Walker’s Wisconsin win is another bad omen for Democrats

The victory of Scott Walker over recall forces in Wisconsin should serve as a warning to Democrats prior to the November elections. Despite a very high profile campaign by unions and Democrats to recall Gov. Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, and four Republican senators, the recall efforts fell far short of their goal. The recall had its origin in the 2011 changes to Wisconsin law that eliminated collective bargaining for state employee unions. Republicans claimed that generous union contracts were breaking the state’s budget.

In the final result, Gov. Walker defeated the recall forces by almost seven percent of the vote according to Real Clear Politics. Lt. Gov. Kleefisch was also confirmed by voters. According to the Los Angeles Times, the sole bright spot for Democrats was the senate recall election in Racine County where Democrat John Lehman claimed victory over Republican Van Wanggard, the incumbent. At press time, Wanggard had not conceded and, with a difference of less than 1,000 votes, may challenge the results.

If the Racine results stand, it would give Democrats control of the Wisconsin state senate, but the effect would be minimal. The legislature is not scheduled to meet again until after the general election in November. Since Republicans controlled the redistricting process due their 2010 victories and created districts more favorable to the GOP, the Democratic majority might be very short lived.

The Democratic difficulty in Wisconsin is compounded by the improving state economy under Walker. According to an analysis by ABC News, the state ended 2011 with a greater number of employed workers than had started the year. The state’s unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, well below the national 8.2 percent rate. Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has declined one percent since Walker took office. The report also notes that Wisconsin’s average income rose faster than the national average in 2011, 4.8 to 4.3 percent.

Walker’s biggest economic achievement was to turn the state’s $143 million deficit into a $154 million budget surplus according to the La Crosse Tribune. ABC notes that Walker accomplished the feat without raising taxes, although it notes that Walker’s reforms require state workers to make larger contributions to their health insurance and retirement plans.

The failure of the recalls does not bode well for President Obama. The rejection of the union-backed Democratic candidates in the recall after record-setting spending by both sides cannot be construed as a good sign for the administration. Republicans from across the country, including the Georgia GOP, rallied to support Walker in what was seen as a bellwether race. Likewise, Democrats and union members poured money into the state to support the recall. In what is perhaps a sign that national Democrats sensed the inevitability of defeat, President Obama distanced himself from the effort as Election Day grew near.

According to 270towin.com, Wisconsin has not voted for a Republican president since 1984. Nevertheless, Real Clear Politics polls in Wisconsin show President Obama’s lead over Mitt Romney deteriorating. The current average of polls puts Obama ahead by less than five percent, near the margin of error for most polls.

The failing recall and alarming presidential trend led Obama campaign manager Jim Messina to move Wisconsin, a traditional blue state, into the tossup category for the general election. On the day before the recall, Messina released a video (posted on Politico) to supporters that attempts to reassure supporters in the face of Obama’s falling poll numbers.

The video points to the Messina’s belief that Romney trails Obama by 191-243 in electoral votes, but fails to note that many of the 104 undecided electoral votes are in states where public opinion is trending toward Romney. The Republicans made large gains in 2010 in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, and, of course, Wisconsin, states now considered tossups in the presidential election. Republican victories in most of these states, particularly Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia, would put Romney very close to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. An additional victory in Wisconsin or another small state would make the difference.

The Wisconsin election is one more sign that this year is not favorable to President Obama and the Democrats. The trend toward Romney and the recognition that Wisconsin is now a tossup means that the Obama campaign will need to spend money, time and effort to defend a state that was previously considered safe for Democrats, taking away resources from other swing states.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/walker-win-wisconsin-is-bad-news-for-obama

Bad omens for Democrats

The end of the primary election season has brought a bevy of bad news for President Obama and the Democrats. The most obvious problem is President Obama’s difficulties in several recent primaries.

President Obama came perilously close to losing three Democratic primaries in May. In West Virginia, Obama lost over 40 percent of the vote and ten counties to a man in a federal prison in Texas. According to Politico, Keith Judd, a perennial candidate won at least one delegate to the Democratic National Convention. In Arkansas, according to Reuters, Democratic voters gave John Wolfe more than 40 percent of the vote. Wolfe, a lawyer, is not in prison. In Kentucky, Reuters reports that 42 percent of Democrats chose “uncommitted” rather than cast their ballots for the president. These results follow the March primary in Oklahoma in which President Obama lost 43 percent of the vote to a slate of five challengers including pro-life activist Randall Terry according to Politico. The results are widely interpreted to be a message of dissatisfaction with President Obama’s performance during his first term.

A comparison of voter turnout in the 2008 and 2012 primaries also reveals that Democratic voter turnout has also sharply decreased. This is likely due in part to the fact that President Obama does not have a competitive primary race this year. In 2008, the heated campaign between Obama and Hillary Clinton drew many voters. Nevertheless, a lack of approval and enthusiasm for Obama is almost certain to be partially responsible as well.

A June 3 Rasmussen poll contained more bad news for the president. The new poll showed Republican Mitt Romney leading Obama by a margin of 48-44 percent. Forty percent of voters are certain that they will vote for Romney and 36 percent are certain that they will vote for Obama. President Obama’s approval rating is at 45 percent while 53 percent disapprove.

Because a presidential election is actually composed of 50 separate elections, however, opinion polls can be deceiving. The election in the Electoral College will probably come down to a handful of swing states. The traditional swing states in recent elections include Ohio, Florida, and Colorado. Additional states that might be up for grabs in 2012 include North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin and Nevada. All of these states were won by Obama in 2008.

A recent Rasmussen poll shows Mitt Romney moving ahead of President Obama in Ohio by a margin of 46-44 percent. In Florida, where the most recent polls are weeks old, the two candidates are in a dead heat. A Real Clear Politics average of polls gives Romney a half point lead. In Colorado, where the polls are also several weeks old, Real Clear Politics gives Obama a slight edge. In North Carolina, Real Clear Politics gives Romney an advantage of 2.5 points. In both Virginia and Nevada, Obama still holds a lead of two points although his lead is eroding. In almost all cases, the movement has been steadily toward Romney over the past few months.

The bad news for Democrats is not limited to President Obama’s poll numbers. In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker, who was elected in 2010, has been the target of a recall election prompted by his legislation that stripped public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights. The high profile recall election is a bellwether for the fight to rein in the public sector unions whose pay and benefits are breaking many state budgets. Yahoo reports that two new polls both show Gov. Walker keeping his job. Although President Obama currently leads Romney in Wisconsin’s presidential polls according to the RCP average, Mitt Romney may ride Walker’s coattails to victory.

In solidly blue Massachusetts President Obama is almost certain to beat Mitt Romney, he currently has a 20 point lead according to the RCP average, and Elizabeth Warren should be a heavy favorite to unseat one-term senator Scott Brown. Over the last few weeks, however, Warren has been embarrassed by charges that she claimed to be a Native American in order to benefit from minority status at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. Warren admits making the claim, but, according to National Journal, has offered no evidence beyond family lore to back it up. To make matters worse for Warren, it was also discovered that she plagiarized several recipes that she submitted to a Native American cookbook.

Other Democratic elected officials seem worried about their associations with Obama. Two prominent Democrats from West Virginia, Senator Joe Manchin and Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, have refused to endorse President Obama for re-election according to Examiner. The most recent polling in West Virginia, a Public Policy Poll that is eight months old, favored Mitt Romney by 21 points.

More recently, Artur Davis, an Alabama congressman once considered a rising star in the Democratic Party, decided to completely leave the party completely and become a Republican. Davis, who is black, wrote on his website that he is cutting ties with the Democratic Party and moving to Virginia. Davis says that he may run for Congress in Virginia or for a seat in the Virginia legislature as a Republican.

In changing parties, Davis cites a laundry list of grievances common to conservative Democrats. On his blog he writes, “I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again.” He continues, “… Faith institutions should not be compelled to violate their teachings because faith is a freedom, too.” On immigration, Davis says he winces “at the Obama Administration’s efforts to tell states they can’t say the word immigration in their state laws, and [I] find it foolish when I hear their lawyers say that a local cop can’t determine the legal status of a suspect….”  On Obamacare, he says, “… We have gone about mending the flaws in our healthcare system is the wrong way—it goes further than we need and costs more than we can bear.” As a summary, he writes that “… The symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”

Rank and file Democrats are leaving the party as well. Gallup reports that Democratic party identification has fallen from a high of 36 percent in 2008 to 27 percent in 2011. Republican party identification is statistically unchanged, but a record high of 40 percent of Americans now identify as independents.

Perhaps the worst news for Democrats is in the form of economic reports released over the past few days. On June 1, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy had added only 69,000 jobs in May, causing an uptick in the unemployment rate to 8.2 percent. The same report put the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate at 63.8 percent.

In contrast, BLS historical data shows that the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate was 65.7 percent in January 2009 when President Obama took office. In the three years of the Obama Administration, the number of employed Americans has dropped by almost two percent, even as the total population of the country has increased.

To make matters worse, Market Watch reports that the Commerce Department has revised U.S. economic growth in the first quarter of 2012 down to 1.9 percent. The previous estimate was 2.2 percent. Both estimates were sharply lower than the three percent growth in fourth quarter of 2011, indicating that the economy is slowing once again.

The bad economic news will be a confirmation to many voters that President Obama’s economic policies have not solved the financial crisis or ended the recession. Although the Great Recession officially ended years ago, the current recovery is the slowest of any since the Great Depression according to the Wall Street Journal. Voters realize that the economy is not doing well and it will likely affect how they vote. That is not an encouraging sign for the party in power.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bad-omens-for-democrats

2012 primary looks like 2008; Gingrich likely to drop out soon

In the wake of Super Tuesday, this year’s Republican primary is starting to look a lot like 2008. In the primary of that year, initial results were also muddled with a large field of challengers. This made the outcome unpredictable as large voting blocs split for different candidates.

Two of the current candidates were also in the 2008 final four. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were among the candidates that were not winnowed out after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in January. Mike Huckabee and John McCain, the eventual nominee, were the other major players. Alan Keyes stayed in the race until April, but received even less support than Ron Paul. Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, also candidates in early races, helped to further muddy the waters.

As in 2012, a social conservative scored a surprising win in Iowa. Mike Huckabee won the caucuses in 2008 while Rick Santorum got the nod in 2012. In both cases, the candidate went on to have little traction in other states.

In 2008, the candidate that nobody seemed to like was John McCain. McCain was decried by pundits, bloggers and talk show hosts as a RINO (Republican in name only) who derided him for not being a real conservative. Much of the criticism sounds the same and comes from the same people as this year’s attacks on Mitt Romney.

When the voting started, the broad primary field aided McCain. According to data from USelectionatlas.org, McCain scored a decisive win in New Hampshire with 71 percent of the vote. In many other states, however, particularly those that voted on Super Tuesday of 2008, McCain won largely because Huckabee and Romney split the vote of the economic and social conservatives. McCain won less than a plurality in South Carolina, Florida, California, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arizona, Delaware, and Washington. In many cases, McCain won by only a few percentage points above either Romney or Huckabee and in almost all cases the combined total of the two candidates was greater than McCain’s percentage of the vote.

It was only after Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2008, that McCain started consistently winning. Ironically, after the Super Tuesday losses, the campaigns of Huckabee and Romney floundered. Mitt Romney suspended his campaign almost immediately on Feb. 7. Mike Huckabee continued until March 4, when McCain clinched the nomination. Huckabee was never able to win beyond the socially conservative states of the South. Romney’s wins were primarily in the upper Midwest, along with his home states of Massachusetts and Michigan.

In the results of 2012’s Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney played the role of John McCain while Rick Santorum continued in Mike Huckabee’s place. According to the Associated Press, Mitt Romney won seven of the 11 states holding primaries or caucuses on Super Tuesday (Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming). Rick Santorum won three states (North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee), all with less than 40 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich won only his home state of Georgia and Ron Paul, who failed to win any states, almost certainly peaked with 40 percent of the votes and three delegates in Virginia, where Santorum and Gingrich were not on the ballot.

As with McCain in 2008, several of Romney’s wins were very close, particularly in the hotly contested swing state of Ohio, and if he had faced only one or two challengers instead of three, the end result might have been different. As it is, Gingrich and Santorum (and in some cases Paul and Santorum) split the not-Romney vote, which had the effect of giving Romney a majority, if not a plurality.

According to the AP’s estimated delegate count, Mitt Romney now leads with 415. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are neck-and-neck with 176 and 105 respectively. Ron Paul trails the pack with 47. A total of 1,144 delegates is needed to secure the Republican nomination.

With a firm lead in the delegate count, fundraising, and momentum, Mitt Romney is now almost assured to win the Republican nomination. The question is how long the other candidates can afford to stay in the race. According to the N.Y. Times, Ron Paul, who has not won a single state, has raised the second-highest amount of money after Romney. Gingrich, who has won only Georgia and South Carolina, places third in the money race. Santorum, in spite of his electoral victories, has raised the least of any of the candidates still in the race.

Both Gingrich and Santorum will likely find donations harder to come by as their hopes of winning the nomination fade. Gingrich’s website today had replaced its home page with a solicitation for $2.50 donations to “help bring gasoline prices down to $2.50.” Ron Paul, with his fanatical supporters, will not likely face the fundraising limitations of Gingrich and Santorum.

It is likely that the campaigns of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are reaching their ends. In particular, Newt Gingrich, who has had to spend heavily to combat negative ads and who has only won two states, is likely to decide that further campaigning is not cost effective as the race moves further outside the South. Gingrich will probably withdraw from the race before Santorum.

Santorum has had more electoral success than Gingrich, but has also spent much less. According to the N.Y. Times, Santorum is ranked ninth of nine GOP candidates on spending. This means that he has spent less money than five candidates who are no longer in the race. The Santorum campaign is used to making do with little and can conceivably stay in the race for several more weeks or months.

Ron Paul will likely be the last holdout. His fundraising is second only to Romney’s and his supporters are the least willing to support any of the other candidates. During the 2008 campaign, Paul continued his campaign until the bitter end. His campaign continued until June even though John McCain secured the nomination in March. His 2012 campaign will probably be similarly long-legged.

If the primary in 2012 looks like the 2008 primary, the general election probably will not. In 2008, the Democrats benefitted from an unpopular Republican incumbent and a high level of excitement surrounding Barack Obama, the charismatic first black man to win the nomination of a major party. In 2012, Obama is the unpopular incumbent and the excitement is gone.

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/republican-field-likely-to-thin-after-super-tuesday

New poll shows 3-way tie in Georgia

A new poll released Tuesday shows that the Republican presidential primary race in Georgia is a three-way tie. The new poll by the Fox Five and the Southern Political Report shows Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum running neck-in-neck among registered likely Georgia voters.

Newt Gingrich placed first in the poll with 26 percent, but Romney and Santorum are both within the margin of error. Romney was in second place with 24 percent and Santorum placed third with 23 percent. Ron Paul was a distant fourth place with 12 percent. Earlier this month, the Atlanta Elections Examiner predicted that the Georgia presidential primary would be too close to call.

The results come amid a Santorum surge since the first weeks of the year. Real Clear Politics shows that Santorum leads in all recent national polls by margins from two to 12 percent. Romney places second in each poll, while Gingrich has dropped to a distant third, just ahead of Ron Paul.

One interesting aspect of the Georgia poll is that 11 percent of voters are still undecided or have no preference. This year’s fluid race has left an inordinate number of voters open to changing their minds or waiting until the last minute to decide. It remains to be seen who the majority of these voters will ultimately favor.

The Georgia primary election is on March 6, but early voting has already opened. Polls will be open statewide this Saturday. Voters can also check their My Voter Page or the Secretary of State website for more information.

Ron Paul’s strategy: Poach candidates from caucus winners

Ron Paul hasn’t won a single primary or caucus in Republican primary, but Rachel Maddow of MSNBC notes that Paul seem “both happy and like he has something up his sleeve.” In an interview with Paul’s senior campaign advisor, Doug Wead, Maddow explains the reason behind Ron Paul’s giddiness.

Essentially, Ron Paul’s strategy centers on the fact that votes in caucus states are not binding. After the votes are cast at the caucus, many of the voters go home before delegates are actually chosen for the state convention. Ron Paul supporters are apparently staying behind to make sure that delegates who support Ron Paul are chosen regardless of the results of the vote. This isn’t how the process is supposed to work, but it isn’t illegal either.

Maddow cites one Larimer County, Co. precinct as an example of the strategy in action. In the precinct, Rick Santorum won the straw poll with 23 percent of the vote. Ron Paul finished second with 13 percent. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich received five and two percent of the vote respectively. However Ron Paul supporters were awarded all 13 delegate slots for the precinct in spite of the fact that he lost the vote. Wead told Maddow that the Paul campaign is tracking delegates at the precinct level and believes that it has won Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada in this manner; all caucus states where Ron Paul has lost the popular vote.

Georgia does not use the caucus system. Its 124 delegates will be distributed proportionally among the winners of the March 6 primary election.

Paul’s delegate strategy is roughly analogous to usurping the Electoral College in the presidential election. Voters actually vote for electors, who then cast their vote for president in the Electoral College. Although the electors almost always vote to reflect the will of the people of their state, they are not legally bound to do so. The strategy raises concerns that are also reminiscent of the super-delegate controversy from the Democratic primary of 2008.

The Paul campaign is open about the delegate strategy. Wead openly acknowledges what Paul supporters are doing. Wead tells Maddow, “There is nothing wrong or deceptive about this. Anybody can stay. Woody Allen says 80 percent of success is showing up. Well, our people show up and they have a right to do that and they are committed.”

An article on RonPaulSignBomb.com by Todd King, Paul’s New Mexico state leader, explains the process in detail. King describes how the goal of the Paul campaign is to get enough Paul supporters to the precinct caucuses to win there, then take control of the county and state caucuses in turn. He writes, “Gaming the system is easy for anyone who seriously wants to.”

According to King, the goal is make Ron Paul the party nominee because “typical boobus-americanus [sic] does not think for himself, and accepts the party nominee.” According to this line of reasoning, “If Ron Paul gets the party nomination, then he gets top line on the ballot during the primaries, and is almost assured a win” at the convention.

Nevertheless, although Paul may be winning delegates in spite of the will of the people, he is not winning primaries. It is highly unlikely that Paul’s supporters will be able to use their sneak attack to win enough delegates to secure the nomination, especially as supporters of other candidates become aware of what is happening.

Wead raises the possibility of a contested convention in which no candidate receives enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot. Although Wead concedes that the possibility of a contested convention is remote, he points out that while some delegates might support other candidates, “Ron Paul delegates are not going to go, even if they are offered Secretary of State….” Wead hints that even if Ron Paul is not the final nominee, his delegates might be traded in exchange for “many things we want. We would like to see the Federal Reserve audited for example….” If Paul cannot win the nomination, his campaign is positioning itself to play kingmaker, most likely favoring Santorum or Gingrich over Romney.

The end result of Paul’s gambit is questionable. It is highly unlikely that most Republicans will look favorably on such questionable tactics from a man who did not endorse the Republican candidate in 2008. While Paul’s tactics are not illegal, they clearly flout the will of the people and are not likely to win Paul any friends within the Republican Party. This raises the question of how effectively he would be able to govern if he did win the nomination and the presidency.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/ron-paul-s-road-to-nomination-poaching-delegates

Georgia Republican primary too close to call

It is now less than one month until March 6, when Georgia and nine other states conduct their Republican presidential preference primaries. Thus far, the only constant in the Republican primary is that there is no constant. There have been a multitude of frontrunners and the states that have conducted primaries and caucuses so far have been split between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

In Georgia, Newt Gingrich has held a commanding lead for the past several months. The most recent poll by Survey USA was conducted February 1-2 and showed Gingrich leading Mitt Romney by 45-32 percent. This was similar to a December poll by Mason Dixon that showed Gingrich leading Romney by 43-21 percent. A series of Insider Advantage polls from the summer shows Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, both now withdrawn from the race, leading last summer and fall.

Although the most recent two polls show Romney rising by 11 points, the real story may be Rick Santorum. As late as December, Santorum garnered less than two percent in the Insider Advantage poll and one percent in the Mason Dixon poll.

Santorum eked out a surprise victory in Iowa on January 3, even though his victory wasn’t known until two weeks later. In the meantime, he placed a distant third in South Carolina and Florida. It was at this point that the Survey USA poll was taken that showed Santorum had jumped to nine percent. Since then, Santorum pulled a hat trick, winning all three of this week’s primaries in the states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

In the weeks remaining until Super Tuesday, there are only four states holding primaries or caucuses. Arizona and Michigan hold primaries on February 28 while Maine caucuses on February 11 and Washington on March 3.

It remains to be seen whether Santorum’s victories this week will increase his popularity in Georgia and the other Super Tuesday states. If so, he may be unable to keep up his momentum in the weeks until Super Tuesday with few elections and debates.

As Newt Gingrich’s campaign sags under the weight of his personal baggage and high unfavorability ratings, it is likely that he will not receive anywhere near the 45 percent of the vote that he received in the most recent poll. It is most likely that Santorum will be the beneficiary of disaffected Gingrich supporters as the new alternative to Romney.

At this point, factoring in the recent events, the Georgia primary is too close to call, with Romney at 32 percent and Gingrich and Santorum splitting another 60 percent, Romney looks to be the favorite. Ron Paul is unlikely to go much higher than 10 percent. The big question is whether Santorum’s rise will cause Romney as well as Gingrich voters to defect.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/georgia-republican-primary-too-close-to-call

Questions for Ron Paul

Last year, the Atlanta Conservative Examiner published an article that asked several questions of supporters of Barack Obama. While well-intentioned and honestly seeking the liberal perspective on a number of issues, the response was underwhelming. Perhaps this was because there are no good answers to the questions asked.

In a similar vein, here are several questions for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters. Judging from the large response that typically comes from any article mentioning Ron Paul (especially when it mentions him critically), the Paul supporters are likely to have more to say in his defense than the Obama supporters did.

First, Ron Paul makes a point of saying that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional on the grounds that the Constitution gives only Congress the power to “coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof….” (Article I Section 8). If this interpretation is correct, then why is it that Congress established the first private central bank, the Bank of the United States, within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution? At that point, many of the framers of the Constitution were still in Congress.

The Bank of the United States was a private company. The bill establishing it was signed into law in 1791 by none other than George Washington. After the bank’s charter expired in 1811, Congress created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. This bank existed until 1841. At 99 years old, the Federal Reserve is the longest lasting central bank in U.S. history, but it was far from the first.

Also along economic lines, Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, which leads to another question. Paul blames fiat money and the Federal Reserve for the current economic unpleasantness, but even when the U.S. was on a gold standard the business cycle led to periods of economic depression. In fact the Federal Reserve and the gold standard coexisted for decades. The gold standard did not prevent the Great Depression, the worst economic crisis in U.S. history.

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and the United States stayed on the gold standard until 1973. In 1933, President Roosevelt made it illegal for Americans to own gold and required them to sell their gold to the Federal Reserve at a price set by the government, but technically the dollar was still linked to gold. Roosevelt’s executive order remained in effect until the 1960s and 1970s when it was repealed piecemeal.

In the past, linking the value of the dollar to the value of gold did not prevent the boom and bust cycle. A federal gold standard did not prevent the government from manipulating the value of the dollar. Why does Paul believe that a new gold standard would be any different? Further, U.S. production of gold is declining. Would a gold standard remove the influence of unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Reserve only to replace it with a dependency on gold miners, bankers, and bureaucrats in countries like China and Russia for economic growth?

A third question involves Paul’s assertions that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war (Article I Section 8), but stops short of requiring a declaration of war. The same section gives Congress the power to “define and punish… offences against the law of nations,” arguably the power to intervene on behalf of victims of crimes against humanity, and to “provide for the common defense,” a general term that could be construed to include pre-emptive war against a hostile nation believed to be developing WMDs.

As Max Boot notes in his book, “The Savage Wars of Peace,” declared wars have been the exception rather than the rule in American history. One of the first undeclared wars occurred during the administration of none other than Thomas Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. This conflict is memorialized in the line of the Marine hymn that references the “shores of Tripoli.”

In the 20^th century, U.S. forces, almost always the Marines, essentially invaded and governed several Central American and Caribbean nations. For almost 20 years prior to WWII, the Marines ruled Haiti. Long undeclared interventions also occurred in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, not to mention Panama. After the U.S.S Greer, an American destroyer, was fired upon by a German U-boat, President Roosevelt essentially launched an undeclared war against the Germans in the Atlantic more than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not begin with a formal declaration of war, President Bush did seek and receive the approval of Congress (President Obama’s intervention in Libya is another matter). How can Paul really consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illegal when both interventions were approved by Congress with Paul himself having voted to approve military action in Afghanistan?

Finally, why does Ron Paul oppose the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)? Did Paul not read Section 1021 paragraph (e) which reads “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States?” Similarly, Section 1022 paragraph (b) (1) says, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Since the law plainly does not allow the indefinite detention of Americans but Paul opposes it anyway, does this mean that Paul opposes indefinite detention of foreign terrorists captured abroad? These are the people who the law allows the military to detain indefinitely. There are Americans who believe that these foreign-born, foreign-captured, non-U.S. citizens should be entitled to a day in American courts. Is Paul among this group?

If Paul thinks that foreign terrorists should have habeas corpus rights and access to U.S. courts, it would be the first time that prisoners of war (actually unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions) captured in combat outside the country have been granted access to the judicial system. Even German POWs housed in prison camps within the United States itself during WWII were not accorded constitutional rights due to American citizens. No one would have dreamed of allowing captured Nazis to challenge their detention in American courts.

Hopefully, Rep. Paul or his supporters will answer these questions and help to clear up some of the apparent inconsistencies in Ron Paul’s political platform.

This article was originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/questions-for-ron-paul

Rick Santorum: Not just for social conservatives

Since his surprise victory in the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum has been derided a candidate for the social conservatives. Prominent conservative talk show hosts, such as Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, have declared that social conservatives risk re-electing Obama if they vote for Santorum, assuming that a vote for the former senator is rooted only in a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade and prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage.

In contrast, Santorum seems to be quietly building support among Republicans in states that have yet to vote. His strong performance in recent debates and his status as the only Republican candidate to avoid going negative against his opponents may be what inspires voters to take a closer look at Santorum, but his conservative principles and detailed policy proposals provide a pleasant surprise. His blue collar background and the revelation in one debate that he did his own taxes make Santorum seem sensible and approachable in a way that Romney and Gingrich are not.

In an election that is shaping up as a referendum on Barack Obama’s handling (or mishandling) of the economy, Santorum offers a detailed conservative vision for recovery. On his website, Santorum’s proposal for tax reform is a two-tiered income tax with rates of 10 and 28 percent. He wants to simplify the tax code, but keep or enhance family-friendly deductions and credits. For example, he would triple the personal deduction for each child and eliminate marriage penalties while maintaining the current deductions for charitable giving, home mortgage interest, healthcare, retirement savings, and children.

On the business side, Santorum would cut the U.S. corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, in half, reducing it from 35 to 17.5 percent. He would reduce the capital gains and dividend taxes to 12 percent. He favors eliminating the alternative minimum (AMT) tax and the death (estate) tax.

To help bring jobs and money back to the U.S., Santorum would like to eliminate the tax on repatriated income that businesses bring into the U.S. to invest in new manufacturing equipment. Other repatriated income would be taxed at a reduced rate of 5.25 percent. He opposes the onerous regulations written by the Obama Administration and promises to repeal Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and all other Obama-era regulations with an economic impact of over $100 million.

Out of control federal spending and a mounting federal debt is also a hot-button issue for 2012. Santorum would commit to $5 trillion in spending cuts over five years and would immediately reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. Defense spending and social programs would be frozen at current levels for five years. He would cut the federal work force by 10 percent and freeze pay for non-defense related employees for four years.

Santorum supports the Paul Ryan plan for saving Medicare and believes that Social Security and other entitlement programs must be reformed and placed on a sustainable path. The number of programs that he would cut is long, but includes energy subsidies, agriculture subsidies, Planned Parenthood, and halving the number of USAID employees and funding for the UN. He would use Senator Tom Coburn’s March 2011 GAO report that found a potential $100 billion in savings from eliminating 34 wasteful and duplicative programs and the Simpson-Bowles debt reduction plan that was commissioned – then ignored – by President Obama.

With gas prices rising and forecast to increase to record levels before the election, energy is likely to become an issue as well. Santorum would remove all subsidies and tax credits for energy companies. He would remove bans on drilling for oil and natural gas in an effort to decrease prices by increasing supply. Santorum would approve the Keystone XL pipeline, recently rejected by President Obama, in order to create jobs and increase the supply of oil. He would also roll back the new EPA carbon rules and other harmful regulations.

With respect to economic policy, Rick Santorum’s platform is similar to those of the other candidates. His foreign policy is close to that of Romney and Gingrich (Ron Paul is the outlier on foreign policy). What makes Rick Santorum unique among the Republican candidates is his realization that America’s economic woes are tied to our national moral and ethical failings. In many circles it is fashionable to call for economic reform, but then proclaim the belief that the government has no business trying to influence anyone’s life choices. The reality is that without responsibility, both to oneself and one’s country, there can be no freedom. As John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Breakpoint.org quotes Santorum at an Iowa town hall meeting as saying ““Yes, [the election is] about growth and the economy, [but] it’s also about what is at the core of our country . . . faith and family. You can’t have a strong economy, you can’t have limited government if the family is breaking down and we don’t live good, moral, and decent lives.” Politifact backs up Santorum’s point that single-parent families have a much higher poverty rate than two-parent families.

The reason that taxpayers are burdened with increasingly large amounts of entitlement spending is that society and the government has given people incentives to make disastrous life choices. After the introduction of the Great Society in the 1960s, the number of children in single-family households increased exponentially due to increases in both divorce and out-of-wedlock births. This means that many of these children grow up in poor households and receive government financial support. Today according to KIDS COUNT, 38 percent of children in Georgia are part of single-parent families.

As children grow up in broken homes, they are at a far greater risk for a multitude of bad things, from being more likely to live in poverty to being more likely to be abused to being more likely to become involved in violent crime, drug abuse, and premarital sex according to the National Fatherhood Initiative. The cycle repeats and deepens as children of broken homes grow up to have their own children and the dependency on government entitlement programs becomes more pronounced. The federal budget grows and the debt gets larger. Solving the debt crisis will ultimately mean breaking the cycle of poverty and government dependency. This will mean giving Americans the tools and knowledge to make better choices… and allowing them to fail when they don’t.

For Republican primary voters dissatisfied with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum provides solid conservative economic principles and a strong foreign policy with pro-life and pro-family values. The Real Clear Politics index of polls shows Santorum gaining slowly but steadily on Romney and Gingrich. Strong showings in yesterday’s primaries in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado will likely help to revive his campaign. If voters back Rick Santorum on Super Tuesday, when 10 states including Georgia hold primaries, he may be able to supplant Newt Gingrich as Mitt Romney’s chief rival for the nomination.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/rick-santorum-not-just-for-social-conservatives

The GOP’s Mormon question

(Salt Lake City, Ut.) A mostly unspoken reason for Mitt Romney’s failure to break away from the pack in the Republican presidential primary may be his Mormon faith. Beyond the famous Mormon Tabernacle choir, the fact that Mormons once practiced polygamy, and the internet picture of a voluptuous model wearing a shirt bearing the words “I can’t, I’m Mormon,” most voters in Georgia and around the country are probably unfamiliar with the Mormon religion. According to the Association of Religious Data Archives, only about five percent of Georgians are Mormon. The Pew Religious Landscape Survey indicates that nationally the percentage of Mormons is even lower at less than two percent.

Briefly, the official name of the Mormon Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church got its start in New York around 1820 when Joseph Smith said that God told him that all religions were wrong. As he recounted in his testimony, Smith tells of heavenly visions and visits by angels over the next few years. Smith said that in 1823 a resurrected prophet named Moroni directed him to a collection of buried golden plates that contained the writings of early American writings of Jesus. Smith recovered and translated the writings on the golden plates and published them in 1830 as “the Book of Mormon,” named for one of the prophets who compiled the writings.

Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon contains descriptions of an ancient Israelite immigration to America and Jesus Christ’s visit there. In addition to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church has two other sacred texts. The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of Joseph Smith’s prophetic writings and the Pearl of Great Price contains Joseph Smith’s recreations of lost Biblical texts and a record of Abraham’s life in Egypt, which Smith allegedly translated from an ancient papyrus.

Smith started the church in Ohio, and eventually moved his followers to Missouri and then to Illinois. According to HistoryofMormonism.com, Smith was killed by a mob in Carthage, Il. in 1844. After Smith’s death, Brigham Young led the Mormons to Utah where they established a theocratic settlement.

Because of Mormonism’s unique history, many mainstream Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian and some even call it a cult. Unlike the Bible, much of which is supported by archaeological finds, the Book of Mormon’s history is vastly different from archaeological evidence. There is no physical evidence that supports the idea of ancient Israelites in the Americas and, because Smith returned them to Moroni after he had translated them, the golden plates cannot be examined. Further, the LDS Church believes in “open canon.”

As History of Mormonism.com puts it, “Church leaders called General Authorities are also considered to speak the word of God in their callings. All these sacred words are considered to be scripture as well, and are treated as such.” At various times, this has allowed leaders of the church to reverse traditional church doctrines in short order such as the declaration in 1890 that prohibited polygamy and a more recent declaration in 1978 that permitted “all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.” Previously, the church had taught that one of the Israelite tribes that immigrated to America was punished with a “skin of blackness” for their disobedience (2 Nephi 5:21). Open canon is sharply different from the evangelical doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

There are other important theological differences as well. The LDS Church teaches that believers will be made “equal in power, might and dominion” to Jesus and God, essentially becoming gods themselves, in the afterlife. With respect to the virgin birth, the official Mormon position is that Mary’s conception of Jesus was supernatural, but critics point to writings by Mormon leaders that say that Jesus was conceived naturally. Where mainstream Christians believe that hell is a place of everlasting torment, Mormons believe that, for most people, hell is a temporary “spirit prison” where they will have a second chance to repent. Along these lines, Mormons believe that the dead can be baptized vicariously, while mainstream Christians reject this doctrine. The Southern Baptist Convention created a video, “the Mormon Puzzle,” that addresses many of the differences between the LDS and other Christian churches. Many Mormons believe that this video portrays them unfairly.

Conversely, Mormons do share many values with mainstream Christians. These include patriotism, a strong sense of morality, and a belief in the importance of families. Like most Christians, Mormons tend to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. This often places Mormons in the Republican camp with other religious conservatives. Utah is a reliably Republican state.

While there are definite theological differences, the question is how much they will (or should) matter in the presidential race. Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test for any public office so Romney’s (or Jon Huntsman’s) religion cannot officially be considered. Unofficially, Americans have the right to vote for whoever they want for whatever reasons they choose. Polls by ChristianPost.com and the Salt Lake Tribune indicate that a strong majority of Americans (and a slight majority of Democrats) prefer a Christian president. Almost half of the respondents in the Tribune poll either did not believe or were unsure that Mormons were Christian. On the other hand, one in five respondents to the Christian Post poll still believe that President Obama is a Muslim.

Voters in the Republican primary will have to weigh Romney’s Mormon religion against a number of other factors. Romney has consistently performed better against Obama than the other GOP candidates in polls showing prospective matchups for the general election. Further, Romney’s platform, which includes promises to repeal Obamacare and keep taxes low, is more in line with the beliefs of most Republicans and Americans than that of President Obama.

Even though he is a Christian, President Obama’s policies have often angered Christians. There have been attacks on the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, support for abortion and same-sex marriage, and a general insensitivity to religious believers such as omitting “by their Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence and not mentioning God in his Thanksgiving address.

In a close election, even a few votes swayed or not cast by Romney’s religion could return President Obama to the White House. Voters concerned about his Mormonism will have to decide whether to support a conservative Mormon or a nominal Christian whose administration is largely secular and far to the left of the American mainstream.

This article was first published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/the-gop-s-mormon-question

2012 voter guide: Rick Perry

Campaign Website: RickPerry.org
Supporting PAC: makeusgreatagain.com
Ga. Website: Georgians for Rick Perry on Facebook

Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. Read a full biography of Rick Perry by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Perry favors an optional 20 percent flat tax that can be filled out on a postcard. He would eliminate the capital gains and death taxes, as well as the tax on Social Security benefits. He would reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent and tax repatriated profits at a reduced rate.

Economy: Perry would help encourage growth by reducing federal regulation and taxes. He believes that his energy plan would create millions of new jobs.

Obamacare: Perry would repeal Obamacare.

Energy: Perry would open up federal lands to exploration and streamline the permitting process for oil drilling. He would eliminate many of the Obama Administration’s EPA regulations and return environmental authority to the states. He would remove federal subsidies and loans for politically favored companies. Perry favors eliminating the Department of Energy.

Life: Rick Perry is pro-life and has a record of passing pro-life legislation.

Iran: Rick Perry believes that a nuclear-armed Iran is threat to the U.S. He believes that the U.S. should act with its allies to revisit the options for dealing with Iran that President Obama has taken off the table, including tougher sanctions and a military strike.

Immigration: Perry supports secure borders and would deploy the National Guard to border areas. He supports expedited construction of border fencing.
National Security: Perry believes that a strong economy is vital to national security. He believes that the proposed Obama Administration cuts to the defense budget are irresponsible. (CBS News)

Spending: Perry would cap federal spending at 18 percent of GDP and reduce non-defense discretionary spending by $100 billion in the first year. He favors a balanced budget amendment that does not raise taxes.

Entitlements: Perry favors the reform of Social Security and Medicare.

Second Amendment: Perry believes that the second amendment is an individual right and supports the right to carry.

Gay Marriage: Perry supports traditional marriage and a federal marriage amendment.

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.


Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-rick-perry

2012 voter guide: Jon Huntsman

Campaign Website: jon2012.com
Supporting PAC: ourdestinypac.com
Ga. Website: Georgia for Jon Huntsman Jr. on Facebook

Jon Huntsman is a former governor of Utah and U.S. ambassador to China. He is an experienced businessman, having served as an officer in his family businesses. Read a full biography of Jon Huntsman by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Huntsman supports a version of the Bowles-Simpson commission’s “zero plan.” He favors a revenue-neutral plan that replaces current individual tax rates with three new rates: 8, 14, and 23 percent. In exchange for lower rates, all tax deductions and credits would be eliminated. Huntsman would reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and eliminate the capital gains and dividends taxes. He would also eliminate taxes on repatriated profits.

Economy: Huntsman proposes regulatory reform that would repeal Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, rein in the EPA, and improve the cost-benefit ratio of future regulation. He supports free trade and would pursue new trade opportunities, especially in the Pacific Rim.

Obamacare: Huntsman favors the repeal of Obamacare.

Energy: Huntsman supports the safe use of fracking and conversion of coal to liquid fuel. He believes that the importation of Canadian oil can help the U.S. reduce its dependency on unfriendly nations. He would remove roadblocks to the development of American natural gas fields. Additionally, Huntsman favors the modernization of the electrical grid with an eye toward the increased use of electric vehicles in the future.

Life: Huntsman is pro-life. He would reinstate the Mexico City policy and veto a budget that funded Planned Parenthood. He opposes most embryonic stem cell research, but would allow the use of discarded embryos. (lifenews.com)

Iran: Huntsman said, “"I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that." (Politico)
Immigration: Huntsman supports “a pathway out from the shadows” for illegal immigrants. He personally does not like the idea of a border fence, but says that one is necessary. (the politicalguide.com)

National Security: Huntsman believes that the U.S. has made great accomplishments in the war on terror, but that “mission has evolved into an ill-advised counterinsurgency campaign which continues to carry heavy costs in terms of blood and treasure.” He believes that the core of the military needs to be rebuilt after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continually modernized. He believes that counter-terrorism needs to become more flexible and that preventing WMDs from falling into the hands of terrorists should be a primary goal.

Spending: Huntsman favors spending cuts and is favor of a balanced budget amendment. He believes that the current level of debt is a threat to national security. He believes that some defense cuts are necessary as well.

Entitlements: Huntsman favors entitlement reform along the lines of Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal for Medicare, which do not cut benefits for current seniors. He believes that nothing is off the table to reform Social Security, including means testing. (Wall St. Journal, thepoliticalguide.com)
Second Amendment: Huntsman supports gun rights and is viewed positively by the NRA. (2012.republican-candidates.org)

Gay Marriage: Huntsman supported civil unions as a governor of Utah, but he does believe that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:
http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-jon-huntsman

2012 voter guide: Newt Gingrich

Campaign website: newt.org
Supporting PAC: winningourfuture.com
Ga. website: newt.org/states/georgia

 Biography:  Gingrich is a former Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia.  Read his full biography by the Atlanta Conservative Examiner here.

Taxes: Newt Gingrich would make the low Bush-era tax rates permanent. He would also create an optional flat tax with a 15 percent rate. This tax would preserve the home mortgage interest and charitable deductions, as well as establishing a $12,000 standard deduction.
Economy: Gingrich would encourage job creation by repealing cumbersome regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley, the Dodd-Frank finance law, and the Community Reinvestment Act. He would replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency” that works closely with local governments. Gingrich would like to break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to eliminate their implicit government backing.
Obamacare: Newt Gingrich would repeal Obamacare. He favors tax credits, health savings accounts, and the sale of health insurance across state lines. Gingrich would set up a high risk pool to cover sick people who would otherwise be uninsurable. He would prohibit insurance companies from canceling policies or raising rates due to sickness. Gingrich believes that an electronic health records system could prevent fraud. He favors tort reform and government investment in “research for health solutions.” He would reform the FDA to speed new treatments.
Energy: Gingrich favors development of American energy sources including shale oil and offshore drilling. He would finance clean energy research with oil and gas royalties. Gingrich would replace the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency” which would use incentives and cooperation with local governments and industry and consider the economic impact of environmental regulation.
Iran: Gingrich believes that the U.S. should consider a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program “as a last recourse, and only as a step toward replacing the regime." (Wall St. Journal)
Immigration: Gingrich favors secure borders. He would reform the immigration process and give precedence to those adhere to the law, but would also create a path to legalize illegal immigrants who have deep ties to the U.S. He would encourage investment and legal immigration. Gingrich would allow noncitizens to earn U.S. citizenship through military service. He believes that English should be the official language.
National Security: Gingrich says, “Military force must be used judiciously and with clear, obtainable objectives understood by Congress.” He would try to understand our enemies and build a grand, unified strategy to fight the terrorists. He would create a plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and incentivize math and science education to ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in technology.
Spending: Gingrich presided over the House of Representatives when Congress balanced the budget in the 1990s. He has signed a pledge to “cut, cap, and balance.” (thepoliticalguide.com)
Entitlements: Gingrich has released a comprehensive plan to reform entitlements. He favors allowing young workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts based on a successful program in Chile. He would use block grants to the states to make welfare and Medicaid more efficient. Gingrich’s plan would reduce federal spending by 10 percent GDP when fully implemented. (Forbes)
Second Amendment: Gingrich believes in an individual right to keep and bear arms. He is a Life Member of the NRA and has earned an NRA A+ rating.
Gay Marriage: Gingrich believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same-sex marriage is “a temporary aberration that will dissipate.” (Yahoo)
Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

2012 voter guide: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum recently gained notoriety as the second place winner of the Iowa caucuses. Santorum is a lawyer and former U.S. Senator representing Pennsylvania. Read a full biography of Santorum by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: ricksantorum.com

Supporting PAC: Red, White and Blue Fund (rwbfund.com)

Ga. website: fundly.com/georgiaforsantorum

Taxes: Rick Santorum would simplify personal income taxes by establishing two lower rates: 10 and 28 percent. He would reduce corporate taxes to 17.5 percent (from 35 percent) and eliminate the tax on repatriated income. He would eliminate the death tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Santorum would also increase a variety of tax credits and deductions.

Economy: Santorum would repeal all Obama-era legislation that costs more than $100 million to implement. He also promises to negotiate five free trade agreements in his first year. Santorum favors tort reform and would approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Santorum also supports an audit of the Federal Reserve and a return to its original charter in which its sole purpose is to manage inflation.

Obamacare: Santorum would repeal Obamacare. He favors health savings accounts and giving Americans the option to purchase low cost, high deductible major medical plans. He would like to increase competition to lower costs, along with allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines. He would give a tax credit for health insurance premiums paid by individuals. Santorum would enact tort reform to cut costs and give Medicare block grants to the states.

Energy: Santorum opposes cap-and-trade and believes that ethanol subsidies should be phased out. He believes that the U.S. needs an “all of the above energy policy that utilizes oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy.” He would remove government roadblocks to domestic oil exploration. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Life: Santorum opposes abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and human cloning. He supports stem cell research that uses non-controversial methods and does not destroy human embryos. He supports religious freedom and opposes discrimination on the basis of opposition to abortion.

Iran: Santorum would support the Iranian democracy movement and work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, using military force if necessary. He would use sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the Iranian regime. He would work to implement a missile defense system and defend against an EMP attack. He would also put pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah and recall the U.S. ambassador to Syria.

Immigration: Santorum supports comprehensive immigration reform including a border fence and eliminating benefits to illegal immigrants. He does believe that immigrants already in the U.S. must be dealt with separately. Santorum would make English the official U.S. language. (thepoliticalguide.com)

National Security: Santorum favors a missile defense system and protection against EMP attacks. He opposes cuts to the defense budget, but would work to eliminate waste. He cites the need to have U.S. bases around the world in order to fight the War on Terror. While in the Senate, Santorum had a pro-military voting record. (ontheissues.org)

Spending: Santorum would cut $5 trillion in five years and immediately cut non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels. He favors a balanced budget amendment that would cap spending at 18 percent of GDP. He would cut the federal workforce by 10 percent and freeze non-defense salaries for four years. He would reduce foreign aid and his website specifies a number of government programs and subsidies that he would cut or eliminate.

Entitlements: Santorum favors the Paul Ryan plan to reform Medicare while preserving current benefits for seniors. He would reform Social Security to put the program on a sustainable path. He would use block grants to empower the states to find more efficient Medicare and welfare solutions.

Second Amendment: Santorum is a supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms and has received high ratings from the NRA and other gun groups.

Gay Marriage: Santorum is a supporter of traditional marriage. He also authored the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” to ensure individuals of all faiths could not be discriminated against while on the job.

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-rick-santorum

2012 voter guide: Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts. He was the head of Bain Capital, an investment firm that bought troubled companies, and also managed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. Read a full biography of Romney by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: mittromney.com

Supporting PAC: restoreourfuture.com

Ga. website: gaformitt.com

2008 Ga. results: 30.2 percent/third place (RCP)

Latest 2012 Ga. poll: 15 percent/second place (RCP)

Taxes: Mitt Romney would maintain current tax rates on personal income and capital gains. He would eliminate the death, capital gains, interest and dividend taxes for taxpayers with an AGI of under $200,000. He would reduce corporate tax rates to 25 percent (from 35 percent currently) and push for a complete overhaul of the tax system.

Obamacare: Romney favors a repeal of Obamacare.

Energy: Romney would amend regulation to allow expedited approval of resource development projects, including nuclear plants. He would open America’s energy reserves for development, including shale oil and gas. Romney supports the construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the U.S. Romney believes that the government should not be involved in “steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches,” but should limit its funding to basic research.

Life: Romney’s website does not address abortion or other life issues. He is formerly pro-abortion, but says that he had come to believe abortion was immoral before his first presidential run in 2008. His record on abortion is mixed. Romneycare, the Massachusetts health plan, covers abortion, but it did not do so in the original legislation. In a veto message regarding an emergency contraception bill, Romney cited his belief that life begins at fertilization and his support for parental consent laws. (aboutmittromney.com, prolifeprofiles.com, Factcheck.org)

Iran: Mitt Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he would back up American diplomacy with a “very real and very credible military option.” He states explicitly that he will act with U.S. allies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Immigration: Romney supports the right of states to restrict illegal immigration. He would veto the DREAM Act and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports secure borders. (Fox News)

National Security: Romney believes that military spending should be increased to four percent of GDP and would increase the active duty work force by 10,000. He would pursue military, nonmilitary and diplomatic avenues against the jihadists. He believes that the FBI should have the power to wiretap mosques and investigate suspected domestic terrorists. He regrets not having served in the military. (boston.com, 2012.republican-candidates.org)

Spending: Mitt Romney believes that “we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in.” He would end deficit spending and work toward a balanced budget. He would have the federal government publish a balance sheet each year.

Entitlements: Mitt Romney would reform entitlements as a path toward balancing the federal budget. Romney will not cut benefits for current retirees.

Second Amendment: Romney supported gun control while governor of Massachusetts. He became a life member of the NRA in 2007. He now opposes a nationwide “assault weapons” ban and supports the second amendment as an individual right. (thepoliticalguide.com)

Gay marriage: Mitt Romney opposes gay marriage, but has stated his opposition to discrimination against homosexuals in the past. (LA Times)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-mitt-romney

2012 voter guide: Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a Republican representative from Texas in his third presidential run. He is a medical doctor who has a private practice as an obstetrician. Read a full biography of Ron Paul by the Atlanta Elections Examiner here.

Campaign website: ronpaul2012.com

Supporting PAC: revolutionpac.com

Georgia website: ga4ronpaul.com

Georgia 2008 results: 2.9 percent/fourth place (Real Clear Politics)

Latest 2012 Georgia poll results: 5.0 percent/third place (Real Clear Politics)

Taxes: Paul supports a constitutional amendment to end the income and death taxes. He would also repeal the capital gains tax. He supports a flat tax or the Fair Tax as a replacement for the current tax system. He believes that a zero percent tax rate can be achieved with cuts in spending. Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve and establish a new gold standard.

Obamacare: Ron Paul would repeal Obamacare and enact a tax credit for health insurance premiums and medical expenses. He would allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Paul favors health savings accounts and tort reform. He opposes a taxpayer-funded national database of health records and the government “interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.”

Energy: Ron Paul opposes federal interference in the energy markets and cap-and-trade. He would repeal the federal gasoline tax and ease government restrictions on coal and nuclear power. Paul would create tax credits for alternative fuel technologies.

Life: Paul would pass a “We the People Act” to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the states. Paul would pass a “Sanctity of Life Act” that would define life as beginning at conception. He opposes taxpayer funding of abortion.

Iran: Ron Paul does not believe that Iran threatens U.S. national security (ABC News).

Immigration: Ron Paul supports secure borders, while opposing amnesty and REAL ID laws. He supports an end to birthright citizenship and opposes government benefits for illegal immigrants.

National Security: Ron Paul opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would avoid future nation-building. He opposes the PATRIOT Act and would end all foreign aid. Paul would “revitalize” the military by eliminating waste in the military budget.

Spending: Ron Paul would refuse to raise the debt ceiling, forcing Congress to live within its means. Paul has proposed $1 trillion in spending cuts. He would eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. He would also abolish the TSA, return most spending to 2006 levels, and cut ten percent of the federal workforce. Paul would take a salary equal to that of the average American in lieu of the president’s current salary of $400,000. (Yahoo)

Entitlements: Ron Paul points out that “entitlements are not rights.” (Washington Post)

Second Amendment: Ron Paul believes that the second amendment is the “guardian of every other right.” He would repeal the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. He would end U.S. membership in the U.N. “to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called ‘Small Arms Treaty.’”

Gay marriage: Paul opposes federal efforts to redefine marriage, but opposes a federal marriage amendment. Paul voted to end Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell. (Yahoo)

Where possible, the positions of the candidate were taken from the campaign websites cited above. When this was not possible, the source of the information presented is cited in parentheses and linked.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/2012-voter-guide-ron-paul