Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are receptive to Sen. John Cornyn’s idea of withholding pay for White House budget officials for every day the budget is past the deadline for submission. They also examine President Obama’s trip to Israel, his lack of progress in the Middle East and his headaches on this trip. And they slam a Massachusetts middle school principal who canceled Honors Night because the kids who didn’t get good enough grades might get their feelings hurt.
‘It’s Up to the American People’
In the wake of President Obama’s re-election and other Democratic successes in 2012, more and more Republicans in elected office and party leadership are concluding that embracing comprehensive immigration reform is vital to winning elections and attracting a higher percentage of the nation’s fastest-growing demographic.
Conservative senators Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake joined the so-called Gang of Eight pushing the latest Senate version of reform. Rising GOP star Sen. Rand Paul has embraced ways to make illegal residents legal, while stopping short of endorsing a pathway to citizenship. Just days ago, an official Republican National Committee report on the party’s 2012 failures specifically urged support for comprehensive reform.
So with support from Democrats, the media and a growing number of Republicans, is it inevitable that this legislation will pass in the near term?
“No it’s not, because they left out one major group of people that has to part of the equation. It’s called the American people,” said California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. “The American people fully understand when you’re talking about comprehensive immigration reform, all you’re really talking about is legalizing the status of probably 15-20 million illegals that are in this country.”
Rohrabacher is one of the leading opponents of placing illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship or any legal status because he says it will only encourage more illegal behavior.
“The American people know that will do nothing but bring in millions more and all the problems of crime, of consuming very scarce education and health care dollars, etc. that this will be a disaster for them. So although there are a few Republican – quote – leaders who are giving into this onslaught of propaganda trying to convince them that this is going to help the Republican Party, the average people out there are against it. Republicans will understand that when it starts coming to a vote because the people will rise up against it,” said Rohrabacher.
Many Republicans who have changed their positions on this issue have spent more time trumpeting the pathway to citizenship more than a commitment to border security. Senators like Rubio and Paul have stressed security first, but Rohrabacher says even that position is worthless if it’s accompanied by support of legalizing those who came here illegally.
“First of all, there is no securing the border if you legalize the status, if you give amnesty. You can’t secure the border once you have given people a huge incentive to cross the border and come here illegally,” said Rohrabacher. “You just can’t build a fence tall enough and a ditch deep enough to keep people out if you’re going to say, ‘You and your family are going to receive a treasure house of benefits, jobs and things like that if you just get across the border.”
“Even Rubio’s position is wrong. There is no securing the border if you legalize the status. It doesn’t make any difference when you try to say once you strengthen the border then you can do your legalizing of the status. That doesn’t go, because as soon as they legalize the status there’s more pressure on the border,” said Rohrabacher.
Rohrabacher acknowledges that defeating this latest push for what he calls amnesty will be very difficult., and he says victory will depend upon just how passionately the public rises up to stop it.
“It’s up to the American people. It really is. They will activate and they will speak loudly and aggressively on this issue to their elected official. If every time there’s a town hall meeting that people are screaming and yelling, being courteous and not cutting somebody off, but raising their voice and saying how important it is then we can turn the tide. But if the American people continue to shrug their shoulders or go along with stupid arguments like, ‘Well, first we’re going to control the border, then we’re going to give the amnesty to these people,’ that won’t work,” he said.
Rohrabacher stressed that politicians, especially Republicans, need to be told loudly and clearly how important this issue is to America and how important it could be to their political future.
“We have got to make sure that we don’t just talk softly and express our opinions with due courtesy and respect. People need to act with outrage. They certainly need to be courteous to people, but they certainly don’t need to keep their voices low. The elected officials, especially in the Republican Party, need to hear from their constituents that if they’re doing something this detrimental to the American family…unless people scream out at their elected official, the elected official may not get the word. So that’s what we all have to do,” said Rohrabacher.
Ultimately, Rohrabacher says it’s that American family that must decide what it wants America to be.
“It’s up to us. Are the patriots of every race, religion and ethnic group in this country going to step and say that we’re part of the same family, we’re going to fight for this family or are they going to go along with this effort to bring in a bunch of foreigners to take the jobs and the benefits that belong to Americans?” said Rohrabacher
Three Martini Lunch 3/20/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to see Harry Reid admit there’s nowhere close to enough votes to pass an assault weapons ban. They also unload on Reid for suggesting that the training deaths of seven Marines should be blamed on sequestration. And they discuss President Obama’s knack for always having time to do his NCAA bracket.
‘It’s A Trap’
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not include an assault weapons ban in the gun legislation he plans to introduce on the Senate floor, but gun rights advocates say this is not a surrender but rather Reid’s way of making a ban easier to pass.
“It’s a trap. It’s a non-event. What’s going to happen is they’re going to take another bill, and that could be the veterans’ gun ban and then bring that to the floor,” said Mike Hammond, chief counsel at Gun Owners of America, a pro-Second Amendment group. Hammond says bringing a less controversial bill to the floor will make it easier to find the 60 votes needed to open debate.
“Diane Feinstein’s amendment will be offered as an amendment to that. Furthermore, they’ll probably break off a magazine ban and offer that as an amendment to that. Furthermore, they’ll probably take a universal gun registry and offer that as an amendment to that,” said Hammond. “When Harry Reid says he’s dropping Feinstein from the bill, what he means is it’s not going to be in the bill which is reported to the Senate but it will be offered on the Senate floor. So the question we’re asking is, ‘Why in heaven’s name should anyone vote for this underlying vehicle when we’re being told in advance it’s going to be nothing but a vehicle for a gun control buffet.”
Hammond says Reid has two options in bringing his legislation forward. He can require 60 votes to begin debate and control the amendment process or require 50 but be forced to allow Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell the first amendment to the bill.
“The exercise is to trick us to voting for that motion to proceed by starting out with what he views as a noncontroversial bill,” said Hammond, who says he is urging all members to resist the strategy to push forward a “gun control-o-rama” of amendments.
“Our message is to vote against the motion to proceed. We don’t want any gun control to come up at all,” said Hammond.
Amendments to the bill would require a simple majority, although closing the debate would also require 60 votes. Hammond is encouraged by that hurdle, because he thinks the Feinstein assault weapons ban has fewer than 40 supporters, but that’s not the end of the story. He says the political bargaining that piled up 60 votes for Obamacare will be on full display again.
“Do you remember Obamacare, in which Harry Reid just pushed and pushed and pushed and said who do I have to buy off with this bribe or that bribe? That’s what they envision for the floor consideration of this bill. And they will try to tweak and bribe and buy off as much gun control as they can manage,” said Hammond.
Three Martini Lunch 3/19/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud the House GOP for demanding that there will be no new taxes beyond the fiscal cliff deal. They also discuss President Obama’s radical choice to head the Department of Labor. And they rip the White House for holding the Easter Egg Roll hostage to sequestration.
Feds Target FedEx
FedEx and UPS are in the Justice Department cross hairs for not flagging shipments of illegally-prescribed drugs the companies say they had no way of knowing were in their possession.
Criminal charges could be coming against the carriers, even though the government has not alleged any deliberate wrongdoing by the companies.
FedEx spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald says his company has a 40-year history of actively assisting the government crack down on any criminal conduct, but he says this probe was very different from the start.
“What is unusual and really disturbing is it became clear to us along the way that FedEx was being targeted for some level criminal activity as it relates to these medicines that are being shipped from pharmacies, and we find it to be completely absurd because it’s really not our role,” said Fitzgerald. “We have no way of knowing what is legal and not within the packages that we’re picking up and delivering in this situation.”
“At the heart of the investigation are sealed packages that are being sent by, as far as we can tell, licensed pharmacies. These are medicines with legal prescriptions written by licensed physicians. So it’s difficult for us to understand where we would have some role in this. We are a transportation company that picks up and delivers close to 10 million packages every day. They are sealed packages, so we have no way of knowing specifically what’s inside and we have no interest in violating the privacy rights of our customers,” said Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald says one of the most important components of this dispute. In addition to the unrealistic expectation that the federal government seems to have for the company to know what’s in every package, Fitzgerald says protecting the rights of customers is paramount and the issues go hand-in-hand.
“They clearly are attempting to put some responsibility for the legality of the contents of these packages. That’s why for us it goes far beyond even just the online pharmacy situation. This really has a chilling effect. It has the potential to threaten the privacy of all customers that send or receive packages via FedEx because the government is assigning a role on us as law enforcement or taking on their role in a way that is not appropriate,” said Fitzgerald.
FedEx sought to diffuse the standoff by offering to stop doing business with any pharmacies that the government suspected to be involved in illegal activities. The Justice Department declined, citing the potential for the pharmacies to sue over a lack of due process.
“If the government were to come to us and give us the name of a customer that’s engaged in some level of illegal activity, we can immediately stop shipping for that customer. We will not tolerate any illegal activity within our networks,” said Fitzgerald. “What we want here is a solution that will apply for the entire industry and serve the public’s interest. That’s why we find it completely absurd and, to a large degree, stunning that the government is not working with us on that solution as they have with other problems in the past. As long as they’re not doing that, there’s really no solution even if they were to pursue an investigation or criminal charges against a specific company. There needs to be an industry-wide solution that will put a stop to this problem.”
That leaves FedEx and UPS with the task of stopping illegal shipments from sources the government will not divulge.
“The comparison that we’ve made is a no-fly list. It’s as if the government were to go to major commercial airlines and accuse them of some level of criminal activity if they were to allow somebody on the no-fly list onto one of their planes without providing them a no-fly list,” said Fitzgerald. “What we want here is the no-fly list for online pharmacies. If they are aware of some level of illegal activity by some number of pharmacies, simply provide us that list and we will stop providing service. It’s a very simple solution.”
Fitzpatrick says no other private carriers are being targeted by the Justice Department and he has no evidence to suggest this probe is designed to boost the financially-strapped U.S. Postal Service at the expense of private competitors.
For its part, UPS is currently negotiating a settlement with the government but FedEx is fighting this all the way.
“Settlement is not an option for us when there’s no illegal activity on our part,” said Fitzpatrick.
Three Martini Lunch 3/18/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the Republican National Committee’s ideas to improve presidential debates and improve dialogue with groups that tend to support Democrats. They also discuss the run on banks in Cyprus and the warning it provides to the U.S. And they react to the buzz over how the character of Satan in “The Bible” miniseries resembles President Obama.
Obama Meets the Republicans
President Obama met with House and Senate Republicans this week to discuss the economy and other priorities, but the cordial meetings revealed the two sides don’t even agree on the definition of reform much less how to achieve it.
Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam is the chief deputy whip for the House GOP. He says Republicans and President Obama have very different ideas of what tax reform should look like and even why it should be done.
“The president has chosen to redefine tax reform. Traditionally, the common understanding of tax reform is that you close loopholes in an effort to drive rates down. By closing loopholes, you use that to pay for lower rates and a simpler tax code for everybody else,” said Roskam. “The president has chosen to define it as closing loopholes and using that as a vehicle to pay for more spending. And in light of that, the definitions of these things become very, very, very important.”
Roskam says the president was well-received but House Republicans made it crystal clear to Obama that “revenues” were not on the table since he got major tax hikes through the new health care laws and through the deal on New Year’s Day that addressed the so-called fiscal cliff. For his part, Obama reiterated his demand for a “balanced approach” consisting of tax increases and spending reductions.
Obama has mentioned at times that he would like to lower the corporate tax rate. Roskam says that would be fine but it needs to be part of reform across the board.
“It’s one thing to talk about reforming the corporate tax code and it’s another thing to make sure that we do it in totality with the individual tax rate,” said Roskam. “What you don’t want to do is move forward into an environment where the small businesses in and around the country that are paying at the individual tax rate are left holding the bag for a larger tax reform deal.”
Both the House Republicans and Senate Democrats released budget blueprints for Fiscal 2014. The GOP plan balances the budget by slowing the rate of spending growth, reforming entitlements and assuming comprehensive tax reform and the repeal of Obamacare.
On entitlements, Roskam says the Paul Ryan budget still keeps the system the same for Americans 55 years and older but will allow other options for health coverage starting in 2024. He also says the GOP favors means testing on both Medicare and Social Security, with poorer people getting more federal aid and wealthier seniors getting less.
Roskam admits the Obamacare repeal may be politically difficult but that doesn’t change the point of the budget blueprint.
“Remember that budgets are aspirational documents. They describe a vision and the vision for House Republicans says that because of the cost of Obamacare, we propose to repeal it,” he said.
Roskam expressed disappointment with Obama’s contention this week that there is no immediate debt crisis.
“He seems very cavalier about this debt question and the Senate Democrats sort of fulfill that in saying that they want to vote and have an additional trillion dollars in new taxes that would be foisted upon the U.S. economy,” said Roskam.
Given the very different budget priorities, finding much common ground to improve our economy and lower deficit spending seems like a tall order. Roskam his advice on where the two parties can come together.
“The common ground will be around areas that have to do with an export agenda, trying to remove trade barriers so that we can sell more exports abroad. But what it all comes down to it, we need the spending fever in Washington to break and we’ve got to break this fever so that the country can get some relief. If the only relief for the Democratic Party is to go back to the taxpayers about every eight weeks, then heaven help us,” said Roskam.
Three Martini Lunch 3/15/13
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Daniel Foster of National Review Online are glad to see GOP leaders like Mitch McConnell embrace rising stars like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. They also reject the finger-in-the-wind strategy on gay marriage by a growing number of Republicans, including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, and they explain why caving in on the issue will not result in more votes. And they wonder how soft the NFL will go now that it’s proposing to ban running backs from initiating contact with their helmets in the open field.
‘A Solution in Search of A Problem’
President Obama says the long hours that some voters spent waiting to cast ballots in November require changes in the system, but a former Justice Department elections expert says the facts show there really isn’t a problem.
J. Christian Adams worked in the Justice Department’s civil rights division and has been a vocal critic of what he sees as imbalanced enforcement of voting rights laws by the Obama administration. Adams is now an editor at Pajamas Media and author of “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama White House”.
Adams says the horror stories mentioned by Obama were rare and misleading.
“M.I.T. did a study and found that the average wait for Americans was 13 minutes on Election Day.So the stories that you’re hearing about – six, seven, eight-hour waits – are usually coming from places where people actually decided to vote early,” said Adams. “Early voting is a worse experience than voting on Election Day because there’s fewer places to vote. The lady that the president talked about, Desiline Victor, went to early voting on the very first day of early voting, which is the absolute worst choice that you could ever make. That’s exactly why she had a long line, including the fact that they had a bunch of ballot questions in Miami-Dade County (Florida). So the president chose a real outlier example when he did the State of the Union.”
Adams says there are ways to tweak the system for the better, including encouraging people to vote on Election Day, limiting the number of ballot initiatives to help speed up the lines and moving to a digital check-in process that would also shorten the wait.
“There’s ways to do this without the federal government getting involved. There’s local solutions to what is a local problem,” said Adams. “The federal government, we all know, never has the solution to most problems, so this isn’t any different.”
According to Adams, the push for national reforms is wrongheaded in a number of ways. In addition to his belief that major reforms aren’t necessary, he says changes should not be coming from Washington.
“This is, in fact, a solution in search of a problem because the federal government just doesn’t have an answer. They are not in the position to fix it like local officials who are closer to the voters who know the problems,” said Adams. “For example, Atlanta was a mess. Places around Baltimore were a mess. These are local solutions. Sadly, in many cases in Democrat areas. It’s kind of ironic to hear the president complain about it when the people who are causing the problem by and large were Democrats.”
Another factor that may be at work in the Obama agenda, however, may be efforts to help boost Democratic turnout. Adams says there’s a long history of policy changes designed to get certain demographics to the ballot box.
“This administration knows that the process rules of elections have partisan outcomes. If you can tinker with the rules of the game, you can help your side. This president recognizes that to his credit. He knows that once he gets involved in election reforms, you can bet that those reforms are probably going to help Democrats. It comes with the territory,” said Adams, who outlined several ways Democrats have boosted their numbers in the past.
“You have Section 7 of ‘Motor Voter’, welfare agency voter registration in 1993, where people in heroin treatment facilities and food stamp offices are required to be offered the opportunity to register to vote. If you look at the list in the law, it skews overwhelmingly Democrat,” said Adams.
In the end, Adams is not overly worried about this effort to change the voting process and says it will probably never make it to the implementation stage.
“I think it’s probably going to get stalled along the side of the road. Frankly, the agenda of the commission is primarily to make a best practices recommendation, so let’s hope they stick to that agenda and don’t meddle in a state and local affair,” said Adams.