Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America marvel at the 17-point lead Ohio Sen. Rob Portman is amassing in his re-election bid. They also shake their heads as Donald Trump promises a medical report on Dr. Oz and then abruptly changes course. And they react to Colin Powell’s hacked emails that include frustration he was denied a speech at a university because of the criticism the school received for paying Hillary Clinton a huge sum.
News & Politics
‘A Whole Parade of Terribles’
Colorado voters will be asked whether they want to legalize doctor-assisted suicide in November, and while opponents admit they have an uphill fight, they’re passionately fighting against ushering in what one leading activist calls “a whole parade of terribles.”
On November 8, ballots across Colorado will include Proposition 106, which would legally permit doctors to prescribe drugs that terminally ill patients could take to end their lives. The full text is here.
Jeff Hunt is director of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University. He says, on the surface, the case for approving doctor-assisted suicide seems strong by allowing people to decide for themselves when and how to end their lives or at least leave that option open to their neighbors.
But Hunt says the reality of doctor-assisted suicide is much darker than its proponents would have you believe.
“Doctor-assisted suicide is a very, very, very bad deal for Colorado. In almost every case, where doctor-assisted suicide is legal, it moves from what is generally called a right to die to a duty to die,” said Hunt.
He says former Gov. Richard Lamm, who served from 1975-1987, made that very argument in stark terms three decades ago.
“Our former governor, Dick Lamm, said back in the ’80’s people need to understand they’re no longer worthy to be in this world, that they’re worthless and they need to go and that they have a duty to die. That is terrifying,” said Hunt.
While assisted-suicide advocates paint the practice as the ultimate act of personal liberty, the reality gets far more complicated.
“They think it’s a personal decision but in every case where this is legalized, you are inviting government and you’re inviting insurance companies to get involved in this decision and that is a very, very bad deal,” said Hunt.
Hunt says that is not theory but proven fact. Oregon is one of a few states that allow doctor-assisted suicide. He says the realities there are very troubling.
“What we’ve seen happen in Oregon is the state-based medicaid system get involved with end-of-life decisions. They would send letters to terminally ill cancer patients and saying, ‘We’re not going to pay the $4,000 per month required for you to stay alive, but we’ll pay the $100 for you to kill yourself,” said Hunt.
Another argument in favor of doctor-assisted suicide is that it mainly happens at the very end of life when the pain becomes unbearable. Hunt says the facts simply don’t bear that out.
“What the research actually shows is that most people that choose doctor-assisted suicide do it out of depression or they’re afraid because of their lack of mobility, their quality of life,” said Hunt.
Hunt says in places like the Netherlands, physically healthy young people access doctor-assisted suicide over relationships gone bad or the loss of a job. Proposition 106 specifically requires a patients to be given six months or less to live, but Hunt says that’s a problem too.
“That’s problematic in itself because Harvard has found that about 20 percent of those diagnoses are wrong. One in five people will outlive that six months,” said Hunt.
He says the push for doctor-assisted suicide is especially horrifying for the disabled and those with special needs.
“If you look at the organizations that are trying to stop this, it is primarily led by the disabled community. They understand what this is creating in the law. This is creating an entire classification of people that can be killed or choose to be killed,” said Hunt.
Hunt admits Colorado’s libertarian streak that legalized recreational marijuana in recent years makes this a tough ballot initiative to fight but he says it is essential voters learn the truth at votenoprop106.org and elsewhere.
“We should be investing in great palliative care and good hospice care because doctor-assisted suicide brings with it a whole parade of terribles that we do not want in our society,” said Hunt.
Three Martini Lunch 9/13/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome a new Marist poll showing Republicans doing very well in Senate races where Democrats hoped to make strong challenges. They also sigh at reports that a foundation run by John Kerry’s daughter has received over nine million dollars in no-competition spending from the State Department through the Peace Corps. And we discuss the litany of spinning, lying and insanity on all sides of the Hillary Clinton health saga.
Obama Internet Move ‘Will Weaken America Again’
The Obama is moving forward with plans to relinquish U.S. control over internet domains, but a number of conservatives are demanding the president not change what is working fine by ceding control to other countries, which could then limit the content their own citizens can see.
The old contract by which the United States controlled internet domain aspects since 1987 first expired at the end of September 2015. Since then, the Obama administration has been trying to build a framework to transition the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, to a “multi-stakeholder” system. As more of those details get ironed out, the end of American control draws nearer. Extended U.S. control is slated to end later this month.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., is among those who believe this is a big mistake.
“Is this move going to strengthen America or is this move going to weaken it? I think it’s very clear that if we do what President Obama wants to do, it’ll weaken America’s stance again,” said Yoho, who is a strong supporter of the DOTCOM Act.
That bill passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly last year but the Senate has yet to take it up. It would give Congress oversight of any transfer of internet domain control and give lawmakers the power to kill or modify the plan.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is spearheading the effort in the Senate to keep the internet in U.S. hands.
Yoho says his approach is simple. The current system isn’t broken, so why radically change it?
“The U.S. has been in control of the domain names of the internet since its inception. If we relinquish this control, it goes possibly to the UN. Then you have countries like Russia, China, and Iran and any other country that wants to play, and determine how to regulate those domain names within their countries,” said Yoho.
He says giving authoritarian leaders control over what their people can access only means bad results.
“I think you’re going to see a decrease in access to the internet, a decrease of freedom over the internet to an extent we have never experienced before,” said Yoho.
Yoho says those nations would not be in position to block what Americans can see online, but they could restrict anything they wanted for their own populations.
“They can block any country’s intellectual property or content from being accessed by somebody in Russia or China or Iran. You’re starting to limit people,” said Yoho.
“If you look at one of the basic underlying tenets of liberty, it’s freedom of speech, freedom of expression freedom to access of information. If we start sequestering that and blocking it off, you’re going to have pockets around the world that are going to become more and more isolated,” said Yoho.
He says the past 29 years prove the U.S. is best at guaranteeing people around the world have access to all available information in order to learn and better their lives.
“One of the things that made the internet so explosive and such an economic and intellectual force is because of the free market enterprise in a country like the U.S. controlling access to it,” said Yoho.
Yoho sees two other dangers of relinquishing total control of internet domains. First is the additional risks to our already vulnerable cyber defenses.
“If they take over the domain names and things like that, who knows what they’ll plan as far as malware or some type of cyber bug that’ll get into everybody’s computer. So this is a misstep by this administration,” said Yoho.
He says the Obama administration is also breaking the law by pushing this plan forward without congressional authorization.
“It’s a violation of federal law for an officer or an employee of the United States government to make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding the amount we’ve appropriated. By doing what they want to do, it’s against the law,” said Yoho. “That doesn’t seem to be a concern for this administration and we aim to stop it.”
Three Martini Lunch 9/12/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad to know that Hillary Clinton really thinks tens of millions of Americans are ‘deplorable.’ They also rip the Clinton campaign for its ever-changing story about Hillary’s health episode on Sunday. And we react to North Korea banning sarcasm.
‘They Don’t Have That Authority’
A Texas congressman is fighting back against the Obama’s administration’s unilateral amending of the U.S. Civil Rights Act in the area of sex discrimination, calling the administration’s actions unconstitutional and a gross misrepresentation of what the law intended.
In December 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Justice Department would apply the protections against sex discrimination in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to cases of alleged sex discrimination over “gender identity” as well.
Earlier this year, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the government was mandating that all public schools and federal buildings accommodate people ion restrooms and locker rooms based on their expressed gender identity.
Federally funded health programs are also in play, and health care professionals and insurers are now subject to liability for refusing to perform or cover gender reassignment procedures.
Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, is fighting back against the administration’s actions, both in opposition to the changes Obama is making to the law and especially the manner by which the changes are happening.
“They don’t have that authority,” said Olson, who says the Constitution is clear about laws are to be created or amended in the U.S..
“Article I is very clear. It has ten clear words it starts with. ‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.’ It’s clear. The administration’s actions take away the power of Congress and put that in the White House. That’s wrong. That’s against the Constitution. That’s why I introduced H.R. 5812,” said Olson.
The bill, also known as the Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2016, focuses on two key areas: restoring lawmaking and law-amending power to the legislative branch and opposing the Obama administration’s policy content as well.
While providing background information and supporting evidence for the bill, H.R. 5812 lays our these objectives:
The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally rewriting Federal civil rights laws by enacting or implementing any policy or undertaking any enforcement action that is based on construing the term ``sex'' or ``gender'' to mean ``gender identity''; and (2) to ensure that gender identity is not treated as a protected class in Federal law or policy without the affirmative approval of the people's representatives in Congress.
Olson says he’s gotten quite a bit of heat from LGBT activists and others who support their agenda. He flatly rejects their allegations that this bill stems from his hatred of gays or transgenders.
“Liberals are saying, ‘Pete’s attacking these people.’ That’s a bunch of hooey. This is all about our Constitution, protecting our Constitution, taking that oath I spoke and making that action,” said Olson. “The administration does not have the power to redefine sex in federal civil law. They did that and this tries to stop it,” said Olson.
Olson says it’s perfectly obvious that lawmakers decades ago did not intend for transgenders using restrooms and showers counter to their biological sex.
“It just means man or woman. What they’re doing is trying to expand that sex is actually sexual stereotype, gender identification, the termination of a pregnancy. That is not what was in the law that was passed,” said Olson.
While Olson is appalled by the administration’s actions, he says it’s not surprising given Obama’s track record.
“It’s very consistent with President Obama’s actions the whole time he’s been president. Transgender bathrooms is another continuation of laws coming from the White House. His executive amnesty is another example of laws coming from the White House. Congress has to assert it’s authority for the Constitution and take that back to Congress. That’s exactly what H.R. 5812 does,” said Olson.
He says if Obama wants to change the law, he and his allies should ask Congress to act.
“If you want this to happen, work with us. We will pass law,” he said.
Does that mean Olson would support amending the Title IX to expand the definition of sex through the legislative process?
“No. My vote will be heck no. But I want to have that vote. That is our job. Our job is to actually pass laws,” said Olson. “Have an up or down vote. I’ll vote that thing down because I think it’s against the Constitution. But I want that vote, not something coming from the White House,” said Olson.
Olson says time is of the essence to move on this bill since Congress will not be in session long this fall and the Obama directives have been in place for months. He says he hasn’t heard a word from GOP leaders about his bill, but he’s fine with that.
“They have not said anything, but that’s a good thing. If it’s bad, they’ll kind of push you back. They seem to be saying, ‘Pete, it’s your ball. Run with it. If you get enough votes – 218 – then we can talk about bringing it up on the floor,” said Olson.
“My job right now is to go, go, go get people on board, get 218 so leadership can bring it up. Let’s vote on it and put a brake on the White House,” said Olson.
Boom vs. Bust: Trump Adviser Compares Economic Plans
One of the chief architects of Donald Trump’s tax plan says the GOP nominee would place America on a course for explosive economic growth while Hillary Clinton’s vows of huge spending increases would lead to a recession and either higher taxes on the middle class or huge amounts of new debt.
“We’re cutting rates. She’s raising them,” said Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore. We’re helping small businesses. She’s hitting them with more taxes. We have an orientation toward more investment. She is taxing investment. So, this is a night and day comparison.”
During her convention speech, Clinton was very clear that she believes bigger government is the way to jump start the economy.
“In my first hundred days, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs wince World War II,” said Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.
Those investments would be used, in part, to provide free college tuition, forgive existing student loan debt and raise the minimum wage.
She was equally clear how she plans to pay for that.
“We’re going to pay for every single one of them,” said Clinton. “Wall Street, corporations and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes.”
Moore, who is also a senior economic contributor at FreedomWorks and a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says those grand promises carry a pretty harsh reality, starting with the mount of spending needed to enact those policies.
“By my count, she’s got about a trillion dollars in new spending. That’s a lot, given we already have a $19 trillion national debt, soon to eclipse $20 trillion,” said Moore.
He says Clinton’s tax plan can soak the rich all she wants, but she still won’t have enough revenues.
“The idea that you’re going to get all the money for free college, free day care, free health care, free everything that you’re going to be able to get the money for that from the top one or two percent is just silly,” said Moore.
That reality, says Moore, would leave Clinton with two horrible options.
“The problem is you’re going to have to go after the middle class. If you want these massive new entitlement giveaways to the middle class, the fiscal reality is that you’re going to have to tax the middle class to pay for it or you’re going to have to rack up massive new amounts of debt,” said Moore.
Besides suggesting Clinton’s math is fatally flawed, Moore says the sitting president is proof positive that the government spending huge sums of money does not result in job creation.
“Government spending doesn’t create jobs. That should be one enduring lesson of the Obama years,” said Moore. “This has been the flimsiest, weakest recovery since the 1940’s, so over 60 years.”
While noting that some government spending is needed, the Obama stimulus wasted nearly a trillion dollars with almost nothing to show for it.
“The money just went down a rat hole. We don’t even know what happened to a lot of the money. Some of it went to failed companies like Solyndra. A lot of it went into programs like food stamps and so on. They were just giveaways to people. They had no positive economic impact at all,” said Moore.
Recent Commerce Department reports show the U.S. economy growing at just one percent. Moore says that small growth also raises red flags about the Clinton plan.
“That’s pathetic. That’s pitiful. It;s the reason Americans are so angry. When you’re at one percent growth, you’re not getting wage growth. You’re not getting the job growth you need. People are actually losing income relative to inflation,” said Moore.
“Fragile is the word I would use to describe this economy. Can you think of anything dumber to do with a fragile economy than to have a massive tax increase?” said Moore.
Moore is one of the key figures in crafting the Trump tax plan, alongside fellow supply-siders Larry Kudlow and Art Laffer. He says Trump is committed to using the tax code as a means to revive our sputtering economy.
The signature item would be to slash the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrialized world, currently at 35 percent, down to 15 percent. Moore says that would convince U.S. companies to stay here and encourage major expansion and hiring at businesses of all sizes.
“We are going to apply this 15 percent tax rate not only to the big corporations but every one of the 25 million small businesses in America today will get a 15 percent tax cut. And they will get to immediately expense and write off all their capital purchases. I believe, if we do this, we’re going to see one of the biggest economic booms we ever saw,” said Moore.
Personal income tax rates would also drop under the Trump plan. Moore says that was among the clear “marching orders” from Trump to his team of economic experts.
“Number one, he wanted to make sure it didn’t blow a big hole in the deficit, so we’ve got the cost way down,” said Moore. “Second, he said, ‘I don’t want this to be for millionaires and billionaires like me.’ He said, ‘I really want it to be oriented towards middle class workers who are really struggling to pay their bills and are financially stressed out.”
Moore says all families would see lower taxes.
“Rich people would pay about a third of their income in federal taxes. That’s down from a rate of over 40 percent today. Most of the tax breaks on the individual side are for the middle class workers. Depending on the circumstances of a middle class family, they will save anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 a year.
In the final analysis, Moore, who is admittedly partial to Trump, says the GOP nominee has a plan to bring the economy roaring back.
“Over the next five years, with a Donald Trump presidency, we will get four percent growth annually for five years. That’s a 24 percent increase in the U.S. economy when you take the compounding effect. That’s like adding another Texas to the U.S. economy,” said Moore.
However, he says Clinton’s plan would bring even harder times on the Americans who can least afford it.
“I really do worry she would plunge us into another recession. Given the financial status of so many families, I think half of our families are not financially or economically prepared for a recession. It could be gut-wrenching. It’s too big a risk to take to be talking about massive new amounts of spending, taxes, regulation and borrowing,” said Moore.
Three Martini Lunch 9/2/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are glad some of the worst names in media won’t be moderating debates this fall and they are pleased to see Chris Wallace on the list. They also sigh as more evidence emerges showing the entanglement of the Clinton Foundation and the State Department while Hillary was secretary. And they shudder as the speech police invade the Univ. of Nebraska but cheer as the Univ. of Missouri suffers in big ways after surrendering to campus radicals last semester.
Women Sour on Hillary, Major Reason for Approval Plunge
Just one month after Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, her convention bounce is over, her disapproval numbers are at record highs and women voters are one of the biggest reasons why.
In a new survey commissioned by ABC News and the Washington Post, just 41 percent of Americans see Clinton favorably while 56 view her as unfavorably. Her numbers are still better than Republican nominee Donald Trump, who is saddled with a 63 percent disapproval rating. Just 35 percent have a favorable opinion of him.
While not good, Trump’s numbers are staying largely consistent over the past month, ticking up one percentage point in approval since early August. Clinton however has dropped several points. In early August, 48 percent of Americans looked at her favorably while 50 percent saw her unfavorably. In just four weeks, Clinton has fallen from a two point gap to a 15-point chasm.
And the biggest reason may be a considerable drop among women. Just after the Democratic convention, the ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 54 percent of women had a positive impression of Clinton, with 43 percent not thinking highly of her. Now, 52 percent of women voters see Clinton unfavorably and 45 percent approve of her.
“It is the lowest rating that she has had in terms of women liking and supporting her for an entire year,” said Independent Women’s Forum Senior Fellow Gayle Trotter. “This is something that has been building awhile. Her general unpopularity rating has taken a real hit in the last three weeks.”
Trotter says Clinton’s drop is largely to her own dishonesty and new revelations about her email server and conduct while secretary of state.
“If you look at the onslaught of revelations about her emails, about the representations that she made to media outlets like Chris Wallace on her emails and what James Comey, the director of the FBI, said about their investigation of her emails and her email server, this is something that is repeatedly in the public eye, and it is cannot help but effect Americans’ view of her,” said Trotter.
Being underwater ought to be especially concerning to women, according to Trotter, given that Clinton has repeatedly touted herself as a history-making female candidate.
“Hillary has gone on and on about playing the woman card to the extent that her campaign, as a donation tactic, was even offering to send out to her donors an actual ‘woman card’ in appreciation for donations to her campaign that she’s taking such a hit among the group, that her campaign believes should be fully in in her corner,” said Trotter.
And Trotter believes there is more room for Clinton to slip in the minds of women and other voters.
“Hillary has not only been dishonest about her time in office and not only was incompetent in the carrying out of her duties, but that she has continued to try to mislead the American public about those two matters. Certainly she has room to fall even further,” said Trotter.
Trump’s numbers with women are even worse. Only 33 percent of female voters see Trump favorably, while 65 percent don’t like him. However, Trump did gain seven points in favorability among women throughout August.
In addition, dropping favorability numbers for Clinton do not equal lost votes. So is there a way for Trump to appeal to women and win their votes come November? Trotter sees a golden opportunity for him on national security, pointing out the Obama administration’s policy of emptying out the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and the multiple terrorist attacks carried out on American soil during Obama’s term.
“I think that Donald Trump is strong on this issue and that is a natural way that (new campaign manager) KellyAnne Conway can help him target his message, particularly to women, that he understands this issue, that his policies would be a break from the dangerous and ineffective policies of the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton would only reflect a third term of President Obama’s losing strategy on national security and keeping the American homeland safe,” said Trotter.
“If he’s particularly reaching out to women’s groups, that is something that would be authentic for him to talk about and it would be something that would resonate with American women,” said Trotter.
Trotter also believes Trump is benefiting from the advice and expertise of Conway, who is a longtime pollster and excels in political messaging.
“I think we are seeing the slight uptick in his popularity reflecting her being brought into the campaign. With her at the helm of reaching out to these groups (women and minorities), there is a huge possibility that he could really increase his popularity among women enough that it would make a difference in this election,” said Trotter.
However, she says even the most effective campaign strategy faces a tough road because all of that messaging gets filtered through one of Clinton’s strongest allies – the media.
“They have really become a SuperPAC for Hillary Clinton. They have been able to go after Trump on every single, possible front that you can possibly imagine,” said Clinton.
Three Martini Lunch 9/1/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to Donald Trump’s sudden trip to Mexico. They also discuss the revelation that taxpayers paid for Hillary Clinton’s private email server. And they express their disgust over would-be Reagan assassin John Hinckley, Jr. being allowed to go free.