Would Obama's corporate tax cut speed the recovery?

The president wants to slash the tax rate on businesses — but raise corporate tax revenue by eliminating loopholes On Wednesday, President Obama proposed cutting the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. But the administration insists that this wouldn't deplete federal coffers. Instead, the plan would actually generate more revenue for the federal government, because Obama wants to eliminate loopholes and subsidies that allow many corporations to pay a lot less than 35 percent, and in some cases, zero. Obama is also proposing a minimum tax on foreign earnings. Is this sensible, overdue reform, or a recovery-killing tax hike in disguise?

The proposal would doom the recovery: "This is a terrible, terrible plan," says James Pethokoukis at The American. The stagnant economic recovery is already "arguably the worst in modern American history," and instead of giving corporate America a hand, Obama now wants to saddle companies with so-called reform that would "actually raise the tax burden on American business by $250 billion over a decade." That would make us less competitive than ever, and doom our chances of bouncing back anytime soon.
"Why Obama's corporate tax plan is a total bust"

It's a step in the right direction: Obama's proposal "is a helpful start to the much-needed discussion about how best to reform the corporate tax code," Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, tells Reuters. But if anything, it doesn't go far enough. What the U.S. really needs is comprehensive reform of the corporate and individual tax codes at the same time. "That would be a real boost to the economy."
"Obama urges corporate tax cut, closing loopholes"

Obama's plan won't affect the economy much either way: U.S. corporate profits have already "rebounded to their pre-recession heights," says Pat Garofolo at ThinkProgress. And despite all of the whining from the Right, the tax rate that U.S. companies actually pay is the second lowest in the world. That helps explain why our corporate tax haul is at a 40-year low. But because Obama's plan doesn't aim for a truly significant revenue increases, it won't make much difference at all.
"5 key facts about the Obama administration's corporate tax overhaul"

Face it — this proposal is all about the election: "There's little chance... that this tax reform proposal will make it through Congress," says Norah O'Donnell at CBS News, which means Obama's plan will have no impact whatsoever on the economy. But it will play a role in the presidential election. Leading GOP candidate Mitt Romney unveils his own economic plan this week, and Obama is itching to start an election-year debate in which he's the one who looks like a tax cutter and reformer.
"White House wants election year fight over taxes"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

The economic recovery: Proof Obama's stimulus worked?

After years of sputtering, the U.S. economy seems to be picking up steam. But Republicans say the president's policies have only gotten in the way With the Dow Jones Industrial Average topping 13,000 for the first time since 2008, confidence is growing that the economy is finally on the mend. And President Obama appears to be reaping the political benefits, with his rising favorability ratings improving his re-election prospects. Republican presidential candidates, however, insist that the economy is improving despite Obama's burdensome policies, like the $787 billion stimulus package, not because of them. How much credit can Obama take for the economy's climb?

Obama's "ballyhooed" stimulus was an utter failure: The unemployment rate, which stood at 8.3 percent in January 2012, is literally unchanged from February 2009, says John Merline at Investor's Business Daily. There are now 5.5 million people who have been out of work for at least 27 months, up 83 percent from when Obama took office. And the civilian labor force has shrunk by 126,000 since Obama's inauguration. "In past recoveries, the labor force climbed an average of more than 3 million over comparable time periods." Obama's economic policies simply haven't delivered.
"Obama stimulus turns three: What has it achieved?"

Nonsense. The stimulus was integral to the recovery: Look, says Derek Thompson at The Atlantic. We'll never know with "utter certainty" whether the stimulus truly worked because "we can't compare this world, where the stimulus happened, to a make-believe world where it didn't happen." But if we objectively look at the data, "we can say with reasonable certainty that the stimulus did support growth, prevent layoffs, and make the economy better." And by most any measure — whether's it's real GDP or job growth — the "economic turnaround coincided with the passing of the stimulus." Give Obama credit.
"The stimulus absolutely, positively worked, no doubt about it, probably"

But the economy might not be recovering at all: "Employers are hiring, manufacturing is revving up, and stocks are rallying," says Annalyn Censky at CNN. But that doesn't mean a true recovery is upon us. A showdown with Iran could push gas prices to $4 or $5 a gallon this spring. Job cuts by cash-strapped states and other public agencies are a continued drag on the economy. (Remember, "the government is the largest employer in the country.") And the "escalating European debt crisis" could level the still-feeble U.S. and global economy. Clearly, we aren't "on the path to a sustained recovery" quite yet.
"Economy in recovery? Not so fast"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Did the GOP really cave on Obama's payroll tax holiday?

Republicans puzzle much of D.C. by suddenly backing off a demand to slash spending in exchange for extending a tax holiday. Is there more here than meets the eye? Washington is on the cusp of something unusual: A bipartisan agreement hammered out well before the 11th hour. On Tuesday evening, House and Senate leaders agreed to a package that will renew President Obama's payroll tax holiday for the rest of the year, as well as raise Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and extend unemployment benefits for another 10 months. The biggest surprise: House Republicans dropped their insistence that the payroll-tax-cut extension (which will add $100 billion to the deficit) be paid for with cuts elsewhere, a capitulation that infuriated many conservatives. Did the GOP simply give up after badly losing a similar fight in December, or is something else going on?

The GOP caved, big time: Both sides compromised to reach this deal, but Republicans "surrendered," says Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog. Facing the prospect of being blamed for raising taxes on 160 million middle-class workers, "the GOP simply couldn't play the same game" at which it excelled during debt-ceiling and government-shutdown showdowns last year: Hold the economy hostage, wait for Democrats to cave. This time, Democrats had the upper hand and everyone knew it.
"Congress reaches tentative payroll deal"

In some ways, this is a win for conservatives: It's not that simple, says Conn Carroll at The Washington Examiner. This deal "contains a huge, though far from perfect, win for conservatives on the Hill." Letting Americans keep their money is always a victory for anti-tax Republicans. And while this deal commits the right-wing blasphemy of adding to the deficit, it vastly improves on the Democrats' initial proposal: Paying for a payroll tax holiday by soaking the rich with a tax hike.
"Conservatives win on payroll cut"

Republicans are playing Obama like a fiddle: This is terrible fiscal policy, says the pseudonymous Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge. But, by letting Obama "spend, spend, spend," the GOP can win. If the president keeps adding to the deficit at this rate, the U.S. will hit the debt ceiling in September. And if there's another big showdown over raising the national credit card limit before election day, "Obama's chances of re-election plunge." All the GOP has to do is get out of the way and "let Obama blow himself up."
"GOP finally discovers Obama's Achilles heel..."

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Bishops React to Obama's Change on Birth Control Rule

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that he and other bishops were waiting to see the details of proposed changes to a federal rule on birth control that President Obama announced Friday before deciding whether to embrace them. The rule would require religiously affiliated hospitals and universities to provide free contraception to their female employees.

As my colleague, Helene Cooper reports, the “accommodation” made by the president would allow such institutions and organizations to avoid paying for contraceptive care. Female employees, however, would be able to gain free access to birth control through their insurance plans, Mr. Obama said.

For months, Catholic bishops have been preparing a huge campaign to fight the new rule, my colleague Laurie Goodstein reported Friday.

In addition to reading letters from bishops about religious freedom at Masses across the country last weekend, the bishops also turned to YouTube, Twitter and Facebook to make their case that the dispute was not about birth control but government interference with religious freedom.

“The government has no right … to make you obey something that is contrary to your conscience.” – Archbishop Dolan ow.ly/8YiRD

— USCCB (@USCCB) February 9, 2012

This week, Speaker John A. Boehner promised legislation aimed at banning the rule. On Friday, some members of Congress used Twitter to dismiss Mr. Obama’s compromise approach, including Representative Marlin Stutzman, Republican from Indiana. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat from Missouri, welcomed the change.

POTUS might have shuffled the deck but he’s playing the same game. His #HHS announcement changes nothing. bit.ly/xBeZ93

— Rep. Marlin Stutzman (@RepStutzman) February 10, 2012

Glad this got worked out today.Women get access to birth control, and Catholic Health Assoc agrees with new policy.

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) February 10, 2012

Some people on Twitter are using the hashtag, #iusebirthcontrol, to voice their dismay over seeing politics and religion entering the discussion about the delivery of women’s health care services.

I was raised Catholic & #iusebirthcontrol It’s none of yr damn business why. Women shouldn’t have to justify sex,health,reproductive rights.

— Andrea Bronson (@AndreaBronson) February 10, 2012

Another Twitter user wondered if Catholic leaders would now turn their attention to other government laws and policies that are not consistent with church teachings.

#altuniverse Starting tomorrow, looking fwd to the same level of anger from @USCCB to pressure Republicans on #DeathPenalty and #DreamAct

— Christopher Duffner (@chrisduffner) February 10, 2012

View the original article here

Obama's election-year budget to target rich

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will propose an election-year budget on Monday that raises taxes on millionaires and seeks billions of dollars for job-creating infrastructure projects, drawing a populist battle line with his Republican opponents.

Obama's fiscal 2013 budget proposal to Congress will defer significant cuts in the deficit until the economy is securely back on track, a priority as he seeks re-election in November, while outlining measures to shrink that funding gap over time.

"I think there is pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today," new White House chief of staff Jack Lew, the president's budget director until a few weeks ago, told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

Obama's budget is likely to be declared a non-starter by Republicans, in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, who want to paint the president as a tax-and-spend liberal. They warn that tax hikes will kill jobs while doing nothing to halt the climb in the crushing level of national debt.

"We're taking responsibility for dealing with the drivers of our debt," said Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee. "Unfortunately, the president and his party's leaders - they're not a part of this conversation," he told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday.

The budget grants Obama one of his biggest platforms before the November 6 presidential election to lay out his vision for America's future, casting Republicans as the party of the rich as he tries to convince voters he would do more to protect their +interests.

Polls consistently show that even as the economy has demonstrated surprising strength in recent weeks, Americans are still unsure of Obama's economic stewardship, a major problem for him as he seeks to persuade them to give him a second White House term.

BUFFETT RULE

Obama will repeat a demand for millionaires to pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent, named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, and identify $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years that broadly mirrors a plan he laid out in September.

The budget projects a deficit of $901 billion in 2013, representing 5.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), down from $1.33 trillion, or 8.5 percent of GDP this year, White House officials say.

Obama pledged back in 2009 to have cut the deficit in half by next year, but his budget does not anticipate getting it back under 3 percent of GDP until 2018 -- satisfying credit rating agencies and investors who view this as a key threshold to stabilize the growth in national debt as a proportion of output.

Obama's deficit projections are based on growth forecasts that will be released along with the rest of the budget at 1115 EDT (1615 GMT).

The White House has already declared its budget prediction of an 8.9 percent 2012 unemployment as "stale," after an improving labor market lowered unemployment to 8.3 percent in January.

That encouraging sign for the recovery implies that deficit projections could be revised lower if growth, and accompanying tax revenues, also turn out to be stronger than expected.

However, Republicans say Obama uses gimmicks to massage the deficit numbers, pointing to savings from winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which they complain amounts to counting funds that were never going to be spent.

The president will propose using half of the money from ending Americas' two foreign wars to subsidize investment in infrastructure as part of his request for over $800 billion in multi-year spending on job creation and transportation.

This includes tax breaks for companies and individuals that would be worth more than $300 billion in 2012 if passed into law, potentially delivering U.S. growth an additional fiscal stimulus as Obama campaigns around the country for re-election.

One of the biggest boosts would come from extending a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans for all of 2012, which expires on February 29 unless Congress acts. The White House estimates this could add a percentage point to 2012 GDP.

Overall, the budget proposes raising $1.5 trillion over a decade through higher taxes, with around half coming from allowing tax breaks for families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire at the end of 2012 - a longstanding Obama goal.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here

Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'?

The president offers an olive branch on his new contraception law — but Catholic bishops aren't exactly thrilled by his overture Retreat! After weeks of criticism, the Obama administration is offering an "accommodation" to U.S. Catholic bishops and other critics of a new federal rule that requires religiously affiliated hospitals, charities, and universities to provide their employees insurance with copay-free contraception. Obama's compromise, which he announced Friday, would essentially allow employers who object to contraception on religious grounds to usher employees into side deals with insurance companies, freeing religiously affiliated organizations from having to directly provide birth control coverage themselves. Will this satisfy the president's critics?

This supposed accomodation is "unacceptable": "There's a simple principle in Catholic moral theology," says Tom Crowe at Catholic Vote: "If you materially support another's grave sin and facilitate it knowingly, you are also guilty of the grave sin." What's the difference between requiring religious institutions to tell employees where to find contraception and having employers dish out the contraceptives themselves? Either way, the government is forcing Catholics  to "support gravely immoral activity." This remains "a violation of the freedom of religion."
"Compromise or accomodation, it's still unacceptable"

C'mon. This is a legitimate compromise: Look, says Scott Lemieux at The American Prospect. Obama's supporters should be happy: "Employees will still be able to receive contraceptive coverage at no extra cost." And the Catholic Hospital Association, for one, is "very pleased" with the religious exemption, saying that it "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions." It's only the "intransigent bishops" who aren't on board. The rest of us can see that this is a fair deal.
"Birth control chess"

But who's going to pay for this? There's a big catch here, says Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post. The White House claims this is "a good deal for insurance companies," since over the long haul, covering contraceptives lowers the rate of expensive pregnancies, and thus becomes revenue neutral for insurers. But "there's a difference between 'revenue neutral' and 'free.'" It costs about $20 per person per year to cover contraceptives. "Unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere." Obama's new rule puts the cost on insurers — who make their money from subscribers' premiums. It's hard to see how insurers won't pass on this new cost to the rest of us.
"The catch in Obama's contraceptives compromise"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'?

The president offers an olive branch on his new contraception law — but Catholic bishops aren't exactly thrilled by his overture Retreat! After weeks of criticism, the Obama administration is offering an "accommodation" to U.S. Catholic bishops and other critics of a new federal rule that requires religiously affiliated hospitals, charities, and universities to provide their employees insurance with copay-free contraception. Obama's compromise, which he announced Friday, would essentially allow employers who object to contraception on religious grounds to usher employees into side deals with insurance companies, freeing religiously affiliated organizations from having to directly provide birth control coverage themselves. Will this satisfy the president's critics?

This supposed accomodation is "unacceptable": "There's a simple principle in Catholic moral theology," says Tom Crowe at Catholic Vote: "If you materially support another's grave sin and facilitate it knowingly, you are also guilty of the grave sin." What's the difference between requiring religious institutions to tell employees where to find contraception and having employers dish out the contraceptives themselves? Either way, the government is forcing Catholics  to "support gravely immoral activity." This remains "a violation of the freedom of religion."
"Compromise or accomodation, it's still unacceptable"

C'mon. This is a legitimate compromise: Look, says Scott Lemieux at The American Prospect. Obama's supporters should be happy: "Employees will still be able to receive contraceptive coverage at no extra cost." And the Catholic Hospital Association, for one, is "very pleased" with the religious exemption, saying that it "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions." It's only the "intransigent bishops" who aren't on board. The rest of us can see that this is a fair deal.
"Birth control chess"

But who's going to pay for this? There's a big catch here, says Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post. The White House claims this is "a good deal for insurance companies," since over the long haul, covering contraceptives lowers the rate of expensive pregnancies, and thus becomes revenue neutral for insurers. But "there's a difference between 'revenue neutral' and 'free.'" It costs about $20 per person per year to cover contraceptives. "Unless drug manufacturers decide to start handing out free contraceptives, the money to buy them will have to come from somewhere." Obama's new rule puts the cost on insurers — who make their money from subscribers' premiums. It's hard to see how insurers won't pass on this new cost to the rest of us.
"The catch in Obama's contraceptives compromise"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Obama's Spotify playlist: 7 things it says about his campaign

The president has his re-election soundtrack all queued up. What can we learn about Obama's 2012 strategy by analyzing his 28 musical picks?

Presidents have chosen campaign theme songs since the era of John Adams. As of Thursday, President Obama has himself a whole playlist, available via online social music service Spotify. Obama, or more likely one of his aides, chose 28 songs that any Spotify user can listen to, and that attendees of Obama campaign rallies will inevitably hear. He essentially made Americans a mix tape, says Chris Richards in The Washington Post, "a collection of songs designed to make the recipient fall in love with the sender." Except, instead of a single romantic target, the president is wooing "a vast and varied electorate." So, what does the song selection tell us about the Obama-Biden 2012 strategy? Here, seven interpretations:

1. Obama's trying to hit all key demographics
Obama's "the first candidate to have waged a truly effective social media-based presidential campaign," says Devon Maloney in Spin. So it's no surprise he embraced Spotify, or that his eclectic mix "basically represents the president's entire constituency." The baby boomers get a little James Taylor, Gen X gets some U2 and REO Speedwagon, and "people with questionable taste everywhere" get ex-Hootie frontman Darius Rucker, says Nitasha Tiku in BetaBeat. The indie rock selections, from the likes of Arcade Fire, are "a blatant pander to twenty-somethings," adds David A. Graham in The Atlantic. And Wilco? "Dad-rockers are basically Obama's key demographic: Well-to-do, suburban, educated, and (probably) moderate Democrats politically."

SEE MORE: Obama's 'billion-dollar' campaign: Did the fundraising hype backfire?

2. The country tunes are a sop to white blue-collar voters
A whopping 25 percent of the playlist "unsurprisingly — and perhaps a bit panderingly" consists of country tunes, says Brian Braiker in The Guardian. The artists — Darius Rucker, Sugarland, Dierks Bentley, and the Zac Brown Band — are all "inoffensive roots-rockers loudly signaling the point: 'Obama is a patriot!'" The country picks "tend to be patriotic, small-town-America-celebrating songs," says The Atlantic's Graham. Clearly, "the president knows he needs to firm up his support among white working-class voters."

3. But where are the rap and hip hop?
Soul and R&B is the genre most highly represented, from Aretha Franklin and Al Green to newer singers like Raphael Saadiq. Glaringly absent? Hip hop, says L.V. Anderson in Slate. Obama's said he likes the Fugees, Jay-Z, Nas, and Lil Wayne, but depressingly, I guess "the sting of Fox's dog-whistle headline from last summer — 'Obama's Hip-Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs' — hasn't yet worn off." Whatever the political risk, says The Washington Post's Richards, surely at least "one rap song in this great nation... would have been suitable for the president's mix."

SEE MORE: Obama's super PAC flip-flop: 'Hypocrisy or necessity'?

4. And the Latino artists?
Less surprising omissions include metal and electronica, says Patricia Zengerle at Reuters. But "in a year when Hispanic voters are expected to play a huge and possibly decisive role in the election," where's the salsa and merengue? In 28 tracks there's "just one Latin artist — Puerto Rican-born Ricky Martin" — and he's singing a duet with Briton Joss Stone, on a song with a reggae beat.

5. And the women?
There are 19 songs with male lead singers, but only six songs that "center around a female singer," says The Atlantic's Graham. So, um, "the president is apparently not too concerned about losing the female vote, which he won 56-43 in 2008."

SEE MORE: Obama’s secret fundraising weapon: What is a Square card reader?

6. Obama's shifted from hope to rebound
"In 2008, Obama was promising to 'change the world,' and the music he used was an upbeat mix" including songs like Stevie Wonder's "Signed, Sealed, Delivered (I'm Yours)," say Margaret Talev and Kate Andersen Brower in Bloomberg News. Now, with persistently stubborn unemployment and partisan bickering at an all-time high, he's going for "songs that touch upon themes such as will, redemption, and comeback." This soundtrack is "less fresh-faced optimism and it's more pragmatic positioning of a politician who wants a second term," Billboard's Bill Werde tells Bloomberg News.

7. And so much for Made in America
Surprisingly for an American presidential campaign, "nearly a sixth of the choices on the list are by foreign bands," says The Atlantic's Graham. There's Montreal-based Arcade Fire, British acts Noah and the Whale, Electric Light Orchestra, and Florence and the Machine, and of course, Ireland's U2. Some might also "wonder why Barack endorses Spotify, a Swedish service, instead of a made-in-America offering like MOG," says Paul Miller in The Verge. Maybe he "needs the deep, obscure cuts that only Spotify can provide him."

SEE MORE: Can Obama win in 2012 by attacking Congress?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Obama's Trampling on God's Turf Now

Yes, Virginia, there is a religious war going on. It is for the soul of America. And traditional Christianity is besieged.

In a January visit to the Vatican, American bishops were warned by Benedict XVI that "radical secularism" posed "grave threats" to their Catholic faith. Your religious freedom is being circumscribed, said the pope. The U.S. government may seek to force you to collaborate in what are "intrinsically evil practices."

No sooner had the bishops returned home than President Obama instructed them that, under Obamacare, all Catholic schools, hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes and homeless shelters must provide the "morning after" pill, contraceptives and sterilizations for all employees, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

The Church was given 18 months to comply.

Should Obama's order stand, the Church will be forced by the state to adopt practices that it has always taught are immoral and to engage in acts it believes are intrinsically evil.

Welcome to Obama's America.

Last week, the Komen Foundation, which funds breast cancer research, sought to extricate itself from the country's culture wars by severing ties to America's No. 1 abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

As professor Robert George writes, in 2010, Planned Parenthood sold 300,000 abortions at $500 each, earning $164 million. Nine of 10 pregnant women who come into its clinics are sold an abortion.

Moreover, the organization is "under congressional and criminal investigation ... for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health care and family planning funds, and failure to comply with parental involvement laws regarding abortions."

In the 1950s, such an institution would be regarded as organized crime and its officers and employees would be up on felony charges or sitting in a penitentiary. We live today in a different America.

Thus, the media-political-cultural elite came down on Komen with both feet, berating the foundation for abandoning women suffering from breast cancer, until Komen caved and restored the $650,000 it contributes annually to Planned Parenthood, though that sum is not one-tenth of one percent of PP's annual budget.

The Komen officer who advised the foundation to sever ties was cashiered on Feb. 7.

Also on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned, two to one, the democratic decision of a majority of Californians who voted in 2008 to outlaw homosexual marriage.

The people of California, said the Jimmy Carter judicial appointee and the Bill Clinton appointee, violated the 14th Amendment, which mandates the equal protection of the law.

That the Congress that took office in 1865, the year Richmond fell, meant to elevate homosexual unions to the same moral plane as matrimony when it enacted the 14th Amendment is an absolute absurdity.

What has happened to America in half a century seems, to many raised in that other America, like something out of Orwell.

Can it be that Californians must now wait on the U.S. Supreme Court — make that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote — to tell them whether they can or cannot write their own marriage laws?

How did it come to be that we Americans must all wait for nine judges on the Supreme Court to tell us whether homosexual marriage is or is not a constitutional right?

Where did justices get the power to decide whether laws enacted by the people or their elected representatives will be allowed to stand in this republic? Where did these nine justices get the right to be sole and final arbiters of what the Constitution and the laws say and do not say?

As law professor and author William Quirk muses, in introducing the new book "Judicial Monarchs" by William Watkins, Jr.:

"'Notes of the (Constitutional) Convention do not record Ben Franklin standing up and saying: 'I've got a good idea. Let's find nine really bright people and turn over most of our important decisions to them.' Would the Convention authorize an institution that defines its own powers?"

Not the convention our Founding Fathers attended.

Yet since the Warren Court came into being six decades ago, the Supreme Court has usurped that power — to remake America. And the American people have meekly submitted to its tyrannical rule.

The justices used the Ninth Amendment to declare homosexuality and abortion constitutional rights, though both were crimes when the Bill of Rights was adopted. They used the First Amendment to purge Christianity from our public schools and public life and reduce our cradle faith to the same level as Santeria and Scientology.

Now the radical secularists in Obama's entourage are so puffed up with success, so confident the future belongs to them, they have crossed the line between church and state to impose their values directly on Christian institutions.

This time they have overplayed their hand. Traditionalist Christians and their allies have been given a glorious opening to inflict a stinging defeat and humiliation on these arrogant intruders on God's turf.

On this one, Obama ought to be forced into a public retreat.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

View the original article here

OBAMA'S NEW APPROACHES ARE AT LAST TAKING SHAPE

WASHINGTON -- While the Republican presidential candidates are trying their best to grind the story of the Obama administration into the dust, something largely unnoted has been happening behind the scenes. President Obama and his team have been quietly building a new narrative and structure for America that should outlast his years in office.

Until the last few months, it has been possible to wonder if Barack Obama and his stirring admonition of "Yes, we can" were failing. There seemed to be little accomplishment to grasp onto there. Even American liberals, who were supposed to be enchanted by his magic, were wondering what had gone wrong.

But now, step by cautious step, the new post-Cold War America (a little late, but that's the way the world works) is falling into a distinctly unmartial cadence under Obama's hand. A sense of what he wants to do, and why and how, has been sneaking up on us.

I know that I was disappointed in the beginning of his administration over his seeming lack of personal and political anger over the way Wall Street had bluffed all of us. Over and over I told my friends, "He has to hang someone!" Of course, I was referring to a theatrical "hanging" -- putting one of those miserable cheats in the world of hedge funds and the credit-default-swaps up for shame -- but that did not occur. He would have gained immeasurably by it.

Yet now, if you read the business pages of the major papers, or The Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times, you see stories of those slow-motion "hangings" every day. Companies are being challenged; the scoundrels prosecuted by an American court, or humiliated before their people.

One of the latest has been former senator and New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, who gave us the immortal words, "I simply don't know where the money is." It seems that his investment company, MF Global, misplaced an estimated $1.2 billion of clients' monies. Senators said he was the first of their brothers to be forced to testify to his manipulations in their own sacred house.

What one can now see is the degree to which Obama has built up a cautious, even prudent, but unyielding rhetorical campaign against Wall Street. Others are doing the dirty work. Read Time magazine's remarkable cover story of Feb. 13 on "The Street Fighter," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York, who has won 56 convictions, with no losses, causing "some high-paid Wall Street heads to roll" in "post-meltdown America."

The administration has been equally active, but behind the scenes, on a U.S. plan on mortgages. The New York Times reported on its front page this week the administration finalizing a multibillion-dollar settlement to address foreclosure abuses.

When it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- unquestionably the worst acts of President George W. Bush's administration -- one can first also get tied up in confusion over President Obama's initial efforts.

He had talked big during his campaign, spoke against the Iraq war and, for some reason that now seems less admirable than before, called the war in Afghanistan "the good war." But after he was elected, the Obama trademark of "not much happening" seemed to be printed all over both wars. Indeed, at one point, the president announced he was sending thousands of American troops to Afghanistan in order to withdraw them the next year.

But as it turned out -- and not without pain -- America has withdrawn most of its troops from Iraq, is withdrawing earlier than planned from Afghanistan, and has cut back its huge military budget, acknowledging the military's part in the mounting American debt.

The withdrawals were inevitable, given the sheer foolishness of trying to transform poor and politically twisted societies in our name. But one has to wonder whether, had Obama ruled more in a populist manner and called the American people to action, they would have been even more difficult.

A true populist demagogue would have ranted and raved, and probably quickly fallen into his enjoyment of more wars. In the case of Libya, the president showed how his type of politics can work by eschewing any idea of troops on the ground in favor of NATO air cover for the rebels.

One can trace his approach through his attitude toward education, toward new industries like that exemplified by Microsoft and Google, to talk about the environment and conservation, to true equality among the races, and to the changes in American attitudes as a whole.

One can rightly ask whether his lawyerly approach can continue to work or whether nations will, or must, resort eventually to undiluted force. One can say, "This is not Hawaii, after all, where conciliation and negotiation among human beings is primary."

When Barack Obama steps down from the presidency, whether a year from now or five years from now, Americans will surely find that the conversation in the country has changed. Perhaps Americans, too, have changed, with a deeper understanding of a world transforming before our eyes.

View the original article here

Obama's birth control mandate: 4 ways it helps his campaign

The Right is accusing the president of trampling religious liberty. But Democratic voters may not see it that way

President Obama is taking flak from religious institutions and Republican presidential candidates over his decision to make employers, including Catholic universities and hospitals, cover contraception in their employees' health insurance plans. Hoping to avoid a backlash, White House aides are promising to look at ways to make the policy "more palatable" to religious-affiliated institutions. While many pundits claim this controversy will hurt Obama's re-election effort, others aren't so sure. Here, four reasons Obama's birth control mandate might actually help him secure a second term:

1. It exposes Mitt Romney to fresh flip-flopper charges
Romney, Obama's most likely Republican rival in the fall, has blasted Obama's plan as an "assault on religion." But that "wasn't exactly Flipper's position back in 2005," says John Aravosis at America Blog. Back then, a strongly pro-choice Romney was already "demanding that insurance companies cover contraceptives." Team Obama argues that "it's the ultimate hypocrisy that Mitt Romney is hitting the president for the same birth control policy he oversaw and protected as governor" of Massachusetts. A Public Policy Polling survey — commissioned, rather predictably, by Planned Parenthood — found that the issue is a net negative for Romney.

2. Republican candidates are infighting over the issue
Instead of focusing on Obama, Republicans are wounding each other over the contraception mandate. Rick Santorum has used the issue to "level one of his harshest attacks on Mitt Romney," says Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post. According to Santorum, Romney "trounced on the fundamental right to religious freedom" with similar measures in Massachusetts. Romney's campaign accuses Santorum of twisting the facts. "We expect these attacks from President Obama and his liberal friends," a Romney spokeswoman said. "But from Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, it's a clear indication of desperation from their campaigns."

SEE MORE: Obama is the Reagan of 2012

3. It could help Obama win over women voters
Team Obama probably has good reason to believe that "any political damage will be limited" if the president says he's "on the side of women's rights," say Kathleen Hennessey and Christi Parsons at the Los Angeles Times. "The Susan G. Komen Foundation can attest to the volatility of family-planning politics," after the public outcry it faced over a plan to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. "This is a country where voters, and particularly women voters, support affordable access to birth control," says Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster.

4. And many Catholics actually agree with Obama
While more than 150 Roman Catholic bishops have criticized Obama's birth control mandate, a recent Public Religion Research Institute study found that American Catholics themselves "overwhelmingly support the new rules," says Lauren Fox at U.S. News & World Report. In fact, six in 10 U.S. Catholics support the requirement, making it even more popular among Catholics than in the general population.

SEE MORE: Obama's super PAC flip-flop: 'Hypocrisy or necessity'?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Obama's boneheaded health-care fight with Catholics

The president desperately needs to woo Catholic voters in key swing states. So why on Earth is he picking a culture-war fight with them?

President Barack Obama will have some headwinds to fight in the upcoming election. The economy may be mildly improving, but the latest CBO projection shows that the U.S. economy will only expand in 2012 at the same rate as the last two years, and that unemployment will likely climb back up to 8.8 percent in the quarter before the election. So with the GOP looking to paint him as a partisan incompetent on the economy, the last thing Obama needs is to hand Republicans a culture-war argument on top of his current woes... right?

Well, that is exactly what President Obama did last week. Cecilia Munoz, the Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, announced that the administration would only grant a one-year enforcement delay for religious organizations unhappy about a federal mandate on employers to provide coverage for contraception. While the rule, which is part of ObamaCare, grants an exemption for "churches and other houses of worship," the Obama administration clearly sees this as a concession that could easily be revoked at their discretion, and puts the federal government in charge of defining religious organizations.

SEE MORE: The 'permanent patients' in America's hospitals

The last thing Obama needs is to hand Republicans a culture-war argument on top of his current woes... right?

The mandate comes through the authority granted to the Department of Health and Human Services by ObamaCare — and failure to adhere to the mandate will put employers at risk for massive amounts in fines. Until ObamaCare, only states had mandates for health insurance, and religious organizations did not have a requirement to comply with contraception or abortion mandates. Employers also had the option of simply opting out of offering health insurance — an option that's no longer available without paying hefty fines. 

SEE MORE: The Catholic Church vs. 'ObamaCare'

This applies to all religious organizations, such as charities, clinics, hospitals, and shelters run by denominations of all kinds. While the Obama administration might want to claim that these organizations do not qualify under the First Amendment protections against government interference in religious matters, the churches that run them see these organizations as essential extensions of their religious missions. That is certainly true of the Catholic Church, whose hundreds of hospitals and clinics exist to put their doctrine of social justice into practice. That doctrine, however, is based on the sanctity of human life — the very core doctrine that this new edict from the White House violates by forcing the Catholic Church to fund contraception and abortive products.

But let's put aside the radical nature of Obama's intervention into the spiritual life of Americans and simply consider the political implications of this decision. Picking a fight with social conservatives might not bother Obama and his advisers in an election year. After all, Obama could hardly do worse with evangelicals, and Obama lost Protestants overall in the 2008 election by nine points and still managed to win the election. Perhaps they see an opportunity to exploit the gender gap by posing as a defender of womens' rights by forcing Catholics and other religious organizations to pay for their contraception.

SEE MORE: Time for Big Pharma to disclose its payments to doctors?

However, Catholics are not, by and large, social conservatives. Obama won the Catholic vote by nine points in 2008 (54 percent to 45 percent). Catholics accounted for a whopping 27 percent of the 2008 electorate. Purposefully alienating that voting bloc in an already-difficult election year risks flipping that vote substantially against Obama in November. Even for those Catholics who don't agree with church teachings on contraception, the spectacle of a president dictating doctrine to bishops won't endear them to Obama.

The national number just begins to tell the story. Catholics comprise even higher percentages of the vote in key swing states that Obama must win in order to get a second term. For instance, Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008 by 11 points while losing Catholics — a third of Pennsylvania's electorate — by 4 percent. With Pennsylvania Catholics now hearing condemnations of Obama's decision from their bishops, Obama may have put the Keystone State at serious risk. A Republican could win Pennsylvania for the first time since Ronald Reagan.

SEE MORE: The individual mandate: Health-care's inherent controversy

Florida is another example. Obama carried the Sunshine State by a narrow three-point margin in 2008. Catholics comprised 28 percent of that vote, and Obama only barely won among them, 50 percent to 49 percent. How many of those Catholics will cast another vote for Obama, especially since their own Sen. Marco Rubio — a Catholic himself — has now proposed a bill specifically revoking the new Obama rule and protecting choices of religious conscience? If more than a few switch from Obama to his Republican challenger, Obama will lose 29 electoral votes he can hardly spare.

The damage won't be limited to Catholics, either, or voters of faith in general. Republicans have long painted Obama as a radical executive inclined to rule by diktat rather than govern by the rule of law. Obama's mild personal demeanor has helped him deflect this criticism, but forcing Christians to violate their conscience in order to fit his own worldview provides the GOP a great deal of evidence for their argument.

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Obama's super PAC flip-flop: 'Hypocrisy or necessity'?

In a stark reversal of President Obama's long-touted opposition to super PACs, the president's re-election campaign announced Monday that it would encourage deep-pocketed donors to send hefty checks to the Obama-aligned super PAC Priorities USA. Obama fiercely opposed the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which allowed super PACs to receive unlimited donations from individuals and organizations, and has called super PACs a "threat to democracy." (Read a quick primer on super PACs here.) But with GOP-friendly super PACs piling up mountains of cash, Obama is changing his tune. In a blog post, campaign manager Jim Messina writes, "With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm." Is Obama's decision "an act of hypocrisy or necessity?"

Absolute necessity. Obama is right to change his mind: Team Obama's announcement is, "at its core, about tactics, not philosophy," says Buzzfeed. Remember, Obama made a similarly smart (and criticized) decision in 2008, when he reneged "on a pledge to take public financing, accepting the hit on his reform credentials... in exchange for a serious financial advantage over John McCain." This time around, Obama will face a GOP opponent "whose rich friends really will pour tens of millions into outside groups." The president would be foolish to simply cede that advantage.
"Obama's latest money decision: Less control, but it matters less"

Are you kidding? This is "pure hypocrisy": Even in Team Obama's blog post announcing its cooperation with a super PAC, the president's campaign calls super PACs' very existence a "dangerous trend," says William Teach at Pirate's Cove. What does it say, then, that instead of staying the course and refusing to accept their help, the president is "going to capitulate and become part of that 'dangerous trend?'" Let's just sum up "Barack Obama in a nutshell: No principles."
"Obama leads from behind, rationalizes why he needs a Super PAC"

This shouldn't come as a surprise: This is just the latest example of Obama "embracing pragmatism over principle," says Aaron Blake at The Washington Post. This is the same president who backed off his promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office, and who promised to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2009, but took an additional two years to do so. Once again, when faced with the tough reality of a situation, Obama is begrudgingly shifting his stance. It's quite "clear he would be ceding a major political advantage by continuing to shun super PACs." Is it really any surprise he's embracing them?
"Obama picks pragmatism over principle on super PACs"

But it may not be the smartest move: This is no longer just an inside-politics debate, says Keyana Stevens at The Village Voice, largely thanks to Stephen Colbert's satirical super PAC and Occupy Wall Street's constant criticism of Citizens United. And just as many Americans are becoming aware of super PACs, "Obama's total about-face" on the issue gives Republicans "an easy opening to criticize him" as a flip-flopper. Ouch.
"Obama will support Super PAC, despite earlier opposition"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here