Guess Which Abortion Provider Is Still Being Funded During the Shutdown

The government shutdown has reached the one-week mark and there has been much discussion of what services are not available and which government workers are not getting paid, but one organization has been overlooked. Despite years of Republican efforts aimed at defunding the abortion provider, even shutting down nonessential government services doesn’t appear to have cut off the group from its government money.

The reason that Planned Parenthood continues to get federal checks when air traffic controllers, park rangers, and members of the Coast Guard do not is that most of Planned Parenthood’s federal money comes through the Medicaid program. As with most of the federal entitlement programs, Medicaid money continues to flow during the shutdown. Kaiser Health News reports that Medicare and Medicaid are already funded through the second quarter. That would take the health programs through the end of March.

There are some aspects of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding that could be interrupted by the shutdown. In addition to Medicaid, the group is a major recipient of Title X family planning grants. According to the group’s website, Planned Parenthood serves 1.5 million of the approximately 4 million Title X patients. The Title X grants make up about 19 percent of revenue for participating clinics. These grants could quickly expire in a protracted shutdown.

Defunding Planned Parenthood wasn’t the goal of the current government shutdown, but it would have been a nice added benefit, especially since Democrats don’t seem any more inclined to deal on the wall than they were a week ago. However, even if all federal money dried up, it wouldn’t totally bankrupt the group. Planned Parenthood gets about a third of its funding from the government and the rest from private donations.   

For years now, Republicans have embraced a number of quixotic goals such as defunding Planned Parenthood, repealing Obamacare, and building a border wall. They have also embraced government shutdowns as a tactic in achieving several of these goals. Obamacare survived a shutdown in 2013 that also left Planned Parenthood funding intact. This year it appears that the wall will not be funded but that Planned Parenthood will.

Perhaps it is time for Republicans to find a new strategy.

Originally published on The Resurgent

What If They Shut Down The Government And No One Cared?

As the government shutdown stretches toward a week with no end in sight, most Americans seem unaffected and possibly even unaware that nonessential government services are shut down. Unlike previous shutdowns, there is little media coverage of closed parks and offices or furloughed federal workers. Even more odd, there seems to be little interest from either side in reaching an agreement to reopen the government.

The shutdown officially began at midnight on Friday, Dec. 21 and negotiations stalled almost immediately as members of Congress left on their Christmas break. Both Houses are reconvening today, but the two parties seem further apart on an agreement than they were last week, chiefly because President Trump is insisting on the apparently arbitrary number of $5 billion for wall funding.

Rather than working towards a deal, the two sides are pointing fingers at each other. Democrat leaders accuse President Trump of using “scare tactics” in attempt to build support for his pet wall project while the president tweeted, “The Democrats now own the shutdown” shortly after talks in Congress failed on Dec. 21 and said, “Nancy is calling the shots” on Dec. 26.

The president’s accusations that Democrats are to blame stand in stark contrast to his statements a few weeks ago. In a televised brouhaha with Pelosi and Schumer earlier this month, Trump boasted, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So, I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.”

In fact, the evidence points towards Trump being responsible for the shutdown. The Senate passed a compromise temporary spending bill that would have funded the government until Feb. 8, but the House responded with its own bill that included money for the wall. The House bill could not win cloture in the Senate and President Trump refused to sign any bill without wall funding, threatening to veto the Senate compromise. Republicans in both chambers have said that there will be no more votes until there is an overall agreement that the president will sign.

“I’ve made my position very clear: Any measure that funds the government must include border security,” Trump said last week.

Democrats have offered $1.3 billion for border security that does not include funding for the wall. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly promised that Mexico would pay for the wall.

At this point, neither side seems to have any incentive to give in. If the shutdown extends into the next Congress, which convenes at noon on Jan. 3, the new Democrat majority in the House will give them a stronger bargaining position. On the other hand, Trump knows that if he ends the current shutdown without wall funding, he is extremely unlikely to receive the money next year from the Democrat-controlled House.

Through all the political theater, Americans have collectively yawned and turned back toward their holiday celebrations. The shutdown has not affected air travel during the busy holiday season and the Post Office, which is independent of the federal government and funded by revenue from its services, has stayed open to deliver packages and Christmas cards. The topsy-turvy stock market and President Trump’s post-Christmas trip to Iraq have also provided distractions.

The shutdown has primarily affected nonessential federal employees and contractors. Military personnel – with the notable exception of the Coast Guard – continue to get paid during the shutdown. Some federal workers such as air traffic controllers are expected to work without getting paid during the shutdown. National parks may be technically open but without most of the members of their staffs.

A sign at the entrance to the Antietam National Battlefield warned visitors, “Park visitors are advised to use extreme caution if choosing to enter a (National Park Service) property, as NPS personnel will not be available to provide guidance, assistance, maintenance, or emergency response. Any entry onto NPS property during this period of federal government shutdown is at the visitor’s sole risk.”

Even if people at home don’t care about the shutdown, the Stars and Stripes pointed out that it has far-reaching effects around the world. The US government employs people around the world. Like American federal employees, essential workers will probably get back pay when the shutdown ends, but other nonessential employees and contractors may not. US government services such as the US Geological Survey are not operating due to the shutdown. This meant that the respected agency could not provide data on the recent Indonesian tsunami. The shutdown also means that embassies are not providing many services to Americans and others abroad. One of the biggest effects of the shutdown is the loss of prestige to the US constitutional system.  

Contrary to popular belief, government shutdowns don’t save taxpayer money. Shutdowns are more expensive than keeping the government open. Revenue from museums and parks is lost and federal employees spend thousands of hours preparing for shutdowns and then reopening the government. This work includes shutting down systems and securing facilities that will be unmanned. Most workers receive back pay when the government reopens even if they were furloughed and told to stay home during the shutdown. The added cost of shutting down the government typically adds up to tens of millions of dollars per day.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the government shutdown is how much of the federal government is not subject to congressional appropriations. The largest part of federal spending, which includes most military spending and entitlements, is essentially on autopilot.

President Trump said on Wednesday that the shutdown would last as long it took to secure funding for the wall, telling reporters in Iraq, “Whatever it takes, we're going to have a wall, we're going to have safety. We need safety for our country.”

But as I wrote earlier this month, there is no clear path to victory in the shutdown strategy. Getting wall funding is contingent on getting a bill past the Democrat filibuster in the Senate. So far, there are no signs that any Senate Democrats are about to break ranks and vote for cloture on the president’s bill. That means that there is no end in sight for the shutdown. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Erratic Trump Drives Erratic Markets

Once a bright spot of the Trump presidency, the stock market is continuing in an extended rout that began earlier this year after reaching a high in early October. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin attempted to shore up the market with a phone call to bank executives over the weekend, but federal reassurances did little to calm jittery investors in trading on Monday.

Secretary Mnuchin announced in a tweet Sunday night that he had spoken with the CEOs of America’s six largest banks: Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. In an attempt to reassure investors that may have had the opposite effect, a Treasury statement attached to the tweet said that the “CEOs confirmed that they have ample liquidity available for lending” and that none “have experienced any clearance or margin issues and that markets continue to function properly.”

Per the statement, Mnuchin said, “We continue to see strong economic growth in the US economy with robust activity from consumers and business. With the government shutdown, Treasury will have critical employees to maintain its core operations.”

While the US economy seems to be working well, the same cannot be said of the US government. Nonessential government services are closed in a shutdown that may last well into the new year because the two parties cannot agree on how much to increase spending for the wall. The president’s unilaterally declared trade war is adding unnecessary costs to American business and consumer spending. The world watches as many of the most experienced and stable members of the Trump Administration exit the White House. In a number of cases, the departures are explicitly tied to President Trump’s capricious leadership.

President Trump sees the situation differently. In a tweet, the president said, “The only problem our economy has is the Fed.” Trump argued that the Fed does not understand “necessary Trade Wars or Strong Dollars or even Democrat Shutdowns over Borders.”

“The Fed is like a powerful golfer who can’t score because he has no touch,” the president added, “he can’t putt!”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1077231267559755776

While it’s true that the Fed has been raising interest rates this year, it’s also true that the move was long overdue. The Fed kept rates near zero during the apostle-recession years of the Obama Administration, which penalized savers and investors. Increases to interest rates now are a sign that the Federal Reserve views the economy as healthy.

Is it any wonder that investors are nervous?

With Monday’s close, the S&P 500 followed the NASDAQ into official bear market territory. The half-day of holiday trading left the S&P 2.7 percent lower for the day at 2,351. This is more than 20 percent lower than its previous intraday peak and defines the onset of a bear market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 650 points, losing 2.9 percent of its value, but technically remained clear of bear status. Today’s session was the worst-ever Christmas Eve for the Dow.

While many fundamentals of the US economy remain strong, President Trump and Secretary Mnuchin are missing the point. Investors are concerned precisely because the Trump economic policy includes massive taxes on trade in the form of tariffs and trade wars, because the government is stalemated and incapable of solving even simple problems, and because President Trump’s style of governance thrives on chaos and instability, the very things that markets abhor.

In fact, rumors are beginning to appear that Mr. Trump will attempt to force the removal of his latest whipping boy, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. It is Donald Trump and his lack of coherent policy that is driving markets lower, not some concern about bank liquidity.

“Until this weekend, markets were not that concerned about liquidity or clearance issues,” WinThin, global head of currency strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman told the Financial Times. “At best, Mnuchin made a rookie policy mistake in trying to reassure markets; at worst, Mnuchin knows something that the markets don’t.”

The bottom line is that the Trump Administration cannot protect the markets from the president. Trump’s erratic behavior is translating into erratic markets. With two years to go in President Trump’s term and the senior members of the White House daycare staff hitting the exits, hopes for change seem far away.

The best gifts that Donald Trump could give to the nation this Christmas to end the trade wars, fund the government, and stay off Twitter. Unfortunately, the likelihood of these events is about the same as having Santa rappel down the White House chimney tonight.

  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Retreat On Wall Funding And Bump Stock Ban May Cause Cracks In Trump's Base

Donald Trump boasted during the 2016 campaign that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters.” Until now that has been true. No matter what Trump has done or what revelations have come out his supporters have stuck with him. This week may have been the breaking point for some Trump supporters, however.

Core Trump supporters have a few issues that rise above all others. For many, guns and immigration top the list and this week saw President Trump take positions on both issues that are unpopular with many members of his base.

First, Trump, who many supporters lauded as a fighter, surrendered to Democrats on a temporary funding bill for the government. As recently as last week, Trump had vowed not to sign a new spending bill that did not include $5 billion in funding for his border wall. On Tuesday, however, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders retreated from that position, telling reporters, “At the end of the day, we don’t want to shut down the government. We want to shut down the border.”

Trump supporters almost universally support the border wall, even to the point of launching a GoFundMe campaign that has so far raised $1 million for the project. Many were also strongly in favor of a government shutdown over funding for the wall. The White House acquiesence to a temporary funding measure will be viewed as a defeat by many members of the base.

Even worse for Trump is the long-awaited bump stock ban. The Second Amendment is considered untouchable by many Trump supporters and conservatives yet President Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to outlaw the rapid-fire devices and require Americans who own them to either turn them in or destroy them within 90 days. There is no provision for compensating bump stock owners for their devices which could cost hundreds of dollars. Worse, the ATF under President Obama told Congress that the government did not have the authority under current law to ban the devices.

The Trump Administration’s ban has brought criticism from many Second Amendment supporters. Jerry Henry, executive director of Georgia Carry, told the Atlanta Journal, “When you start banning accessories to firearms, then you really get on a slippery slope. It doesn’t change the function of the firearm, and therefore it shouldn’t be banned.”

“It is nibbling away at our second amendment rights,” Janelle Westrom, owner of Davenport Guns, told Iowa’s TV-6. “I don't like the decision but, myself personally, it doesn't affect me,” she added.

“I don't care about bump stocks,” tweeted Sean Davis, Trump supporter and a founder of The Federalist, “but I care a great deal about lawless government power grabs, based on utter lies, that will instantly turn innocent people who did nothing wrong into felons and be used to justify nationwide confiscation regimes.”

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1075451049731870721

Davis also noted in a separate tweet, “Under the new rule, an individual who illegally brings a loaded rifle into an elementary school will get a shorter maximum prison sentence (5 years) than a woman who has a bump stock in her garage but doesn't own any actual guns (10 years).”

On the other hand, some people do support the bump stock ban. “I have to agree with the ban,” Geoff Wilson of Hendersonville, N.C. told WLOS TV.. “Turn them in, get rid of them. And like I said, I’m a full supporter of the Second Amendment.”

Another supporter of the ban is Mary Margaret Oliver, a Democrat state representative who introduced a similar bill in the Georgia General Assembly earlier this year. Rep. Oliver’s bill went nowhere but she told the AJC, “I’m delighted that I can say that President Trump did something that makes me happy.”

While some Trump supporters will rally around the president and deny that the bump stock ban is an infringement of the Second Amendment and an unconstitutional overreach of executive authority, for others Trump’s moves will be a breach of trust. Where Trump’s past statements in support of gun control can be overlooked by many, the bump stock ban initiated by the president without getting anything in exchange cannot be explained away as a bargaining ploy or mere rhetoric.

Trump’s support won’t evaporate overnight but this week may mark a turning point with his base. Issuing an ultimatum on wall funding to Democrats and then backing down smacks of weakness while the bump stock ban calls into question Trump’s core principles. Supporters who have not doubted the president up to this point may now start to do so. Trump’s base won’t vote Democrat but they may stay home. This may be the president’s Fifth Avenue moment.

Originally published on The Resurgent

With No Wall Funding, Trump Retreats On Shutdown Threat

After issuing an ultimatum to Democratic leaders last week, President Trump is backing down on his threat to shut down the government if Congress does not approve funding for his border wall project. Yesterday the White House suggested that the president was willing to reverse his position that any funding measure must include $5 billion for the border wall and today Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appears ready to move forward on a measure that would fund the government through February 8. Without a deal, nonessential government operations would shut down on December 21.

On Tuesday, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told Fox News, “We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion” and would “work with Congress” to that end. Sanders said that the Trump Administration could support the $1.6 billion on border security funding proposed by Democrats and that the president would seek to “couple that with other funding resources” to reach the $5 billion target.

“At the end of the day, we don’t want to shut down the government,” Sanders said. “We want to shut down the border.”

This marks a reversal from last week when President Trump boasted to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), “I am proud to shut down the government for border security because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So, I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.”

The White House retreat comes amid a turbulent week for the Trump Administration. The Dow fell more than 500 points on Monday and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warned that investors should prepare for the worst. At the same time, Trump called his former attorney Michael Cohen “a rat” on Twitter and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn continues to cooperate with federal investigators. Mr. Trump’s charity, The Trump Foundation, is also being shut down amid allegations of corruption by the New York Attorney General.  

The wall was a core promise of President Trump’s campaign but funding for the project has so far proved elusive. Even though Republicans control both houses of Congress, Democrats have enough seats to filibuster bills that fund the wall. The problem will become even worse for the president next year when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives.  Given Democrats’ strong opposition to the wall, it seems unlikely that the president’s promise will ever be fulfilled.

The good news is that Democrats have indicated that they don’t oppose border security in principle, they just oppose the wall. By holding them to this position, the Trump Administration might be able to negotiate funds to secure the border by other methods that would be even more effective and less expensive than a wall. These methods would include virtual walls of sensors, more Border Patrol officers, and fencing in certain areas. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

President Trump: All I Want For Christmas Is A Government Shutdown

Americans must have been naughty this year because it looks as if one of their early Christmas gifts may be a government shutdown, courtesy of President Trump, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). After a contentious Oval Office meeting on Tuesday, there seems little chance of agreement on a stop-gap measure to fund the government through the holidays. Unless a funding bill is passed, the government will shut down on Dec. 21.

In the televised meeting, the president repeatedly emphasized the need for border security that specifically includes a wall and threatened to shut the government down in order to get it. Pelosi and Schumer repeatedly said that they were seeking a compromise that would keep the government open.

“I am proud to shut down the government for border security,” President Trump stated as the discussion became heated, “because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So, I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.”

Leaving aside that the Democrats do make valid points (a phrase I seldom have to type) about the cost, practicality, and effectiveness of the wall, the president’s embrace of the shutdown strategy is a losing proposition. Although government shutdowns play well with the Republican base, they seldom achieve their policy objectives and usually end in an abject surrender often by Republicans who normally are shutting the government down because they lack votes.

Government shutdowns call to mind the Underpants Gnomes of “SouthPark.” The Gnomes famously described their business plan as follows:

Phase 1: Collect underpants

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit

In the case of government shutdowns, the plan seems similar:

Phase 1: Shut down the government

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Victory

Like the Underpants Gnomes, shutdown advocates focus on Phase 1 and Phase 3 while the vital details of the all-important Phase 2 remain sketchy. In fact, no one has ever been able to give me a reasonable explanation of Phase 2.

When it comes to passing legislation, the Constitution is specific about the process. Those of us who came of age in the ‘80s learned about it between Saturday morning cartoons with a Schoolhouse Rock short called, “I’m Just a Bill.” The abridged version is that any bill, including Trump’s border wall funding proposal, has to be passed by both houses of Congress.

The rub for the current Congress is a detail not mentioned by Schoolhouse Rock, the filibuster and cloture votes. Even though Republicans control both houses of Congress until the new Congress convenes in January, their slim majority in the Senate means that they don’t have enough votes for cloture.

Senate rules require a cloture vote to end debate on any bill. This modern, “gentlemen’s” filibuster requires 60 votes to advance a bill to a floor vote in the Senate. In practical terms, that means that Republicans need a minimum of nine Democrats to vote for cloture and end a filibuster.

What does this have to do with government shutdowns? Everything. The only way to pass a bill is to have the required number of votes. If Republicans can’t get Democrats to cross the aisle then the wall funding bill won’t pass, shutdown or no shutdown.

The problem for President Trump is that shutting down the government does nothing to entice Democrats to vote for the wall. If President Trump leads Republicans into a shutdown over wall funding, my prediction is that Republicans will eventually surrender and agree to reopen the open the government after a few days or weeks of wrangling.

This is what happened in 2013 when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) led Republicans to shut down the government over Obamacare. The shutdown lasted 16 days during which Republican approval ratings plummeted to their lowest level in history (up to that point anyway). Republicans surrendered and agreed to a deal to reopen the government and increase the debt limit. The Affordable Care Act survives to this day. The shutdown cost taxpayers $24 billion.

The shoe was on the other foot earlier this year when Democrats shut down the government in hopes of forcing an immigration deal that would legalize Dreamers. In this case, Democrats were the ones lacking the votes and they eventually had to give in.

The bottom line is that whichever party enters a shutdown without the votes they need is going to exit the shutdown without the votes that they need. There are only two ways to change votes in Congress: compromises and elections. Shutdowns just force both sides to dig in deeper. Both parties lose in public opinion. The other big loser is taxpayers who foot the bill for all the political drama. Contrary to popular belief, shutdowns cost more than keeping the government open.  

President Trump wants border security in the form of a wall, but he won’t get it from a shutdown. His best bet would be to embrace his status as an artist of deal-making and present Democrats with an offer too good to refuse. That’s what he promised in the campaign and what voters sent him to Washington to do. Pressing ahead to a government shutdown is setting himself and his party up for failure.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Will Democrats Shut Down the Government?

Another year, another looming government shutdown.

This year it is Democrats who are threatening to shut down the government to block funding for President Trump’s border wall. Fresh from their victory in blocking reform of the Affordable Care Act, Democrats say that they will filibuster the annual appropriations bill if it includes money for construction of the wall. The bill must pass before April 28 to avoid a shutdown.

“I thought we were going to get a check from Mexico,” Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said in Politico. He added that the wall will “accomplish nothing. That’s $30 billion that can’t go into cancer research, diabetes research and veterans care.”

In recent memory, it has been Republicans who have threatened to shut the government down. The most recent example in 2013 followed several shutdowns during the Clinton Administration. While Democrats have been guilty of fomenting shutdowns, we must look all the way back to 1990 for the last example of a Democratic Congress shutting down the government under a Republican president.

While government shutdowns are not uncommon, they also are not popular with voters. Virtually every poll that asks about a government shutdown shows the voting public overwhelmingly opposed to and angry at the prospect. While shutdowns can be popular among the partisan base, most voters want the parties to work together for the good of the country.

When the Republicans shut down the government for 16 days in 2013, they not only failed to achieve their goal of defunding Obamacare, they also saw the party’s approval rating fall to a historic low. A year later, Obamacare’s skyrocketing increases in health insurance premiums and chronic problems with registration on exchange websites saved Republicans from an electoral drubbing. They weren’t so lucky in 1996 when Republican-led shutdowns arguably cost Bob Dole the presidency and ushered in a second term for Bill Clinton.

If Democrats haven’t learned from past shutdowns, Republican leaders apparently have. “We're not going to have a government shutdown,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) said on CBS last month. “The president doesn't want to have a government shutdown.”

Ryan suggested that the battle over appropriations for the wall could be delayed until next year since plans for the wall have not been finalized. “The big chunk of money for the wall, really, is...next fiscal year’s appropriations because they literally can’t start construction even this quickly,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agreed, saying on Fox News that he was “very confident” that a shutdown could be avoided and argued that the Democrats had the most to lose from a potential shutdown. “I would advise President Trump: ‘Don't worry about them sticking that label on you. Congress owns the government shutdown brand,’” McConnell said. “There's no incentive, frankly, for either side to go to the brink.”

Republicans say they intend to keep controversial items out of the appropriations bill. Funding for the wall will be delayed and a measure defunding Planned Parenthood is likely to be inserted into the budget reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered. This may mean that Democrats are left with no hot button issues to demonize in the appropriations bill.

Nevertheless, Democrats in the past have shown a propensity for overreach. Overconfidence after the health care battle and an irrational emotional response to the mere existence of the Trump Administration could lead Democrats into a shutdown battle over nothing.

With President Trump’s approval rating at 35 percent in a recent Quinnipiac poll, Democrats would run the risk of blowback from a shutdown. The strategy might make the president more popular at their own expense. A maxim attributed to Napoleon is, “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.” Democrats would be smart to follow the French emperor’s advice. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Marco Rubio: The most conservative candidate who can win

MarcoRubio.com

I entered the 2016 election season without a favorite candidate. I kept an open mind and examined all the potential nominees, but as the first round of primaries draws near, the best nominee for the Republican Party has become clear.

I like many of the Republicans running this year. In fact, that has been a big problem. There are too many. One of my initial favorites, Scott Walker, never caught on. In part this was due to the overcrowded field. In part, the Wisconsin governor just wasn’t ready for the national stage and foreign policy questions.

Even though candidates like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina are appealing, I am leery of untested candidates in such an important election. Running for president is immensely challenging and candidates who have never run a campaign (or, in Ms. Fiorina’s case, won a campaign) would be at a large disadvantage against the Clinton political machine. Two candidates that I liked from previous elections, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, simply did not catch on this cycle.

The man who defunded Obamacare

In the end, one of my early favorites became a strong contender and is one of the top three candidates as the primaries begin. I believe that Marco Rubio is the candidate that, as William F. Buckley put it, is the most conservative candidate who can win.

Many conservatives and Tea Party members have objections to Rubio. He has been charged with being a RINO and a squish. These charges are not supported by fact. The Heritage Foundation scorecard rates Rubio at 94 percent, well above the Republican average of 60 percent. The American Conservative Union rates Rubio at 96 percent. Investor’s Business Daily notes that this is identical to Rand Paul’s score and only four points behind Ted Cruz. Other scorecards compiled by various interest groups show Rubio to be strong conservative on fiscal, social and national security issues.

Even though he has only been in the Senate for six years, Rubio has an impressive list of accomplishments. He has become a strong voice for freedom and human rights. He coauthored a tax reform plan with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) that would lower tax rates and simplify taxes by replacing the current system with only two tax brackets.

Rubio’s most important accomplishment was pushing through the legislation that may ultimately kill Obamacare. In December 2015, Rubio was successful in including a measure to defund Obamacare’s risk corridors, i.e. insurance company bailouts, in the omnibus spending bill. The measure passed and the results can be seen as insurance companies withdraw from Obamacare amid huge losses.

In moving this measure forward, Rubio showed an understanding of how to accomplish a conservative agenda in a divided government. Grandstanding, ultimatums and brinksmanship are counterproductive. Reaching across the aisle to build a coalition to get a majority of votes can yield large victories.

Further, Rubio has already been the subject of millions of dollars of attack ads by PACs supporting Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush. Rubio has absorbed the attacks and emerged as a strong contender in spite of the onslaught.

Rubio’s imperfections

This is not to say that Rubio is perfect. Most conservative criticisms of Rubio center around two issues. First, Rubio was part of the “Gang of Eight” senators who attempted to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013. For his participation, Rubio has been labeled as a supporter of amnesty. This charge also does not stand up to scrutiny.

To make this charge, opponents of the bill must literally redefine the word “amnesty” to mean any immigration reform that does not deport all illegal aliens. In reality, Merriam-Webster defines “amnesty” as “a decision that a group of people will not be punished or that a group of prisoners will be allowed to go free” or “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Amnesty is a pardon, which is “an act of officially saying that someone who was judged to be guilty of a crime will be allowed to go free and will not be punished” or “forgiveness for something.”

The Gang of Eight bill did punish illegals, therefore, by definition, it cannot be amnesty. A Washington Post article explained that the Gang of Eight bill required illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 fine and back taxes in order to become legal. This was predicated on triggers for the border security portions of the bill. Since the bill contained punishment for illegals, it cannot be an amnesty.

Second and more troubling is Senator Rubio’s support for the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA). This is a bipartisan bill that addresses sexual violence on campus. CASA has been criticized by many conservatives as eliminating due process for people accused of rape on college campuses. My examination of the bill doesn’t turn up any evidence that it eliminates due process. It would be unconstitutional if it did. Nevertheless, it doesn’t solve the very real problem of presumption of guilt on many college campuses. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education provides a summary of the bill. CASA has not been passed nor should it be in its current form. Nevertheless, nothing in it should be disqualifying for Rubio.

A unity candidate

On the plus side of the ledger, Rubio is the candidate most likely to unite both the Republican Party and the country. A recent poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found that Rubio had higher acceptability among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents than either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Rubio also had the smallest number of Republicans who viewed him as unacceptable.

Polling has also shown Rubio as the only Republican candidate who consistently beats Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, but, as I pointed out a few weeks ago, national polling is meaningless in a presidential election. Presidential elections are a series of 50 state elections and one election in the Electoral College. To win, any Republican must win four states that President Obama won twice. These states are Florida, Ohio and Virginia plus another state such as Colorado or Iowa. In addition, the Republicans must hold on to North Carolina, which was won by Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Of the three leading Republican candidates, Rubio is most likely to shift these swing states to the GOP.

His advantage in Florida is most obvious. Rubio would have a home field advantage in this swing state, but his position on immigration also gives him an important advantage over both Cruz and Trump. Rubio’s experience as majority leader and speaker of the Florida House of Representatives gives him a connection to Florida voters and experience in leadership and government that the other candidates lack.

Demographics and immigration

Pew Research points out that Hispanic voters will likely make up a historically large percentage of the electorate in 2016. In Florida, more than 18 percent of voters will be Hispanic. In Colorado, the number is more than 14 percent. This matters because Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have alienated themselves to many Hispanic and minority voters with their hard line on immigration.

In Virginia, more than 10 percent of the population is made up of immigrants according to The Commonwealth Institute. In Ohio, four percent of the population is foreign born and about half of these are naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote according to The American Immigration Council. Trump and Cruz’s rhetoric on immigration and anchor babies will hurt them in these must-win states where vote margins will be razor thin.

Last August, Gallup found that Donald Trump had a net disapproval rating of 51 percent among Hispanics. This means that the difference between the disapproval and approval was 51 points. Ted Cruz scored better, but still had a net disapproval of seven points. Neither candidate has moderated their view on immigration in the heated primary so both are likely to be even less popular among Hispanic voters now than they were five months ago.

The candidate who scored best was Jeb Bush with an 11 point approval margin. Marco Rubio was second with five points. For reference, Hillary Clinton had a net approval of 40 points.

Some conservatives say that Republicans cannot win Hispanics. This has also been proven false. In his 2013 reelection campaign, Chris Christie won 51 percent of Hispanics according to Pew’s exit polls. Even in a national election, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics in 2004 according to CNN exit polling. A Republican doesn’t have to win Hispanics outright, but they have to do better than John McCain’s 31 percent or Mitt Romney’s 27 percent.

In 2012, the Hispanics made up 10 percent of voters. In 2016, that number is likely to increase. Republicans cannot afford to nominate candidates who are alienating 10 percent of voters. This is especially true since black voters, 13 percent of the electorate in 2012, already flock to the Democrats almost unanimously.

Leaving demographics aside, Trump and Cruz would still have problems in the swing states because their harsh stance against legalization for illegal immigrants is at odds with public opinion. In August 2015, Gallup found that 66 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship while only 14 percent want all illegals deported. Fifty percent of Republicans support a path citizenship as do 77 percent of Hispanics. These numbers are consistent with other polls and long-term trends.

Opposition to deportation is likely to be significant in swing states, making it even more difficult for Republican candidates like Trump and Cruz to win there. Supporting deportation might win the Republican nomination, but it will lose the general election and possibly poison the well with Hispanics for decades to come.

The flawed frontrunners

Finally, Trump and Cruz have other negatives that Rubio does not. The two frontrunners share several similar traits. They both tend to make enemies rather than build coalitions, which will make victory in the general election difficult. Both have a strategy of dividing the Republican Party and hoping to lead the larger faction. Both demagogue other members of their party for their own benefit. Both have squared off against immigration reform and put themselves against the clear majority of voters in doing so. Finally, both Cruz and Trump are essentially showmen. They engage in political theater for the benefit of their supporters, but have little in the way of actual accomplishments.

Trump, in particular, is problematic for conservatives. He has a long record of supporting liberal causes and candidates and has admitted to using his money and influence to gain favorable treatment from politicians of both parties. While Trump claims to have converted to a conservative mindset, there is little evidence other than his own words that he has done so. Like Obama in 2008, Trump is a blank slate on most issues. He allows supporters to project on him their belief of what he is for while rarely taking a firm stand on any issue.

Gallup polling shows that people are familiar with Trump, but that they do not like him. He is not only the most disliked Republican, he is less favored that Hillary Clinton by more than 20 points. Such an approval deficit would be very difficult to overcome.

With Cruz, the case is more difficult. He is also not well liked by most voters outside the GOP, but has more room for improvement. I have trouble supporting Cruz for several reasons in addition to his support for deportation and his unpopularity with general election voters.

First, Cruz has reputation as being a principled conservative, but, in reality, has a long record of flip-flopping on important issues. Cruz has changed his mind on several areas of immigration including legalization, legal immigration visas, and deportation of nonviolent illegals. On all these issues, he has moved in the wrong direction for the general election. Cruz has also moved from nonintervention in Syria to supporting “carpet bombing” of ISIS (although it isn’t clear that he understood what the term meant), supporting other anti-Jihadist factions and possibly using ground troops. Cruz reversed himself on both Trade Promotion Authority (fast track negotiating authority) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Cruz has also been inconsistent on national security issues such as NSA surveillance.

Second, Cruz’s time in the Senate has been replete with strategic errors and shows little actual accomplishment. He is most known for his spectacular failure with the government shutdown in 2013 in which his strategy caused approval of the Republican Party to plummet to a record low, but his antics also allowed lame duck majority leader Senator Harry Reid to approve a number of filibustered Obama judicial appointees in December 2014. His 2013 filibuster was all for show. He had arranged the speech with Harry Reid in advance and surrendered the floor so that the vote went along as scheduled. Cruz has returned to his shutdown strategy time and again while trying to prevent an increase to the debt ceiling or to prevent passage of the omnibus spending bill in 2015. Cruz seems not to realize or care that Republicans do not have the votes to force their will on President Obama and the Democrats.

Cruz’s problems have made him one of the most unpopular Republicans in the caucus. At this point, Ted Cruz does not have a single endorsement from a sitting senator, the people he works with every day. It seems that the people who know his work best do not think that he is presidential material. The lack of endorsements from Washington politicians is deemed a good thing by some, but in reality it says a lot about Cruz’s inability to build coalitions and turn his platform into law. Either Cruz is wrong or every other Republican senator is wrong.

Contrast Cruz’s endorsements with Rubio’s. Marco Rubio is endorsed by a long list of conservative elected officials. This includes four sitting senators as well as Joni Ernst, the freshman senator from Iowa, who stumped for Rubio without making an official endorsement. Rubio is also endorsed by such stalwart conservative congressmen as Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Darrell Issa (R-CA).

The conservative solution

Emerging from a crowded field, Marco Rubio is the most qualified candidate who can unite the Republican Party in the primary and then win the general election by a large enough margin to create an unquestionable conservative mandate. In 2016, as Republicans attempt to undo the damage of eight years of Obama, eking out a victory by a slim margin is not enough. Democrat liberalism must be thoroughly and soundly rejected.

After eight years of Barack Obama, Republicans have one chance to get it right. If we nominate a conservative candidate who can win then we will have an opportunity to roll back Obama’s policies and begin to repair the damage of the last decade. If we nominate a candidate who cannot win, not only will Obama’s legacy be locked in by a Democratic president but we may lose congressional majorities and the ability to block the next Democratic agenda that may well include nominating Barack Obama to the Supreme Court.

Choose wisely, America.

Lessons Republicans should learn from the government shutdown

The Republican Party suffered another humiliating defeat at the hands of Barack Obama yesterday. The Republicans essentially got nothing in the deal to end the government shutdown and were barely able to keep the spending caps of the sequestration, one of their few victories, in place.

The past few weeks have seen Republican approval plummet to record lows in several polls including those by Gallup and NBC News/Wall Street Journal. A new Pew poll released Oct. 16 shows that Tea Party support among Republicans has fallen by nine points since June. Independents disapprove of the Tea Party by a 19 point margin. GOP supporters feel betrayed by the deal. Reactions range from anger at “RINOs” or the Tea Party to resignation that the Republican Party is totally ineffective and unworthy of support.

While there is very little upside to the debacle in the short term for Republicans, it does provide them with a few hard lessons to learn. If the GOP can take these lessons to heart, it may eventually save itself and the turn the country around in the process.

Lesson 1. Check your math. The inevitability of defeat in the defund battle could be summed up in the mathematical expression 45<55. Forty-five Republican senators are less than 55 Democratic senators. The Republican will always lose in the Senate unless they can sway Democrats to vote with them. In the defund battle, there was little, if any, effort expended on pressuring red state Democrats to join the Republicans.

It does not matter if the Republicans are standing for principle. It does not matter how courageous they are. In an election, math trumps everything. The only way to win is to change the math. Subtract votes from the Democrats and add them to the Republicans.

Dividing the party into “RINOs” and Tea Partiers is counter-productive. Neither faction can win without the other. Division only subtracts from the Republican votes and gives the Democrats a larger majority.

Lesson 2. Pick your battles. The Republicans are a minority party. They cannot take on the majority party head-to-head and win. Even if every RINO and every Tea Partier is united in the cause, 45 is still less than 55 (see lesson 1.)

Republicans should take a lesson from General George Washington. Rather than wasting time and resources on a head-to-head battle that has no chance of success and will likely destroy their force, Republicans should fight smaller battles when they have a reasonable chance of winning.

In the early days of the American Revolution, Gen. George Washington faced the world’s most powerful army with a ragtag band of militia. Washington did not march his men straight into the British cannons. Rather, he acted to preserve his army and made strategic withdrawals when the conditions were unfavorable. His most famous retreat came in August 1776 during the Battle of Long Island in which a fog that many attribute to divine intervention saved the Continental Army.

Washington picked his battles and attacked when conditions were favorable. A few months later on Christmas Day 1776, he made his famous crossing of the Delaware to surprise the British at Trenton. As Washington grew stronger and received reinforcements from the French, he was able to fight the British more directly. It was only after the Americans outnumbered the British that they were able to surround them and force their surrender at Yorktown.

If the Republicans had chosen to make a stand over congressional exemptions or the mounting federal debt rather than over defunding Obamacare, the results might have been different. While only a slight majority disapproves of Obamacare, a staggering 94 percent of voters in an Independent Women’s Voice poll opposed the exemption. Likewise, 61 percent told Gallup that the federal budget deficit worried them “a great deal.” These are bipartisan issues where the Democrats would be vulnerable to a “flank attack.” The Democrats would be forced to vote with the Republicans or go on record against strong public opinion.

Lesson 3. Pay attention to polls. Polls should not be used to determine your principles, but they are invaluable in determining a strategy. As Examiner reported in September, a poll commissioned by Republican congressmen themselves found that 71 percent of Americans opposed shutting down the government to fight Obamacare. Scores of other polls gave the same warning.

While Republicans claimed to be fighting for what the people wanted, they were instead ignoring the people’s mandate to keep the government opening. As a result, they paid dearly in terms of public approval.

Lesson 4. When your enemy is about to destroy himself, don’t stop him. The rollout of the Obamacare exchanges was an unmitigated disaster. Even worse for the Democrats, high premiums across much of the country challenge the underlying economic assumptions behind the law.

Fortunately for the Democrats, much of the country was distracted by news coverage of the government shutdown. If the Republicans had simply stood by as President Obama’s signature law imploded, they might have improved their chances of winning the Senate in 2014. Instead, generic congressional ballots, which had been tied before the shutdown, uniformly shifted toward the Democrats according to the Real Clear Politics roundup of polls.

Lesson 6. Think long term. The Constitution requires a majority to pass laws. The Republicans are a minority. Therefore, their focus should be on becoming a majority (see Lesson 1.)

Long term Republican success depends on appealing to moderates as well as the party’s base. Gallup’s most recent party identification poll gives Republicans 20 percent and Democrats 30 percent. Forty-seven percent of the electorate is independent. The party makeup in the states is similar. Neither party can win without winning independents. It is these moderate voters who decide elections.

A successful Republican strategy will appeal to both the party’s base and the country’s moderates. A politician or a party that cannot appeal to both the base and moderates is what is known as a loser.

Thinking long term also includes having an endgame or a Plan B. When the initial Republican demand for defunding Obamacare was rejected, the Republicans seemed totally unprepared. The party was trapped with no way out. With approval ratings falling fast, the Democrats could have demanded almost anything to reopen government and the Republicans would have had no choice but to take the deal or let Obama lead the nation into a default for which the GOP would surely take the blame.

It would have been wiser to have positions to fall back to when the initial demand failed. These strategic withdrawals should have been accompanied a common message that focused on what the Democrats were doing to harm the American people, not what other Republicans were doing to harm the party.

Lesson 7. Perception is political reality. Communication shapes perceptions. President Obama and the Democrats refused to negotiate, but the public perception was that Republicans wanted the shutdown so they took the lion’s share of the blame.

While Republicans dithered and squabbled, Daniel Henninger notes that Team Obama launched a withering assault of tweets to complement friendly news coverage. The Democrats never strayed from their message that “Tea Party Republicans” were threatening to destroy the economy. Without a coordinated response from the Republicans, Obama’s message became the defining story of the shutdown. Republicans must learn to use the social media to counter Democratic propaganda in both the mainstream media and the twitterverse.

By focusing on the long-term and uniting with disaffected moderates against President Obama and the Democrats, the Republicans still have a chance to make a comeback before next year’s midterm elections. A strong showing could change the equation in the Senate (Lesson 1). The structure of the races favors Republican gains in the Senate, but a strategy of tilting at windmills is likely to result in yet another missed opportunity.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Shutdown may threaten GOP House majority

A new poll released Oct. 10 shows that the government shutdown has had a devastating impact on the Republican Party. The NBC News/Wall St. Journal poll found public approval of the Republican Party at historic lows.

The new poll found that 24 percent approved of the Republicans while 53 percent disapproved. Approval for the GOP has fallen eight points since June. The high point for the Republicans was in December 2001 with 57 percent approval. Tea Party approval declined to 21 percent from 26 percent in June. This also represents a historic low. The Tea Party’s highest approval was in June 2010 with 34 percent.

The poll found Democratic approval at 39 percent with 40 percent disapproval. Democratic approval numbers were unchanged since June. President Obama’s approval stands at 47 percent, which is identical to his approval rating in June. Obama’s high was in February 2009 and his low was in 2006. The high for the Democrats was in 2000 and their low was in 2006.

The poll found that Republicans were blamed for the government shutdown by a 22 point margin over President Obama (53-31 percent). Forty-six percent consider the shutdown extremely serious even though 68 percent had not been directly affected.

A strong majority, 70 percent, believe that Republicans are putting their political agenda ahead of what is good for the country. Fifty-one percent believe the same of President Obama.

In another disturbing trend for Republicans, the poll showed a drop in the preference for Republicans in Congress. In the poll, voters preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress by 47-39 percent. For much of the past year, the two parties have been deadlocked in the poll for congressional preference. Currently, 70 percent disapprove of the Republicans in Congress while 59 percent approve of the Democrats.

These trends show clearly that the Republican Party is taking the brunt of the blame for the government shutdown. As Examiner reported previously, the makeup of Senate races in 2014 gives the GOP an edge, but plummeting approval ratings from the government shutdown may threaten Republican chances for a Senate takeover.

If the shutdown continues or the nation defaults, it might even become likely that the Republicans lose their majority in the House of Representatives in the next election. In 2012, House Democrats actually received more votes than House Republicans, but Republican advantages due to redistricting allowed them to retain the majority.

There were few winners in the poll. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), the Republican senator who pushed the strategy of defunding Obamacare, gained slightly. Cruz’ approval rating now stands at 14 percent. His June approval was 10 percent.

Barack Obama is the biggest winner. At 47 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval, the president is the only figure or group with a higher approval than disapproval.

 

Originally published on Elections Examiner

The first fight of 2011

The federal debt clock in April 2008.  It is now over $14 trillion. (Jesper Rautell Balle)

Georgia’s congressional delegation became more Republican this year, partly on the promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.  Now, as the new congressional term begins, one of the first actions taken will likely be a vote in the House of Representatives for repeal.  This vote, however, will not mark the first real fight of 2011. 

The vote for repeal is likely to pass the Republican-held House, but its chances are far less certain in the Senate, which still has a Democratic majority.  Even if the bill passes the Senate, it would face an almost certain veto from President Obama.  Chances of convincing enough of the surviving Senate Democrats to vote for repeal can be found somewhere between slim and none.

Instead, the first real political fight of 2011 in which the Republicans have a chance to make a real difference and not just take a symbolic stance will likely come when the Democrats try to increase the federal debt limit.  The debt limit is the legal amount that the government is permitted to borrow.  It was most recently increased in May 2010 to a $14.3 trillion.

If the debt limit is not raised, often as part of a budget bill, the Democratic spending train will be stuck in the station.  The government will soon reach a point at which it can no longer legally borrow money.  In practical terms, this means that the government will be forced to cut spending.  Ironically, this is precisely what the Republicans were sent to Congress to do.

Failure to raise the debt limit would put the Obama Administration, and by extension the entire federal government, in a bind.  President Obama’s prescription for the economy has so far been to spend money.  So far, this has resulted in a stagnant economy with high unemployment and very slow growth.  Without being able to borrow to finance his programs, from implementing the new health care bureaucracies to stimulus spending, Republicans would be able to “starve the beast” and reverse the government growth of the last two years.

Keeping the current federal debt limit would also tie in with the Republican promise to enact “cut-go.”  The Democrats had enacted a “pay-go rule when they took Congress in 2006 that required new spending programs to be paid for, rather than financed through debt.  In reality, pay-go was waived so often as to be meaningless.  Pay-go also allowed programs to be financed through increased taxes, where cut-go will require new spending to be offset by spending cuts elsewhere.  If the Republicans hold to this promise, it will start to reverse the federal habit of deficit spending.

There are political risks to not raising the debt ceiling.  Most obvious is that the Democrats will attempt to finance new programs through raising taxes rather than through spending cuts.  Given the broad public support for the extension of the low Bush-era tax rates, this would likely be an unpopular move with most voters that would ultimately hurt the Democrats.

Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton faced a similar situation.

More likely is that the Republicans would provoke a confrontation with President Obama, in which the Democrats would seek to deduce deficit spending by cutting popular programs such as Medicare and Social Security.  They might also threaten a government shut-down of the sort that cost Republicans support in the Clinton era.  Whether it would play out the same, given the voter anger at Democratic policies and spending, is an open question.

Republicans have the advantage in this looming battle.  A strong showing at the polls last November that sent additional Republicans, including Georgia’s new Representative Austin Scott, to Congress is fresh in Democratic minds.  This gives the Republicans a momentum that they have already used to block December’s omnibus spending bill and pass the compromise that extended the Bush-era tax cuts until 2012 and reduced the revived death tax.

Closely related to this fact is that Senate Democrats are very vulnerable in 2012.  In the next election, 23 Democratic senators will be up for re-election compared to only 10 Republicans.  Many of these Democrats will face tough re-election battles.  Given the current climate of voter anger at federal spending and the growth of government, many Democratic incumbents will not want to go on record with votes supporting more federal debt and spending, let alone tax increases.

More importantly, the house of Congress that is now controlled by the Republicans is the House of Representatives.  According to the Constitution, all spending bills must originate in the House.  This means that Republicans will have control over the federal budget.  Of course, the GOP budgets will still have to pass the Democratic Senate and survive an Obama veto.

In the final tally, an important part of the battle will be played by the Tea Party and other citizen activists.  If voters remain engaged and angry, it will place pressure on both parties to change the status quo in Washington.  In particular, it will keep the pressure on Republicans who campaigned and won on promises to reduce wasteful deficit spending and stop the rampant intrusion of government power into private life.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-debt-ceiling-will-spark-2011-s-first-fight">