Here's a stat for you ...

Since the Espionage Act was enacted in 1917 it had been used only three times in US history to prosecute federal employees ... until the Obama administration. They have used it six times to prosecute federal workers. SIX.

And Jake Tapper (whom I consider to be the last "reporter" standing), made a saliant point yesterday to White House Press Sec Jay Carney - he noted (I'm paraphrasing) the press widely regards most of the six as whistleblowers & sources (such as a CIA employee who revealed torture sessions), so it would seem that the administration encourages aggresive reporting abroad (they recently lauded praise on two journalists killed in Syria), just not at home. Carney refused to comment.

And did you know the White House now has its own "press office?" They have a paid staff of" reporters" whom are often the only "media" present to cover various events that traditional Press would cover.

Im not a black helicopter sort of guy, but to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with history, this is getting spooky.

Are these really issues?

The Romney/Paul/Santorum Circus is still playing out... now in Michigan... and it is almost getting ridiculous.

We are trying to find the best candidate to run against a sitting President, and all we can ask them for are personal positions on "issues" that aren't going to be addressed after the election is over?  Really?

Who is advising these morons?  And... more importantly... what are they being paid to give this advice?

When asked what your position is on abortion, give the pat answer... it should be a State decision, not a Federal one.  When asked about contraception coverage in mandated healthcare packages... tell them healthcare packages shouldn't be mandated.  Why aren't these guys working harder to separate their "personal" views from their professional views?

This is easy pickings for the Democrats.  They can now take the bulk of the GOP debate issues to date and say that the candidates running in November are nothing more than the most "right-wing" reactionaries on the market.  This is the liberal machine doing its best to make the GOP candidates look really bad... and it is working really well.

Really?

I certainly don't recall a sub-$2 gas price... but I won't quibble.  The jist of your post is solid, and I agree... but since you mentioned it, allow me this:

Adjusting for inflation (to today's dollar value), the average price of a gallon of gas in 1984 (when Reagan put the ban on speculation pricing on crude into effect) was right at $2.00, and it didn't move from there more than $.20 in either direction until 2002 (when Bush removed the ban on speculation pricing for crude).  The highest price in that 16-year span was (1990) $2.30 and the lowest (1998) was $1.75.  Since 2002, the average cost has been $2.85, with a high of $4.45 and a low of $2.00.

That's an average increase of 70% in the last 10 years over the previous 16 years.  Even removing the adjustment for inflation (2.9% per anum), we can't attribute the climb to averages over time... it is too drastic for that.  Look at the charts... you can SEE the month that the curbs are pulled out.  The price drops dramatically for 3 months (more than a 30% drop) then climbs steadily for the next ten years.

What more effective "brake" could you apply than a steady, month-by-month increase in the cost of the one commodity that runs our entire national economic engine?  I can't think of a single thing.

If all we were talking about were the effect that Federal and State taxes were having on the price per gallon, then the state-by-state comparisons would show that it simply wasn't profitable to work, live or travel through certain areas of the nation... and even now, that isn't a factor that can be discounted entirely... but it isn't the primary problem.  Even Ryan acknowledged this when he mentioned "any incident with Iran".  We haven't imported a single "legal" item from Iran since 1987... not a single drop of Iranian oil, gas or petroleum product has come into this nation since before Reagan left office.  See my point?  There is no glut on the crude market, now or in the foreseeable future.  The US (and indeed, most of the Western world) get only a fraction of the oil imports from Iran.  Iran trade mainly with India and China, and less than 2% of the rest of the global daily supply of oil is from Iranian wells... an amount easily recouped by even our poor domestic capacity.  So WHY should a problem developing within Syria (civil war, say) or a foreign policy "throw down" with Iran effect the price of gasoline so dramatically?  Why should we expect a $4+ gas price by summer?  Because it helps the national economy of the US to see companies like BP and Exxon put up another record-setting number of zeros behind their quarterly profit numbers?  2%... hell, I'll even go 5%... of the national commercial commodity margin goes to less than 40 companies, and the rest of the economy is reduced in growth numbers by the same percentages?  How is THAT good for the national agenda?

That's all, folks.

$1.85

According to AAA this was the average cost of a gallon of gasoline in January of 2009 when President George W. Bush left office. As of today, after 3 years of Obama, AAA says the average cost of a gallon of gasoline in the US is now at $3.54, and they project (minus any incident with Iran, mind you) $4.25 by summer.

How is this guy even competitive in this presidential cycle? Answer: he can't be. I have a feeling we may witness a Dukakis style loss ... nothing else makes sense.

And I might add that Rick Santorum can deliver that defeat IF he will focus on the economy and not participate in this media obsession with his social positions. In each interview I see with the good senator they open and close with questions about his views on gay marriage, condoms, women's rights, etc, all in an effort to paint him as this antiquated, out of touch, 1950's throw back (read: extremist). Santorum must say, "Yes this is an attack on faith, but I'm here to discuss Obama's attack on your wallet, have you seen the rise in gas prices, unemployment, debt etc, etc, etc?" The administration would love nothing more than to make this election about contraception, and I think that is the ploy behind this recent attack on Catholicism (or at least the timing is), to shift the national focus off of the economy ... Obama's record there is indefensible.

Rick - get back on message man.

On Rick Santorum...

My Mother sent me an email and asked what I thought about Rick Santorum as a candidate.  She saw the hype in the news about Santorum's sweeping caucus victory in MN, and knowing I live in PA (where he is from) I guess she thought I'd have some insight.

Well, I was living here only about 6 months when he left his Senate seat in Jan. '07... so I'm not an expert.  I'll just list what I like (and don't like) about Rick, and leave it at that.

Santorum has placed the American "family" at the heart of his presidential platform.  Every issue, topic and debate item he can be asked to address, he does from the view point of the "family".  I like this.  His Catholic faith and his pretty "traditional" position on marriage and morality mean most liberals take this to mean he is rooted in a white, male-oriented, nuclear family sort of operation... but I don't see it that way.

When the American economy as a whole is seen as centered on the American family, then the most people possible benefit from the paradigm.  Structuring policy and goals to offer the best opportunities to that "family unit" ensures that the primary focus of his campaign (and, presumably, his administration should he win) is with the single, largest consumer group in the nation... the family unit.

For example, his position on taxes clearly places an emphasis on ensuring that each family unit keep as much of its income as possible.  Family-owned businesses would benefit by gaining some tax incentives via their owners that larger, corporate businesses would not share... thus providing a means by which the largest portion of our nation's employer base is not only maintained but encouraged to grow.  A top taxable rate on income of less than 26% would mean that 72% of all taxpaying American families would get a tax cut (the rest would either pay NO taxes or, like Romney, a lower un-earned income rate).  If the family in question owned a restaurant, for example, and a large portion of their "wealth" was tied up in it, then that tied-up wealth could be added to their deduction schedule so that MORE spendable income remains in their hands.  he seems to recognize that owners of such businesses as this very often work longer hours and take less pay due to the demands of running a small business... and he seems to feel this should be rewarded rather than taxed.  I like this, too.

Santorum is repeatedly asked to defend his positions on "morality"... and I find this unfortunate.  He is a Catholic, so I share much of his understanding of what is "right and wrong", and I understand that there are literally MILLIONS of people that do not share this view... but that is NOT because of his Catholicism!  The same is true should he claim to be Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu or a devotee of the Norse god Odin.  As President, it is NEVER going to come about where he will have the power, voice or deciding vote in the determination of whether a marriage is between two consenting adults of any sex, or only between a man and a woman.  That power rests solely with the Congress of the United States... as any fifth grade student in this nation should be able to explain to you.  The same is true for abortion, capital punishment, Federal speed limits, and the cost to utilize visitor parking at the White House... it is all up to Congress ALONE.  He can veto, but he can't do it alone, one way or the other.

This does, however, touch on something I don't like about him.

He seems to think that it is the role of the government (or, at least, the President) to champion the "traditional" way of life here in America.  I couldn't disagree more.

The president has only ONE role as champion and defender... and that is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States as the primary organ of government.  By promising to defend and support "traditional" issues of morality and ethics in the country, he is placing himself in an untenable position.

Without going too far to the extreme, let me offer these examples:

Less than eight Presidents ago (within my lifetime), the "traditional" lifestyle of much of America included an institutionalized bias against women, blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, mentally and physically handicapped citizens and the poor.  Free and equal access to education did not exist in this nation.  There was no guaranty of equal opportunity in the work place.  "Separate but equal" was still seen as a viable, Constitutional option for more than 1/3 of the 50 States in the Union.  Why is THAT "traditional" lifestyle any less valid that the one championed by Santorum?

I want someone to recognize that it is NOT the role of the President of the United States to define, or contribute to the definition of, such terms as "marriage", "morality", or what does or doesn't constitute being "American" in this day and age.  I want a President that leads by example in such areas, but that doesn't expect or require the rest of the nation to follow simply because he is President.

As long as every American has the same access to services and opportunities to excel in this nation, and as long as his or her sex, race, creed, physical ability and sexual preference is not a determining factor in that access or opportunity, then the "traditional" in America is whatever America as a whole determines it should be.

I'll probably have to continue this later, since there are other areas in his platform that I want to touch on... but to sum up, let me say this:

I can't vote Democrat.  I'm registered Democrat, but can't vote in the general elections as such because the Democratic Party is no longer the party that advocates for equality and equal opportunity.  It is the party that promotes and defends the disparity that still exists in our culture, and they do it to build their support base.  Promising money for the poor, jobs for the unemployed, benefits for being black/Latino/Asian/et al, and all by taxing the very people that provide the most opportunity and benefit to society as a whole seems antithetical to everything that people like Truman and Kennedy so represented.

I really don't care who Obama (or anyone else) thinks is to blame for the fiscal mess that is our national economy... all I care about is what it is going to take to fix it.  If we get it fixed, then we must have recognized what went wrong and we can work to make sure it doesn't repeat THEN, but talking and planning on that NOW is both counter-productive and detrimental to the greater effort.

I don't think you went far enough...

Your point is sound... I agree with you, but could you have missed something as well?

The issue isn't simply a matter of conscience on the part of Catholics and any other denomination that stands against liberal disregard for the culture of life.  It is the misunderstanding that forms the core of the liberal agenda in this nation.

Using the Catholic Church as my example, I present the following:

Of all that the Church teaches its followers on topics such as social justice, welfare and life in this society, I am convinced that at least 90% of it matches exactly what the liberals of this country want most out of our society.

    A society without the need of war, armed violence or capital punishment.

    A society where no man, woman or child need ever go without food, shelter or medical assistance.

    A society where every individual has the right to make his or her own choices in regards to what is best for them and their dependents, without coercion or force.

    A society in which the strength of the individual is not based on his or her race, religion, gender, or physical ability, but on the actions and agendas he or she takes in life.

    Most importantly, a society in which the sanctity of life is paramount in our understanding of where we fit into the greater scheme of the world.  All life is a gift, and all people are unique and priceless beyond words... from the moment they are conceived to the last breath they take in life.  That life, in its most vulnerable and fragile forms, is the responsibility of ALL people to protect and nurture... be it in the uterus, in the hospital bed, or sleeping in a cardboard box in an alley.

The Church does not teach that this MUST be the case, however.  No one can be compelled to charity and love for their fellow Man, it must be freely given and freely accepted.  We all have free will, and we all have the inherent ability to choose our own paths.  We can choose to give a portion of our earnings and wealth to those that need it most... but to be compelled to do so by a government not only negates the charity of the act, but lessens the amount of support given in every way imaginable.

The Liberals in this country see religion as a sort of string attached to charity.  No one who eats a free dinner at a soup kitchen in a Catholic church's "social hall" is ever required to attend Mass or convert from their heathen ways.  The vast majority of the people that Mother Teresa of Calcutta ministered to were Hindus, not Christians, and she never asked even one of the hundreds of thousands that she tended to convert.  Her charity to the poorest of the poor was freely given, without requirements or conditions.

Because the Catholic Church teaches "responsibility", it is seen as repressive and backwards.  If people make choices, they must be ready to take on the responsibilities associated with those choices... good and bad.  But it doesn't teach that the choices should be denied outright... even contraception, which is the main topic behind the most recent headlines.  The Church teaches that contraception is contrary to God's Law in that it artificially prevents life to begin in an act that results in nothing else... conception.  Its application in an individual's life is up to the individual, however... the Church has neither the right nor the means to deny the individual that choice.

To me, the crux of this whole issue isn't in the details of the agenda... it is in the agenda itself.  This is a fine and telling example of why "Obamacare" is doomed to fail:  government cannot remove the responsibility attached to choice from the individual and move it to someone else.  It cannot dictate the means that any single person must take in making life's choices, nor can it force an individual to provide for someone else to do the same thing.

Ryan's examples were very good... but could they be too remote an example?  If free access to contraception is a guaranteed right in this country under Obamacare, then will cosmetic surgery be next?  Will I be forced to put up a portion of MY earnings to allow someone working for me to increase their breast size by a factor of ten?  Should I be forced to pay for a portion of the cost associated with one of my employees who feels that his hair is getting too thin and wants to get it fixed surgically?  Will liposuction become a covered procedure under the terms of the coverage I am forced by law to provide?  Facelifts?  Penis enlargements?  Tattoos?

Obama's argument for this coverage under his healthcare reform plan was that preventing unwanted pregnancies saves the system money.  My counter would be that no form of contraception is 100% effective, yet making all forms available will only promote the "act" that makes pregnancy possible in the first place, while adding the medically-proven fact that hormonal contraception is directly linked to breast cancer and that implant contraception causes scaring and loss of fertility to the mathematics of the process, too.

It is as simple as this:  this sort of policy promotes the idea that we can live a life of free choice without cost or repercussion, and that this is somehow an inherent "right" promised to us by our government.

That is simply false, from start to finish.

All men of conscience are missing the point here...

Yes, the Catholic Church and all those who stand with them are 100% correct to fight this "demand" of Il Duce-in-chief. However, we need to back up a step so that we don't allow the table to be set for another unconstitutional "compliance order."

Is the current issue a real violation (ahem, ACLU) of the seperation of Church and State? Yes. However, if I am a Catholic and I open up a deli, I should not be compelled to provide health insurance for my employees that cover contraceptives, abortion, or sex changes. I should be able to object on grounds that it violates my faith, my conscience, as a business owner. And a step back from that we should not lose sight of the fact that as an individual - much like the Amish can opt out of social Security - I should be able to opt out of being compelled (at the threat of fines and jail time as Obamacare provides for) to purchase health insurance, PERIOD. What next? Can you compel an individual owner of a Kosher Deli to do business on the Sabbath? Can they compel a Mormon restaurant owner to provide coffee on the grounds that their non-purchase affects the interstate commerce of coffee beans? Or make a young Mennonite man pick up an M-16 for his country? Or an athiest to buy a Christmas tree and presents on the grounds that his local vendors need the holiday sales boost?

I am all for the fight the Church is waging. Lets us just be sure though not to let the administration draw their line in the sand so deep into unconstitutional territory that in the resulting "compromise" we allow them to to be a just a "few feet" inside. Then we will have won the battle, but lost the war.

Man, my wife is PISSED!

PA Governor Thomas Corbett (R) has proposed a budget this week that cuts higher education costs for the Commonwealth by more than 25%... and that means our bill for Katey's university education is going up again.

All of our gut reactions here are probably understandable... at $16k a year, Mansfield University is one of the more "affordable" State-schools we can send her to, and we want it to be as easy (meaning cheap) as possible for us.  Knowing that we face the prospect of next year's bill being $20k makes all of us unhappy.

I can't blame her for having that initial reaction... blaming Republicans, I mean.  I wasn't able to rationally defend the position that it isn't the Federal government's "job" to provide an affordable education to all its citizens.  It is only their job to provide the opportunity for that education.  So, I took a few minutes and found out some interesting information that I think all of the Commonwealth's universities will need to ponder in the coming years.

There is a small college in Ohio called Antioch College that was formed more than 160 years ago, and that recently saw its enrollment fall to less than 40 students.  In an effort to correct that glaring issue, as well as increase its endowment and alumni base, it is offering any student that enrolls over the next three years FREE TUITION.  That's right... no tuition costs at all (a savings of $106,000 by their current fee schedule) and all you pay for your degree is housing and board costs.  By Antioch's estimates, they will have a full student compliment by this time next year, and for the next three years, and can then look to build on the endowment and make some much needed improvements to the college.

The Milwaukee School of Engineering is also struggling to get its enrollment up.  It has seen a drop of more than 65% in new student enrollment over the last 10 years, and expects funding from the State of Wisconsin to fall by as much as 40% in the next two years.  In order to increase the student body and grow their endowment, they are offering anyone that graduates with a BA/BS and maintains a strong GPA a zero-tuition Masters degree program.  Basically, a buy-one-get-one free degree program that can save engineering students as much as $80,000 over the course of 6 years.

THIS is the solution to the tuition crisis in this country:  the colleges and universities need to make the product they offer better and/or more affordable to attract students to their campuses.  If more State-directed colleges followed their private counterpart's lead, I think this problem would sort itself out rather quickly.  For example, University of Pennsylvania has an average tuition cost for PA residents of just over $50k per year, making a four year degree a $200k expense.  To keep that big number from growing in the next 5 years, UPenn has opted to freeze all wages, salaries and pension contributions at 2011 levels for four years, insuring that tuition costs wouldn't go up because of staff expenses.

When will the rest of the Commonwealth come to the same point?

On Santorum...

You know... I can't discount the possibility that the Catholic bishops in this nation, having that letter read in each and every parish over the better part of a month, are making one's denomination a factor in this years election.

Typically, the Church encourages the faithful to participate in the democratic process without pushing a particular candidate over another (I'm speaking of the Church as a whole, now... I'm sure there are individual exceptions)... but as Ryan said, a very clear line has been drawn by the Obama administration, and I think many Catholics that considered themselves "compassionate" conservatives are now looking to see who among the candidates is best going to "understand" their anger and frustration.

And Santorum is the only Catholic running.

Santorum Wins!

How bout' my boy, huh?

How long have I been pushing him as the sensible alternative for Conservatives? Since Thanksgiving? At least since he was at 2% in Iowa, I know that.

I think there is a couple things going on here, but first - you're right Titus. While "Marxist" is a very specific standard that Obama definitionally doesn't meet, the label "socialist" undeniably describes both the man and his belief system.

Now on Santorum ... I do believe the Romney/Gingrich dust up has exposed both of their soft, big-government-tendency, underbellies. In comparison, Santorum has a consistent limited government record. And an unapologetic social conservative resume. And ironically, Obama attacking Catholicism in an election year could help give rise to a Roman Catholic challenger for his job.

By my count (per state delegate count not withstanding) Santorum has won 4 states; Romney 3; and Gingrich 1. Is it too early to start calling Rick the front runner?

Obama is a socialist...

It is undeniable.

Everyone is focusing on the gospel quote that Obama made recently, wherein he took a passage from Luke and seemingly used it completely out of context.  I do think he did just that, but it isn't the misuse of the passage that I am finding interesting... it is the insight that gives us into Obama's thought processes.

Obama's choice to quote Luke 12 at the National Prayer Breakfast this week might have been "out of context" (I'm convinced it was, myself)... but that doesn't make it wrong for him to have done.  The beauty and wonder of the Gospels is that they give meaning and inspiration based on the individual reading them, every bit as much as they do to the collective whole of society and history.

I'm far more fascinated by the view into his agenda that the quote offers us.

He said, and I quote:  "...but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that,'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required... "

I find it almost tragic that a man that professes to be Christian could equate the blessings "given" by God to each of us as individuals as little more than a resource to be drawn from by the Government.  The gifts granted by God in each of our lives are NOT to be seen as part of a great pool that the Fed can dip into each and every time a need is perceived somewhere else in society.  Christ taught that the value of the individual was far greater than the value of the society... didn't the shepherd leave the flock unattended while He went in search of the lost lamb?  Whom did the Father kill the fatted calf for?  Not his faithful sons, but for his prodigal son who had squandered his inheritances and didn't even have shoes on his feet.

Yes, Christ taught us the value and worth of self sacrifice... it is a cornerstone of His ministry... but it is the personal self sacrifice given freely and without coercion that has value.  God sees no value in rendering on to Caesar that which is already Caesar's... He sees value in giving that which is outside of the required amount. If the Fed "requires" higher taxes, then it is not a valued effort on our part to give it.  However, if the Fed takes only that which it absolutely needs to provide the barest necessities of government (as the Founders intended), then the efforts made by the individual citizens through charitable donations, private organizations, and church groups to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves is both less burdensome on the individual and far, FAR more productive than anything the Fed could do itself.

Obama's quote shows us that the "individual" in his eyes is nothing more than a small, small portion of the far greater resource pool that is the US of A.  Successful individuals must pay to support less successful individuals, all to benefit society as a whole and NEVER to benefit either (or any) individual at all.  The popular image so ingrained in modern times by campy movie themes is that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one" is so utterly and totally false in its very premise that it should be struck from the hearts of men at every stroke.  Ironically, the movie that quote comes from even shows us this... it is the message underlying both THAT movie and its even campier sequel.

Just one more bit of evidence that this modern day we live in is based totally on a "catch-phrase" understanding of history and morality... and that even our President employs this understanding.

On Romney's taxes...

I was surprised that so much news print today was still dedicated to Romney's tax returns... so I read some of the articles.  I must admit, if nothing else, it has stirred some interesting ideas among the various pundits out there.

Romney gave $20.9 million as his adjusted gross income, with none of it coming from "the sweat of his own brow"... meaning none of it was earned income, it was all interest and return on investment capital.  His tax bill for the whole $20.9 million was $3.226 million, or just 15.4%.  I think I made a rather eloquent defense of Romney's tax rate in a previous post, so I won't do so again here.  But I was surprised and intrigued by some of the comments made in today's articles.

Romney does not contribute to the Social Security fund... at all.  Nor does he have Medicare deductions taken out of his checks.  These are deducted only from earned income, not from investment income.  Some of your SSI benefits are based on your level of contributions, but not all... and none of your Medicare benefit is based on that.  Now, I'm not suggesting that Romney will EVER collect Social Security or Medicare... but he COULD, should he choose to.

Most of the top 10% of earners in this nation do not pay a SSI or Medicare tax, mainly because most do not earn standard earned income (like Romney).  Should they?  I, for one, would be curious to see what percentage of the total annual contributions to the general fund would be matched should the top 10% of this country actual contribute to SSI and Medicare.  I am not able to "opt out" of SSI or Medicare, and that makes me wonder why someone like Romney is able to.  Between SSI and Medicare, I lose nearly 2% of my gross income every year, and there is NO guarantee that I am EVER going to see a penny of that returned while I am alive.  Why doesn't Romney?

If I were President, and had the means to make the changes we are describing here, I'd lower the gains tax, lower the income tax... but there is a real chance I'd make EVERYONE contribute to the "national safety net" that is SSI and Medicare, as long as they exist.  Can anyone tell me I'm wrong?

One thing you have to give Paul...

Of all the candidates, none sticks to his principles like Ron Paul.

He doesn't change his tune for any reason... ever.  He has a rather unique view of foreign policy, and I still don't think I can ever get behind it, but if there is a reason for his continued... and even growing... popularity, it is because he simply won't bend.

Santorum would be next on that list, I think... but the big difference is that his message isn't THAT different than Romney, Gingrich or anyone else running within the GOP.  He is probably closest to the "Reagan-ite" model so many seem to think is the yardstick to measure candidates by... but he won't measure up to what the expectations are.  No one can, really... especially since Santorum seems so adept at simply avoiding tough questions by moving the topic away from what he doesn't want to address.

I really just don't understand why it can't be so much easier than this.  Lower taxes by at least 25%.  Cut spending by at least 30% (across the board, of course).  Reduce capital gains by 50%.  Reduce corporate taxes by 10%.  End speculation pricing on crude oil (like Reagan did in 1982).  Untie the hands of the States along the US-Mexican border, so that the pressure of illegal immigration isn't solely in the hands of Federal agents.  Give States some incentive to take on more responsibility in the health care and insurance arena.

Whomever says THAT as their campaign promise gets my vote.

I'm still not a Romney fan...

Not because he doesn't care about the poor, either.

I know he didn't mean it as it was taken... he was saying that there are plenty of in-place means for the Federal government to assist the poorest of the poor, and if it wasn't enough, he'd "fix it."

THAT is why I don't like him.  He is far too much of the pander-to-the-fringe type of politician for my tastes.  He will say what needs to be said, he will change his position to suit his listeners, and I think he will spend money like he did when he was Governor... which means "a lot".

We don't need another Bush Jr. or a GOP version of Obama-lite... that isn't going to fix anything.