1. Karl Rove (pictured) said Mitt Romney may announce his choice for vice president in the next day or two. "My gut tells me though that it's more likely to come next week."
Dick Morris, a shrewd political observer, thinks it would be a mistake for Romney to name his selection this early, as it would remove the only suspense surrounding the Republican National Convention, August 27-30 in Tampa.
ConservativeHQ.com's Richard Viguerie wrote, "There is growing unease among conservatives that the 'short list' of vice presidential candidates Mitt Romney has under consideration has too many establishment-type Republicans and few, if any, principled small government constitutional conservatives."
Recent articles in Viguerie's website provided conservative critiques of:
• Tim Pawlenty
• Rob Portman
• Condoleeza Rice
• Chris Christie
• Paul Ryan
• David Petraeus
In a New York Times article, Nate Silver explains with polls and computer simulations, "How Romney's Pick of a Running Mate Could Sway the Outcome."
Silver says the possible vice presidential nominees with the highest home state approval ratings are New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, South Dakota Senator John Thune, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.
Two persons have negative ratings in their home states--Pawlenty in Minnesota and Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.
But South Dakota and Louisiana are expected to vote strongly for Romney anyway. And New Mexico does not have many electoral votes.
So, when the electoral votes of the states and the closeness of the race are considered, McDonnell, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush are at the top of Silver's analysis.
Obama Moves To Block Pink Slips 4 Days Before Election
President Obama's Department of Labor has instructed military contractors they can safely ignore the law requiring advance notice of layoffs.
Such notices would affect thousands of workers just four days before the upcoming Presidential election.
Recently, the Department of Labor issued "guidance" to military contractors that sequestration did not require them to send notification of mass layoffs to their workers who may be effected.
According to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, employers with more than 100 employees are required to give 60 days notice in the event of a mass layoff.
As you may know, the Budget Control Act of 2011 stipulates that if Congress and the President are unable to reach an agreement on a new budget, automatic spending cuts of $110 billion -- known as "sequesters" -- will occur.
You Didn't Win Those Medals -- Rubio moves to quash Olympic medal tax.
Just as President Obama believes small businesses should pay hefty taxes since "they didn't build their businesses," the American government doesn't believe Olympic Gold medalists should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their athletic triumphs.
After an Americans for Tax Reform report showed America's Olympic medal winners could be subject to a tax as high as $9,000 for winning a gold medal in the London Olympic Games, Florida Senator Marco Rubio (pictured) introduced the Olympic Tax Elimination Act to exempt taxes on the medal and any honorariums received.
Alex Knight, a tax partner at Atlanta's Habif, Arogeti & Wynne was quoted by news service Reuters: "It's no different from winning Wheel of Fortune or the lottery."
The United States Olympic Committee grants an honorarium to every American Olympic medal winner. Gold medalists receive $25,000, silver medalists receive $15,000 and it's $10,000 for a bronze. In addition, athletes are required to declare the value of the medals themselves as income. The Gold medal is valued at $675, Silver $385 and Bronze just under $5.
Since the top tax rate on income in the U.S. is 35%, a Gold medal winning American athlete tax bill could be as high as $8,986.
Normally, this income would be subject to taxation in England and the athlete would only be liable for any difference between the English rate and the American rate. However, the English have already exempted this income, meaning American athletes will have to pony up the whole amount directly to the IRS.
The Texas election results prove the importance of runoff primaries.
On July 31, many candidates who won runoffs for U.S. senator, U.S. representative, state supreme court, state senator, and state representative came in second on the May 29 primaries.
As a previous issue of this newsletter noted, it is completely contrary to the concept of democratic representation for a candidate who received only a plurality in a primary to be declared "the winner."
In races with many candidates, the person who came in first sometimes had less than 25% of the vote.
Unfortunately, in many states, candidates in multi-candidate races who finish first in a primary, but do not achieve a majority of the vote, are nonetheless officially nominated.
For instance, the New York Times reported the May 8th results of the GOP Primary in the 5th Congressional District of Indiana, where former Congressman David McIntosh (97% lifetime American Conservative Union voting record) came in second out of eight candidates with 29.1%. But he did not advance to a runoff, because the person who came in first, Susan Brooks, was declared the "winner" with just 30.0% of the vote. Here are the results:
31,029 (30.0%) Susan Brooks
30,046 (29.1%) David McIntosh
23,710 (22.9%) John McGoff
11,516 (11.1%) Wayne Seybold
4,744 ( 4.6%) John Lugar
1,014 ( 1.0%) Jason Anderson
865 ( 0.8%) William Salin
479 ( 0.5%) Matthew Mont
McIntosh might very well have won a runoff if there had been one.
And in Indiana's 7th Congressional District, the "winning" candidate received only 26.8% of the vote:
10,779 (26.8%) Carlos May
9,764 (24.3%) Catherine Ping
7,722 (19.2%) Steven Davis
4,252 (10.6%) Wayne Harmon
4,075 (10.1%) Anthony Duncan
2,224 ( 5.5%) J. D. Miniear
1,411 ( 3.5%) Lawrence Shouse
Instead of May receiving the GOP nomination with a miniscule 26.8% of the vote, he and Catherine Ping should have competed in a runoff. We'll never know who would have won that runoff, but it very well could have been Ping.
38 Republicans Demand Immediate Vote on Nearly $1 Trillion Farm Bill
Facing an uncertain outcome, House leaders pulled the nearly $1 trillion Farm Bill from the House floor yesterday.
Pressure had been mounting on House Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on a massive new 5 year reauthorization of the Farm Bill when earlier this week, 38 House Republicans joined 24 Democrats to urge him to immediately move the nearly $1 trillion Farm Bill to the House Floor for a vote.
Faced with opposition from conservatives, Boehner decided to pull the full extension and instead unveiled a stand-alone drought relief bill.
Despite this, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas still wants to push the massive spending bill forward, saying "My priority remains to get a five-year farm bill on the books and put those policies in place."
Calls to enact the Farm bill have ratcheted up over the past few weeks as the country faces drought conditions in many key agricultural regions.
As the Taxpayers for Common Sense point out, "only 0.2 percent of projected 2012 farm bill spending deals with disaster programs. The $2 billion projected to be spent over the next 10 years would pay for four disaster programs covering livestock, honey bees, farm-raised fish, trees, and nursery crops."
In reality, 80% of the spending in this Farm Bill has absolutely nothing to do with the drought or its effects. Instead, it concerns the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- or as it is more widely known, Food Stamps.
Food Stamps are the fastest growing government welfare program, with the Congressional Budget Office now estimating one in every seven Americans are receiving Food Stamps.
The Obama Administration has made adding people to the Food Stamp rolls a priority, with recent moves to advertise Food Stamps on Spanish-language radio and to eliminate work requirements for other types of welfare.
The House Farm bill, H.R. 6083, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARRM) Act -- or the 2012 Farm Bill -- does contain some new restrictions on Food Stamp eligibility, but it does nothing to encourage work requirements for Food Stamp eligibility.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared at ConservativeHQ.com.
By Richard A. Viguerie (pictured)
The relentless war by the left on Christians and biblical values has reached a new and more frightening phase with the announcements by Democrat mayors and city officials across the country that they are "banning" fast food restaurant Chick-fil-A from their cities because company President Dan Cathy said unapologetically that he is in "support of the traditional family."
Make no mistake about it; this is much bigger than Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A.
Far from being champions of the constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religion -- and the "tolerance" prized by liberals -- the Democratic Party has now, once and for all, dropped all pretence of respecting the values held by tens of millions of American Christians and has instead launched a concerted attack to undermine those values in favor of the radical homosexual agenda.
This began, not with the media-generated controversy over Dan Cathy's witness for the biblical definition of marriage, but when President Barack Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had "evolved" from one of opposition to one of acceptance.
The acceptance Obama announced was quickly followed by active advocacy in favor of same-sex marriage by Democratic National Committee Chairman Deborah Wasserman Shultz, who announced the Democrats would have a plank in their national platform favoring same-sex marriage.
Acceptance and advocacy have now, as they always do in the liberal mind, quickly moved to coercion and punishment for those who disagree with them.
Thus, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino felt free to tell The Boston Herald that, "it will be very difficult" for Chick-fil-A to obtain licenses for a restaurant in Boston because the management holds Christian religious views.
Chief Justice John Roberts' ruling upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare ranks him with many other liberal Supreme Court justices who were appointed by Republican presidents.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, who served from 1953 to 1969, was appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower. Wikipedia says, "His tenure as chief justice is often seen as a high point of judicial power that had not been equaled, before or since."
Justice Harry Blackmun, who served from 1970 to 1994, was appointed by President Richard Nixon. He is the author of the Roe v. Wade decision, which resulted in 54,559,615 legal abortions in the U.S., according to the National Right to Life Committee.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who served from 1975 to 2010, was appointed by President Gerald Ford. Wikipedia states that a "statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court."
And Justice David Souter, who served from 1990 to 2009, was appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Wikipedia points out that he "came to vote reliably with the court's liberal members."
The unpredictability of persons appointed to federal courts and their total unaccountability point to the need for federal judges to be answerable to the people, as judges are in 46 of the 50 states.
Republicans Balk at Killing Boondoggle Loan Guarantee Program
A vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee to defund the Energy Department's corrupt loan guarantee program that spawned the famous $500 million Solyndra taxpayer loss was delayed when Republican members of the Committee balked at killing the program.
The legislation under consideration, the No More Solyndras Act, sponsored by Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), would prohibit any new loan guarantees under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It would also prohibit restructuring of current loans to put investors ahead of taxpayers for failed projects like what occurred in the Solyndra loan.
For Republicans, it seemed to be an easy target.
So far, the Department of Energy has doled out $15 billion in loan guarantees and is authorized to grant an additional $34 billion under current law.
Three of the first five companies that received loan guarantees have already declared bankruptcy -- including Solyndra, Abound Solar and Beacon Power.
However, three Republicans on the Committee maneuvered behind the scenes to save this political venture capital funding scheme.
Phil Gingrey of Georgia voiced support for retaining the program, saying at a hearing that he wasn't "ready to say we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and just eliminate the loan programs entirely." However, he has since voiced support for phasing out the program.
To: All Members of the United States House of Representatives
Whereas; significant regulations adopted in 2011 alone have cost Americans $6.6 billion in one time compliance costs and will cost $10 billion going forward
Whereas; nearly half of small businesses polled recently cited burdensome government regulations as barrier to hiring
Whereas; significant regulations spike during the lame duck period of a presidency
House Set for Vote to Roll Back Intrusive Federal Regulations
Some time this week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor will bring H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, to the House floor for a vote.
The Act is composed of seven different smaller bills, all designed to address a specific aspect of federal government regulatory overreach.
One major part of H.R. 4078 is the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act, introduced by Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR). This legislation would freeze "significant" new regulations until the national unemployment rate is below 6%. Significant is defined as any regulation that would cost $100 million or more annually.
It exempts national security, trade agreements, criminal law enforcement and imminent dangers to public safety.
A recent study showed the Obama Administration implemented 32 major regulations in 2011, adding $10 billion in new regulatory costs and an additional $6.6 billion in one-time implementation costs. Since taking office, the Obama Administration has issued 106 "significant" new regulations at a cost of $46 billion annually.
Another part of H.R. 4078 is called the Midnight Rule Relief Act, which would prevent a lame duck President from implementing any new rules between Election Day and the inauguration of the next President. Since 1970, the number of "significant" regulations issued in this lame duck period has spiked.