Help!

Why hasn't Harry Reid passed a budget in three years? ....no constraints on spending. And they have spent!

Now, we stand again on the edge and still the blame is placed on the fiscally conservative by the public because the media has told them so...

Contributed by Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Subject: U. S. Budget for Dummies

* U.S. Tax revenue:        $ 2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget:              $ 3,820,000,000,000
* New debt:                $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt:           $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts:      $    38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income:                     $ 21,700.00
* Money the family spent:                   $ 38,200.00
* New debt on the credit card:              $ 16,500.00
* Outstanding balance on the credit card:   $142,710.00
* Total budget cuts so far:                 $     38.50

P.S. This does NOT include the money owed to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Right to life... the truth! Congratulations Blake Adams, a home schooled Georgian.

I love when ideas are expressed using foundational elements, in this case historical references.

Follow the link...
http://conservativevideos.com/2012/12/highschoolers-national-right-to-life-oratory-contest-winning-speech/

The Heritage Foundation… http://www.askheritage.org/s/join-heritage/

What are 10 Facts on the Fiscal Cliff, Debt, and Spending?

Budget policy in 2012 was characterized by deficit spending, major increases in the national debt, and a heated debate over the “fiscal cliff.”

With just days left for President Obama and lawmakers in Congress to avert a major tax hike, sequestration, and other major policy changes, today we bring you a list of the top 10 facts on federal spending in 2012:

1. Four years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Fiscal year 2012 concluded with a $1.1 trillion deficit, marking the fourth year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. Too much spending is the root cause of the federal government’s deep and sustained deficits. At 23 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2012 and on track to rise further, federal spending is growing at a dangerous pace.

2. National debt hit $16 trillion. On September 4, the U.S. national debt hit the $16 trillion mark. We owe more on the national debt than the entire U.S. economy produced in goods and services in all of 2012. Sixteen trillion dollar bills stacked one on top of the other would measure more than 1 million miles high, which would reach to the moon and back more than twice.

3. The debt limit was raised by $1.2 trillion. On January 30, the federal government raised its debt limit from a staggering $15.194 trillion to an even bigger $16.394 trillion. This increase was the last one of three granted in the Budget Control Act of 2011, a result of that summer’s debt ceiling negotiations, which allowed for a total debt limit increase of $2.1 trillion.

4. The $650 billion fiscal cliff distracted from the $48 trillion looming fiscal crisis. Much of 2012 was spent arguing over tax rates in the fiscal cliff debate while lawmakers ignored the much more dangerous looming fiscal crisis. As large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they stand in the shadow of $48 trillion in long-term unfunded obligations in Social Security and Medicare. Even with President Obama’s originally proposed tax hikes in his budget, the federal debt would still rise by more than $7.7 trillion in the next 10 years.

5. Social Security ran a deficit for the second year in a row. According to the 2012 trustees report, Social Security spent $45 billion more in benefits in 2011 than it took in from its payroll tax. This deficit is in addition to a $49 billion gap in 2010 and an expected average annual gap of about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018. Social Security’s deficits will balloon yet further. After adjusting for inflation, annual deficits will reach $95 billion in 2020 and $318.7 billion in 2030 before the trust fund runs out in 2033 and a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut occurs.

6. Three years of spend-as-you-go policies without a federal budget. The last time both chambers of Congress agreed on a budget was on April 29, 2009. Since then, Congress has operated on a spend-as-you-go basis, characterized by incoherent, ad hoc budget procedures. The House passed budget resolutions each of the past two years, but the Senate failed to do its part.

7. The government spent nearly $30,000 per American household. The average American household’s share of federal spending in 2012 was $29,691, or roughly two-thirds of median household income. The government collected $20,293 per household in taxes in 2012, resulting in a budget deficit of $9,398 per household in 2012.

8. Obamacare will spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years. After the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office did an update of its scoring of the law. The result: Obamacare will spend $1.7 trillion over 10 years on its coverage expansion provisions alone, including a massive expansion of Medicaid and federal subsidies for the new health insurance exchanges. This means that Obamacare will increase federal health spending by 15 percent.

9. Social Security was the biggest federal spending program. In 1993, Social Security surpassed national defense as the largest federal spending category, and it remains first today. The top five biggest spending programs, in order, are 1) Social Security; 2) national defense; 3) Medicare; 4) Medicaid, CHIP, and other government health care; and 5) interest on the debt.

10. More than 40 percent of Americans are on some government program. According to Census Bureau data and Heritage Foundation calculations, 128.8 million people in America depend on a government program for basic (or not so basic) needs, such as rent, prescription drugs, and higher education.

Chart of the Year:

Entitlements and Interest Drive the Fiscal Crisis

Romina Boccia, conservativebyte.com

December 26, 2012 at 10:04 am

The end of 2012 was marked by lawmakers engaging in a distracting fiscal cliff debate over tax rates when the solution to the real fiscal crisis lies in an entirely different area of the budget.

Federal spending on entitlements and interest on the debt drives the federal budget crisis. Together the three major entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (including Obamacare), as well as net interest, make up more than half of all spending in the federal budget today. Their share of the budget will grow to over two-thirds of all spending in 10 years.

By 2025, the major entitlement programs and net interest together will eat up all tax revenues collected in that year. This implies that all other government spending, including for national defense, would have to be financed by borrowing.

This projection by the Congressional Budget Office assumes that historically low interest rates continue at least until 2015 and that inflation will be modest, inching up toward 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2017. Nevertheless, spending on interest on the debt would double before the end of the decade.

Should the Federal Reserve’s continued and prolonged quantitative easing lead to more severe inflation—a risk that is very real—the dangerous scenario painted in the chart of the year could come about even sooner.

One thing is clear: Lawmakers are playing a risky game for as long as they neglect to address the structural problems in the entitlement programs that are driving the nation deeper and deeper into debt. Reform is inevitable. The only question: Will lawmakers develop the political will before the real fiscal crisis hits or will they be forced into making changes in the midst of it?

DISTORTING THE FACTS TO AID DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES COMES NATURALLY TO SUSAN RICE

Paul Mirengoff, Powerline

In a 2001 article about Rwanda in the Atlantic Monthly, called “Bystanders to Genocide,” Samantha Power wrote:

At an interagency teleconference in late April [1994], Susan Rice, a rising star on the NSC who worked under Richard Clarke, stunned a few of the officials present when she asked, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?” Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley remembers the incredulity of his colleagues at the State Department. “We could believe that people would wonder that,” he says, “but not that they would actually voice it.” Rice does not recall the incident but concedes, “If I said it, it was completely inappropriate, as well as irrelevant.”

According to Time Magazine, Rice has since worked her way back into favor with Power, who is closely connected to President Obama. Indeed, the two are said to enjoy a “strong relationship.” One would expect no less from a foreign policy operative seeking advancement in the Obama administration. For someone of Susan Rice’s ambition, it wouldn’t pay to stay on the bad side of Samantha Power.

But the fact remains that Rice wanted to avoid saying that genocide was occurring in Rwanda in order to help Democratic congressional candidates in 1994 — an election in which Rwanda could hardly have been less relevant. That’s how motivated she is to leave no stone unturned in aiding her party. That’s how political a creature she is.

It’s little wonder, then, that down the stretch of a presidential election — one that she knew might well result in her elevation to Secretary of State — Rice was so anxious to avoid saying that terrorism was occurring in Libya. And it’s little wonder that, given Rice’s willingness to tailor foreign policy statements for political purposes, Team Obama picked her to go on the Sunday talk shows even though, as Obama has since said, the U.N. ambassador had nothing to do with Benghazi.

A Story Only Washington Believes

Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

All,

Sometimes you hear things out of Washington that are insane. Today was one of those days.

The dolts in Washington are saying they already made $1 trillion in spending cuts. Really? 

What they are saying is that instead of spending $7 trillion that they didn't have they decided to only spend $6 trillion they didn't have.

It you are a taxpayer, that is like saying I only stabbed you six times when I could have stabbed seven times. Good grief! 

How about not stabbing the taxpayer at all? How about balancing the budget! That is fiscal responsibility. 

The American government is on the path of spending itself into bankruptcy. It is on track to reach $17,000,000,000,000.00 in debt this year and that does not even address the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are going broke.

On top of that triple-dose fiscal disaster is the looming insolvency of Social Security (by the way, the Social Security Trust Fund that your payroll dollars go into has already been spent, the Trust Fund is really full of US Government IOU's and not real money -- so much for "trust" in Washington). 

That's four not three strikes. Government spending is way OUT... of control.

By the way, I have never met one person in the Tea Party who has presented a detailed plan to balance the budget along with fixing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. 

If the Tea Party wants to remain relevant they better get serious about developing real solutions.

Mike

From Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

There is a serious problem in Washington D.C.

Sometime shortly before16 September 2012, a top-level official in the intelligence/national security/foreign policy community set up Ambassador Susan Rice for public failure and her career may well be ruined by it.

Here is what she said on 16 September to the American people on national television:

A news correspondent presented Ambassador Rice with a quote from a Libyan official that stated: “the attack was pre-planned.” She replied: “the best information and the best assessment we have today is that, in fact, this was not a pre-planned premeditated attack,”

That was a false statement.

The best information and the best assessment that the U.S. Government had before 16 September was, in fact, that it was a pre-planned premeditated attack.

Ambassador Rice then went on to add “that what happened initially was a spontaneously reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.”

That was a false statement.

The best information and the best assessment that the U.S. Government had before 16 September was that there was no spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.

The American people were deliberately deceived into believing that a false mythology was true and the truth was false.

Finding out how and why this happened is simple.

Investigator One starts with Susan Rice and asks the five-W’s regarding the false talking pointing she gave the American people. If she said she did it then you know the truth. If not, Investigator One moves on the person or persons who gave Rice the false talking points and asks them the five-W’s and so on.

Investigator Two starts with the CIA report that described the tragedy in Benghazi as a terrorist attack and mentioned al Qaeda and visits the people on the distribution list and asks the five-W’s regarding the false talking points presented by Ambassador Rice.

We are talking about a very small number of very senior government officials so in short order, Investigator One and Investigator Two meet at the source of the fabrication and the mystery is solved.

It does not take ten weeks or even ten days to get to the truth. I could be done in ten hours of walking the halls, knocking on doors, making phone calls and sending e-mails. If necessary, an investigator may have to drive to someone’s building to talk, but it should and could have been done very quickly.

The only possible reason why the truth is not known by now is if there is a COVER-UP going on.

Further, this particular cover-up can have only succeeded this long if it is being directed from very high up in the food chain.

As the CIA has been cleared and the Pentagon and NSA played no substantial role, there are really only three places left: the National Security Advisor or his most senior deputies, the Secretary of State or her most senior deputies, the Director of National Intelligence or his senior deputies.

Ambassador Rice really only faces one remote but devastating risk: She knows who gave her the false information that was used to mislead the American people but she is an active participant in the cover-up and will not divulge the truth. If that is the case then her career is over.

If it is not the case then a good American had been set up for failure by a very senior government official or officials. That person or persons need to be identified as quickly as possible and held accountable for their actions. It is time to send out the folks with the badges and those "here are your rights" cards and get to the bottom of this debacle.

The cover-up is always worse than the initial mistake.

The End of the Arab Spring in Egypt

Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

On 4 June 2009, President Obama made an historic speech at Cairo University. Today, his remarks seem tragically prescient. On that day he said:

"...there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.

So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: 

You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. 

Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy."

Regrettably, that the situation we face today in Egypt: Morsi has become a petty dictator who only advocated for democracy while he was out of power. "President" Morsi has ruthlessly and systematically dismantled Egyptian democracy.

One sad thing is certain. Egypt saw its last free and fair election, perhaps for a generation or more. From now, the "votes" will reflect the will of Morsi and his minions. 

Political freedom is dead in Egypt. 

How ironic that Morsi will oversee the trials of leaders of the Mubarak regime. Their crimes are now his crimes. What justice they are given will also represent the injustice of the Morsi regime.

The dream is over. Another self-consumed authoritarian with an unlimited thirst for power now rules. May God have mercy on the people of Egypt for the Morsi regime certainly will not.

Contributed by Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

What Fiscal Cliff... 

All,

We keep hearing about the “fiscal cliff.” Here is my take: The only fiscal cliff America is facing is the one linked to the deficit that is on track to pass $17,000,000,000,000.00 before this time next year.

 

What America needs to do is to embrace the Budget Control Act of 2011. It is a balanced approach to a tough issue. It includes both raising taxes to increase revenues while cutting spending to reduce expenditures. That is the path to success.

 

The Budget Control Act of 2011 - signed by the President - was a bipartisan agreement and, in the name of bipartisanship, everyone should reluctantly and regretfully honor it.

 

It passed the House with 95 Democratic and 174 Republican votes

 

It passed the Senate with 45 Democratic and 28 Republican votes.

 

The President signed it into law on 3 August 2011.

 

Nothing could be more bipartisan. 

 

Even the name sounds great: The Budget Control Act.

The real agenda item is to pass the Bowles-Simpson compromise.

 

Mike

... Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

Why The Election Does Not Matter 

(I have been waiting for two months for the election to be over to send this)

 We are about to witness the peak in the quality of Government services provided to Americans this decade, a process that began eighty years ago. Why? Because the Government entitlement programs – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamp Program, Affordable Health Care Act – are fiscally untenable and it is utterly impossible to raise federal taxes high enough to keep up with the increasing costs of these programs.

The Global Competiveness Report was recently issued and America was ranked in seventh place. In 2008-2009, the United States was still ranked number one. We have fallen for the last four years, an unprecedented decline by the world’s largest economy. Why? Our national debt.  It is NOT Obama’s debt alone – it is a joint House-Senate-White House-Republican-Democrat problem.

Here are the hard facts. Social Security in its current form is going broke. The situation facing Medicare/Medicaid is worse. Add in the expanding Federal Food Stamp Program and the Affordable Health Care Act and the rate of Federal spending on entitlements becomes unsustainable. The world realizes our government cannot keep spending over $1,000,000,000,000.00 per year more than it takes in. At some point in the near future everything else will become irrelevant. It will not matter who is the House Speaker, who controls the Senate, which party gains the White House or even who sits on the Supreme Court bench. Economic reality will trump politics.

The reaction by Americans broadly falls into four groups. A large block listens to the “don’t worry - be happy” politicians that long ago learned you can get an “economic expert” to say almost anything. A second group admits to a problem, but thinks the cure will be painless, like taxing the rich or cutting waste in government. Sadly, even if we tax people according to President Obama and eliminate Federal agencies like Ron Paul advocates, it will not significantly reduce the deficit. Both options are akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. A third group neither understands nor cares to understand the numbers. To them, entitlements are a right and they deserve them. Finally, there is a dour group that realizes real solutions are painful. They understand that unaddressed “bubbles” do not go away they POP!

 In the 1920’s, Wall Street created a “stock bubble” that burst in 1929, wiping out over three decades of gains and ushering in the Great Depression. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s, as Morgenson and Rosner convincingly proved, quasi-Federal agencies such as the Federal Reserve (in Boston) and Government-Sponsored Entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided to socially engineer the housing mortgage sector of the economy and when that “credit bubble” burst in 2007, we got the Great Recession. The “entitlement bubble” is next and lies squarely in Washington. At some point, the world's bond buyers will walk away from US debt as being too risky; the “entitlement bubble” will pop just like 1929 and 2007. There will be a crash. How bad will it be? It will probably be worse than the Great Recession but not as bad as the Great Depression.

The United States will revive. Here is why: We are not a socialist state. The private sector will be harmed, but will survive and become the engine for growth. When the Federal spending madness ends, we will still have fifty state governments, and only a few operate like Illinois. Local governments will also carry on. They are learning from the mistakes of Vallejo, San Bernardino and Stockton in California. That is what makes America fundamentally different from the Greece’s of the world. Our national government can do a lot of harm, but we still have our economic freedoms and that means we have the political means to clean up the mess that Washington made.

I smell that same rat... I know so many libs that have never gotten over the Bush/Gore contest... the mantra is that the election was stolen. Someone is setting this one up. Can you see it... like the Arab world finding that the coalition had entered Bagdad very forcefully and they were utterly shocked. They had heard the stream coming from Bagdad Bob that our forces were receiving a decimating right punch from Saddam... they believed it. The libs believe the polls as unbalanced (the polls) as they are... tomorrow night they'll begin howling, "How could Mitt have won so handily after all the polls said the race was even? The election was stolen!" A set up, pure Chicago!

BH

On FNC’s “Special Report” Monday night, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume said that many mainstream polls — which appear to indicate President Barack Obama will win a second term — may be fundamentally flawed.

“My sense about this is fairly simple,” Hume said. “We’re looking at a national race, which is, for all intents and purposes, tied. We are looking at a set of state polls in the battleground states that suggests President Obama is leading — he is leading in most of these polls. And most reporters would look at that and say, ‘Well, if that’s the case, it looks like President Obama is going to win.’ And that is what a lot of people think. That is kind of the conventional wisdom.”

“However, a number of those polls have a remarkably large number of Democrats in the sample — more Democrats, in some cases, than turned out by percentage on Election Day four years ago, which was a big year for the Democrats,” Hume continued. “They don’t expect to have as big a year. So, those polls are troubling. Now, it would be unprecedented for this many polls reflecting a similar outcome to be wrong, which is why I think people are reluctant to draw that conclusion. But there’s something wrong here.”

Help save California... one brick at a time, let's rebuild this place... let's start here!

The California Republican Party has officially opposed Governor Jerry Brown’s tax increase measures, which will appear on the November ballot during its annual Fall Convention this weekend.

Here is a complete list of positions taken by the California Republican Party during its Fall Convention:

Proposition 30: OPPOSE… Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. 

Proposition 31: SUPPORT… State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute (Two-year state budget cycle).

Proposition 32: SUPPORT… Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 33: SUPPORT… Changes Law to Allow Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 34: OPPOSE… Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 35: SUPPORT… Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 36: OPPOSE… Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 37: OPPOSE… Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 38: OPPOSE… Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 39: OPPOSE…Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficient Funding. Initiative Statute. 

Proposition 40: SUPPORT… Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Dick Morris...

Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.

As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.

The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.
His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).

Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.

And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.

In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.

Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?

Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.

The impact on Senate races could be profound. Give the GOP easy pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota. Wisconsin has been a roller coaster. Once an easy win for Republican Tommy Thompson, then a likely loss as Democrat Tammy Baldwin caught up, and now Republican again, it will probably be a third pickup. Romney’s surge in Virginia is propelling George Allen to a good lead for the first time all campaign. In Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg holds and has held for some time a small lead over Democrat incumbent Jon Tester. And, in Pennsylvania, Smith has powered his campaign to a small lead over Democrat Bob Casey Jr.

The GOP now leads in these six takeaways. But it is also within easy striking distance in Ohio and Florida, where incumbents are under 50 percent and Republican challengers Connie Mack (Fla.) and Josh Mandel (Ohio) are only a few points behind. It may even be possible to entertain daydreams of Rhode Island (Barry Hinckley) and New Jersey (Joe Kyrillos) going Republican.

Republican losses? Look for a giveback in Maine and possibly in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock had established a 5-point lead over Democrat Joe Donnelly. But his comments about rape knocked him back to a tie. With Romney carrying the state by 15 points, however, Mourdock could still make it. In Massachusetts, Brown has been in hand-to-hand combat with Elizabeth Warren. Down by five a few days ago, he’s now tied, but the undecided usually goes against the incumbent.

The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite.

Barack Obama’s parting gift to the Democratic Party.

Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced, Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, Revolt!: How To Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs — A Patriot’s Guide, go to dickmorris.com.

Going out on a limb: Romney beats Obama, handily

Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

Fundamentals usually prevail in American elections. That's bad news for Barack Obama. True, Americans want to think well of their presidents and many think it would be bad if Americans were perceived as rejecting the first black president.

But it's also true that most voters oppose Obama's major policies and consider unsatisfactory the very sluggish economic recovery -- Friday's jobs report showed an unemployment uptick.

Also, both national and target state polls show that independents, voters who don't identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, break for Romney.

That might not matter if Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 39 to 32 percent, as they did in the 2008 exit poll. But just about every indicator suggests that Republicans are more enthusiastic about voting -- and about their candidate -- than they were in 2008, and Democrats are less so.

That's been apparent in early or absentee voting, in which Democrats trail their 2008 numbers in target states Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and Nevada.

The Obama campaign strategy, from the beginning, has recognized these handicaps, running barrages of early anti-Romney ads in states that Obama carried narrowly. But other states, not so heavily barraged, have come into contention.

Which candidate will get the electoral votes of the target states? I'll go out on a limb and predict them, in ascending order of 2008 Obama percentages -- fully aware that I'm likely to get some wrong.

Indiana (11 electoral votes). Uncontested. Romney.

North Carolina (15 electoral votes). Obama has abandoned this target. Romney.

Florida (29). The biggest target state has trended Romney since the Denver debate. I don't see any segment of the electorate favoring Obama more than in 2008, and I see some (South Florida Jews) favoring him less. Romney.

Ohio (18). The anti-Romney auto bailout ads have Obama running well enough among blue-collar voters for him to lead most polls. But many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

Virginia (13). Post-debate polling mildly favors Romney, and early voting is way down in heavily Democratic Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk. Northern Virginia Asians may trend Romney. Romney.

Colorado (9). Unlike 2008, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats, and more Republicans than Democrats have voted early. The Republican trend in 2010 was squandered by weak candidates for governor and senator. Not this time. Romney.

Iowa (6). The unexpected Romney endorsements by the Des Moines Register and three other newspapers gave voice to buyer's remorse in a state Obama carried by 10 points. Democrats' traditional margin in early voting has declined. Romney.

Minnesota (10). A surprise last-minute media buy for the Romney campaign. But probably a bridge too far. Obama.

New Hampshire (4). Polls are very tight here. I think superior Republican intensity will prevail. Romney.

Pennsylvania (20). Everyone would have picked Obama two weeks ago. I think higher turnout in pro-coal Western Pennsylvania and higher Republican percentages in the Philadelphia suburbs could produce a surprise. The Romney team evidently thinks so too. Their investment in TV time is too expensive to be a mere feint, and, as this is written, Romney is planning a Sunday event in Bucks County outside Philly. Wobbling on my limb, Romney.

Nevada (6). Democratic early-voting turnout is down from 2008 in Las Vegas' Clark County, 70 percent of the state. But the casino unions' turnout machine on Election Day re-elected an unpopular Harry Reid in 2010, and I think they'll get enough Latinos and Filipinos out this time. Obama.

Wisconsin (10). Recent polling is discouraging for Republicans. But Gov. Scott Walker handily survived the recall effort in June with a great organizational push. Democrats depend heavily on margins in inner-city Milwaukee (population down) and the Madison university community. But early voting is down in university towns in other states. The Obama campaign is prepared to turn out a big student vote, but you don't see many Obama signs on campuses. Romney.

Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), New Jersey (14). Uncontested. Obama.

Michigan (16). Romney chose Pennsylvania, where there's no auto bailout issue. Obama.

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223. That sounds high for Romney. But he could drop Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still win the election. Fundamentals.

Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

Federal employees...

The only ones that showed up...

A note from Mike walker, Col. USMC (retired)

The Heroes at Benghazi, 9/11 2012 (two posts)

All,

The report that is unofficially coming out of the Pentagon today, if accurate, is frustrating, heartbreaking and heroic.

The main point is that the two former Navy SEALS who died could have stayed safe and sound at a nearby secure CIA facility in Benghazi.

After reporting the attack at the Consulate up the chain, the two were ordered repeatedly by their superiors to "stand down" and not go back to the Benghazi Consulate.

They disobeyed orders and went in and rescued several Americans trapped there.

Ambassador Chris Stevens was not amongst them. Without hesitation, they returned to try to get him out and died during that attempt.

They sacrificed their lives so others might live and acted above and beyond the call of duty.  They gave the last full measure of devotion to their country.

Added post...

Next, my post was to honor heroes, like Chris Stevens, not to point fingers.

That the CIA chain of command told two national heroes to "stand down" was a justified call in a tough situation. They faced a very dangerous situation and endorsing two, albeit extraordinary, Americans to embark on an extremely dangerous mission was not an act of cowardice or misjudgment. It reflected a true appreciation of the value of the lives of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

That two superior and veteran operators of the caliber of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods decided to push forward despite the odds is what made their actions above an beyond the call of duty.

I find myself in the fundamentally consistent yet superficially contradictory position of strongly supporting the decision of their superiors to have them “stand down” and their personal decision to push into the fight.

The distinctions in making the hard decisions between mission accomplishment and looking out for your men for the leader compared to the guys at “the pointy end of the spear” can, and on this occasion was, a gulf of vast dimensions.

The decision-makers sitting safe and sound were faced with a multitude of information that could only be described as chaotic. They knew that telling Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods to go forward was an unacceptable risk for those two tremendous Americans. They said: “stand down.”

For Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, they saw the same chaos and risks with the added crystal clear knowledge that they and they alone could save the lives of others. They made their decision.

That is what made their actions so special – the resolute decision of sacrifice and the uncommon valor in the face of almost certain death.

Semper Fi,

Mike 

Strategies for the Stretch Run to Nov. 6

Over the last 40 national surveys, Mr. Romney is at or above 50% in 11, with Mr. Obama at or above 50% in one

By KARL ROVE, Wall Street Journal

This year's presidential election was transformed between the first debate's opening statements in Denver and the closing statements in Boca Raton. As a result, most of the negative impressions created by the Obama campaign's five-month, $300-million television advertising barrage were destroyed. Seen unfiltered, Gov. Mitt Romney came across as an earnest, straightforward, thoughtful conservative with a concrete plan for the nation's future.

Wednesday's RealClearPolitics.com average of polls showed Mr. Romney with 48% support to President Barack Obama's 47.1%. On the eve of the Denver debate, Mr. Romney had 46% and Mr. Obama 49.1%.

More revealing, in the past week's 40 national surveys, Mr. Romney was at or above 50% in 11, with Mr. Obama at or above 50% in one. Mr. Romney leads 48.9% to 46.7% in an average of these surveys. At this same point in 2004, President George W. Bush led Sen. John Kerry in this composite average, 48.9% to 45.8%.

So what are each candidate's strategies for the stretch run?

New television spots reveal the Romney campaign's closing message. One says another four years for Mr. Obama would mean more debt, up to 20 million people losing their employer-provided health insurance, higher taxes, rising energy prices and Medicare cuts. Other ads emphasize Mr. Romney has a plan for jobs and showcase his success as a Republican governor in a Democratic state.

This three-part strategy—matter-of-factly indict Mr. Obama's failed policies, highlight a common-sense conservative agenda to create jobs and growth, and stress Mr. Romney's capacity to provide bipartisan leadership—was evident in all three of his debate performances.

The Obama campaign strategy also has three elements. The first was embodied in a glossy 20-page pamphlet issued Tuesday, entitled "The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs & Middle-Class Security." Mr. Obama is distributing 3.5 million copies of it nationwide but it is too late: Voters concluded months ago that he lacks a forward-looking program. The pamphlet itself is a second-rate repackaging of Mr. Obama's lackluster convention speech and has been rightly dismissed by many in the press as a PR ploy. Even an accompanying TV ad swing won't rescue Mr. Obama.

The second strategic thrust of the Obama message was exemplified in three TV ads released on Tuesday. They warn that Mr. Romney would end all abortion, gut Medicare, and undermine education. But this repeats months of similar messaging, so it is hard to believe that it will undo Mr. Romney's current momentum.

The final element of Mr. Obama's strategy is to constantly question Mr. Romney's truthfulness. The president says his opponent suffers from "stage-three Romnesia," as if the GOP challenger were a disease. While calling his opponent a liar thrills partisans, Mr. Obama risks turning off swing voters, especially since Mr. Romney's favorability rating is now higher than his own.

In an Oct. 21 Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun poll of registered voters, Mr. Romney was viewed favorably by 49% and unfavorably by 39%, up from 41% favorable and 40% unfavorable on Sept. 16.

The president's problem remains the economy. Facts belie his argument that it is largely healed. Rather, it is producing jobs at a slower rate than last year, generating an average of 131,000 a month so far in 2012. At that rate, it will take three years just to get employment back where it was when the recession started, 138 million. Meanwhile, approximately four million to five million more Americans will have entered the workforce without jobs. Voters are uneasy and disapprove of Mr. Obama's economic stewardship.

This race will be close, depending on a few states. The good news for Mr. Romney is that the ones he needs are breaking his way. He leads in most recent polls in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado.

That puts the former Massachusetts governor at 261 in the Electoral College with Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the great prize, Ohio, still up for grabs. In those states, Mr. Obama has at best a thin edge, while Mr. Romney has momentum, a stronger argument, and time to grab the nine additional electoral votes he needs.

An incumbent president's final number in opinion polls is often his Election Day share of his vote. Undecided voters generally swing the challenger's way. So if Mr. Obama goes into Nov. 6 below 50% in these states—as he now is in almost every one—he is likely to lose them and his chance at a second term.

Mr. Rove, a former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, helped organize the political action committee American Crossroads.

Economics from an expert, Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

The Deficit and Recent Presidents

All,

You will hear a lot about the Federal deficit over the next few weeks. Here are some numbers:

When President Clinton handed over the reins to President Bush, the Federal deficit stood at $5.7 Trillion. President Clinton oversaw the slowest growth in the deficit in the last several decades.

Eight years later, President Bush handed President Obama a $10.3 Trillion deficit. The 9/11 attacks, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the added cost of creating the Department of Homeland Security, etc, all led to higher spending. 

Also, in the closing months of Bush Administration the housing bubble burst, that led to the TARP bailouts for banks and GM plus bailouts for AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Taken together, the bailouts accounted for about $630 Billion of the $4.6 Trillion deficit increase during the eight years under President Bush.

Just under four years later, the Federal deficit stands at $16.2 Trillion.

Mike

Allen West, Florida Congressman (FLA 22).... I had the honor to be his "graphics guy" during his last election. He gave a typically strong speech last Saturday in Temecula, CA...

Watch the YouTube video  here http://youtu.be/TvppF6b6Lu4

Contributed by Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)

New Job Numbers

All,

Most were happily surprised at the drop in unemployment rate, while some others were suspicious about the rate going below 8% right as the election draws near.

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories and do not believe in one now. Nonetheless, someone has to explain how this happened and why this is good news. Here is why:

It has been bantered about that the decrease is due to a rise in involuntary part-time employment. That is dubious news as the number is seldom discussed and an INCREASE had traditionally been seen as BAD not good news (see: http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/110482/). 

Additionally, a jobs number in the range of 114,000, the September number, is NOT good.

(see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/business/economy/us-added-only-115000-jobs-in-april-rate-is-8-1.html?pagewanted=all).

The figure of 300,000 to 400,000 jobs per month is considered "robust growth." (see: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/04/march-job-gains-good-but-market-may-have-hit-plateau?vwo=ecfb2).

Together, the numbers do not make a lot of sense:

2012 Month Unemployment Rate New Jobs Created  Involuntary Part-time Employment

April   8.1% 115,000 7.7 million

May   8.2% 69,000 8.1 million

June   8.2% 80,000 8.2 million

July   8.3% 163,000 8.25 million

August   8.1% 96,000 8.03 million

September   7.8%        114,000          8.61 million

The bottom line is that two pieces of bad news (weak job creation and an increase in involuntary part-time employment) is double bad news while the declining unemployment rate is good news.

But what does it all mean?

Mike