Greg Corombos of Radio America and Alec Torres of National Review are pleasantly surprised to see New Yorkers souring on liberal Mayor Bill de Blasio. They also react to Jay Carney’s incoherent insistence that President Obama was not wrong to mock Mitt Romney’s concerns over Russia in 2012. And they’re stunned to hear President Obama say that Obamacare is working exactly as intended.
Three Martini Lunch 3/6/14
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Alec Torres of National Review salute former RT anchor Liz Wahl for resigning on the air over Vladimir Putin’s actions and media propaganda. They also shake their heads as Putin presents the seizure of Crimea as a simple vote of the people. And they rip DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for likening Darrell Issa’s handling of Wednesday’s IRS hearing to the crushing of rights in Ukraine and Venezuela.
‘That’ll Be A First for Him’
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told conservative activists on Thursday that if the GOP wins control of the U.S. Senate this year, the party will aggressively pursue and enact conservative policies, but legendary conservative leader Richard Viguerie says the track record suggests something very different.
More Spending, More Taxes
President Obama’s budget is short on specifics, fudging our current economic state and long on higher spending and higher taxes to pay for his political agenda, according to National Taxpayers Union Executive Vice President Pete Sepp.
Sepp says Republicans offered more fiscally responsible budget proposals than Obama in recent years but their blueprints were also far from what America needs to deal effectively with huge annual deficits and a massive national debt.
On Tuesday, the White House released the president’s budget blueprint for Fiscal Year 2015. It carries a price tag of nearly four trillion dollars, billions more in new spending and higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.
Much of Obama’s additional spending would be for infrastructure upgrades and ramping up for universal pre-kindergarten.
“Our budget is about choices, it’s about our values,” said Obama.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan dismissed the plan as nothing more than a campaign brochure. So who is right?
“It is hard to call this a serious document if you are indeed serious about reducing the deficit through spending restraint. The message here is more spending and much higher revenues to pay for that spending, along with a lot of other rosy economic assumptions,” said Sepp, who listed several of what he considers flawed assumptions in the budget proposal.
“The assumptions for inflation, that it will be lower than what the Congressional Budget Office just projected, that entitlement payments will be lower than what the Congressional Budget Office projected and that Gross Domestic Product will be a whole lot higher. The differences here add up to a lot over the 10-year budget window,” said Sepp.
“It explains why the Congressional Budget Office just last month was projecting a budget deficit of over a trillion dollars ten years from now. The Obama administration is projecting one half that amount,” he said.
Sepp is also frustrated that the budget plan is lacking important components that make it nearly impossible to project what Obama’s blueprint would do.
“Even though it is once again late, it is also for the first time incomplete for this administration. There are two key documents in the whole set of budget items that are missing so far. These are the analytical perspectives and the historical tables of the budget. Without those, you can’t necessarily understand the assumptions for things like projections of beneficiary populations for the changes in entitlements they’re proposing. For an administration that prides itself on transparency, this is just basic managerial negligence,” said Sepp.
The Obama administration claims the new revenues needed to pay for the proposed spending will come from closing tax loopholes for the rich. Sepp gave us some insight on what officials mean by “rich” and “loopholes”.
“By loopholes, they mean things like imposing the so-called Buffett Rule on wealthy taxpayers. That’s been a staple of Obama’s budgets year after year. They want to propose a shift in rules regarding to what’s called carried interest income. That has a great deal of controversy over how it would impact risk-taking fund managers and their investors,” said Sepp.
“They also want to take a serious bite out of the value of itemized deductions, limiting them to what somebody in the 28 percent as opposed to the 39.6 percent tax bracket would take,” he said.
Sepp says Americans should also remember these tax changes would be on top of the tax hikes that came early last year as part of the deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.
House Republicans are expected to unveil their budget blueprint in the coming weeks. While Sepp is highly critical of Obama’s fiscal stewardship and record-setting deficits, he says Republicans do not often propose budgets that would make much of a dent in our losing battle against the debt.
“There have been some problems with Republican budgets in the past. If we were to grade them, many might wind up in the B- and even the C range because many of them fail to address the primary drivers of cost growth, which is Social Security and Medicare in the federal budget. They’ve done some work on voucherization of Medicare and things like premium support. That’s encouraging,” said Sepp.
“But reforming Social Security remains something that neither political party seems to want to touch. Of course, Republicans have not been forthright about the need to restrain military expenditures in the past. That is an important task that both parties have to undertake,” he said.
Three Martini Lunch 3/5/14
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review review John Cornyn’s big primary win in Texas. They also react to Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor alleging his GOP opponent feels entitled to a Senate seat because of his military service. And they rip Florida Rep. Alan Grayson after his estranged wife accuses him of domestic violence.
Three Martini Lunch 3/4/14
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review explain how a new poll showing many more people directly hurt than helped by Obamacare could impact the midterm elections. They also explore the many options President Obama could have used to inflict economic or diplomatic pain on Russia – but didn’t. Finally, they refute Sally Kohn’s claims that conservatives’ criticism of Obama’s response to Russia makes them pro-Putin.
Inside the Apple CEO’s Climate Change Meltdown
Apple CEO Tim Cook made worldwide headlines last week by blasting a questioner at a company shareholder meeting and insisting that his company will continue investing huge sums of money in green technologies whether it improves the bottom line or not.
“If you want me to do things only for (return on investment) reasons, you should get out of this stock,” said an angry Cook.
Now the man who asked the questions says Cook lashed out at him because it’s obvious the company would be losing hundreds of millions of dollars with their green projects if taxpayer-funded subsidies weren’t defraying much of the cost and because Cook knows the projects are not going to create profits for Apple or its shareholders.
The confrontation took place Friday at Apple’s annual shareholder meeting. In the question and answer session, Justin Danhof of the National Center for Public Policy Research confronted Cook about the huge amount of money spent in the company’s quest to derive 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources.
“I asked him a very basic business question that any investor or any shareholder of Apple would want to know. When you engage in environmentalism…is there a reasonable return on investment? Are you spending more than you’re saving? Cook first answered by saying, ‘I think that it makes economic sense, but even if it didn’t, we would still spend to our heart’s content all of your shareholder money on battling this terrible concept of CO2 emissions,'” said Danhof.
Danhof then asked Cook what the company policy would be if the federal government were not footing the bill for much of their green energy programs through taxpayer-funded subsidies. That’s when Cook made headlines.
“That’s where he went off the rails. Cook refused to answer the question and he looked directly at me and said, ‘I don’t care what you think. We’re going to continue to cure blindness.’ What does one have to do with the other? Obviously, Cooke was deflecting the issue because, while the company may be engaging in a lot of environmental efforts, the answer is they’re engaging so where they can make a profit off the American taxpayer. We’re the ones, John and Jane Q. Taxpayer, that are subsidizing all these solar plants that Apple is putting up in North Carolina and Arizona and California and elsewhere. That’s the real heart of it,” said Danhof.
That’s when Cook loudly scolded Danhof and suggested that he and anyone else not supportive of Apple’s green energy efforts were free to sell their shares.
“I’ve been attending shareholder meetings for the last five or six years, dozens of them, and I’ve never had a CEO react and act the way that Tim Cook did at Friday’s Apple shareholder meeting,” said Danhof.
Cook is widely known for his calm demeanor, so what triggered his passionate response rather than a simple explanation that Apple’s priorities were not the same as Danhof’s?
“The company wants to tell it’s progressive investors who care about this chimera battle of reducing CO2 emissions that they’re the leading company in the world to do so. In reality, they’re only doing so because they’re ripping off taxpayers. So I caught him this dualism, this hypocrisy and he was really stuck at that point,” said Danhof.
“So he attacked his own investors. He really came untoward. I was embarrassed for him,” said Danoff.
While Danoff says he can sympathize with Cook being exposed in front of shareholders, he has fewer warm words for former Vice President Al Gore and his response to the exchange.
“I would have been embarassed for Al Gore if Al Gore could still be embarrassed at this point, because he stood up like a three-year-old child and loudly clapped and cheered in my face when Cook gave that reaction. Al Gore is beyond contempt at this point so I won’t even be embarrassed for him,” said Danoff.
Danhof says the hypocrisy of Apple is evident in multiple ways, both in its activities at these green energy facilities and in its everyday products.
He cited a massive geothermal plant in Maiden, North Carolina, built largely through taxpayer funds. It will eventually power Apple’s local operations, but while those facilities are built, Apple is selling its excess energy back to the taxpayers of North Carolina who helped pay for the construction through their tax dollars in the first place. He says the cost of Apple’s green energy projects is easily in the hundreds of millions and possibly even billions of dollars.
In addition, Danhof says Apple’s own conduct shows it’s not nearly as environmentally conscious as it would have us believe.
“You may want to actually take a deeper look into what Cook’s response really means. If Apple was sustainable, they wouldn’t glue their batteries into their iPhones so when your battery dies you need a new iPhone. If your battery dies on any other phone, you just get a new battery. On an iPhone, you’ve got to chuck it away and buy a whole brand new one. What’s sustainable about that? Absolutely nothing,” said Danhof.
In addition to asserting Cook got caught in his hypocrisy, Danhof believes another factor is at play as climate change advocates find it harder and harder to convince Americans that the planet’s future is in peril unless major, costly steps are taken.
He notes that over the past few election cycles, concern over climate change has dropped from being one of the five biggest issues for voters to barely cracking the the top 20 issues that motivate people at the polls.
“For 17 years, we’ve been told the world is going to warm and for 17 years they’ve cried wolf. We have a world (temperature) that’s staying flat if not cooling. I think that those who are really devotees of the climate change line are starting to run scared. They’re starting to become more emotional and less rational because the science is no longer backing up their wild claims,” said Danhof.
VA bill sparks debate over homeschooling rights
Virginia is the latest battleground in the debate over religious homeschooling and the educational rights of parents and children.
Homeschoolers are spreading like wildfire across the country, but they aren’t allowed to do whatever they wish. Each state has its own rules for what is required to homeschool. Most require some form of report and testing to keep the parents in check.
Virginia has the most unique statutes in the country. Its Constitution allows parents to homeschool their children without reporting to their school board. If allowed, they can teach their children under the Religious Exemption clause, which permits students to be excused from public school if it is done because of religious beliefs.
This method frees thousands of Virginia parents to teach their children according to their religious convictions. It also helps establish what Home School Legal Defense Association Senior Counsel Scott Woodruff describes as a “Wall of separation”.
“This wall of separation, on the one hand, protects government sponsored schools from having religion come in and influence and control them. On the other hand, it protects religious education from the government coming in and issuing mandates” said Woodruff.
But is this healthy for students?
A recent bill sought to address this in the Virginia House of Delegates. Delegates Tom Rust and Vivian E. Watts sponsored the bill in hopes of finding more information on those who are studying under the Religious Exemption statute.
“It is in no way an effort to overturn the religious exemption…. I do think we have a responsibility to make sure that young people are getting an adequate education to prepare them for adulthood” said Delegate Rust.
The bill proposed that Virginia’s education department study how individual school districts evaluate applications for the Religious Exemption, as well as confirm whether the district is checking in with parents and reviewing their case. Once this information was gathered, it would be analyzed by the Department of Education, and suggestions would be made to amend the clause, so that students are receiving the best possible education.
While the bill failed in committee, the questions it asked were hotly debated by those fighting for stronger homeschool regulations as well as by those who are for lessening the restrictions.
Those opposing the bill, including the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, believe that the bill provided no new answers.
“The overt purpose [of the bill] is to ask five questions, but we know this to be illegitimate because we already know the answers to the questions” says Woodruff.
Also known as the HSLDA, the Homeschool Legal Defense Assocation also argues that the study would covertly pave the way towards limiting parental rights. The HSLDA worries about these potential limitations, for it believes that “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.”
Others, like the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, argues that the data is needed since there are no other sources.
“There’s a lot of unknowns in this [study] and we have not even filed these up with these homeschool students who have graduated…...there’s a lot we don’t know” said CHRE’s Executive director Heather Doney.
The CRHE was founded off of a belief that “Homeschooling laws….is seriously lacking in protections for the rights of children and youth.” Because of this, it avidly supports developing policies and regulations which protect kids from abuse and make it possible for them to get the best possible education.
The recent legislation in Virginia was designed to determine how homeschool students studying under the religious exemption are doing. But the debate shows that parents, legislators, and students are divided over the pivotal question of who comes first legally, the parent or the child.
Obama Regs + Rough Winter = Power Shortage
Virginia Rep. Morgan Griffith says Obama administration regulations will further cripple coal-fired power plants and another brutal winter in the northeast could mean a power shortages for businesses in the region.
Griffith, who represents coal-rich southwestern Virginia and sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says power grids are already stressed and regulations that will soon take effect will push the region past the breaking point if we get another winter like this one.
“In January of next year, a lot of coal plants have to close down based on regulations already passed. We’re not even talking about new facilities. We’re talking about older facilities that are being shut down because they can’t meet the new requirements,” said Griffith.
“A number of places had a hard time keeping the grid fully supplied with electricity. They asked people to cut back in the northeast. Gas prices went through the roof. A big part of that’s going to be gone next year. If we were to have another cold snap next year, I’m afraid we would have serious problems,” he said.
Griffith says Obama administration regulations not only endanger future coal-fired plants but also make the operation of existing plants a losing proposition.
“I believe the administration wants to eliminate coal as a fuel source. They’re putting regulations in place on new buildings of coal facilities. You can’t even find the technology today to really make those facilities work. It doesn’t exist. The best estimates are maybe seven, ten or maybe longer years before we can even come close to matching the regulations that the EPA wants,” said Griffith.
“On older facilities, it just doesn’t make sense for some companies to retrofit or retool those to meet the regulations to meet the regulations that they’ve been passing over the last several years. Come next January, a lot of those plants are going to shut down,” said Griffith.
The congressman says this is not some doom and gloom prophecy. He says it’s happening in his district.
“In my district alone, we have two facilities. One is shutting down completely. The other is converting two-thirds of their production to natural gas, but the natural gas won’t produce as much electricity as it did in the past. So when you hit those peak periods, usually in the wintertime with cold and sometimes in the summertime with heat, we won’t have as much electricity available next year as we have this year,” said Griffith.
“There won’t be enough new power sources brought on board by next year. If we have the same kind of conditions next year then we’re going to have serious issues. I think we may have some situations where companies say, ‘We can’t supply your factory. We’ve got to make sure the hospitals and the people who have homes are staying warm. I understand that, there’s no need for it,” he said.
Even if the lights stay on for everyone, Griffith says the price of energy during times of high demand will continue to skyrocket and people are already feeling the stress.
“We heard testimony this week in committee that even this year, with the rising cost of electricity, the (Northern Arkansas Electric Cooperative) president said we’re going to have choices made. This one lady that called him and he talked to personally said, ‘I figured out how I can pay my electric bill this winter. I’ll take my medication every other day,'” said Griffith.
Griffith says he and other congressional Republicans have repeatedly warned the Obama administration that it’s regulations are costing jobs and threatening energy supplies. He says he administration’s response has not been encouraging.
“What they have always said is that they don’t think that many plants will retire. They’ve been wrong on that number. The announcements of these retirements have been out there and it’s much higher than the administration originally estimated. I think that they’re hoping that we won’t have that kind of a winter next year, and I’m with them,” said Griffith.
“I think some (in the administration) believe that they can get enough natural gas in there to make it happen. The infrastructure, I don’t believe, can be built in time if in the next several winters we have a really cold winter. I think they’re hoping that they won’t have to face it, that they won’t have to have a cold winter. I’m worried that we will,” said Griffith.
He says the results we’ve already seen from Obama-era regulations and the projections for what will happen offer an unmistakable message to policymakers.
“The EPA needs to go in and make their regulations much more reasonable across the board. Even though they may want another energy source, right now coal is still one of the largest energy sources in this country. To have made the regulations so strict so quickly is going to impact business in America. It’s already impacting the cost of providing electricity for people in their homes. It’s going to impact business and it’s going to have other negative impacts,” said Griffith.
Bring A Commode
While the Winter Olympics showcased amazing talent, much of the games was overshadowed by the comically poor accommodations for athletes and spectators in Sochi. From dangerous, discolored water to stray dogs, the Capitol Steps reflect on the lasting memories of the games.