Conservative Blogger
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Friday, August 2, 2013
Newspaper Fires Opinion Editor who told Obama to “Shove It”
Aug 1, 2013
Print This Post
By Todd Starnes
The Chattanooga Times Free Press editorial page editor who criticized President Obama’s jobs plan courtesy of a Johnny Paycheck song is now out of a job.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR PITHY COMMONSENSE CONSERVATIVE NEWS. CLICK HERE!
Drew Johnson’s editorial, titled “Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough,” went viral and drew national attention earlier this week when President Obama visited the city.
The newspaper released a statement Thursday saying Johnson had been fired for “placing a headline on an editorial outside of normal editing procedures.”
“The headline was inappropriate for this newspaper,” the statement read. “It was not the original headline approved for publication, and Johnson violated the normal editing process when he changed the headline.”
Johnson, who had been with the newspaper for just over a year, addressed his firing on Twitter.
“I just became the first person in the history of newspapers to be fired for writing a paper’s most-read article,” he tweeted.
Johnson defended the headline, noting that “we change headlines all the time without incident or issue.”
The newspaper denied Johnson’s firing had anything to do with the content of his editorial.
“The Free Press page has often printed editorials critical of the president and his policies,” the newspaper stated.
The Times Free Press has two editorial pages — one conservative and the other liberal.
“This newspaper places high value on expressions of divergent opinion, but will not permit violations of its standards,” the newspaper stated.
Conservatives cheered but some of Johnson’s fellow journalists were not so pleased. Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jim Galloway called it “rude” and “downright hostile.”
On the bright side, Johnson tweeted that “I do have time to work on the roasted chestnut business now.”
Thursday, August 1, 2013
IRS chief says he'd rather not switch to ObamaCare plan
The head of the agency tasked with enforcing ObamaCare said
Thursday that he'd rather not get his own health insurance from the
system created by the health care overhaul.
"I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I'm pleased with rather than go through a change if I don't need to go through that change," said acting IRS chief Danny Werfel, during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.
The statement quickly fueled Republican criticism of the law, as well as their calls to block the IRS from enforcing it.
"Count the head of the IRS among the growing list of folks that includes Big Labor and the law's chief architect who are deeply skeptical of the president's signature achievement and don't want any part of it," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement. "No American -- even the head of the IRS -- should be subjected to ObamaCare."
Daily politics news delivered to your inbox: sign up for our newsletter
Werfel, in his testimony, was trying to address concerns from IRS employees and other federal workers who do not want to be forced into the so-called insurance "exchanges" -- regulated marketplaces where insurance, much of it subsidized, will be sold as early as next year. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., has been pushing a bill that would force federal workers into the exchanges, and out of their federal health care plans.
The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents IRS workers, recently came out against that bill and urged members to oppose it.
Asked about the NTEU position, Werfel said he could offer his "perspective" as a federal employee. He said the Affordable Care Act was designed to "provide an option or an alternative" for individuals who do not have affordable coverage.
"And all else being equal, I think if you're an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you're probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process," Werfel said.
Other employees in the private sector, however, might not get that choice -- amid concerns that the costs and regulations associated with the law could compel some employers to drop coverage for workers and/or reduce staffing levels to contain costs, sending more workers into the ObamaCare exchanges.
Some Republicans in Congress are trying to ramp up efforts to stall the law. The House voted last month to delay the law's key insurance mandates, while Republicans in the Senate have launched a separate effort to try and defund the law in the next fiscal year's budget. A number of Republicans, though, are not on board with that effort, saying it does not have the votes to succeed.
Cornyn, in response to Werfel's testimony, urged the acting IRS chief to back his legislation to block the IRS from enforcing the health care law.
"I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I'm pleased with rather than go through a change if I don't need to go through that change," said acting IRS chief Danny Werfel, during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.
The statement quickly fueled Republican criticism of the law, as well as their calls to block the IRS from enforcing it.
"Count the head of the IRS among the growing list of folks that includes Big Labor and the law's chief architect who are deeply skeptical of the president's signature achievement and don't want any part of it," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement. "No American -- even the head of the IRS -- should be subjected to ObamaCare."
Daily politics news delivered to your inbox: sign up for our newsletter
Werfel, in his testimony, was trying to address concerns from IRS employees and other federal workers who do not want to be forced into the so-called insurance "exchanges" -- regulated marketplaces where insurance, much of it subsidized, will be sold as early as next year. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., has been pushing a bill that would force federal workers into the exchanges, and out of their federal health care plans.
The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents IRS workers, recently came out against that bill and urged members to oppose it.
Asked about the NTEU position, Werfel said he could offer his "perspective" as a federal employee. He said the Affordable Care Act was designed to "provide an option or an alternative" for individuals who do not have affordable coverage.
"And all else being equal, I think if you're an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you're probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process," Werfel said.
Other employees in the private sector, however, might not get that choice -- amid concerns that the costs and regulations associated with the law could compel some employers to drop coverage for workers and/or reduce staffing levels to contain costs, sending more workers into the ObamaCare exchanges.
Some Republicans in Congress are trying to ramp up efforts to stall the law. The House voted last month to delay the law's key insurance mandates, while Republicans in the Senate have launched a separate effort to try and defund the law in the next fiscal year's budget. A number of Republicans, though, are not on board with that effort, saying it does not have the votes to succeed.
Cornyn, in response to Werfel's testimony, urged the acting IRS chief to back his legislation to block the IRS from enforcing the health care law.
What If Trayvon Were White? August 1, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root
Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. A couple of
weeks ago, Barack Obama held a press conference to discuss a local court
case. Highly unusual. Actually, unheard of. Why on Earth would the
President get involved in a local court case? Obama just can’t let the
George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case go because he is obsessed by race.
Obama asked the key question, “What if Trayvon was white?” So I’ve set out here to examine that very question. What if Trayvon were white and George Zimmerman were black? Obama is right: Everything would have been different about the case.
If Trayvon were white, there would have been no national headlines. No one outside Sanford, Fla., would have even heard about the case. A black Zimmerman would never have been charged with a crime. And if there had been a trial and a black Zimmerman had been found not guilty, you can bet your last dollar that Obama’s Justice Department would not be considering civil rights charges. If they did, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would call it double jeopardy and a modern-day lynching of an innocent black man. That’s right; they’d be marching in the streets to defend the black Zimmerman.
The reality is that white Americans are killed by black Americans every day, but the national media never report it because they are afraid of being called racist. I can’t remember ever seeing or hearing race mentioned on the national news unless it is a white-on-black crime. And then, of course, it is the centerpiece of the story and always blamed on racism.
By the way, Zimmerman isn’t white. He is Hispanic. But liberals never let facts get in the way of a good story. That’s why the media and the race-baiters have coined a new phrase: “white Hispanic.” Sounds like a new race was invented just to justify liberals’ use of the word “racism” to discuss this case.
The same fear of being called racist is exactly the reason the national media never reports black-on-black crime, which has become a national tragedy. Cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Obama’s Chicago are young black male killing fields. They are more dangerous for black Americans than serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why don’t the national media report on this tragedy? Why hasn’t Obama ever held a press conference to discuss that crisis? It is certainly much more devastating to the black community.
Could Obama name any of the black murder victims in Chicago that were shot by other blacks during the Zimmerman trial? I’ll bet not. Why are all those young dead black men that also look like Obama’s son any less important? Is it because their deaths don’t stir up racial anger or resentment? Is it because none of their deaths move his agenda forward?
Here’s another difference: If the victim, Martin, were white, there’d be no involvement by Sharpton, Jackson or the Congressional Black Caucus, nor tweets by liberal Hollywood celebrities, nor protests across America. When was the last time any of the race-baiters weighed in on a murder involving a white American? When was the last time a white person being murdered resulted in protests or rioting? Can you name one?
Have white people ever protested en masse about a black accused criminal getting found not guilty? Did the O.J. Simpson verdict cause rioting by white Americans?
Here is something else we know: If Martin had been white, the President of the United States would never have gotten involved in a local court case. Never. So why did he get involved here? The primary reason is to create a distraction from the tragedy of his failed policies and never-ending scandals. He is doing all he can to keep Americans from focusing on the sinking U.S. economy; the unthinkable national debt; the record number of Americans on welfare and food stamps; the millions of people left jobless by his anti-business policies; the bankruptcy of Detroit (which was ruled 100 percent by Democrats for more than 50 years); the murder, mayhem and out-of-control gun violence of his hometown Chicago (with the strictest gun laws in the Nation); the unraveling of Obamacare; the Internal Revenue Service scandal; the Benghazi, Libya, scandal; the Associate Press spying scandal; the James Rosen spying scandal; the Kathleen Sebilius extortion scandal; the Operation Fast and Furious scandal; and wars and unrest all over the Mideast.
The reality is Obama is using Martin to change the subject. He’s hiding behind Martin’s “murder” to get the media and voters’ minds off his own scandals and failures. Just as he has done repeatedly, Obama is changing the conversation to save his own skin. Martin is Obama’s W.M.D. (weapon of mass distraction). He’ll exploit Martin as long as he possibly can, so he doesn’t have to explain his own failures and scandals. As Saul Alinsky taught Obama, “The ends justify the means.”
Don’t forget the IRS scandal just happened to deepen on the very day Obama chose to bring up Martin at an impromptu press conference. We found out that Obama’s political appointee was at the very center of the IRS scandal and that he met with Obama only two days before the IRS harassment against conservatives started.
Another obvious difference is if the victim were white, Obama would never have weighed in about “white angst” or “white pain.” Should our President be feeling the pain of only one race of Americans? What about the rest of us? Don’t our anger or feelings count? Isn’t Obama the President of all Americans, of all races? Is this President trying to bring us together or purposely tear us apart?
In the end though, Obama is right. If Martin were white, this would all be different – 100 percent different. And if Obama were a white President and he weighed in on a local black-on-white murder, he’d be called racist, ignorant and insensitive, and he would be drummed out of office by the liberal media, race-baiters and the NAACP.
Obama asked the key question, “What if Trayvon was white?” So I’ve set out here to examine that very question. What if Trayvon were white and George Zimmerman were black? Obama is right: Everything would have been different about the case.
If Trayvon were white, there would have been no national headlines. No one outside Sanford, Fla., would have even heard about the case. A black Zimmerman would never have been charged with a crime. And if there had been a trial and a black Zimmerman had been found not guilty, you can bet your last dollar that Obama’s Justice Department would not be considering civil rights charges. If they did, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would call it double jeopardy and a modern-day lynching of an innocent black man. That’s right; they’d be marching in the streets to defend the black Zimmerman.
The reality is that white Americans are killed by black Americans every day, but the national media never report it because they are afraid of being called racist. I can’t remember ever seeing or hearing race mentioned on the national news unless it is a white-on-black crime. And then, of course, it is the centerpiece of the story and always blamed on racism.
By the way, Zimmerman isn’t white. He is Hispanic. But liberals never let facts get in the way of a good story. That’s why the media and the race-baiters have coined a new phrase: “white Hispanic.” Sounds like a new race was invented just to justify liberals’ use of the word “racism” to discuss this case.
The same fear of being called racist is exactly the reason the national media never reports black-on-black crime, which has become a national tragedy. Cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Obama’s Chicago are young black male killing fields. They are more dangerous for black Americans than serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why don’t the national media report on this tragedy? Why hasn’t Obama ever held a press conference to discuss that crisis? It is certainly much more devastating to the black community.
Could Obama name any of the black murder victims in Chicago that were shot by other blacks during the Zimmerman trial? I’ll bet not. Why are all those young dead black men that also look like Obama’s son any less important? Is it because their deaths don’t stir up racial anger or resentment? Is it because none of their deaths move his agenda forward?
Here’s another difference: If the victim, Martin, were white, there’d be no involvement by Sharpton, Jackson or the Congressional Black Caucus, nor tweets by liberal Hollywood celebrities, nor protests across America. When was the last time any of the race-baiters weighed in on a murder involving a white American? When was the last time a white person being murdered resulted in protests or rioting? Can you name one?
Have white people ever protested en masse about a black accused criminal getting found not guilty? Did the O.J. Simpson verdict cause rioting by white Americans?
Here is something else we know: If Martin had been white, the President of the United States would never have gotten involved in a local court case. Never. So why did he get involved here? The primary reason is to create a distraction from the tragedy of his failed policies and never-ending scandals. He is doing all he can to keep Americans from focusing on the sinking U.S. economy; the unthinkable national debt; the record number of Americans on welfare and food stamps; the millions of people left jobless by his anti-business policies; the bankruptcy of Detroit (which was ruled 100 percent by Democrats for more than 50 years); the murder, mayhem and out-of-control gun violence of his hometown Chicago (with the strictest gun laws in the Nation); the unraveling of Obamacare; the Internal Revenue Service scandal; the Benghazi, Libya, scandal; the Associate Press spying scandal; the James Rosen spying scandal; the Kathleen Sebilius extortion scandal; the Operation Fast and Furious scandal; and wars and unrest all over the Mideast.
The reality is Obama is using Martin to change the subject. He’s hiding behind Martin’s “murder” to get the media and voters’ minds off his own scandals and failures. Just as he has done repeatedly, Obama is changing the conversation to save his own skin. Martin is Obama’s W.M.D. (weapon of mass distraction). He’ll exploit Martin as long as he possibly can, so he doesn’t have to explain his own failures and scandals. As Saul Alinsky taught Obama, “The ends justify the means.”
Don’t forget the IRS scandal just happened to deepen on the very day Obama chose to bring up Martin at an impromptu press conference. We found out that Obama’s political appointee was at the very center of the IRS scandal and that he met with Obama only two days before the IRS harassment against conservatives started.
Another obvious difference is if the victim were white, Obama would never have weighed in about “white angst” or “white pain.” Should our President be feeling the pain of only one race of Americans? What about the rest of us? Don’t our anger or feelings count? Isn’t Obama the President of all Americans, of all races? Is this President trying to bring us together or purposely tear us apart?
In the end though, Obama is right. If Martin were white, this would all be different – 100 percent different. And if Obama were a white President and he weighed in on a local black-on-white murder, he’d be called racist, ignorant and insensitive, and he would be drummed out of office by the liberal media, race-baiters and the NAACP.
You know the definition of a racist, don’t you? Anyone winning an argument with a liberal. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for PersonalLiberty.com. See you next week. Same time, same place. God bless America.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Forbes to Newsmax: Obama in a 'Bubble' as US 'Crumbles' Under Obamacare
Forbes magazine editor and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes
tells Newsmax that Obamacare is "ridiculous and destructive" and is
imploding because it wasn't workable in the first place.
But President Barack Obama is in a "bubble" regarding the healthcare reform bill while the "rest of the country crumbles," Forbes asserts.
Editor's Note: ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared?
He also says the immigration reform bill passed in the Senate won't fly in the House, and he favors a piecemeal approach instead.
Story continues below the video.
Forbes is president and CEO of Forbes Inc. He ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000, urging the adoption of a flat income tax with a single tax rate.
His latest book is "Freedom Manifesto: Why Free Markets Are Moral and Big Government Isn't."
The White House clearly sees the negative impact Obamacare's employer mandate would have had on the economy and that is why it is being delayed, many employers and healthcare experts are saying. But some employers are still saying they want to hold back on hiring and maybe cut back on hours.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Monday, Forbes offers his take on the healthcare bill.
"In terms of implementation, Obamacare is imploding because it's unworkable in the first place: the idea that people with spreadsheets in Washington can run 20 percent of the economy," he declares.
"Bad ideas or destructive ideas die a very hard death, so they still have this illusion in healthcare," Forbes said. "It's going to get worse, it's not going to get better. They're doing real harm to the medical device industry, which has been critical for improvements in the standard of healthcare in this country.
"They are hoping that maybe putting implementation off a year on the employer mandate would somehow get businesses to hire. In the real world, if you think something is going to hit you hard a year from now or a month from now, you're not going to hire when you see bad things coming down the road. So it has distorted patterns in terms of hiring, which is why in these jobs reports you see more part-time jobs being created than full-time jobs.
"It's ridiculous and destructive," Forbes said.
According to an article from Forbes.com, the union representing IRS employees is very concerned about having to join the Obamacare healthcare insurance exchanges — and the IRS is the agency in charge of running Obamacare.
"These unions worked so hard to get Obamacare passed and somehow thought they'd be exempt from it. It's quite a delight to see — if it wasn't so destructive for the rest of us in terms of healthcare.
Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
"You're going to see more and more union complaints. But unfortunately, the president is in such a bubble right now he ignores the whole thing and just figures somehow it's all going to work out at the end of the day and he'll have his place on Mount Rushmore.
"The details are for underlings, and he thinks grand thoughts and makes speeches while the rest of the country crumbles. So you're going to see much more carping by the unions, but it's about three years too late. They should have been concerned when this thing was being formulated in the first place."
Asked if Republicans are missing an opportunity by not providing an alternative to Obamacare, Forbes observes: "They should continue passing bills such as allowing nationwide shopping for health insurance. I don't know why they don't dust that off and pass it in the House and let Harry Reid kill it in the Senate.
"At least set the foundations on positive reforms on healthcare. That would be a major one. Equalize tax treatment in terms of healthcare. They will get something on that by year's end. Remove some of the obstacles in terms of health savings accounts and the like," he said.
"They should be putting [these changes] out there piece by piece, having votes on them so the Democrats get on the right side of these positive issues, and have the mantra [that] patients should control healthcare, not third parties and certainly not government bureaucracies."
Forbes agrees that Republicans seem more reactive instead of proactive on this issue.
"Republicans are still recovering from the debacle of November of 2012, but you're seeing, certainly on the governors' side, some governors doing very innovative things," he said.
"Just on the tax front, North Carolina, with a Republican governor, Pat McCrory, passed a fantastic tax bill — major cuts in the state income tax, cutting the corporate tax significantly. So North Carolina, which had one of the worst tax systems in the Southeast, in fact the whole East Coast, now has one of the best systems.
"So you're seeing on the governors' level some real reforms. That's where I'm looking, not to Washington."
Turning to immigration, Forbes offers his view of reform from a business perspective.
"We do need immigrants in the economy to meet the certain needs of the workforce," he says.
"Remember they had amnesty back in 1986, but they did not put in policies that allowed for work programs to meet the needs of the economy. So now, instead of 3 million illegals, we have 11 million. Just from a security viewpoint, we should know who those folks are.
"What you'll eventually see in the House, instead of trying to vote on a comprehensive bill — which will not pass — you're going to see a piece-by-piece approach and have those pieces go in conference with the Senate.
"One of the key things is to reform the current system so those who played by the rules get quick justice instead of the huge arbitrary bureaucratic delays you get today. Don't punish those who play by the rules.
"You're going to see more of a move to meet the legitimate needs of the U.S. economy. For example, this thing called H-1B visas for high technology, they're raising that from about 60,000 visas to 110,000. The industry will tell you, if you want real research done in this country and technological advances, we need 200,000 to 300,000 of these visas a year, so let's raise that number in the House ... so we meet the needs of the economy and be a place of opportunity, but know who these folks are," he said.
Instead of trying to pass one comprehensive bill, "parse it out and do it piece by piece," Forbes insists. "For example, have a green card in your diploma if you get an advanced degree in this country. We helped develop your brain power and your sense of innovation, and we'd like to have it used in this country instead of a country and a company overseas.
"Basic reforms like that would pass pretty quickly. And on contentious issues, let it have an up-and-down vote and send it to conference and if the White House is interested in getting a reform bill, one that may not be totally to its liking but one that deals with most of the problems, they'll get one."
Forbes also addresses the recent bankruptcy filing by Detroit — the largest American city ever to file.
"It's already having an effect on the [municipal] bond market, as everyone scrambles to see who actually might be in trouble," he tells Newsmax.
Alert: End of America's Middle Class a Startling Reality. Read More Here.
"As they go through the hard process of redoing these pensions, redoing these healthcare plans, you're going to see other unions be able to say in other cities, hey we don't like to do this, look what happened in Detroit. Bond-holders got wiped out, pensioners got hit hard, healthcare benefits got slashed. Let's try to avoid that here, and you might get some serious negotiation."
"There are very positive things that can be done, especially in healthcare in the area of health-savings accounts, which would save these funds huge amounts of money, but also give patients control over healthcare. And at the end of the day, the beneficiaries would be better off," Forbes says.
"But that kind of innovative thinking is not seen yet. And in terms of a restructuring, one of the things I hope they do in Detroit, and they will with the agent appointed by [Michigan] Gov. Snyder, is put in a low tax regime. When you have a low tax regime, you get people moving [and] small business starting up — and these areas can come back to life again."
In his Newsmax interview, Forbes also says Obama is favoring "medieval technologies" over oil, gas, and coal.
And he maintains that reforms to America's "silly" corporate tax code could bring in billions of dollars of "free money."
But President Barack Obama is in a "bubble" regarding the healthcare reform bill while the "rest of the country crumbles," Forbes asserts.
Editor's Note: ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared?
He also says the immigration reform bill passed in the Senate won't fly in the House, and he favors a piecemeal approach instead.
Story continues below the video.
Forbes is president and CEO of Forbes Inc. He ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000, urging the adoption of a flat income tax with a single tax rate.
His latest book is "Freedom Manifesto: Why Free Markets Are Moral and Big Government Isn't."
The White House clearly sees the negative impact Obamacare's employer mandate would have had on the economy and that is why it is being delayed, many employers and healthcare experts are saying. But some employers are still saying they want to hold back on hiring and maybe cut back on hours.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Monday, Forbes offers his take on the healthcare bill.
"In terms of implementation, Obamacare is imploding because it's unworkable in the first place: the idea that people with spreadsheets in Washington can run 20 percent of the economy," he declares.
"Bad ideas or destructive ideas die a very hard death, so they still have this illusion in healthcare," Forbes said. "It's going to get worse, it's not going to get better. They're doing real harm to the medical device industry, which has been critical for improvements in the standard of healthcare in this country.
"They are hoping that maybe putting implementation off a year on the employer mandate would somehow get businesses to hire. In the real world, if you think something is going to hit you hard a year from now or a month from now, you're not going to hire when you see bad things coming down the road. So it has distorted patterns in terms of hiring, which is why in these jobs reports you see more part-time jobs being created than full-time jobs.
"It's ridiculous and destructive," Forbes said.
According to an article from Forbes.com, the union representing IRS employees is very concerned about having to join the Obamacare healthcare insurance exchanges — and the IRS is the agency in charge of running Obamacare.
"These unions worked so hard to get Obamacare passed and somehow thought they'd be exempt from it. It's quite a delight to see — if it wasn't so destructive for the rest of us in terms of healthcare.
Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
"You're going to see more and more union complaints. But unfortunately, the president is in such a bubble right now he ignores the whole thing and just figures somehow it's all going to work out at the end of the day and he'll have his place on Mount Rushmore.
"The details are for underlings, and he thinks grand thoughts and makes speeches while the rest of the country crumbles. So you're going to see much more carping by the unions, but it's about three years too late. They should have been concerned when this thing was being formulated in the first place."
Asked if Republicans are missing an opportunity by not providing an alternative to Obamacare, Forbes observes: "They should continue passing bills such as allowing nationwide shopping for health insurance. I don't know why they don't dust that off and pass it in the House and let Harry Reid kill it in the Senate.
"At least set the foundations on positive reforms on healthcare. That would be a major one. Equalize tax treatment in terms of healthcare. They will get something on that by year's end. Remove some of the obstacles in terms of health savings accounts and the like," he said.
"They should be putting [these changes] out there piece by piece, having votes on them so the Democrats get on the right side of these positive issues, and have the mantra [that] patients should control healthcare, not third parties and certainly not government bureaucracies."
Forbes agrees that Republicans seem more reactive instead of proactive on this issue.
"Republicans are still recovering from the debacle of November of 2012, but you're seeing, certainly on the governors' side, some governors doing very innovative things," he said.
"Just on the tax front, North Carolina, with a Republican governor, Pat McCrory, passed a fantastic tax bill — major cuts in the state income tax, cutting the corporate tax significantly. So North Carolina, which had one of the worst tax systems in the Southeast, in fact the whole East Coast, now has one of the best systems.
"So you're seeing on the governors' level some real reforms. That's where I'm looking, not to Washington."
Turning to immigration, Forbes offers his view of reform from a business perspective.
"We do need immigrants in the economy to meet the certain needs of the workforce," he says.
"Remember they had amnesty back in 1986, but they did not put in policies that allowed for work programs to meet the needs of the economy. So now, instead of 3 million illegals, we have 11 million. Just from a security viewpoint, we should know who those folks are.
"What you'll eventually see in the House, instead of trying to vote on a comprehensive bill — which will not pass — you're going to see a piece-by-piece approach and have those pieces go in conference with the Senate.
"One of the key things is to reform the current system so those who played by the rules get quick justice instead of the huge arbitrary bureaucratic delays you get today. Don't punish those who play by the rules.
"You're going to see more of a move to meet the legitimate needs of the U.S. economy. For example, this thing called H-1B visas for high technology, they're raising that from about 60,000 visas to 110,000. The industry will tell you, if you want real research done in this country and technological advances, we need 200,000 to 300,000 of these visas a year, so let's raise that number in the House ... so we meet the needs of the economy and be a place of opportunity, but know who these folks are," he said.
Instead of trying to pass one comprehensive bill, "parse it out and do it piece by piece," Forbes insists. "For example, have a green card in your diploma if you get an advanced degree in this country. We helped develop your brain power and your sense of innovation, and we'd like to have it used in this country instead of a country and a company overseas.
"Basic reforms like that would pass pretty quickly. And on contentious issues, let it have an up-and-down vote and send it to conference and if the White House is interested in getting a reform bill, one that may not be totally to its liking but one that deals with most of the problems, they'll get one."
Forbes also addresses the recent bankruptcy filing by Detroit — the largest American city ever to file.
"It's already having an effect on the [municipal] bond market, as everyone scrambles to see who actually might be in trouble," he tells Newsmax.
Alert: End of America's Middle Class a Startling Reality. Read More Here.
"As they go through the hard process of redoing these pensions, redoing these healthcare plans, you're going to see other unions be able to say in other cities, hey we don't like to do this, look what happened in Detroit. Bond-holders got wiped out, pensioners got hit hard, healthcare benefits got slashed. Let's try to avoid that here, and you might get some serious negotiation."
"There are very positive things that can be done, especially in healthcare in the area of health-savings accounts, which would save these funds huge amounts of money, but also give patients control over healthcare. And at the end of the day, the beneficiaries would be better off," Forbes says.
"But that kind of innovative thinking is not seen yet. And in terms of a restructuring, one of the things I hope they do in Detroit, and they will with the agent appointed by [Michigan] Gov. Snyder, is put in a low tax regime. When you have a low tax regime, you get people moving [and] small business starting up — and these areas can come back to life again."
In his Newsmax interview, Forbes also says Obama is favoring "medieval technologies" over oil, gas, and coal.
And he maintains that reforms to America's "silly" corporate tax code could bring in billions of dollars of "free money."
Representative Steve King vs. the Republican Leadership’s message on Illegal Immigration
The left doesn’t like to hear the truth about illegal immigration and apparently the Republican Leadership doesn’t either. Republican
so called leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as well as a few others
in the Republican Party, are quick to criticize negative comments by
Representative Steve King of Iowa on Illegal Aliens and then they fail
to even attempt to paint an accurate picture of the reality of Illegal
Immigration. They are the problem with the Republican Leadership and the
Republican message on Illegal immigration, not Representative Steve
King who at least tries to paint an accurate picture of reality!
The left likes to
portray all Illegal Aliens as hard working people who are just trying to
feed their poor starving families and all Dreamers as Valedictorians in
school. All too many on the right are all to happy to let the left
paint that deceptive picture perfect portrait of Illegal Immigration
without even attempting paint an accurate picture of how it effects
Americans. Then many politicians in the Republican party hide from the
issue and have a hard time defending the Republican Party’s no amnesty
position. Well da, if the picture of illegals is they're all wonderful
and never done anything wrong, instead of based on reality, of course
it's harder to defend!
The fact is some
illegals are hard working families and or Valedictorians and some are
drug runners and or have committed horrendous crimes like murder and
rape but most are in-between. The reality is Illegal Aliens are all here
illegally in violation of the Rule of Law and a huge majority of the
Illegal Alien population cost the American Taxpayer billions of dollars
every year and negatively effects and destroys the American job market
by lowering wages and taking jobs American's desperately need. Hey
Republican criticizers, what about really defending the American
people’s position instead of aiding the Left in defending their
deceitful destructive position of reality? How about painting a portrait
of reality and when the left paints a picture of all Valedictorians
point out, as Steve King did, that yes there are some but there is this
sad other side of the story that pro amnesty proponents don’t like to
talk about. Then tell the truly sad story of a horrendous crime
committed by an illegal alien that destroyed an American Family's life. A
100% truly preventable crime on American Society by somebody who
shouldn't even be here. That's the sad, mind-blowing reality and those
factual based stories are just as easy to find and ALMOST NOBODY IN
POLITICS speaks out about how many American Family's Lives are totally
destroyed by the acts of Illegal Aliens and a Government that chooses to
look the other way. Almost nobody in politics speaks out EXCEPT, people
like Representative Steve King of Iowa, who at least tries!
The fact is the
overall effects of Illegal Immigration have been and will continue to be
a very destructive force on American lives and American families.
Amnesty will not change that fact, it will only solidify the continuing
destruction. Enforcement is the only thing that will stop the
destruction and preserve America’s right as a Sovereign nation! Immigration
is a wonderful natural resource to this nation but like so many other
natural resources humans and politicians have a habit of abusing and
destroying the worth, our current immigration system is no exception.
Immigration must be controlled and at a level that compliments American
Society where Immigrants integrate and melt into American Society not
become a dominate flood of Open Borders; as the current system is
dangerously close to and not as the Senate Bill S.744 (or anything close
to it ) would do by it’s destructive Guest Worker and total Amnesty
provisions that will add a minimum of 33 million new legal immigrants in
the first decade alone, a flood by any measure.
I have now called
Representatives Steve King's office and told him "Thanks for speaking
for the American people" and then I called the supposed to be leaders of
the Republican Party Boehner and Cantor who don't know how to paint a
picture of reality, and I left them my message above. Hope you will do
the same!
Laura Ingraham said it well on the O’Reilly Factor, thanks for the link Kathryn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyk5c1UWtXo&feature=player_embedded
Monday, July 29, 2013
Four in 5 Americans Face Near-poverty, No Work Under Obama
Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or
reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of
deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.
Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.
The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration's emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to "rebuild ladders of opportunity" and reverse income inequality.
Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
As nonwhites approach a numerical majority in the U.S., one question is how public programs to lift the disadvantaged should be best focused — on the affirmative action that historically has tried to eliminate the racial barriers seen as the major impediment to economic equality, or simply on improving socioeconomic status for all, regardless of race.
Hardship is particularly growing among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy "poor."
"I think it's going to get worse," said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend but it doesn't generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.
"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," she said. Children, she said, have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."
While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.
The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.
Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.
"It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama's election, while struggling whites do not.
"There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front," Wilson said.
Nationwide, the count of America's poor remains stuck at a record number: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population, due in part to lingering high unemployment following the recession. While poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white.
More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation's destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.
Sometimes termed "the invisible poor" by demographers, lower-income whites generally are dispersed in suburbs as well as small rural towns, where more than 60 percent of the poor are white. Concentrated in Appalachia in the East, they are numerous in the industrial Midwest and spread across America's heartland, from Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma up through the Great Plains.
Buchanan County, in southwest Virginia, is among the nation's most destitute based on median income, with poverty hovering at 24 percent. The county is mostly white, as are 99 percent of its poor.
More than 90 percent of Buchanan County's inhabitants are working-class whites who lack a college degree. Higher education long has been seen there as nonessential to land a job because well-paying mining and related jobs were once in plentiful supply. These days many residents get by on odd jobs and government checks.
Salyers' daughter, Renee Adams, 28, who grew up in the region, has two children. A jobless single mother, she relies on her live-in boyfriend's disability checks to get by. Salyers says it was tough raising her own children as it is for her daughter now, and doesn't even try to speculate what awaits her grandchildren, ages 4 and 5.
Smoking a cigarette in front of the produce stand, Adams later expresses a wish that employers will look past her conviction a few years ago for distributing prescription painkillers, so she can get a job and have money to "buy the kids everything they need."
"It's pretty hard," she said. "Once the bills are paid, we might have $10 to our name."
___
Census figures provide an official measure of poverty, but they're only a temporary snapshot that doesn't capture the makeup of those who cycle in and out of poverty at different points in their lives. They may be suburbanites, for example, or the working poor or the laid off.
In 2011 that snapshot showed 12.6 percent of adults in their prime working-age years of 25-60 lived in poverty. But measured in terms of a person's lifetime risk, a much higher number — 4 in 10 adults — falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.
The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.
Editor's Note: Over 50? Check Out These Free Government Giveaways...
Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79 percent, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60.
By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.
By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.
"Poverty is no longer an issue of 'them', it's an issue of 'us'," says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who calculated the numbers. "Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need."
The numbers come from Rank's analysis being published by the Oxford University Press. They are supplemented with interviews and figures provided to the AP by Tom Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University; John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University; the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute; the Census Bureau; and the Population Reference Bureau.
Among the findings:
—For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.
—Since 2000, the poverty rate among working-class whites has grown faster than among working-class nonwhites, rising 3 percentage points to 11 percent as the recession took a bigger toll among lower-wage workers. Still, poverty among working-class nonwhites remains higher, at 23 percent.
—The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods — those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more — has increased to 1 in 10, putting them at higher risk of teenage pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, compared with 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the U.S. has been declining.
The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children went from 38 percent to 39 percent.
—Race disparities in health and education have narrowed generally since the 1960s. While residential segregation remains high, a typical black person now lives in a nonmajority black neighborhood for the first time. Previous studies have shown that wealth is a greater predictor of standardized test scores than race; the test-score gap between rich and low-income students is now nearly double the gap between blacks and whites.
Going back to the 1980s, never have whites been so pessimistic about their futures, according to the General Social Survey, a biannual survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.
The divide is especially evident among those whites who self-identify as working class. Forty-nine percent say they think their children will do better than them, compared with 67 percent of nonwhites who consider themselves working class, even though the economic plight of minorities tends to be worse.
Although they are a shrinking group, working-class whites — defined as those lacking a college degree — remain the biggest demographic bloc of the working-age population. In 2012, Election Day exit polls conducted for the AP and the television networks showed working-class whites made up 36 percent of the electorate, even with a notable drop in white voter turnout.
Editor's Note: ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared
Last November, Obama won the votes of just 36 percent of those noncollege whites, the worst performance of any Democratic nominee among that group since Republican Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory over Walter Mondale.
Some Democratic analysts have urged renewed efforts to bring working-class whites into the political fold, calling them a potential "decisive swing voter group" if minority and youth turnout level off in future elections. "In 2016 GOP messaging will be far more focused on expressing concern for 'the middle class' and 'average Americans,'" Andrew Levison and Ruy Teixeira wrote recently in The New Republic.
"They don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment. This past week, Obama pledged anew to help manufacturers bring jobs back to America and to create jobs in the energy sectors of wind, solar and natural gas.
"They feel that politicians are giving attention to other people and not them," Goeas said.
Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.
The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration's emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to "rebuild ladders of opportunity" and reverse income inequality.
Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
As nonwhites approach a numerical majority in the U.S., one question is how public programs to lift the disadvantaged should be best focused — on the affirmative action that historically has tried to eliminate the racial barriers seen as the major impediment to economic equality, or simply on improving socioeconomic status for all, regardless of race.
Hardship is particularly growing among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy "poor."
"I think it's going to get worse," said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend but it doesn't generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.
"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," she said. Children, she said, have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."
While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.
The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.
Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.
"It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama's election, while struggling whites do not.
"There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front," Wilson said.
Nationwide, the count of America's poor remains stuck at a record number: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population, due in part to lingering high unemployment following the recession. While poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white.
More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation's destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.
Sometimes termed "the invisible poor" by demographers, lower-income whites generally are dispersed in suburbs as well as small rural towns, where more than 60 percent of the poor are white. Concentrated in Appalachia in the East, they are numerous in the industrial Midwest and spread across America's heartland, from Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma up through the Great Plains.
Buchanan County, in southwest Virginia, is among the nation's most destitute based on median income, with poverty hovering at 24 percent. The county is mostly white, as are 99 percent of its poor.
More than 90 percent of Buchanan County's inhabitants are working-class whites who lack a college degree. Higher education long has been seen there as nonessential to land a job because well-paying mining and related jobs were once in plentiful supply. These days many residents get by on odd jobs and government checks.
Salyers' daughter, Renee Adams, 28, who grew up in the region, has two children. A jobless single mother, she relies on her live-in boyfriend's disability checks to get by. Salyers says it was tough raising her own children as it is for her daughter now, and doesn't even try to speculate what awaits her grandchildren, ages 4 and 5.
Smoking a cigarette in front of the produce stand, Adams later expresses a wish that employers will look past her conviction a few years ago for distributing prescription painkillers, so she can get a job and have money to "buy the kids everything they need."
"It's pretty hard," she said. "Once the bills are paid, we might have $10 to our name."
___
Census figures provide an official measure of poverty, but they're only a temporary snapshot that doesn't capture the makeup of those who cycle in and out of poverty at different points in their lives. They may be suburbanites, for example, or the working poor or the laid off.
In 2011 that snapshot showed 12.6 percent of adults in their prime working-age years of 25-60 lived in poverty. But measured in terms of a person's lifetime risk, a much higher number — 4 in 10 adults — falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.
The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.
Editor's Note: Over 50? Check Out These Free Government Giveaways...
Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79 percent, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60.
By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.
By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.
"Poverty is no longer an issue of 'them', it's an issue of 'us'," says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who calculated the numbers. "Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need."
The numbers come from Rank's analysis being published by the Oxford University Press. They are supplemented with interviews and figures provided to the AP by Tom Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University; John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University; the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute; the Census Bureau; and the Population Reference Bureau.
Among the findings:
—For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.
—Since 2000, the poverty rate among working-class whites has grown faster than among working-class nonwhites, rising 3 percentage points to 11 percent as the recession took a bigger toll among lower-wage workers. Still, poverty among working-class nonwhites remains higher, at 23 percent.
—The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods — those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more — has increased to 1 in 10, putting them at higher risk of teenage pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, compared with 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the U.S. has been declining.
The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children went from 38 percent to 39 percent.
—Race disparities in health and education have narrowed generally since the 1960s. While residential segregation remains high, a typical black person now lives in a nonmajority black neighborhood for the first time. Previous studies have shown that wealth is a greater predictor of standardized test scores than race; the test-score gap between rich and low-income students is now nearly double the gap between blacks and whites.
Going back to the 1980s, never have whites been so pessimistic about their futures, according to the General Social Survey, a biannual survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.
The divide is especially evident among those whites who self-identify as working class. Forty-nine percent say they think their children will do better than them, compared with 67 percent of nonwhites who consider themselves working class, even though the economic plight of minorities tends to be worse.
Although they are a shrinking group, working-class whites — defined as those lacking a college degree — remain the biggest demographic bloc of the working-age population. In 2012, Election Day exit polls conducted for the AP and the television networks showed working-class whites made up 36 percent of the electorate, even with a notable drop in white voter turnout.
Editor's Note: ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared
Last November, Obama won the votes of just 36 percent of those noncollege whites, the worst performance of any Democratic nominee among that group since Republican Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory over Walter Mondale.
Some Democratic analysts have urged renewed efforts to bring working-class whites into the political fold, calling them a potential "decisive swing voter group" if minority and youth turnout level off in future elections. "In 2016 GOP messaging will be far more focused on expressing concern for 'the middle class' and 'average Americans,'" Andrew Levison and Ruy Teixeira wrote recently in The New Republic.
"They don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment. This past week, Obama pledged anew to help manufacturers bring jobs back to America and to create jobs in the energy sectors of wind, solar and natural gas.
"They feel that politicians are giving attention to other people and not them," Goeas said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
