Thursday, March 13th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections, Press
Fort Worth, TX – The Madison Project PAC released the following statement in response to Congressman Mike Simpson’s (R-ID) appallingly dishonest TV ad:
“Simpson acts as if tossing around the vacuous stereotype of ‘personal injury lawyer’ against his opponent affords him the license to obfuscate his voting record and misleads the voters in Idaho,” said Daniel Horowitz of the Madison Project. “There aren’t enough shyster consultants in Washington who can produce honest ads to rehabilitate his liberal record. He dishonestly uses ceremonial votes that he knew would never be signed into law to obscure the consequential liberal votes he cast that were actually signed into law.”
Here are the facts:
Wall Street Bailout: Simpson has the unbridled temerity to suggest that he voted to repeal the Wall Street Bailout, while refusing to mention the fact that he voted for it in the first place [RC #681, Oct 3, 2008]. Although Simpson declines to cite the roll call vote to ‘repeal’ TARP, there was never a full repeal bill and it was never signed into law.
Balanced Budget: Simpson touts his vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment. That is lovely, but it is meaningless for him to support something that never had a chance to become law while supporting endless debt ceiling increases, which ensured that our budget would never balance. The examples of votes he’s taken to bust the budget are too numerous to list. A partial list can be viewed at SackSimpson.com.
Cut Spending: Simpson claims to have cut trillions in spending, but as a chief appropriator he has never met a spending bill he didn’t like. He even voted against the $100 billion in spending cuts promised by the GOP Pledge to America in 2011 [RC #103, Feb 18, 2011]. Mike Simpson was one of just three Republicans to vote against cutting off taxpayer funding for the radical liberal and corrupt ACORN [RC #397, June 2, 2011].
Obamacare: Simpson has the nerve to suggest that he voted to defund Obamacare, but he has always opposed the only consequential means of actually defunding the law, which is by objecting to any budget that contains funding. [RC# 550, Oct. 16, 2013]
The Madison Project endorsed Bryan Smith (R-ID) against Rep. Mike Simpson. To view our endorsement click here.
The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found at http://madisonproject.com/
Thursday, March 13th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog
Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a bill to authorize loan guarantees for Ukraine, similar to the bill that passed the House last week. The loan guarantee bill doesn’t directly increase spending; rather it adds Ukraine to the list of countries eligible for Economic Support Fund (ESF) grants. ESF grants have already been appropriated and are used as “walking around cash” for the State Department to send to allied countries in need of assistance (although the money often goes elsewhere). However, the bill does transfer extra funds into the Treasury in order to cover any potential default on the loan.
Let’s put aside judgment on the underlying bill for a moment; the more critical issue at hand is the International Monetary Fund (IMF) “reform” provision. Senate Democrats tacked on a provision that would weaken our sovereignty within the IMF, ostensibly increasing our quota and limiting our power. Here is how the Heritage Foundation describes the reform package:
“In 2010, the IMF board, with support from the Obama Administration, proposed a series of reforms that would increase the voting power of certain emerging-market nations and double the amount of member countries’ national “quota” contributions that are the primary source of funding for IMF loans.
The U.S. has the largest quota of any country in the world and also the largest single-nation voting share (16.75 percent). It has been the only country in the world with veto power at the IMF. Due to the constitutional role of Congress and U.S. veto power, this IMF reform package must therefore be approved by Congress before it can go into effect.
The reform package would change the rules for election of the IMF executive board, and the U.S. would lose the right it has heretofore enjoyed to appoint its own representative to the executive board—and that is where all the power is at the IMF.”
This “reform” package is similar to some of the treaties that are pushed through the United Nations by those in the world who want to attenuate our power. It would also cost us another $315 million.
GOP Senators Corker, McCain, Johnson, and Flake joined all the Democrats in supporting the bill. The other committee Republicans opposed it. Now everyone is wringing their hands over the impasse.
In comes Senator Mitch McConnell to cut a raw deal on a bill we don’t have to pass in the first place. The Hill has the details on the deal:
Republicans have long opposed the reforms, which they see as reducing U.S. influence in the IMF. They’ve sought to get a deal from the administration in which they’d agree to the reforms in exchange for the White House backing off on new regulations to govern 501(c)(4) tax-exempt groups that were at the center of the recent IRS targeting controversy.
The IRS rules, released after the tax agency acknowledged it improperly scrutinized conservative organizations, seek to clarify what would be considered political activity for tax-exempt groups.
The GOP offered a similar deal during a fight over an omnibus spending bill.
I’m hearing from a number of Senate sources that indeed it is Mitch McConnell who pitched this deal during the omnibus and is doing so now with the Ukraine bill. Politico also seems to confirm this through Senator Bob Corker. This is a quintessential McConnell backroom deal – to preemptively surrender on a definitive and immediate bad policy in exchange for mitigating a looming threat.
The IRS regulations have not yet been promulgated and they are illegitimate. We should not pay ransom on something Obama has no authority to do in the first place. We should fight the IRS regulations as part of a separate effort. If need be, we must use the power of the purse and fight them in appropriation bills for the IRS. Oh, I forgot, McConnell doesn’t believe in that.
Moreover, Obama has no leverage to pass the IMF bill. It cannot pass the House, and the Ukraine bill is not a must-pass bill. In fact, many conservatives would have rather we pass a bill eliminating the restrictions on exporting natural gas so that we can immediately lower the cost of energy in the world markets. The House should also attach a provision to pull out of New START. That would weaken Russia’s leverage and promote economic growth in one shot. That is the true conservative approach to peace through strength. But what can you expect from leadership?
Granting some loan guarantees to a weak country (that might use the money to pay off Russia anyway) is at best the most palatable option presented to House members by leadership and at worse, something to oppose. Even if you support the package, it is certainly not a hill to die on. We should not agree to weaken our power on a bill that was designed to project our power. If Obama insists on passing the IMF package, Senate Republicans should make it clear that we don’t care about passing a Ukraine bill while House Republicans should pass a bill dealing with energy exports.
However, from McConnell’s vantage point, this is a win-win scenario. He gets to evince power on the issue of campaign finance (which he likes solely because he is a campaign animal, not a believer in the Constitution), while empowering the world powers at the IMF. For McConnell, the IMF package in not a concession; it’s an ideal. In 1998, he sponsored and led the $18 billion IMF bailout package throughout the legislative process. Now he gets his IMF bailout and can claim credit for saving the Tea Party from the IRS – all in one backroom deal.
Who knows? This might even turn out to be “one of the Senate’s finest moments.”
Finally, does anyone think this behavior will change were McConnell to become Majority Leader? Obama will still be president in 2015 and will be as aggressive as ever. Now he knows how to pick McConnell’s lock. All he needs to do is threaten illegal action on one of McConnell’s white whale issues, and Mitch will oblige with a concession on legislation.
Does this man deserve a promotion?
Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections, Immigration, Obamacare
Republicans have held the Pinellas County-based 13th congressional district since 1971 when the late Rep. Bill Young was first elected to the House. However, with the death of Young creating an open seat, Democrats sensed an opportunity. Due to the changing demographics, President Obama carried this district by four points in 2012. Alex Sink had a good deal of name recognition left over from her 2010 bid for governor and was flush with campaign cash. Meanwhile, Republicans had to start from scratch with a competitive primary.
Despite being outspent 4 to 1 on a campaign level and being embroiled in intra-party friction with the national committees, Republican David Jolly held the seat last night. There is no lack of commentary and analysis attempting to read the electoral tea leaves and what this portends for November. But one factor that has clearly been overlooked is the issue of immigration.
There are obviously many variables that contribute to a victory or loss in a congressional election. In this case, Obamacare was probably the most prominent factor because it consumed the lion’s share of the dialogue on the campaign trail. However, we were told by the supercilious party elders that if we don’t embrace amnesty we will not win in competitive parts of the country. FL-13 has become the quintessential swing district, yet the Republican won, even though he drew a sharp contrast with the Democrat on the issue of immigration.
While Democrat Alex Sink candidly ran on the open borders agenda by disclosing that the motivation behind amnesty is so that we can all keep our housekeepers, Jolly categorically rejected amnesty. He ran an ad proclaiming that he is “in favor stronger borders. Not amnesty.” In a tight race, you don’t waste time or money on ads that don’t have a central issue at stake.
Again, Obamacare was clearly the biggest issue in the campaign. Furthermore, there is no telling how reliable Jolly will be after he is in Congress for a few months. But the notion that we must support amnesty to remain viable is clearly laid to waste by this victory in a Florida swing district.
Politico aptly notes that Jolly did not choose the squishy route in order to win a swing district:
Jolly, meanwhile, spent much of the race casting himself as a solid conservative, hammering home his opposition to Obamacare and tough-on-immigration views. Jolly allies believed that if they could limit Republican defections and take a chunk of independents, they could win.
Remember, Jolly contended with a moderate in the primary and attacked her from the right for being weak on Obamacare. She also supported amnesty and an array of liberal issues.
Consider this: if running as a conservative on the issues, including the issue of immigration, is a pathway to victory in an Obama +4 district, imagine the results in a district Romney carried by 10, 20, or 30 points.
But don’t expect the wizards of smart within the Republican Party establishment to ever consider that the reality of the immigration issue might be in conflict with their conventional wisdom. There is too much money invested in that fallacious premise.
Monday, March 10th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog
Even though we are in an election year, it doesn’t mean we should shy away from articulating bold solutions to the problems with our flagging system of governance. Many members of the Republican Party leadership think Republican candidates should sit on the ball and run out the clock until the election, choosing to avoid any contentious policy issue and focus only on banal, non-controversial items. This is a grave mistake.
As Ronald Reagan showed us in the ‘80s, conservatives must embrace a bold contrast between the two competing ideologies. In fact, an election year is the quintessential time to eagerly promote our values and policy solutions and explain why they foster a better economy and society than the policies of the left. In 2010, conservatives around the country ran on a bold platform, buttressed by the new energy from the Tea Party, and we won in an historic landslide. Now is not the time to stand for nothing.
Nobody has been standing on bold solutions more than Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). While many Republicans blur the differences between the parties and tepidly accept some of the premises of liberal ideological governance, Senator Lee has gone on offense. During his response to this year’s State of the Union Address, Mike Lee laid out our first principles in plain language but also weaved them together into specific policy solutions. He explained exactly how free markets and limited government help the very people for whom Obama claims to protect. He argued our views from a position of strength and went on offense against Obama’s class warfare.
That is why we are honored to host Senator Lee Wednesday night at 7:45 PM EDT in a tele-townhall to discuss some of his solutions to the problems engendered by a post-constitutional federal government. The Madison Project has been promoting a number of conservative ideas over the past few years and Senator Lee is proposing some new reform proposals that build upon those ides. In addition, we will be joined by Erick Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of RedState.com, and one of the leaders in the grassroots conservative insurgency.
Among the topics of discussion will be:
- How shrinking the federal government and fostering free market competition will benefit average American families while interventionist policies raise the cost of food, fuel, and healthcare – often to benefit well-connected special interests;
- Ideas for eliminating corporate welfare and corporate favors;
- Defending traditional marriage, especially through the prism of the 10th Amendment and religious liberty; and
- Why abolishing the federal gas tax and devolving transportation responsibility to the states will save money and improve infrastructure.
We all share the goal of defeating Senator Harry Reid (D-NV).. But acquisition of political power is not an end in itself, and we must be prepared to use Republican control of Congress and eventually the White House to limiting government, restoring our free market economy, and promoting freedom and a stronger civil society.
Monday, March 10th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections
One of the more trenchant lines delivered from the podium at CPAC last week was Sarah Palin’s zinger regarding the GOP “Beltway Boys”: “You didn’t build that. The Tea Party did.” Palin was referring to the GOP House majority acquired through the 2010 midterm elections, but the same observation is apropos for the potential to win a Senate majority this year.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met someone who shares the worldview of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin or Senator Mitch McConnell’s NRSC minions at a phone bank or door-to-door canvassing event for Republican candidates. And I’m referring to general elections as well as primaries.
The relationship between the grassroots and the establishment during elections years has always been one-directional. When we beat the establishment in primaries, they often decline to endorse our candidates in the general election and actively work against them. However, when our candidates lose, we work our tails off to ensure that the Democrat is defeated.
We all united behind the goal of defeating Pelosi in 2010, even in states where the Republican candidate was a hackneyed old-bull or establishment tool.
In 2012, when the GOP nominee was an anathema to everything we have been fighting for, we mustered the gumption to organize for him/her in a united effort to defeat Obama. Ironically, it was some of the biggest establishment cheerleaders who turned on Romney when the going got rough in the general election.
This year we stand at the precipice with the united goal of defeating Senator Harry Reid, the worst Senate leader in American history, a man who has completely gutted the Senate as a deliberative body. We all know that when the chips are down in the fall, it is the grassroots who will be working indefatigably to defeat Democrats, even in states with milquetoast Republican candidates.
We have always built the majorities, yet the GOP beltway boys have always dismantled our majorities and disenfranchised us by voting with Democrats on key policy initiatives. As such, it’s only fair that we have a say in choosing the nominees for whom we will work our butts off to elect in the fall.
An indeed, if we don’t work hard in the primaries, Republicans might still win back the majority (although if McConnell wins the primary, he might cost us the majority by losing his seat), but here is what to expect from the anointed leader:
“This election season, Republicans led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are taking a much harder line as they sense the majority within reach. Top congressional Republicans and their allies are challenging the advocacy groups head on in an aggressive effort to undermine their credibility. The goal is to deny them any Senate primary victories, cut into their fund-raising and diminish them as a future force in Republican politics.
“I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said in an interview, referring to the network of activist organizations working against him and two Republican incumbents in Kansas and Mississippi while engaging in a handful of other contests. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”
If only McConnell showed such moxie against Reid and Obama on passing liberal legislation and raising the debt ceiling!
But let’s travel together into a fantasy land for a moment and assume that McConnell is personally a genuine conservative. Let’s assume that he is merely hamstrung by being in the minority, but will fight like hell for conservatives as the newly-minted majority leader. At best, he is likely to preside over a tenuous majority of 51-52 seats. Facing such a united Democrat opposition, wouldn’t he want the most reliable conservative votes in order to navigate through the legislative process?
Yet, McConnell has said he will work to reelect every single liberal incumbent and ensure that conservative grassroots are defeated “anywhere in the country.” Again, let’s assume that McConnell is chomping at the bit to push a conservative legislative agenda; why in the world would he want to reelect Senators like Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, and Lindsey Graham from bright red states like Tennessee, Mississippi, and South Carolina?
Putting aside those “troublesome” groups like Heritage Action for a moment, these members have terrible scores even from McConnell’s pro-amnesty allies at the American “Conservative” Union. Cochran and Alexander each scored a 60 and Graham scored a 68. And in the case of Graham, not only does he often vote with Democrats, he actually relishes dissenting from the party and spearheading liberal initiatives while whipping votes for Senator Chuck Schumer. Lindsey Graham is a nightmare for any party leader who wants to push a united conservative front.
The other backbenchers can be picked off at any moment. And even those like Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) will clearly revert to his Kathleen Sebelius days were he to win his primary and no longer fear a reprisal from conservatives. Wouldn’t a committed conservative leader of a small majority – even one who is not necessarily a Tea Party type – want reliable fighters like Milton Wolf and Chris McDaniel, especially given the fact that they hail from states with no viable Democrat challenger?
But, alas, we must relinquish that tantalizing thought and return to reality. Indeed Mitch McConnell is not committed to one iota of a conservative agenda.
It is precisely because he is a finger lickin’ fraud – one who evinces a conservative image back home but stabs us in the back in D.C. – that he wants people like Graham, Alexander, and Cochran to remain in the Senate. He wants them to be reliable votes for “must-pass” Democrat bills that he doesn’t want to publicly support.
It is precisely because, as George Will has suggested, McConnell wants to pass amnesty, that he would never support real conservative candidates.
It is precisely because he supports the agenda of K Street and his money-bundlers that he needs liberal Republicans to muddle up the conference.
It is precisely because McConnell becomes even more liberal when in the majority that he doesn’t want any bold reformers pushing bold legislation during a presidential cycle.
And it is precisely because of the prospect of McConnell presiding over a majority populated by failed politicians that we must take action now.
It’s time to build an enduring majority.
Monday, March 10th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections
The open U.S. Senate seat in Georgia has created a number of vacancies in the state’s U.S. House delegation, providing Republican voters with an opportunity to utilize this red state to elect constitutional conservatives. With Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) vacating the seat in the First Congressional district, we can either move this seat to the right or elect a failed career politician. Our choice is to elect Dr. Bob Johnson, a career Army Ranger, surgeon, small business owner, and articulate conservative grassroots candidate.
For those who are looking for the prototype of a Tea Party candidate, Dr. Johnson is the superlative example. He spent most of his adult life in the military as an Army Ranger and a doctor. He also served as a surgeon in a military hospital for four years. After retiring from the service in 2001, Johnson opened up a private practice specializing in head and neck cancer surgery.
Although he never engaged in politics until he announced his bid for Congress last year, his intuitive common sense and impressive background has imbued him with a strong set of conservative principles and policy ideas, the likes of which we’ve seen in few candidates this cycle.
Dr. Johnson is the epitome of a candidate who doesn’t need, or necessarily want, this job. He is pledging term limits and plans to return to private life after serving in Congress. In fact, he continues to work as a surgeon while campaigning on nights and on weekends. But he realized that the country is deteriorating and that there is no viable alternative party in Washington. By default, this seat would have lurched even farther to the left with state senator Buddy Carter (R-GA) as the presumptive nominee. Johnson feared that south Georgia would be stuck with another Boehner yes-man instead of a fighter for constitutional free-market policy solutions and conservative traditional values.
Speaking with Dr. Johnson about the issues was a pleasure because he moves beyond the talking points and commits to specific solutions.
As a veteran and a physician, Johnson recognizes that he is well qualified to speak out on foreign, military, and veterans’ affairs.
He has articulated the problems with the void of free market healthcare financing (even before Obamacare) more than most other candidates. To that end, he will boldly push for reforms of our broken government-run veterans’ healthcare system and will not be intimidated by the Democrats’ use of veterans as political human shields. In fact, he will boldly pin the blame of poor quality healthcare on the failing VA system and advocate for a more private system with better quality care, cheaper costs, and quicker delivery.
As someone who is uniquely experienced in counter-terrorism, Johnson will fight GOP leaders on their policy of open borders and their myopic immigration priorities. Johnson will have no problem telling the insecure establishment politicians and their overpaid lobbyists they can’t buy amnesty with K-Street money.
As someone who worked on national security issues in the military, Johnson is running to fill the vacuum in the Republican Party on military and foreign affairs. He will fight against the administration’s war on the military, which includes the downsizing of our core assets, dyslexic rules of engagement, and social experimentation.
As a strong Christian and believer in the 10th Amendment, Dr. Bob will not shy away from speaking out against unelected judges redefining marriage and coercing private citizens to accommodate the alternative lifestyles of the radical left.
Despite working as a full-time surgeon, Johnson has been outspoken on every legislative battle during this campaign, letting voters know exactly where he would stand in the current intra-party divide.
Johnson will fight for us every day of his self-term-limited tenure in Washington. But if we don’t rally behind him, we will be stuck with liberal Buddy Carter. Carter is the quintessential career politician who has spent years in Atlanta pushing tax increases on transportation, energy, and the internet. He advocated against fighting Obamacare on a state level and doesn’t seem to be too outraged by the law, noting during his campaign kickoff speech that the law “so far is not so bad.”
The contrast cannot be any starker and the choice is ours to make. Over the years, we have ignored quiet open-seat House races like this one and have paid dearly by electing the wrong Republicans. It’s time for the movement to take yes for an answer and rally to Dr. Johnson for the May 20th Primary and the ensuing runoff.
Thursday, March 6th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Economy
The reason many of us don’t trust the current crop of Republicans to actually downsize existing federal programs is because they often agree to create new government interventions into the private sector.
Case in point? Yesterday’s obscure vote to create a new program within the Department of Energy.
It has become clear this year that House Republicans have no interest in forcing a fight on must-pass legislation nor do they have the stomach to pass stand-alone bills that draw a sharp contrast on contentious issues, such as illegal immigration, religious liberty, and gay marriage. They don’t want to address other conservative solutions, such as devolving transportation and education to the states or repealing the pernicious ethanol mandate, which raises the cost of food and fuel – all great issues to promote during an election year. Instead, they want to run out the clock and squander their time in the majority passing the most innocuous bills.
To that end, they have spent most of their time pushing these “non-controversial” suspension bills, which need a two-thirds majority to pass. One of those bills that passed the House yesterday was H.R. 2126 – Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2014, sponsored by liberal Republican David McKinley (WV) and Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT). Here is a synopsis of the bill from CRS:
Amends the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to require the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to study the feasibility of: (1) significantly improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings through the design and construction of separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency measures, and (2) encouraging owners and tenants to implement such measures in separate spaces. Requires the Secretary to publish such study on DOE’s website.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a voluntary Tenant Star program within the Energy Star program to recognize tenants in commercial buildings that voluntarily achieve high levels of energy efficiency in separate spaces. Requires DOE’s Administrator of the Energy Information Administration to collect data on categories of building occupancy that consume significant quantities of energy and on other aspects of the property, building operation, or building occupancy determined to be relevant to lowering energy consumption. Prohibits the impact on climate change from being a factor in determining energy efficiency of commercial building tenants.
Talk about picking winners and losers! This opens the door to the government collecting data on construction of private buildings and incentivizing specific behavior through green venture socialism. As always, these things start out as voluntary propositions, but quickly morph into full-blown mandates.
Also, like most green energy programs, the DOE will carefully craft the grant programs to benefit liberal crony capitalists who can’t sell their sub-par product or service in the free market without the extra boost from government.
Moreover, why are we adding another program to a department that Republicans [were supposed to] believe serves no constructive purpose?
At some point we need to ask why Republicans feel so uncomfortable being in the majority that they have to fill their time passing Democrat bills.
And unlike some of the other suspension bills, this is not an isolated measure that will stall out in the Senate. The Welch/McKinley bill overlaps with a broader Shaheen-Portman bill that has been percolating through the Senate for the past few years. They recently introduced another iteration of the bill and can now point to the fact that 86 percent of House Republicans supported much of the foundation for their legislation. Rep. Welch has already said that passage of this bill “provides a clear path to conference” with the Senate. They might take up this bill as early as next week.
Passage of this bill marks a new milestone for the GOP establishment. First they gave Senate Democrats a de facto super-majority with a number of Republicans voting with them on key issues. Then House Republicans began rubber-stamping some of their bad bills, often in violation of the Hastert Rule. Now they are pre-emptively passing Senate Democrat legislation in the House even before Reid takes up the bill!
At some point we are going to learn that a GOP majority does not have much utility unless we replace the current roster of failed leaders.
Tuesday, March 4th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections, Immigration
Mitch McConnell’s minions on K Street and at the NRSC have been accusing us of helping elect Democrats by challenging liberal Republicans in primaries. Even though their elected Republicans are consistently giving aid and comfort to the Democrats, they scandalously claim that we are the ones helping Democrats because we want to remove the Democrat-oriented Republicans. Yes, my head hurts as well.
Now take a look at this story from the New York Times about FWD, the pro-amnesty Republican group backed by Zuckerberg, running attack ads against Republicans.
A new, 60-second ad aimed squarely at Republican lawmakers seeks to compel them to push through a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. Adopting a sharper tone, the ad blames House Republicans for holding up the immigration legislation that has currently stalled in Congress.
“No one debates we need to fix our broken immigration system,” the narrator says. “Republican leaders know it. They’ve even said so time and again. So why are House Republicans cooling, retreating, and even privately saying they’d rather do nothing this year?”
The spot is the work of the Council for American Job Growth, an affiliate of FWD.us, the nonprofit advocacy group created by Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, and others to push for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws. The council is spending roughly $500,000 on airtime for the commercial, which begins running Monday nationally and is expected to appear in all 50 states for about two weeks.
Let’s take a step back for a moment. A group run by former GOP operatives are attacking House Republicans during an election year for not passing amnesty – the biggest legislative priority of the Democrat Party!
And guess who works for FWD?
Billy Piper, a former McConnell Chief of Staff lobbies for FWD.
Rob Jesmer, a former NRSC executive director, now works for FWD, and is in charge of putting out the lying ads.
So the next time McConnell and his disciples accuse you of helping elect Democrats by fighting for conservative principles tell them to look in the mirror and reflect on their own profit for perfidy scandal.
Monday, March 3rd, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration
From listening to proponents of open borders speak about immigration, one would come away with the impression that we have just experienced a protracted period of low immigration. They contend that our “limited legal immigration” has engendered a need for people to migrate here illegally. However, the Census Bureau published new numbers illuminating a fact that is self-evident to anyone who has studied immigration: we have already gone through a “second great wave of immigration.”
Here is the key takeaway from the Census update, which was cited by Alex Bolton in The Hill over the weekend:
Many Americans can trace their ancestral roots to the “great wave” of immigration that occurred during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This is not surprising, as the foreign-born population grew rapidly during this period, doubling in size from 6.7 million in 1880 to 14.2 million in 1930. Between 1880 and 1930, the foreign-born population represented between 12 and 15 percent of the total population.
As immigration to the United States slowed after 1930 and the resident foreign-born population either died off or emigrated, the size of that population continued to decline, falling to 9.6 million in 1970, the lowest level in the 20th century. Less than 5 percent of the total population in 1970 – or less than one in 20 people – were foreign-born.
However, over the last four decades, the United States has experienced what many are calling the “second great wave” of immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population has continuously increased in size and as a percentage of the total U.S. population. The foreign-born population quadrupled after 1970, reaching 40.0 million by 2010, and about 13 percent of the total population – or one in eight – were foreign-born.
Once again, the country is approaching a percentage of foreign-born not seen since the late 1800s and early 1900s. Will this proportion continue to increase, perhaps exceeding the high of nearly 15 percent achieved in both 1890 and 1910?
This is the simple historical context that has eluded 90 percent of the politicians in Washington. With over 1 million new immigrants every year for most of the past three decades, the foreign-born population is now approaching 41 million. Obviously, the sheer size of the current wave of immigration is unprecedented, while the percentage increase is approaching the proportion of the Great Wave era – a time when the country was relatively new and underpopulated.
During the ‘20s, there was a broad consensus of the need to cool down the pace of immigration to allow for absorption and assimilation. Remember, we did not have a robust welfare state or separatist lobbies like La Raza at the time. The ensuing “cool-off” period clearly netted positive results, as the immigrants from the Great Wave became absorbed into the fabric of America and helped build the country into what it is today.
It’s not surprising that the presidential elections from 1968-1992, which represent the GOP’s most auspicious political era at the federal level, overlapped with the period of time when the first great wave had completely assimilated and the second great wave had not yet affected the outcome of elections in a significant way. If not for Watergate and Jimmy Carter running as a southern conservative, Republicans would have won every election in a landslide.
Fast-forward three decades, and GOP policymakers and politicians are living in a dream world. In terms of policy, the second great wave matches or exceeds the magnitude of the first wave in every respect. Also, we now have a robust welfare system and separatist lobbies to ensure that newly arrived immigrants, many of them impoverished and from the third world, don’t seek upward mobility or absorption into the broad population.
The policy vices of doubling the current record-baseline of immigration should be sufficient to give Republicans pause about passing a Democrat version of “immigration reform.” However, because they often sell amnesty and immigration expansion as an electoral boon for the party, it’s important that we challenge their agenda on political grounds as well. With the level of immigration approaching record-high levels under the current trajectory, from which what planet have these people originated to suggest that doubling immigration will do anything other than create a permanent Democrat majority?
As the national average of foreign-born residents exceeds 13 percent, many states have a much higher concentration of immigrants. According to CBO, Nevada, Florida, New York, and New Jersey all have an immigrant population higher than 18 percent of the respective state’s population. California tops out at 26.1 percent as of 2012.
As the Census report notes, it’s unclear whether the population swell from the second great wave has already crested or whether there is more to come. The accompanying report on the immigrant population under the age of 35, seems to suggest that the trend could continue and that it has already grown since 2012. Any Republican who thinks they can win by doubling that baseline is not grounded in reality.
Obviously, the most important issues pertaining to immigration include an end to illegal immigration, protecting our national security from terrorists, and finally ending the cycle of open borders. But at some point, Republicans will have to address the issue of immigration in terms of quantity. Immigration benefits a country at large. And for those who benefit the broad population (as opposed to narrow special interests), we should make the process easier and cheaper. But how much? Over what period of time?
There is no simple answer to that question. But those who seek to address it should not be dismissed as “anti-immigrant” by those who peddle special interest policies without the best interests of the country in mind. And either way, coming off the longest expansion of immigration in American history, should we really consider doubling the current level without batting an eyelash?
To quote John Boehner, “are you kidding me?!!”
Friday, February 28th, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration
At the beginning of the year, Speaker John Boehner made it clear that he wanted the Republican Party to provide an “alternative” agenda – one that would be distinct from Obama’s policies. Sadly, as we have all witnessed over the past few months, the party leadership serves as nothing but a faint echo to Obama’s agenda, obsequious to his every whim.
Earlier today, Boehner met with Obama at the White House to discuss several policy issues. The following tweet from ABC’s Jonathan Karl tells you everything you need to know about Boehner and the broader agenda of the GOP establishment:
It is quite evident that if we don’t get rid of Boehner and his bootlickers, we will face a bipartisan oligarchy pushing amnesty and a permanent Democrat majority. And we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Meanwhile, this bipartisan consensus on amnesty is actually breaking our borders as we speak. The L.A. Times reported last week that there has been a surge in border crossings of Central American youths. Presumably, they have gotten the message on their smart phones that there is now a consensus to allow in any illegal who comes here as a youngster. The Times also reports that 125,000 of those youths granted amnesty by Obama are now eligible for Medi-Cal. I guess a few million more on the welfare rolls won’t make a difference.
And remember, the surge in impoverished youths will benefit our economy beyond measure.
John Boehner is wondering out loud why conservative groups are “beating up on him,” but privately he knows exactly why we are upset. He has declared war on conservatives. It’s time we return fire.
Page 3 of 121«12345...102030...»Last »