GOP Vows To Crush Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan! Oppose Tax Increases!

Obama deficit plan going nowhere with Republicans

Republicans on Capitol Hill pounced on President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction plan on Monday, swiftly dismissing the president’s proposal as an unserious attempt at taming the nation’s finances.

House Speaker John Boehner, whom Obama singled out in his Rose Garden address for what he called a “my-way-or-the-highway” approach on new taxes, quickly struck back and accused the president of fostering a divisive political environment.

“Pitting one group of Americans against another is not leadership,” Boehner said.

In a statement, the Ohio Republican also said Obama’s plan wasn’t a “serious contribution” to the work of the deficit-slashing supercommittee that’s charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts by Thanksgiving.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also scoffed at Obama’s plan.

“Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth — or even meaningful deficit reduction,” the Kentucky Republican said. “The good news is that the Joint Committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House.”

One of the members of the supercommittee itself, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), sounded a more measured and receptive tone to Obama’s ideas. Toomey, a freshman senator, said the panel would consider the president’s proposals, among the many others being floated to the powerful 12-member panel.

But Toomey had his problems with Obama’s speech, too.

“I am concerned that his deficit reduction strategy sometimes seems more defined by political posturing, such as recycling tax hikes that even lawmakers in his own party have publicly opposed,” Toomey said in a statement. “With the Select Committee’s deadline looming, we do not have time to waste on political games and pushing big tax increases that will only make our economy weaker for all Americans.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate’s messaging chief, insisted to reporters on a conference call Monday that the public would ultimately go with Democrats in that fight.

“Chances are slim if we had a vote today,” Schumer said. “But many of us believe that if the president takes this to the people … the poll numbers show the American people [are] on his side.”

Though Schumer acknowledged that there would be disagreements over some specifics in Obama’s plan, such as raising $410 billion by limiting tax deductions for families earning more than $250,000 a year, he said there would be “broad agreement” on the overall proposal.

Sources: CNN, Daily Beast, NY Times, Politico

Obama Wages "War On Poverty" With New Deficit Reduction Plan (Decision 2012)

War on poverty in 2011?


America's poverty rate is now the worst since 1993, according to a shocking report last week from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Over 46 million people are living in poverty, 2.6 million more than in 2009 and the poverty rate has reached 15.1 percent.

The outlook is grim. The recession has compounded decades of growing economic inequality, structural poverty, and urban decay. With the projections that unemployment will remain high for several years, these numbers are not likely to improve.

Making matters worse, as Ron Haskings at the Brookings Institution noted, "Safety net programs run by the federal and state governments are helping millions of families avoid poverty, but the programs could be subject to cuts at the federal and state level because of continuing deficit and debt problems."

Despite the enormity of this social problem, American politicians in either party rarely discuss the subject. Since the poor don't tend to vote in high rates or contribute much in campaign funds, they don't get a place at the table in Washington, D.C. Yet with the U.S. poverty rate being the highest in the developed world according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this statistic marks a terrible failure for the nation as a whole.

Most Republicans have tended to avoid the question of poverty because they reject the notion that government can do anything to solve it. For decades, conservatives have railed against welfare programs for creating a cycle of dependency.

Republicans and conservative Democrats ultimately believe that the only way to reduce poverty is to grow the economy. But poverty has been a problem in good times and bad.

Democrats avoid tackling the problem because they fear the political consequences of being tagged as big government liberals. In 1996, when President Clinton signed the welfare reform act that ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), he effectively took poverty off his party's agenda.

Those who support government programs for the poor have been haunted by the political backlash against the War on Poverty.

It was during the 1960s, an era of unprecedented economic growth, that President Lyndon Johnson and allied Democrats decided to tackle the problem of poverty in this wealthy nation.

President Kennedy had started to explore an anti-poverty program in 1963 under the guidance of Walter Heller, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, but Kennedy was assassinated before he could take action.

When Johnson heard about the program shortly after taking office, he said it was the kind of initiative he could support. Johnson, who had been inspired by the New Deal and grew up amid poverty in Texas, sympathized with the plight of the poor and believed that the government could and should so something about it: "That's my kind of program. I'll find money for it one way or another. If I have to, I'll take away money from things to get money for people."

To build a legislative coalition in favor of the War on Poverty in 1964, Johnson enlisted the support of liberals in Congress as well as the conservative Democrat Phil Landrum of Georgia, who won over the votes of many in the party who usually opposed new federal programs. Landrum, and other conservatives in the party, had constituencies who struggled with economic hardship.

In his address to Congress in March 1964, Johnson said: "What you are being asked to consider is not a simple or an easy program. But poverty is not a simple or an easy enemy. It cannot be driven from the land by a single attack on a single front.

Were this so, we would have conquered poverty long ago. Nor can it be conquered by government alone. For decades American labor and American business, private institutions and private individuals have been engaged in strengthening our economy and offering new opportunity to those in need. We need their help, their support, and their full participation.

Through this program we offer new incentives and new opportunities for cooperation, so that all the energy of our nation, not merely the efforts of government, can be brought to bear on our common enemy."

The War on Poverty claimed some notable accomplishments. According to the historian Michael Katz, "Between 1965 and 1972, the government transfer programs lifted about half the poor over the poverty line." Many programs, such as Head Start, became popular across the nation and perceived as integral to the well being of struggling Americans.

Even as the policies were making great strides, Republicans attacked the War on Poverty as a waste of federal money that only helped elected officials.

Many Democratic urban machine politicians lambasted the Community Action Program—a part of the war on poverty that put money into the hands of local organizations to shape anti-poverty initiatives--because they felt the dollars were winding up in the hands of left-wing organizations who then opposed them. Many groups representing the poor felt the War on Poverty did not go far enough.

For decades afterward, attempts to reduce levels of poverty through government action were unpopular. Indeed, AFDC, a product of the New Deal commonly known as welfare, became the focus of conservatives who called for eliminating the program and younger Democrats who felt it needed to be reformed. Reforming welfare gained more attention than the problem the program was originally meant to solve.

Today's silence about poverty is striking. Very few presidential candidates ever bring up the issue. There have been a few in each party, such as John Edwards for the Democrats and Rick Santorum for the Republicans, but in general this is the cause that has no champion.

The new data from the Census Bureau, comes at a crucial time, with government programs on the chopping block as Washington focuses on cutting the budget deficit.

Candidates running for office in 2012 should be forced to confront this issue and explain what they intend to do about it.

Proposals such as public jobs, education reform, and tax incentives to rebuild blighted areas must be discussed. There must also be strong consideration given to protecting -- and even expanding --state and local services for the poor despite the current obsession with budget cuts.

Unless voters and the media help to make this an issue in the campaign, the problem will likely only become worse.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Daily Beast, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Nikki Haley Supports HPV Vaccine Too! For Young Minority Girls On Medicaid!

Rising GOP star Haley has own history with HPV vaccine fallout

As the debate over Texas Gov. Rick Perry mandating the HPV vaccine continues between Republican presidential candidates, a woman whose endorsement is coveted by all them, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has her own complicated history on the issue.

In 2007, shortly before Perry issued an executive order requiring that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, or HPV, that causes most cervical cancers, Haley was throwing her support behind a similar bill in South Carolina. At the time she was in her second term as a state representative.

State Rep. Joan Brady introduced the Cervical Cancer Prevention Act in South Carolina, and the Republican corralled more than 60 legislators, including Haley, to sponsor the bill. Unlike the executive order for which Perry is taking heat, this legislative mandate did not include a provision for parents to opt out of inoculating their daughters.

Within months, fierce opposition mounted, and legislative records back up accounts from sources who recall sponsors "dropping like flies" before a unanimous vote killed the bill on April 18, 2007.

More than a dozen legislators formally requested to be removed as sponsors from the bill, but the future governor of South Carolina was not one of them.

State Rep. Kris Crawford, a physician who led the debate to discredit the policy resulting in the bill's demise, said even though Haley voted against the bill like everybody else he wondered why she didn't remove herself as a bill sponsor if she opposed the mandate.

"If you're a co-sponsor of a bill and it's a bad bill, take your name off of it," Crawford said.

Haley's office declined to comment and pointed CNN to information about the vote on her campaign website.

Palmetto Family Council President Oran Smith was among the conservative activists actively lobbying legislators to oppose the bill.

"When we finally got to them and explained the full story, they were very quick to pull their names off," Smith recalls. "Sure we wish (Haley) had done that as well, but ultimately when it came up on the big board, she voted the way we wanted her to vote twice."

On her campaign website, Haley acknowledges her initial support for the bill but said in a statement, "Through the legislative process, it became clear to me that an opt-out provision was not going to be included in the bill and it sought to mandate that middle-school girls obtain a vaccine -- and strip parents of the right to make the choice for their daughter. In light of that turn of events, I voted to kill the bill."

Haley voted against the opt-out provision she says in her statement would have made the bill palatable.

Smith said that was likely part of legislative strategy by Haley and other conservative Republicans in the state House to vote against the opt-out provision so the bill with a straight mandate wouldn't have a chance of passing.

Crawford, a Republican, said he is not so sure.

"There are exactly two groups of people who can claim they were against this giant overreaching of government -- those who never sponsored the bill and those who were sponsors but subsequently removed their names from the bill when it was explained to be a boondoggle mandating vaccination of little 12-year-old girls against a sexually transmitted disease," Crawford said. "Everyone else was either for the bill or riding the fence trying to claim victory regardless of outcome."

Smith said, "In our view, the opt-out (amendment) did not remove the mandate; it just purported to remove the mandate. That was a position that then-Rep. Haley accepted, and she ultimately voted with other conservatives to not fall for that amendment."

Sheri Few, president of South Carolina Parents Involved in Education and an adviser to Haley's 2010 gubernatorial campaign, said many of the bill's co-sponsors were "misled" by those pushing it.

"Nikki was not the only one misled -- more than a third of Republicans in the House co-sponsored the bill," Few wrote in a statement on Haley's website. "When the facts came to light, even the primary sponsor moved to kill her own bill and it was defeated -- an action that included (Rep.) Haley's vote against it."

Perry's 2007 executive order was repealed two months later by the Texas Legislature, but the issue has been dogging the governor on the presidential campaign trail.

Read more about Perry's HPV executive order

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has criticized her opponent in the GOP presidential race for being politically motivated by Merck & Co. Merck, the first company to offer a Food and Drug Administration-approved HPV vaccine, engaged in a well-documented campaign in 2007 to lobby legislators to pass laws that would add the vaccine to the list of required immunizations before attending public school.

The Texas governor denies those allegations, saying his decision to protect females against cancer-causing HPV resulted after meeting a young woman who later died from cervical cancer.

But Perry has admitted that bypassing the Texas Legislature and employing an executive order was a mistake. On Wednesday, speaking to reporters in Virginia, Perry acknowledged the order "should have had an opt-in instead of an opt-out."

The debate over Perry's executive order reminds Smith of the legislative fight in South Carolina more than four years ago. He said he empathized with Perry when the candidate was asked about his 2007 decision in recent debates.

"It was how I felt in 2007 and 2008. We didn't want cervical cancer to take the lives of women, but at the same time, we were militantly opposed to weakening parental rights," Smith said.

Smith, who advocates an "educate but not mandate" approach to the HPV vaccine, said he believes Perry will need to convince voters motivated by social issues that his HPV vaccine decision is an anomaly in his 10-year tenure as governor.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Reports of Health Concerns Following HPV Vaccination


VAERS Limitations

VAERS data cannot be used to prove a causal association between the vaccine and the adverse event. The only association between the adverse event and vaccination is temporal, meaning that the adverse event occurred sometime after vaccination. Therefore, the adverse event may be coincidental or it may have been caused by vaccination, however we cannot make any conclusions that the events reported to VAERS were caused by the vaccine.


HPV Vaccine Safety

There are two licensed HPV vaccines, Gardasil® and Cervarix®, available to protect against the types of HPV infection that cause most cervical cancers. Gardasil® was licensed for use in females, age 9-26 years in June 2006 and for males age 9-26 years in Oct 2009. Cervarix® was licensed for use in females age 10-25 in October 2009.

The safety of HPV vaccines was studied in clinical trials worldwide before licensure. For Gardasil® , over 29,000 males and females participated in these trials. For Cervarix®, over 30,000 females participated in several clinical trials.

Since licensure, CDC and FDA have been closely monitoring the safety of HPV vaccines. There are 3 systems used to monitor the safety of vaccines after they are licensed and used in the U.S. These systems can monitor adverse events already known to be caused by vaccines, as well as detect rare adverse events that were not identified during pre-licensure clinical trials. The 3 systems are:

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)–a useful early warning public health system that helps CDC and FDA detect possible side effects or adverse events following vaccination.

The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project–a collaboration between CDC and 10 health care organizations which monitors and evaluates adverse events following vaccination.

The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network– a collaboration between6 academic centers in the U.S. which conduct research on adverse events that might be caused by vaccines.

Reports to VAERS Following Gardasil®

As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination: 17,958 reports among females and 346 reports for males, of which 285 reports were received after the vaccine was licensed for males in October 2009. VAERS received 423 reports of unknown gender. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious.


Non-serious adverse event reports

VAERS defines non-serious adverse events as those other than hospitalization, death, permanent disability, or life-threatening illness.

The vast majority (92%) of the adverse events reports following Gardasil® vaccination have included fainting, pain, and swelling at the injection site (the arm), headache, nausea, and fever. Syncope (fainting) is common after injections and vaccinations, especially in adolescents. Falls after fainting may sometimes cause serious injuries, such as head injuries, which can be prevented by closely observing the person for 15 minutes after vaccination.

Serious adverse event reports

Any VAERS report that indicated hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or death is classified as serious. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.


Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) has been reported after vaccination with Gardasil® . GBS is a rare neurologic disorder that causes muscle weakness. It occurs in 1-2 out of every 100,000 people in their teens. A number of infections have been associated with GBS. There has been no indication that Gardasil® increases the rate of GBS above the rate expected in the general population, whether or not they were vaccinated.

Blood Clots

There have been some reports of blood clots in females after receiving Gardasil®. These clots have occurred in the heart, lungs, and legs. Most of these people had a risk of getting blood clots, such as taking oral contraceptives (the birth control pill), smoking, obesity, and other risk factors.


Deaths

As of June 22, 2011 there have been a total 68 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil® . There were 54 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty two of the total death reports have been confirmed and 36 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

VAERS Reports Following Cervarix®

Since licensed in October 2009, uptake of Cervarix® vaccination in the U.S. has been low. As of June 2011, there have been 39 VAERS reports of adverse events following Cervarix® vaccination in the U.S. The majority of these reports (97%) were considered to be non-serious.

Cervarix® has also been in use in other countries such as England and Europe prior to licensing from the FDA.

Summary

Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines. Any problems detected with these vaccines will be reported to health officials, healthcare providers, and the public and needed action will be taken to ensure the public's health and safety.


View Larger Map

Sources: Center For Disease Control.gov, CNN, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

John Boehner Lays Out GOP's Jobs Plan: Says NO! To Tax Increases On The Rich!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Boehner Jobs Speech Blasts Obama Plan, Rules Out Tax Increases

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) threw cold water on the prospect of passing President Obama's jobs bill during a speech on Thursday, casting doubt over the viability of longterm debt talks as well.

Addressing the Economic Club of Washington, Boehner called Obama's plan to create jobs, which includes a mix of tax incentives and state-targeted spending, a "poor substitute" for policies he views as more effective.

“Private-sector job creators of all sizes have been pummeled by decisions made in Washington. They’ve been slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that is always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating," said Boehner. “They’ve been hurt by a government that offers short-term gimmicks rather than fundamental reforms that will encourage long-term economic growth."

Coming a week to the day after Obama unveiled the American Jobs act to a joint session of Congress, Boehner's remarks are the most overtly critical lines of pushback yet from Republican leadership. Along with skepticism over the jobs package expressed by centrist Democrats, they raise questions about the White House's ability to pass its legislation through Congress intact.

The foreshadowing of political paralysis didn't end with Boehner's comments on the jobs plan. Elsewhere in his speech, he made clear that he wanted tax increases off the table when the congressional super committee tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction makes its recommendations.

"It's a very simple equation. Tax increases destroy jobs. And the Joint Committee is a jobs committee. Its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country," he declared.

That absolutism ran directly in contrast to Boehner's pitch, earlier in the speech, for "politicians of all stripes" to drop the “my way or the highway” approach. It was also a tougher line than the Speaker reportedly took when he himself was negotiating a deficit reduction deal with the president during the debt ceiling showdown.

And, indeed, when pressed about Boehner's insistence that the super committee should not consider tax increases, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recalled those moments, not so long ago, when he was more willing to compromise.

"The public overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly agrees with the president that to get our long-term fiscal house in order, we need to approach it in a balanced way," said Carney. "If the answer is [Rep. Paul] Ryan's budget, we know how Americans feel about that. They do not believe that we need to end Medicare as we know it to get our deficits and debt under control, because we don't."

"We don't have unlimited resources," Carney added. "And we have to make choices about, do we provide tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans ... or do we make sure that responsibility for resolving this problem is shared and we have a balanced approach?

"I would simply note that the Speaker of the House made clear in the negotiations he had with the president, he put, in his words, 'revenues on the table.' Well, we believe revenues have to be on the table if we are going to solve our deficit and debt problems."


View Larger Map

Sources: Huffington Post, MSNBC, PBS, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Tea Party vs. GOP Establishment: Romney Vs. Perry & Bachmann (Polls)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

New CNN Poll: GOP divided over tea party movement

The Republican Party is split right down the middle between tea party movement supporters and those who do not support the two-and-a-half-year-old movement, according to a new national survey.

Full results (pdf)

And a CNN/ORC International Poll released Thursday also highlights the differences in demographics, ideology, and temperament between the two camps. According to the survey, on some issues, the two wings of the GOP are in accord, but tea party activists and supporters do not speak for the entire Republican Party on issues such as the deficit, global warming, evolution, abortion, gay marriage, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, or Social Security.

"Demographically, the tea party movement seems to hearken back to the 'angry white men' who were credited with the GOP's upset victory in the 1994 midterm elections," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Ideologically, it effectively boils down to the century-old contest between the conservative and moderate wings of the party."

According to the survey, roughly half (49 percent) of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they support the tea party movement or are active members, with roughly half (51 percent) saying that they have no feelings one way or another about the tea party or that they oppose the movement.

The poll indicates that demographically, tea party Republicans are more likely to be male, older, and college educated, with non-tea party Republicans more likely to be younger, less educated, female, and less likely to say they are born-again or evangelical. Both groups are predominantly white.

Nearly eight in ten tea party Republicans describe themselves as conservatives, with nearly half of non-tea party Republicans call themselves moderate, or in a few cases, liberal. But the differences are also a matter of temperament: 50 percent of tea party Republicans say they are "very angry" about the way things are going in the country today, compared to just 29 percent of their Republican counterparts.

How does all of that affect their views on the issues of the day?

"One of the biggest differences is on the relative importance of jobs versus the federal deficit. Most tea party Republicans say that Congress and President Barack Obama should pay more attention to the deficit," says Holland. "Most non-tea party Republicans say that reducing unemployment is more important than reducing the deficit."

But the "science" issue is also a strong divider. Nearly six in ten tea party Republicans say that global warming is not a proven fact. Most non-tea party Republicans disagree. Six in ten tea party Republicans say that evolution is wrong. Non-tea party Republicans are split on evolution. Six in ten tea party Republicans say the Department of Education should be abolished, but only one in five of their GOP counterparts holds that same view.

There is also disagreement on social issues: Tea party Republicans are roughly twice as likely to say that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and roughly half as likely to support gay marriage. Tea party Republicans are also roughly twice as likely to believe that the Social Security system should be replaced, and although most Republicans on either side disagree with the assertion that Social Security is a lie and a failure, tea party GOPers are much more likely to embrace that view.

What will happen to the GOP next year if tea party Republicans don't get their way?

"Nearly half of them say that they are not very likely to support an independent presidential candidate next year - possibly because removing Obama from power is their overwhelming motivation, and they may recognize that bolting the party would ensure his re-election," says Holland.

Eight in ten tea party Republicans say that they would prefer a candidate who can beat Obama over one who agrees with them on top issues, so ideological purity may take a back seat to pragmatic politics in 2012 even if the GOP nominee is not a tea party favorite.

Non-tea party Republicans are somewhat more likely to consider voting for a third-party candidate, and place somewhat less emphasis on beating Obama.

"So it's possible that a bolt from the GOP may come from the moderates rather than the tea party activists and supporters. But there is no way to predict how people will react to inherently unpredictable events, so anything can happen," adds Holland.

The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International September 9-11, with 446 Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Roland Martin, Youtube, Google Maps

Voters Trust Obama More On Economy Than GOP: CNN Poll (Decision 2012)

CNN Poll: More Americans trust Obama on economy over Republicans in Congress

President Obama’s disapproval ratings may be at an all-time high, but in a new CNN/ORC International poll, more Americans say they trust him on economic matters more than they do Republicans in Congress.

The survey released on Wednesday shows that although a lot of Americans are still unsure what’s in the president’s new jobs bill, they like most of the mfajor proposals offered in the plan that was sent to Congress Monday.

FULL POLL RESULTS HERE.


“By a 43-35 percent margin, a plurality of Americans approve of the economic program Obama outlined in his speech to Congress last week, but more than one in five don’t have any view at all of the jobs bill,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The president will travel to North Carolina Wednesday as he continues to try to sell his $447 billion dollar plan to encourage job growth to the public.

And most of the nation agree that stimulating employment is important right now.

Two-thirds believe that creating jobs should take precedence over the federal budget deficit and only 29 percent say reducing the deficit should be more important that reducing unemployment.

In the wake of recent natural disasters, Americans also prioritize disaster relief over the deficit. Six in 10 want federal aid to the victims of recent hurricanes and wildfires even if that amount of money is not cut from other government programs.

When President Obama’s bill is broken down, more Americans like most of the proposals in it – two-thirds like the idea of cutting the payroll tax for workers and the same number like greater spending on infrastructure projects. Three quarters approve of sending federal money to states to hire more teachers and first responders.

But overall, the public is in a foul mood over conditions in the nation today. Most say they are not better off than they were three years ago and large majorities say they are angry and scared about how things are going in the country today.

The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International from September 9-11 by among 1,038 adults questioned by telephone. It has an overall sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Sources: CNN, White House, Youtube

Rick Perry Woos Young, Conservative Voters At Liberty University

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rick Perry At Liberty University: Faith And Foreign Policy Mixed In Evangelical Address

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry filled in details of his personal and spiritual biography Wednesday in a speech at the nation's largest evangelical Christian college, and outlined an approach to foreign policy that he said would imitate the nation's 40th president, Republican Ronald Reagan.

Texas Gov. Perry was introduced as a possible second coming of Reagan by Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr., who said he appreciated Perry's willingness to talk off the cuff in a way that is politically incorrect. Falwell Jr. specifically mentioned Perry's oblique comments regarding whether Texas might at some point secede from the United States.

Most of Perry's remarks followed the arc of his life. He cast himself as an earthy, common man, pulled himself up from a hardscrabble childhood in Paint Creek, Texas.

"For me, indoor plumbing was a bit of a luxury until I was about five years old," Perry said. "I didn't worry about the latest fashions. My mother sewed most of my clothes. And I didn't know that we weren't wealthy in a material sense. I knew that we were rich in a lot of things that really mattered, a spiritual way."

He made light of his poor performance as a student. Of his 1968 graduation from Paint Creek High School, he said, "I graduated in the top 10 of my graduating class -- of 13."

And he sought to explain why his college transcript was filled with C's and D's, saying he intended to be a veterinarian but found he was not cut out for it. "Four semesters of organic chemistry made a pilot out of me," he joked.

Perry sketched out a searching, uncertain youth: "I spent many a night pondering my purpose, talking to God, wondering what to do with this one life, among the billions that were on the planet. What I learned as I wrestled with God is that I didn't have to have all the answers, that they would be revealed to me in due time, that I needed to trust him."

But, Perry said, he did not find his own Christian faith until he was 27.

"My faith journey is not the story of someone who turned to God because I wanted to. It was because I had nowhere else to turn. I was 27. I'd been an officer in the United States Air Force commanding a fairly substantial piece of sophisticated equipment, telling men and women what to do. But I was lost spiritually and emotionally. And I didn't know how to fix it," Perry said.

At another point in the speech he said that "Christian values" should be given supremacy over other religions in guiding the U.S. government.

"America is going to be guided by some set of values. The question is gonna be, whose values?" Perry said. "It's those Christian values that this country was based upon."

While many evangelicals will want to hear more about Perry's personal conversion experience, for now the speech was a platform for Perry to regain some of the momentum lost over the last week.

Perry's first two debates as a presidential candidate have left him bloodied. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has attacked him for his past statements on Social Security, accusing him of wanting to end the program. And on Monday night, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) savaged Perry for his 2007 attempt to mandate an HPV vaccine for sixth-grade girls at a time when his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for the drug maker, Merck, which would have manufactured the vaccine.

Polls this week have shown some signs that voters are beginning to doubt his ability to beat President Obama in a general election, though he still maintains a large lead over Romney in national polls. While that data is of some significance, it does not tell the story of the candidate's standing in key early primary states.

Perry also meandered Monday night in his answer on how the U.S. should proceed in Afghanistan. And some saw his call to "bring our young men and women home" as a nod to a more isolationist form of foreign policy that has emerged among some on the right.

But the Texan went out of his way to articulate a vision for engagement with the world, not withdrawal.

"Our response cannot be to isolate ourselves within our own borders but to engage our allies in the quest to build these enduring alliances around the globe for freedom," he said.

The central thrust of his foreign policy message was that the U.S. should be "the world's leading advocate for freedom," addressing the problem of oppression that he said he originally saw first hand as an Air Force pilot flying a C-130 transport plane through the mid-1970s.

"We must do what Ronald Reagan did at the apex of the Cold War, which is to speak past the oppressors and the illegitimate rulers and directly to their people -- the ones who live behind the walls of oppression while yearning to be free," Perry said.

Falwell Jr., the son of Liberty founder Jerry Falwell -- who died in 2007 -- said in his introduction that the current moment is similar to 1980, when Reagan ran against incumbent President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. It was a clear comparison of Perry to Reagan, a parallel that has been discussed recently even in the Wall Street Journal.

"Thirty-one years ago this fall as a Liberty freshman, I sat mesmerized as a conservative governor from a large state told a much smaller convocation about his vision for America," Falwell Jr. said. "At that time, America was mired in an economic malaise and seemed to be waning in its standing in the world. Overreaching government control had fueled double-digit interest rates and inflation. As young college students, we feared -- just as many of you do now -- that our nation's future was in jeopardy. Ronald Reagan was that governor, and he was elected president soon thereafter, and over the following eight years he returned America to prominence and prosperity."

Falwell Jr. then welcomed Perry to the podium saying, "I have a feeling today that history is about to repeat itself."


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

South Carolina's S.A.T. Scores Plummet! Segregation & Discrimination In Education!

Average S.C. SAT score drops by 7 points

S.C. high school students' SAT scores dropped last year, but their performance on college-level Advanced Placement course exams improved.

That's according to new data released today by the S.C. Department of Education.

The average score of S.C. graduating seniors taking the SAT, a test that gauges college readiness, is 1,436 -- down seven points from the previous year. That compares with the national average score of 1,500 -- down six points.

Broken down by test sections, S.C. seniors scored 482 on the critical reading portion of the test, 490 in math and 464 in writing. The national average in those sections is 497 on reading, 514 on math, and 489 on writing.

State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais cited as a particular concern the state’s lagging scores in critical reading and writing.

“Like the other college admission test ACT, the SAT is not a measure of school effectiveness,” Zais said in a statement. “However, within the student population taking the SAT is another data point confirming a troubling trend: there is a wide reading gap between South Carolina and the nation.

“Addressing the reading gap in elementary school must be our top priority because reading is fundamental to everything else in a student’s education,” said Zais, a Republican elected last November. “If students cannot read, they will not succeed in school. To accomplish this goal, we must transform education from a one-size-fits-all system to one that delivers a personalized and customized education to each student.”

SAT scores for individual high schools and school districts were not made available today by the College Review Board, which oversees the SAT, the state Education Department said.

The state’s high school students fared better on Advanced Placement exams. Through AP courses, and the accompanying exams that demonstrate mastery of the course material, students earn college credit while still in high school. Since 1984, South Carolina has paid for AP instructional materials, paid students’ test fees and offered specialized training for teachers.

Every student enrolled in an AP course is required to take the exam.

The percentage of S.C. students receiving a passing score of 3, 4, or 5 on their AP exam increased by 10.3 percent and a total increase of 32.5 percent over the past five years. A 5 is the top score a student can receive.

“While AP scores are not a good indicator of school performance, the success of these individual students is a worthy accomplishment,” Zais said. “The students, their parents, and their teachers deserve all the credit for these gains.

“By taking advantage of the opportunities AP exams present, students can cut future costs associated with continuing their education,” Zais said. “These courses offer students college-level rigor without the price tag of college tuition.”


View Larger Map

Sources: The State, Youtube, Google Maps

Democrats Losing Jewish Voter Support? Or Just More Media Brainwashing?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NY-9: Oh yes, Obama has a Jewish problem

In the end, it wasn’t even close. In a 58 percent Democratic congressional district, the most Jewish congressional district in the country and one that has not voted for a Republican representative since 1922, Republican political newcomer Bob Turner creamed Democrat David Weprin 54 percent to 46 percent in the special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District. Former New York mayor Ed Koch had called the election a referendum on President Obama’s Israel policy. Democratic assemblyman Dov Hikind crossed party lines to endorse Turner and make a point of his dissatisfaction with Obama.

In May, my colleague Greg Sargent, expressing skepticism about Koch’s predictions of a GOP victory, channeled the conventional Democratic wisdom that “it’s hard to believe that Obama’s Israel stance will really cost him a meaningful level of Jewish support.” Well, now in lieu of unreliable polling (of notoriously difficult-to-determine Jewish opinion) we have concrete electoral returns. The message is clear: Association with Obama, even for a pro-Israel Jewish candidate, is toxic.

There were voters, of course, who likely wanted to send a message on other matters. Obama’ job speech was viewed with a high degree of skepticism, if not dismay, among many voters who simply have heard enough about how billions in government spending will create millions of new jobs. They aren’t buying it, and what’s more, they’ve heard quite enough from the president.

There are many with bragging rights today. The Emergency Committee for Israel, which put out some eye-catching ads linking Weprin to Obama, has shown, as it did in the 2008 election, that it can make a splash. ECI made a strong push in the race, highlighting Obama’s Israel policy in TV ads, billboards and even in an ad on the New York Times home page. Bill Kristol, co-founder and chairman of ECI, told me this morning: “Voters in NY-9 — like millions of others across the nation — supported candidate Obama in 2008 in part because they believed his assurances he’d be a pro-Israel president. He hasn’t been. Last night’s results reflect that fact. His administration’s efforts to distance the U.S. from Israel have done nothing but embolden Israel’s enemies.” He continued, “So President Obama has a problem with the American people, who are pro-Israel. It can’t be solved by political rhetoric or patronizing reassurance. If he wants to be thought the friend of Israel he said he’d be, President Obama has to start behaving as one.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition’s executive director, Matt Brooks, was bursting his buttons. His group had announced in early September an “advocacy campaign, with mail pieces going out in the coming days to every Jewish household in New York’s 9th congressional district. The campaign will call on voters to use the special House election on September 13th as an opportunity to send a clear message to President Obama: Enough is enough on Israel.”

Last night Brooks released this statement: “This Republican win in an overwhelmingly Democrat district is a significant indicator of the problem that President Obama has in the Jewish community. While party leaders scramble to deny and try to stem the erosion of Jewish support for Democrats, the real issue is this President’s policies on Israel, on jobs, and on the economy. Jewish voters are coming to see that Republicans offer real solutions to our economic crisis, are resolute friends of Israel, and represent a way forward to a better future. Bob Turner’s win tonight has huge implications for 2012 races in states with large Jewish communities, such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.”

We will see how transferrable the themes of this election are in a presidential race, but one can imagine that nothing short of panic is coursing through the halls of the Democratic National Committee and the veins of Obama’s newly appointed Jewish community outreach director, Ira Forman.

Politico reported: “Even before the polls closed, the recriminations – something short of panic, and considerably more than mere grumbling – had begun. On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as ‘awful.’ ‘People feel betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted, hopeless,’ said the source.” What is especially significant is that Jewish voters now number among the betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted and hopeless.

What if, you know, it’s not simply a “messaging” problem for the Democrats? Might it be that the perfect storm — a rotten economy, an incompetent president and an administration uniquely hostile toward the Jewish state and inept in Middle East policy — might actually separate a chunk of the Jewish electorate from its historic fixation with the Democratic Party? Now that remains to be seen, but the signs are pointing in that direction.

Let’s also not forget that it was a clean sweep for the GOP last night. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on the “blowout” 22-point win by the Republican in the Nevada-2 race:

Fed-up Republican voters fueled Mark Amodei’s special election blowout victory Tuesday over Democrat Kate Marshall, keeping the 2nd Congressional District in GOP hands while shaking up President Barack Obama’s supporters.

“The voters of Nevada have sent a message. The message is, it is time to start a change,” Amodei told 200 supporters at the Eldorado Hotel.

As the LVRJ noted, “The two special elections together suggest a deep discontent with Obama’s economic policies as unemployment remains high — 12.9 percent in Nevada — and debt continues to grow. In 2008, Obama won Nevada handily but is considered vulnerable to defeat in the battleground state in 2012.”

And if Jewish voters start voting like other voters, rather than as a group that is reflexively Democratic no matter how that party performs, then we could finally see the emergence of a new sort of politics within the Jewish community, one in which both parties have to compete for and win the Jewish vote. Now, that’d be something.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, MSNBC, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Bob Turner's Win NO Referendum On Obama! But Wake Up Call For Dems!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republican wins Democratic district in N.Y. race to replace Weiner

Republican Bob Turner on Tuesday won the special election in New York's heavily Democratic ninth congressional district - pulling a huge upset that few would have predicted just months ago.

Turner ran against Democrat David Weprin in a heated, summer-long race that ignited Democratic fears of a quiet election morphing into a referendum on the party and President Barack Obama, ahead of next year's elections.

"We've asked the people of this district to send a message to Washington, and I hope they hear it loud and clear," Turner said at his election party in Queens with a packed room, many of them Orthodox Jews.

"Mr. President, you are on the wrong track."

Turner came in with 54% of the vote while Weprin placed second at 46%, with 100% precincts reporting, according to unofficial results from Valerie Vazquez, communications director for the New York City Board of Elections.

Fittingly, in a race largely centered on U.S. policies toward Israel, Turner stood on a stage with Israeli and American flags behind him.

"We lit one candle today, and there's going to be a bonfire pretty soon," Turner said in his victory speech just after midnight.

The district, which covers parts of Brooklyn and Queens, is one of the strongest Jewish districts in the nation. Former Rep. Anthony Weiner vacated the seat in June amid scandal.

Turner, a former cable TV executive, made his first attempt in politics when he challenged Weiner for the seat in November and finished with a stronger-than-usual second place outcome, winning 40% of the vote.

His team hit a major turning point this summer when former New York City Mayor Ed Koch crossed party lines to endorse the Republican.

Koch, a Democratic Jew, hoped his support would send a message to the White House that Jewish Americans were dissatisfied with Obama's policies on Israel - namely the president's position that a future Mideast peace solution requires Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, with land swaps.

"I like President Obama ... I helped get him elected," Koch said at Turner's election night party. "But he threw Israel under the bus."

His remarks were met by cheers from the crowd, including one man who shouted, "He's a sellout!"

Koch's nod pivoted the race into a relentless competition over who was a stronger supporter of Israel: Turner, a conservative Republican, or Weprin, an orthodox Jew.

Minutes after the election, the Republican Jewish Coalition released a statement in support of Turner.

"Jewish voters are coming to see that Republicans offer real solutions to our economic crisis, are resolute friends of Israel, and represent a way forward to a better future," said executive director Matt Brooks.

He added that the election has "huge implications for 2012 races in states with large Jewish communities, such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania."

Back in Washington and in a sign of uncertainty, both parties downplayed expectations earlier Tuesday.

"This is not a district that Republicans have any right to believe that we can win, but we do have a good candidate," said House Speaker John Boehner.

And despite having a 3-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans and a long history of Democratic elected officials, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York downplayed the district's strong tilt toward the left.

"President Obama won the district by much less than he won the rest of New York City," Schumer said.

"And so, to make the argument that this is a very liberal district and it's a close race, it's just not what the district has been."

Facing a last minute crunch, national Democratic groups poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad buys within the last week, signaling Democratic concerns the race was heading for a neck-and-neck sprint to the finish line.

The final push came as a new Siena Research Institute poll Friday showed Turner with a 6-percentage point lead over Weprin just days before the election.

In addition to Israel, other issues took the spotlight this summer, notably the two candidates' positions on raising the debt ceiling and political issues surrounding the September 11 attacks.

But all ended well for Turner on Tuesday, winning a campaign that now makes him one of two Republican Congressional members in the New York City delegation, with the other being Rep. Michael Grimm of Staten Island.

And while Turner will soon be staking out a new office on Capitol Hill, he may not be there for long.

Due to population loss, New York has to cut two congressional districts and NY9 has widely been speculated to get the ax in a redistricting process set to finalize in 2013.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Google Maps

RNC Tops DNC In Fundraising & Organizing: August 2011 (Decision 2012)

RNC Rakes In $8M in August, Eclipsing DNC’s Haul

The Republican National Committee raised $8.17 million last month, surpassing the Democratic National Committee’s $5.5 million and registering its best August ever for a nonelection year, according to RNC officials.

The RNC finished August, traditionally a slow fundraising month, with $9.3 million in cash on hand and $15.9 million in debt. The DNC’s August haul was reported Monday by Reuters, which attributed Democratic officials as suggesting that the committee’s low numbers were a result of President Barack Obama’s focus on reaching a deal with Republicans on the debt ceiling.

Republican officials dismissed those claims, crediting the RNC’s August total to surging support among conservative activists and major donors as well as Chairman Reince Priebus’ national finance strategy.

Republican officials said the $8.17 million raised came from a mixture of small and large donors, adding that the committee did not make any unusual push for contributions last month.

“For an August, this is tremendous,” one GOP official said.

The RNC last month spent $6.4 million, including paying off more than $1 million in debt, while adding $1.73 million to its banked cash. When Priebus took over as RNC chairman in mid-January, the RNC had more than $20 million in debt from the 2010 election cycle.

The DNC declined to reveal the fundraising numbers it will file with the Federal Election Commission later this month. But its fundraising to date in 2011 has been far superior to the RNC; even its cash on hand as of July 30, $20.1 million, dwarfed the $9.3 million in cash the RNC had accumulated as of Aug. 31.


View Larger Map


Sources: Fora TV, MSNBC, Roll Call, Youtube, Google Maps