Turnout for the 2012 Iowa caucuses was nearly identical to 2008.  The Republican Party of Iowa found that 122,000 ballots were cast in the caucuses.  Of those, 30,015 went for Mitt Romney, and 30,007 were cast for Rick Santorum.  Despite a first place finish, Romney received just twenty-five percent of the vote.  Four years earlier, in 2008, Governor Romney finished second behind Governor Huckabee, with just twenty-five percent of the vote.  Romney’s inability to eclipse the thirty percent mark indicates that he remains a weak frontrunner.  Republican strategist Karl Rove noted that three-fourths of the votes cast during the Iowa caucuses, were for someone other than Mitt Romney.  As the reader can discern, Republican voters, especially those who consider themselves “very conservative” or “conservative,” possess reservations about Mitt Romney.  Rick Santorum captured the support of those who considered themselves “conservative” or “very conservative,” whereas Romney was favored by moderates and liberal Republicans.  Representative Ron Paul, the third place finisher, was favored by nominal Democrats, Independents, and liberals.  Joe Trippi, a Fox News Correspondent, and Howard Dean’s former campaign manager, noted that the Ron Paul campaign worked assiduously to court voters who traditionally do not participate in the Republican caucuses: disenfranchised Democrats, Libertarians, liberal-leaning Independents, and liberals.  In fact, Ron Paul captured nearly eighty-five percent of the vote from each of the aforementioned groups.

Perhaps the greatest surprise of the evening was Rick Santorum’s second place finish.  For much of the race, the former Pennsylvania senator was polling in the low single digits, and was considered to be a non-factor in the 2012 presidential race.  Unlike Mike Huckabee four years earlier, Santorum did not spent copious amounts of money in Iowa, and had not developed a large statewide organization.  Instead, Santorum placed a profound emphasis on retail politics.  Retail politics, for those unfamiliar with the idiom, refers to visiting homes, knocking on doors, interacting with voters, and traveling around the state.  Rick Santorum was the first Republican candidate to visit all ninety counties in Iowa, and delivered over 330 speeches in the Hawkeye state.  Santorum’s success is an indication that retail politics, not money is paramount in caucus states.  As a result of his strong showing in Iowa, Rick Santorum has positioned himself as the leading conservative challenger to Mitt Romney.  Throughout the campaign, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum, have sought to brand themselves as the “non-Romney” candidate.  After last evening, just Rick Santorum has earned the title of the “conservative favorite.”

The Iowa caucuses proved, once and for all, that Rick Santorum, not Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Perry, is the choice of conservative voters.  With Michele Bachmann out of the race, and Rick Perry’s campaign dwindling on the precipice of collapse, it appears as though Rick Santorum has solidified his position as the conservative favorite. While Newt Gingrich is still a viable candidate, it does not appear as though he will be able to generate the same amount of excitement among social and fiscal conservatives, as Rick Santorum.  Thus, this author posits that 2012 will be a two person race between Mitt Romney, the favorite of moderates and the Republican establishment; and Rick Santorum, the conservative outsider, and former Pennsylvania senator.  While Mitt Romney remains the frontrunner, he will have a difficult time capturing the nomination.

Since 1976, the Iowans have traditionally supported underdog candidates over the presumptive frontrunner, in the caucuses.  In 1980, George H.W. Bush narrowly defeated Ronald Reagan, thirty-two percent to thirty percent.  Reagan went on to win the New Hampshire primary, and the Republican nomination.  Eight years later, George H.W. Bush finished third behind Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson.  George Herbert Walker Bush’s nineteen percent of the vote was the lowest total for any Republican candidate who went on to win the nomination.  In 1996 and 2000, the eventual Republican nominees, Bob Dole and George W. Bush prevailed in the Iowa caucuses.  In 2008, however, Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor shocked the political establishment by defeating Mitt Romney thirty-four percent to twenty-five percent.  Romney outspent Huckabee 5-to-1, and had developed a superior organizational structure in the Hawkeye State.  In 2012, Mitt Romney defeated Senator Rick Santorum by a paltry eight votes.  While Romney can claim a statistical victory, Rick Santorum was the real winner in Iowa. His meteoric rise was precipitated by a superior grassroots strategy, hard-work, the development of a populist-conservative economic message, and his penchant for social issues..   As the reader can discern, the Iowa caucuses, unlike the New Hampshire primary, the focus of the next section, traditionally favors the underdog candidates over the presumptive frontrunner.

The New Hampshire primary has a better track record of selecting presidential candidates than the Iowa caucuses.  According to Jon Huntsman, “Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents.” As such, Mr. Huntsman has decided to focus his campaign solely on New Hampshire.  Since 1952, just three Republican candidates: Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., (1964); Pat Buchanan (1996); and John McCain (2000), have won the New Hampshire primary and lost the Republican presidential nomination.  Conversely, five Democratic candidates: Estes Kefauver (1952 and 1956), Edmund Muskie (1972), Gary Hart (1984), Paul Tsongas (1992), and Hilary Clinton (2008), have won the primary and gone on to lose the nomination.  As the reader can discern, no Republican candidate has lost New Hampshire and won the Republican nomination since George W. Bush in 2000.  At this writing, Mitt Romney holds a twenty-three point lead over Ron Paul, forty-one percent to eighteen percent.  Newt Gingrich is in third place with thirteen percent of the vote, and Jon Huntsman is in fourth place with nine percent of the vote.  It appears certain that Mitt Romney will prevail in New Hampshire, a state in which the Massachusetts governor owns a summer home, and has captured numerous big name endorsements, including Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Governor John Sununu, and Judd Gregg, a former governor and senator. Based on historical trends, if Mitt Romney wins the New Hampshire primary, he will win the Republican nomination.  With a victory in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney would become the first Republican nominee to ever win the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary in the same election cycle (excluding 1984, 1992, and 2004, which were uncontested).

The 2012 Republican presidential contest is poised to be one of the most enthralling and highly anticipated races in American history.  While Mitt Romney is the frontrunner and presumptive nominee, it is much too early in the process to discount Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich.  Each of the aforementioned candidates has worked assiduously to brand themselves as the “true” conservative, anti-establishment candidate.  The alacrity that has engulfed Republican primary voters is palpable and does not show signs of dissipating.  Unlike 2008, when John McCain had the nomination locked up by early February, the author predicts that the 2012 contest will be a long, drawn out process. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Republican Party discarded the winner-take-all delegate acquisition model, and instead employed a system that awards delegates proportionally. If, however, Mitt Romney prevails next Tuesday in New Hampshire, the race will conclude before it ever began.

Despite Rick Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa, and the conservative movements clamoring for a candidate other than Mitt Romney, it appears certain that the Massachusetts governor, who has received hundreds of endorsements, and raised $32 million at this writing, will win the Republican nomination.  The American electorate should begin to prepare for what is expected to be the most expensive and vitriolic general election campaign in history, between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  If conservatives intend to achieve their ultimate goal: ensuring that Barack Obama is a one-term president, it is imperative that they rally around the candidate who best exemplifies their views on seminal policy issues.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 111

Current Event

According to Westfair online.com; July 21, 2011(full article available on-line)

“We have no alternative but to say enough is enough to HUD,” Astorino said Friday.

Astorino is scheduled to meet with HUD (Housing and Urban Development) Secretary Shaun Donovan in Washington, DC on July 29 to discuss the affordable housing mandate. He held a press conference in White Plains to publicly ask the housing secretary to intervene “in ending the impasse created by his department’s ‘unprecedented bureaucratic overreaching’ and ‘unwarranted trampling of local zoning rights’.”

“The bottom line is that HUD is asking us to spend money we don’t have, pick fights with our own municipalities, do things we have no power to do and in fact may violate the New York State Constitution, local zoning and a host of environmental laws,” he said.

There is a decided difference of opinion between HUD officials and the County Executive’s office about progress in enforcing the $63 million settlement, which was reached in 2009 after an anti-discrimination group sued the county for taking federal housing funds without allegedly doing enough to further fair and affordable housing. In accordance with the settlement, the county will have to build 750 affordable housing units in 31 Westchester communities in the next seven years. HUD is tasked with ensuring the county complies with enforcing the terms of the settlement.

Astorino said Westchester County has 164 affordable housing units approved for development this year and is ahead of the requirement to complete 100 units by the end of 2011. Another 154 units have financing in place, and 107 have building permits in place. There are 102 units currently in the pipeline for local approval, according to information provided by the County Executive’s office.

Astorino said HUD is now also calling for half of the 750 units to have three bedrooms. He said this demand “would force the county to run out of money well before all 750 units could be built.”

The units currently under development are mostly studio and one-bedroom sized units. Costs are running at approximately $68,800 per unit in county-funded subsidy. Three-bedroom units could cost $150,000 per unit in county subsidy. The subsidy also includes funds from other agencies and grant programs.

Instead of the $51.6 million dollars the county has allocated for the project, providing 375 units of three bedrooms and 375 of the currently configured units could cost the county $94.3 million.

Things came to a head between HUD and the county with a recent letter. For the fifth time, HUD rejected a required element of the plan called an analysis of impediment (AI), which requires the county to stipulate the causes of the housing inequity. According to Astorino, the problems are based on economic ability to pay, not a pattern of racial discrimination.

“They are asking Westchester County for more than anywhere else in the United States,” he said.

In the nine-page letter from HUD officials dated May 13, the agency outlines its reasons for rejecting the analysis of impediment statement.

The May 13 letter says that after working with the county on its rejected July 2010 AI statement: “the Submission remains substantially incomplete and unacceptable to HUD.”

According to HUD, the previous AI failed to specify how the county would carry out required mobility counseling, promote source-of-income legislation (referring to Section 8 vouchers, social security, supplemental security income, veteran’s benefits and pensions) or increase the availability of affordable housing for families with children.

The letter also says that the county failed to explain or analyze its history of segregation and the impact that has had on its housing patterns. The letter also says the county has not planned a strategy to deal with “exclusionary zoning practices” or “consider[ed] the effects that the location of affordable housing will have on segregation patterns.”

The letter recommends that the county give municipalities three months to act upon restrictive zoning laws before using strong levers like withholding county funds or even litigation to force action.

In a passage that drew the ire of Astorino, the letter states: “The AI must address the County’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing beyond the four corners of the settlement…the County must include a description of its strategies to develop, support the development of, or preserve affordable housing in areas of the County that are not included in the Settlement and for housing units beyond those provided for in the settlement.”

In a July 13 letter, Vincent Horn, HUD Director of Community Planning and Development, informed the county that its revised June 13, 2011 AI had failed to address the concerns of the May letter. Horn said: “Therefore, HUD is rejecting the County’s certification…”

The agency also has halted $6 million in payments of a Community Development Block Grant in the last of its three-year funding cycle.

Astorino says the move jeopardizes the jobs of 18 people who are working to ensure the county complies with the housing settlement. He said HUD is now using the rejected document to change the terms of the agreement and extending its concern into matters of local zoning practice.

Astorino also bristled at what he called HUD demands that the county make findings of racial discrimination and segregation.

“Westchester is the fourth most diverse county in New York, behind Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, tied with Manhattan,” he said. “I don’t think anyone would say Manhattan is not diverse.”

“This is now an integration order,” Astorino said. “We will not have a gun held to our heads to do things outside of our agreement.”

VS

The Administration vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution; 10^th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To quote James Madison, Federalist No. 45

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

We the People:

What gives the HUD the right to demand more?  It is certainly not the Constitution.  Has anything similar occurred near you, which might lead to more demands from The Administration?

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 107

Current Event

According to Gwen Moore’s press release on April 15, 2011:

Congresswoman Gwen Moore made the following statement after the House passed Republican Paul Ryan’s budget:

“As the Democratic alternative budgets showed, we can get our fiscal house in order without rationing health care for our seniors and low-income Americans.”

“The other side likes to talk about how Medicare is driving the deficit, but that’s just part of the story. The full story is that private health care costs – and we all know this to be true because we’re all paying more – are rising at a rapid clip, and Medicare can’t keep pace.”

“The debate we had on this budget could have been the same debate our nation had about the New Deal and Social Security. It could have been the same debate when Medicare and Medicaid became law. And this budget is turning back the clock and taking us to the ‘good old days’ when people are just on their own.”

VS

A Congresswoman’s Power vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution; 10^th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To quote James Madison, Federalist No. 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

We the People:

The needy would not be “on their own” without the federal government.  We help them through the states, local communities, churches and private charities, friends, neighbors, and families.

Federal officials may have pure motives for helping the needy.  Likewise they may blatantly intend to buy votes with our taxes.  It is their actions, not their intentions, which violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 103

Current Event

According to ABC News October 27, 2008  (full article available online)

On Jan. 18, 2001, then-state senator Barack Obama appeared on a public radio chat show to discuss “The Courts and Civil Rights.”

Obama in that interview said, “If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK.”

“But,” Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.”

According to the St. Petersburg Times, October 19,2008 (full article available online).  Here is an excerpt of the discussion between Barack Obama and Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher — “Joe the Plumber”

Obama: “You know, I would be open to it except for … here’s the problem with the flat tax. If you actually put a flat tax together, you’d probably … in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40 percent sales tax. …..

…. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody. But, listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question. And even if I don’t get your vote, I’m still gonna be working hard on your behalf ’cause I want to make sure … small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it…”

VS

Obama vs. The US Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

We the People:

The enumerated powers of Congress and the President respectively are defined in Article I,  Section 8 and Article II, Section 1.    These are the lists of what the federal government is charged with doing “on your behalf.”  And it is all that they may do, except through Constitutional amendments.

These essential constrains that were placed by the Framers in the Constitution must be enforced.  Some in our current government pit one group of Americans against the other by equating wealth redistribution with justice.  Wherever one finds it in the world, forced redistribution is a symptom of a stifling regime.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 102

Current Event

According to FoxNews.com, August 1, 2011

WASHINGTON — Private health insurers must now give birth control and other women’s health tests for free, the Obama administration said Monday. Among the benefits to be offered “without cost-sharing” — meaning no co-pay, co-insurance or deductibles beginning Jan. 1, 2013 — are:

– well-woman visits;
– screening for gestational diabetes;
– human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
– sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
– human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
– FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
– breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling, including breast pumps; and
– domestic violence screening and counseling.

The administration argues that the requirement, affecting most insurance plans, is aimed at encouraging women who might otherwise not be able to afford them to get critical services which can preempt the onset of disease.

“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need.”

Coverage with no co-pays for the morning-after pill was likely to become the most controversial part of the change. The Food and Drug Administration classifies Plan B and Ella as birth control, but some religious conservatives see the morning-after drugs as abortion drugs. The rules HHS issued Monday do not require coverage of RU-486 and other drugs to chemically induce an abortion.

That decision may have been in part a response to concerns like those raised in a letter sent by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, last week warning against mandating contraceptives.

“As a scientific matter, it is important to recall that you are considering ‘preventive’ services, and pregnancy is not a disease to be treated. Most importantly, these mandates are an affront to the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free exercise of religion and personal conscience,” Hatch wrote.

Of course, insurers are likely to pass the cost of free screenings to their customers through higher premiums.

Advocates say the majority of women will be covered once the requirement takes effect in 2013, although some insurance plans may opt to offer the benefit earlier. Aside from the religious conscience clause, there is one additional exception. Plans that are considered “grandfathered” under the law will not be affected, at least initially. Consumers should check with their health insurance plan administrator.

VS

The Executive Branch vs. The Constitution

Founding Document

US Constitution; 10^th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

Some say they are going to do it anyway, so we might as well make it safe.  The author disagrees. We should demand that our federal government practice abstinence from violating the 10th amendment, and us.

When the unemployment rate begins to decrease in an election year, the incumbent president’s chances of winning reelection increase.  Conversely, when the unemployment increases or shows little sign of improvement, the president loses his bid for reelection.  This article examines the impact that high unemployment rates have had on incumbent presidents’ reelections.  Furthermore, it examines the projected unemployment rate in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election.  If the unemployment rate remains stagnant, or continues to rise, it appears likely that President Obama will be a one-term president.

A weak economy and staggering unemployment numbers have periodically plagued incumbent administrations since the founding of our republic.  However, it was not until the twentieth century that the unemployment rate became a central focus in presidential elections.

Since the 1976 presidential election, every incumbent president, excluding Ronald Reagan, lost their bid for reelection when the unemployment rate exceeded seven percent. President Reagan’s landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984 was precipitated by an improving American economy, an increase in consumer confidence, and a drastic reduction in the unemployment rate.  In November 1984, the unemployment rate stood at 7.2 percent, a 3.6 percent reduction from 1982, when it stood at a whopping 10.8 percent. When the unemployment decreases in the years and months prior to an election, the incumbent president generally wins reelection. A reduction in the unemployment rate propelled Ronald Reagan to a landslide victory over his Democratic challenger, Walter Mondale, in the 1984 election.  Since 1976, no other incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate has exceeded seven percent.

The table shown below indicates that when the unemployment rate exceeds seven percent, the incumbent president usually loses his bid for reelection.  Furthermore, when the unemployment rate is lower than seven percent, the incumbent president wins reelection.  In November 2012, the unemployment rate is projected to exceed 7.7 percent. With a high unemployment rate, can President Obama get reelected?

The table below depicts the unemployment rate during presidential election years, in which incumbent presidents were vying for reelection.

Note: the 1988, 2000, and 2008 presidential elections were not included on the incumbent president was term-limited.

Since the 1976 election, incumbent presidents have been defeated in their bids for reelection when the unemployment rate has exceeded seven percent.  Ronald Reagan, as noted, is the exception to the rule.  Furthermore, a relatively low unemployment rate contributed to the reelection of Bill Clinton in 1996, and George W. Bush in 2004.  Unlike 1996, however, the economy was not the primary concern of voters in the 2004 election.  Instead, national security, foreign policy, and the candidates’ views on counterterrorism determined the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.  If the historical examples provided on this aforementioned chart are an indication of things to come, it will be difficult for Barack Obama to win reelection in 2012.

Despite their fundamental differences on policy issues, scholars and pundits from both sides of the political spectrum are in agreement that the economy will be the most important issue in the 2012 presidential election.  A Gallup poll conducted on July 29, 2011, found that fifty-four percent of Americans believe that economic conditions are poor. Additionally, seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that economic conditions are getting worse.  At this writing, President Obama’s job approval rating is a paltry forty-three percent, the lowest of his presidency. Can President Obama win reelection despite a struggling economy, high unemployment rate (9.2 percent at the time of this writing), and an approval rating of forty-three percent?  That question has perplexed political scholars and pundits for months.

It is possible for Barack Obama to win reelection despite a high unemployment rate.  Phil Izzo, an economist for the Wall Street Journal finds that in November 2012, the unemployment rate will stand at 7.7 percent, the highest rate during a presidential election year since 1976. Based solely on historical trends, it appears unlikely that President Obama can win reelection with an unemployment rate at seven percent.

However, if one seeks to answer this question by examining the public’s perception of the economy at the time of the election, Barack Obama could win reelection.  Even though seventy-nine percent of Americans believe that economic conditions are getting worse, President Obama could benefit from improved economic numbers in 2012.  Currently, the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent, a marked decrease from October 2010, when it stood at a colossal 10.2 percent. By November 6, 2012, the day of the presidential election, the unemployment rate is projected to be down to only 7.7 percent.  Remember, in 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected despite an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent on Election Day.  The public’s perception that the economy was improving contributed to Reagan’s victory over Walter Mondale.  A two percent drop in the unemployment rate could change the public’s perception of the economy and propel President Obama to victory in 2012.  Attempting to predict the outcome of the 2012 presidential election sixteen months before it occurs would be a mistake.  If the election were held today, however, trends suggest that President Obama would be narrowly defeated in his bid for reelection.  In a recent Gallup poll, the Republican presidential candidate is defeating President Obama forty-seven to thirty-nine percent. Despite these numbers, it is much too early to predict the outcome of the presidential election.

Incumbent presidents from both political parties have occasionally fallen victim to high unemployment rates and a weakening economy during an election year since the founding of our republic.  Since 1900, just two presidents have won reelection when the unemployment rate has exceeded seven percent: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.  With an unemployment rate projected to exceed 7.7 percent in November 2012, can President Obama win reelection? If he wins, he would defy the odds and become just the third president in the modern era to win reelection when the unemployment rate exceeded seven percent. What is clear, however, is that the struggling economy and high unemployment rate will be the most important issues in the 2012 presidential election.

Current Events        vs.       Founding Documents

Entry 101

Current Event

According to the New York Times on January 25, 2011(full article available online)

Melbourne Apartments is a new 84-unit building in Des Moines, Iowa, where a three-bedroom apartment rents for $775 a month but comes with restrictions — a family of five, for example, can earn no more than $47,460 a year. What is remarkable about this otherwise modest project is that the equity came from the search-engine giant Google, whose Mountain View, Calif., headquarters are more than 1,500 miles away.

The investment by Google and other large corporations in Melbourne Apartments and similar projects is one reason a cloud of gloom has lifted for developers of income-restricted housing. These developments depend heavily on low-income-housing tax credits, which provide the equity that makes the difference between whether a project gets built or not.

But when the economy collapsed in 2008 the market for these tax credits dwindled, and many projects never came to fruition. “Just $4.5 billion in tax credit equity was raised in 2009, compared with $9 billion in 2006″, said Frederick H. Copeman, who heads the tax credit practice at the Reznick Group, a national accounting and consulting company. “People were ready to walk off gangplanks,” he said. Mr. Copeman estimated that $7 billion was raised last year.

Created more than two decades ago to instill market discipline into the development of subsidized housing, low-income-housing tax credits are allocated by the federal government and awarded by the states to projects that meet strict requirements. Developers sell the credits to investors — generally financial institutions — that are seeking to reduce their federal income tax over a ten-year period. The banks have another incentive, because investing in tax credits helps them fulfill their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act to invest in poorer neighborhoods where they have customers.

But after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, “the banks were focused on their long-term liquidity,” rather than on offsetting profits, said another income-restricted housing expert, Michael Novogradac, the managing partner in the San Francisco office of Novogradac & Company. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had been major investors in tax credits, stopped buying them in 2007. Weakened demand for tax credits led to lower prices, which made them less valuable to developers.

But if you can buy $1 worth of tax credit for 59 cents, you are getting a better return on your investment. That made the credits attractive to a new class of investors looking for double-digit yields. In addition to Google, new investors include Verizon and the insurance companies Liberty Mutual and Allstate, said James L. Logue, III, chief operating officer of Great Lakes Capital Fund, in Lansing, Mich., which invests in income-restricted housing in the Midwest and upstate New York.

…
- – - – - – - – - -   – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – — – - – - – - -

From the transcript of President Obama’s speech on the debt ceiling on July 25, 2011

“Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.”

VS

Limited Federal Powers vs. The Federal Tax Code

Founding Document

US Constitution; 10^th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To quote James Madison, Federalist No. 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

We the People:

The two main aspects of the debt debate are revenue and spending.  I will address revenue.

The article above is an example of how corporations manage their businesses around tax credits.  In fact, it seems that tax credits which forward his philosophies are even acceptable to President Obama.

The tax code has devolved into another vehicle for social engineering programs, speech control, and wide-spread manipulation via the Washington central planners.  The tax credits also apply to energy, home ownership, land use, farming, college education, health care, and many other aspects of society.  The de facto influence of these violates the 10^th Amendme

According to the New York Times;  June 27, 2011 (full article available on-line).
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down on First Amendment grounds a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to children. The 7-to-2 decision was the latest in a series of rulings protecting free speech, joining ones on funeral protests, videos showing cruelty to animals and political speech by corporations.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for five justices in the majority in the video games decision, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, No. 08-1448, said video games were subject to full First Amendment protection.

Depictions of violence, Justice Scalia added, have never been subject to government regulation. “Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed,” he wrote, recounting the gory plots of “Snow White,” “Cinderella” and “Hansel and Gretel.” High school reading lists and Saturday morning cartoons, too, he said, are riddled with violence.

The definitions tracked language from decisions upholding laws regulating sexual content. In 1968, in Ginsberg v. New York, the court allowed limits on the distribution to minors of sexual materials like what it called “girlie magazines” that fell well short of obscenity, which is unprotected by the First Amendment.

Justice Scalia rejected the suggestion that depictions of violence are subject to regulation as obscenity. “Because speech about violence is not obscene,” he wrote, “it is of no consequence that California’s statute mimics the New York statute regulating obscenity-for-minors that we upheld in the Ginsberg decision.”
Stevens did not involve speech directed to minors, but the majority said the California law’s goal of protecting children from seeing violence did not alter the constitutional analysis.

“No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children
from harm,” Justice Scalia wrote, “but that does not include a free-floating
power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion in the case.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer filed separate dissents. Justice Thomas said the drafters of the First Amendment did not understand it to protect minors’ free speech rights.
“ ‘The freedom of speech,’ as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians,” Justice Thomas wrote.
Justice Scalia, who shares with Justice Thomas a commitment to interpreting the Constitution in accord with its original meaning, parted ways with his usual ally on this point. “He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none,” Justice Scalia wrote of Justice Thomas.

Justice Breyer also dissented, saying the statute survived First Amendment scrutiny. He relied on studies that he said showed violent video games were positively associated with aggressive behavior.

“Unlike the majority,” Justice Breyer wrote, “I would find sufficient grounds in these studies and expert opinions for this court to defer to an elected legislature’s conclusion that the video games in question are particularly likely to harm children.”
VS

The US Supreme Court vs. The First Amendment

Founding Document
The Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We the People:

The first amendment only limits Congress.  Justice Breyer sees those plain words it, he trusts the states to define the limits on speech, and he accepts the limits of the federal government’s power on this matter.   The other Justices were apparently focused more on judicial precedence.

Current Event
According to The Christian Post, May. 05, 2010

A Florida school district is being sued for “persistent and widespread” restrictions on religious expression.   Liberty Counsel, a legal group often representing Christians in religious freedom and family cases, filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of two dozen individuals against the Santa Rosa County School District and its Superintendent, Timothy Wyrosdick, for violations of First Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs – which include teachers, students, former students, parents, volunteers and local members of the community – complain that they have been censored, intimidated or harassed by the school district and its partner, the American Civil Liberties Union.

Last year, the school district agreed to a Consent Decree drafted by the ACLU that restricts the practice or promotion of religious expression and activities by students. The decree was adopted after the ACLU sued Santa Rosa schools over the same issue – the right to pray and express religious beliefs in school.

In 2008, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Pace High School Students who alleged that school officials regularly promoted religion and led prayers at school events. The Consent Decree was the result of the lawsuit. It prohibits school officials from proselytizing, promoting or endorsing prayers during school functions and organizing school-sponsored religious services.

“Students can no longer say ‘God Bless,’ teachers must hide in closets to pray, parents cannot communicate frankly with teachers, volunteers cannot answer any questions regarding religion, Christian groups cannot rent school facilities for private religious function benefiting students, and pastors are dictated how they can and cannot seat their audience at private, religious baccalaureate services held inside their own houses or worship,” Liberty Counsel said in a statement. Chaz Riley, senior class president at Milton High School, is one of the plaintiffs in the Liberty Counsel lawsuit. Riley, in a letter to students, wrote “Good luck and God Bless,” but the phrase “God Bless” was removed by school officials because it is prohibited under the Consent Decree. Officials contended it amounts to offering a prayer.

Liberty Counsel denounced the Consent Decree for “obliterat[ing] religious freedom” and making a “mockery of the First Amendment.”

“Freedom fled from Santa Rosa County when the ACLU filed suit,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law. “Liberty Counsel intends to restore freedom and end the intimidation.”

The Santa Rosa County School District, in a statement, expressed frustration at being caught between what it considers two advocacy groups.

– – - – - – - -  – - – - — – - – — – — – - – — – - – — – - – — – - – — – - – — – - – — – - – — – - – — -
According to the Pensacola News Journal, July 5, 2011

The Santa Rosa County School Board unanimously voted Tuesday to approve an agreement between the School District, the American Civil Liberties Union and Liberty Counsel.

Among the amendments to the original agreement is clarification of what does and doesn’t constitute a “prayer.” ‘Prayer’ does not include customary, polite expressions and greetings, including ‘God bless you’ or ‘thank heavens,’
or a student’s religious expression responsive to a legitimate academic class
assignment,” according to court documents.

VS
Local members of  Santa Rosa County,  The Constitution, and The Liberty Council vs.  The ACLU and The Santa Rosa County School District.

Founding Document

The Constitution, First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

We the People:

The Liberty Council forced the ACLU to compromise. Although this agreement was still more restrictive than what the first amendment grants, the Liberty Council deserves enormous credit for their service. They could have some fun by how they define customary polite expressions and greetings.  Here is an example of a polite expression:

May God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change;
courage to change the things we can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

On this day 235 years ago, a daring assembly of men from all walks of life concocted a Declaration of Independence that advocated for the establishment of an independent nation—the United States of America, that is committed to affording all citizens with freedom, opportunity, liberty, and the ability to influence the decisions made by their government.  Furthermore, through the enactment of this revolutionary treatise, these statesmen ensured that their new nation, the United States of America would be free from the oppression, despotism and anarchy they fought assiduously to suppress.  Today, as a result of their courageous actions, America is the most revered and robust nation in the world.  Furthermore, despite our internal political and religious differences, America remains committed to ensuring that all citizens are afforded with life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and, most importantly, freedom.

John Adams, America’s second president, and the most prolific philosopher, scholar, and diplomat of his generation, in a letter to his beloved wife Abigail, penned on July 3, 1776, said of Independence Day and its importance in the annals of American history, “I am apt to believe that it [Independence Day] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.” The reverence which Mr. Adams shows in this memorable letter for freedom, liberty, and opportunity is infectious.  On this Independence Day, PAI encourages you to partake in the myriad of festivities outlined by John Adams in the aforementioned letter, while simultaneously honoring the brave men and women in uniform and reflecting upon what it means to be an American.

In summation, Pax Americana Institute encourages you to join us in honoring American on the 235^th anniversary of its founding and remembering the countless men and women who have given the last measure of devotion to protect liberty, freedom, opportunity, and democracy and to preserve and strengthen the Pax Americana.  So long as our citizens remain united, and place the interests of the nation ahead of their own well-being, America will remain “a shining city upon the hill.”