Rubio Now 12 Points Ahead of Crist in FL

Rubio is picking up some major steam. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Rubio leading Crist 49% to 37% while three% prefer another candidate, and 11% are undecided. The poll numbers seem to be tied to mounting unrest with national policies and spending as conservatives began rebelling against Crist when he became one of the few Republican governors to embrace Obama’s $787-billion economic stimulus plan last year. Not surprisingly, the national Republican party endorsed Crist early, but a "number of prominent national party conservatives have since announced their support for Rubio." Many believe this race will serve as an early indicator of what many hoped- a GOP shift back to its conservative roots after many years of confused policies, overspending and "aisle reaches."

Alito: The New Joe Wilson?

I wanted to have more time to comment on the speech last night, but for now, I will say that liberals are so insanely protective of their commander in chief that now they're finding fault with Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's head gesture during the President's State of the Union last night. Really? The Justice apparently shook his head when Obama unpresidentially mentioned the Court's decision in front of the full court and mouthed the words, "that's not true" and this is now the equivalent of shouting, "YOU LIE!" across the room? The comparison is absurd, but more importantly, Alito's observations were correct. Specifically, Obama claimed that the decision in Citizens United v. FEC, would "open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." As Bradley A. Smith pointed out today, the President's statement is false. "The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making 'a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election' under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any 'expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.'" Does he have inept speech writers? Or did he deliberately shade the truth to influence public opinion (well, those of the public that were able to sit through his speech)?

Clinton Passing on State of the Union

Not even Hillary can bear to sit through another protracted Obama snoozer. Apparently, she's opting to attend a conference in London. According to the White House, Obama felt it was more important for her to go to London than to remain for his speech. Sure, Hillary...a conference in London...

Rubio Leading Crist in Florida Republican Primary

Former Florida legislator Marco Rubio closed the gap in the race for the Republican Senate nomination and is in "a virtual dead heat" with Governor Charlie Crist, according to a poll, which has him up 47 to 44. In June, Crist was 30 points ahead of Rubio, a lawyer who served as speaker of the house in Florida, as Rubio had no name recognition among voters. Since then he's led a major grass roots effort in Florida to get to know the voters and raise money, as his opponent has a significant financial lead. Rubio is gaining momentum and money by running as a true fiscal conservative as highlighted against Crist's unpopular decisions to raise taxes in the midst of a major recession and perhaps most significantly, to stump with Barack Obama for the stimulus package loathed by the Republican base that will decide the contest. "At the time Crist appeared onstage with Obama in February, it seemed like good politics, with the president enjoying sky-high approval ratings. A full 64% of Floridians approved of the job he was doing with only 23% disapproving." Now? 49% of Floridians disapprove of the way Obama's handling his job while only 45% approve. While politicians often make mistakes, the Obama photo op and his backing of the stimulus seem truly stupid ones that may cost him the election and serve as a foreshadowing of other primary elections around the country.

"You've Got Me"

Politicians have enormous egos that propel them to indignancy much more often than the average person, but I continue to be astounded by the size of the President's. I am not prone to personal critcism, as I like to deal with facts and policy, but I think Obama's statements and actions since the Massachusetts election deserve comment, as I fear his ego prevents him from accepting reality and ultimately, from changing course, as the voters have demanded. Consider this. Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., expressed his concerns to Obama that the 2010 midterm elections were going to be like the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort. Obama responded to Berry's statement by saying, "Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.” Wow. He couldn't make a difference in the VA, NJ or MA elections or with the climate summit or Olympic committee, but somehow, he still thinks his mere presence is the golden ticket? I really didn't believe that he bought his blame Bush spin on the Mass elections, but the more I read, the more I believe he is incapable of recognizing that most voters don't share his policy views and no amount of his magneticism is going to change that. I hope for our country's sake that I'm wrong and that he comes to the center, but so far, there is no evidence of it. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/the-big-difference-between-2010-and-1994-is-me-president-obama-says-per-congressman.html

77% of U.S. Investors Think Obama is Anti-business

Bloomberg conducted a global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers and found that "77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident in his ability to handle a financial emergency." It also found a decline in Obama’s overall favorability rating one year after taking office. He is viewed favorably by 27 percent of U.S. investors up from an October poll, wherein 32 percent in the U.S. held a positive impression. This poll was conducted before Obama's declaration yesterday to tax and havily regulate 50 banking institutions, which sent the S&P down 1.9%, its biggest loss since October 30, 2009. Even the Oracle of Omaha told Obama to scrap this plan as it will lead to the trickle down of taxes for consumers during a recession. My guess is that the 77% would now poll closer to 90%. Click on the title to link to the full article.

High Court Votes Campaign Contribution Bill Unconstitutional

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court today struck down the famed McCain-Feingold bill and with it, the notion that the government may ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The majority touted the decision as one in favor of the First Amendment's promise of free political speech as Justice Kennedy stated, "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” The minority, Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer, dissented (90-pages worth), and Obama echoed their sentiments that the decision will usher in "a new stampede of special interest money in our politics" and is "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks (many of whom supported him in 08), health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." With that, Obama pledged to talk to Congress "to develop a forceful response," whatever that means. What does this mean for you? It doesn't mean much as our politicians are already beholden to special interests and McCain-Feigold did nothing to eradicate that reality. However, the decision should be celebrated as a victory for free speech and individualism, as we saw in Massachusetts, most Americans still want to think for themselves.

It's All Over but the Cryin'

The Stupak coalition told Pelosi they refused to pass the Senate's version of health care and, as predicted, the White House is now admitting the unpopular, voluminous bill is dead. "A simpler, less ambitious bill emerged as an alternative only hours after the loss of the party's crucial 60th Senate seat forced the Democrats to slow their all-out drive to pass Obama's signature legislation and reconsider all options. No decisions have been made, lawmakers said, but they laid out a new approach that could still include these provisions: limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to people with medical problems, allowing young adults to stay on their parents' policies, helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums and changing Medicare to encourage payment for quality care instead of sheer volume of services." That's it. It's finally over. Click on title above for the full article.

Brown Stuns Dems

I posted the New York Times article on Scott Brown's win (click on the title above) because I think "stunned" must be the right word for the Democrats in Washington. Obama said in his speech Sunday to Bostonians while campaigning for Coakley that he understood they were angry with Bush and his policies, but that they must vote for Coakley, as she will put forth the policies they all championed (read: his). Is he tone deaf? And how long will he continue the blame game? Unfortunately, I presume, his state of the union address will be riddled with words of blame. He doesn't yet see, and may be too narcissistic to understand that the country is not left of center, as he is, and he is the one that has to change and come to the middle. As Ms. Connolly, 73, a lifelong Democrat who said she cast her first vote for a Republican on Tuesday put it, “I’m hoping that it gives a message to the country. I think if Massachusetts puts Brown in, it’s a message of ‘that’s enough.’ Let’s stop the giveaways and let’s get jobs going.” Well said, Ms. Connolly. Unfortunately, although health care may be dead for now, the administration and the congressional majority is already talking about "pivoting" from the health care debate to blame Republicans for the country's economic troubles and begin to lower the boom on Wall Street. Well, at least they're smart enough not to try to shove health care through for now. Baby steps.

Massachusetts Senatorial Race Predictions

Special election day in Massachusetts is here. The predictions are in: The PPP poll is dead even: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/final-mass-poll-will-show-race-too-close-to-call-pollster-says/ Ed Morrisey from Hotair predicts a big win for Scott Brown: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/17/polls-settling-brown-still-edges-coakley-in-the-final-hours/ Per a pundit on CNN, the White House is predicting that Brown wins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO-Sv9lASVE&feature=player_embedded Charlie Cook, the oft-referenced elections analyst says Brown is the favorite, but isn't yet predicting a win: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31593.html The Intrade market for the race had Brown's price up to 56 at one point last week, but it's dropped back to 50/50. If you aren't familiar with Intrade, it's a site which treats the probability of future events like a market. People actually bet on an outcome so the theory is that it's a very accurate indicator of the true state of a race. So, this tells the pollsters that it is still going to be very close. http://www.intrade.com/ However, most publically, and some quietly, are predicting a Brown win. The next question that follows is, what will happen to the health care bill? GOP lawyers are going to argue that Kirk, the interim Kennedy replacement, will be constitutionally prohibited from casting any votes in the Senate after Tuesday in the event that we have a longer term situation such as the Bush v. Gore decision from the Supreme Court: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/barnes-massachusetts-senatorial-race-and-obamacare But if Brown comfortably wins, what do the Dems do? Does the House agree to no changes to the health care bill so it doesn't go back to the Senate for a vote? With poll numbers looking dim, Democratic pundits are suggesting Obama will spend the last bit of his political capital pressuring House members to do exactly this. My prediction? I think that Brown takes Coakley by 3.5%, which will be enough to call off the Democratic lawyers involved in the Coleman-Franken recount. Brown has more support on the ground than his campaign knows what to do with and has secured the majority of the independent vote, which makes up the largest voting block in Massachusetts. The motivation for Coakley voters is mainly artificial and she is perceived as a cold-hearted, arrogant, partisan candidate without any real platform aside from a "yes" vote for the health care bill and higher taxes in Taxachusetts. What then? I predict a large number of House members refuse to pass the Senate's bill and it is defeated, once and for all, causing Obama to spend the majority of his State of the Union address lamenting that Republicans have defeated change, as it will never occur to him that the public defeated his bill, because it was too intrusive and expensive.

Brown Has All the Momentum

I cannot believe that even NBC anchors are admitting Brown could win this thing and that Coakley's message is "all over the place." Chuck Todd even says that if it were any other state, the race would be over as Brown would've already clinched the win. Watch it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P14E9Vy8vYM

Brown Beating Coakley in Recent Poll

In the latest Suffolk University poll, Scott Brown had 50% of the vote compared to his Democratic opponent for the U.S. Senate seat, Martha Coakley, who had 46%. The poll had a 4.4% margin of error, which means that they're statistically tied in the Massachusetts Senate race. This is incredible considering the ultra liberal climate in Massachusetts, the fact that they have Democratic majorities in both state houses as well as a Demoratic governor and the fact that registered Demcrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. To date, the Democrats have shoved aside polls showing the pair in a serious race (Rasmussen showed Brown trailing by two) claiming they were right-leaning, but surely this one is getting their attention. The Democrats, and especially, the White House, has to be scrambling to figure out how to win and keep their 60-seat Senate majority to shove through health care reform and other pet domestic projects on Obama's agenda. Some even claim that they will go as far as to stall the certification of Tuesday's results to allow Senate Democrats time to push Obama's "signature legislation through Congress" as Sen. Paul G. Kirk Jr., the interim replacement, says he will vote for the bill if given the chance. I want to believe the White House wouldn't go to this lengths, but you can bet if Scott Brown wins, and they attempt a midnight passage, there will be a mutiny on their hands from which Obama and his party will never recover politically.

House Rangeling Over Senate Mandates

President Obama is urging House members to accept the Senate's 40% excise tax on Cadillac health care plans (excluding union members) and it's .09% increase on Medicare tax for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000 to help pay for his $1 trillion heath care bill. He understands that the longer this debate continues, the greater the potential for the deal to completely fall apart (however unlikely that seemed once the Senate reached 60 votes). The problem is, Democratic leaders in the House realize the Cadillac tax falls most heavily on the middle class, which will give GOP members the perfect fodder for campaign commercials in November. Their answer? Charlie Rangel, the raspy Boss Hog of the House, has proposed a 5.45% income surtax on singles who earn more than $500,000 and couples who make more than $1 million. The problem with that is that less than 1% of Americans fall into that category. Try again, Charlie. What does that mean for you? If this health care bill passes, your taxes will increase via the excise and Medicare tax increases. There aren't enough rich people to pay for a $1 trillion bill. And although its passage seems a foregone conclusion, as House members will succumb to White House pressures as did the Senate, Scott Brown could still foil the bill. He is the last remaining hope. If Brown somehow makes history by taking the "people's seat" back from the Kennedys in Boston on Tuesday, I believe, as Krauthammer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VenrJCDRT2M), that this bill is toast.

HAM(P)

HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program), set up by the Obama Administration to encourage banks to voluntarily allow homeowners to modify the terms of the interest rates underlying their homes, has proven a failure by any account given other than that of the White House. Michael Barr, the Assistant Treasury Secretary, told a McClatchy reporter at the end of 2009 that, when it comes to mortgage modifications, “I think that if you go back and look at what we said we would do in February, we are on track to meet the president’s goals.” However, the fact remains that the administration’s HAMP initiative was supposed to renegotiate three to four million mortgages over the course of three years and so far, HAMP's $75 billion has helped permanently renegotiate about 32,000 mortgages. So at the end of the first year, they're about 1% of the way to the three-year goal. Why did it fail? Critics say the bureaucratic paperwork, lack of solid income verification and the fact that lenders were forced to use stringent 2009 lending standards to modify the loans all contributed to its failure. However, more fundamentally, most acknolwedged that cutting the interest rates underlying the homes makes no sense without cutting the principal because most of the homeowners are upside down. What does this mean for you? It will likely mean that more homeowners will continue to default causing housing prices to dip again. It could also mean HAMP 2, since Freddie and Fannie are so heavily invested in this program, which means adding to the deficit.

First Nebraska and Now Unions?

What's the latest pork provision allegedly being stuffed into the health care boondoggle? Like the free ride given to Nebraska to entice Ben Nelson's vote in the Senate, the unions are now allegedly being exempted from the excise tax the Senate has proscribed for those Americans with "Cadillac" heath care plans worth more than $8500 annually for individuals and $23,000 for families. What precipitated this? Union leaders visited the White House Monday to whine to the President, and to his credit, he resisted the pressure, which led the unions to make a public statement of dissent regarding this provision in the draft bill. The result? Less than 24 hours after voicing their disapproval, they're getting a free ride on the rest of us, just like the Nebraskans. What does this mean to you? Well, if you're a non-union employee with a "Cadillac" health care plan, you'll pay a 40 percent excise tax on your health benefits when you file your tax return. FORTY PERCENT! This means that if your plan is worth more than $8500 (for an individual) or $23,000 (for a family) annually, which encompasses most plans sponsored by employers, you will pay a 40% tax on the overage. Meanwhile, a union worker with the identical plan will be exempt from the tax simply because his organization funnels millions of dollars to Democrats. And what's worse? The tax will fall most heavily on the middle class, as even Pelosi noted, which will cause employees to insist on less expensive plans from their employers to allow them to avoid the tax at the expense of receiving lesser health care. Pelosi and the House favor additional taxing on couples earning more than $1M, but the Senate made it clear that this is not acceptable and they intend to recover additional revenue by instituting a 0.9% increase in the Medicare payroll tax. What does this mean to you? If you earn at least $200,000 (for an individual) and at least $250,000 (for joint filers), you will pay another 1% in taxes on top of the excise tax.

Jobs Saved > Jobs Funded

"Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus." Apparently realizing that they cannot even substantiate the alleged reports of 640,000 "saved or created" jobs as a result of the $787 B stimulus, the administration has decided to scrap the system altogether and measure those jobs "funded," whatever that means. Obviously this creative accounting scheme will make it easier for Obama to "keep" his promise to save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year although Tom Gavin from OMB claimed that the transparent job reporting system was "never expected to be the public accounting of Obama's goal to save or create 3.5 million jobs." Really? Then what was it for and why change it now? Of course, the truth is that the administration is changing the rules and attempting to inflate the Recovery Act's impact to downplay the failure of the program in creating jobs. The upside is that this has proven so unpopular and such an embarassment to the administration that IF it asks Congress to approve round two, they will refuse him, sparing the budget deficit from another devastating blow.