Reagan’s Son: Churches Should Condemn Same-Sex Marriage Just Like Polygamy, Bestiality, And Murder

President Ronald Reagan’s negligence during the AIDS crisis combined with his empowering of social conservatives in the religious right make him pretty unpopular among the LGBT community, but even he opposed California’s Briggs Initiative, a proposed law to ban gays and lesbians from being teachers. His son Ron Reagan, Jr. has in turn been an outspoken supporter of gay rights, but it seems his son Michael has taken to being even more conservative than his father.

In a op-ed today in Ohio’s Ironton Tribune, Michael Reagan excoriates the “Protestants, Jews, and Catholics” for not expressing enough “moral outrage” about same-sex marriage. Churches, he believes, should start “fighting for America” to protect it from the “serious threat” marriage equality presents:

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage.

There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Perhaps more social conservatives should start claiming that same-sex marriage will lead to legalized murder. With arguments that absurd and offensive, they might lose the fight against equality even more quickly. (HT: Jeremy Hooper.)

View the original article here

Rand Paul Is Right On Marijuana, And That Should Scare Democrats Into Action

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is one of America’s most radical ideologues. He endorsed a discredited, century-old Supreme Court decision that would give employers nearly limitless power to exploit their workers. He opposes bans on employment discrimination and on whites-only lunch counters. He backs nationwide anti-union legislation that would reduce both union and non-union wages by $1,500 a year. And he backs a dangerous constitutional amendment that would have doubled unemployment and caused the economy to shrink by 17 percent. Few, if any, politicians would do more harm to more people if given the opportunity to turn their preferences into law.

Which is why Democrats need to take his effort to outflank them on drug policy very, very seriously. In an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace this morning, Paul laid out an uncharacteristically sensible view of how the nation should approach drugs:

PAUL: The main thing I’ve said is not to legalize [drugs], but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. I’m working with Sen. Leahy. We have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for non-violent crimes. And that’s a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of non-violent criminals.

I don’t want to encourage people to do it. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do. I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t want to promote that. But I also don’t want to put people in jail who make a mistake. There’s a lot of young people who do this, then later on in their 20s they grow up and they get married and they quit doing things like this. I don’t want to put them in jail and ruin their lives.

Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use and I really think, you know, look what would have happened. It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids. particularly in the inner city, they don’t get lucky, they don’t have good attorneys, and they go to jail for these things, and I think it’s a big mistake.

Watch it:

Later in the same interview, Paul — a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2016 — is quite explicit about what he hopes to get out of staking out a sensible view on criminal justice: “someone like myself, I think, could appeal to young people, independents and moderates, because, many of them do think it is a mistake to put people in jail for marijuana use and throw away the key.”

Paul is right on both counts. Incarcerating people who commit minor drug crimes makes no sense, and his stance is a winning issue politically. In 2011, a poll found for the first time that fifty percent of the nation supports outright legalization of marijuana, compared to only 46 percent who oppose it. Among voters under 30, nearly two-thirds support legalization. Since this poll was taken, two states legalized marijuana for recreational use, and numerous others had previously legalized it for medical use. According to one poll, nearly three in four Americans believe the federal government should back off enforcement against people who comply with state marijuana laws.

So if Democrats cede this issue to the likes of Rand Paul, they will give up a powerful opportunity to engage with young voters — and potentially empower one of America’s most dangerous politicians in the process.

Of course, there is another, even more important reason why Democrats should work to liberalize America’s drug laws — Rand Paul is right that ruining people’s lives if they commit common youthful transgressions is immoral. But if Democrats cannot be moved to think sensibly on drugs because it is the right thing to do, the least they could do is think sensibly on drugs because it is in their selfish political interests to do so.

View the original article here

Agencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal funds

Agencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal funds - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('');} Follow!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions   Agencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal fundsBy Harper Jean Tobin, National Center for Transgender Equality-03/22/13 10:50 AM ET Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

The reauthorization this month of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was a milestone, because, among many other reasons, for the first time Congress expressly banned discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. These protections are critical for victims of violence who have often faced barriers to life-saving services. But while we should celebrate this historic step, we should not wait for a gridlocked Congress to secure critical new protections when federal agencies already have the power to establish them.

We often think of nondiscrimination in terms of rights that belong to individuals and are created by legislators. But when people are excluded from opportunities based on personal traits, it also exacts a cost on society. Employers lose out on the contributions of skilled employees, for example, and the economy suffers from needless displacement and reduced productivity.
 
This dynamic is starkest in programs that serve the public, using public funds. VAWA’s long-standing programs were created and funded to serve all those who need counseling, support, and advocacy. For grantees to cut off eligible victims from these services because of bias defeats the goal of the program. As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) the lead author of VAWA, often said, “A victim is a victim is a victim.” That is why Congress wisely wrote into VAWA an explicit ban on discrimination.
 
But this ban did not need to come from Congress – it could have come from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Like most laws governing federal grants, VAWA already authorized DOJ to adopt “such rules, regulations, guidelines, and procedures as are necessary” to carry out the program. Under this authority, the department could have adopted explicit, LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination requirements for grantees, without waiting for Congress. More importantly, DOJ has the authority to do the same now for other programs it manages, such as those that serve victims of other crimes.
 
The Obama administration has done this before. In 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted regulations prohibiting hospitals receiving federal funds from discriminating in visitation. They didn’t have to stop there – it could, and should, prohibit all forms of anti-LGBT discrimination by hospitals that take federal funds. And in early 2012, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a rule banning anti-LGBT discrimination in all federal housing programs. Advocates have long urged President Obama to apply the same principle to job discrimination by federal contractors via an executive order.
 
Mandating nondiscrimination through rulemaking has its limits, and there is still an undeniable need for new civil rights legislation. Most obviously, without new legislation agencies can’t ban discrimination by private entities – like most employers – that don’t receive federal funds. Legislative protections send a stronger message, and create stronger remedies for victims of discrimination. Nevertheless, regulatory protections have real legal and social force.
 
Let’s celebrate the passage of an explicitly LGBT-inclusive VAWA as a milestone that creates real protections. But let’s not wait years for further protections from a gridlocked Congress. The administration can adopt real protections now for critical programs that impact millions of people.
 
Nondiscrimination can be included in regular updates to existing rules– but we shouldn’t stop there. Whether  in grants or contracts or healthcare payments, federal funds should be used responsibly to implement federal programs, employ the best talent, and serve all people in need – not to irrationally discriminate.

Tobin director of Policy at the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); View Comments Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/289815-agencies-should-treat-discrimination-as-a-misuse-of-federal-fundsThe contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | OpinionView News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & InfrastructureGO TO THE HILL HOME » More Videos »

Congress Blog
Most Popular StoriesMost ViewedAid reform delivering resultsEnhancing America's image in the worldUS is unprepared to face another TB epidemicStrengthening the inter-American human rights systemAgencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal fundsEmailedArbitrary soda ban does nothing to resolve obesity Paul-Leahy sentencing bill will ensure time fits the crimeObama in Israel: Tourism or opportunityUS is unprepared to face another TB epidemicStemming the tide of military suicideDiscussedTWA flight attendants deserve earned seniority restored before merger is approvedProtect rights of artists in new copyright lawSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaStemming the tide of military suicidePerez is the best choice to head Labor DepartmentBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More The Administration HeadlinesPerez is the best choice to head Labor DepartmentSenate should view Jewell's blended background with cautionSally Jewell is right for Interior jobMore The Administration Headlines » The Administration News RSS feed »  Congress Blog Topics Campaign » Cardoza's Corner » Civil Rights » Economy & Budget » Education » Energy & Environment » Foreign Policy » Healthcare » Homeland Security » Judicial » Labor » Lawmaker News » Politics » Presidential Campaign » Religious Rights » Technology » The Administration »Briefing RoomSenate moving through 400 amendments on way to budgetChristie opposes 'conversion therapy'Biden fuels 2016 speculation with fundraisers in key Dem primary states
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogEnvironmentalists shouldn't side with Big Oil against biofuelsSeismic testing will inform sound energy decisionsRestricting drug patent settlements would result in protracted litigation
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogSame-sex marriage: From hot-button issue to litmus testCan the Republican Party recover from Iraq? Can America?Shocker: Hillary crushes Rubio and Bush in Florida, annihilates Perry in Texas
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomObama Twitter retweets Yoko Ono photo of John Lennon's bloody glassesNotre Dame sends Obama neon jersey after sartorial swipeFormer Defense chief Rumsfeld's Iraq war tweet sparks support and backlash
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyNews bites: Google's Schmidt calls for Internet freedom in MyanmarFCC's Genachowski to step downOVERNIGHT TECH: Negotiations continue over CISPA
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Senate Democrats in 'reply mode' on climate budget amendmentsObama taps nuke safety chief Macfarlane for new termNews bites: Obama to announce national monuments, Apple’s data going green, and more
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxReport: Clinton urging Judd, Grimes to run for Senate in KentuckyBillionaire opens attack on Lynch in Mass. Senate race over Keystone XLCLF attacks two House freshmen on budget in first ads of 2014 cycle
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyGrassley pushes for consumer bureau watchdog in budget amendmentWaters calls for funds to rehab foreclosed propertySupport grows for renewing fast-track authority
More On The Money »HealthwatchInsurers spent little on quality improvement, study findsNRCC launches anti-'ObamaCare' fundraising siteNews bites: Health reform at 3
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionGOP bill would block political robo-callsSenate rejects repeal of healthcare law, againSenate rejects plan to tie tax hikes to lower unemployment
More Floor Action »TransportationRep. Shuster applauds Amtrak decision to continue Pennsylvania serviceNews bites: Pilot error133 lawmakers demand TSA reverse to allows knives on planes
More Transportation »DEFCON HillReport: US drone strike kills four in Pakistan Three killed in shooting, suicide at Quantico Marine Corps. baseOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Sen. Levin backs GOP over Syria
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsObama gets diplomatic win with Netanyahu apology to Turkey Congress axes Pakistan counterinsurgency fundTop Republican on intel panel joins call for arming rebels in Syria
More Global Affairs »In The KnowFBI director hasn't seen 'Zero Dark Thirty'Gary Sinise: If you do good things, 'somebody wants you to run for office'Jill Biden, Sen. Gillibrand honored as Elle and Gucci's 'luminaries'
More In The Know »RegWatchGOP lawmaker: No more food stamps to buy junk foodCordray vows to soldier on at consumer bureauAdministration: $20 million in grants for background checks
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSA.B. StoddardGOP infightingBrent BudowskyCordray, Warren, 2014More Columnists »

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.

Home/NewsNews by SubjectBlogsBusiness & LobbyingOpinionCapital LivingSpecial ReportsJobsVideo Home | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact | Advertise | RSS | Subscriptions

The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2013 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

View the original article here

Portman’s Support For Same-Sex Marriage And Why Respect For Equality Should Be A Basic Qualification For Office

Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) evolution on the issue of marriage equality—from opponent to advocate—followed a deeply personal conversation he had with his son two years ago. It’s a conversation countless families must grapple with and a conversation that now underscores the disconnect between the head and the heart of conservatism’s view of marriage equality at a pivotal moment in the debate.

Though Portman’s experience is heartening, Americans must demand more from their leaders than public acknowledgement of private family truths. Portman, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the recent wave of prominent conservatives coming out in support of equality should be commended for demonstrating a commitment to family above the politics of the moment. Still, respecting equality under the law should be a basic qualification for office, not an epiphany a lawmaker experiences after recognizing that inequality hurts the people he loves and the millions of parents and children he serves.

The damage is caused largely by the anti-gay laws and policies that their party has championed for years. DOMA, for example, is a legislative reflection of the discrimination that forces hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian children to remain hidden in the closet living in shame of who they are. DOMA is the reason that same-sex couples face a higher tax burden than their heterosexual counterparts, resulting in less income and higher poverty rates among the LGBT community. And DOMA demonstrates that LGBT people are still treated like second class citizens in a country that supposedly values equality and justice above all else.

In coming out, one of the most powerful lessons learned is that telling your story may make it easier for the next person. By coming out to loving parents, Portman’s son made it that much easier for others to do the same. In fact, his example clearly demonstrates the ways in which coming out to your friends and family can enrich their lives, and may change the lives of people you’ll never meet.

Last month, 131 prominent Republican politicians signed a brief calling on the Supreme Court to end DOMA and rule in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. These Republicans have acknowledged what a strong majority of Americans already know: that there is no reason for a Washington bureaucrat to stand between LGBT Americans and the altar. While the degree to which Portman’s evolution will move his party forward is still uncertain, by sharing an honest love for his son and concern for his future, he will make it that much easier for others facing similar circumstances. Hopefully, Portman’s conversion will inspire lawmakers to recognize the damage their anti-equality policies are causing to their LGBT constituents before they realize the victims are their loved ones.

Jon Shields is a Special Assistant for the Communications team at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

View the original article here

Why You Should Care About The Increasing Amount Of Fraud In Scientific Research

The Washington Post reported on the equivalent of an ongoing academic thriller unfurling at Johns Hopkins earlier this week, involving a researcher who alleges he was fired in retaliation for his criticism of flawed methodology — later used in an article published in Nature, one of most prestigious research journals — and the suicide of the primary author of the research while drafting a response to that criticism.

But while the full story remains to play out — Johns Hopkins refuses to comment and Nature has been quiet besides saying they expect to release a response in the future — this seedy tale can help bring one dark underbelly of the modern research world to light: How the academic politics of retraction and the pressure to publish may have an adverse effect on the quality of modern research.

A study published last year by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences noted that there has been a tenfold increase in scientific articles retracted due to fraud since 1975. Of the over 2000 biomedical and life-science retracted research articles studied, 21.3 percent of them were attributed to errors while 67.4 percent were due to researcher misconduct.  The Washington Post discussed the issue with one of the study’s authors, Ferric C. Fang:

“Fang said retractions may be rising because it is simply easier to cheat in an era of digital images, which can be easily manipulated. But he said the increase is caused at least in part by the growing competition for publication and for NIH grant money.

He noted that in the 1960s, about two out of three NIH grant requests were funded; today, the success rate for applicants for research funding is about one in five. At the same time, getting work published in the most esteemed journals, such as Nature, has become a “fetish” for some scientists, Fang said.”

While public funds support a majority of basic research in the U.S., those resources have been dwindling for years and took a significant hit in the sequester. That increase in competitiveness pressures researchers to present results, undoubtedly leading to some researchers falsifying their data in order to preserve their slice of the dwindling public research pie — also known as fraud. And when fraudulent research makes it through the publication process, it becomes part of the knowledge base built upon by other researchers around the world. For every fraudulent piece of research published, many more may rely on faulty grounding for future research projects, thus intellectually contaminating research areas with incorrectly drawn conclusions and impeding future advances.

The pitfalls of fraudulent research aren’t just theoretical: In the late 1990s, a medical researcher “misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients” in a much-publicized study linking childhood vaccination to autism, in what some other researchers have called “the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years.” Between when the study was first came out and when it was disproved and retracted, there was a notable drop in youth vaccinations — which is bad for the health of our nation’s children, and the public at large.

Yet despite the severity of the problem and the great stakes at play, there is no centralized database to track these retractions — although new resources have emerged, like Retraction Watch, a blog run by two health journalists keeping tabs on the ongoing drama.

View the original article here

Rand Paul says tax code should remove mention of marriage

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that while he believes in the "historic and religious definition of marriage," he believes the federal tax code should be reformed in a way to make it "more neutral" and not exclude same-sex couples.

“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” Paul said in an interview with the National Review. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”

Paul did not address in the interview how he might deal with other advantage and privileges extended to legally wed heterosexual couples, like federal spousal benefits, pension plans, health care, and Social Security survivors benefits.

The Supreme Court will soon hear a pair of cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and California's law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling is expected by June, and gay rights activists hope that a favorable decision could pave the way for gay marriages nationwide. In an interview that aired Wednesday morning, President Obama said he did not believe laws banning gay marriage would "stand up to constitutional muster."

"My hope is that the Court looks at the evidence and — in the California case, for example, the only reason presented for treating gays and lesbians differently was, 'Well, they’re gay and lesbian.' There wasn’t a real rationale beyond that," Obama told ABC News.

View Comments

View the original article here

Family Research Council: Unmarried People Should Be Denied Birth Control And Punished For Having Sex

The right-wing Family Research Council — which uses its advocacy muscle to try to block comprehensive sexual health programs in public schools — is now going a step further, suggesting the young Americans who have premarital sex should be punished because they don’t deserve the right to engage in sexual intercourse.

According to senior FRC fellow Pat Fagan, the Supreme Court’s “first assault on marriage” was a 1972 case that overturned a state law banning unmarried people from purchasing birth control. Fagan claims that court decision effectively sanctioned premarital sex, “brushing aside thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, [and] culture.” Appearing on a radio show with Tony Perkins, the head of the organization, Fagan asserted that “society never gave young people that right,” and instead has an obligation to stop, punish, and shame that type of sexual behavior:

FAGAN: The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. [...]

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

In fact, a full 80 percent of unmarried evangelical Christians report that they are having sex. Despite the emphasis on abstinence within the evangelical community — a misguided approach to sexuality that typically shames young adults about their bodies, ignores the existence of the LGBT community, and fails to equip adolescents with the resources they need to effectively manage their sexual health — it’s clear that premarital sex is the norm, not something that threatens the very fabric of modern society.

And ignoring the reality that teens are having sex has had serious consequences across the country. The states that push ineffective abstinence-only health classes have higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher rates of STDs, and higher concentrations of HIV infections. Even the evangelical community itself has started to realize that denying teens sexual health resources isn’t working, and has begun to move in the direction of supporting contraception and sex education.

The United States’ teen birth rate has actually recently plunged to a record low — but that wouldn’t be the case if Fagan had his way and unmarried Americans were denied access to birth control. According to the Guttmacher Institute, that decline in unintended teen pregnancies is “almost exclusively” the result of more young people using contraception.

(HT: Right Wing Watch)

View the original article here

Shareholders should not be prosecuted for the sins of the board and employees

Many people were getting in their licks yesterday as the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs gave three top government officials a tongue lashing about the way they are not handling the failure of major financial institutions to comply with two complex regulations governing money laundering and sanctions.

The failure of the board of directors to oversee policies and procedures at HSBC allowed a small but important number of bank employees to knowingly allow transactions they knew at the time were in violation of the law or took no action to control the inefficient management when the violations were first discovered. No doubt, laws were violated and indictments for felonious behavior were called for.

However, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. There is nothing to be gained by prosecuting a corporation in the banking business for criminal activities when only a few miscreants are to blame. But why, we have asked for months, have the regulatory agencies failed to file criminal indictments against both the lower level managers responsible for the lapsed oversight and the members of the Board of Directors who appear to have been asleep at the switch?

Let’s remember that the former dean of the Stanford School of Business who was a member of the board of Enron was indicted, found guilty and fined down to his basic holdings for not being on top of both the Enron management and a few not so honorable members of the auditing firm, Arthur Andersen. Unfortunately, the shareholders of Enron and the partners and employees of Arthur Andersen were left holding the bag or out of work.

With Sarbanes-Oxley and the more recent Dodd-Frank legislation, the federal government is taking over functions that for two hundred years have been the provenance of the state governments, and without appropriate legislation, they still do not have the legal right to indict a corporation for anything other than tax evasion or violation of the Clean Air Act and other operating functions.

Criminal indictments should have been made by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Reserve Bank by sending their evidence to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice in the cases of Goldman Sachs, Barclays, AIG, and numerous other financial institutions and asking for formal criminal indictment procedures to follow through.

They did not. SEC claimed that they have preferred really big fines and a slap on the wrist because they have testified the Securities Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934 are too vague on errors of omission to justify the effort to support a criminal indictment. It must be said that Mary Schapiro, the former head of the SEC had on more than one occasion asked the Congress to clarify and strengthen the legal basis for enforcement and prosecution.

If we are going to obtain discipline in any organization for conduct in accordance with stated principles, policies and procedures, laid down by the Board of Directors, there must be a fear factor. That is achieved by making it clear to all employees from the Board on down that violations of internal governance procedures will result in termination with cause. Violation of external governance regulations will be sent to regulatory agencies with recommendations for both civil and criminal indictments.

There is little doubt that banks have cut back funding and lost board control of the training programs for these critically important functions. They and the perpetrators of violations should be painfully aware of the possible civil and criminal penalties.

Filing federal charges against a corporation registered and governed by a state will open a can of legal worms. It is totally unnecessary. Board members need to take a greater interest in assuring that compliance and internal audit procedures are being implemented effectively. Do not stand by those few employees who, with malice aforethought, violate a law either for recognition of a successful profit making unit or other motivations of avarice and greed.

In any case, send those truly guilty to jail. 

James is executive director of the Center for Global Governance, Reporting and Regulation at Pace University’s Lubin School of Business in New York City. James is also program director of Pace University’s Certified Compliance and Regulatory Professional certificate program.

View Comments

View the original article here

Top Republican: Obama Should Avoid Looming Budget Cuts By Delaying Health Care To Millions

A top Republican is suggesting that President Obama delay health care services to millions of middle and lower-income Americans to offset the automatic across-the-board budget cuts that will go into effect on March 1 if Congress does not reach a spending deal.

Appearing on Meet The Press on Sunday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) advised Obama to put off implementing the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges that are due to go online in 2014 and the expansion of the Medicaid program to offset the looming sequester cuts:

JINDAL: Just delay the Medicaid expansion, delay the health care exchanges so they can work with states on waivers, on flexibility. You can save tens of thousands of dollars there and you’re not even cutting a program that’s started yet — just delaying.

Delaying implementation of these key coverage expansion provisions would throw the law into chaos and deny health services to millions of Americans, many of whom are at or just above the federal poverty line and are struggling with medical bills. 771,600 adults and 124,200 children currently go without health care coverage in Jindal’s home state of Louisiana, for instance. The governor has declined to move forward with a state-run exchange for consumers to buy insurance, leaving its operation to the Department of Health and Human Services, and opted out of the Medicaid expansion under the law.

Defunding the Affordable Care Act has become a popular sequester offset on the right. Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the government should protect the Defense Department from automatic spending cuts by slashing $1.2 trillion from the law. “Well, all I can say is the Commander-in-Chief thought — came up with the idea of sequestration, destroying the military and putting a lot of good programs at risk. It is my belief — take Obamacare and put it on the table,” Graham said.

View the original article here

President should embrace North America's energy resources

By Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) - 02/15/13 02:15 PM ET

In his State of the Union address this week, the president focused his speech on the need to spur economic growth and boost America’s middle class. Included in his proposal was the need to make “America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing” and to take “control of our energy future.” While these are worthy goals, the president failed to outline the necessary steps to achieve them. Absent from the president’s speech were two powerful engines of growth – the Keystone XL pipeline and the development of America’s abundant coal reserves. Rather than harness the potential of the America’s rich energy resources, the president sadly continues to block these important opportunities to create jobs and advance our energy security. The administration’s "all-of-the-above but nothing-from-below" energy policy is harming the middle class.

The White House has needlessly delayed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in spite of the project’s promise to bring jobs and affordable energy to America. It has now been over 1,600 days since the Keystone XL pipeline application was filed with the State Department, and the American people are still waiting for the president to approve this landmark jobs and energy project. The Keystone XL pipeline will help create thousands of middle class jobs. Once constructed, the pipeline would bring nearly a million barrels a day of oil to the United States, helping to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil and providing a stable and affordable energy source to American businesses and consumers.
As the president delays approval of Keystone, his administration is also preventing the development of one of America’s most affordable and abundant energy resources. The United States is home to the largest estimated reserves of coal in the world, and coal remains our country’s greatest source of electricity. But the future of this important American resource is in jeopardy as the EPA continues to pursue harsh regulations aimed at shutting down coal plants. This regulatory attack on coal has already contributed to numerous plant and mine closures across the country and the loss of thousands of middle class jobs. EPA’s recently proposed rule regulating emissions for new power plants will effectively ban the construction of any new coal-fired power plants in America, and the administration is now considering additional rules to regulate emissions at existing power plants. These regulatory policies could mean the end of coal-fired generation in America.
The Keystone XL pipeline and our country’s vast coal reserves represent an opportunity to help create jobs, make energy more affordable, and restore a thriving middle class.  We have the potential to become North American energy independent and rebuild America’s economy, but the president must stop ignoring our energy resources and embrace these positive solutions. 

Gingrey, a Republican from Georgia, is ?vice-chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.

View Comments

View the original article here

The United States Should Reduce Its Nuclear Arsenal

(Photo: AP)

In his State of the Union address last night, President Barack Obama referred to the need to reduce the force structure of our strategic military systems by cutting the number of deployed nuclear weapons. Press reports over the last year have indicated that military and civilian leaders have settled on a plan to reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons by one-third, to between 1,000 and 1,100, down from 1,700. President Obama should push for such a reduction, which would follow the practice of his predecessors and improve our national security. As the Center for American Progress has argued for the last decade, this move makes sense both strategically and fiscally, and is long overdue.

When President George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001, he moved to cut our stockpile of nuclear weapons—which at that time numbered about 6,000 to the lowest-possible number consistent with our national security. The president offered to make these cuts unilaterally, but Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted the reductions codified in a treaty that would limit deployed nuclear weapons to less than 1,500 warheads for each country. In 2002, under pressure from Russia, President Bush agreed to a legally binding accord the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT—which stated that both sides will limit their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons each.

Subsequently, in 2010 President Obama negotiated a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, with Russia that calls for reducing each country’s number of deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 by 2018, but places no limits on the total number of warheads, which now number 5,000. This was an impressive and welcome achievement. But analyses by the Air War College, Gen. James Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and commander of U.S. Strategic Command; and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) all argue that these numbers of deployed and reserve nuclear weapons and warheads are far more than the United States needs for the purpose of deterrence in the 21st century.

Analysts at the Air War College argue that the United States can achieve deterrence with a total nuclear force (deployed and reserve) of 300 weapons, while Gen. Cartwright believes a total of 800 (400 deployed and 400 in reserve) would be sufficient.

These reductions would result in substantial savings. The United States currently spends about $55 billion a year to maintain its triad of nuclear-capable bombers, land-based ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Moreover, if the United States wants to refurbish, repair, and modernize its existing nuclear arsenal in its current size, we will have to spend about $600 billion over the next decade. Adapting the Cartwright plan would save approximately $120 billion. Depending on the specifics of its implementation, even President Obama’s more moderate target could save tens of billions over the next decade. Additionally, reducing our nuclear footprint will reduce long-term maintenance costs and reduce the risks of theft or mishandling of nuclear material.

Given the pressure that all government expenditures will face over the next decade due to our fiscal problems, maintaining our current oversized nuclear arsenal is unnecessary, unaffordable, and unwise. The savings from reducing our nuclear arsenal can be used for either more pressing national security priorities or to pay down the national debt. This is why the Center for American Progress has advocated for reductions to our nuclear spending for nearly a decade and why we fully support President Obama’s planned reductions.

Lawrence Korb is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

View the original article here

Palin: Obama should make ‘gesture of condolence’ for slain SEAL sniper

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Monday that President Obama should make a “gesture of condolence” for slain Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Kyle, a veteran of the Iraq war and reportedly the deadliest sniper in American military history, who was killed earlier this month by another veteran at a shooting range.

"We're surrounded today by American patriots here in Texas — by Chris' fellow veterans and active duty warriors," she posted to Facebook. "In honor of them, I hope our commander in chief pays his respects in some gesture of condolence for their comrade in arms who sacrificed so much to keep him and all of us safe."

Palin, who will attend Kyle’s funeral in Dallas, said she and her husband "find it sad to see that flags aren't flying at half staff for this American hero."

Kyle met the Palins when helping to consult on security operations for the premiere of a documentary about the former Alaska governor that debuted in 2011. Palin’s husband, Todd, also appeared on an NBC reality series with the Navy veteran.

"We may never know to what extent Chris kept us free or how many lives he saved by his brave actions in the line of fire. But his fellow warriors know how important he was," Palin wrote.

Kyle, 38, served in five combat tours in Iraq and was thought to have killed 160 people during his service. He and another veteran were killed at a shooting range Feb. 2 by a former Marine who was thought to be suffering from combat-related mental health issues.

View Comments

View the original article here

Rick Scott’s Secretary Of State Says Florida Should Restore Early Voting

Florida Secretary of State Rick Detzner

Because Gov. Rick Scott (R) and his legislative allies spent much of 2011-2012 filling up the November ballot with complicated and unnecessary ballot questions and pushing through measures aimed at suppressing voter turnout, Florida voters had to wait in lines for up to six hours. Now, Scott’s handpicked Secretary of State has released a report recommending that Florida expand early voting and limit the length of future ballot questions.

Secretary of State Rick Detzner, who in the days after the November elections said he had no regrets about the Scott administration’s handling of the election, acknowledged in the report that there was widespread frustration with “the length of lines at polling places, which were believed to have been caused by the record number of voters, a shortened early voting schedule, inadequate voting locations and a long ballot.” He makes no mention of the reasons for those factors — Scott’s unwillingness to extend early voting hours, a Scott-signed law shortening early voting, and an effort by the Republican legislature to load the ballot up with complicated ballot measures sure to slow down voters at the polls.

But, he encourages Scott and his fellow Republicans not to repeat the same mistakes in future elections, recommending Florida:

Extend the early voting schedule from a minimum of 8 days to a maximum of 14 days, while also allowing supervisors of elections the flexibility to offer early voting on the Sunday immediately prior to Election Day.Expand the allowable locations of early voting sites at government owned, managed or occupied facilities to include the main or branch office of a supervisor of elections, a city
hall, courthouse, county commission building, public library, civic center, convention center, fairgrounds or stadium.Set a word limit for proposed legislative amendments.Repeal statutes allowing the full text (stricken or underlined) of a constitutional amendment or revision to be placed on a ballot.Allow mail ballot elections for candidates in certain elections.

While the 14-day period would be an improvement over the eight days currently provided by Florida law, it would represent a return to where things were before Scott took office.

It remains to be seen whether Florida acts on these recommendations. In November, Gov. Scott defended his suppression tactics as having done “the right thing” and a month later blamed the legislature for the early voting limits he himself signed into law. But last month, he endorsed re-expanding the early voting he limited.

View the original article here

Boy Scouts of America should allow gay members, says Obama

President Obama called Sunday for the Boy Scouts of America to open its ranks to those who are gay.

Asked in a pre-Super Bowl interview if he thought the group should end its ban on gay scout leaders and members, Obama responded with a direct: “Yes.”

“My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life,” Obama said.

Obama’s comments come as Boy Scouts leaders say they will discuss whether to change their long-standing ban during an upcoming meeting.

Obama made equal rights for gays and lesbians a central part of his second inaugural address last month, becoming the first president ever to discuss gay rights in an inaugural speech.

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” Obama said during his remarks after taking the ceremonial oath of office.

During his first term, Obama also became the first sitting president to back same-sex marriage and formally ended the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The Boy Scouts decision to revisit the ban has attracted criticism from one prominent GOP leader, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, himself an Eagle Scout.

Perry on Saturday spoke out against lifting the ban. “I think most people see absolutely no reason to change the position and neither do I,” he said, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News.

View Comments

View the original article here

11 European Countries Adopted A Financial Transactions Tax, And The U.S. Should Too

11 members of the Eurozone today received the go-ahead to apply a financial transactions tax to trades of stocks and derivatives that occur within their countries. The EU’s tax commissioner called it “a milestone for EU tax policy“:

EU ministers have given the go ahead for 11 eurozone members, including France and Germany, to prepare a new financial transactions tax. [...]

The tax – also known as a Tobin tax after the economist who originally came up with it 40 years ago – is expected to be charged at a rate of 0.1% of the value of any trade in shares or bonds, and 0.01% of any financial derivative contract.

Although the tax is not being adopted by the UK, which already charges its own 0.5% stamp duty on trading in shares, it will nonetheless have to be paid by investors trading on the London Stock Exchange who are based in one of the 11 countries.

The other nine going ahead with the tax are Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece and Estonia.

As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich tweeted, “Most of Europe will now tax financial transactions, generating billions for hard-pressed budgets. U.S. should do same.” It’s unclear how much revenue Europe will raise, but the European Commission “had previously estimated that such a tax across the 27-nation bloc could yield €57 billion a year,” while “the 11 nations pushing ahead represent about two-thirds of the EU’s economy.”

Here in the U.S., lawmakers have unsuccessfully tried to implement a financial transactions tax in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The benefits of such a tax are two-fold. First, it would raise billions of dollars to repair a federal budget that expanded in the wake of a recession caused in large part by Wall Street malfeasance, thus making the financial sector repay for the damage it caused. Second, it would slow down some of the high-frequency trading that has exploded in recent years, bringing more stability and safety to financial markets.

Last year, a group of 52 financial executives, including several former heads of mega-banks JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, endorsed the idea. Forty countries around the world have already embraced a transactions tax.

View the original article here

Obamacare Medicaid Expansion: States Should Be Realistic, Not Optimistic

Months since the Supreme Court ruling that made the Obamacare Medicaid expansion optional, the state costs associated with expansion still remain highly uncertain—making expansion a dicey course for states and their budgets.

Indeed, states should not lose sight of the fact that the original Medicaid expansion was coercive for a reason. As Nina Owcharenko, director of Heritage’s Center for Health Policy Studies, points out, “The fact that the authors of Obamacare felt the need to threaten states with total defunding tells you that they knew many states would resist expanding their programs—even with 100 percent federal funding.”

States are still weighing their options. Many of them have commissioned studies to project the state costs of expanding. However, all cost estimates reflect the assumptions used to construct them, and using different assumptions can result in estimates varying wildly between (and sometimes within) states.

For instance, Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) released a study that projected that an Obamacare Medicaid expansion would cost his state $26 billion over 10 years. A different Florida study made alternative assumptions, concluding it would cost Florida about $3 billion over 10 years. The major difference between the competing studies is that Scott’s does not assume that the federal government’s enhanced match rate will continue as described in the law.

Scott is right to distrust the federal government. In the Administration’s 2013 budget, the President proposed using a “blended” reimbursement rate for Medicaid. A blended rate could cost states considerably more than the funding levels promised in Obamacare. According to Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis calculation, under the Obamacare rates it would cost the 50 states a total of almost $42 billion from 2014 to 2022, while under one version of a blended rate it would cost states about $120 billion over the same period.

Though White House officials recently said that the Administration no longer supports a blended match rate, states have no guarantee that the federal government—either under this President and Congress or future ones—will maintain Obamacare’s extra Medicaid funding. States simply can’t afford additional Medicaid spending, as it is already unsustainable and crowding out other state budget priorities such as education and transportation.

While 18 states have announced that they plan to expand Medicaid, immense uncertainty remains even in those states. When New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (R) announced that her state would expand, she used the same breath to cast doubt on the federal government’s commitment to full funding:

I want all of us to remember, Medicaid expansion is a federal government promise. Unfortunately, we know that out-of-control federal spending can create uncertainty for these kinds of programs. If the federal government breaks its promise and begins to cut their reimbursement rate, we will be forced to scale back this expansion.

“Such skepticism is warranted,” Owcharenko says. “Washington has rung up a $16 trillion debt and is running more than $1 trillion in the red annually, even without any of the costs associated with the health-care law. Where will it get the money to make good on this promise? And will future administrations honor this promise, no matter what?”

If New Mexico’s faith in the federal government proves to be the wrong bet, Martinez’s pledge to roll back an existing entitlement would be quite tricky, and it would undoubtedly face opposition from this Administration.

The bottom line is that this is a highly uncertain environment, and states need to be very cautious before putting their taxpayers and other budget priorities at risk.

View the original article here

Sen. Toomey: GOP should risk shutdown to force spending cuts in debt-limit fight

By Alicia M. Cohn - 01/02/13 09:20 AM ET

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) on Wednesday called for Republicans to be ready to shut down the government to gain spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s debt-limit.

"We Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary, partial government shutdown," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Toomey’s comments come after the House and Senate passed a bill extending middle-class tax rates and avoiding January’s rate increases for most taxpayers.

But the measure which also delays the sequestration cuts until March faced strong opposition from House Republicans who said it failed to address spending cuts. Both sides are now gearing up for battles over the debt-limit, which Toomey said would provide the GOP the leverage needed to force significant deficit reduction.

The Treasury said Monday that the U.S. had reached its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit. Secretary Geithner said the department had begun instituting “extraordinary measures” to avoid default. 

Toomey said that markets would suffer less from the "temporary disruption" of a government shutdown than from Washington showing an unwillingness to tackle its deficit woes.

President Obama has already warned Republicans, though, that he will not tolerate another extended debate over the debt ceiling. The negotiations over increasing the debt ceiling in summer 2011 resulted in an extended standoff between Obama and Republicans, a threat of a government shutdown, and a credit downgrade for the country. Obama said he would not allow that to happen again.

“While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” he said on Tuesday night. 

“If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic — far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff,” Obama added.

Toomey disagreed with Obama's argument that the debt ceiling is about paying past debts.

"It's to enable him to engage in the future spending that he wants," he said.

Toomey, who voted for the tax legislation passed New Year’s Day by the House and Senate, also responded to criticism from those on the right who saw the vote as a capitulation by GOP lawmakers to the president. 

The measure indefinitely extends the expiring Bush-era tax rates on annual family income up to $450,000, and for individuals up to a $400,000 cut off. It also lifts the top capital gains and dividends rates to 20 percent, extends unemployment benefits for a year, and delays for two months the automatic spending cuts triggered by the sequestering process. 

Democrats widely supported the legislation after a personal appeal by Biden but many Republicans continued to resist raising tax rates on any Americans, and also expressed dismay that the deal does not contain spending cuts.

It passed with only 85 Republican votes in the House, but all except five Republican Senators voted for it.

Conservative RedState blogger Erick Erickson on Tuesday called out Toomey by name, along with his GOP colleagues Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.), writing they should be "ashamed" of their votes for the bill, which was negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Erickson added that any member of Congress who believes they have better leverage over Obama in the upcoming debt-ceiling debate "is fooling themselves to avoid having to realize what a fool they are."

Toomey said Republicans' backs were "up again the wall" on the bill, which sought to undo the tax rate hikes which went into effect on Jan. 1. 

"We spared as many Americans as we possibly could from a tax increase," he argued on MSNBC, calling it a "very unusual situation" where Congress was scrambling to halt laws already on the books.

View Comments

View the original article here

Maybe Paul Ryan Should Have Called It a Trojan Condom Budget

Barack Obama spoke to the American press yesterday to demagogue Republicans, Paul Ryan’s budget, cite Ronald Reagan as proof that raising taxes is okay, and damn with faint praise American exceptionalism.

The President called Paul Ryan’s budget a “trojan horse.” Given the President’s predilection for forcing all Americans, through regulatory fiat, to adhere to his view of contraception, I suspect that had Paul Ryan preemptively called his budget a ‘trojan condom,” the President of the United States would be campaigning trying to make us all adhere to it.

One thing that really stuck out at me in his speech yesterday was his statement that his very life and career were made possible because of American exceptionalism. He’s right. It’s also what makes his public policy choices so maddening.

The President’s policy choices reject the very American exceptionalism he himself claims to have benefited from. Our nation has had a unique spirit centered around the idea of the Puritan work ethic and the rugged individualism that sprang from that.

But Barack Obama wants to get rid of that exceptionalism and make us conform to the failed socialist policies of Europe. He says he wants to tax the rich because it will help the middle class. The only way taxing the rich helps the middle class is when the middle class is so dependent on government that it requires further wealth redistribution to maintain its government subsidy.

Government subsidy is not what American exceptionalism is all about. Government policy to redistribute wealth for middle class welfare subsidies is conforming to the rest of the world.

Conforming is not exceptional, it is a failure.

As an added bonus, it was more than a bit ironic to hear Barack Obama call Paul Ryan a social darwinist considering Barack Obama remains the only member of the Illinois State Senate to speak in favor of infanticide from the floor of the State Senate.

View the original article here