Columnist.
Throughout the presidential campaign, Republican candidates pointed to the number of food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious. The study's authors, George Mason University's David Armor and Sonia Sousa, argue that the food stamp program can no longer be regarded as an anti-poverty program because nearly half of its recipients are above the poverty line, many of them substantially so. And other anti-poverty programs have an even higher percentage of the non-poor among their recipients.
The old adage "be careful what you wish for" is an apt reminder in light of this week's news that the U.S. birthrate has dropped to its lowest level on record. For years, population hysterics have tried to convince Americans to aim not just for zero population growth in the U.S. but its complete reversal. Many of the groups pushing this view have also been in the forefront of the anti-immigration movement -- NumbersUSA, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Negative Population Growth (NPG). They don't like immigrants -- even legal ones -- because immigrants, especially Hispanic immigrants, traditionally have had higher birth rates than the native born. But the new report from the Pew Research Center suggests that even among Hispanic immigrants, birth rates are falling quickly. So why is this a problem?
Two weeks after the election, conservatives are still asking why Mitt Romney lost. That, however, is the wrong first question argues Charles R. Kesler in his new book "I am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism." We cannot fully understand Romney's defeat, implies Kelser, until we first understand why conservatives have lost the majority of policy battles over the past 100 years. Despite having won their share of Presidential elections, conservatives have not slowed the advance of the welfare state. Political pundits have blamed Romney's defeat on everything from Hurricane Sandy to inept get-out-the vote efforts, but the problem goes deeper. If conservatives are to get back on track, says Kesler, they must look to first principles, to the political philosophy, often invisible, that ultimately drives public policy. Kesler who is the editor of the influential Claremont Review of Books, shows how Woodrow Wilson and the early twentieth century Progressives silently overturned the principles of the American Founding. Kesler then traces out the liberal policies that logically, even inevitably, followed and are a major part of the contemporary liberal agenda.
There may be no single, simple explanation why Mitt Romney lost the election this week -- but clearly the perception that the GOP is anti-Hispanic didn't help. For years, I've been warning my fellow conservatives that their position on immigration would be costly, not just politically but for the economy as well. The election results definitively proved the former. The Hispanic vote was decisive in denying Romney a win in Colorado, Nevada, Florida and possibly Virginia. Without winning more Hispanic votes, the Republican Party may be doomed to permanent minority status. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in the country. As a group they are younger, have slightly higher birthrates and greater longevity than other groups (80.6 years compared to 78.1 years for non-Hispanic whites), which means the demographic shifts to more Hispanic and fewer non-Hispanic white voters will only increase over time, even if all immigration were halted today.
A few weeks ago, I wouldn't have made this prediction, but with only days to go before the election, I'm confident Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States. My conviction has as much to do with my faith in the American people as it does my belief in Gov. Romney. Don't get me wrong, I think Gov. Romney is exactly what we need to get the economy out of the mess it's in and will make a very good president. But what I'm really counting on Election Day is the common sense of Americans to recognize they made a bad bargain in 2008. Barack Obama promised Hope and Change in 2008. Now he wants us to look Forward in 2012, which is just another way of saying 'don't look back on what I've accomplished -- or failed to -- in my first term.'
The final debate between President Obama and Gov. Romney won't likely change the course of the election with barely more than a week to go, but one sticking point in the debate -- U.S. policy toward Iran -- could well change hopes for peace in the world. Although the president touted economic sanctions against Iran as the best way to stop the rogue nation from its quest for nuclear weapons, he has, from the onset of his 2008 campaign, put great faith in his own power to negotiate a solution with the mullahs. In 2008, he famously said that he would sit down with the likes of Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Of course, the talks never happened -- but not because President Obama wasn't willing. Castro is incapacitated, Kim is dead, and the mullahs who actually control Iran weren't interested. As a result, Iran is four years closer to nuclear weapons.
President Obama gave a vigorous defense during this week's presidential debate of his handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- but his answer could come back to haunt him. The natural instinct of most Americans is to rally round the president when they feel the country is under attack. But if they believe that the president has tried to mislead them, that support will dissipate quickly. Monday night's presidential debate could be that turning point. In Tuesday's debate, President Obama said that the day after the Benghazi attack -- in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were slaughtered -- he immediately labeled the attack as "an act of terror." When challenged by Gov. Romney on the accuracy of that description, moderator Candy Crowley interjected herself into the debate, validating the president's claims.
The Supreme Court this week took up a case that just might put an end to race-based college admissions. The justices heard arguments Wednesday involving an affirmative action program, at the University of Texas, whose whole purpose seems to be to give special preference to black and Hispanic applicants who come from middle-income and affluent homes. Long past are the days when affirmative action proponents could argue they were simply trying to help disadvantaged minorities, much less actual victims of discrimination. Now, the rallying cry is simply to bolster the number of black and Hispanic students on campus -- even if it means denying admission to better-qualified white and Asian students who also happen to be more economically disadvantaged than the favored minorities.
Who was that stiff, out-of-touch guy onstage in Denver at this week's presidential debate? He looked a lot like Barack Obama -- but how could that be? It was as if the candidates swapped bodies before they went out onstage. The president became the Mitt Romney caricature the Obama campaign has created through millions of dollars of advertising: an elitist who has no idea what the middle class is going through. And Mitt Romney became the great communicator who understands the suffering and anxiety of ordinary Americans and knows how to relieve it. There is no question that Mitt Romney won the debate on points -- his answers were crisp and coherent, while Obama's were slow, rambling and too much in the policy weeds to resonate with most listeners. But the bigger problem for Obama was his manner. He couldn't look Romney in the eye, spent more time looking down than he did trying to connect with the audience and looked annoyed at having to answer questions.
Some prominent Republicans, including Mitt Romney, have recently signaled their willingness to consider legal immigration reform -- but it's not clear they understand the magnitude of the problem or the proper solution. Romney told a Univision audience that he supported immigration reform and told a group of Latino elected officials that he'd "staple a green card" to the diploma of every immigrant who earned an advanced degree. Even stalwart immigration foe Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) seemed willing to consider the idea of more visas for highly skilled graduates in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). But the need for more highly skilled workers is only a small part of our immigration problem -- and even in this area, Republicans still appear to be appeasing immigration restriction groups rather than considering what's good for the country.
The narrative of the Romney campaign as portrayed by most major media last week has been one of a tone-deaf, elitist candidate. In a presidential race as tight as this one -- the Gallup daily tracking poll Thursday showed the candidates tied at 47 percent -- the media potentially can tip the balance for or against a candidate in a decisive way. Most outlets ran with the stories suggesting Romney was describing 47 percent of American voters as government-dependent slackers who pay no taxes. In fact, Romney suggested nothing of the sort. The videotape of Romney's remarks received publicity after James Earl Carter IV -- grandson of former president Jimmy Carter -- promoted the tape through the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. It turns out, the version of the tape available via Mother Jones was edited, with important sections left out.
Children in Chicago may soon be back in school, if members of the 26,000-member Chicago Federation of Teachers vote to accept a new contract whose details at this writing are still being finalized. But are there any winners in this confrontation in the nation's third-largest school district with some 350,000 students? It has been 25 years since Chicago teachers walked the picket line -- and their decision to do so this time runs counter to a nationwide trend toward fewer strikes by unionized teachers. The decision was all the more surprising given who sits on the other side of the bargaining table: former Obama White House Chief of Staff and now Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney travelled to New Mexico this week in search of the state's 5 electoral votes, but he has a significant hurdle to overcome. The latest Rasmussen poll numbers in the state show Romney trailing the president by 14 percent. Romney began his campaign in Hobbs, New Mexico, by talking about his energy plan. It's good politics to talk about energy in the West, where the energy business provides lots of job and economic growth. But Romney's problem in the state has little to do with energy and much to do with demographics. Romney has, so far, largely ignored the elephant in the room: the large Hispanic population in the state. New Mexico boasts the largest proportion of Hispanics of any state. A large majority of New Mexican Hispanics are native-born U.S. citizens. Hispanics in NM have a long history of political involvement from the state's founding to the present and make up almost 40 percent of eligible voters. What's more, NM voters have elected several Republican Hispanics, including current Gov. Susanna Martinez.
Many conservatives reject President Obama's recent policy to defer action against illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children. But as a conservative who supports the president's decision, I think it's important to seriously engage the arguments both for and against the policy. First, let me explain what the Obama program does and does not do. It explicitly does not grant legal status to any group, even those who came illegally as infants or children. Those who are eligible for deferred action are given no path to permanent residency or to citizenship. They are not eligible for government assistance programs that bar other illegal immigrants.
As an American, I am proud of Olympic Gold medalist Claressa Shields' feat in women's boxing at the Olympics -- but as a woman who has suffered traumatic brain injury, I am deeply concerned that her win will encourage other young women to pursue this dangerous, potentially life-altering sport. There is no question that repeated blows to the head cause changes in the brain -- even when the head is protected by gear meant to soften the blows. The NFL has come under fire recently because of the link between football-incurred concussions and greatly increased risk of Alzheimer's and other cognitive and memory problems.
The president of the AFL-CIO is worried that President Obama is doing poorly among white, working class, male voters -- and he plans on putting 400,000 of his troops in the field in six key states to change the equation. Recent polls show the president doing poorly with white males with less than a college education. Mitt Romney leads the president among white males voters by more than 2-to-1 in a recent Washington Post poll, with the president favored by only 28 percent of this demographic group. Other polls show similar results. Republicans have won a majority of white males' votes in most recent elections; but the president has slipped significantly among this cohort from his last race. In 2008, Obama carried 39 percent of white male votes.
Senate Democrats passed a so-called middle class tax cut this week on a mostly partisan vote, but the move was more political theater than tax legislation. For months, the Democrats, with President Obama leading the charge, have hammered home that they want to preserve lower tax rates for those Americans earning less than $250,000 a year and help pay for lost federal revenues by making wealthier individuals pay higher taxes. But, in fact, even if the bill were to become law -- which it won't -- most middle class taxpayers will see their taxes go up come January unless Congress gets serious about real tax reform. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says the bill is unconstitutional -- and, on its face, he appears to be right. Article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." The House is scheduled to vote on its own tax bill next week, but the Republican-controlled House is likely to pass an across-the-board extension of existing tax rates, and compromise between the two chambers appears unlikely.
For a group of 4,000 Iranian refugees currently living in Iraq, a United Nations report this week could prove crucial in determining whether they will live as virtual prisoners in the desert or be able to build new lives in freedom elsewhere. The refugees are members of a controversial Iranian dissident group, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalk (MEK), which is currently listed on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list. That listing itself is controversial. The United Kingdom, the European Union and a number of other nations have removed the group from their lists of terrorist organizations, and the U.S. may soon be forced to do so as well. A successful suit by the MEK resulted in a recent order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit requiring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton either to delist the group or produce evidence that the organization remains a current and credible threat to American interests. But until the issue is resolved, the fate of the MEK members living in Iraq remains precarious.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has now issued his final report on the scandal at Penn State University, but the question remains: How could so many decent people fail to act when presented with an eyewitness account of sexual abuse of a child? Jerry Sandusky, assistant coach at Penn State for 32 years, was convicted in June of 45 counts of child sex abuse. For at least 15 years, Sandusky used his position at Penn State to prey on victims, setting up a charitable foundation that recruited at-risk boys, many of whom he would abuse on campus and on team road trips as well as at his home. But Sandusky's colleagues and supervisors turned a blind eye to what should have been suspicious behavior. Worse, they did nothing to try to protect the actual victims when a then-graduate assistant in the program, Mike McQueary, told them he'd seen Sandusky abusing a child in a campus locker room. In the Freeh report's words, university officials demonstrated "total disregard for the safety and welfare of the victims."
For all the talk of incivility in the Nation's capital, the last week has restored my faith in the basic decency of the people who live there. Although the storm that hit Washington and the surrounding area June 29 has not received as much national attention as hurricanes, tornados, and other natural disasters usually do, the human toll has been high. In the Washington metro area alone, five people died in the storm and more than 20 have died subsequently from the heat, as hundreds of thousands suffered days without electrical power. But through it all, most people have behaved admirably. The storm, known as a derecho, came without warning. Winds as high as 90 miles per hour ripped through the suburbs, felling trees and downing power lines. Lightning lit up the skies in a nonstop show of Nature's fury, as water lashed against buildings and anyone unlucky enough to get caught outside unawares. The city and suburbs went dark -- and stayed that way for hours, even days. Tens of thousands in the area still do not have power.
