He better hope supporters don’t Google his name to find his campaign website : Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum formally launched his campaign for president Monday, offering himself as a tested leader with the “courage to fight for freedom . . . to fight for America” against the power of an expanding social-welfare state. “President Obama took that faith that America gave him and wrecked our economy and centralized power in Washington, D.C., and robbed people of their freedom,” a smiling but combative Santorum told several hundred supporters jammed on the plaza of the Somerset County Courthouse. A former two-term senator who lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Bob Casey by 18 percentage points, Santorum has been most known in his career as a leader of social-issues conservatives, but the case he built against Obama on Monday was mostly economic and spiritual, in the sense that Santorum argued an increased reliance of citizens on government threatens the national character. “I believe now that Americans are not looking for someone that they can believe in – they’re looking for a president who believes in them,” Santorum said.[..] As he has on the campaign trail in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Santorum said the “linchpin” of efforts to erode personal freedom was Obama’s health-care overhaul, which requires people to buy health insurance. “Why do you think they ignored the polls and jammed it down the throats of the American people?” Santorum said. “Power. . . . They want to hook you, they don’t want to free you. “They don’t want to give you opportunity. They don’t believe in you. They believe in themselves, the smart people, the planners, the folks in Washington who can make decisions better than you can.” Far be it for me to point out that once again, Santorum is completely missing the pulse of the American people, aka the voters that would vote for him. Overhauling Medicare is proving to be a loser idea as polling shows and to actually threaten current recipients’ benefits? Well, those are not the ideas that will propel you into the White House. But hey, l’m all in favor of Santorum out there while people are hurting and scared and demonstrating just how heartless and inhumane his particular brand of conservatism is. Maybe that’s what we need to invalidate these ideas one and for all.
Continue reading …Many in America celebrate Jack Kevorkian as a humanitarian champion—but “the moral case for assisted suicide depends much more on our respect for people’s own desire to die than on our sympathy for their devastating medical conditions,” writes Ross Douthat in the New York Times . “It is not considered…
Continue reading …President Obama has finally gotten Democrats and Republicans to agree on something. Unfortunately for him, it’s their distaste for his “odd stand on the Libyan war’s legality,” a Washington Times editorial observes. With this resolution , Congress told the president that his present stance on Libya—that the mission is so…
Continue reading …Click here to view this media While bowing down to the corrupt Ralph Reed by showing up at his conference this weekend, the former Senator who’s name should not be Googled, Man-on-Dog Santorum let the audience there know that he apparently doesn’t think putting our social safety nets in place is part of what’s made America “exceptional.” Here’s more from TPM — Rick Santorum: Obama’s Support For Entitlements Shows He Doesn’t Believe America Is Exceptional : Rick Santorum has a message for President Obama: Despite what you may think, America was pretty awesome before the mid-60s. Santorum is one of two presidential candidates speaking during the Saturday sessions at the Faith and Freedom Conference in downtown DC. At home before the social conservative crowd today, he offered up a ripping speech that touched on his long history as a national culture warrior. As is so often the case in a Santorum address — or a speech by virtually all of the Republicans in contention for the presidential nomination these days — the subject of American exceptionalism came up. Sanoturm has woven this into his foreign policy speeches before, but today he raised the idea in the context of the entitlement fight. Obama, Santorum said, thinks that it’s the nation’s safety net that helps to define America’s greatness. This is an example of Obama missing the point about America’s inherent exceptional nature, Santorum said. Social conservatives know that America had it goin’ on before there was a social welfare system. “There’s one statement that everyone in this room should remember that the President of the United States says, that sums up how the President looks at America,” Santorum said. “He said it about 6 weeks ago.” Read on…
Continue reading …Roger Ailes responded to several recent articles about him in an interview with Newsweek’s Howard Kurtz which was published Monday. Ailes has been the subject of two profiles–one in New York, and one in Rolling Stone–in the past few weeks. They have alleged, among other things, that he thinks Sarah Palin is an “idiot,” that he despairs of the current crop of GOP presidential candidate, that he is paranoid and security-obsessed and that his boss, Rupert Murdoch, thinks he believes “crazy” things. Ailes refused to speak to both magazines for the profiles. Ailes has previously turned to Kurtz to speak out about Fox News, though in the past, he has said quite controversial things to the longtime media reporter. For instance, he called NPR executives “Nazis” in a November interview. In Monday’s interview, Ailes struck a more congenial tone, but he pushed back against some of the claims in the recent articles. He denied that he thought Palin was stupid, saying, “she’s so smart she’s got the press corps running up the whole East Coast behind her bus.” And he called the reports of his heavy security detail “fantasy.” Ailes also said he’d like to hire Hillary Clinton as a Fox News contributor. “She looks unhappy at the State Department,” he said. “She’d get ratings.” Read the full interview, including Ailes’ thoughts on Glenn Beck, here.
Continue reading …The silence is deafening. While the rest of the nation is heading back toward a double-dip, Washington continues to obsess about future budget deficits. Why? Republicans don’t want to do anything about jobs and wages. They’re so intent on unseating Obama they’d like the economy to remain in the dumps through Election Day. They also see the lousy economy as an opportunity to sell Americans their big lie that government spending is the culprit — and jobs will return if spending is cut and government shrinks. Democrats, meanwhile, don’t want to admit the recovery has stalled. They worry such talk will further undermine consumer confidence or spook the bond market. They don’t want to head into the election year sounding downbeat. And they don’t think they have the votes for anything that will have much effect before Election Day anyway. But there’s a third reason for Washington’s inaction. It’s not being talked about — which is itself evidence of the problem. The unemployed are politically invisible. They don’t make major campaign donations. They don’t lobby Congress. There’s no National Association of Unemployed People. Their ranks are filled with women who had been public employees, single mothers, minorities, young people trying to enter the labor force, and middle-aged men who have been out of work for longer than six months. You couldn’t find a collection of people with less political clout. Women who had been teachers, public health professionals and social workers have been hit hard. These jobs continue to be slashed by state and local governments. Public schools alone accounted for nearly 40% of the nation’s total public sector job losses in the last year. From March 2010 to March 2011, women lost 214,000 public sector jobs, compared with a loss of 115,000 public jobs by men. Unmarried mothers are having a particularly difficult time getting back jobs because their work was heavily concentrated in the retail, restaurant and hotel sectors. Many of these jobs disappeared when consumers reduced their discretionary spending, and they won’t come back in force until consumers start spending more again. According to a new report by the California Budget Project, the recession erased more than half the jobs single mothers in California had gained from 1992 to 2002. The result has been a drop in the share of unmarried mothers in jobs, from 69.2% in 2007 to 58.8% in 2010. Unmarried mothers who still have jobs are working fewer hours per week than before. Blacks also continue to be hard hit. Their unemployment rate here in California reached 20% this past March, up 5% from a year ago. That’s more than double their rate before the downturn. Some of this is because of the comparatively low education levels of many blacks, and their weak connections to the labor market. Some is due to employer discrimination. Blacks were among the last hired before the recession and therefore among the first to be let go in the downturn. That means they’ll be among the last hired as the economy recovers. Many young people who have never been in the job market are unable to land a first job. Employers with a pick of applicants see no reason to hire someone without a track record, particularly those without much education. Unemployment among high school dropouts is hovering around 30%. Even recent college graduates are having a much harder time than usual finding a job. Many are settling for jobs that don’t ordinarily require college degrees, which pushes those with less education even further back in the line. Older workers who have lost their jobs are at the greatest risk of continued unemployment. Employers assume they aren’t as qualified or reliable as those who are younger and have been working more recently. According to research by the Urban Institute, once you’re laid off, your chance of finding another job within a year is 36% if you’re under the age of 34. But your odds drop the older you get. If you’re jobless and in your 50s, your chance of landing another job within the year is only 24%. Over 62, you’ve got only an 18% chance. What do these jobless have in common? They lack the political connections and organizations to get the ears of politicians, and demand policies to spur job growth. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Continue reading …The silence is deafening. While the rest of the nation is heading back toward a double-dip, Washington continues to obsess about future budget deficits. Why? Republicans don’t want to do anything about jobs and wages. They’re so intent on unseating Obama they’d like the economy to remain in the dumps through Election Day. They also see the lousy economy as an opportunity to sell Americans their big lie that government spending is the culprit — and jobs will return if spending is cut and government shrinks. Democrats, meanwhile, don’t want to admit the recovery has stalled. They worry such talk will further undermine consumer confidence or spook the bond market. They don’t want to head into the election year sounding downbeat. And they don’t think they have the votes for anything that will have much effect before Election Day anyway. But there’s a third reason for Washington’s inaction. It’s not being talked about — which is itself evidence of the problem. The unemployed are politically invisible. They don’t make major campaign donations. They don’t lobby Congress. There’s no National Association of Unemployed People. Their ranks are filled with women who had been public employees, single mothers, minorities, young people trying to enter the labor force, and middle-aged men who have been out of work for longer than six months. You couldn’t find a collection of people with less political clout. Women who had been teachers, public health professionals and social workers have been hit hard. These jobs continue to be slashed by state and local governments. Public schools alone accounted for nearly 40% of the nation’s total public sector job losses in the last year. From March 2010 to March 2011, women lost 214,000 public sector jobs, compared with a loss of 115,000 public jobs by men. Unmarried mothers are having a particularly difficult time getting back jobs because their work was heavily concentrated in the retail, restaurant and hotel sectors. Many of these jobs disappeared when consumers reduced their discretionary spending, and they won’t come back in force until consumers start spending more again. According to a new report by the California Budget Project, the recession erased more than half the jobs single mothers in California had gained from 1992 to 2002. The result has been a drop in the share of unmarried mothers in jobs, from 69.2% in 2007 to 58.8% in 2010. Unmarried mothers who still have jobs are working fewer hours per week than before. Blacks also continue to be hard hit. Their unemployment rate here in California reached 20% this past March, up 5% from a year ago. That’s more than double their rate before the downturn. Some of this is because of the comparatively low education levels of many blacks, and their weak connections to the labor market. Some is due to employer discrimination. Blacks were among the last hired before the recession and therefore among the first to be let go in the downturn. That means they’ll be among the last hired as the economy recovers. Many young people who have never been in the job market are unable to land a first job. Employers with a pick of applicants see no reason to hire someone without a track record, particularly those without much education. Unemployment among high school dropouts is hovering around 30%. Even recent college graduates are having a much harder time than usual finding a job. Many are settling for jobs that don’t ordinarily require college degrees, which pushes those with less education even further back in the line. Older workers who have lost their jobs are at the greatest risk of continued unemployment. Employers assume they aren’t as qualified or reliable as those who are younger and have been working more recently. According to research by the Urban Institute, once you’re laid off, your chance of finding another job within a year is 36% if you’re under the age of 34. But your odds drop the older you get. If you’re jobless and in your 50s, your chance of landing another job within the year is only 24%. Over 62, you’ve got only an 18% chance. What do these jobless have in common? They lack the political connections and organizations to get the ears of politicians, and demand policies to spur job growth. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Continue reading …