Framing the Issues

Republicans were unable to frame the issue so as to be seen as protectors of the working public by preventing an increase in everyone's taxes. They were unable to position themselves as being the fiscally responsible party by refusing to agree to tax increases without commensurate spending cuts. Instead, they allowed Obama to position them as just interested in protecting the "wealthy." Why are Republicans not able to seize the initiative in public discourse?

In the next seven to eight weeks the debt ceiling issue will come to the fore. Obama is already positioning Republicans, who don't want the debt ceiling increased, as being obstructionists who won't let America "pay its debts on time" instead of a party that is protecting America by preventing our national debt from being increased to a level where a majority of our tax revenue is used to repay principal and interest on our debt and we have less and less available funds for other government services. In other words, Republicans are trying their best to prevent America from turning into Greece. Why are we not hearing on television ads and in newspaper ads the rationale of the Republican Party for insisting on no increase in the debt ceiling?

By increasing the debt limit we allow the Federal Government to borrow more and more money. The fiscally responsible action is to 1) have Congress make a budget (which has not happened in any year under the Obama administration but is required under the Constitution), 2) figure out what revenues there are, which would be the limit on spending and 3) make the spending cuts necessary to enable the country to "pay its bills" out of what existing revenue there is. Isn't that what businesses and families have to do to prevent bankruptcy? Republicans should already have articulate spokesmen out there framing the issue. Instead, they are once again allowing Obama to position Republicans as the "bad guys" who are preventing America from "paying its bills" instead of the "good guys" who are trying to be fiscally responsible and prevent another recession and runaway inflation.

Democrats are framing the issues in a way that will allow them to retake the House in 2014. Republicans need articulate strategic and tactical thinkers and spokesmen who can take the initiative and present the Republican message in a way that the public can clearly understand before the Democrats frame the issue, if they want to survive as a political party.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/framing_the_issues.html

Report: Obamacare Triggering Double Digit Premium Increases

I was tempted to roll out one of our sarcastic "surprise" headlines for this post, but nothing about this law is surprising anymore. Over and over again, conservatives' admonitions and predictions -- ranging from premium levels to cost curves to basic logistics -- have been vindicated by events. We already knew that individual and family premiums were on the rise thanks to the president's signature law; the New York Times now reports that the government is forcing insurance companies to reach into citizens' pockets and extract up to hundreds of additional dollars per month for healthcare:

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers. Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own. In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014. In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month. The proposed increases compare with about 4 percent for families with employer-based policies.

If you click through to the Times' site, you'll notice that the headline embedded within the html code is, "Despite New Health Law, Some See Sharp Rise in Premiums." It should read, "Because of New Health Law...etc." Liberals will respond to this report with two arguments: (1) Health insurance premiums were already climbing before Obamacare was passed, so it's unfair to blame the law for these hikes, and (2) Regulators should be afforded more power to veto or amend 'excessive' increases. On the first point, the president sold his unpopular law on the oft-repeated promise of decreased premiums. Not just a lower rate of increase, mind you, but a real cost decline of roughly $2500 per family. Instead, costs are escalating by thousands of dollars per year for some families (at an accelerated rate, compared to pre-Obamacare years), and the government is spending more on healthcare now than it would have in the absence of the law.
On the second point, as the article mentions, some states already have the authority to exert price controls on healthcare costs. Here's the problem: Two central pieces of Obamacare are "guaranteed issue" and "community rating." The former is a concept that requires health insurance companies to "insure" every comer, regardless of health status or pre-existing conditions. The latter forces these companies to provide coverage at a similar price point for everyone. Those may sound like attractive outcomes in the abstract, but the catch is that health insurance companies recognize that their costs will vastly increase once this new crop of high-risk clients is added to their rolls. Plus, paying the Obamacare mandate tax instead of buying coverage is a much cheaper option for many people. This law will allow them to pay the relatively negligible tax and wait until they really need insurance (illness, accident, etc) to purchase it -- remember, insurers must comply and charge them roughly the same amount as anyone else. This is a classic moral hazard on a massive scale, which also turns the insurance business model on its head. Buying "insurance" after you urgently need it isn't insurance at all. In order to remain in operation, health insurance providers are seeking ways to recoup that money and mitigate their losses, thus the inevitable higher costs are passed down to everyone in the form of higher premiums. (Another cost-spreading endeavor is coercing younger, healthier people to pay more and buy more coverage than they'd typically need). If the government can intercede to shut down or place arbitrary caps on premium hikes -- which has major populist appeal, for obvious reasons -- many insurers will have no choice to drop out of certain markets, or close their doors altogether. If enough insurance companies are compelled to charge exorbitant fees or go out of business, the resulting public outcry will prompt liberals to step in and offer yet another big "solution." That solution, of course, has been their end-game in all of this from day one: Single payer, government-run healthcare.

The American people strongly oppose this government-operated healthcare system, perhaps because we're already broke, the government isn't particularly good at fulfilling many of its core functions, the current federal intrusion into healthcare has been a demonstrable jumbled mess, the appalling neglect, abuse, ageism and widespread rationing, and the chilling reality that government debt crises in single-payer nations simultaneously trigger severe healthcare crises.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/01/07/report-obamacare-hikes-individual-premiums-by-double-digits-n1482495

The Reverse Midas Touch of Government

Since I’m an out-of-the-closet libertarian, it goes without saying that I’m not favorably disposed to government intervention. As far as I’m concerned, Washington’s an inherently corrupt town filled with people seeking unearned wealth.

But even if I didn’t have any underlying philosophical or moral principles, I think I would still favor small government.

Why? Because just about everything government does turns into a bloody cluster-you-know-what, so there’s also a utilitarian case for libertarianism.

I discuss the reverse Midas touch of government with John Stossel.

The theme of Stossel’s show, by the way, was looking at how good intentions lead to bad results. I actually think that’s too optimistic.

Most government intervention is driven by sordid insider scheming, not good intentions. The politicians merely pretend they have noble-sounding goals when peddling their manure to the public.

But regardless of the goals, the result is still the same.

I point out that if the burden of government spending grows faster than the private economy (sort of Obama’s Golden Rule rather than Mitchell’s Golden Rule), bad things inevitably will happen.

Other points from the interview:

Green energy programs led to Solyndra-style scandals.
Pro-housing policies led to a destructive bubble.
Special tax preferences led to a monstrous tax code.
Welfare programs trap people in poverty.

I suppose a more interesting program would be to identify things that the government does intelligently and effectively.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2013/01/07/the-reverse-midas-touch-of-government-n1481290/page/full/

Your Money at Work: Welfare Cash Spent on Strippers, Booze and Porn Shops

If you earn a middle class paycheck like a lot of Americans do, you saw your Social Security taxes increase last week thanks to the so called fiscal cliff deal passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. Considering the system is totally broke, losing that extra cash to the government "lock box" makes you think about where that money, and the rest of your tax dollars are actually going. The New York Post has discovered through an investigation that welfare recipients using EBT cards (which work like debit cards filled with taxpayer money, just swipe and buy) pulled out cash to use at strip bars, to buy alcohol and to use at porn shops.

They’re on the dole — and watching the pole.
Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers, a Post investigation found.
A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.
The state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), which oversees the “cash assistance program,” even lists some of these welfare-ready ATMs on its Web site.
One EBT machine is stationed inside Club Eleven, an infamous Hunts Point jiggle joint known as much for its violent history as its girls in pink thongs.
Club Heat, another Bronx strip club that dispenses EBT cash, is also no stranger to violence. A 33-year-old woman was fatally shot in the head outside the club in December 2011.
Welfare recipients receive food stamps and cash assistance under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Both benefits are accessed through an EBT card, but only cash assistance — meant for housing, utilities and household necessities — can be accessed at ATMs.

The fact that welfare ATMs even exist is insane. Giving out cash with zero oversight? Really? And the idea that some of these ATMs are actually located inside strip clubs is ludicrous.

This investigation comes just one month after we found a record $168 per day is being spent in taxpayer money on welfare services per household living below the poverty line and that welfare was the single largest budget item of 2011.

For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80 overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 trillion. Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.

FLASHBACK: Obama guts work requirement in welfare reform.

Today the Obama Administration issued a new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).
Section 1115 states that “the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements” of specified parts of various laws. But this is not an open-ended authority: Any provision of law that can be waived under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, “mandatory work requirements”). Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable.
In establishing TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from the section 1115 waiver authority. They did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats. Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.
Section 402 describes state plans—reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the many requirements established in the other sections of the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.
The new Obama dictate asserts that because the work requirements, established in section 407, are mentioned as an item that state governments must report about in section 402, all the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will.

As I always say, keep working America....

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/07/your-money-at-work-welfare-cash-spent-on-stripper-booze-and-porn-shops-n1481993

PK's NOTE: Thankfully, it is damn hard to repeal an Amendment

Dem Congressman takes another run at abolishing presidential term limits

Barack Obama, president for life. **Consider the possibilities!
**This message brought to you by the Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau

*****

To 2016, and beyond:

Democratic New York Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office.

H.J. Res. 15 proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”

The bill is a reintroduction of H.J. Res. 17, which Serrano introduced in Congress in January 2011. It was referred to the House judiciary committee, but did not make it to a floor vote.

One challenge for Serrano — among many — is how to word the legislation so presidential term limits would automatically reinstated the next time a Republican is elected president.

If repealing the 22nd Amendment doesn’t work, look for Serrano to go for the next best thing by seeking to repeal the Second Amendment twice.

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/06/dem-congressman-presidential-term-limits/

WAPO Fawns Over Infamous Justice Department Official Who Covered Up Fast and Furious Connection to Brian Terry Murder

The Washington Post, the same newspaper that falsely smeared border state gun dealerships as cartel suppliers before the Fast and Furious scandal broke, has a new piece out by Ann Marimow fawning over former Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Jason Weinstein, who resigned in September.

A high achiever
Weinstein came to Washington as a teenager in 1982 to compete in the National Spelling Bee, having won the regional championship in San Antonio. The son of a hospital administrator and a nurse, he was a high achiever from the get-go. He also was captain of the math and debate teams in high school.
Then he was off to Princeton, where he became student body president and led campaigns to build a new student center and to stop the Central Intelligence Agency from recruiting on campus until it changed its policy that prevented gays and lesbians from being hired.
From Weinstein’s first criminal law class at George Washington University, he was intent on becoming a prosecutor. He joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York and spent three years learning the fundamentals of running wiretaps and gun cases. He moved to Montgomery County after becoming engaged to a woman who was working for a local conservation organization.
Weinstein — a brilliant student, gifted lawyer and methodical prosecutor — had spent a career steeped in nuance.

Weinstein is portrayed by Marimow as someone whose "name had surfaced," in Fast and Furious even though he wasn't really involved. Marimow even goes so far as saying Weinstein learned about Fast and Furious "by accident." The fact is, Weinstein not only knew about Fast and Furious and its tactics, he helped mislead Congress when he was asked about them. What the Post fails to point out, among many things, is Weinstein's connection to former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke and Attorney General Eric Holder. Burke, who resigned in August 2011 without citing the Fast and Furious fallout as a reason for departure, was in charge of Fast and Furious from the ground level in Phoenix while sitting on Holder's Attorney General Advisory Board. He regularly exchanged emails with Weinstein on a number of issues, but in particular when it came to responding to initial Fast and Furious inquiries from Senator Chuck Grassley in January 2011, shortly after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed. Weinstein quarterbacked how to respond to Grassley's request for information about the operation and helped draft an official DOJ response. Eventually, the Justice Department sent a letter to Grassley denying gunwalking had ever occurred. That letter is the infamous February 4 letter that was so full of falsehoods, it had to eventually be withdrawn from the congressional record. The DOJ inspector general report shows Weinstein tried to downplay the connection between the murder of Terry and ATF gunwalking.

Weinstein’s comments to [Faith] Burton’s first draft, along with his subsequent e-mails to Burton and others, show that Weinstein believed the response should more forcefully rebut what he perceived to be Sen. Grassley’s allegation concerning the weapons recovered at the Terry murder scene, which he characterized as “the most salacious and damaging to ATF, both short- and long-term.” ATF Office of Legislative Affairs Chief Rasnake wrote to Weinstein to thank him for his support. Weinstein replied, “Thanks. My boss and I are fervently supportive of ATF, and these allegations are infuriating.”

As described below, Weinstein’s desire to vigorously address the issue of the weapons found at the Terry murder scene was shared by Burke and others, but was at odds with Burton’s view of the letter’s purpose and how it should be written. This debate over whether and to what extent the Department should address in its response the link between the weapons found at the Terry murder scene and Operation Fast and Furious came to dominate the drafting and editing process.

Even if Weinstein wasn't aware of the tactics used in Fast and Furious (which he was) the Post story reveals another potential problem within the Department of Justice: wiretaps are being signed off on without being read in full. This is a guy who is an expert in "the fundamentals of wiretapping" yet is telling us he didn't read the wiretaps in full before signing off on them? He's either lying or violating civil rights without going through the proper processes. As a reminder, wiretapping is the most controversial and most invasive technique available to law enforcement as a last resort for investigation.

Weinstein received the first of three wiretap applications he would review for Fast and Furious. He said that following years of department practice, he signed off after reading summary memos prepared by lawyers in the Office of Enforcement Operations. He did not read the supporting affidavits. To do so would have slowed approval of time-sensitive wiretaps to a standstill and become his full-time job, Weinstein said.

The Post piece ends with how Weinstein said goodbye to his DOJ position and of course, he was the victim in all of this.

Saying goodbye
At the Elephant and Castle pub across Pennsylvania Avenue from the Justice Department, about 75 former co-workers gathered one brisk evening days after Thanksgiving to toast Weinstein. Breuer served as master of ceremonies, several in attendance said.
As guests munched on potato skins and wings at a cash bar, there were lengthy, upbeat tributes to Weinstein’s work.
No one mentioned Fast and Furious.
Many of Weinstein’s former colleagues — federal law enforcement agents, prosecutors and other lawyers — say they are distraught about his public-service career being cut short. The portrayal of Weinstein on the Hill and in the inspector general report is at odds with the person they know.

Maybe if Weinstein didn't help aid and abet the deliberate misleading of Congress, he'd still have his gig.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/07/wapo-fawns-over-infamous-justice-department-official-who-covered-up-fast-and-furious-connection-to-brian-terry-murder-n1482766

Thuggery: Chicago Teachers Union president jokes about murdering wealthy people

Remember Karen Lewis? She’s Chicago thuggery personified. I introduced you to her last September when she spearheaded the abandonment of 350,000 schoolchildren over merit-based pay, teacher evaluations, and a 16 percent pay raise:

Derision is her specialty. Her tirades at teachers’ confabs are infamous. Don’t feel sorry for her when she moans about Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s bully tactics and trash mouth. Lewis has one of her own.

Well, that trash mouth is baaaaack. Intrepid Kyle Olson of EAGNews.com caught Lewis joking about labor leaders who seriously contemplated killing the rich during the “robber baron” era.

When Lewis appeared at the Illinois Labor History Society’s “Salute to Labor’s Historic Heroes from the History Makers of Today,” she didn’t disappoint the crowd. She threw gasoline onto the fire of class warfare, and even mentioned mob killings of wealthy Americans.
“… Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them. Please understand that. However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just – off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.”

Some in the audience laughed and clapped at her remark.

“I don’t think we’re at that point,” Lewis laughingly replied, without specifying when “that point” might arrive. “And that’s scary to most people. But the key is they think nothing of killing us. They think nothing of putting our people in harm’s way. They think nothing of lethal working conditions.”

She then used schools without air conditioning as an example of “lethal working conditions.”

The true labor leaders of the “robber baron” age would probably roll over in their graves and remind Ms. Lewis that she and her colleagues have it quite good.

Big salaries with an average income in the $70,000 range. Generous benefits and pensions. Limited work days and nine-month work years. What are these people complaining about?

Bloody progressives are never satisfied. Agitation is their be-all and end-all.

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/07/thuggery-chicago-teachers-union-president-jokes-about-murdering-wealthy-people/

PK'S NOTE: This is a long article but really important to read in full about whether the country is worth fighting against the changes or to withdraw.

Cocooning Is the Wrong Solution for Conservatives

Should conservatives and persons of faith simply withdraw from the public square, live our lives, and quietly await the inevitable collapse of what the indispensible Walter Russell Mead calls Blue State America?

Some people seem to think so. The question was first raised in 1996 in the journal First Things by the late Fr. John Neuhaus. In an essay called "The End of Democracy," Neuhaus talked about the possibility of civil disobedience by persons of faith as a response to unjust laws and court rulings. He was speaking of the Clinton Administration.

As Mark Judge wrote last year in RealClearReligion, however, in light of the Obama administration's open attack on freedom of conscience in the areas of same-sex marriage, contraception, abortion, and euthanasia, Fr. Neuhaus's 1996 musings seem positively "prescient." "If anything," Judge said, "the editors of First Things undersold the degree to which our government and judiciary subverted our democracy."

In the wake of the 2012 elections, the question is even more acute. Which shall it be: resistance through litigation (the course adopted, so far, by the Catholic bishops and others), civil disobedience, withdrawal from politics and the public square, or continued political engagement -- albeit even in the face of repeated defeats? And, of course, in the long run, does it truly matter what we do?

I want to talk here only about the idea of withdrawal.

In light of the November 2012 election, the accelerating vulgarity of our culture (think Kathy Griffith and Anderson Cooper), and the radical secularization of American society, it's tempting simply to decide to "tend one's own garden." That is, we should live our faith and principles (not all of us are religious) by withdrawing from government, society, and politics, because all three have now (rather like Tudor-Stuart England to recusant Catholics) become so illegitimate, tainted, and morally and religiously repugnant that we may not, in good conscience, take part in them. In colonial Pennsylvania, famously, the Quakers did exactly that -- withdrawing for generations from politics after they lost control of the colony they founded to a legislative majority determined to wage war against the Indians.

Better, the argument goes, to beat a strategic retreat -- as people of faith, patriotism, and constitutional principles -- into our own media, our own states, our own towns, our own churches and synagogues, and our own families and homes. When the wheel comes 'round again, we (or our descendants) may re-emerge.

I admit that this argument has resonance -- especially in light of American history. The Pilgrims, the Amish, the Mennonites, the Moravians, and the Quakers all came here from Europe to do exactly that -- flee to a place where they could live their faith unhindered by government. But to do so today would be a grave mistake, if not an impossibility.

It's no longer possible to flee into the wilderness, beyond the reach and the ken of government.

It's also quite clear that the Obama administration has no intention of leaving us alone, with our guns, our religion, and our patriotism. To the contrary, a withdrawal by conservatives, libertarians, and persons of faith from politics and government would almost guarantee the very outcome we seek to avoid. The last thing America needs as this moment is the emergence of conservative Bantustans.

That's not to say we can't do everything in our ability to pass on our values and beliefs within our own families and relations. The precedent for that, of course, is in the Old Testament itself. (Joshua 24:15).

But again, we do not have the option of Joshua. There is no Canaan to go to. For American patriots, this is the Promised Land.

Another option is to choose -- if you are able -- what state you live in. And you can go farther and limit what information and news sources you consume.

Thus, we have "the big sort" of Americans politically in terms of where they live and what news sources they consume -- what Juan Williams of FoxNews calls "narrowcasting." It's very much underway. Some of "the sort" is driven by economics (and state and local tax rates, as well as state right-to-work laws), climate (snow vs. hurricanes), or matters of religious faith.

But the effects, after several decades, are clear.

The separation of Americans into red states and blue states was first detailed in Bill Bishop's The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (2007). Nate Silver, in a piece last week in the New York Times blog, presented an exhaustive update of the acceleration of that trend based on the 2012 election results.

So why not just withdraw to a red state? As the adult son of one of my friends said to him last year when he was debating a run for Congress, "Dad, you can have a good life." Why not simply -- as religious people of conviction have often done when they believe that the state has fallen into the hands of evildoers -- withdraw from public affairs and play no role in government?

The religious answer, of course, is contained in the Old Testament's Books of Maccabees 1 and 2, commemorated every year in the Jewish feast of Hanukkah. The "abomination of desolation" is to be opposed. But that answer speaks only to those of certain religious traditions.

The practical answer is one which everyone can agree on.

Those populating the Obama administration have made it only too clear that they're not going to leave us alone. Rather like with the Dred Scott Supreme Court majority, the Southern Slave Power, and the Democratic Party in 1860, it is not enough for us to tolerate slavery elsewhere -- out of sight. We must allow it into our own homes and public places as well and say we like it.

Finally, there is the political answer, which should be compelling for not just conservatives: as American patriots, we are not allowed to give up on our country -- even when its government does wrong. That is the argument which, 152 years ago, the abolitionists finally acknowledged.

And it's a good thing they did. "Wayward sisters, depart in peace" in 1861 would have meant the perpetuation and survival of African slavery on the North American continent.

For the same reason today, the United States needs its conservative leaders and activists in the public square now more than at any time in our lifetimes. If we hold on, we'll win. Blue State America is doomed, and the blue-staters represented by President Obama and his party cannot save it.

Indeed, in the last year, Wisconsin and Michigan have prefigured what's coming.

The slow-motion (and not-so-slow-motion) collapse of Blue State America and the failure of the blue social model make for the subject of a penetrating series of articles and posts by Professor Mead on his website, viameadia.com, sponsored by The American Interest. The question of whether the red states and the federal government will then be able to rescue, restructure, downsize, and re-orient the failed blue states to create a more perfect Union will, it seems to me, determine the future success of the American Experiment.

The answer to that question will depend on whether the red states or the blue states control the federal government. And for the red-staters to control the federal government, the urge to withdraw and retreat into a biblical "remnant" which will, in God's good time, emerge to re-colonize and re-evangelize a fallen world must be rejected. To the contrary, we red-staters must remain fully involved and fully engaged in American politics and culture.

This is especially true after a year like 2012 -- when we lose. Better to quote U.S. General Joseph Stilwell after the loss of Burma to the Japanese. "I claim," Vinegar Joe said, "we took a hell of beating[.] ... [I]t is as humiliating as hell. We need to find out what caused it, go back and re-take it."

The biggest mistake we can make is to stay in our own echo chamber and to talk only to each other. There was already too much of that in 2012. President Obama and the White House staff are not the only Americans able to live their lives largely within a bubble of agreeable personal contacts and information flow.

So can we.

Thus, I dissent from the view promulgated last week by the Heritage Foundation, which you can find here. For politically engaged conservatives, it's not enough to read each other's stuff. We need to read -- and refute with facts -- the other side's stuff as well.

And engage with it.

Facts are bullets in the war of ideas. And to find facts, we have to look everywhere for them -- not just our own outlets. Winning the 2014 elections and beyond means we have to recruit and proselytize young and/or disaffected or unregistered voters.

It is necessary to go out and engage the culture. Join Democratic FB pages. Visit Progressive websites. Proselytize and organize, registering conservative voters, recruiting conservative candidates, joining in canvassing and GOTV efforts. If you live in a safe red state, go volunteer or donate in an adjoining blue state.

If you live and work in a blue state, fly your colors proudly. Every day. At the moment of truth, quote Walter Russell Mead -- who happens to be a Democrat. Here is his most recent essay.

Above all, let us project confidence. Take joy in the battle. And finally, let us prepare diligently for next time. As a middle-aged Illinois lawyer (and failed politician) once told his law partner, Billy Herndon, "I will study and get ready and maybe the chance will come." That chance, improbable at the time, came for Abraham Lincoln.

It appears increasingly probable that, just as at the beginnings of the Republican Party, we and our children will be called upon to save what Lincoln called "the last, best hope of Earth." It's worth recalling that, only thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan and another generation of Republican leaders and the American people did it once again.

We can, too.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/cocooning_is_the_wrong_solution_for_conservatives.html

PK's NOTE: And this is just fun to see. Hello, wake up call.

Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.

With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.

“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”

Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.

So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.

“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”

“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.

“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”

Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.

“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”

The Twittersphere was even funnier.

“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?

Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”

But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.

How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).

A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”

The looks on their faces will be priceless.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/6/obama-supporters-shocked-angry-new-tax-increases/#ixzz2HKHX2WYe

Also Reads:

Karzai in Washington to beg for foreign aid

"American combat troops are supposed to be out of Afghanistan next year and President Karzai wants to make sure that military aid keeps flowing even after the troops depart."

Rainbows and Unicorns

"Make the assumption that a weapons ban is passed, and somehow, miraculously, the shooter has absolutely no ability to acquire the weapon of his choice. Further assume that the size of magazines is limited, so for some reason he limits himself to a single magazine of ten rounds with a semi-automatic pistol. Under these circumstances, this lunatic can only butcher ten people. Do you feel better? I can assure you that the families of the ten victims will not feel very good at all.

This will happen, because there are so many that are insistent on dealing with the symptom instead of the disease. It is not the weapon, it is the person. Why is that such an incredibly hard concept to grasp? When the weapons ban is passed, and some unhinged person finds another way to commit mass murder, will people be all confused, wondering how such a thing happened? There are no guarantees, and horrible things happen. While we as Americans were never able to fully accept this, we at least acknowledged the reality."