Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are mostly pleased to see the Senate Republicans filibuster Chuck Hagel. They also groan as Congressional Democrats boldly assert that we don’t have a spending problem and we just need to raise taxes. And they try to figure out why some liberals think cop killer Chris Dorner was some sort of hero.
President Obama made another impassioned plea this week for more restrictive gun laws to get a vote on Capitol Hill, but the woman who stood out at a recent Senate hearing in opposition to the legislation says it’s still the wrong way to go.
Gayle Trotter is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. She received a great deal of media buzz for her confrontation with Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and has plenty more to say as the debate continues to play out in Washington and beyond.
In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, President Obama made an emotional appeal for a vote on all of his gun control provisions by saying lawmakers owe it to shooting victims from former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to the slain children of Sandy Hook Elementary School to vote on all provisions of the legislation.
“His rhetoric was very moving to the people in the audience, but if you listen carefully to the words he was saying, he was saying all these people of gun violence deserve a vote,” said Trotter. “My response to him would be, ‘No, all the people of gun violence deserve the laws that are already on the books to be sensibly enforced and to make sure we have strong and consistent penalties for violent felonies involving firearms. So, yes, you can take all the votes you want to have, but if you’re not enforcing the laws that are already on the books, it’s not going to make anyone safer.”
Trotter is encouraged by reports from Washington suggesting that an assault weapons ban is likely doomed. She says limits on magazine capacity and universal background checks need to be kicked to the curb as well.
“I’m hopeful that they won’t pass any of that, that they’ll look at how they can tighten the existing gun laws and give more support to the states in enforcing these things,” said Trotter, who says more people would oppose the background checks as well if they understand them better.
“When you think about the federal bureaucracy that will be increased by doing that, the amount of money that will be spent, the fact that criminals will not subject themselves to federal background checks,” she said. “Most importantly, the background check system we have now is not effective because the information is not getting from the states to the background checkers. If Americans understood that, they would not be supporting universal background checks.”
Trotter attracted media buzz in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee for referring to the case of Sarah McKinley, an Oklahoma woman who shot an intruder to protect herself and her young child. Sen. Whitehouse countered by saying McKinley’s gun would not be banned in the Democratic legislation so he contended that case actually proves self-defense does not require so-called assault weapons to be legal.
“How can you say that?” responded Trotter. “You are a large man, a tall man. You are not a young mother who has a young child with her. And I am passionate about this position, because you cannot understand. You are not a woman stuck in her house having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to go seek safety, one the phone with 9-1-1, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child and she’s not used to a firefight.”
Several days after that testimony, Trotter says she was trying to convey the simple message that guns are not something women fear.
“Guns make women safer. The idea is out there that guns are dangerous and that women fear guns. The reality is that 90 percent of violent crimes occur without a gun,” said Trotter. “So when women have guns, they’re able to reverse the balance of power in these violent confrontations.”
Trotter is still chafing at Whitehouse’s assertion that since a shotgun successfully stopped an intruder in the McKinley case, it should be sufficient in any self-defense crisis.
“How can you say it’s not appropriate for her to choose another weapon that’s in common usage. These AR-15s, there are millions of them around the country. So why are we focusing on what is adequate for a woman to defend herself instead of focusing on getting all guns and all bullets out of the hands of evildoers,” said Trotter.
The Senate hearings gave Trotter an unexpected celebrity turn, as gun control advocates slammed her and opponents of gun control hailed her testimony. She says the reaction is largely breaking along party lines but she says that should not be the case.
“This is not a partisan issue. It’s very interesting because it kind of cuts both ways. I was contacted by a lot of liberal Democrats who commended me for my courage to go up there and speak on behalf of women and their fundamental constitutional right to choose to defend themselves,” said Trotter. “I got a lot of criticism, but some things are worth getting criticism for because they’re so fundamental that we have to be brave and put our neck up there and speak about them.”
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see that most of the Obama State of the Union agenda is unlikely to pass. We react to Harry Reid refusing to acknowledge GOP holds on two key Obama nominations. And we discuss Joe Biden apparently saying that gun legislation will not alter the chances of another mass shooting.
President Obama claimed significant progress in deficit reduction, called for additional tax hikes and pushed dozens of new programs that he says won’t add a dime to the debt.
However, Club for Growth founder and Wall Street Journal economist Stephen Moore says the facts show Obama is not at all serious about reducing our deficits and is engaging in budgetary sleight of hand when it comes to his agenda.
In his speech, Obama said he and members of Congress have already agreed to $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction and are on the way to fiscal stability. Moore says technically those cuts are scheduled to take effect in the next few years but he’s skeptical that they’ll actually happen.
“The question I would ask is, ‘Mr. President, you’re not willing to accept cuts that are supposed to happen now. Who would believe that you’re going to accept cuts that are going to happen in 2014, ’15, ’16, ’17 and ’18?'” said Moore. “No, there are no cuts. In fact, the president created this monster of Obamacare which is going to blow another hole in the budget. We’re nowhere near stabilizing our finances. The $2.5 trillion of cuts is science fiction and I think the real discouraging note of that talk is that he’s not serious about getting serious about cutting those spending programs.”
Moore notes despite the president’s description of our fiscal health, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
“That is the road to ruin. It’s not a road to recovery,” he said.
Obama also addressed the looming sequestration that is set to take effect March 1. The president called the cuts to defense and other programs harsh and arbitrary, but Moore says that approach strikes him as ironic because the sequester was Obama’s idea.
“President Obama came up with this idea because he didn’t think that Republicans wouldn’t go along with the defense cuts and would therefore agree to a tax increase. What happened was when Republicans said (they) can live with these cuts. Then President Obama changed his stance and now he wants to veto the very cuts that he himself created,” said Moore. “Just last year he said he would veto any attempt to get rid of the sequester.”
Obama rejected Republican efforts to shift the defense spending cuts to other areas and said only a “balanced approach” would suffice to avert the sequester. He failed to specify which spending cuts would be part of that balance but he did say ending tax loopholes on wealthy individuals and some industries would provide additional revenue.
Moore says he and many other economists and business owners are strong proponents of tax reform, but their vision and the Obama vision are very different.
“The idea of tax reform is to close those loopholes and to lower tax rates to make the system more understandable, more efficient and more pro-jobs. That’s not what the president is talking about. He’s talking about closing loopholes and using that money for more spending programs,” said Moore. “That is a perversion of the whole idea of a bipartisan approach to tax reform. He’s had three or four commissions in his first term that he appointed the people to, who all said we need to get those corporate and business tax rates down. He has no interest in that.”
Moore says this is a critical moment for Republicans and believes giving into Obama on taxes now could even be fatal to the GOP.
“The Republicans will be extinct. They will be an endangered species if they continue to raise taxes. They agreed to the increase on January 1 because they didn’t have many other options, but I think if they were to cave in on higher taxes there would be a third party created in this country that really believes in growth and the Reagan idea of low taxes and getting government spending under control,” said Moore.
In his address, Obama also outlined dozens of new initiatives that he promises would not add “one dime” to the deficit. Moore says the president’s vow does not match reality.
“I think that sounds like abracadabra budgeting to me,” said Moore. “He proposed tens of billions of dollars of new spending programs and Lord knows where he’s going to get the money to pay for it. Does he really think he can get all that money out of the top one percent. We just had the biggest tax increase in 50 years starting on January 1st with the increase in the capital gains tax, the dividend tax, the estate tax, the business tax. All those went up. We can’t keep raising taxes to pay for all these play things in the budget that President Obama wants to create.
“There’s no offsets to this. It will increase the deficit. It’ll make our government more inefficient, and debt, which is already $16 trillion, will grow even higher,” he said.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review review President Obama’s State of the Union address and his vows to add nothing to the deficit, go around around Congress on climate change and saying shooting victims deserve a vote on gun control legislation. They also applaud Marco Rubio’s GOP response for clearly explaining why more government is a proven failure as a solution for America’s problems. And they shake their heads as the media and internet chatter obsess over Rubio’s unplanned drink of water.
Several Democratic lawmakers in Washington are pushing legislation that would automatically register people to vote once they reach the age of 18, a move that critics say greatly heightens the risk of fraud and gives the government the power to make a decision that should be left up to each citizen.
According to the bill backed by the likes of Georgia Rep. John Lewis, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, all citizens would automatically be registered to vote based on motor vehicle records, public assistance information and other sources unless a person specifically refuses to be registered. The legislation would also likely include a federal mandate to allow same-day voter registration and extend the franchise to convicted felons.
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is one of the leading voices opposed to the legislation. He says the goal of every state should be to conduct fair elections open to all eligible voters. He contends the changes being proposed by Lewis would inhibit that effort.
“One of the things we’re charged with is running safe, accessible, fair elections, but a big part of that is making sure your voter rolls are secure and you only have folks that are eligible to be on the rolls actually be on the rolls. This is what my concern is with universal registration,” said Kemp. “We have processes that we make people go through here in Georgia to make sure they are eligible and that they meet all the requirements before we ever put them on the roll. I just don’t know that those safeguards would be in place with federal intervention.”
Kemp says it is standard policy in Georgia to “trust but verify” anyone registering to vote or seeking other permission from the state.
“If they say they’re a citizen then we’re going to verify that and we do that with everyone before they go on the voter rolls. We do the same thing in Georgia before you get a driver’s license,” said Kemp. “I think it’s just the smart thing to do. We’ve got a million different ways for people to register to vote.”
Kemp says in his state many public agencies are required to have voter registration forms, as well as schools, libraries and even his own website.
Kemp says the issue at hand is about much more than just voting.
“This is America. This is a country where we pride ourselves on people being able to make individual choices and having individual rights,” said Kemp. “Some people don’t want to be registered to vote. That’s their right. If they don’t want to take advantage of all we have to offer to be registered to vote then they don’t have to. But if they’re going to, we want to make sure they meet all the requirements, where they’re not taking away someone else’s vote because they’re on the rolls illegally.”
Same-day registration is also a bad idea, according to Kemp. He says even with a registration deadline one month before the elections, one Georgia county still didn’t have its rolls up to date. He believes allowing voters to register right before they vote is a prescription for chaos.
“They were entering people into the system the day before the election and it was just a disaster. Their supplemental lists were not correct. (Voters) weren’t showing up on these lists and they were turned away,” said Kemp. “I am certainly not a fan of same-day registration. I think it’s hard for election officials to do the proper checks on individuals on the day we’re holding an election. I think that just opens a can of worms for fraud in a big way.”
While the merits of the bill can be debated, Kemp is also frustrated that this push is coming from Washington. He believes this should not play out at the federal level.
“It should be up to the states to decide whether they want to do that or not. In Georgia, if we want to have photo ID, and we do, then we ought to be able to do that,” he said. “If other states don’t want photo ID and they want to do same-day registration, then they should be able to do that. I don’t think there should be a one-size fits all in elections. It really needs to reside with the states because we know best how to run them in a secure manner fort what’s best for our state.”
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see a new Pew survey showing a majority of Americans see government as a threat to their individual rights. They also wince as North Korea reportedly conducts a successful and much bigger nuclear test. And they fire back at Vice President Biden for saying the administration is counting on “legitimate news media” to cover the gun control debate and stamp out claims that the Obama gun agenda infringes on our Second Amendment rights.
The impending resignation of Pope Benedict XVI is prompting cultural liberals to demand the Roman Catholic Church embrace more progressive doctrine on key issues like marriage and abortion, but one of America’s leading Catholic voices says that won’t happen.
“This prejudiced idea that the newest ideas are always the best is a falsehood,” said Father Robert Sirico, president of the Michigan-based Acton Institute. “I don’t think it much effects the way the College of Cardinals thinks about these things, especially given the fact that they elected Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger within days of his having preached a homily in which he identified and warned against the dictatorship of relativism.
“So these are the men who elected this man. I can’t see that they would weaken or renounce what we consider to be true. There is a tendency on the part of liberal news media to assess the pope the way one assesses political candidates. That is, in order to get elected, you have to appeal to a popular mentality and so the marriage issue and the life issue would be weakened, but that’s not what the church is about. The church is about honestly discerning the truth and then articulating it in the best way it can,” said Sirico, who says the cardinals may select a pontiff with a very different personality but not one with a vastly different worldview.
“Would we have a different personality? Would a man be gentler or more convivial or funnier or more serious? Yes, you’ll have a variety of personalities, in just the same way you had the difference between Paul and Barnabas and Peter. So no, the church isn’t going to change because of popular consensus,” he said.
So what kind of choice is Sirico expecting from the College of Cardinals?
“I expect a Catholic pope. This may shock The New York TImes,” laughed Sirico. “I think that given the men that Benedict and, before him, John Paul II appointed to the College of Cardinals, I think we’re very much going to get a pope with a different personality but very much faithful to the ancient tradition of the church.”
Pope Benedict XVI stunned Vatican observers and much of the world with his announcement he would resign at the end of the month. It breaks almost six centuries of pontiffs serving until death. The last time a pope stepped down was in 1415. The pope cited physical wear and tear as the main reason for his impending resignation. He is now 85 years old and believes he can no longer meet the demanding requirements of the papacy.
“He mentioned in several interviews prior to becoming pope that he considers himself fragile and cautious. He also spoke very often about the possibility of a pope resigning, that this wasn’t an inconceivable thing,” said Sirico. “While it is a sobering thought to think the last time a pope resigned was before America was discovered, I think there’s some order we’ll see unfold here. It’ll be a different kind of conclave because we’ve usually done it in the context of mourning a pope and this time we’ll have a former pope who will still be alive.”
When the College of Cardinals selected then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new pope in 2005, his advanced age led may to suggest Benedict XVI would be a caretaker pope. Sirico says the pontiff ended up being much more than that.
“I think he was more than a caretaker pope. I think he unpacked a lot of the pontificate of John Paul II in the sense that he really delineated some of the teaching and expressed it in a slightly different way.
“John Paul was not an easy act to follow either in terms of his charismatic personality or his intellect, but I think the way Ratzinger went about his pontificate showed that he was his own man. He had his own style, and, intellectually, he was a beautiful complement,” said Sirico. “I think where he did make a very obvious advance was in the renewal of the church’s liturgy, especially in the greater permission for the celebration of the older forms of the mass and a deeper understanding of the contemplative and spiritual dimension of Catholic worship.”
The pope is also head of state for the Vatican. Sirico says Benedict’s accomplishments on that front include stronger ties with Israel and the Jewish people as well as some tension with Obama administration over some of his policies. Sirico also hopes the Vatican will make some changes at the top of its diplomatic team once a new leader is installed.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Lindsey Graham for demanding answers on Benghazi – even to the point of holding up two key Obama nominations. They also shake their heads as John McCain signals he would consider additional tax hikes to avoid sequestration. And they react to Nancy Pelosi’s contention that our deficits are not a result of a spending problem.
Utah Sen. Mike Lee is leading the charge for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, saying the move is necessary because Washington politicians refuse to embrace fiscal discipline.
“There are some who say we don’t need for Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution. We just need Congress to do its job and balance its budget. I understand that argument. It has a certain appeal to it, and yet experience has taught us that Congress doesn’t consider that part of its job,” said Lee. “Congress will avoid balancing it’s own budget again and again just as it has over the years. That’s why we’re now $16.5 trillion in debt, and that’s exactly why we need this amendment.”
Lee says his amendment is pretty straightforward. Congress would be required to limit spending to match the amount of revenues and any additional spending would require an overwhelming consensus.
“What this amendment says is that if the federal government wants to spend more money than it has, it has to approve that spending by a super majority instead of by a mere simple majority, which is what happens now,” said Lee. “It would make it possible but rare and relatively difficult for Congress to continue spending beyond its means.”
Specifically, the proposed amendment would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to approve deficit spending, higher taxes or an increase in the debt ceiling. It would also limit federal spending to 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The proposal also includes a mechanism to ensure congressional compliance. Any member of Congress would have the power to seek judicial enforcement of the amendment provided they have the written permission from just one-third of either chamber of Congress.
Before a super majority is required on deficit spending, a super majority would be required to approve the amendment in both the House and Senate.
In the wake of the 2011 Budget Control Act, the GOP version of a Balanced Budget Amendment attracted just 47 of the 67 votes needed. While he admits passage is an uphill climb, Lee believes approval is possible.
“In the last Congress, we had a total of 67 votes in the Senate for a balanced budget amendment. It’s just that they weren’t all on the same amendment proposal,” said Lee, who notes polling suggests 75 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment. “We had all 47 Republicans in the Senate at the time behind the Republican proposal and we had 20 behind a Democratic proposal. You add those together and you have 67. So there are enough votes to get a balanced budget amendment passed, but we just don’t have 67 all behind the same proposal.”
Republicans are generally more supportive of the idea than Democrats, but some in the GOP are leery of the timing of Lee’s effort. They contend the amendment has no chance of passing but will give Democrats from Republican-leaning states the chance to cast a vote that gives voters the impression they embrace fiscal discipline.
“I understand the argument. I just disagree with it,” said Lee. “At the end of the day, if we don’t try every time we think something’s a stretch or every time we think a particular legislative initiative is going to meet with some resistance, if we don’t try then we’ll never get anything done. We’ll never succeed. I refuse to capitulate based on the fact that it’s not yet apparent how we’re going to get the votes we need in order for this to pass.”
If the proposed amendment were to find approval by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, it would then be considered by the states. Ratification by 38 states would required to enshrine the amendment in the Constitution. It has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1990.
In the meantime, major Congressional debates will unfold over extending the debt ceiling and how to avoid massive defense cuts through sequestration. Lee says Republicans have very clear priorities when it comes to addressing the nation’s mounting debt.
“Republicans want reform. We know that we can’t balance the budget overnight but we also know that we have to have a budget in order to have a balanced budget,” said Lee. “We’re pushing for both houses to pass a budget. We’re going to continue to insist for spending reforms moving forward as a condition for any further debt limit extensions or suspensions.
“What I’ve long insisted we need is some kind of permanent, structural spending reform, one that can stand the test of time and that won’t be easy for Congress to back out of. A balanced budget amendment certainly fits that description. There are other ways we’re always looking for that we can bring about permanent spending reform.”
As for the looming showdown over sequestration, Lee is frustrated that the government is even in this position, but he is adamantly opposed to President Obama’s push to raise more revenues by taking away tax breaks for wealthier Americans.
“I’ve never been a fan of the sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act. It’s one of the reasons I voted against the Budget Control Act,” said Lee. “I think it’s very unfortunate that our defense system should have to pay such a disproportionately large share of the cuts that need to be made.
“The fact that the president is now saying these either happen or we’re going to raise taxes again I think is unacceptable. I don’t think raising taxes is the answer and I’m certainly going to resist any efforts there.”
Lee says there is a sensible solution in the short term on sequestration, one the House of Representatives has already pursued.
“Last year, the House of Representatives passed a series of offsets, targeted spending cuts that brought about the same level of spending reform, but did so without disproportionately cutting into defense spending. I think that’s what we need and I’d like to see the House pass that again this year and I’d like to see the president sign it after the Senate passes it.”
