Just what the Republican’s campaign needed to get back on message.
(Page 2 of 3)
This is no accident. The federal government awards cash to states that increase food stamp participation (a program which pre-dates Obama’s presidency). More insidious is this administration’s working with the Mexican government to use Mexican consulates across the country to distribute to Mexican nationals information on how to get food stamps.
The USDA also spends millions of dollars on ad campaigns (also something that began under President Bush), now including Spanish-language multi-part “novelas” entitled “Hope Park” in which people who are not on food stamps are encouraged to sign up: “If you don’t apply… you’ll never know.” Yes, you’ll never know if you can bite into the pulsing artery of American workers’ hard-earned income unless you try.
The USDA suggests that one “fresh idea” for getting senior citizens to sign up for food stamps is to “throw a great party”:
Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a “true/false” quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.
• The increase in the number of Americans on Social Security Disability is over 14 percent in the three years since Obama took office (excluding the first 8 months of 2012), a rate of growth not seen since the Democrats’ glory years under Bill Clinton. (In particular, the first few years after Clinton’s income tax hike saw average growth in the disability roles of 18.5 percent per year, numbers that fell dramatically in 1997 following his being forced by the Gingrich Republican Congress to cut capital gains taxes and reform welfare.)
Of those workers (as opposed to widows, widowers, or disabled adult children) on disability, 15.2 percent qualify for their government check because of a “mood disorder.” Between the sexes, it is 11.2 percent of male workers and a shocking 19.7 percent of female workers. These are not typos. Twenty-nine percent of workers on disability have “musculoskeletal” issues, i.e. “a bad back.” Surprisingly, a higher percentage of women than of men also fall into this category. What percentage of these people do you believe are truly unable to work because of a disability and what percent just went with the “you’ll never know unless you try (to get other people’s money)” strategy?
• President Obama has expanded the definition of those who qualify for SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) in order to cause the greatest number of people to rely on government for health care. In 2009, Obama massively expanded the program, including removing Bush-era rules limiting states’ ability to subsidize health care for families making more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Many states now have government-subsidized medicine for families making 300 percent or more of FPL, with New York at 400 percent, meaning government health care subsidies for a family of four with household income exceeding $92,000.
• Although Republicans are somewhat overstating the current situation and Democrats are furiously spinning, Obama’s assault on the work requirement that was the heart of the Republicans’ 1996 welfare reform law (which Bill Clinton signed after vetoing it twice) is another giant step toward increased dependency.
In particular, Obama claims the authority to issue waivers to states regarding work requirements for welfare recipients. The law does not allow him any such authority. To date, no such waivers have been issued, but unless a court smacks down Obama’s illegal power grab, we are likely to see governors’ waiver requests granted if Obama wins reelection, particularly in Democrat states where buying the votes of those 47 percent Romney mentioned is still the first order of business.
The 1996 law was the most successful entitlement reform in American (or perhaps world) history: It lowered child poverty and raised employment among single mothers, while causing a remarkable 57 percent drop in welfare caseloads. This success is Obama’s target.
(Source: House Ways and Means Committe report on 15th Anniversary of 1996 law)
ROMNEY’S REMARKS at that same fundraiser about Obama’s view of his own “magnetism and charm” and about the risk of Iran’s getting a nuclear weapon are right on target. Indeed, Romney has nothing to be ashamed of from his May fundraiser, and his description of Obama’s foreign policy as “extraordinarily naïve” is downright prescient.
One of Romney’s most perceptive areas of discussion was in recognizing that his (and his audience’s) Republican friends are not motivated by the same things, and do not see the world the same way, as most people who voted for Barack Obama. So much for Romney not understanding “the rest of America.”
Romney also makes the absolutely correct point that one of the major impediments to his victory is how difficult it will be to get Obama voters to admit they made a mistake. This insight — one I have been arguing for several months but rarely heard a politician utter — must inform the campaign’s messaging strategy to independent voters. So far, the best statement of the message has been by Clint Eastwood: “When somebody does not do the job, we gotta let him go.”
The “secret Romney tapes” which has the left and the Obama campaign salivating should — if the Romney campaign can stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory — be an object of pride and a central campaign message for the Romney campaign: “Mitt Romney believes these things about self-reliance, a strong economy, and a strong and realistic foreign policy in private and not just on the campaign trail.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online