking “are you better off now than you were four years ago”. I think a more appropriate question is, are you better off now that you were SIX years ago? Why, when current administration has only been in office for four years? The answer is simple. The democrats took over the US House and Senate in 2007 and controlled the agenda, budgets and the legislation. The republicans regained control of the house in 2010 while democrats retained the Senate so the partisan gridlock continued.
Partisan politics and the resultant gridlock have contributed to ongoing high job losses with long term unemployment, lower standards of living, reduction in individual wealth, lower property values, and increased foreclosures. Unfortunately, social safety net programs have become entitlement programs that are unsustainable and are heading for financial collapse. Congress has failed to pass a budget for three consecutive years and the President’s last proposed budget didn’t get a single vote.
The unemployment numbers are horrendous and are often under reported and then quietly readjusted upward several weeks later. In nearly every case the actual number is worst than initially reported. In order to make them look more favorable this administration has readjusted the criteria to reduce their adverse political impact.
Let’s look at the real unemployment numbers. According to a 9/7/12 article by Terence Jeffrey (http://cnsnews.com ) there was a record of 88,921,000 Americans not in the labor force and 119,000 fewer people employed in August than in July. He reported that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1% because 368,000 people simply dropped out of the labor force in August and are therefore not counted in unemployment statistics. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the August participation percentage (those working or looking for work) has steadily declined since 2008 and is at a 30-year low. It dropped from 63.7% in July to 63.5% in August which ties the horrible September 1981 rate established by President Carter.

Were You Better Off 6-years Ago?

Noon: How Is It Healthier to be Unemployed?

Marita Noon

Townhall - The Republican National Convention in Tampa displayed a large “debt clock” that ticked away at a rate of $10 million a minute, keeping the nation’s dire financial straits front and center. Had there been a companion counter with a chit mark for each time the word “jobs” was mentioned from the main stage, it likely would have clicked on at a similar pace.

This week, at the Democratic National Convention the word “jobs” is sure to, once again, be a popular topic.
As Vice President Biden famously said, referencing the number one issue facing the middle class, “it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S.”
That “three-letter word” may be the only thing the two parties agree on—and how each would get there is totally different.
In Tampa, Romney said: “What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn't take a special government commission to tell us what America needs. What America needs is jobs. Lots of jobs. … I am running for president to help create a better future. A future where everyone who wants a job can find one. Where no senior fears for the security of their retirement. An America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads them to a good job and a bright horizon. And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps. First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.” (Italics added.) The Romney plan starts with another word we are hearing, and will continue to hear, a lot of: “energy.” Read full column here: News New Mexico

Noon: How Is It Healthier to be Unemployed?

Yes, Romney Can; No, Obama Can't

Marita Noon

Townhall - President Obama’s energy policies have kept investment and jobs out of America; Romney’s energy plan can bring money and jobs back. Analysts are picking apart Romney’s 21-page energy plan that was introduced in Hobbs, New Mexico, on Thursday. Is energy independence by 2020 possible, or is it, as the Financial Times posited, “an act of hubris?” More important than whether or not his energy play is realistic is the international implications of his “independence” assertion and how he plans to get there.

As the news coverage reminds us, “Every US president since Richard Nixon has set an objective of reducing the country’s reliance on foreign oil, and most of them have failed.”
President Obama’s approach has been to “end the age of oil.” To that end, he has poured billions of dollars into green energy projects—many of which were risky investments that have now failed or are headed for failure. His approach has done nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil—though we are importing less due to the bad economy and high prices, and the new oil boom presently centered on North Dakota. To companies looking to invest in any kind of extractive endeavor, his policies have screamed “You can’t!” Read full story here: News New Mexico

Yes, Romney Can; No, Obama Can't

Coming Soon: Higher Energy Prices, Shortages

Marita Noon

Townhall - “Once real numbers have come out about renewable energy costs, people are having second thoughts,” reported Maureen Masten, Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources and Senior Advisor on Energy to Governor Bob McDonnell, VA, while addressing his “all of the above energy” strategy to meet the state’s energy needs.

The real costs of renewable energy are coming out—both in dollars and daily impacts. After years of hearing about “free” energy from the sun and wind, people are discovering that they’ve been lied to.
On Tuesday, August 14, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) approved a new renewable energy rate rider that will allow the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) to start recovering a portion of its recent development costs for building five solar facilities around the state, a pilot solar facility with battery storage, and wind resource procurements. The renewable rider could be on ratepayers' bills by the end of the month—“depending on when the commission publishes its final order,” said PNM spokeswoman Susan Spooner.
The rate rider currently represents about a $1.34 increase for an average residence using 600 kilowatt hours of electricity per month—or a little more than $16 per year. This increase seems miniscule until you realize that this is only a small part of increases to come. PNM needs to recover $18.29 million in renewable expenditures in 2012 and the rate rider only addresses monies spent in the last four to five months. The remaining expense will be carried into 2013. Read full column here: News New Mexico

Coming Soon: Higher Energy Prices, Shortages

New Mexico is Just Not Business-Friendly

Dennis Kintigh

NewsNM - Listen to Dennis Kintigh on News New Mexico Monday, August 20 at 7:30 a.m. - Commentary by Rep. Dennis Kintigh - There has been much talk about the dismal economic conditions in New Mexico and the need for the governor and/or the mayor of Albuquerque to do something. The “do something” usually involves the spending of taxpayer money in the form of noble civic projects, subsidies for some politically correct industry, or just hiring more government employees.

While the concern is legitimate, we need to focus on finding the basic cause of New Mexico’s economic malaise. Why doesn’t New Mexico attract and retain more good jobs? The disturbing answer can be found in numerous surveys of business leaders, the very people we are trying to entice.
In 2012 Chief Executive Magazine conducted a survey of 650 business leaders, who ranked New Mexico 33rd. This depressing position was driven by the taxation and regulation climate in the Land of Enchantment.
In 2010 the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal reform surveyed more than 1,400 in-house counsel, senior litigators, attorneys and senior executives regarding the “litigation environment” for the various states. New Mexico came in 41st.

Last month CNBC released its annual multicategory survey of the “Top States for Business.” In 2012 New Mexico came in tied for 36th. All of the surrounding states were ahead of us. Texas came in first, Utah second, Colorado eighth. Even Arizona and Oklahoma outperformed us, with rankings of 22nd and 23rd.
Our worst performance was in the category of “Business Friendliness,” meaning regulation and litigation environment, where we came in an abysmal 47th.

These statistics show the unseen and unmentioned drag on our economy is our legal and regulatory condition. Few seem willing to confront this issue, but we cannot continue to pretend more government spending will fix our problem.
One very compelling example of the litigation peril faced by New Mexico is the situation at the $200 million spaceport. We have been assured that this is our economic destiny and the state will ride to prosperity on the wings of futuristic spacecraft. The only problem is that even if we build it, which we did, they will not come if they are afraid they will get sued.
In 2010 legislation was enacted to limit the liability of operators of spacecraft. It was sensible because we all understand space flight is inherently risky; and if you decide to get on a spaceship, you are taking a chance things won’t go well. As sensible as this legislation was, it took heavy support from the Richardson administration to get it passed. Similar legislation to extend reasonable protection to spacecraft manufacturers and suppliers failed in 2012. It remains to be seen if the spaceport bears fruit or is another barren dream.

The one bright spot in the state’s dreary economic picture is the oilfield boom in southeast New Mexico. Yet if one looks closely, the picture becomes one of opportunities missed.

Four counties in southeastern New Mexico are at least partially in the Permian Basin, a huge oil and gas depository mostly located in west Texas. In 2004 approximately one out of every three drilling rigs operating in the Permian was in these counties. The other two were in west Texas. In 2012 the New Mexico portion is less than one in six. Why? The geological formation did not change. The technical advances in drilling and completion are available equally in Texas and New Mexico.

What is the difference? Regulation and litigation.

New Mexico has such great potential. We are fortunate to have cool mountains and warm plains and valleys. We are rich in physical beauty. We are blessed with natural resources of water, coal, oil and natural gas. Yet our economic development lags behind our neighbors.
In the last census our rate of growth was below the region’s average. Only two states in the west grew at a slower rate. We must begin a serious and careful examination of what makes New Mexico undesirable to the employers that our children and grandchildren need.
We cannot pretend that throwing around taxpayer money will solve the problem. We must construct a foundation of reasonable regulations with a just legal system. If we build that, then they will come.

New Mexico is Just Not Business-Friendly

Noon: Greenies War on Green Chile

Marita Noon

Townhall - Commentary by Marita Noon - New Mexico’s best known export, the green chile, is being threatened by the “greens.” It is not just the green chile habitat that is in danger, it is also the cultures and customs of generations of New Mexicans—farmers and ranchers. The famous chiles are grown exclusively in Hatch, NM. People come from far and wide to buy bushels of fresh green chiles, have them roasted, and take them home to freeze for use throughout the year. In New Mexico, McDonald's even serves a green chile cheeseburger.

This past week, a vote was cast that could signal the end of a multi-generational battle to save the land.

The original fight started in the 1940s with the first of the modern land grabs. Hundreds of ranch families were evicted from the Tularosa Basin—an area that had been home to the Butterfield Trail and many Hollywood Westerns including the John Wayne classic Stage Coach. The families got there first and were “notoriously hard to uproot.” In the name of national defense, the seized land became Fort Bliss, McGregor Range, White Sands Missile Range, Holloman Air Force Base, San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, the Jornada Range, and the New Mexico State University Ranch. All of this adds up to 4.7 million acres that are generally off limits to the very people who pay the bills—the taxpayer.

In 1948, another wave of evictions impacted an additional 40 families. Again, they tried to halt the federal onslaught. At a public meeting, the feds reminded folks that this was for the “public good. The ranchers had to go.” Unprepared for the scope of the battle, these hard-working people were evicted and Washington took their land. Read full column here: News New Mexico

Noon: Greenies War on Green Chile

Arnold-Jones: "Are you kidding, Mr. President?"

Commentary by Janice Arnold-Jones “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that” - President Obama 7/17/12. Many a jaw dropped when the President said: “If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Janice Arnold-Jones

My first response was: “Are you kidding, Mr. President?”

Do you, Mr. President, understand that to startup a business, most of us put our homes, our cars, and our life’s savings on the line for the chance to compete? Do you know that every time we offer a bid, write a contract, and yes, hire a new employee, everything is on the line including our children’s college fund?

I share the same frustrated response to his naivety as The National Federation of Independent Business. The NFIB said, “His unfortunate remarks … show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs.'
Small business is the heart of the middle class.
Under the Obama administration the suffering of our entrepreneurs and our CD1 economy is obvious. Just drive around and count all our empty business spaces! Every empty business means suffering families—the families of the owners and the families of the employees who no longer have jobs. I stand in sharp contrast to the progressive agenda that my opponent and the President promote. I believe in the middle class and our small businesses. I refute the idea that government is smarter than people and can do a better job…..a better job of what? What are we progressing too? So far the job of this “progressive government” has been putting people out of work, out of business and out on the street.

Do we really want more of this kind of “progress” in CD1? I think not. Let’s go back to work New Mexico. We can do better.

Arnold-Jones: "Are you kidding, Mr. President?"

Teacher's Personal Info is Hot Commodity

Heath Hausammen

NMPolitics - I didn’t know until this weekend that, if you want to be an Albuquerque Public Schools teacher, you have to give up your right to keep personal information private.
As the Albuquerque Journal reported, the APS contract with the Albuquerque Teachers Federation requires the district to “submit to the union updated reports of all teachers’ home addresses, home phone numbers, Social Security numbers and educational experience” twice a year.
In the case of those who vote to join the union – about half of the district’s 7,260 eligible teachers and other employees – that’s perfectly understandable. They join a group that is authorized to bargain on their behalf and it gets their personal information primarily so it can contact them outside school. Fine.
But what about the other half, those who choose to not join the union? I understand that they still benefit from the union’s bargaining, but does that give APS the right to waive their legal right to privacy without their consent? Read rest of commentary here: News New Mexico

Teacher's Personal Info is Hot Commodity

On energy, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell more closely resembles President Obama

Marita Noon

Support for available, abundant, and affordable energy generally falls along party lines—with Republicans supporting “responsible” energy (the stuff that really works) and Democrats pushing “renewable" energy (the stuff they hope will work someday). But when an elected official, or spokesperson, makes foolish choices, he or she needs to be called to task.
I’ve encouraged people to tweet about Karl Rove’s contrarian position backing the extension of the wind energy subsidy, known as the PTC, which is set to naturally expire at the end of this year. Rove’s PTC extension support puts him at odds with most of the Republican Party. We can’t vote Rove out, but we can shame him for supporting a subsidy at a time when we have to borrow from China to do it. He should know better.
I’ve asked people to call or email Tennessee’s Republican Senator Lamar Alexander to pressure him to join his party—and coal state and vulnerable Democrats—in supporting Senator Inhofe’s resolution (SJ 37) that would neuter President Obama’s regulatory war on coal. Despite the known increase in electricity prices and the hardships the regulations will put on working families, Alexander is resolutely siding with the President.
Now, it is time to call out Republican Governor Bob McDonnell—whose actions on energy more closely resemble those of the Obama administration than his Republican colleagues. Read rest of column here: News New Mexico

On energy, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell more closely resembles President Obama

Green Path to Poverty

Peter Ferrara

Townhall - What would you do if gangs of robbers roamed your neighborhood at night, breaking into your neighbors' houses and stealing their family jewels and life savings? You would arm yourself, and your family members of sufficient age, to defend your property. Or you would move to a safer neighborhood.
But if the robbers formed gangs called Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or the Natural Resources Defense Fund, and assaulted your standard of living, the Che Guevara Democrats expect you to greet them with open arms, and gleefully turn over bushels of your cash, until your life savings is gone, and your standard of living has been reduced to the level of Argentina.
That third world destination is where Obama's "green energy" economic strategy is taking America, all while he tells us sweet fairy tales about how this path is the road to 21st century prosperity. Read full column here: News New Mexico

Green Path to Poverty

Immoral Beyond Redemption

Walter Williams

Townhall - Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Are today's Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let's think it through with a few questions.

Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She's hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I've committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.
Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree -- 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that's clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Read full column here: News New Mexico

Immoral Beyond Redemption

Where will you be when the lights go out in America?

Marita Noon

The passage of time is marked with milestones. We each know where we were when President Kennedy was shot, when the Berlin Wall came down, and on the morning of 9-11. If we continue on the current course, you’ll be telling your grandchildren where you were the night the lights went out in America. America’s energy policy is being dominated by environmentalists’ priorities—regardless of the impact to the American economy, individual communities, or economically-challenged citizens. The plans to shut down or limit America’s abundant, available, and affordable energy are organized, coordinated, and effective. The results will be “lights out in America”—a dim future.
On May 30, the Wall Street Journal alerted us to the Sierra Club’s new campaign aimed at killing the natural gas industry: “Beyond Natural Gas.” WSJ reports: “This is no idle threat. The Sierra Club has deep pockets funded by liberal foundations and knows how to work the media and politicians. The lobby helped to block new nuclear plants for more than 30 years, it has kept much of the U.S. off-limits to oil drilling, and its ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign has all but shut down new coal plants. One of its priorities now will be to make shale gas drilling anathema within the Democratic Party.”

How do they think we will power America? With intermittent, ineffective, and uneconomical wind and solar energy.
Why are the Sierra Club, et al, able to wield so much power? The Obama administration is friendly to their cause. Many of the agencies regulating domestic energy development are staffed with personnel culled from within the ranks of the environmental movement. And, they are not shy about their biases—as was revealed in the now famous “crucify” comment. They also use their vast resources to sue, and sue often. As a new report from the Kentucky Coal Association (KCA) reveals, they don’t just sue the coal miners and the coal-fueled power plants, they sue the EPA to force new standards which are often unattainable—thereby effectively stopping all use of coal. (Remember, natural gas is the next target.)
The EPA, then, goes around standard operating procedures to do the bidding of their environmental buddies. Read rest of column here: News New Mexico

Where will you be when the lights go out in America?

Root: Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

Wayne Allyn Root

Townhall - Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.
Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.
But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980. Read full column/analysis here: News New Mexico

Root: Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

Public Union Overreach in Wisconsin

Linda Chavez

Townhall - The Wisconsin recall election of Republican Gov. Scott Walker is not going quite like the unions and the Democratic Party expected. Back in 2011, many pundits thought that the governor had overreached when he took on public employee unions, restricting -- though not eliminating -- collective bargaining rights. But he did so because he inherited a state in dire financial shape with a deficit of $3.6 billion and public employee pensions and benefits that threatened to bankrupt the state.

When a Republican-controlled legislature tried to pass legislation to rein in the abuses, Democratic representatives literally fled the state to make a vote impossible. As a result of some clever parliamentary footwork that separated fiscal items in the bill so that a quorum would not be required to pass the legislation, Walker managed to get the bill passed. The unions sued, unsuccessfully, and the bill became law, incurring the wrath of Wisconsin's powerful unions -- public and private sector. They launched a successful recall petition drive and, for awhile, it looked like Walker might pay for his temerity with his job.
The latest polls in the state show Walker in the lead against his opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by 5-8 points. What's more, Walker has raised vastly more funds than Barrett, some $25 million to Barrett's $831,000 (though unions and Democratic groups will spend much more on his behalf). But the real problem for Barrett is that Walker's medicine, though unpleasant for many union members, has helped bring the state's economy back to a more healthy position. Read full column here: News New Mexico

Public Union Overreach in Wisconsin

Obama Administration's Crusade Against Voter ID Laws



Alexis Garcia

From foxnews.com -From the same machine that brought you Sandra Fluke and the contraception controversy, comes the next manufactured injustice involving the Department of Justice, Texas voter ID laws and vulnerable Hispanic voters.  On Monday, the Justice Department announced that it was blocking Texas’ new voter identification measure – claiming that the law was discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Yes, Attorney General Eric Holder and the ideologues at the DOJ think its wrong for states like Texas to ask you to prove your identity to vote – but don’t object to the fact that you need a photo ID to get in to the actual Department of Justice building. As the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky observes: "To exercise your First Amendment right to ‘petition the Government for redress of grievances’ by talking to anyone at the Justice Department, you have to present a government-issued photo ID if you want to get into their headquarters in Washington. How discriminatory!"  Holder claims that the Texas law goes against the "arc of history," but he has yet to build a convincing case that state voter ID laws actually disenfranchise Hispanic voters.  More News New Mexico

Obama Administration's Crusade Against Voter ID Laws

Chavez: Raiding Social Security

Townhall - Extending the payroll tax cut -- as the GOP leadership has now agreed with Democrats to do -- may be good politics, but it is lousy policy.

Linda Chavez

For the average household with earnings of $49,445 a year (about the median), keeping individual payroll taxes at 4.2 percent as opposed to 6.2 percent will mean about a thousand dollars more in their wallets this year. And generally speaking, letting people keep more of their own money to spend and invest as they choose is a good thing, both for individuals and the economy as a whole.

But there is a difference when it comes to payroll taxes, whose specific purpose is to fund Social Security. Many people mistakenly believe that the payroll taxes they pay when they're working actually provide the funds for their own future Social Security benefits. But that is not the case.
Payroll taxes of currently employed workers end up paying for the benefits of current Social Security recipients, with any excess retained by the Social Security Trust Fund. But because, on average, Social Security recipients receive more in benefits over their lifetimes than they and their employers contributed in taxes during their working years, the system functions only because there are enough current workers making additional payments into the fund. This is why some people describe Social Security as a giant pyramid scheme. Read full column here: News New Mexico

Chavez: Raiding Social Security

Journal Takes Gary King to Woodshed

Gary King

Albuquerque Journal - This month New Mexicans were treated to an absolutely surreal exercise in dissembling courtesy of their attorney general, one that would almost be amusing if it wasn’t coming from the state’s top lawyer on taxpayers’ time and dime. When confronted with a civil lawsuit investigation that concluded his office had been made aware of an alleged multimillion-dollar fraud scheme at Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center back in 2008 — and the fact his staff claimed it had known about the case for only a few months — New Mexico Attorney General Gary King offered the astonishing explanation that his “folks” were “just trying to be indefinite” and not say too much about an ongoing investigation.

His “folks” also haven’t tried to prosecute the case criminally — four years in. And that should prompt New Mexicans to ask what else have they gotten from this attorney general. Read full column here (subscription required) : News New Mexico 

Journal Takes Gary King to Woodshed