Elizabeth Warren Lands On National “Pinocchios” List For 2015

BOSTON — Even as she neglects Massachusetts by spending more and more time on the campaign trail in other states, Elizabeth Warren still manages to put the Commonwealth on the map – though not in the best of ways. Embarrassingly for Massachusetts, our senior senator saw one of her biggest lies of the year land on the Washington Post’s “Biggest Pinocchios” list of 2015.

Washington Post names Elizabeth Warren one of its ‘biggest Pinocchios of 2015’

At the end of every year, veteran journalist Glenn Kessler, who runs the Washington Post’s political “Fact Checker” blog, releases his biggest Pinocchios of the year.

This is an honor, awarded to the highest degree of false claims, most politicians may like to avoid.

That said, congratulations Sen. Elizabeth Warren, you made the list!

The Massachusetts Democrat was given “Four Pinocchios” for a speech in April in which she cited a flawed study that estimated auto-dealer markups cost consumers $26 billion a year.

The 2011 study, conducted by the Center for Responsible Lending, only collected data on subprime auto loans, which accounted for only one-fifth of the overall market at the time. Pressed by Kessler, even the CRL’s senior vice president admitted the data was incomplete.

But the Pinocchio didn’t end there.

Though Warren said the $26 billion number represented “auto dealer markups,” the figure also included “compensation for dealers who arranged the loans for car buyers”—compensation for additional services to the customer, rather than a “markup.”

“But besides citing a faulty number, Warren misleadingly says it represents ‘auto dealer markups,’” Kessler wrote. “The group that produced the report said that figure includes reasonable compensation owed to car dealers.”

 

Polls around the Country

Real Clear Politics

Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus DMR/Bloomberg Cruz 31, Trump 21, Carson 13, Rubio 10, Bush 6, Paul 3, Christie 3, Huckabee 3, Fiorina 1, Kasich 2, Santorum 1, Graham 0, Pataki 0 Cruz +10
President Obama Job Approval Gallup Approve 44, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +7
Friday, December 11
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary WBUR/MassINC Trump 27, Rubio 11, Christie 12, Cruz 10, Kasich 7, Bush 8, Carson 6, Fiorina 3, Paul 2, Huckabee 1, Graham 0, Santorum 0, Pataki 0 Trump +15
Georgia Republican Presidential Primary WSB/Landmark Trump 43, Carson 7, Cruz 16, Rubio 11, Bush 5, Fiorina 2, Christie, Huckabee 2, Kasich 2, Paul 1, Graham, Jindal, Santorum, Pataki Trump +27
President Obama Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 47, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +5
Thursday, December 10
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Trump 35, Cruz 16, Carson 13, Rubio 9, Bush 3, Christie 3, Paul 4, Kasich 3, Fiorina 1, Huckabee 3, Santorum 0, Pataki 0, Graham 0 Trump +19
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination CBS/NY Times Clinton 52, Sanders 32, O’Malley 2 Clinton +20
Public Approval of Health Care Law CBS/NY Times For/Favor 40, Against/Oppose 52 Against/Oppose +12
President Obama Job Approval CBS/NY Times Approve 44, Disapprove 48 Disapprove +4
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Winthrop Trump 24, Carson 14, Cruz 16, Rubio 11, Bush 9, Fiorina 2, Graham 2, Huckabee 2, Kasich 1, Paul 1, Christie 1, Santorum 0, Pataki 0 Trump +8
President Obama Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 41, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +12
Congressional Job Approval CBS/NY Times Approve 15, Disapprove 74 Disapprove +59
Direction of Country CBS/NY Times Right Direction 24, Wrong Track 68 Wrong Track +44
Direction of Country Reuters/Ipsos Right Direction 24, Wrong Track 66 Wrong Track +42
Wednesday, December 9
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary CNN/WMUR Sanders 50, Clinton 40, O’Malley 1 Sanders +10
South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary FOX News Clinton 65, Sanders 21, O’Malley 3 Clinton +44
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary FOX News Trump 35, Carson 15, Cruz 14, Rubio 14, Bush 5, Fiorina 1, Graham 2, Huckabee 1, Kasich 1, Paul 2, Christie 2, Santorum 1, Pataki 0 Trump +20
North Carolina Senate – Burr vs. Ross PPP (D) Burr 46, Ross 35 Burr +11
North Carolina Governor – McCrory vs. Cooper PPP (D) McCrory 44, Cooper 42 McCrory +2
President Obama Job Approval The Economist/YouGov Approve 42, Disapprove 56 Disapprove +14
Congressional Job Approval The Economist/YouGov Approve 10, Disapprove 67 Disapprove +57
Direction of Country The Economist/YouGov Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 67 Wrong Track +42
Tuesday, December 8
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary CNN/WMUR Trump 32, Rubio 14, Christie 9, Cruz 6, Kasich 7, Bush 8, Carson 5, Fiorina 5, Paul 2, Huckabee 1, Graham 1, Santorum 0, Pataki 0 Trump +18
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination USA Today/Suffolk Trump 27, Cruz 17, Carson 10, Rubio 16, Bush 4, Christie 2, Paul 2, Kasich 2, Fiorina 1, Huckabee 1, Santorum 1, Pataki 0, Graham 0 Trump +10
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 56, Sanders 29, O’Malley 4 Clinton +27
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Monmouth Clinton 55, Sanders 33, O’Malley 6 Clinton +22
North Carolina Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D) Trump 33, Carson 14, Cruz 16, Rubio 14, Bush 5, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Huckabee 2, Kasich 3, Paul 2, Graham 1, Santorum 1 Trump +17
North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary PPP (D) Clinton 60, Sanders 21, O’Malley 10 Clinton +39
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 48, Trump 44 Clinton +4
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 47, Cruz 45 Clinton +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Rubio 48, Clinton 45 Rubio +3
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Carson 45, Clinton 46 Clinton +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 43, Trump 47 Trump +4
North Carolina: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 43, Cruz 47 Cruz +4
North Carolina: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Rubio 46, Clinton 42 Rubio +4
North Carolina: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Carson 47, Clinton 41 Carson +6
North Carolina: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 43, Bush 43 Tie
North Carolina: Trump vs. Sanders PPP (D) Trump 46, Sanders 44 Trump +2
North Carolina: Cruz vs. Sanders PPP (D) Cruz 44, Sanders 42 Cruz +2
North Carolina: Carson vs. Sanders PPP (D) Carson 46, Sanders 37 Carson +9
North Carolina: Bush vs. Sanders PPP (D) Bush 42, Sanders 39 Bush +3
Monday, December 7
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Monmouth Cruz 24, Trump 19, Carson 13, Rubio 17, Bush 6, Paul 4, Christie 2, Huckabee 2, Fiorina 3, Kasich 3, Santorum 1, Graham 0, Pataki 0 Cruz +5
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC Cruz 20, Trump 33, Carson 16, Rubio 11, Bush 4, Paul 3, Christie 2, Huckabee 2, Fiorina 3, Kasich 1, Santorum 1, Graham 0, Pataki 0 Trump +13
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC Clinton 54, Sanders 36, O’Malley 4 Clinton +18
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Trump 27, Cruz 13, Carson 15, Rubio 14, Bush 3, Christie 2, Paul 2, Kasich 2, Fiorina 3, Huckabee 2, Santorum 0, Pataki, Graham 0 Trump +12
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination IBD/TIPP Clinton 51, Sanders 33, O’Malley 1 Clinton +18
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Clinton 52, Trump 41 Clinton +11
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Clinton 51, Cruz 44 Clinton +7
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Rubio 45, Clinton 48 Clinton +3
General Election: Carson vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Carson 47, Clinton 48 Clinton +1
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist Clinton 49, Bush 45 Clinton +4
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Trump 41 Clinton +6
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Cruz 39 Clinton +8
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Rubio 43, Clinton 44 Clinton +1
New Hampshire: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 45, Carson 43 Clinton +2
New Hampshire: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Bush 41, Clinton 43 Clinton +2
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 49, Trump 40 Sanders +9
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 48, Cruz 38 Sanders +10
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 45, Rubio 41 Sanders +4
New Hampshire: Carson vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 46, Carson 41 Sanders +5
New Hampshire: Bush vs. Sanders PPP (D) Sanders 47, Bush 38 Sanders +9
New Hampshire Senate – Ayotte vs. Hassan PPP (D) Ayotte 42, Hassan 42 Tie
Direction of Country Rasmussen Reports Right Direction 25, Wrong Track 68 Wrong Track +43

 

 

A Message from Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House

images


Friend — This is a pivotal time in our nation’s history.

Americans firmly believe our country is headed down the wrong path, and we no longer see the promise for future generations that we once did.

It’s our responsibility in Congress to change that.

That’s why when I agreed to become the next Speaker of the House, I did it for the sole purpose of unifying our great nation and helping preserve it for our children.

Republicans in Congress can provide a vision to lead us towards a brighter tomorrow — but we need your help.

While House Republicans are hard at work trying to fix the many problems that plague our nation, we also need the grassroots support to maintain and grow our majority.

Will you chip in $20 right now to support and help grow our majority?

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have their eyes set on retaking the House and the Senate. If they’re able to do that, then our great nation will continue down the path of divisive politics and out-of-control spending.

We can’t allow that to happen.

Will you stand by our side and help us restore the America you and I remember?

Thank you for your support.

God Bless,

Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House

P.S. We are one year out from the most important election of our lifetime. Will you join me and chip in $20 to ensure we have the resources for a victory in 2016? Use this secure link to chip in:https://www.nrcc.org/paul-ryan/ 

How Reince Priebus is Responsible for the CNBC Debate Disaster

ReincePriebus

The facts speak for themselves.

A full understanding of the steps the Romney-led establishment took to punish the grassroots in 2012 is necessary to understand what has happened this cycle.  Conservative Review’s Steve Deace took a look at how the 2012 rules, the ones campaigns are now operating under, were adopted.

“Look closer at the rules and you’ll see this is tailor-made for Jeb Bush 2016,” he told me. “Under the new rules, which were driven down our throats by Bush family loyalist Ben Ginsberg and the establishment at the 2012 convention, states aren’t allowed to have ‘winner-take-all’ primaries until after March 15th. That means all those southern states that go prior to that will have to proportionally-allocate their delegates”

The rules were a direct result of the grassroots activism of the Liberty Movement, a small band of Ron Paul loyalists who ran for and won a significant portion of the delegates – bound by the rules to Romney – for the 2012 convention.  The Bushtablishment, lead by Ben Ginsberg, worked to have many of these Liberty Delegates deemed unqualified to be delegates, mainly due to the rule fight.

The rules, adopted at the 2012 convention, were what Ginsberg and Reince Priebus – who was the Party Chair at the time – wanted for gaining more control of the debates.  Rule 10(h), as adopted, governs the debate process.

(h) There shall be a Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates, which shall be composed of thirteen (13) members of the Republican National Committee, five (5) of whom shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and each of the four (4) regions shall elect two (2) members, one man and one woman, at its regional caucus at the RNC Summer Meeting in each even-numbered year in which no Presidential election is held. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall appoint the chairman of the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates from among the members thereof. The Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates shall have the authority to sanction debates on behalf of the Republican National Committee based on input from presidential campaigns and criteria which may include but are not limited to considerations of timing, frequency, format, media outlet, and the best interests of the Republican Party. Each debate sanctioned by the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates shall be known as a “Sanctioned Debate.” Any presidential candidate who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates.

The stage was set for Preibus to put in place the debate process he wanted.

As many media outlets have reported, the purpose of the RNC taking control of the debates was to avoid debate saturation, and give the RNC more control over the process. The penalty was harsh. If a campaign goes rogue, the candidate loses access to all future “sanctioned debates.”    The stage was set for Preibus to put in place the debate process he wanted.

At the 2013 Summer Meeting of the Republican National Committee, in Boston, Priebus sought and passed a resolution to ban CNN and NBC News from hosting any debates during the 2016 primary season.  The Hill reported at the time:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) voted unanimously Friday to pull the group’s partnership with NBC and CNN for the 2016 GOP presidential primary debates unless the networks kill their planned films on Hillary Clinton.

“We don’t have time for the media’s games,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said before the vote at the RNC summer meeting in Boston. “We’re done putting up with this nonsense. There are plenty of other news outlets.”

There was no larger “media game” than the most recent CNBC debate.

If Priebus aimed to squelch liberal bias, his pick to chair the Standing Committee on Debates is a real head-scratcher.  At the 2014 Summer Meeting of the Republican National Committee the members of the committee were elected by the four RNC regions and appointed by Chairman Priebus.  The minutes of that meeting record who made up the committee.

Chairman Priebus announced the newly elected and appointed members of the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates: Peggy Lambert (NCW Tennessee), Randy Evans NCM Georgia), Henry Barbour (NCM Mississippi), Mary Buestrin (NCW Wisconsin), Bob Bennett (NCM Ohio), Helen Van Etten (NCW Kansas), Solomon Yue (NCM Oregon), Jeff Kent (NCM Washington), Susan Hutchison (SC Washington), Juliana Bergeron (NCW New Hampshire), Ron Kaufman (NCM Massachusetts), Rob Gleason (SC Pennsylvania), and Committee Chairman Steve Duprey (NCM New Hampshire).

Priebus chose the Republican National Committeeman from New Hampshire, Steve Duprey, to chair the debate committee.   To say that Duprey is not a conservative would be generous.  Based on his affiliations, he is a full bore progressive.  Duprey is a donor to Planned Parenthood Action – note: not Planned Parenthood, but their political arm.

One of New Hampshire’s most prominent Republican activists and the state’s current national committeeman, Duprey apologized yesterday for showing up – however briefly or accidentally – at a local Planned Parenthood fundraiser last week.

The Globe article had referenced Duprey as an example of a pro-abortion rights Republican and reported that he had recently “attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser with the group’s national president.” That passing reference triggered criticism on social media and other local websites, including Granite Grok and Leaven For The Loaf, which focuses on anti-abortion issues.

Duprey “apologized” for attending the event saying he did not know it was for the Action Fund in advance.   The conservative New Hampshire blog succinctly summed the argument up, “one of New Hampshire’s National Republican Committeeman went to a Planned Parenthood Fundraiser to support abortions but didn’t know the event was actually for their political arm until after he got there?”

In addition to his support for Planned Parenthood, Duprey is on the board of a pro-Common Core coalition in New Hampshire. The Union Leader reported:

Several members of the group said education never used to be a political issue, but it has become one today.

“To the extent possible, we ought to avoid politicizing it (education) and instead make sure to maximize support for a great public education for all our kids,” said Concord developer and current Republican National Committeeman Steve Duprey.

Preibus chose for the debate committee, a pro-choice, pro-Common Core establishment Republican that donated to a group opposing Kelly Ayotte (F Liberty Score®) – for not being liberal enough.

This is the person that Priebus put in charge of approving a debate structure, that was supposed to counter the influence of biased liberal media.  Preibus chose for the debate committee, a pro-choice, pro-Common Core establishment Republican that donated to a group opposing Kelly Ayotte (F Liberty Score®) – for not being liberal enough.

Duprey was not the only person on the committee who was problematic.  Also on the committee is Ron Kaufman, a longtime Bushtablishment loyalist from Massachusetts.   Kaufman was instrumental, as a member of the Romney campaign team, in working with Ginsberg to strip the grassroots of delegates to the National Committee.  He engineered a tortuous process that required Massachusetts delegates to sign an affidavit, swearing under penalty of perjury to a Notary Public, that they would vote for Mitt Romney at the Convention.   Kaufman is no friend of the grassroots.

A former member of the Republican National Committee – who still regularly attends meetings – told Conservative Review that the remaining members were a mix of conservatives and moderates, but just about all were loyal to Chairman Priebus.

This brings us to January of 2015, and the Winter RNC Meeting held in San Diego, California.  At that meeting the standing committee on debates announced the debate schedule they had negotiated with media outlets.  The same former member of the RNC told CR that grassroots conservatives were shocked that the schedule was not put up for a vote of the full Republican National Committee.  It was just presented as is, and included – despite that 2013 vote – CNN and NBC News properties.

A current member of the RNC, who spoke to CR on the condition of anonymity, said that the entire process was conducted without the input of the full 168 member RNC.

The committee seemingly was just an approval arm for what Priebus, and Sean Spicer, a top level RNC staffer, wanted to have happen.  They wanted total control, and they got it.  All was seemingly going well for team RNC – until Colorado.

In the week leading up to the CNBC debate, conservatives warned the RNC that the debate moderators would be a problem.  Most notably, Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist who made the case – pre-debate- that “John Harwood has no business moderating” a Republican debate.  A case that CR Editor in Chief Mark Levin echoed.

The ensuing firestorm from the CNBC debate justified the concerns  of many about the RNC’s internal debate process and how Preibus and his team engineered it.

Priebus immediately went into damage control mode after the debate.  He said that CNBC “should be ashamed” of the way the debate was being conducted.   He didn’t take any responsibility for the debacle himself.

Then the Republican campaigns decided to get together last weekend to discuss sidestepping the RNC completely for future debates.  As a pre-emptive olive leaf towards the campaigns, Priebus last week suspended – not fired – NBC News from hosting a debate early next year.

The campaigns still met, and according to the Boston Globe have agreed on a series of demands of the RNC and its media allies before participating in future debates.  The meeting took place in a ballroom signed “family meeting,” which would make Michael Corleone proud of the power play.

Politico has reported that the campaigns are working with Ben Ginsberg – the man who helped author the rules by which the RNC controls the debates – to negotiate with the RNC and media outlets on the rules of future debates.  Ginsberg has circulated a draft letter which outlines areas campaigns want addressed before agreeing to any future debate after the November 10th Fox Business debate.

Another development from the weekend, is that Sean Spicer has been removed by Priebus from coordinating future debates.   This seemingly helps to prove RNC member concerns that the standing committee was there as a defacto rubber stamp. The Washington Post reported:

Priebus has elevated Sean Cairncross, the chief operating officer of the RNC and its former chief counsel, to be the GOP’s new lead debate negotiator and organizer.

The move effectively gives the debate responsibilities currently held by Sean Spicer, the RNC’s chief strategist and spokesman, to Cairncross. Spicer, a confidant of Priebus, will remain in his role but will work in a supplementary position when it comes to arranging the debates.

Bowing to the concerns of the campaign, Priebus took decision making authority away from the person he made responsible for the debate process.

When Priebus tries to deflect blame for the debate process, it is helpful to remember that he engineered the current process and ultimately wanted more control. Given the results of recent debates, most particularly CNBC, the road to the CNBC disaster stops at Preibus.

Written by Robert Eno: Eno is the Director of Research for Conservative Review and also is a Contributor. He is a conservative from deep blue Massachusetts but now lives in Greenville, SC.  He is also a fill in radio host and appears on television.  Follow him @robeno and feel free to email him at reno@conservativereview.com

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/how-reince-preibus-paved-the-way-for-the-cnbc-debate-disaster?utm_source=RMG+Main+List&utm_campaign=9a0ae3329e-Kaufman11_2_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4adf49b94b-9a0ae3329e-26423673#sthash.fHiH5H4W.dpuf

Opinion: Refugee Resettlement

 

October 1, 2015
For Immediate Release
Contact:  Stephen Miller, 202.224.4124
 
Sessions Expresses Severe Concern Following Admin Refugee Testimony
 
“The testimony provided today only further erodes my confidence in our ability to vet Syrian refugees or to control the extraordinary expense imposed on taxpayers…
 
The responsible and compassionate course for the United States is to help assist in the placement of refugees as close to their homes as possible…Encouraging millions to abandon their homes in the Middle East only further destabilizes the region, while imposing enormous costs on an American public that is struggling with low pay, rising crime, high deficits, and overstretched community resources.”
 
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, issued the following statement today after the conclusion of the oversight hearing on the Administration’s planned refugee resettlement surge:
 
“Today the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest conducted an oversight hearing with four Administration officials responsible for administering America’s refugee programs.  The testimony provided today only further erodes my confidence in our ability to vet Syrian refugees or to control the extraordinary expense imposed on taxpayers.  The following facts were established conclusively:
 
·       We do not have access to any Syrian government database to learn the backgrounds of these refugee applicants.
·       We do not have adequate resources or records and will not conduct any meaningful investigation of each of the thousands of applicants.
·       The administration approves over 90 percent of all Syrian refugee applications.
·       We have no capacity to determine the likelihood that Islamist refugees, once admitted to the United States, will become involved with terrorist activity.
·       We are already struggling with a huge problem of prior Islamist refugees seeking to take up arms with terrorists, and we have every expectation that the Administration’s current refugee plans will exacerbate that problem.
·       It is not a probability, but a certainty, that among the more than 1 million migrants from Muslim countries we will admit over the next decade, a number will already be radicalized or radicalize after their entrance into the U.S.
·       With respect to cost, the $1.2 billion budget for refugee placement is only a minute fraction of the total expense, and does not attempt to measure the short-term or long-term costs of providing access to virtually all welfare, healthcare, and retirement programs in the U.S. budget, as well as community resources such as public education and local hospitals.
·       Robert Rector, with the Heritage Foundation, estimates the lifetime cost of benefits at $6.5 billion per 10,000 refugees.  In the most recent year, the Office of Refugee Resettlement provided services to some 140,000 newly-admitted refugees, asylees, and related groups.
 
The United States has let in 59 million immigrants since 1965, and is on pace to break all historical records within a few years.  We now face the enormous challenge of helping millions of our existing residents – prior immigrants, refugees, and the US-born – rise out of poverty.  Our first duty is always to those already living here.  The responsible and compassionate course for the United States is to help assist in the placement of refugees as close to their homes as possible.  Encouraging millions to abandon their homes in the Middle East only further destabilizes the region, while imposing enormous costs on an American public that is struggling with low pay, rising crime, high deficits, and overstretched community resources.”
 
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) serves on four Senate committees: Armed Services, Budget, Environment and Public Works, and Judiciary, where he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. Visit Sessions online at his website or via YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Note: Please do not reply to this email. For further information, contact Sen. Sessions’ Press Office at (202) 224-4124.

Message from Senator Ayotte

You’ve probably seen the back-and-forth in the press about a possible government shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding. I deeply value your support, so I wanted to reach out directly with where I stand.

I am sickened by the recent videos that show Planned Parenthood callously discussing the harvesting of organs from unborn babies.

We need to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for their appalling disregard for the dignity of human life.

I fully support the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood’s actions. I also recently voted to take federal money away from Planned Parenthood and transfer that money instead to community health centers that provide women with health care.

Sadly, that vote failed. And now we face a choice about how we move forward.

Some of my colleagues proposed that we move toward a government shutdown that would cost taxpayer money and cause uncertainty but would not actually stop federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood.

I share Right to Life’s concern that the fall-out from a damaging shutdown could end up letting Planned Parenthood off the hook for their despicable actions by distracting from the important issue of protecting life and instead focusing public attention on the impact of a shutdown. That’s why President Obama is spoiling for a shutdown—he knows the story will be all about the shutdown and not these videos that tell people the truth about Planned Parenthood’s sickening practices and that have shifted public support toward the pro-life cause.

We can’t let President Obama do this to the pro-life cause – it’s too important.

Rather than resting all our hopes on a strategy that will achieve no result and will be manipulated by Democrats and the media, I believe we should fund the government, fully investigate Planned Parenthood, and focus our efforts on electing pro-life leaders.

Again, I am fully behind the ongoing legal investigation and will continue to back legislation that protects life.

Thank you for your support,

Kelly

A NATION STILL UNPROTECTED

images-5

Fourteen years have passed since the worst terror attack on our soil. Three thousand people, including hundreds of firefighters and police officers died on September 11, 2001. What have we, as a nation, learned from the sorrow and suffering of that day ?

We certainly haven’t learned anything about security! A fundamental principle is to secure your perimeter (e.g. protect your borders). After fourteen years nothing has been done to secure our southern border. Drugs, criminals and potential terrorist, hidden among a mass of poor and desperate migrants, pass undetected into our homeland every day. Another principle is access control. Instituting and adhering to measures that will ensure that only “suitable” persons enter our borders has also not materialized.   Instead, our immigration regulations go unenforced, and despite the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, an adequately vetted “real identification” system for the nation has never been implemented.

Threat elimination is another fundamental concept. It means taking the fight to our enemies. We began to achieve this in Iraq and Afghanistan until 2009. President Obama pulled the pin on any initiatives by US troops to root out terrorist elements in those nations. Consequently, the Taliban has returned to Afghanistan, and a gang of cutthroats, known as ISIS, have emerged in the heart of the Middle East. Their stated goal is to destroy Israel first and then the United States.   Their policy of terror is now destabilizing Europe as hundreds of thousands of refugees flee their brutality in Syria, and are now overwhelming Europe.

These failures can be attributed to a political school of thought, epitomized by President Obama, which views America as the problem not the solution for the world. Consequently, the Obama administration’s approach to the global threats we face is tentative and at times derelict. His approach has been inappropriate, ineffective and prone toward disaster. Obama caters to the “hard left’ , whose world view has been historically marked by its disregard of the realities of the military balance of power and its influence on both our national security and foreign policy.. The chaos playing out in the Middle east and around the Mediterranean is the end product of this. If this doesn’t change, we will find ourselves facing another September 11th and soon .

The Redistributive State: How Government Shifts Economic Resources from High- to Low-Income Households

Robert Rector / September 15, 2015 

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on income and income inequality. Historically, the official Census figures on inequality are misleading because they fail to account for most government fiscal redistribution. The high taxes paid by affluent households are ignored, and most of the government benefits and services received by lower-income households are not counted.

But government fiscal redistribution in the U.S.  is extensive:  the transfer of resources from higher- to lower-income groups is a major governmental activity.

>>> Read the full report here. 

The left constantly complains about inequality, calling for higher taxes and increased government spending. But before calling for even more government redistribution, it is important, at least, to understand how much redistribution currently occurs.

A new report from The Heritage Foundation analyzes total government fiscal redistribution. It follows the Census Bureau framework by ranking all households according to income and then dividing the households into five “quintiles,” each containing one fifth of households. The total federal, state, and local taxes paid and the total government benefits and services received by each quintile are then calculated.

The average household in the top quintile received 31 cents in benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid.

The lower-income three quintiles (containing 60 percent of households) were found to be in fiscal deficit: they received more in government benefits and services than they pay in taxes.

By contrast, the top two quintiles were in fiscal surplus: they paid more in taxes than they received in government benefits.

The average household in the bottom-income quintile received $6.87 in government benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid. On average, these households received $24,700 more per year in government benefits and services than they paid in taxes.

By contrast, the average household in the top quintile received 31 cents in benefits and services for every $1 in taxes paid. On average, these households paid $48,000 per year more in taxes than they received in benefits and services. The surplus taxes paid by these households represented around one-sixth of their overall pre-tax income.

In 2004, the top two quintiles paid about $1.3 trillion more in taxes than they received in government benefits. One trillion dollars of these surplus taxes were used to pay for the benefits and services for the individuals in the lower-income half of the population. This transfer of economic resources represented around 8 percent of the gross domestic product.

If a similar ratio of transfers occurred in 2014 (which is likely), then around $1.4 trillion in economic resources was transferred from high- to lower-income households in that year. That would be about $9,000 for every person in the lower-income half of the population.

The government benefits and services accounted for in this analysis included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, means-tested welfare benefits and services, unemployment insurance and other cash transfers, and public education. The cost of routine government services such as police and fire protection, roads, and sewers was also included. Public goods such as scientific research, national defense, and interest on government debt were not included. All federal, state, and local taxes were counted, including federal and state income taxes, Social Security contributions, corporate profit taxes, sales and excise taxes, and property taxes.

The main problem with the social welfare system in the U.S. is not a lack of government spending. Instead, the main flaw is that most welfare programs discourage work and actively penalize marriage. This increases dependence and the apparent need for even greater spending, a self-perpetuating cycle with no end in sight.

http://click.heritage.org/UghR04T0eH0Msk03ir000ZZ