Asked about the plans for a super PAC to highlight Barack Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Mitt Romney told Townhall, “I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they’ve described.”
And the super PAC has issued a statement saying that Joe Ricketts (who funds it) found the Wright plan to be “an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects and it was never a plan to be accepted but only a suggestion for a direction to take.” Ricketts, the statement continues, “intends to work hard to help elect a president this fall who shares his commitment to economic responsibility, but his efforts are and will continue to be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally.” Bottom line? There won’t be ads airing on Jeremiah Wright this cycle, at least coming from this particular super PAC.
This will be a brief note, because the likes of Eduardo Saverin merit only the tiniest slice of our attention. I will merely note that for some people, their citizenship is worth everything they have to give. For others, such as Saverin, it’s apparently worth a few million dollars. He fled to this country to save his life; now he’s fleeing from it to save his bank account?
The Schumer bill strikes me as a gimmicky waste of time, one that ironically enough treats citizenship in Saverin-style economic terms when it means much more. Mr. Saverin, you are certainly free to leave. I would merely ask that you never come back. Your very presence dishonors the memory of the men who died to create the refuge you so desperately needed when your family fled here almost two decades ago.
Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey are proposing a new law to deal with Eduardo Saverin and others like him. The Facebook co-founder renounced his U.S. citizenship this week prior to Facebook’s IPO in order to avoid taxes on his $4 billion. The senators’ law, the “Ex-PATRIOT Act,”
would impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on American investments for those who renounce their citizenship and would also prohibit individuals like Saverin from re-entering the country.
The law — which only applies to individuals with a net worth of over $2 million or an average income tax liability of at least $148,000 — would not apply to non-American investments by former citizens.
Under the proposed legislation, the IRS would decide soon after an individual relinquishes his or her citizenship if the renouncement was motivated by tax avoidance. The individual would then have the opportunity to provide reasons for the renouncement, but there would be a “strong presumption” the move was for tax purposes.
The expatriate would also have the opportunity to re-enter the country if he or she paid all back taxes.
Is there an argument to be made that it is ungrateful for Eduardo Saverin to renounce his citizenship? Yes, his family did flee to the United States after Eduardo’s name appeared on a list of potential kidnapping victims. But I would be hesitant to insist on a tax for those renouncing their citizenship. Also, why should bureaucrats at the IRS get to divine the intentions of someone who renounces their citizenship? Does anyone really think the IRS would ever not declare it for tax purposes? A more sensible solution to this problem would be to reform America’s tax structure so there would be less incentive for anyone to leave for more economically favorable countries. It would be better for America if the Eduardo Saverins of the world wanted to come here rather than leave. Finally, if I were Senator Schumer, I’d be careful about coming between Mr. Saverin and his money.
The latest poll from Rasmussen on the Nebraska Senate race has state senator Deb Fischer leading former U.S. senator Bob Kerrey by 18 percentage points:
State Senator Deb Fischer holds an 18-point lead over Democrat Bob Kerrey in the first Rasmussen Reports survey of the Nebraska U.S. Senate race since her upset win in last week’s state Republican primary.
A new telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nebraska shows Fischer with 56% support to 38% for Kerrey who is trying to reclaim the Senate seat he retired from in 2001. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and three percent (3%) are undecided.
The mainstream (liberal) media headlines are red hot in the aftermath of House Speaker John Boehner’s remarks earlier this week. The Washington Post: “Mr. Boehner’s lamentable desire to repeat bad history.” The New York Times: “Republicans Pledge New Standoff on Debt Limit.”
Really?
There is no, zero, none, zippo, nada disagreement that the U.S. should not default on its obligations. Any assertion that one side or the other “wants” a standoff is ludicrous. With the exception of the administration, which blithely drove the U.S. into a downgrade, there is no disagreement that elected representatives should be good curators of the credit rating of the federal government.
To meet these dual standards of good governance, it is imperative that the explosive trajectory of federal spending be brought under control. Put differently, a “clean” debt-limit increase is not an option. Simply raising the debt limit will signal to credit markets an acquiescence to fiscal irresponsibility that assures a downgrade.
This is particularly true at the moment. Over the roughly past 20 years of debt limit increases, there have only been 3 “clean” increases. All the others were associated with other legislation, such as the Budget Control Act and the budget agreements in the 90s; were stopgap measures; or were passed using the special legislative rules (the “Gephardt rule”) that the House ended in 2011. Markets were accustomed to getting budget decisions along with debt-limit increases when the debt was not a problem. How will it react to getting no budget progress when debt is?
From Special Report with Bret Baier | Wednesday, May 16, 2012
On Mitt Romney’s use of spending and the national debt as a campaign issue:
I think it’s a good strategy. (A) because you can see people . . . have this sort of innate sense that you can’t keep spending, borrowing Chinese money and it’s going to end up well. People know that. It’s a question of where is the limit?
I think the other part of this is that people are beginning to understand — and I think Romney is trying to make the case — [connecting] the debt to the rest of the weakness of the economy. It’s not just out there as a separate issue. But it’s something that weakens the economy and makes it harder for us grow.
And lastly, there’s stuff hovering on the horizon. Everybody is hearing about the problems in Greece and in Europe. It really is becoming acute. The Greeks had an election. They’re going to have to have a second election. It’s obvious. They have no government that can stick with the [hostility] plan that they had promised the EU . . .
Mona, just a technical correction that does not detract from anything you wrote: NOM has not been named a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as its president Richard Cohen confirmed to NPR on December 28, 2010. The press release from 2010 is so confusing that many others have made that mistake.
The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, had some fairly strong words about Iran on an Israeli military radio station yesterday. Reuters reports:
“It would be preferable to resolve this diplomatically and through the use of pressure than to use military force,” Ambassador Dan Shapiro said.
“But that doesn’t mean that option is not fully available — not just available, but it’s ready. The necessary planning has been done to ensure that it’s ready,” said Shapiro, who the radio station said had spoken on Tuesday.
This statement is especially interesting in light of Elliott Abrams’s searing piece on NRO last week about the Obama administration’s limp rhetoric on Iran. His rhetoric about the possible use of force has not risen to the effective level of Jimmy Carter’s statements about Iranian threats to control the Persian Gulf (Carter: “Such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force”). Abrams pointed out that, by contrast, Obama’s most aggressive statements have heretofore been non-specific and not credible — for instance, his statement that “the United States will do everything in our power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon” isn’t specific or, strictly speaking, true (the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons to prevent it).
It isn’t easy to parse the meaning of diplomatic threats, but this statement seems like a more effective and credible statement to Iran of U.S. intentions, and should therefore be lauded — though it’s still notable that the threat was prefaced by a plea for diplomacy, and delivered by a surrogate, not the president himself.
In the course of my “Oslo Journal,” I have sneaked in a little music criticism here and there. There have been opportunities. In today’s installment, I mention that Julia Ormond, the actress, sang “Amazing Grace.” This was at the end of her remarks on sex trafficking and other things. “Amazing Grace” is one of our most beautiful and affecting songs, of course. It is also one of our most abused. People want to pour emotion into it. They want to “personalize” it and “individualize” it. They gild the lily, warp the song out of recognition. Ormond did not, thankfully. (She had other problems.) The thing about songs that contain their power within the notes and words: You don’t really have to do anything to them. You don’t have to “sell” them. You just have to present them purely and honestly. The songs themselves will do the work for you.
Some Republicans are considering an ad campaign “linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.,” reports the New York Times. On Twitter, David Axelrod challenged the Romney campaign to repudiate this “slime.” Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades then issued a statement that reads in relevant part: “It’s clear President Obama’s team is running a campaign of character assassination. We repudiate any efforts on our side to do so.”
I doubt a Wright attack would actually be effective this year, but I can’t see why it’s “slime” or “character assassination” that deserves to be repudiated.
The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.
“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.
The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”
The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”
Obviously, the Romney campaign can’t prevent a super PAC from running whatever they please, but this statement from Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades issued in response suggests disapproval of the Wright strategy:
Unlike the Obama campaign, Gov. Romney is running a campaign based on jobs and the economy, and we encourage everyone else to do the same. President Obama’s team said they would ‘kill Romney,’ and, just last week, David Axelrod referred to individuals opposing the president as ‘contract killers.’ It’s clear President Obama’s team is running a campaign of character assassination. We repudiate any efforts on our side to do so.
It seems curious, too, that the super PAC plans to focus on matters that were talked about during the 2008 campaign, instead of say, the new revelation that Wright was offered a $150,000 bribe to keep silent during the campaign.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign has indicated previously that they intend to view super PACs supporting Romney as equivalent to his campaign (even though he has zero control over the super PACs), and campaign manager Jim Messina doubles down on that attitude in a statement this morning:
This morning’s story revealed the appalling lengths to which Republican operatives and SuperPacs apparently are willing to go to tear down the President and elect Mitt Romney. The blueprint for a hate-filled, divisive campaign of character assassination speaks for itself. It also reflects how far the party has drifted in four short years since John McCain rejected these very tactics. Once again, Governor Romney has fallen short of the standard that John McCain set, reacting tepidly in a moment that required moral leadership in standing up to the very extreme wing of his own party.
Yesterday, your budget for fiscal year 2013 was defeated in the senate 99–0. Earlier, it had been defeated in the house by a vote of 414–0. Last year, your budget for fiscal year 2012 was defeated in the senate 97–0. Meanwhile, more than $5,000,000,000,000 in debt has been accumulated by your administration. The federal deficit is more than $1,300,000,000,000. Despite the fact that Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security are the largest drivers of the deficit, you have failed to propose any credible entitlement reforms that effectively address the exploding expenditures. Last year, for the first time in history, the AAA credit rating of the United States was downgraded.
What evidence do you have that your administration has any credibility with Congress in dealing with fiscal matters? What evidence do you have that your administration will be able to effectively deal with Congress on fiscal matters should you win a second term?
Given your belief that you’ll have even more flexibility in a second term, what credible assurances can you provide that you’ll exercise any fiscal responsibility whatsoever in such term?
Former U.S. Marine major general Oliver Prince Smith is famous for his line, “Retreat, hell! We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different direction.” But with major Democratic money interests choosing to sit on the sidelines of the Wisconsin recall election, it looks like the direction they’re advancing might be one without the tens of millions of dollars the national unions had promised.
On Monday, local party officials began complaining bitterly about the lack of resources national Democratic groups are committing to the recall effort in Wisconsin. “We are frustrated by the lack of support from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Governors Association,” a top Wisconsin Democratic Party official told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent.
Back in January, the complaints were coming from the other end: National Democrats were irked that labor unions and others planned to spend tens of millions of dollars to recall Gov. Scott Walker — leaving less for President Obama’s re-election drive and congressional contests.
But amid increasingly poor polling numbers for Walker’s challenger, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Democrats and their allies at the national level seem to be re-thinking their commitment to the Wisconsin race. NBC’s Chuck Todd asked recently if the DNC would be sending more cash to help Barrett; the answer from Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, was strongly noncommittal: “I don’t know the answer to that question, on the money.”
National groups are looking at the same polling data everyone else is; yesterday, Marquette University released a poll showing Walker ahead by a 50 percent to 44 percent margin. Earlier in the week, Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling showed Walker beating Barrett 50 percent to 45 percent. There hasn’t been a poll taken yet that shows Walker trailing.
So says the headline in the Washington Post this morning. And one thing that an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic United States cannot have is a system in which its institutions treat people differently according to skin color and what country someone’s ancestors came from — where, for example, public universities and government contracting officials give preferential treatment to some and discriminate against others on the basis of race and ethnicity. Such division was never a good idea and is now simply untenable. E pluribus unum — now more than ever.
There are some good ideas that even government can’t botch. Unfortunately, the Medicare Advantage (MA) Stars program isn’t one of them. The original idea was simple: take the existing system of a 1- to 5-star rating system and transform it into a “pay-for-performance” system that would generate higher rewards for better health care. Reasonable idea. The actual implementation is anything but reasonable, resulting in a broken system where government is left picking winners and losers with seniors’ health care.
There is a straightforward logic to creating such a system: (a) set up a schedule of rewards as incentives, (b) treat the MA beneficiaries, (c) check outcomes for the MA plan beneficiaries, and (d) send bonuses to good performing MA plans.
What could go wrong? Well, as implemented by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) the Star system actually: (1) treats patient, then (2) sets up incentives, (3) checks outcomes for patients that may or may not be MA plan beneficiaries, and (4) sends bonuses to MA plans.
There is nothing wrong with steps (1) and (2) that could not be solved by time travel. But in the absence of that, it is impossible for health plans to adapt to achieve better performance and reach said incentives. For example, CMS published criteria in October 2011 to be applied to plan performance between January 2010 and June 2011. There is simply no way an MA plan can adjust its plan offerings, plan design, or performance in any way to increase its performance in the dimensions CMS chooses to evaluate.
So, yesterday — a muggy afternoon — I trekked way, way up to W. 156th St. to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. They were having their annual ceremony. (I think annual.) I went for the purpose of gazing upon Leontyne Price. She was being inducted as an honorary member.
This was scheduled to happen very, very early in the program, meaning I would be out of there in no time. The ceremony was supposed to start at 3. It started about 3:35.
And there they were, some 125 members of the Academy, assembled on the stage. Grandees, sages, our Immortals. I saw Garrison Keillor, in bright red socks, to go with his bright red tie. David McCullough, very, very dapper, with a hanky in his pocket. Meryl Streep, who, to me, was surprisingly beautiful, and physically graceful. Ned Rorem, looking mischievous. Salman Rushdie, looking unafraid and prosperous. Steve Reich, in his trademark baseball cap. Pete Seeger, with a couple of musical instruments.
What was he going to sing about? The glories of North Korea? The Castro brothers? Who or what is his current totalitarian ideal?
Anyway, Price wasn’t there. Her brother, retired Army general George Price, who has repped the great soprano for years, sent a message. A few sentences long. It was read by Streep (nicely). And that was it.
Leontyne lives in the Village, and I’d like her to know I went all the way up to 156th for her. Would have gone even to 176th, and beyond (way beyond) . . .
P.S. Speaking of Immortals, there was a book party for Bernard Lewis last night. He has come out with his memoirs. He spoke about his life, and also about the current Middle East — and was his usual crisp, wise self. Looked like a million bucks, too. He will be on the National Review cruise next November. Worth the price of admission all by himself.
. . . to attend an event of the New York Young Republican Club, tonight in Manhattan. No, they’ll accept people of any age and any party. Or so I have been assured. I’m going to talk about my new book and anything else the gatherees might like to discuss. The event is a brisk hour — from 7 to 8 — and takes place at the Women’s National Republican Club (men allowed too!), 3 W. 51st Street, between 5th and 6th.
Some of my favorite people in life have been young and Republican. Old and Democratic too, I guess . . .
P.S. Don’t want to schlep to W. 51st St., but want to hear a little book talk regardless? Check out Eric Felten’s interview of me on his VoA program, On the Line. Better yet, he interviews Seth Jones, the War on Terror expert, first.
Wendy Gramm and Brooke Rollins (the chairman and president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, where I work) have a great op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. It’s a vigorous defense of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has come under concerted attack from left-wing groups bent on shutting it down. The campaign of intimidation has chased away a number of corporate donors, which is really shameful, because like many campaigns that seek to suppress dissent, this one is based on misinformation.
ALEC is referred to as “shady,” though it gathers in conferences that can number 1,000 attendees. It is called a lobbying group because some of the presentations are by representatives of industry. Well, I attend ALEC conferences in the hopes of propagating my own model legislation, which I write myself. It’s a bonus to be able to offer my opinion and recommend improvements to other people’s proposals. At ALEC, I represent the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and I am far more focused on what state legislators and other think tanks are doing than on what the industry groups are trying to push. But I have to admit that the presentations by some of those industry groups, for example explaining the impact of new EPA regulations, are among the most informative and sophisticated policy discussions I have ever seen anywhere. But I look at industry’s support as charitable, and I’m grateful for it — we get a lot more out of it than they do.
The Left’s inordinate susceptibility to conspiracy theory and moral indignation makes for a dangerous combination, and sometimes they do real damage to a worthy cause, a real injustice in the service of imaginary justice. Wendy Gramm and Brooke Rollins put their finger on what’s ultimately at stake:
ALEC’s real crime is this: For nearly four decades, it has been an effective, engaged facilitator of good governance and liberty-oriented legislation in statehouses across the country. Its critics don’t just object to one or two of the council’s programs, they object to its existence.
Their comments may be legitimate discourse, but this ought to be called what it is. It’s a debate about the role of government in a free society. ALEC is for less government and more freedom. Its opponents are for more government, and the false security that government brings. We know from the lessons of history that earned, individual success is not only the key to happiness and progress, it is the bedrock of a just society. ALEC’s advocacy is really for the American dream.
Our organization, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (based in Austin, Texas), is a modest player on the national stage. Yet what we do generates big results, and not just in our home state, but across America. Much of our good work with ALEC has been accomplished via its Public Safety and Elections task force — the very task force the council recently shut down due to pressure from left-wing groups.
Since 2010, our foundation has worked on a “Right on Crime” program designed to reform state-level criminal-justice policy along common-sense lines that will deliver real justice to victims while offering offenders who pose no threat to public safety a chance to reform.
ALEC has been instrumental in promulgating many lessons from our “Right on Crime” work to policy makers in other states. For example, the Maryland legislature recently passed legislation patterned on ALEC model legislation derived from our work in Texas. The Maryland bill provides incentives to probationers and parolees to pay restitution, hold down steady work, and engage in good behavior in their communities—while saving Marylanders’ taxpayer dollars as recidivism and re-incarceration rates consequently drop.
These aren’t partisan issues. They’re not even ideological, unless common sense and good-governance reforms are ideological. Everyone in every state has a direct interest in effective criminal justice, in safe communities, and in efficient, cost-conscious governance.
Yet prison reform is exactly the sort of activity that ALEC’s attackers have attempted to shut down with relentless criticism and pressure on donors and members.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Health-care reform, pension reform, and a whole range of public-policy challenges will go unconsidered and unmet if ALEC and institutions like it disappear. In their place will be exactly what ALEC’s antagonists publicly decry: a debate dominated by special-interest groups.
We are going to hear a lot about this in the days to come. Non-Hispanic white births now account for less than fifty percentof all births. One point that is already going by the wayside: More than half of all U.S. Hispanics are . . . white. (Census PDF here.)
Funny how the New York Times only has use for the term “white Hispanic” when it comes to George Zimmerman (and I’m not even sure Zimmerman actually fits the designation).
The exhibit includes floor-to-ceiling photos of nude toddlers, children, teens and adults, and an array of heated, flavoured and textured condoms rolled over wooden dildos. There’s also a ‘climax room’ with a round, low, leather bed, red curtains, a video screen showing animations of aroused genitals, and the voice of a man describing an orgasm…
Next to a printed question asking, ‘Why do many boys always want to have anal sex?’ sexologist Jamy Ryan responds that not all boys want to do it, but: “If you are comfortable trying that activity, go ahead and do it. It could be fun for you, but if you are not, you don’t really have to do it.”
For the moment. But, if you persist in being so uptight, the rest of us may stand around laughing and pointing fingers.
Incidentally, if you’re wondering what a Canadian sexologist does when he’s not curating the anal sex exhibit, well…:
Police have arrested four suspects wanted in connection with the coordinated subway smoke bombings that paralyzed the morning commute for tens of thousands of Montrealers on Thursday…
Police have not released their names. However, officers carried out a search Friday morning of the residence of two suspects, Vanessa L’Écuyer, a sexology student at the Université du Québec à Montréal, and François-Vivier Gagnon, a sociology major at the same school. They were not in the apartment at the time.
On Thursday, smoke bombs were thrown in three subway stations, shutting the entire network at the height of the morning rush hour.
If you are comfortable trying that activity, go ahead and do it. It could be fun for you, but if you are not, you don’t really have to do it.
Meanwhile, south of the border, The Chronicle Of Higher Education has a poignant story: “The PhD Now Comes With Food Stamps.” But you’ll be relieved to hear it’s mostly film studies and medieval history types. The bottom has yet to drop out of sexology.
Obama would have an advantage of 46 percent to 39 percent over Romney, if the election were held today. Three weeks ago the candidates were tied at 46 percent each.
And bad news for Mitt Romney on the women’s vote front, although he continues to have a lead among men:
The gender gap is alive and well, as women continue to be more likely to back Obama (55 percent to 33 percent), while men are more inclined to support Romney (46 to 37 percent).
There was an 8 point gap between Democrats (42 percent) and Republicans (34 percent) surveyed.
Jon Lovitz just appeared on America Live with Megyn Kelly. He offered an eloquent and stinging indictment on President Obama’s class-warfare. I only wish elected officials could speak as well as Mr. Lovitz.
As Dan noted today, the Obama reelection campaign is increasingly backing itself into a corner with its attacks on private-equity and venture-capital industries. The Wall Street Journal pointed out yesterday that on the same night the GST Steel ad debuted, Obama was courting big private-equity donors at a $35,800-a-head fundraiser at the Manhattan home of Blackstone Group president Tony James. The Blackstone Group is one of the largest players in the private-equity business that the Obama campaign has vilified in its caricature of Romney as a “vampire” capitalist.
Worse, Blackstone is the very same firm Obama’s team singled out to shame GOP donors who “benefit from betting against America.”
In recent press briefings, White House press secretary Jay Carney has strayed from “official business” and waded into campaign territory in order to attack Romney’s private-sector record. But that seems to be backfiring too. As one of the press corps reporters asked today, what about the risks the Obama administration took with taxpayer-funded venture-capitalist experiments like Solyndra?
Way back in August 2010, before the Solyndra scandal broke, Businessweek ran an article calling President Obama our “venture-capitalist-in-chief” for his $69 billion gamble on a “new American industrial policy” to promote green tech.
That article contained a revealing quote from a Harvard Kennedy School professor: “What determines success in industrial policy is not the ability to pick winners but the capacity to let the losers go.”
The ace venture capitalists in the federal government didn’t know how to let Solyndra and other losers go.
