Category Archives: Milton Friedman

This article doesn’t past the smell test: Sidney Powell drops bomb: ‘I’ve got lots of ways to prove massive election fraud’ by Joe Kovas

I firmly believe that the states who were controlled by Republican legislatures such as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona were stolen by Biden supporters who forged signatures on mail-in ballots and if we could examine those ballots this would be easily proved. Sadly many of these states like Georgia had stupid governors and Secretary of States who dropped the strict comparisons of signatures and in Georgia in the past 3.2% of the mail-in ballots had been rejected  according to Newt on Hannity last night but this year over 4 times as many were sent in and only 0.3% were rejected!

However, this article below about Sidney Powell and the computer doesn’t past the smell test!

Sidney Powell drops bomb: ‘I’ve got lots of ways to prove massive election fraud’

‘So much evidence I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose’

Sidney Powell on the Fox Business Network on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2020. (Video screenshot)

An attorney helping President Trump challenge the results of the 2020 election says she’s astonished by the amount of evidence of vote fraud that took place, alleging “millions of votes” were shifted to Democrat Joe Biden by software specifically designed to benefit the Democratic nominee.

“President Trump won by not just hundreds of thousands of votes, but by millions of votes that were shifted by this software that was designed expressly for that purpose,” attorney Sidney Powell told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” on the Fox Business Network.

“We have sworn witness testimony of why the software was designed. It was designed to rig elections,” Powell said of the Smartmatic software in Dominion voting machines.

“They did this on purpose, it was calculated, they’ve done it before. We have evidence from 2016 in California, we have so much evidence I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose,” Powell continued.

Bartiromo wondered: “You have a very small timeframe here, the elections are supposed to be certified in early December. Do you believe that you can present this to the courts and be successful within just this couple of weeks?”

“First of all, I never say anything I can’t prove. Secondly, the evidence is coming in so fast I can’t even process it all,” Powell responded.

“This is a massive election fraud, and I’m very concerned it involved not only Dominion and its Smartmatic software, but that the software essentially was used by other elections machines also. It’s the software that was the problem. Even their own manual explains how votes can be wiped away. It’s like drag and drop Trump votes to a separate folder and then delete that folder.”

“It’s absolutely brazen how people bought the system, and why they bought the system. In fact, every state that bought Dominion for sure should have a criminal investigation or at least a serious investigation of the officers in the states who bought the software. We’ve even got some evidence of kickbacks essentially.”

Powell named names, including Peter Neffenger, the former administrator of the Transportation Security Administration under Barack Obama.

Powell said Neffenger is “president and on the board of directors of Smartmatic. And it just so happens he’s on Mr. Biden’s presidential transition team, that’s going to be non-existent, because we’re fixing to overturn the results of the election in multiple states.”

Peter Neffenger (Official photo)

“He was fully briefed on it. He saw it happen in other countries it was exported internationally for profit by people that are behind Smartmatic and Dominion.”

Powell also said the CIA must have known about the problem with the voting machines, and she called for the immediate firing of CIA Director Gina Haspel.

“It’s really an insidious, corrupt system and I can’t tell you how livid I am with our government for not paying attention to complaints, even brought by Democrats,” Powell said. “Nobody in our government has paid any attention to it which makes me wonder if the CIA has used it for its own benefit in different places. And why Gina Haspel is still there in the CIA is beyond my comprehension. She should be fired immediately.”

President Donald J. Trump talks to members of the press along the South Lawn driveway Thursday, Sept. 24, 2020, prior to boarding Marine One en route to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to begin his trip to North Carolina and Florida. (Official White House photo by Tia Dufour)

Meanwhile, President Trump remained steadfast on Sunday in his refusal to concede the election in any way to Biden.

“He only won in the eyes of the FAKE NEWS MEDIA,” Trump tweeted. “I concede NOTHING! We have a long way to go. This was a RIGGED ELECTION!”

POLITICSANALYSIS

Georgia Poll Watcher Explains State’s Recount of Votes for President

Brant Frost V, second vice chairman of Georgia’s Republican Party, joins the podcast to describe what he has seen as a poll watcher during the state’s recount. Pictured: An election worker in Georgia’s Gwinnett County raises a piece of paper to signal a question during the recount of presidential ballots Friday in Lawrenceville. (Photo: Megan Varner/Getty Images)

Georgia is on America’s mind. At 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, the state is supposed to complete its recount of votes in the presidential election.

Brant Frost V, second vice chairman of Georgia’s Republican Party, joins the show to explain the state’s recount process and why he is suspicious of the recount in Fulton County, which includes the city of Atlanta. Frost also describes his own experience as a poll watcher and why Georgia appears to be turning a little more blue with each election.

We also cover these stories:

  • Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Scott Atlas, a top adviser to President Donald Trump on the coronavirus, counsels families to gather for Thanksgiving if they can.
  • Joe Biden identifies who some of his top White House officials would be if he is inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com.

Virginia Allen: I am joined by Brant Frost, the second vice chair of Georgia’s Republican Party. Brant, welcome to “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Brant Frost: Thank you very much.

Allen: Brant, Georgia is on the minds right now of many Americans. And over the past several days, Georgia has been going through a recount of presidential election votes. And as of right now, The Associated Press reports that former Vice President Joe Biden is winning Georgia by only about 14,000 votes. And that’s out of about 5 million votes in total from Georgia.

So, both President [Donald] Trump and the Republican Party requested that there be a recount in the state because it is so close. And you actually have been really, really involved in Georgia state politics for a long time. Probably a decade, correct?

Frost: Yes. That is correct. Mainly since 2008 when I turned 18.

Allen: OK. Right as soon as you could, you jumped in. So tell us a little bit just about how common this is, to see a recount in Georgia. Is this something that’s happened before where we’ve seen calls for a presidential recount in the state of Georgia?

Frost: No, this is very unusual. This is also the first time we’re using our new paper ballot system. Since 2001, when we began the transition over, we have only used electronic voting with no paper ballots, unless you were voting absentee by mail. This is the first time we’re using our new paper ballots for voting in elections.

And so this is also the first time we’re having a recount in a presidential election in Georgia as well. A lot of firsts in this year. Also, the first time we’ve ever had two Senate elections at the same time as well that both went to runoffs. So it’s definitely a year of firsts in Georgia, as in America.

Allen: It is. It’s a big year in the state of Georgia.

You mentioned that transition of going from electronic to paper ballots. Dominion Voting Systems is the new kind of organization group that Georgia tasked, essentially, with handling the election process, as far as implementing those new machines.

What do you know about Dominion Voting Systems? We’re hearing a lot about maybe how they’re not credible. Are you very familiar with them and with the states that have formerly used them?

Frost: I am not. So, unlike some other folks, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert and talk at length about it. So I can’t speak to that other than to say that in our own county where I was one of the [people] observing the electoral process of doing a recanvass—which I should point out is different than a recount.

A recanvass is what most people think when they think [of] the word recount. During recanvass, a particular race goes, and in this case, the presidential election, and all the paper ballots that were cast before Election Day and on Election Day are counted. And just that one race, just a single race is counted.

The amount of time it would take to recount every single race or recanvass every single race would just be enormous.

So one race is chosen, in this case the presidential election, for obvious reasons. And each ballot is counted by hand. And you have tables set up in a room with two people at each table. And they will count the votes.

First they will separate them out. They take a big stack. They know how many votes are in the box. Then they’ll separate them by candidate they voted for. Then they will count them out.

Each group will be counted and the amount written down. And if all those numbers put together of votes for Biden, Trump, [Jo] Jorgensen, write-in, and indeterminate votes, if those numbers equal to the amount that was on the box originally, then that is considered a successful recanvass.

In Coweta County with over 77,000 votes, it was determined that every single vote cast President Trump indicated by machine was also indicated by a hand count, 51,501 votes, both machine and human count. For Joe Biden, the same was correct.

However, he added one vote because one Joe Biden voter who apparently did not realize that Joseph R. Biden was Joe Biden wrote in the name Joe Biden for his absentee ballot. So the election review board determined that his vote should count as a Joe Biden vote.

And the ballot review board consists of one Republican and one Democrat representative, which I appointed the Republican representatives since I’m the chairman of the county party here.

So we did not find a problem with the scanners indicating a massive shift, or indeed any kind of shift whatever, in our county. But I can’t speak to other counties. And I certainly can’t speak to the ethics of the people who run the Fulton County board of elections, for example.

Allen: Sure, sure. So, Coweta County, where you live and where you were participating in that recount, is, gosh, about little less than an hour south, southwest of the city of Atlanta. So tell me a little bit more about that experience. You were there helping to do the recanvassing on both Friday and Saturday.

We’ve heard a lot during this kind of poll-watching scenario as it’s played out with mail-in votes that people have complained about not being able to get close enough to actually see the ballots. Was everyone who you were there with able to be close to see the ballots and to all agree, Democrat and Republican, “Yes, this vote is for this individual”?

Frost: Well, the county employees who are poll workers who have been pulled in for this special task, they actually count the votes.

Typically, you will find a fairly even mix of Republican volunteers and Democrat volunteers who are poll workers, but they’re not chosen based on their party. But there’s a good chance that one of them is a Republican.

What you have is you take a typical room of about 10 tables. Depending on the county, there will be either one or two people observing, allowed to walk around and see the process. Realistically, you can’t stand at one table for very long without missing what’s going on at other tables.

Some people might think it makes more sense to have one observer per counting table watching the process, but the limits that were imposed, and it varies from county to county, were one person for every five tables. And that’s what we had.

You have a room with eight tables, two people counting at each table, and two representatives from both parties are allowed to walk around the floor where the tables are, walk around the floor and stop at places. They’re not allowed to speak to the counters and disrupt their count, but they are allowed to watch what’s going on and keep their own count if they wish.

We also have a lot of observers who are permitted to stand at the back of the room, but they really can’t see anything from there. So basically, each party is permitted two people for every five tables.

Allen: It sounds like Coweta County is a great model for the rest of the state. You all have really done this quite well. It sounds very organized.

Have you been hearing from other counties in Georgia? Have they experienced a similar smooth process or have there been complaints?

Frost: The recanvass did not indicate any major shift in votes, except for in Floyd County where a computer card was found with some votes from a precinct, which had previously not been counted.

When the voting machines in each precinct print out a ballot, you type it in on a screen, you type in your choices, the ballot is printed, and then you scan it through a scanner, and then the ballot goes through. And on the other side, you have a big box, which is locked. Well, they don’t open up the box and count the ballots. They take the result of the little scanner, so like a USB drive.

Well, one of those drives in Floyd County, and of course it’s not a drive, but I just use that an example, was missed. When they brought in the precinct results, each precinct brought in their box and their little chips and draws, one was left, [it] had just been not uploaded.

So that recanvass found those extra votes and it added about 2,600 votes to the total statewide. And we think about two-thirds of them were for President Trump.

Now, if this election were like Florida with a 600-vote margin, that would have been enough to flip the election in President Trump’s favor. But of course, when the margins [are] more than 10,000, that’s not going to be the case.

But other than that one example, we did not see any major shifts. However, the issue really does not come down to a statewide problem. It comes down to one or two and really about six counties that are all Democrat, all large, all urban.

In particular, one county where there have been very credible accusations that Republican poll watchers at the Fulton County board of elections where they were counting votes were told to go home at a big arena, because it’s a huge process in Fulton County, that’s Atlanta, Georgia. They were told to go home and they were going to start in the morning.

So, the Republican observers went home at about 10 p.m. And then shortly thereafter, Fulton County started counting their votes again with no Republicans present and then kept counting until about 1 a.m.

So, if there was any kind of illegal voting or any kind of fraudulent ballots being counted, that would certainly have been a time when we just don’t know what was happening. And no Republicans were permitted to be there. No one apparently thought to call them to tell them to come back.

Now, Fulton County is an overwhelmingly Democrat county run top to bottom by Democrats. The Democrats’ well-known respect for the integrity of elections can be demonstrated in that they were so distressed over the 2016 election results, though curiously not distressed over the 1960 election results.

And of course we all know very well, the Democrats are well-known pensioned for fair and equitable elections in big cities like New York and Chicago and where the dead will not only rise again at the second coming, but they rise every four years and vote Democrat.

Allen: It’s certainly problematic when we begin to see the number of deceased individuals who are still on those voter rolls in, like you say, a lot of these big cities.

Now, I want to ask a little bit more about this Atlanta situation. Was there any explanation given by the mayor of Atlanta, by those that were in charge overseeing that polling location, as to how this error was made, that Republicans were sent home and then still ballots were continued to be counted late into the night?

Frost: Everyone has an excuse. I don’t know if it’s a good one, but everyone has an excuse. Every child caught with their hand in the cookie jar has a good reason, or at least a reason why they were doing it. Whether or not anyone believes them and it saves them from punishment is another matter altogether.

There have been multiple explanations and so it’s hard to say which one is the correct one. There’s talk about a major water leakage, a pipe burst. There’s talk about how the secretary of state and others were asking for them to continue the count, because after all, 10 p.m. is rather early to stop counting votes, particularly in an election as close as this and with Georgia being a swing state.

So there were calls for them to come back … and at least a plausible deniability situation where under such a stressful situation, someone can always claim that, “Well, I just forgot,” or, “It slipped through the cracks to remind everybody to come back.” So it’s very difficult to prove malice of intent.

Allen: Sure, sure. So, do you foresee any situation where all other Georgia counties [are] given the green light, but Fulton County, that Atlanta county, has said, “Let’s double check this and let’s recount this county one more time”? Or is that probably not possible?

Frost: Unfortunately, today it is very difficult, as in previous times, to, after the fact, detect voter fraud and malfeasance for the simple fact that a ballot cannot be pulled out of the stack once it’s stuck into it.

In other words, you may have an illegally cast vote or 1,000 of them, but to look at them, they don’t look any different than any other ballot. They do not have a person’s name on them. They do not have a bright neon sticker that says, “Hey, I’m a fake vote.” They look like anyone else’s vote. And it is impossible to identify them once they’d been cast in with all the legitimate votes.

Allen: Let’s talk just for a moment about Georgia as a whole. I lived in Georgia for a number of years. Went to high school there. And back in 2010, 2011, Georgia really was a solidly red, conservative state.

So, Brant, what has happened? As someone who’s been so involved in Georgia politics and policy for so long, what has happened in your state to where now it’s definitely solidly a swing state?

Frost: You have to remember that the Democrat Party in Georgia had been living off the residual effects of over 100 years of domination in our state politics. We hadn’t had a Republican governor since 1872. So by the 1990s, there was a definite shift beginning in Georgia politics.

And starting in 1992, the Republicans had a major surge with every two years, we gained substantially in the state Legislature. We gained congressional delegations. We took control of the majority of the Congress from Georgia in 1994. And we came very close to winning the governor’s race in 1994.

And as a result, the Republicans continued to build up and gain in strength and momentum. And the Democrats, without a strong grassroots base, because they’d been in power for so long it had atrophied, they hadn’t felt the need to have one. As a result, the Republicans in 2002, in a big upset, won the governor’s race.

Many people expected Republicans to be competitive in 2006 for the governor’s race, in 1998, but we lost in ’98. And in 2002, it was thought that Gov. Roy Barnes was too hard to beat, but Sonny Perdue, who is now agricultural secretary in the Trump Administration, actually defeated, in a big upset, Gov. Barnes.

And ever since 2002, the Republican Party has been very strong in Georgia, has dominated statewide politics, won every governor’s race, won every Senate election, and won every constitutional officer starting in 2010.

But that obscured … two major factors: Lack of funding and resources for the Democrats and the fact that the Obama presidency destroyed most of the Democrat Party in the South.

Across the South, you saw from states like Arkansas and Oklahoma to West Virginia and Kentucky, Democrat candidates going down to the seat largely as a result of the unpopularity of the Obama administration.

So when you consider that from 2008 to 2016, Republicans had great years in Georgia, you have to realize that that was during the Obama presidency and the fact that the Democrat Party had no real operation capable of contesting Georgia.

But starting in 2013, the Democrats began to rebuild their effort. Stacey Abrams was a major leader in that effort. And since 2013, they have spent seven years rebuilding. And to today, we now find ourselves in a situation where they’re able to compete with us.

Georgia’s demographics are largely the same as they were four years ago. In fact, exit poll data indicates that on key levels, it’s almost exactly the same. The difference is that the Democrat Party is more well-equipped, better funded, and able to compete.

And they also believe they can win in Georgia. Four years ago, they saw Georgia as a possible bonus, but they didn’t see it as a major target state like they did this year.

The Republican Party, until recently, has also not been as prepared as it might be, largely due to the fact that the Democrats appeared to be weak. So why do you have to train extra hard to fight an opponent who seems weak and easy to defeat?

Fortunately, last year, when I was elected vice chairman, we also elected a new chairman, David Shafer, former state senator and former executive director of the Georgia Republican Party, under whose leadership we have been able to basically accomplish the work of about four years in less than 18 months.

And since he was elected, we’ve trained over 13,000 volunteers, we’ve held voter drives around the state, we’ve knocked on over a million, I believe it’s over 2 million doors now, and we’ve made millions of phone calls.

This is more than any the Republican Party has done in Georgia in any two presidential elections combined, going back for many cycles. So we have been very encouraged to see the outpouring of support since the November election right here.

You would think people would be discouraged, but actually it’s caused people to sign up and volunteer and to do their part because there is so much that we have seen in the last few weeks with Democrats talking about moving to Georgia that has inspired Republicans to become more active and to do more because you saw so many Republicans feel that Georgia was a safe state and they took it for granted.

Not our leadership, but just a rank-and-file Republican who might have, if they lived in Florida or Ohio, have gone out and volunteered, maybe knocked on some doors or made some calls. But because they felt they were in a safe red state, they did not do what they could have done.

The scales have fallen from people’s eyes. They now realize they have to fight because Georgia is a swing state, as much as Florida ever was.

Indeed, if you look at the results, Georgia was much closer than Florida or Ohio. So in some ways, Florida is now a pink state leaning red and Ohio is a red state, but North Carolina and Georgia are swing states. So we have to take that into consideration.

But we are prepared to meet the challenge. We have thousands of people all over the country who are offering to come on their own expense to volunteer to help in these efforts in Georgia, in the upcoming runoffs. So we’re very encouraged.

And I think it’s important for people to realize that the differences in Georgia are not so much due to changes in demographics, although we have seen some of that, but mainly due to the fact that up until recently only one political party was actually playing to win and the other party did not have the resources to compete, much like a major athletic event where you have two teams at a baseball or basketball game.

And in a major sporting event, one team is obviously better funded, has better players, has the resources to hire the best coaches and such, and they’re going to roll over their opponents because they simply are outclassing them.

Now that the two parties are much more evenly classed, you see Georgia being what it truly is, a competitive state.

Allen: Brant, we just so appreciate your time today. It’s just fascinating to hear some of this history and get into a little bit of just the details of what is happening on the ground in Georgia, what you’re seeing, what you’ve experienced. Thank you so much for joining the show.

Frost: Thank you.

A sheriff’s deputy looks out at the line to vote at an early voting location at the Gwinnett County Fairgrounds on Oct. 24, 2020, in Lawrenceville, Georgia. (Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/AFP/Getty Images)

Celebrities and politicians urging people to visit Georgia and falsely claim residency for the sole purpose of voting in two critical U.S. Senate runoff elections Jan. 5 are advocating criminal actions and should be ashamed of themselves. This call for voter fraud should be rejected.

The Georgia runoff elections are extraordinarily important because they will determine which political party controls the U.S. Senate.

Results of the Nov. 3 election gave Republicans 50 seats in the 100-member Senate and gave Democrats 48. If Republicans win one of the Georgia seats Jan. 5, they will hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate; if the GOP wins both seats, it will hold a 52-48 majority.

But if Democrats win both Georgia races, the Senate will be split 50-50 between the two parties. Assuming that President Donald Trump’s lawsuits fail and he is replaced by Joe Biden as president Jan. 20, Kamala Harris will be vice president and can break the 50-50 tie in the Senate to give Democrats majority control of the chamber by the slimmest possible margin.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Multiple candidates ran for the two Senate seats representing Georgia, preventing any candidate from gaining a majority. As a result, Georgia law requires the top two candidates for each seat to face each other in runoff elections to be held Jan. 5.

It is a felony for people to visit Georgia and falsely claim to be residents just so they can vote. Millions of us have visited states on vacation or business, but that doesn’t make us residents entitled to vote there.

Georgia Code §21-2-561 states that providing false information when you are registering to vote is a felony. So is voting by an “unqualified elector” under §21-2-571. So if you register to vote when you know that your assertion of residency is false, and then you vote or even just attempt to vote Jan. 5 knowing you are not a qualified voter of the state, you have violated both of these state criminal statutes.

The punishment for this illegal activity under Georgia law is a minimum of one year and a maximum of up to 10 years in prison and as much as a $100,000 fine. Georgia obviously takes this crime very seriously.

No matter how interested nonresidents of Georgia are in that state’s crucial election, they should not listen to the ill-informed, manipulative, and reckless tweets and calls for them to break the law and pretend to be Georgia residents just so they can vote in the two Senate races.

This call for illegal voting—coming primarily from Democrats—is a basic betrayal of the democratic process. Everyone who urges or participates in this criminal activity should be ashamed of themselves and deserves to be criticized, no matter who they are and which party they favor.

Fox News reports, for example, that in a now-deleted tweet, New Yorker journalist Eric Levitz wrote: “These run-offs will decide which party controls the Senate and thus, whether we’ll have any hope for a large stimulus/climate bill. If you have the means and fervor to make a temporary move to GA, believe anyone who registers by Dec 7 can vote in these elections.”

Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang also tweeted that he and his wife are moving to Georgia to help the two Democratic contenders.

In the Nov. 3 election in Georgia, Republican Sen. David Perdue received 49.71% of the vote and Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff received 47.96%, forcing them into a runoff.

The other Senate race on the ballot Nov. 3 was a special election. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson retired in 2018, before the end of his term. Republican Kelly Loeffler was appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp to fill the seat until the special election.

She and Rep. Doug Collins split the Republican vote Nov. 3; Loeffler received 25.9% and Collins got 19.95%. Democrat Raphael Warnock got the highest vote total, with 32.91%. Therefore, the two top vote-getters, Loeffler and Warnock, will be in the Jan. 5 runoff election.

Dec. 7 is the deadline to register to vote in Georgia for the Jan. 5 election for any residents of the state who have not already registered, including voters who have just moved to Georgia. But under the Georgia Election Code, §21-2-217, you have to be an actual resident of the state to vote, not just a visitor.

Georgia law says that a voter cannot be in the state “for temporary purposes only without the intention of making [Georgia] such person’s permanent place of abode.” In other words, if you head to Georgia for the primary purpose of helping the candidates in the special election with no intention of actually staying in the state and living there, you are not eligible to register or vote.

Those who think they can get around this requirement by simply lying and asserting their intention to make Georgia their permanent abode should beware. Under the law, county registrars are given the authority to consider a long list of other factors that may contradict the “applicant’s expressed intent.”

These factors include an individual’s “business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes … leaseholds, sites of personal and real property owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that registrars may reasonably deem necessary to determine” the applicant’s legal residence for voting purposes.

And it is not just registrars. Under Georgia law, §21-2-230, any registered voter can challenge the eligibility of any other registrant in his or her county or municipality. So there is an entire army of grassroots Georgia voters out there who can be, and should be, on the lookout for out-of-staters registering to vote who falsely claim to live in their neighborhoods and their communities.

The Jan. 5 Senate races in Georgia are understandably capturing national attention, and both Republicans and Democrats are mounting major efforts to win the seats. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. But having out-of-state voters visit a state for a few weeks to masquerade as Georgia residents is not a democratic exercise—it’s a crime.

Anyone who visits Georgia temporarily and falsely claims to be a resident cheats the real residents of the state—no matter which side of the political aisle they favor—by interfering in their choice of who should represent them in Congress. There’s no justification for that, no matter how passionate you are about the outcome of an election.

Vote in your own home state when elections are held—not in the home state of others.

Originally published by Fox News

How Republicans pulled off a big upset and nearly took back the House

<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

(CNN)There seemed to be one safe bet when it came to the 2020 election results: Democrats would easily hold on to their majority in the House of Representatives. Not only that, but the conventional wisdom held that Democrats would pick up more than the 235 seats they won in the 2018 midterm elections.

While Democrats will have a majority next Congress, Republicans vastly outperformed expectations and nearly pulled off an election shocker.

As of this writing, CNN has projected that Democrats have won in 219 seats. Republicans have been projected the winners in 203 seats. There are 13 races outstanding, per CNN projections.

Of those 13, the Democratic candidates lead in a mere two of them. (One of these 13 is going to a runoff, where the Republicans are heavily favored to win.)

In other words, if every one of those 13 seats went to the party leading in them right now, Democrats would have 221 seats to the Republicans’ 214 seats in the next Congress.

Talk about a fairly close call for Democrats.

Now, Democrats may end up winning a few of the seats where they are currently trailing, but chances are they will end up at or south of 225 seats.

Compare that to what most quantitative forecasters who look at a slew of indicators predicted. Jack Kersting came the closest at 238 seats. FiveThirtyEight clocked in at 239 seats. The Economist modelpredicted that Democrats would win a median of 244 seats in their simulations.

While much attention was paid to the polling misses on the presidential level, they were more accurate by comparison. In the presidential race, the final polling averages got every state right, except for Florida and North Carolina.

Indeed, the forecasts for the presidential race were considerably better than for the House races. The race raters at the Crystal Ball, for example, got every state but North Carolina correct on the presidential level.

Any sort of shy Trump vote was far smaller than a potential shy House Republican vote.

Of course, the value of quantitative forecasts is that they don’t just provide one number. They provide the probability of different outcomes occurring.

In that regard, the Republican performance is even more astounding.

The Economist said there was less than a 1-in-100 chance Democrats would have 221 seats or fewer in the next Congress. The chance they would get 225 seats or fewer was 1-in-100.

FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Republicans a realistic, but still fairly low shot of what seems to have happened. The chance Democrats would earn 221 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-17, while the chance they’d have 225 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-10.

I should note that 1-in-10 probabilities happen all the time. There’s a reason something is a 1-in-10 chance and not 0%. That said, Republicans simply did better than what folks thought.

A large part of what happened was that the national political environment was more friendly to Republicans than what polls suggested. The final average of generic congressional ballot polls had Democrats ahead by 7 points nationally. Democrats are only ahead by 2 points in the national House vote right now. That may end up closer to 3 points once the votes are all tallied.

A 4- or 5-point miss is considerable.

If Democrats had done 5 points better in every race than they currently are doing, they’d be ahead in 239 seats. That, of course, is right in line with the forecasts.

A lot of these quantitative forecasts also rely upon House ratings from groups like the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and The Crystal Ball.

These too seemed to undersell Republican chances. Take the Cook Political Report ratings, which have historically been very good.

As of this writing, Republicans are leading in 27 of the 27 seats the Cook Political Report deemed toss-up before the election. They are ahead in all 26 of the seats that were deemed either leaning or likely Republican. Republicans are also leading in 7 of the 36 seats that were either leaning or likely to be taken by the Democrats.

That is, Republicans not only pretty much swept the tossups, but they marched into Democratic territory as well.

The Crystal Ball, which bravely has no tossups in its final rating, had Democrats net gaining 10 House seats. It will actually be the Republicans who will likely net gain 10 seats or more.

The end result of which is that Republicans are much closer to a House majority than we believed they would be after 2020 and have put themselves in a strong position heading into the 2022 midterms.

Where things stand in the House

The Democrats majority is shrinking and three dozen races have yet to be called

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s majority has shrunk in House, a shock to Democrats and pollsters who were projecting the California Democrat would expand her caucus after Tuesday’s election.

Democrats were optimistic they could flip roughly 10 seats but their expansion efforts came up short, especially in Texas, and they ended up losing seats in Flordia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and elsewhere.

DEM CAUCUS ERUPTS AS MEMBERS SAY PARTY’S LEFTWARD DRIFT HURT MODERATES IN ELECTION

As of 3 p.m. on Friday, Democrats had won 212 seats compared to Republicans’ 194. Another 29 races have yet to be called. Democrats had a net loss of four seats.

Outstanding races are in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere. When all those votes are counted, Republicans are optimistic their numbers could swell to 208 and beyond, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

What’s known is that Republicans have flipped at least seven seats from blue to red and an eighth seat in Michigan that was most recently occupied by a Libertarian. Here’s a snapshot of the GOP victories:

GOP gains in the House

–In Florida, Republican candidate Carlos Gimenez defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in the 26th district. Republican Maria Elvira Salazar defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala in the 27th district.

–In Oklahoma, Republican Stephanie Bice unseated freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn. Horn flipped the seat from red to blue last cycle.

— In South Carolina, freshman congressman Democrat Joe Cunningham was projected to lose his reelection to state GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, flipping South Carolina’s 1st District back to red.

— In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Fischbach ousted longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, toppling the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the most pro-Trump district held by a Democrat.

— In New Mexico, Republican Yvette Herrell defeated freshman Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a freshman Democrat who flipped the 2nd Congressional seat from red to blue in 2018.

— In Iowa’s First Congressional District, Republican state representative and former TV news anchor Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic incumbent Abby Finkenauer.

– In West Michigan, Republican Peter Meijer, an Iraq war veteran whose grandfather started Meijer superstores, defeated Democrat Hillary Scholten, a former Department of Justice and nonprofit lawyer. The Third Congressional District was open after Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, did not seek reelection.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW HOUSE RESULTS

Republicans say more victories are on the horizon

.

Party officials are most optimistic about reclaiming two seats in New York that Democrats flipped in 2018. Votes are still being counted but Republican Nicole Malliotakis has a notable lead over freshman Rep. Max Rose in the Staten Island-Brooklyn district. And former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney was also ahead in the 22nd District seat she lost two years ago to Rep. Anthony Brindisi.

Democrats have gained two open seats in North Carolina thanks to redrawn congressional maps that favored them and will welcome Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning to their caucus in January.

And Democrats flipped Georgia’s 7th Congressional District held by retiring Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux beat GOP candidate Rich McCormick in the suburban Atlanta district, the Associated Press called on Friday.

That means Democrats so far have a net loss of four seats in the House.

WHERE THINGS STAND: BATTLE FOR THE SENATE

Democrats think they can hold onto many close races that have not been called and have two other possible pick-up opportunities by defeating Rep. Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey and Rep. Mike Garcia in California.

On a call Thursday afternoon with Democratic House members, Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), expressed frustration with the polling and election forecasts that all pointed to House Democrats expanding their majority.

“I’m furious,” Bustos told her colleagues, according to a source familiar with the call. “Something went wrong here across the entire political world. Our polls, Senate polls, Gov polls, presidential polls, Republican polls, public polls, turnout modeling, and prognosticators all pointed to one political environment – that environment never materialized.”

I have written about the tremendous increase in the food stamp program the last 9 years before and that means that both President Obama and Bush were guilty of not trying to slow down it’s growth. Furthermore, Republicans have been some of the biggest supporters of the food stamp program. Milton Friedman had a good solution to help end the welfare state and wish more people would pay attention to it.   Growing government also encourages waste and hurt growth but more importantly it causes people to become dependent on the government as this article and cartoon below show.

My great fear is that the “social capital” of self reliance in America will slowly disappear and that the United States will turn into a European-style welfare state.

That’s the message in the famous “riding in the wagon” cartoons that went viral and became the most-viewed post on this blog.

Well, this Glenn McCoy cartoon has a similar theme.

Obama Voter Cartoon

The only thing I would change is that the rat would become a “pro-government voter” or “left-wing voter” instead of an “Obama voter.” Just like I wasn’t satisfied with an otherwise very good Chuck Asay cartoon showing the struggle between producers and moochers.

That’s for two reasons. First, I’m not partisan. My goal is to spread a message of liberty, not encourage people to vote for or against any candidate.

Second, I’ve been very critical of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t matter.

But I’m getting wonky. Enjoy the cartoon and feel free to share it widely.

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.

Related posts:

If increase in food stamps was just because of recession then why spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007?

If the increase in food stamps was just because of the recession then why did the spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007? The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm (7) Newscom A recent US News & […]

Tell the 48 million food stamps users to eat more broccoli!!!!

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed             Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ We got to slow down the growth of Food Stamps. One […]

Republicans for more food stamps?

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth __________________ We got to cut spending and we must first start with food stamp program and we need some Senators that are willing to make the tough cuts. Food Stamp Republicans Posted by Chris Edwards Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but […]

Obama promotes food stamps but Milton Friedman had a better suggestion

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they […]

400% increase in food stamps since 2000

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ If welfare increases as much as it has in the […]

Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration

The sad fact is that Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration. A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps Amy Payne May 21, 2013 at 7:01 am Tweet this Where do food stamps come from? They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually […]

Which states are the leaders in food stamp consumption?

I am glad that my state of Arkansas is not the leader in food stamps!!! Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which State Has the Highest Food Stamp Usage of All? March 19, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The food stamp program seems to be a breeding ground of waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the horror stories […]

Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting […]

Food Stamp Program is constantly ripped off and should be discontinued

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at http://oversight.house.gov The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]

 

Georgia Poll Watcher Explains State’s Recount of Votes for President

Brant Frost V, second vice chairman of Georgia’s Republican Party, joins the podcast to describe what he has seen as a poll watcher during the state’s recount. Pictured: An election worker in Georgia’s Gwinnett County raises a piece of paper to signal a question during the recount of presidential ballots Friday in Lawrenceville. (Photo: Megan Varner/Getty Images)

Georgia is on America’s mind. At 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, the state is supposed to complete its recount of votes in the presidential election.

Brant Frost V, second vice chairman of Georgia’s Republican Party, joins the show to explain the state’s recount process and why he is suspicious of the recount in Fulton County, which includes the city of Atlanta. Frost also describes his own experience as a poll watcher and why Georgia appears to be turning a little more blue with each election.

We also cover these stories:

  • Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Scott Atlas, a top adviser to President Donald Trump on the coronavirus, counsels families to gather for Thanksgiving if they can.
  • Joe Biden identifies who some of his top White House officials would be if he is inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States.

Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also may leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com.

Virginia Allen: I am joined by Brant Frost, the second vice chair of Georgia’s Republican Party. Brant, welcome to “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Brant Frost: Thank you very much.

Allen: Brant, Georgia is on the minds right now of many Americans. And over the past several days, Georgia has been going through a recount of presidential election votes. And as of right now, The Associated Press reports that former Vice President Joe Biden is winning Georgia by only about 14,000 votes. And that’s out of about 5 million votes in total from Georgia.

So, both President [Donald] Trump and the Republican Party requested that there be a recount in the state because it is so close. And you actually have been really, really involved in Georgia state politics for a long time. Probably a decade, correct?

Frost: Yes. That is correct. Mainly since 2008 when I turned 18.

Allen: OK. Right as soon as you could, you jumped in. So tell us a little bit just about how common this is, to see a recount in Georgia. Is this something that’s happened before where we’ve seen calls for a presidential recount in the state of Georgia?

Frost: No, this is very unusual. This is also the first time we’re using our new paper ballot system. Since 2001, when we began the transition over, we have only used electronic voting with no paper ballots, unless you were voting absentee by mail. This is the first time we’re using our new paper ballots for voting in elections.

And so this is also the first time we’re having a recount in a presidential election in Georgia as well. A lot of firsts in this year. Also, the first time we’ve ever had two Senate elections at the same time as well that both went to runoffs. So it’s definitely a year of firsts in Georgia, as in America.

Allen: It is. It’s a big year in the state of Georgia.

You mentioned that transition of going from electronic to paper ballots. Dominion Voting Systems is the new kind of organization group that Georgia tasked, essentially, with handling the election process, as far as implementing those new machines.

What do you know about Dominion Voting Systems? We’re hearing a lot about maybe how they’re not credible. Are you very familiar with them and with the states that have formerly used them?

Frost: I am not. So, unlike some other folks, I’m not going to pretend to be an expert and talk at length about it. So I can’t speak to that other than to say that in our own county where I was one of the [people] observing the electoral process of doing a recanvass—which I should point out is different than a recount.

A recanvass is what most people think when they think [of] the word recount. During recanvass, a particular race goes, and in this case, the presidential election, and all the paper ballots that were cast before Election Day and on Election Day are counted. And just that one race, just a single race is counted.

The amount of time it would take to recount every single race or recanvass every single race would just be enormous.

So one race is chosen, in this case the presidential election, for obvious reasons. And each ballot is counted by hand. And you have tables set up in a room with two people at each table. And they will count the votes.

First they will separate them out. They take a big stack. They know how many votes are in the box. Then they’ll separate them by candidate they voted for. Then they will count them out.

Each group will be counted and the amount written down. And if all those numbers put together of votes for Biden, Trump, [Jo] Jorgensen, write-in, and indeterminate votes, if those numbers equal to the amount that was on the box originally, then that is considered a successful recanvass.

In Coweta County with over 77,000 votes, it was determined that every single vote cast President Trump indicated by machine was also indicated by a hand count, 51,501 votes, both machine and human count. For Joe Biden, the same was correct.

However, he added one vote because one Joe Biden voter who apparently did not realize that Joseph R. Biden was Joe Biden wrote in the name Joe Biden for his absentee ballot. So the election review board determined that his vote should count as a Joe Biden vote.

And the ballot review board consists of one Republican and one Democrat representative, which I appointed the Republican representatives since I’m the chairman of the county party here.

So we did not find a problem with the scanners indicating a massive shift, or indeed any kind of shift whatever, in our county. But I can’t speak to other counties. And I certainly can’t speak to the ethics of the people who run the Fulton County board of elections, for example.

Allen: Sure, sure. So, Coweta County, where you live and where you were participating in that recount, is, gosh, about little less than an hour south, southwest of the city of Atlanta. So tell me a little bit more about that experience. You were there helping to do the recanvassing on both Friday and Saturday.

We’ve heard a lot during this kind of poll-watching scenario as it’s played out with mail-in votes that people have complained about not being able to get close enough to actually see the ballots. Was everyone who you were there with able to be close to see the ballots and to all agree, Democrat and Republican, “Yes, this vote is for this individual”?

Frost: Well, the county employees who are poll workers who have been pulled in for this special task, they actually count the votes.

Typically, you will find a fairly even mix of Republican volunteers and Democrat volunteers who are poll workers, but they’re not chosen based on their party. But there’s a good chance that one of them is a Republican.

What you have is you take a typical room of about 10 tables. Depending on the county, there will be either one or two people observing, allowed to walk around and see the process. Realistically, you can’t stand at one table for very long without missing what’s going on at other tables.

Some people might think it makes more sense to have one observer per counting table watching the process, but the limits that were imposed, and it varies from county to county, were one person for every five tables. And that’s what we had.

You have a room with eight tables, two people counting at each table, and two representatives from both parties are allowed to walk around the floor where the tables are, walk around the floor and stop at places. They’re not allowed to speak to the counters and disrupt their count, but they are allowed to watch what’s going on and keep their own count if they wish.

We also have a lot of observers who are permitted to stand at the back of the room, but they really can’t see anything from there. So basically, each party is permitted two people for every five tables.

Allen: It sounds like Coweta County is a great model for the rest of the state. You all have really done this quite well. It sounds very organized.

Have you been hearing from other counties in Georgia? Have they experienced a similar smooth process or have there been complaints?

Frost: The recanvass did not indicate any major shift in votes, except for in Floyd County where a computer card was found with some votes from a precinct, which had previously not been counted.

When the voting machines in each precinct print out a ballot, you type it in on a screen, you type in your choices, the ballot is printed, and then you scan it through a scanner, and then the ballot goes through. And on the other side, you have a big box, which is locked. Well, they don’t open up the box and count the ballots. They take the result of the little scanner, so like a USB drive.

Well, one of those drives in Floyd County, and of course it’s not a drive, but I just use that an example, was missed. When they brought in the precinct results, each precinct brought in their box and their little chips and draws, one was left, [it] had just been not uploaded.

So that recanvass found those extra votes and it added about 2,600 votes to the total statewide. And we think about two-thirds of them were for President Trump.

Now, if this election were like Florida with a 600-vote margin, that would have been enough to flip the election in President Trump’s favor. But of course, when the margins [are] more than 10,000, that’s not going to be the case.

But other than that one example, we did not see any major shifts. However, the issue really does not come down to a statewide problem. It comes down to one or two and really about six counties that are all Democrat, all large, all urban.

In particular, one county where there have been very credible accusations that Republican poll watchers at the Fulton County board of elections where they were counting votes were told to go home at a big arena, because it’s a huge process in Fulton County, that’s Atlanta, Georgia. They were told to go home and they were going to start in the morning.

So, the Republican observers went home at about 10 p.m. And then shortly thereafter, Fulton County started counting their votes again with no Republicans present and then kept counting until about 1 a.m.

So, if there was any kind of illegal voting or any kind of fraudulent ballots being counted, that would certainly have been a time when we just don’t know what was happening. And no Republicans were permitted to be there. No one apparently thought to call them to tell them to come back.

Now, Fulton County is an overwhelmingly Democrat county run top to bottom by Democrats. The Democrats’ well-known respect for the integrity of elections can be demonstrated in that they were so distressed over the 2016 election results, though curiously not distressed over the 1960 election results.

And of course we all know very well, the Democrats are well-known pensioned for fair and equitable elections in big cities like New York and Chicago and where the dead will not only rise again at the second coming, but they rise every four years and vote Democrat.

Allen: It’s certainly problematic when we begin to see the number of deceased individuals who are still on those voter rolls in, like you say, a lot of these big cities.

Now, I want to ask a little bit more about this Atlanta situation. Was there any explanation given by the mayor of Atlanta, by those that were in charge overseeing that polling location, as to how this error was made, that Republicans were sent home and then still ballots were continued to be counted late into the night?

Frost: Everyone has an excuse. I don’t know if it’s a good one, but everyone has an excuse. Every child caught with their hand in the cookie jar has a good reason, or at least a reason why they were doing it. Whether or not anyone believes them and it saves them from punishment is another matter altogether.

There have been multiple explanations and so it’s hard to say which one is the correct one. There’s talk about a major water leakage, a pipe burst. There’s talk about how the secretary of state and others were asking for them to continue the count, because after all, 10 p.m. is rather early to stop counting votes, particularly in an election as close as this and with Georgia being a swing state.

So there were calls for them to come back … and at least a plausible deniability situation where under such a stressful situation, someone can always claim that, “Well, I just forgot,” or, “It slipped through the cracks to remind everybody to come back.” So it’s very difficult to prove malice of intent.

Allen: Sure, sure. So, do you foresee any situation where all other Georgia counties [are] given the green light, but Fulton County, that Atlanta county, has said, “Let’s double check this and let’s recount this county one more time”? Or is that probably not possible?

Frost: Unfortunately, today it is very difficult, as in previous times, to, after the fact, detect voter fraud and malfeasance for the simple fact that a ballot cannot be pulled out of the stack once it’s stuck into it.

In other words, you may have an illegally cast vote or 1,000 of them, but to look at them, they don’t look any different than any other ballot. They do not have a person’s name on them. They do not have a bright neon sticker that says, “Hey, I’m a fake vote.” They look like anyone else’s vote. And it is impossible to identify them once they’d been cast in with all the legitimate votes.

Allen: Let’s talk just for a moment about Georgia as a whole. I lived in Georgia for a number of years. Went to high school there. And back in 2010, 2011, Georgia really was a solidly red, conservative state.

So, Brant, what has happened? As someone who’s been so involved in Georgia politics and policy for so long, what has happened in your state to where now it’s definitely solidly a swing state?

Frost: You have to remember that the Democrat Party in Georgia had been living off the residual effects of over 100 years of domination in our state politics. We hadn’t had a Republican governor since 1872. So by the 1990s, there was a definite shift beginning in Georgia politics.

And starting in 1992, the Republicans had a major surge with every two years, we gained substantially in the state Legislature. We gained congressional delegations. We took control of the majority of the Congress from Georgia in 1994. And we came very close to winning the governor’s race in 1994.

And as a result, the Republicans continued to build up and gain in strength and momentum. And the Democrats, without a strong grassroots base, because they’d been in power for so long it had atrophied, they hadn’t felt the need to have one. As a result, the Republicans in 2002, in a big upset, won the governor’s race.

Many people expected Republicans to be competitive in 2006 for the governor’s race, in 1998, but we lost in ’98. And in 2002, it was thought that Gov. Roy Barnes was too hard to beat, but Sonny Perdue, who is now agricultural secretary in the Trump Administration, actually defeated, in a big upset, Gov. Barnes.

And ever since 2002, the Republican Party has been very strong in Georgia, has dominated statewide politics, won every governor’s race, won every Senate election, and won every constitutional officer starting in 2010.

But that obscured … two major factors: Lack of funding and resources for the Democrats and the fact that the Obama presidency destroyed most of the Democrat Party in the South.

Across the South, you saw from states like Arkansas and Oklahoma to West Virginia and Kentucky, Democrat candidates going down to the seat largely as a result of the unpopularity of the Obama administration.

So when you consider that from 2008 to 2016, Republicans had great years in Georgia, you have to realize that that was during the Obama presidency and the fact that the Democrat Party had no real operation capable of contesting Georgia.

But starting in 2013, the Democrats began to rebuild their effort. Stacey Abrams was a major leader in that effort. And since 2013, they have spent seven years rebuilding. And to today, we now find ourselves in a situation where they’re able to compete with us.

Georgia’s demographics are largely the same as they were four years ago. In fact, exit poll data indicates that on key levels, it’s almost exactly the same. The difference is that the Democrat Party is more well-equipped, better funded, and able to compete.

And they also believe they can win in Georgia. Four years ago, they saw Georgia as a possible bonus, but they didn’t see it as a major target state like they did this year.

The Republican Party, until recently, has also not been as prepared as it might be, largely due to the fact that the Democrats appeared to be weak. So why do you have to train extra hard to fight an opponent who seems weak and easy to defeat?

Fortunately, last year, when I was elected vice chairman, we also elected a new chairman, David Shafer, former state senator and former executive director of the Georgia Republican Party, under whose leadership we have been able to basically accomplish the work of about four years in less than 18 months.

And since he was elected, we’ve trained over 13,000 volunteers, we’ve held voter drives around the state, we’ve knocked on over a million, I believe it’s over 2 million doors now, and we’ve made millions of phone calls.

This is more than any the Republican Party has done in Georgia in any two presidential elections combined, going back for many cycles. So we have been very encouraged to see the outpouring of support since the November election right here.

You would think people would be discouraged, but actually it’s caused people to sign up and volunteer and to do their part because there is so much that we have seen in the last few weeks with Democrats talking about moving to Georgia that has inspired Republicans to become more active and to do more because you saw so many Republicans feel that Georgia was a safe state and they took it for granted.

Not our leadership, but just a rank-and-file Republican who might have, if they lived in Florida or Ohio, have gone out and volunteered, maybe knocked on some doors or made some calls. But because they felt they were in a safe red state, they did not do what they could have done.

The scales have fallen from people’s eyes. They now realize they have to fight because Georgia is a swing state, as much as Florida ever was.

Indeed, if you look at the results, Georgia was much closer than Florida or Ohio. So in some ways, Florida is now a pink state leaning red and Ohio is a red state, but North Carolina and Georgia are swing states. So we have to take that into consideration.

But we are prepared to meet the challenge. We have thousands of people all over the country who are offering to come on their own expense to volunteer to help in these efforts in Georgia, in the upcoming runoffs. So we’re very encouraged.

And I think it’s important for people to realize that the differences in Georgia are not so much due to changes in demographics, although we have seen some of that, but mainly due to the fact that up until recently only one political party was actually playing to win and the other party did not have the resources to compete, much like a major athletic event where you have two teams at a baseball or basketball game.

And in a major sporting event, one team is obviously better funded, has better players, has the resources to hire the best coaches and such, and they’re going to roll over their opponents because they simply are outclassing them.

Now that the two parties are much more evenly classed, you see Georgia being what it truly is, a competitive state.

Allen: Brant, we just so appreciate your time today. It’s just fascinating to hear some of this history and get into a little bit of just the details of what is happening on the ground in Georgia, what you’re seeing, what you’ve experienced. Thank you so much for joining the show.

Frost: Thank you.

A sheriff’s deputy looks out at the line to vote at an early voting location at the Gwinnett County Fairgrounds on Oct. 24, 2020, in Lawrenceville, Georgia. (Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/AFP/Getty Images)

Celebrities and politicians urging people to visit Georgia and falsely claim residency for the sole purpose of voting in two critical U.S. Senate runoff elections Jan. 5 are advocating criminal actions and should be ashamed of themselves. This call for voter fraud should be rejected.

The Georgia runoff elections are extraordinarily important because they will determine which political party controls the U.S. Senate.

Results of the Nov. 3 election gave Republicans 50 seats in the 100-member Senate and gave Democrats 48. If Republicans win one of the Georgia seats Jan. 5, they will hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate; if the GOP wins both seats, it will hold a 52-48 majority.

But if Democrats win both Georgia races, the Senate will be split 50-50 between the two parties. Assuming that President Donald Trump’s lawsuits fail and he is replaced by Joe Biden as president Jan. 20, Kamala Harris will be vice president and can break the 50-50 tie in the Senate to give Democrats majority control of the chamber by the slimmest possible margin.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Multiple candidates ran for the two Senate seats representing Georgia, preventing any candidate from gaining a majority. As a result, Georgia law requires the top two candidates for each seat to face each other in runoff elections to be held Jan. 5.

It is a felony for people to visit Georgia and falsely claim to be residents just so they can vote. Millions of us have visited states on vacation or business, but that doesn’t make us residents entitled to vote there.

Georgia Code §21-2-561 states that providing false information when you are registering to vote is a felony. So is voting by an “unqualified elector” under §21-2-571. So if you register to vote when you know that your assertion of residency is false, and then you vote or even just attempt to vote Jan. 5 knowing you are not a qualified voter of the state, you have violated both of these state criminal statutes.

The punishment for this illegal activity under Georgia law is a minimum of one year and a maximum of up to 10 years in prison and as much as a $100,000 fine. Georgia obviously takes this crime very seriously.

No matter how interested nonresidents of Georgia are in that state’s crucial election, they should not listen to the ill-informed, manipulative, and reckless tweets and calls for them to break the law and pretend to be Georgia residents just so they can vote in the two Senate races.

This call for illegal voting—coming primarily from Democrats—is a basic betrayal of the democratic process. Everyone who urges or participates in this criminal activity should be ashamed of themselves and deserves to be criticized, no matter who they are and which party they favor.

Fox News reports, for example, that in a now-deleted tweet, New Yorker journalist Eric Levitz wrote: “These run-offs will decide which party controls the Senate and thus, whether we’ll have any hope for a large stimulus/climate bill. If you have the means and fervor to make a temporary move to GA, believe anyone who registers by Dec 7 can vote in these elections.”

Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang also tweeted that he and his wife are moving to Georgia to help the two Democratic contenders.

In the Nov. 3 election in Georgia, Republican Sen. David Perdue received 49.71% of the vote and Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff received 47.96%, forcing them into a runoff.

The other Senate race on the ballot Nov. 3 was a special election. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson retired in 2018, before the end of his term. Republican Kelly Loeffler was appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp to fill the seat until the special election.

She and Rep. Doug Collins split the Republican vote Nov. 3; Loeffler received 25.9% and Collins got 19.95%. Democrat Raphael Warnock got the highest vote total, with 32.91%. Therefore, the two top vote-getters, Loeffler and Warnock, will be in the Jan. 5 runoff election.

Dec. 7 is the deadline to register to vote in Georgia for the Jan. 5 election for any residents of the state who have not already registered, including voters who have just moved to Georgia. But under the Georgia Election Code, §21-2-217, you have to be an actual resident of the state to vote, not just a visitor.

Georgia law says that a voter cannot be in the state “for temporary purposes only without the intention of making [Georgia] such person’s permanent place of abode.” In other words, if you head to Georgia for the primary purpose of helping the candidates in the special election with no intention of actually staying in the state and living there, you are not eligible to register or vote.

Those who think they can get around this requirement by simply lying and asserting their intention to make Georgia their permanent abode should beware. Under the law, county registrars are given the authority to consider a long list of other factors that may contradict the “applicant’s expressed intent.”

These factors include an individual’s “business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes … leaseholds, sites of personal and real property owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that registrars may reasonably deem necessary to determine” the applicant’s legal residence for voting purposes.

And it is not just registrars. Under Georgia law, §21-2-230, any registered voter can challenge the eligibility of any other registrant in his or her county or municipality. So there is an entire army of grassroots Georgia voters out there who can be, and should be, on the lookout for out-of-staters registering to vote who falsely claim to live in their neighborhoods and their communities.

The Jan. 5 Senate races in Georgia are understandably capturing national attention, and both Republicans and Democrats are mounting major efforts to win the seats. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. But having out-of-state voters visit a state for a few weeks to masquerade as Georgia residents is not a democratic exercise—it’s a crime.

Anyone who visits Georgia temporarily and falsely claims to be a resident cheats the real residents of the state—no matter which side of the political aisle they favor—by interfering in their choice of who should represent them in Congress. There’s no justification for that, no matter how passionate you are about the outcome of an election.

Vote in your own home state when elections are held—not in the home state of others.

Originally published by Fox News

How Republicans pulled off a big upset and nearly took back the House

<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

(CNN)There seemed to be one safe bet when it came to the 2020 election results: Democrats would easily hold on to their majority in the House of Representatives. Not only that, but the conventional wisdom held that Democrats would pick up more than the 235 seats they won in the 2018 midterm elections.

While Democrats will have a majority next Congress, Republicans vastly outperformed expectations and nearly pulled off an election shocker.

As of this writing, CNN has projected that Democrats have won in 219 seats. Republicans have been projected the winners in 203 seats. There are 13 races outstanding, per CNN projections.

Of those 13, the Democratic candidates lead in a mere two of them. (One of these 13 is going to a runoff, where the Republicans are heavily favored to win.)

In other words, if every one of those 13 seats went to the party leading in them right now, Democrats would have 221 seats to the Republicans’ 214 seats in the next Congress.

Talk about a fairly close call for Democrats.

Now, Democrats may end up winning a few of the seats where they are currently trailing, but chances are they will end up at or south of 225 seats.

Compare that to what most quantitative forecasters who look at a slew of indicators predicted. Jack Kersting came the closest at 238 seats. FiveThirtyEight clocked in at 239 seats. The Economist modelpredicted that Democrats would win a median of 244 seats in their simulations.

While much attention was paid to the polling misses on the presidential level, they were more accurate by comparison. In the presidential race, the final polling averages got every state right, except for Florida and North Carolina.

Indeed, the forecasts for the presidential race were considerably better than for the House races. The race raters at the Crystal Ball, for example, got every state but North Carolina correct on the presidential level.

Any sort of shy Trump vote was far smaller than a potential shy House Republican vote.

Of course, the value of quantitative forecasts is that they don’t just provide one number. They provide the probability of different outcomes occurring.

In that regard, the Republican performance is even more astounding.

The Economist said there was less than a 1-in-100 chance Democrats would have 221 seats or fewer in the next Congress. The chance they would get 225 seats or fewer was 1-in-100.

FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Republicans a realistic, but still fairly low shot of what seems to have happened. The chance Democrats would earn 221 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-17, while the chance they’d have 225 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-10.

I should note that 1-in-10 probabilities happen all the time. There’s a reason something is a 1-in-10 chance and not 0%. That said, Republicans simply did better than what folks thought.

A large part of what happened was that the national political environment was more friendly to Republicans than what polls suggested. The final average of generic congressional ballot polls had Democrats ahead by 7 points nationally. Democrats are only ahead by 2 points in the national House vote right now. That may end up closer to 3 points once the votes are all tallied.

A 4- or 5-point miss is considerable.

If Democrats had done 5 points better in every race than they currently are doing, they’d be ahead in 239 seats. That, of course, is right in line with the forecasts.

A lot of these quantitative forecasts also rely upon House ratings from groups like the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and The Crystal Ball.

These too seemed to undersell Republican chances. Take the Cook Political Report ratings, which have historically been very good.

As of this writing, Republicans are leading in 27 of the 27 seats the Cook Political Report deemed toss-up before the election. They are ahead in all 26 of the seats that were deemed either leaning or likely Republican. Republicans are also leading in 7 of the 36 seats that were either leaning or likely to be taken by the Democrats.

That is, Republicans not only pretty much swept the tossups, but they marched into Democratic territory as well.

The Crystal Ball, which bravely has no tossups in its final rating, had Democrats net gaining 10 House seats. It will actually be the Republicans who will likely net gain 10 seats or more.

The end result of which is that Republicans are much closer to a House majority than we believed they would be after 2020 and have put themselves in a strong position heading into the 2022 midterms.

Where things stand in the House

The Democrats majority is shrinking and three dozen races have yet to be called

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s majority has shrunk in House, a shock to Democrats and pollsters who were projecting the California Democrat would expand her caucus after Tuesday’s election.

Democrats were optimistic they could flip roughly 10 seats but their expansion efforts came up short, especially in Texas, and they ended up losing seats in Flordia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and elsewhere.

DEM CAUCUS ERUPTS AS MEMBERS SAY PARTY’S LEFTWARD DRIFT HURT MODERATES IN ELECTION

As of 3 p.m. on Friday, Democrats had won 212 seats compared to Republicans’ 194. Another 29 races have yet to be called. Democrats had a net loss of four seats.

Outstanding races are in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere. When all those votes are counted, Republicans are optimistic their numbers could swell to 208 and beyond, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

What’s known is that Republicans have flipped at least seven seats from blue to red and an eighth seat in Michigan that was most recently occupied by a Libertarian. Here’s a snapshot of the GOP victories:

GOP gains in the House

–In Florida, Republican candidate Carlos Gimenez defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in the 26th district. Republican Maria Elvira Salazar defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala in the 27th district.

–In Oklahoma, Republican Stephanie Bice unseated freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn. Horn flipped the seat from red to blue last cycle.

— In South Carolina, freshman congressman Democrat Joe Cunningham was projected to lose his reelection to state GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, flipping South Carolina’s 1st District back to red.

— In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Fischbach ousted longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, toppling the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the most pro-Trump district held by a Democrat.

— In New Mexico, Republican Yvette Herrell defeated freshman Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a freshman Democrat who flipped the 2nd Congressional seat from red to blue in 2018.

— In Iowa’s First Congressional District, Republican state representative and former TV news anchor Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic incumbent Abby Finkenauer.

– In West Michigan, Republican Peter Meijer, an Iraq war veteran whose grandfather started Meijer superstores, defeated Democrat Hillary Scholten, a former Department of Justice and nonprofit lawyer. The Third Congressional District was open after Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, did not seek reelection.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW HOUSE RESULTS

Republicans say more victories are on the horizon

.

Party officials are most optimistic about reclaiming two seats in New York that Democrats flipped in 2018. Votes are still being counted but Republican Nicole Malliotakis has a notable lead over freshman Rep. Max Rose in the Staten Island-Brooklyn district. And former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney was also ahead in the 22nd District seat she lost two years ago to Rep. Anthony Brindisi.

Democrats have gained two open seats in North Carolina thanks to redrawn congressional maps that favored them and will welcome Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning to their caucus in January.

And Democrats flipped Georgia’s 7th Congressional District held by retiring Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux beat GOP candidate Rich McCormick in the suburban Atlanta district, the Associated Press called on Friday.

That means Democrats so far have a net loss of four seats in the House.

WHERE THINGS STAND: BATTLE FOR THE SENATE

Democrats think they can hold onto many close races that have not been called and have two other possible pick-up opportunities by defeating Rep. Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey and Rep. Mike Garcia in California.

On a call Thursday afternoon with Democratic House members, Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), expressed frustration with the polling and election forecasts that all pointed to House Democrats expanding their majority.

“I’m furious,” Bustos told her colleagues, according to a source familiar with the call. “Something went wrong here across the entire political world. Our polls, Senate polls, Gov polls, presidential polls, Republican polls, public polls, turnout modeling, and prognosticators all pointed to one political environment – that environment never materialized.”

I have written about the tremendous increase in the food stamp program the last 9 years before and that means that both President Obama and Bush were guilty of not trying to slow down it’s growth. Furthermore, Republicans have been some of the biggest supporters of the food stamp program. Milton Friedman had a good solution to help end the welfare state and wish more people would pay attention to it.   Growing government also encourages waste and hurt growth but more importantly it causes people to become dependent on the government as this article and cartoon below show.

My great fear is that the “social capital” of self reliance in America will slowly disappear and that the United States will turn into a European-style welfare state.

That’s the message in the famous “riding in the wagon” cartoons that went viral and became the most-viewed post on this blog.

Well, this Glenn McCoy cartoon has a similar theme.

Obama Voter Cartoon

The only thing I would change is that the rat would become a “pro-government voter” or “left-wing voter” instead of an “Obama voter.” Just like I wasn’t satisfied with an otherwise very good Chuck Asay cartoon showing the struggle between producers and moochers.

That’s for two reasons. First, I’m not partisan. My goal is to spread a message of liberty, not encourage people to vote for or against any candidate.

Second, I’ve been very critical of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t matter.

But I’m getting wonky. Enjoy the cartoon and feel free to share it widely.

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.

Related posts:

If increase in food stamps was just because of recession then why spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007?

If the increase in food stamps was just because of the recession then why did the spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007? The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm (7) Newscom A recent US News & […]

Tell the 48 million food stamps users to eat more broccoli!!!!

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed             Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ We got to slow down the growth of Food Stamps. One […]

Republicans for more food stamps?

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth __________________ We got to cut spending and we must first start with food stamp program and we need some Senators that are willing to make the tough cuts. Food Stamp Republicans Posted by Chris Edwards Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but […]

Obama promotes food stamps but Milton Friedman had a better suggestion

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they […]

400% increase in food stamps since 2000

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ If welfare increases as much as it has in the […]

Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration

The sad fact is that Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration. A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps Amy Payne May 21, 2013 at 7:01 am Tweet this Where do food stamps come from? They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually […]

Which states are the leaders in food stamp consumption?

I am glad that my state of Arkansas is not the leader in food stamps!!! Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which State Has the Highest Food Stamp Usage of All? March 19, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The food stamp program seems to be a breeding ground of waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the horror stories […]

Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting […]

Food Stamp Program is constantly ripped off and should be discontinued

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at http://oversight.house.gov The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]

 

50 Years Later, Milton Friedman Still Knows Better Than NY Times About Capitalism, Freedom

Bob Chitester Discusses Milton Friedman and ‘Free to Choose’

Published on Jul 30, 2012 by

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, seen here attending a charity dinner in his honor in Beverly Hills, California, on Jan. 1, 1986, wrote an essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” that was published 50 years ago this week by The New York Times. Friedman died in 2006 at age 94. (Photo: George Rose/Getty Images)

The New York Times this week published a supplement, “Greed Is Good. Except When It’s Bad.”

The Times based the supplement on an essay from the late Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.”

That essay was published by the Times on Sept. 13, 1970. The supplement’s general conclusion was that while Friedman’s ideas might have been appealing 50 years ago, things are much different today.

In fact, it concludes, having corporations focus solely on profit has caused great income inequality and has reduced societal welfare. Numerous statistics are cited showing how those at the top have done much, much better than those at the lower end of the income ladder.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

The focus is on the corporation and the concept of corporate social responsibility, which Friedman said should not exist. Most of the scholars and executives that wrote in the supplement disagreed with Friedman.

One example: “We wish to be an economic, intellectual, and social asset in communities where we operate,” wrote Howard Schultz, former chairman and CEO of Starbucks.

While the readers are led to believe this position helps to disprove Friedman, it actually does just the opposite. Schultz took this view because it created the image that Starbucks needed in the marketplace in order to attract customers who traditionally bought a cheap cup of coffee on the run.

Instead, Schultz wanted consumers to buy an extremely expensive cup of coffee, and then sit, relax, buy an expensive pastry or a high-priced sandwich, enjoy the coffee, and socialize, much as they have done for decades in Europe.

Neighborhood-type coffee shops popped up everywhere. They created that image because it was extremely profitable to do so. If that “social asset in the communities” image hadn’t been profitable, they wouldn’t have done it.

Alex Gorsky, chief executive of Johnson & Johnson, also disagrees with Friedman. He says his company always “made clear our responsibilities as a corporation: first to the patients, doctors and nurses, mothers, fathers, and others who use our products and services, then to our customers and business partners, our employees and our communities. And, finally, to our shareholders.”

While the doctors and other medical professionals take an oath to follow that list, the corporation doesn’t—and shouldn’t.

Johnson & Johnson sells products and services used to prevent illness and maintain health. People who purchase its products must have the utmost faith that the product will perform as expected and will do so without side effects.

Consumer confidence is critical here. Corporations must project the image that nearly every stakeholder is more important than profit. That image is itself very profitable for them, oftentimes making it easier to introduce new products because of the brand equity the image builds. If that image weren’t profitable, they wouldn’t project it.

Then there was Nobel Prize-winning and highly respected economist Joseph Stiglitz. He has for decades taken positions that disagree with Friedman.  Stiglitz essentially argues that if corporate “greed” is the only motive, societal welfare would suffer, mostly because government policy could be corrupted by lobbyists employed by profit-motivated corporations.

Stiglitz says that because of market imperfections, “ … firms pursuing profit maximization did not lead to maximization of societal welfare.” He proved this empirically and even noted that Friedman never refuted his work. Stiglitz concludes by saying, “ … and my analysis has stood the test of time. [Friedman’s] conclusion, as influential as it was, has not.”

Friedman, who in 1962 wrote his book “Capitalism and Freedom,” would disagree. In fact, a fuller application of Friedman’s ideas led to the economic boom from 1982 to 2000 (except for a slight hiccup in 1991). The rising tide indeed lifted nearly all boats.

The difference in the views lies in the desire for freedom and in the acceptance of responsibility. Friedman would argue that individual freedom and individual responsibility are of primary importance.

Total societal welfare, Friedman would argue, would be maximized if each individual citizen maximized his or her own welfare. Every American should have the freedom to do so and should be able to fully reap the rewards.

Stiglitz would argue for a stronger role for government to eliminate imperfections and corruption, which led to the greater income inequality. The stronger role for government, however, means less individual freedom, less individual responsibility, and higher rates of taxation.

In capitalism, people have a chance to become very successful. In terms of monetary reward, it’s really quite simple: The greater the value of the contribution, the greater the reward.

In terms of perceived social injustices, after corporations have concentrated solely on profits, the stockholders eventually receive those profits. When they do, each is free to spend or donate those funds to any social cause.

It’s important that the corporation make as large a profit as possible, and then each shareholder use the profit as they deem appropriate.

The largest profits are made by corporations where the need in the market is the greatest. When Jeff Bezos and Amazon revolutionized the supply chain and changed the buying habits of hundreds of millions of consumers to vastly improve their lives, he was very well-rewarded, as he should have been.

The U.S. economy has been relatively stagnant for two decades. Economic prosperity occurs when annual growth exceeds 4%. That hasn’t happened since 2000.  The economic policy today should encourage Friedman’s theories and promote individual freedom, individual responsibility, low rates of taxation, and a limited role for government.

That’s what allowed the U.S. to go from the birth of a nation to the largest, most prosperous economy in the world in about 150 years.

Policies matching those principles will continue to make America great.the

“There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people.”

That is how former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described the Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. But it is not for his technical work in monetary economics that Friedman is best known. Like mathematician Jacob Bronowski and astronomer Carl Sagan, Friedman had a gift for communicating complex ideas to a general audience.

It was this gift that brought him to the attention of filmmaker Bob Chitester. At Chitester’s urging, Friedman agreed to make a 10 part documentary series explaining the power of economic freedom. It was called “Free to Choose,” and became one of the most watched documentaries in history.

The series not only reached audiences in liberal democracies, but was smuggled behind the iron curtain where it played, in secret, to large audiences. Reflecting on its impact, Czech president Vaclav Klaus has said: “For us, who lived in the communist world, Milton Friedman was the greatest champion of freedom, of limited and unobtrusive government and of free markets. Because of him I became a true believer in the unrestricted market economy.”

July 31st, 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Friedman’s birth. To commemorate that occasion, we’d like to share an interview with “Free to Choose” producer Bob Chitester. Like this interview, the entire series can now be viewed on-line at no cost at http://www.freetochoose.tv/, thanks to the incredible technological progress brought about by the economic freedom that Milton Friedman celebrated.

Produced by Andrew Coulson, Caleb O. Brown, Austin Bragg, and Lou Richards, with help from the Free to Choose Network.

_____________

April 4, 2021

President Biden  c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We got to stop spending so much money on the federal level. It will bankrupt us. I remember back in 1980 when I really started getting into the material of Milton Friedman as a result of reading his articles in Newsweek and reading his book “Free to Choose,” I really did get facts and figures to back on the view that we need more freedom giving back to us and the government needs to spend less.

As a result of Friedman’s writings I was able to discuss these issues with my fellow students at the university and by the time the 1980 election came around I had been attending political rallies and went out and worked hard for Ronald Reagan’s election. In this article below Dr. Thomas Sowell (who was featured twice in the film “Free to Choose”) notes how much influence Milton Friedman had on the election outcome in 1980:

Milton Friedman at 90

by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California.

Added to cato.org on July 25, 2002

This article originally appeared on TownHall.com, July 25, 2002.

Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday on July 31st provides an occasion to think back on his role as the pre-eminent economist of the 20th century. To those of us who were privileged to be his students, he also stands out as a great teacher.

When I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, back in 1959, one day I was waiting outside Professor Friedman’s office when another graduate student passed by. He noticed my exam paper on my lap and exclaimed: “You got a B?”

“Yes,” I said. “Is that bad?”

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California.

“There were only two B’s in the whole class,” he replied.

“How many A’s?” I asked.

“There were no A’s!”

Today, this kind of grading might be considered to represent a “tough love” philosophy of teaching. I don’t know about love, but it was certainly tough.

Professor Friedman also did not let students arrive late at his lectures and distract the class by their entrance. Once I arrived a couple of minutes late for class and had to turn around and go back to the dormitory.

All the way back, I thought about the fact that I would be held responsible for what was said in that lecture, even though I never heard it. Thereafter, I was always in my seat when Milton Friedman walked in to give his lecture.

On a term paper, I wrote that either (a) this would happen or (b) that would happen. Professor Friedman wrote in the margin: “Or (c) your analysis is wrong.”

“Where was my analysis wrong?” I asked him.

“I didn’t say your analysis was wrong,” he replied. “I just wanted you to keep that possibility in mind.”

Perhaps the best way to summarize all this is to say that Milton Friedman is a wonderful human being — especially outside the classroom. It has been a much greater pleasure to listen to his lectures in later years, after I was no longer going to be quizzed on them, and a special pleasure to appear on a couple of television programs with him and to meet him on social occasions.

Milton Friedman’s enduring legacy will long outlast the memories of his students and extends beyond the field of economics. John Maynard Keynes was the reigning demi-god among economists when Friedman’s career began, and Friedman himself was at first a follower of Keynesian doctrines and liberal politics.

Yet no one did more to dismantle both Keynesian economics and liberal welfare-state thinking. As late as the 1950s, those with the prevailing Keynesian orthodoxy were still able to depict Milton Friedman as a fringe figure, clinging to an outmoded way of thinking. But the intellectual power of his ideas, the fortitude with which he persevered, and the ever more apparent failures of Keynesian analyses and policies, began to change all that, even before Professor Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.

A towering intellect seldom goes together with practical wisdom, or perhaps even common sense. However, Milton Friedman not only excelled in the scholarly journals but also on the television screen, presenting the basics of economics in a way that the general public could understand.

His mini-series “Free to Choose” was a classic that made economic principles clear to all with living examples. His good nature and good humor also came through in a way that attracted and held an audience.

Although Friedrich Hayek launched the first major challenge to the prevailing thinking behind the welfare state and socialism with his 1944 book “The Road to Serfdom,” Milton Friedman became the dominant intellectual force among those who turned back the leftward tide in what had seemed to be the wave of the future.

Without Milton Friedman’s role in changing the minds of so many Americans, it is hard to imagine how Ronald Reagan could have been elected president.

Nor was Friedman’s influence confined to the United States. His ideas reached around the world, not only among economists, but also in political circles which began to understand why left-wing ideas that sounded so good produced results that were so bad.

Milton Friedman rates a 21-gun salute on his birthday. Or perhaps a 90-gun salute would be more appropriate.

________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733

Williams with Sowell – Minimum Wage

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell – Reducing Black Unemployment

By WALTER WILLIAMS

—-

Ronald Reagan with Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 2-5

Effort to Win Georgia Senate Races by Bringing in Out-of-Staters to Vote Is Illegal

A sheriff’s deputy looks out at the line to vote at an early voting location at the Gwinnett County Fairgrounds on Oct. 24, 2020, in Lawrenceville, Georgia. (Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/AFP/Getty Images)

Celebrities and politicians urging people to visit Georgia and falsely claim residency for the sole purpose of voting in two critical U.S. Senate runoff elections Jan. 5 are advocating criminal actions and should be ashamed of themselves. This call for voter fraud should be rejected.

The Georgia runoff elections are extraordinarily important because they will determine which political party controls the U.S. Senate.

Results of the Nov. 3 election gave Republicans 50 seats in the 100-member Senate and gave Democrats 48. If Republicans win one of the Georgia seats Jan. 5, they will hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate; if the GOP wins both seats, it will hold a 52-48 majority.

But if Democrats win both Georgia races, the Senate will be split 50-50 between the two parties. Assuming that President Donald Trump’s lawsuits fail and he is replaced by Joe Biden as president Jan. 20, Kamala Harris will be vice president and can break the 50-50 tie in the Senate to give Democrats majority control of the chamber by the slimmest possible margin.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Multiple candidates ran for the two Senate seats representing Georgia, preventing any candidate from gaining a majority. As a result, Georgia law requires the top two candidates for each seat to face each other in runoff elections to be held Jan. 5.

It is a felony for people to visit Georgia and falsely claim to be residents just so they can vote. Millions of us have visited states on vacation or business, but that doesn’t make us residents entitled to vote there.

Georgia Code §21-2-561 states that providing false information when you are registering to vote is a felony. So is voting by an “unqualified elector” under §21-2-571. So if you register to vote when you know that your assertion of residency is false, and then you vote or even just attempt to vote Jan. 5 knowing you are not a qualified voter of the state, you have violated both of these state criminal statutes.

The punishment for this illegal activity under Georgia law is a minimum of one year and a maximum of up to 10 years in prison and as much as a $100,000 fine. Georgia obviously takes this crime very seriously.

No matter how interested nonresidents of Georgia are in that state’s crucial election, they should not listen to the ill-informed, manipulative, and reckless tweets and calls for them to break the law and pretend to be Georgia residents just so they can vote in the two Senate races.

This call for illegal voting—coming primarily from Democrats—is a basic betrayal of the democratic process. Everyone who urges or participates in this criminal activity should be ashamed of themselves and deserves to be criticized, no matter who they are and which party they favor.

Fox News reports, for example, that in a now-deleted tweet, New Yorker journalist Eric Levitz wrote: “These run-offs will decide which party controls the Senate and thus, whether we’ll have any hope for a large stimulus/climate bill. If you have the means and fervor to make a temporary move to GA, believe anyone who registers by Dec 7 can vote in these elections.”

Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang also tweeted that he and his wife are moving to Georgia to help the two Democratic contenders.

In the Nov. 3 election in Georgia, Republican Sen. David Perdue received 49.71% of the vote and Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff received 47.96%, forcing them into a runoff.

The other Senate race on the ballot Nov. 3 was a special election. Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson retired in 2018, before the end of his term. Republican Kelly Loeffler was appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp to fill the seat until the special election.

She and Rep. Doug Collins split the Republican vote Nov. 3; Loeffler received 25.9% and Collins got 19.95%. Democrat Raphael Warnock got the highest vote total, with 32.91%. Therefore, the two top vote-getters, Loeffler and Warnock, will be in the Jan. 5 runoff election.

Dec. 7 is the deadline to register to vote in Georgia for the Jan. 5 election for any residents of the state who have not already registered, including voters who have just moved to Georgia. But under the Georgia Election Code, §21-2-217, you have to be an actual resident of the state to vote, not just a visitor.

Georgia law says that a voter cannot be in the state “for temporary purposes only without the intention of making [Georgia] such person’s permanent place of abode.” In other words, if you head to Georgia for the primary purpose of helping the candidates in the special election with no intention of actually staying in the state and living there, you are not eligible to register or vote.

Those who think they can get around this requirement by simply lying and asserting their intention to make Georgia their permanent abode should beware. Under the law, county registrars are given the authority to consider a long list of other factors that may contradict the “applicant’s expressed intent.”

These factors include an individual’s “business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes … leaseholds, sites of personal and real property owned by the applicant, motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that registrars may reasonably deem necessary to determine” the applicant’s legal residence for voting purposes.

And it is not just registrars. Under Georgia law, §21-2-230, any registered voter can challenge the eligibility of any other registrant in his or her county or municipality. So there is an entire army of grassroots Georgia voters out there who can be, and should be, on the lookout for out-of-staters registering to vote who falsely claim to live in their neighborhoods and their communities.

The Jan. 5 Senate races in Georgia are understandably capturing national attention, and both Republicans and Democrats are mounting major efforts to win the seats. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. But having out-of-state voters visit a state for a few weeks to masquerade as Georgia residents is not a democratic exercise—it’s a crime.

Anyone who visits Georgia temporarily and falsely claims to be a resident cheats the real residents of the state—no matter which side of the political aisle they favor—by interfering in their choice of who should represent them in Congress. There’s no justification for that, no matter how passionate you are about the outcome of an election.

Vote in your own home state when elections are held—not in the home state of others.

Originally published by Fox News

How Republicans pulled off a big upset and nearly took back the House

<img class=”i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder” src=”data:;base64,

(CNN)There seemed to be one safe bet when it came to the 2020 election results: Democrats would easily hold on to their majority in the House of Representatives. Not only that, but the conventional wisdom held that Democrats would pick up more than the 235 seats they won in the 2018 midterm elections.

While Democrats will have a majority next Congress, Republicans vastly outperformed expectations and nearly pulled off an election shocker.

As of this writing, CNN has projected that Democrats have won in 219 seats. Republicans have been projected the winners in 203 seats. There are 13 races outstanding, per CNN projections.

Of those 13, the Democratic candidates lead in a mere two of them. (One of these 13 is going to a runoff, where the Republicans are heavily favored to win.)

In other words, if every one of those 13 seats went to the party leading in them right now, Democrats would have 221 seats to the Republicans’ 214 seats in the next Congress.

Talk about a fairly close call for Democrats.

Now, Democrats may end up winning a few of the seats where they are currently trailing, but chances are they will end up at or south of 225 seats.

Compare that to what most quantitative forecasters who look at a slew of indicators predicted. Jack Kersting came the closest at 238 seats. FiveThirtyEight clocked in at 239 seats. The Economist modelpredicted that Democrats would win a median of 244 seats in their simulations.

While much attention was paid to the polling misses on the presidential level, they were more accurate by comparison. In the presidential race, the final polling averages got every state right, except for Florida and North Carolina.

Indeed, the forecasts for the presidential race were considerably better than for the House races. The race raters at the Crystal Ball, for example, got every state but North Carolina correct on the presidential level.

Any sort of shy Trump vote was far smaller than a potential shy House Republican vote.

Of course, the value of quantitative forecasts is that they don’t just provide one number. They provide the probability of different outcomes occurring.

In that regard, the Republican performance is even more astounding.

The Economist said there was less than a 1-in-100 chance Democrats would have 221 seats or fewer in the next Congress. The chance they would get 225 seats or fewer was 1-in-100.

FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Republicans a realistic, but still fairly low shot of what seems to have happened. The chance Democrats would earn 221 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-17, while the chance they’d have 225 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-10.

I should note that 1-in-10 probabilities happen all the time. There’s a reason something is a 1-in-10 chance and not 0%. That said, Republicans simply did better than what folks thought.

A large part of what happened was that the national political environment was more friendly to Republicans than what polls suggested. The final average of generic congressional ballot polls had Democrats ahead by 7 points nationally. Democrats are only ahead by 2 points in the national House vote right now. That may end up closer to 3 points once the votes are all tallied.

A 4- or 5-point miss is considerable.

If Democrats had done 5 points better in every race than they currently are doing, they’d be ahead in 239 seats. That, of course, is right in line with the forecasts.

A lot of these quantitative forecasts also rely upon House ratings from groups like the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and The Crystal Ball.

These too seemed to undersell Republican chances. Take the Cook Political Report ratings, which have historically been very good.

As of this writing, Republicans are leading in 27 of the 27 seats the Cook Political Report deemed toss-up before the election. They are ahead in all 26 of the seats that were deemed either leaning or likely Republican. Republicans are also leading in 7 of the 36 seats that were either leaning or likely to be taken by the Democrats.

That is, Republicans not only pretty much swept the tossups, but they marched into Democratic territory as well.

The Crystal Ball, which bravely has no tossups in its final rating, had Democrats net gaining 10 House seats. It will actually be the Republicans who will likely net gain 10 seats or more.

The end result of which is that Republicans are much closer to a House majority than we believed they would be after 2020 and have put themselves in a strong position heading into the 2022 midterms.

Where things stand in the House

The Democrats majority is shrinking and three dozen races have yet to be called

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s majority has shrunk in House, a shock to Democrats and pollsters who were projecting the California Democrat would expand her caucus after Tuesday’s election.

Democrats were optimistic they could flip roughly 10 seats but their expansion efforts came up short, especially in Texas, and they ended up losing seats in Flordia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and elsewhere.

DEM CAUCUS ERUPTS AS MEMBERS SAY PARTY’S LEFTWARD DRIFT HURT MODERATES IN ELECTION

As of 3 p.m. on Friday, Democrats had won 212 seats compared to Republicans’ 194. Another 29 races have yet to be called. Democrats had a net loss of four seats.

Outstanding races are in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere. When all those votes are counted, Republicans are optimistic their numbers could swell to 208 and beyond, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

What’s known is that Republicans have flipped at least seven seats from blue to red and an eighth seat in Michigan that was most recently occupied by a Libertarian. Here’s a snapshot of the GOP victories:

GOP gains in the House

–In Florida, Republican candidate Carlos Gimenez defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in the 26th district. Republican Maria Elvira Salazar defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala in the 27th district.

–In Oklahoma, Republican Stephanie Bice unseated freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn. Horn flipped the seat from red to blue last cycle.

— In South Carolina, freshman congressman Democrat Joe Cunningham was projected to lose his reelection to state GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, flipping South Carolina’s 1st District back to red.

— In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Fischbach ousted longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, toppling the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the most pro-Trump district held by a Democrat.

— In New Mexico, Republican Yvette Herrell defeated freshman Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a freshman Democrat who flipped the 2nd Congressional seat from red to blue in 2018.

— In Iowa’s First Congressional District, Republican state representative and former TV news anchor Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic incumbent Abby Finkenauer.

– In West Michigan, Republican Peter Meijer, an Iraq war veteran whose grandfather started Meijer superstores, defeated Democrat Hillary Scholten, a former Department of Justice and nonprofit lawyer. The Third Congressional District was open after Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, did not seek reelection.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW HOUSE RESULTS

Republicans say more victories are on the horizon

.

Party officials are most optimistic about reclaiming two seats in New York that Democrats flipped in 2018. Votes are still being counted but Republican Nicole Malliotakis has a notable lead over freshman Rep. Max Rose in the Staten Island-Brooklyn district. And former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney was also ahead in the 22nd District seat she lost two years ago to Rep. Anthony Brindisi.

Democrats have gained two open seats in North Carolina thanks to redrawn congressional maps that favored them and will welcome Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning to their caucus in January.

And Democrats flipped Georgia’s 7th Congressional District held by retiring Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux beat GOP candidate Rich McCormick in the suburban Atlanta district, the Associated Press called on Friday.

That means Democrats so far have a net loss of four seats in the House.

WHERE THINGS STAND: BATTLE FOR THE SENATE

Democrats think they can hold onto many close races that have not been called and have two other possible pick-up opportunities by defeating Rep. Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey and Rep. Mike Garcia in California.

On a call Thursday afternoon with Democratic House members, Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), expressed frustration with the polling and election forecasts that all pointed to House Democrats expanding their majority.

“I’m furious,” Bustos told her colleagues, according to a source familiar with the call. “Something went wrong here across the entire political world. Our polls, Senate polls, Gov polls, presidential polls, Republican polls, public polls, turnout modeling, and prognosticators all pointed to one political environment – that environment never materialized.”

I have written about the tremendous increase in the food stamp program the last 9 years before and that means that both President Obama and Bush were guilty of not trying to slow down it’s growth. Furthermore, Republicans have been some of the biggest supporters of the food stamp program. Milton Friedman had a good solution to help end the welfare state and wish more people would pay attention to it.   Growing government also encourages waste and hurt growth but more importantly it causes people to become dependent on the government as this article and cartoon below show.

My great fear is that the “social capital” of self reliance in America will slowly disappear and that the United States will turn into a European-style welfare state.

That’s the message in the famous “riding in the wagon” cartoons that went viral and became the most-viewed post on this blog.

Well, this Glenn McCoy cartoon has a similar theme.

Obama Voter Cartoon

The only thing I would change is that the rat would become a “pro-government voter” or “left-wing voter” instead of an “Obama voter.” Just like I wasn’t satisfied with an otherwise very good Chuck Asay cartoon showing the struggle between producers and moochers.

That’s for two reasons. First, I’m not partisan. My goal is to spread a message of liberty, not encourage people to vote for or against any candidate.

Second, I’ve been very critical of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t matter.

But I’m getting wonky. Enjoy the cartoon and feel free to share it widely.

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.

Related posts:

If increase in food stamps was just because of recession then why spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007?

If the increase in food stamps was just because of the recession then why did the spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007? The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm (7) Newscom A recent US News & […]

Tell the 48 million food stamps users to eat more broccoli!!!!

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed             Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ We got to slow down the growth of Food Stamps. One […]

Republicans for more food stamps?

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth __________________ We got to cut spending and we must first start with food stamp program and we need some Senators that are willing to make the tough cuts. Food Stamp Republicans Posted by Chris Edwards Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but […]

Obama promotes food stamps but Milton Friedman had a better suggestion

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they […]

400% increase in food stamps since 2000

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ If welfare increases as much as it has in the […]

Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration

The sad fact is that Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration. A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps Amy Payne May 21, 2013 at 7:01 am Tweet this Where do food stamps come from? They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually […]

Which states are the leaders in food stamp consumption?

I am glad that my state of Arkansas is not the leader in food stamps!!! Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which State Has the Highest Food Stamp Usage of All? March 19, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The food stamp program seems to be a breeding ground of waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the horror stories […]

Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting […]

Food Stamp Program is constantly ripped off and should be discontinued

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at http://oversight.house.gov The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]

 

How Republicans pulled off a big upset and nearly took back the House

How Republicans pulled off a big upset and nearly took back the House

<img class="i-amphtml-blurry-placeholder" src="data:;base64,

(CNN)There seemed to be one safe bet when it came to the 2020 election results: Democrats would easily hold on to their majority in the House of Representatives. Not only that, but the conventional wisdom held that Democrats would pick up more than the 235 seats they won in the 2018 midterm elections.

While Democrats will have a majority next Congress, Republicans vastly outperformed expectations and nearly pulled off an election shocker.

As of this writing, CNN has projected that Democrats have won in 219 seats. Republicans have been projected the winners in 203 seats. There are 13 races outstanding, per CNN projections.

Of those 13, the Democratic candidates lead in a mere two of them. (One of these 13 is going to a runoff, where the Republicans are heavily favored to win.)

In other words, if every one of those 13 seats went to the party leading in them right now, Democrats would have 221 seats to the Republicans’ 214 seats in the next Congress.

Talk about a fairly close call for Democrats.

Now, Democrats may end up winning a few of the seats where they are currently trailing, but chances are they will end up at or south of 225 seats.

Compare that to what most quantitative forecasters who look at a slew of indicators predicted. Jack Kersting came the closest at 238 seats. FiveThirtyEight clocked in at 239 seats. The Economist modelpredicted that Democrats would win a median of 244 seats in their simulations.

While much attention was paid to the polling misses on the presidential level, they were more accurate by comparison. In the presidential race, the final polling averages got every state right, except for Florida and North Carolina.

Indeed, the forecasts for the presidential race were considerably better than for the House races. The race raters at the Crystal Ball, for example, got every state but North Carolina correct on the presidential level.

Any sort of shy Trump vote was far smaller than a potential shy House Republican vote.

Of course, the value of quantitative forecasts is that they don’t just provide one number. They provide the probability of different outcomes occurring.

In that regard, the Republican performance is even more astounding.

The Economist said there was less than a 1-in-100 chance Democrats would have 221 seats or fewer in the next Congress. The chance they would get 225 seats or fewer was 1-in-100.

FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Republicans a realistic, but still fairly low shot of what seems to have happened. The chance Democrats would earn 221 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-17, while the chance they’d have 225 seats or fewer was approximately 1-in-10.

I should note that 1-in-10 probabilities happen all the time. There’s a reason something is a 1-in-10 chance and not 0%. That said, Republicans simply did better than what folks thought.

A large part of what happened was that the national political environment was more friendly to Republicans than what polls suggested. The final average of generic congressional ballot polls had Democrats ahead by 7 points nationally. Democrats are only ahead by 2 points in the national House vote right now. That may end up closer to 3 points once the votes are all tallied.

A 4- or 5-point miss is considerable.

If Democrats had done 5 points better in every race than they currently are doing, they’d be ahead in 239 seats. That, of course, is right in line with the forecasts.

A lot of these quantitative forecasts also rely upon House ratings from groups like the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and The Crystal Ball.

These too seemed to undersell Republican chances. Take the Cook Political Report ratings, which have historically been very good.

As of this writing, Republicans are leading in 27 of the 27 seats the Cook Political Report deemed toss-up before the election. They are ahead in all 26 of the seats that were deemed either leaning or likely Republican. Republicans are also leading in 7 of the 36 seats that were either leaning or likely to be taken by the Democrats.

That is, Republicans not only pretty much swept the tossups, but they marched into Democratic territory as well.

The Crystal Ball, which bravely has no tossups in its final rating, had Democrats net gaining 10 House seats. It will actually be the Republicans who will likely net gain 10 seats or more.

The end result of which is that Republicans are much closer to a House majority than we believed they would be after 2020 and have put themselves in a strong position heading into the 2022 midterms.

Where things stand in the House

The Democrats majority is shrinking and three dozen races have yet to be called

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s majority has shrunk in House, a shock to Democrats and pollsters who were projecting the California Democrat would expand her caucus after Tuesday’s election.

Democrats were optimistic they could flip roughly 10 seats but their expansion efforts came up short, especially in Texas, and they ended up losing seats in Flordia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and elsewhere.

DEM CAUCUS ERUPTS AS MEMBERS SAY PARTY’S LEFTWARD DRIFT HURT MODERATES IN ELECTION

As of 3 p.m. on Friday, Democrats had won 212 seats compared to Republicans’ 194. Another 29 races have yet to be called. Democrats had a net loss of four seats.

Outstanding races are in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere. When all those votes are counted, Republicans are optimistic their numbers could swell to 208 and beyond, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

What’s known is that Republicans have flipped at least seven seats from blue to red and an eighth seat in Michigan that was most recently occupied by a Libertarian. Here’s a snapshot of the GOP victories:

GOP gains in the House

–In Florida, Republican candidate Carlos Gimenez defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in the 26th district. Republican Maria Elvira Salazar defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala in the 27th district.

–In Oklahoma, Republican Stephanie Bice unseated freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn. Horn flipped the seat from red to blue last cycle.

— In South Carolina, freshman congressman Democrat Joe Cunningham was projected to lose his reelection to state GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, flipping South Carolina’s 1st District back to red.

— In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Fischbach ousted longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, toppling the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the most pro-Trump district held by a Democrat.

— In New Mexico, Republican Yvette Herrell defeated freshman Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a freshman Democrat who flipped the 2nd Congressional seat from red to blue in 2018.

— In Iowa’s First Congressional District, Republican state representative and former TV news anchor Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic incumbent Abby Finkenauer.

– In West Michigan, Republican Peter Meijer, an Iraq war veteran whose grandfather started Meijer superstores, defeated Democrat Hillary Scholten, a former Department of Justice and nonprofit lawyer. The Third Congressional District was open after Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, did not seek reelection.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW HOUSE RESULTS

Republicans say more victories are on the horizon

.

Party officials are most optimistic about reclaiming two seats in New York that Democrats flipped in 2018. Votes are still being counted but Republican Nicole Malliotakis has a notable lead over freshman Rep. Max Rose in the Staten Island-Brooklyn district. And former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney was also ahead in the 22nd District seat she lost two years ago to Rep. Anthony Brindisi.

Democrats have gained two open seats in North Carolina thanks to redrawn congressional maps that favored them and will welcome Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning to their caucus in January.

And Democrats flipped Georgia’s 7th Congressional District held by retiring Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux beat GOP candidate Rich McCormick in the suburban Atlanta district, the Associated Press called on Friday.

That means Democrats so far have a net loss of four seats in the House.

WHERE THINGS STAND: BATTLE FOR THE SENATE

Democrats think they can hold onto many close races that have not been called and have two other possible pick-up opportunities by defeating Rep. Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey and Rep. Mike Garcia in California.

On a call Thursday afternoon with Democratic House members, Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), expressed frustration with the polling and election forecasts that all pointed to House Democrats expanding their majority.

“I’m furious,” Bustos told her colleagues, according to a source familiar with the call. “Something went wrong here across the entire political world. Our polls, Senate polls, Gov polls, presidential polls, Republican polls, public polls, turnout modeling, and prognosticators all pointed to one political environment – that environment never materialized.”

I have written about the tremendous increase in the food stamp program the last 9 years before and that means that both President Obama and Bush were guilty of not trying to slow down it’s growth. Furthermore, Republicans have been some of the biggest supporters of the food stamp program. Milton Friedman had a good solution to help end the welfare state and wish more people would pay attention to it.   Growing government also encourages waste and hurt growth but more importantly it causes people to become dependent on the government as this article and cartoon below show.

My great fear is that the “social capital” of self reliance in America will slowly disappear and that the United States will turn into a European-style welfare state.

That’s the message in the famous “riding in the wagon” cartoons that went viral and became the most-viewed post on this blog.

Well, this Glenn McCoy cartoon has a similar theme.

Obama Voter Cartoon

The only thing I would change is that the rat would become a “pro-government voter” or “left-wing voter” instead of an “Obama voter.” Just like I wasn’t satisfied with an otherwise very good Chuck Asay cartoon showing the struggle between producers and moochers.

That’s for two reasons. First, I’m not partisan. My goal is to spread a message of liberty, not encourage people to vote for or against any candidate.

Second, I’ve been very critical of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t matter.

But I’m getting wonky. Enjoy the cartoon and feel free to share it widely.

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.

Related posts:

If increase in food stamps was just because of recession then why spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007?

If the increase in food stamps was just because of the recession then why did the spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007? The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm (7) Newscom A recent US News & […]

Tell the 48 million food stamps users to eat more broccoli!!!!

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed             Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ We got to slow down the growth of Food Stamps. One […]

Republicans for more food stamps?

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth __________________ We got to cut spending and we must first start with food stamp program and we need some Senators that are willing to make the tough cuts. Food Stamp Republicans Posted by Chris Edwards Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but […]

Obama promotes food stamps but Milton Friedman had a better suggestion

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they […]

400% increase in food stamps since 2000

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ If welfare increases as much as it has in the […]

Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration

The sad fact is that Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration. A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps Amy Payne May 21, 2013 at 7:01 am Tweet this Where do food stamps come from? They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually […]

Which states are the leaders in food stamp consumption?

I am glad that my state of Arkansas is not the leader in food stamps!!! Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which State Has the Highest Food Stamp Usage of All? March 19, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The food stamp program seems to be a breeding ground of waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the horror stories […]

Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting […]

Food Stamp Program is constantly ripped off and should be discontinued

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at http://oversight.house.gov The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]

 

My rough draft letter to President Elect Biden that will be mailed on April 4, 2021! Thomas Sowell on Milton Friedman

Bob Chitester Discusses Milton Friedman and ‘Free to Choose’

Published on Jul 30, 2012 by

“There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people.”

That is how former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan described the Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. But it is not for his technical work in monetary economics that Friedman is best known. Like mathematician Jacob Bronowski and astronomer Carl Sagan, Friedman had a gift for communicating complex ideas to a general audience.

It was this gift that brought him to the attention of filmmaker Bob Chitester. At Chitester’s urging, Friedman agreed to make a 10 part documentary series explaining the power of economic freedom. It was called “Free to Choose,” and became one of the most watched documentaries in history.

The series not only reached audiences in liberal democracies, but was smuggled behind the iron curtain where it played, in secret, to large audiences. Reflecting on its impact, Czech president Vaclav Klaus has said: “For us, who lived in the communist world, Milton Friedman was the greatest champion of freedom, of limited and unobtrusive government and of free markets. Because of him I became a true believer in the unrestricted market economy.”

July 31st, 2012 is the 100th anniversary of Friedman’s birth. To commemorate that occasion, we’d like to share an interview with “Free to Choose” producer Bob Chitester. Like this interview, the entire series can now be viewed on-line at no cost at http://www.freetochoose.tv/, thanks to the incredible technological progress brought about by the economic freedom that Milton Friedman celebrated.

Produced by Andrew Coulson, Caleb O. Brown, Austin Bragg, and Lou Richards, with help from the Free to Choose Network.

_____________

April 4, 2021

President Biden  c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We got to stop spending so much money on the federal level. It will bankrupt us. I remember back in 1980 when I really started getting into the material of Milton Friedman as a result of reading his articles in Newsweek and reading his book “Free to Choose,” I really did get facts and figures to back on the view that we need more freedom giving back to us and the government needs to spend less.

As a result of Friedman’s writings I was able to discuss these issues with my fellow students at the university and by the time the 1980 election came around I had been attending political rallies and went out and worked hard for Ronald Reagan’s election. In this article below Dr. Thomas Sowell (who was featured twice in the film “Free to Choose”) notes how much influence Milton Friedman had on the election outcome in 1980:

Milton Friedman at 90

by Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California.

Added to cato.org on July 25, 2002

This article originally appeared on TownHall.com, July 25, 2002.

Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday on July 31st provides an occasion to think back on his role as the pre-eminent economist of the 20th century. To those of us who were privileged to be his students, he also stands out as a great teacher.

When I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, back in 1959, one day I was waiting outside Professor Friedman’s office when another graduate student passed by. He noticed my exam paper on my lap and exclaimed: “You got a B?”

“Yes,” I said. “Is that bad?”

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California.

“There were only two B’s in the whole class,” he replied.

“How many A’s?” I asked.

“There were no A’s!”

Today, this kind of grading might be considered to represent a “tough love” philosophy of teaching. I don’t know about love, but it was certainly tough.

Professor Friedman also did not let students arrive late at his lectures and distract the class by their entrance. Once I arrived a couple of minutes late for class and had to turn around and go back to the dormitory.

All the way back, I thought about the fact that I would be held responsible for what was said in that lecture, even though I never heard it. Thereafter, I was always in my seat when Milton Friedman walked in to give his lecture.

On a term paper, I wrote that either (a) this would happen or (b) that would happen. Professor Friedman wrote in the margin: “Or (c) your analysis is wrong.”

“Where was my analysis wrong?” I asked him.

“I didn’t say your analysis was wrong,” he replied. “I just wanted you to keep that possibility in mind.”

Perhaps the best way to summarize all this is to say that Milton Friedman is a wonderful human being — especially outside the classroom. It has been a much greater pleasure to listen to his lectures in later years, after I was no longer going to be quizzed on them, and a special pleasure to appear on a couple of television programs with him and to meet him on social occasions.

Milton Friedman’s enduring legacy will long outlast the memories of his students and extends beyond the field of economics. John Maynard Keynes was the reigning demi-god among economists when Friedman’s career began, and Friedman himself was at first a follower of Keynesian doctrines and liberal politics.

Yet no one did more to dismantle both Keynesian economics and liberal welfare-state thinking. As late as the 1950s, those with the prevailing Keynesian orthodoxy were still able to depict Milton Friedman as a fringe figure, clinging to an outmoded way of thinking. But the intellectual power of his ideas, the fortitude with which he persevered, and the ever more apparent failures of Keynesian analyses and policies, began to change all that, even before Professor Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.

A towering intellect seldom goes together with practical wisdom, or perhaps even common sense. However, Milton Friedman not only excelled in the scholarly journals but also on the television screen, presenting the basics of economics in a way that the general public could understand.

His mini-series “Free to Choose” was a classic that made economic principles clear to all with living examples. His good nature and good humor also came through in a way that attracted and held an audience.

Although Friedrich Hayek launched the first major challenge to the prevailing thinking behind the welfare state and socialism with his 1944 book “The Road to Serfdom,” Milton Friedman became the dominant intellectual force among those who turned back the leftward tide in what had seemed to be the wave of the future.

Without Milton Friedman’s role in changing the minds of so many Americans, it is hard to imagine how Ronald Reagan could have been elected president.

Nor was Friedman’s influence confined to the United States. His ideas reached around the world, not only among economists, but also in political circles which began to understand why left-wing ideas that sounded so good produced results that were so bad.

Milton Friedman rates a 21-gun salute on his birthday. Or perhaps a 90-gun salute would be more appropriate.

________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733

Williams with Sowell – Minimum Wage

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell – Reducing Black Unemployment

By WALTER WILLIAMS

—-

Ronald Reagan with Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 2-5

Article by Daniel Mitchell of Center for Freedom and Prosperity “The Case Against Biden’s Class-Warfare Tax Policy, Part I”

__________

The Case Against Biden’s Class-Warfare Tax Policy, Part I

During the campaign, Joe Biden proposed a massive tax increase, far beyond what either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton put forth when they ran for the White House.

Some people speculate that Biden isn’t actually that radical, and that his class-warfare agenda was simply a tactic to fend off Bernie Sanders, so it will be interesting to see how much of his political platform winds up as actual legislative proposals in 2021.

That being said, we can safely assume three things.

  1. Biden will propose higher taxes.
  2. Those tax increases will target upper-income taxpayers such as entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners.
  3. Those tax increases will be a very bad idea.

The main argument that Biden and his supporters will use to justify such a plan is that “rich” taxpayers are not paying their fair share.

More specifically, we’ll be told that upper-income households are not pulling their weight thanks to the cumulative impact of the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Trump tax cuts.

There’s just one problem with this argument. As shown by this multi-decade data from Brian Riedl’s chartbook, it’s wildly, completely, and utterly inaccurate. The richest 20 percent are now shouldering a much greater share of the tax burden.

Every other group, by contrast, is now paying a smaller share of the tax burden.

Some folks on the left assert that the above chart is misleading. They say the chart merely shows that the rich have been getting richer and everyone else is falling behind.

The solution, they argue, is to catch up with the rest of the world by making the tax system more “progressive.”

Their assertions about income trends are wrong, but let’s leave that for another day and focus on so-called progressivity.

Once again, Riedl’s chartbook is the go-to source. As shown in this chart, it turns out that rich people pay a higher share than their counterparts in every other developed nation.

Please notice, by the way, the additional explanation in the lower-left portion of the chart, The numbers displayed do not include the value-added taxes that are imposed by every other nation, which are regressive or proportional depending on the time horizon. This means that the overall American tax code is far more tilted against the rich than shown by this chart.

But the key point to understand, as I’ve noted before, is that difference between Europe and the United States is not the taxation of the rich. The real reason that America has the most progressive tax system is that European nations impose much heavier taxes on lower-income and middle-class taxpayers.

P.S. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is not desirable since class-warfare taxes generally cause the most economic damageon a per-dollar-collected basis.

P.P.S. It’s also worth remembering that higher tax rates on the rich don’t necessarily lead to higher tax revenues.

—-

Everything You Need to Know about Entitlement Reform

Most people have a vague understanding that America has a huge long-run fiscal problem.

They’re right, though they probably don’t realize the seriousness of that looming crisis.

Here’s what you need to know: America’s fiscal crisis is actually a spending crisis, and that spending crisis is driven by entitlements.

More specifically, the vast majority of the problem is the result of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, programs that are poorly designed and unsustainable.

America needs to fix these programs…or eventually become another Greece.

Fortunately, all of the problems can be solved, as these three videos demonstrate.

The first video explains how to fix Medicaid.

The second video shows how to fix Medicare.

And the final video shows how to fix Social Security.

Regular readers know I’m fairly gloomy about the future of liberty, but this is one area where there is a glimmer of hope.

The Chairman of the House Budget Committee actually put together a plan that addresses the two biggest problems (Medicare and Medicaid) and the House of Representatives actually adopted the proposal.

The Senate didn’t act, of course, and Obama would veto any good legislation anyhow, so I don’t want to be crazy optimistic. Depending on how things play out politically in the next six years, I’ll say there’s actually a 20 percent chance to save America.

Milton Friedman congratulated by President Ronald Reagan. © 2008 Free To Choose Media, courtesy of the Power of Choice press kit

Reaganomics generated much better results than Obamanomics. Milton Friedman had a lot to do with the success of Reagan.

The No-Comparison Comparison of Reagan v Obama

Have you ever wondered why, in a hypothetical match-up, the American people would elect Ronald Reagan over Barack Obama in a landslide?

And have you ever wondered why Americans rate Reagan as the best post-WWII President and put Obama in last place?

There are probably a couple of reasons for these polling numbers, but I suspect one reason for the gap is that Reaganomics generated much better results than Obamanomics.

I’ve already made this point using data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, but today we’re going to look at some updated information from Tom Blumer, who put together a strong indictment of Obama’s record for PJ Media.

He points out that both Reagan and Obama inherited very weak economies. But that’s where the similarity ends. Reagan pushed an agenda of free markets and small government while Obama doubled down on Bush’s statism.

The results, he explains, confirm that big government is the problem rather than solution.

Obama’s economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and “stimulate” job growth.  The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nation’s unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal government’s regulatory apparatus to harass the economy’s productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur. On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagan’s post-recession economy — an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent — did just that.

Those are strong words, but I think the accompanying graphics are even more persuasive.

Here’s a chart comparing post-recession growth for both Presidents.

And here’s the data on jobs, including breakdown of private-sector employment gains.

And here are the numbers for median household income. Once again, Obama is presiding over dismal numbers, particularly when compared to the Gipper.

What’s especially ironic, as I explained back in March, is that rich people are the only ones who have experienced income gains during the Obama years.

So Obama claims that his class-warfare policy is designed to hurt the wealthy, but the rest of us are the ones actually paying the price.

Let’s look at one final chart.

These poverty numbers weren’t included in the article, but I think they’re worth sharing because you can see that both the poverty rate and the number of Americans in poverty fell once Reagan’s policies took effect in the early 1980s. Under Obama, by contrast, the best we can say is that the numbers aren’t getting worse.

One final point, I imagine that some leftists will argue that Mr. Blumer is being unfair by looking only at Reagan’s post-1982-recession numbers.

That’s a fair point…but only if you think that the recession was caused by Reagan’s policies. Like most economists, I disagree with that accusation. The recession almost certainly was an unavoidable consequences of inflationary monetary policy in the 1970s.

Indeed, Reagan deserves special praise for his willingness to endure short-term pain in order to address that problem and set the stage for future prosperity. Obama, by contrast, wants continued money printing by the Fed in hopes that easy money can cure problems caused by easy money.

As you might imagine, I’m skeptical about that approach.

P.S. Here’s some snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling Obama.

_____________

Related posts:

Sanctity of life Sunday March today in Little Rock at 2pm downtown!!!! (Remembering Ronald Reagan’s pro-life speeches)

President Reagan’s Remarks at The Annual National Prayer Breakfast on February 4,  1984 (discusses prayer)   President Reagan’s Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in Dallas, Texas on August 23, 1984 (Compares US founding to French Revolution and shows different results) Uploaded on Jan 4, 2011 President Reagan’s Remarks at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast in […]

“Friedman Friday” Friedman helped get Ronald Reagan elected

Bob Chitester Discusses Milton Friedman and ‘Free to Choose’ Published on Jul 30, 2012 by LibertarianismDotOrg “There are very few people over the generations who have ideas that are sufficiently original to materially alter the direction of civilization. Milton is one of those very few people.” That is how former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan […]

Ronald Reagan Republicans will win big in 2014 like they did in 1980’s

Some people doubt that Ronald Reagan conservatism still works today like it did in the 1980’s and that those kind of conservatives can still win today but they can!!!! Question of the Week: What’s My Take on “Reform Conservatism”? June 2, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Among the right-leaning policy wonks and intellectuals in Washington, there’s a lot […]

Are the Republicans in Arkansas true Tea Party Ronald Reagan Republicans?

Ronald Reagan said, “We will never compromise our principles and standards.” Are the Republicans in Arkansas true Tea Party Ronald Reagan Republicans? According to Americans for Prosperity in the last 5 years Arkansas’ current Medicaid program has run a deficit of a billion dollars. Why expand it willingly with Obama? The “Do Nothing” expansion plan increases […]

Barack Obama would lose badly to Ronald Reagan!!!

Barack Obama would lose badly to Ronald Reagan!!! The Spirit of Reagan Is Still With Us: The Gipper Crushes Obama in Hypothetical Matchup April 13, 2013 by Dan Mitchell Barack Obama has stated that he wants to be like Reagan, at least in the sense of wanting to be a transformational figure. But almost certainly he has […]

“Friedman Friday” Transcript and video of Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (Part 2)

Below is a discussion from Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. February 10, 1999 | Recorded on February 10, 1999 audio, video, and blogs » uncommon knowledge PRESIDENTIAL REPORT CARD: Milton Friedman on the State of the Union with guest Milton Friedman Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Nobel Laureate in […]

“Friedman Friday” Transcript and video of Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan (Part 1)

Below is a discussion from Milton Friedman on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. February 10, 1999 | Recorded on February 10, 1999 audio, video, and blogs » uncommon knowledge PRESIDENTIAL REPORT CARD: Milton Friedman on the State of the Union with guest Milton Friedman Milton Friedman, Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution and Nobel Laureate in […]

Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers

I really enjoyed this article. A Constitutional President: Ronald Reagan and the Founding By Edwin Meese III , Lee Edwards, Ph.D. , James C. Miller III and Steven Hayward January 26, 2012 Abstract: Throughout his presidency, Ronald Reagan was guided by the principles of the American founding, especially the idea of ordered liberty. In the opening of his first inaugural address in 1981, […]

March for Life March in Little Rock on Jan 20, 2013!!!Ronald Reagan’s videos and pictures displayed here on the www.thedailyhatch.org

Ronald Reagan was the greatest pro-life president ever. He appointed Dr. C. Everett Koop to his administration and Dr. Koop was responsible for this outstanding pro-life film below: I was thinking about the March for Life that is coming up on Jan 20, 2013 in Little Rock and that is why I posted this today. […]

Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract

1/30/84 Part 1 of a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters. June 10, 2004, 10:30 a.m. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract. EDITOR’S NOTE: While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. It ran in the Review‘s Spring 1983, issue and is reprinted here with permission. The case […]

______________

No Longer the Democratic Party of JFK

No Longer the Democratic Party of JFK

Star Parker @UrbanCURE / November 13, 2020 /22 Comments

Today, speaking about the ideals of America’s founding as President John F. Kennedy did opens one up to being called a racist. Pictured: Kennedy relaxes in his trademark rocking chair in the Oval Office Jan. 1, 1960. (Photo: CORBIS/Corbis/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Star Parker@UrbanCURE

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.

In this current era of no compulsory military service, Veterans Day takes on personal meaning to fewer and fewer Americans.

When the country transitioned to a voluntary military in 1973, about 1% of the population served on active duty. Today, it is less than one-half of 1%.

But perhaps we can take it further and say that the idea of compulsory service of any kind has personal meaning to fewer and fewer Americans.

This brings to mind the famous words of newly elected President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address, on Jan. 20, 1961, 60 years before our next president will be administered the oath of office, in January 2021.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Kennedy said, “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

Reading over Kennedy’s words from that time, one can barely recognize the country he was speaking to. Nor is Kennedy’s Democratic Party, whose mantle he carried, recognizable compared with what it has become today.

Today, amid the politics of blame, grievance, and victimhood, it has been all but forgotten that the Democratic Party once delivered a president who spoke about national service and self-sacrifice.

Here’s how Kennedy opened that address: “The world is very different now. … And yet, the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”

When Kennedy spoke those words, in public school, American children were still allowed to read from the Bible and pray.

Abortion was illegal.

Seventy-five percent of American adults ages 18 and above were married, compared with 50% today.

A little over 5% of American babies were born to unwed mothers, compared with over 40% today.

The national debt stood at 53% of the gross domestic product, or GDP. The Congressional Budget Office projects national debt will reach 98% of GDP this year, 107% of GDP by 2023 (the highest in the nation’s history), and 195% by 2050.

The legislation that most defined Kennedy’s short presidency was one of the most sweeping cuts of taxes in American history. Marginal tax rates were cut 30% over two years, and corporate tax rates were reduced.

The result was a surge in the economy and revenues to the federal government. As reported by Cato Institute scholar Alan Reynolds, federal revenues rose 29% over the four years following those tax cuts.

Did the United States have problems in 1960? Of course. We know about the racial problems. It was not until 1964 that the Civil Rights Act was passed.

But failure to live up to ideals is a problem in man, not in the ideals.

Today, speaking about the ideals of America’s founding—speaking about one free nation under God, as Kennedy did—opens one up to being called a racist.

America’s minorities today constitute America’s future. Fifty-nine percent of minorities are under the age of 37. Forty-three percent of the white population is under 37.

These nonwhite Americans will inherit a country strapped with staggering debt, a country of broken families, a country that is aging due to diminishing birth rates, a country of sluggish economic growth due to big government and socialism.

Black and Hispanic Americans should think about whether this is the country they really want for their children and grandchildren. Or whether they would prefer the ideals of one nation under God, the founding ideals that Kennedy talked about, where individuals seek personal responsibility to build and be part of and serve something greater than themselves.

In other words, whether they really want to be free.

—-

Top liberals say Democrats should move to Georgia to help Senate candidates win

“Felony to vote in Georgia elections if you are not a legal resident or if you are residing in the state briefly with the intention just to vote “
 
 
 

Some top liberals are suggesting that Democrats move to Georgia so they can vote in the upcoming runoffs to pick two U.S. senators, hoping they can change the outcome of the elections.

“The best thing we could do for Joe is to get him a Democratic Senate,” former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang wrote on Twitter. “There should be coordination of resources. Everyone who campaigned for Joe should get ready to head to Georgia. I’ll go. It’s the only way to sideline Mitch and give Joe a unified government,” he wrote, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden.

“There isn’t much time,” Yang added. “The earliest date for absentee ballots to be mailed for the runoff is Nov. 18. The registration deadline is Dec. 7. The In-person early voting begins Dec. 14.”

With Republican Dan Sullivan winning the Senate race Alaska on Wednesday, the GOP now hold an edge in the Senate 50-48.

The other two seats are both in Georgia. Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue holds just below 50% of the vote in the state over Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff. In the state, winners must top 50% or the race goes into a runoff, set for Jan. 5. Also that day, a special election between Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler and Democrat Raphael Warnock for the state’s other Senate seat will be held.

Yang isn’t the only one urging Democrats to move to Georgia. “I hope everyone moves to Georgia in the next month or two, registers to vote, and votes for these two Democratic senators,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said in a CNN interview this week.

window.dicnf = {};(function(){/* Copyright The Closure Library Authors. SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 */ ‘use strict’;var n=this||self,p=”closure_uid_”+(1E9*Math.random()>>>0),ca=0;function v(a){v[” “](a);return a}v[” “]=function(){};var da=(a,b)=>”&adurl=”==a.substring(a.length-7)?a.substring(0,a.length-7)+b+”&adurl=”:a+b;let x=n.dicnf||{};class ea{constructor(a,b){this.error=a;this.context=b.context;this.msg=b.message||””;this.id=b.id||”jserror”;this.meta={}}};function fa(a,b,c){a.addEventListener&&a.addEventListener(b,c,!1)};var ha=/^(?:([^:/?#.]+):)?(?://(?:([^\/?#]*)@)?([^\/?#]*?)(?::([0-9]+))?(?=[\/?#]|$))?([^?#]+)?(?:?([^#]*))?(?:#([sS]*))?$/;function y(a){try{var b;if(b=!!a&&null!=a.location.href)a:{try{v(a.foo);b=!0;break a}catch(c){}b=!1}return b}catch(c){return!1}}function ia(a,b){if(a)for(const c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b.call(void 0,a[c],c,a)}let z=[];const B=()=>{const a=z;z=[];for(const b of a)try{b()}catch(c){}}; var ja=(a,b)=>{“complete”===a.readyState||”interactive”===a.readyState?(z.push(b),1==z.length&&(window.Promise?Promise.resolve().then(B):window.setImmediate?setImmediate(B):setTimeout(B,0))):a.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,b)};const E=[“FRAME”,”IMG”,”IFRAME”],ka=/^[01](px)?$/;function la(a){return”IMG”!=a.tagName||!a.complete||a.naturalWidth&&a.naturalHeight?ka.test(a.getAttribute(“width”))&&ka.test(a.getAttribute(“height”)):!0} function ma(a,b){var c;if(a=”string”===typeof a?document.getElementById(a):a){c||(c=(l,q,r)=>{l.addEventListener(q,r)});var d=!1,g=l=>{d||(d=!0,b(l))};for(var e=0;e<E.length;++e)if(E[e]==a.tagName){var f=3;var m=[a];break}m||(m=a.querySelectorAll(E.join(“,”)),f=2);var k=0;a=!1;for(e=0;e{k–;k||g(f)}))}}m=null;if(0===k&&!a&&”complete”===n.document.readyState)f=5;else if(k||!a){c(n,”load”,()=>{g(4)});return}g(f)}};function na(a){const b=a.length;let c=0;return new F(d=>{if(0==b)d([]);else{const g=[];for(let e=0;e{g[e]=f;++c==b&&d(g)})}})}function oa(){let a;const b=new F(c=>{a=c});return new pa(b,a)}function G(a,b){new F(c=>{qa(a,d=>{c(b(d))})})}function ra(a,b){if(!a.b)if(b instanceof F)G(b,c=>{ra(a,c)});else{a.b=!0;a.c=b;for(b=0;b{ra(this,b)})}} var pa=class{constructor(a,b){this.promise=a;this.a=b}};function H(a){return{visible:1,hidden:2,prerender:3,preview:4,unloaded:5}[a.visibilityState||a.webkitVisibilityState||a.mozVisibilityState||””]||0}function sa(a){let b;a.visibilityState?b=”visibilitychange”:a.mozVisibilityState?b=”mozvisibilitychange”:a.webkitVisibilityState&&(b=”webkitvisibilitychange”);return b};function I(a,b){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);const c=a.document.createElement(“img”);c.src=b;a.google_image_requests.push(c)};let J=null;function ta(a,b){/(google|doubleclick).*/pagead/adview/.test(b)&&(b=da(b,`&vis=${H(a.a)}`));G(a.c,()=>{var c=a.f,d=b;if(x.atsb){var g;if(g=c.navigator)g=c.navigator.userAgent,g=/Chrome/.test(g)&&!/Edge/.test(g)?!0:!1;g&&c.navigator.sendBeacon?c.navigator.sendBeacon(d):I(c,d)}else I(c,d)})}function ua(a){const b=[];if(x.umi){const c=new F(d=>{a.b=d});b.push(c)}if(x.ebrpfa){const c=oa();b.push(c.promise);ja(a.a,()=>{ma(a.a.body,c.a)})}3==H(a.a)&&3==H(a.a)&&b.push(va(a));a.c=na(b)} function va(a){return new F(b=>{const c=sa(a.a);if(c){var d=()=>{if(3!=H(a.a)){var g=a.a;g.removeEventListener&&g.removeEventListener(c,d,!1);b()}};J&&(d=J(521,d));fa(a.a,c,d)}})}class K{constructor(){this.a=n.document;this.f=n;this.b=null;ua(this)}}(function(){var a=K;a.g=void 0;a.i=function(){return a.g?a.g:a.g=new a}})();let L=0;var Aa=document,M=window;var Ba={};var Ca=class{},Da=class extends Ca{constructor(a){super();if(Ba!==Ba)throw Error(“Bad secret”);this.a=a}toString(){return this.a}};new Da(“about:blank”);new Da(“about:invalid#zTSz”);var Ea=!!window.google_async_iframe_id;let N=Ea&&window.parent||window;const Fa=/^https?://(w|-)+.cdn.ampproject.(net|org)(?|/|$)/;var Ga=class{constructor(a,b){this.a=a;this.b=b}},Ha=class{constructor(a,b){this.url=a;this.j=!!b;this.depth=null}};function O(a,b){const c={};c[a]=b;return[c]}function Ia(a,b,c,d,g){const e=[];ia(a,function(f,m){(f=Ja(f,b,c,d,g))&&e.push(m+”=”+f)});return e.join(b)} function Ja(a,b,c,d,g){if(null==a)return””;b=b||”&”;c=c||”,$”;”string”==typeof c&&(c=c.split(“”));if(a instanceof Array){if(d=d||0,d<c.length){const e=[];for(let f=0;fg?encodeURIComponent(Ia(a,b,c,d,g+1)):”…”;return encodeURIComponent(String(a))}function Ka(a){let b=1;for(const c in a.b)b=c.length>b?c.length:b;return 3997-b-a.c.length-1} function La(a,b,c){b=b+”//pagead2.googlesyndication.com”+c;let d=Ka(a)-c.length;if(0>d)return””;a.a.sort(function(e,f){return e-f});c=null;let g=””;for(let e=0;e<a.a.length;e++){const f=a.a[e],m=a.b[f];for(let k=0;k=h.length){d-=h.length;b+=h;g=a.c;break}c=null==c?f:c}}}a=””;null!=c&&(a=g+”trn=”+c);return b+a}class P{constructor(){this.c=”&”;this.b={};this.f=0;this.a=[]}};function Ma(a,b,c,d,g){if((d?a.a:Math.random()){var h=e,l=h.f++;m=O(k,m);h.a.push(l);h.b[l]=m}));const f=La(e,a.b,”/pagead/gen_204?id=”+b+”&”);f&&I(n,f)}catch(e){}}class Na{constructor(){this.b=”http:”===M.location.protocol?”http:”:”https:”;this.a=Math.random()}};let Q=null;var Oa=()=>{const a=n.performance;return a&&a.now&&a.timing?Math.floor(a.now()+a.timing.navigationStart):Date.now()},Pa=()=>{const a=n.performance;return a&&a.now?a.now():null};class Qa{constructor(a,b){var c=Pa()||Oa();this.label=a;this.type=b;this.value=c;this.duration=0;this.uniqueId=Math.random();this.slotId=void 0}};const R=n.performance,Ra=!!(R&&R.mark&&R.measure&&R.clearMarks),S=function(a){let b=!1,c;return function(){b||(c=a(),b=!0);return c}}(()=>{var a;if(a=Ra){var b;if(null===Q){Q=””;try{a=””;try{a=n.top.location.hash}catch(c){a=n.location.hash}a&&(Q=(b=a.match(/bdeid=([d,]+)/))?b[1]:””)}catch(c){}}b=Q;a=!!b.indexOf&&0Math.random())}start(a,b){if(!this.a)return null;a=new Qa(a,b);b=`goog_${a.label}_${a.uniqueId}_start`;R&&S()&&R.mark(b);return a}};function U(a){let b=a.toString();a.name&&-1==b.indexOf(a.name)&&(b+=”: “+a.name);a.message&&-1==b.indexOf(a.message)&&(b+=”: “+a.message);if(a.stack){a=a.stack;try{-1==a.indexOf(b)&&(a=b+”n”+a);let c;for(;a!=c;)c=a,a=a.replace(/((https?:/..*/)[^/:]*:d+(?:.|n)*)2/,”$1″);b=a.replace(/n */g,”n”)}catch(c){}}return b} function Ua(a,b,c,d){let g,e;try{if(a.a&&a.a.a){e=a.a.start(b.toString(),3);g=c();var f=a.a;c=e;if(f.a&&”number”===typeof c.value){c.duration=(Pa()||Oa())-c.value;var m=`goog_${c.label}_${c.uniqueId}_end`;R&&S()&&R.mark(m);!f.a||2048Ua(g,a,()=>b.apply(c,e),d)} class Va{constructor(a=null){this.h=X;this.b=null;this.l=this.f;this.a=a;this.c=!1}f(a,b,c,d,g){g=g||”jserror”;let e;try{const t=new P;var f=t;f.a.push(1);f.b[1]=O(“context”,a);b.error&&b.meta&&b.id||(b=new ea(b,{message:U(b)}));if(b.msg){f=t;var m=b.msg.substring(0,512);f.a.push(2);f.b[2]=O(“msg”,m)}var k=b.meta||{};b=k;if(this.b)try{this.b(b)}catch(A){}if(d)try{d(b)}catch(A){}d=t;k=[k];d.a.push(3);d.b[3]=k;{d=n;k=[];b=null;do{var h=d;if(y(h)){var l=h.location.href;b=h.document&&h.document.referrer|| null}else l=b,b=null;k.push(new Ha(l||””));try{d=h.parent}catch(C){d=null}}while(d&&h!=d);for(let C=0,wa=k.length-1;C<=wa;++C)k[C].depth=wa-C;h=n;if(h.location&&h.location.ancestorOrigins&&h.location.ancestorOrigins.length==k.length-1)for(l=1;l<k.length;++l){var q=k[l];q.url||(q.url=h.location.ancestorOrigins[l-1]||””,q.j=!0)}var r=k;let A=new Ha(n.location.href,!1);h=null;const Z=r.length-1;for(q=Z;0<=q;–q){var u=r[q];!h&&Fa.test(u.url)&&(h=u);if(u.url&&!u.j){A=u;break}}u=null;const Ya=r.length&& r[Z].url;0!=A.depth&&Ya&&(u=r[Z]);e=new Ga(A,u)}if(e.b){r=t;var w=e.b.url||””;r.a.push(4);r.b[4]=O(“top”,w)}var aa={url:e.a.url||””};if(e.a.url){var ba=e.a.url.match(ha),D=ba[1],xa=ba[3],ya=ba[4];w=””;D&&(w+=D+”:”);xa&&(w+=”//”,w+=xa,ya&&(w+=”:”+ya));var za=w}else za=””;D=t;aa=[aa,{url:za}];D.a.push(5);D.b[5]=aa;Ma(this.h,g,t,this.c,c)}catch(t){try{Ma(this.h,g,{context:”ecmserr”,rctx:a,msg:U(t),url:e&&e.a.url},this.c,c)}catch(A){}}return!0}};let X,W;if(Ea&&!y(N)){let a=”.”+Aa.domain;try{for(;2{T.google_measure_js_timing||(Y.a=!1,Y.b!=Y.c.google_js_reporting_queue&&(S()&&Array.prototype.forEach.call(Y.b,Sa,void 0),Y.b.length=0))};X=new Na;”number”!==typeof T.google_srt&&(T.google_srt=Math.random());var Xa=X,Za=T.google_srt;0=Za&&(Xa.a=Za);W=new Va(Y); W.b=a=>{var b=M.jerExpIds;if(Array.isArray(b)&&0!==b.length){var c=a.eid;if(c){c=[…c.split(“,”),…b];b={};for(var d=0,g=0;g{Wa()});L=40;J=(a,b,c,d)=>V(a,b,c,d);window.vu=V(492,function(a){x.ebrpfa&&(a=da(a,”&cbvp=2″));a=a.replace(“&amp;”,”&”);ta(K.i(),a)},void 0,void 0);window.vv=V(494,function(){const a=K.i();if(!a.b)throw Error(“aiv::err”);a.b()},void 0,void 0);}).call(this);vu(“https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/view?xaix3dAKAOjsufjESLngitgTytSdJzHBAakyj4HuhsDBRefDFuPjuhnP41QIgp23-HzdFzMSQqdCyl9lp3rYMveUgZypw19CdjTc_9oTYadiDIFte9KW2LnuOfWcqdiMuJjWkOl51LbwUph3rnk5KGyEw4h2UCpWXUe6TkH9qfh2FCWvKKu9is3OKzBT5MuvqRiexpdRqVBD2_3hO5_5a6y-vNZfPIF-R–NietRlhSRWsoWzKWDtXkjtt6snvshFK3A0OQjPWNlJp0yu7CwMpdgW-p0RVVMsgyWKzR4en-NdFSxbdZRB_tfZ6x-pRCxlNrwx26saix3dAMfl-YSCVXDmfSaNT8pY5Z-RiZK3cYdb_Hb48l62WSsUBbEWZz78Fetdy2rj8_MOBfkRFXgs1K1C_64bBrib1tL5yTYVR8lKNGKrKfWBUFgx26sigx3dCg0ArKJSzNcJEcVAdg4vEAEx26urlfixx3d1x26adurlx3d&#8221;)

 
https://ads.rubiconproject.com/prebid/creative.js
var ucTagData = {};
ucTagData.adServerDomain = “”;
ucTagData.pubUrl = “https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/andrew-yang-democrats-should-move-georgia-help-senate-candidates-win&#8221;;
ucTagData.adId = “”;
ucTagData.cacheHost = “pg-prebid-server-aws-use1.rubiconproject.com:443”;
ucTagData.cachePath = “/cache”;
ucTagData.uuid = “1ea35b3d-8e71-4117-b89e-39ca17e62c61”;
ucTagData.mediaType = “”;
ucTagData.env = “”;
ucTagData.size = “300×250”;
ucTagData.winurl = “”;
ucTagData.winbidid = “”;
try {
ucTag.renderAd(document, ucTagData);
} catch (e) {
console.log(e);
}

{“transport”: {“beacon”: false, “xhrpost”: false},”requests”: {“amp_btr”: “https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/view?xai=AKAOjsvIvqORu33tuuLxGF6BmfDJF1Dmz46wFMep6ZfwQqvouzRT69g7m8MuSQoV4LfjbPJr13TtyzevlJewU3-cvsIi1PFiTlqNoVp0o5tjvR2zSxCmPILq3sAR3fbWhLnPxPt3ZHsOc2hLK-YOS-j7quHYybtK38LZKu4aJmnHYpki3lGfxEdk8gg6ZnZqIRjmspCvteDc_tRTkfGoPBYh6NASVT5mZJyLgRBOf6iPYu0mOHbQnmT3ajJgnrj314yi2JPh8yW6MOVVPqYG23V0KHIGz-CL2aHsnXxxqmKd84kxw6OcS1NEhtPbYYBK&sai=AMfl-YRKL-6sznZQ8igiuwcXpg1EVVFS9-ysdFARWuCkWUgcZalFB58Vw6Ot2AHkPv1WCCBSbYQDLpT_fZotyIv6B4bYeW4aV0HW52BDdKI&sig=Cg0ArKJSzNrw5ho4tpwdEAE&urlfix=1&adurl=&#8221;},”triggers”: {“b2r_iniLoad”: {“on”: “ini-load”,”request”:”amp_btr”}}}{“transport”: {“beacon”: true, “xhrpost”: false},”requests”: {“ampeos”: “https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pcs/activeview?xai=AKAOjsuQyJ0LHI_qzr7MQ9lGQGG-7ZBoRQkcrLEp-5-ehh9Jq2tXcGF1tOP_DyZbLxxJ5pwOHzN4I6hfjNi-6V3jDokYnHD9ei0uxLGglkqX5Xs&sig=Cg0ArKJSzHFFNi9XCd9KEAE&id=ampeos&o=${elementX},${elementY}&d=${elementWidth},${elementHeight}&ss=${screenWidth},${screenHeight}&bs=${viewportWidth},${viewportHeight}&mcvt=${maxContinuousVisibleTime}&mtos=0,0,${maxContinuousVisibleTime},${maxContinuousVisibleTime},${maxContinuousVisibleTime}&tos=0,0,${totalVisibleTime},0,0&tfs=${firstSeenTime}&tls=${lastSeenTime}&g=${minVisiblePercentage}&h=${maxVisiblePercentage}&pt=${pageLoadTime}&tt=${totalTime}&rpt=${navTiming(navigationStart,loadEventStart)}&rst=${navTiming(navigationStart)}&r=de&isd=${initialScrollDepth}&msd=${maxScrollDepth}&avms=ampa”},”triggers”: {“endOfSession”: {“on”: “visible”,”request”: “ampeos”,”visibilitySpec”: {“reportWhen”: “documentExit”,”selector”: “:root”,”visiblePercentageMin”: 50}}}}

 
 

David Barton

1 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

 

2 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

barton videos

4 Of 5 / The Bible’s Influence In America / American Heritage Series / David Barton

Where things stand in the House

The Democrats majority is shrinking and three dozen races have yet to be called

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s majority has shrunk in House, a shock to Democrats and pollsters who were projecting the California Democrat would expand her caucus after Tuesday’s election.

Democrats were optimistic they could flip roughly 10 seats but their expansion efforts came up short, especially in Texas, and they ended up losing seats in Flordia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and elsewhere.

DEM CAUCUS ERUPTS AS MEMBERS SAY PARTY’S LEFTWARD DRIFT HURT MODERATES IN ELECTION

As of 3 p.m. on Friday, Democrats had won 212 seats compared to Republicans’ 194. Another 29 races have yet to be called. Democrats had a net loss of four seats.

Outstanding races are in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere. When all those votes are counted, Republicans are optimistic their numbers could swell to 208 and beyond, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

What’s known is that Republicans have flipped at least seven seats from blue to red and an eighth seat in Michigan that was most recently occupied by a Libertarian. Here’s a snapshot of the GOP victories:

GOP gains in the House

–In Florida, Republican candidate Carlos Gimenez defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in the 26th district. Republican Maria Elvira Salazar defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala in the 27th district.

–In Oklahoma, Republican Stephanie Bice unseated freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn. Horn flipped the seat from red to blue last cycle.

— In South Carolina, freshman congressman Democrat Joe Cunningham was projected to lose his reelection to state GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, flipping South Carolina’s 1st District back to red.

— In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Fischbach ousted longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, toppling the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the most pro-Trump district held by a Democrat.

— In New Mexico, Republican Yvette Herrell defeated freshman Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a freshman Democrat who flipped the 2nd Congressional seat from red to blue in 2018.

— In Iowa’s First Congressional District, Republican state representative and former TV news anchor Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic incumbent Abby Finkenauer.

– In West Michigan, Republican Peter Meijer, an Iraq war veteran whose grandfather started Meijer superstores, defeated Democrat Hillary Scholten, a former Department of Justice and nonprofit lawyer. The Third Congressional District was open after Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, did not seek reelection.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW HOUSE RESULTS

Republicans say more victories are on the horizon

.

Party officials are most optimistic about reclaiming two seats in New York that Democrats flipped in 2018. Votes are still being counted but Republican Nicole Malliotakis has a notable lead over freshman Rep. Max Rose in the Staten Island-Brooklyn district. And former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney was also ahead in the 22nd District seat she lost two years ago to Rep. Anthony Brindisi.

Democrats have gained two open seats in North Carolina thanks to redrawn congressional maps that favored them and will welcome Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning to their caucus in January.

And Democrats flipped Georgia’s 7th Congressional District held by retiring Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux beat GOP candidate Rich McCormick in the suburban Atlanta district, the Associated Press called on Friday.

That means Democrats so far have a net loss of four seats in the House.

WHERE THINGS STAND: BATTLE FOR THE SENATE

Democrats think they can hold onto many close races that have not been called and have two other possible pick-up opportunities by defeating Rep. Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey and Rep. Mike Garcia in California.

On a call Thursday afternoon with Democratic House members, Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), expressed frustration with the polling and election forecasts that all pointed to House Democrats expanding their majority.

“I’m furious,” Bustos told her colleagues, according to a source familiar with the call. “Something went wrong here across the entire political world. Our polls, Senate polls, Gov polls, presidential polls, Republican polls, public polls, turnout modeling, and prognosticators all pointed to one political environment – that environment never materialized.”

 
 
 
 

I have written about the tremendous increase in the food stamp program the last 9 years before and that means that both President Obama and Bush were guilty of not trying to slow down it’s growth. Furthermore, Republicans have been some of the biggest supporters of the food stamp program. Milton Friedman had a good solution to help end the welfare state and wish more people would pay attention to it.   Growing government also encourages waste and hurt growth but more importantly it causes people to become dependent on the government as this article and cartoon below show.

My great fear is that the “social capital” of self reliance in America will slowly disappear and that the United States will turn into a European-style welfare state.

That’s the message in the famous “riding in the wagon” cartoons that went viral and became the most-viewed post on this blog.

Well, this Glenn McCoy cartoon has a similar theme.

Obama Voter Cartoon

The only thing I would change is that the rat would become a “pro-government voter” or “left-wing voter” instead of an “Obama voter.” Just like I wasn’t satisfied with an otherwise very good Chuck Asay cartoon showing the struggle between producers and moochers.

That’s for two reasons. First, I’m not partisan. My goal is to spread a message of liberty, not encourage people to vote for or against any candidate.

Second, I’ve been very critical of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t matter.

But I’m getting wonky. Enjoy the cartoon and feel free to share it widely.

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.

Related posts:

If increase in food stamps was just because of recession then why spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007?

If the increase in food stamps was just because of the recession then why did the spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007? The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm (7) Newscom A recent US News & […]

Tell the 48 million food stamps users to eat more broccoli!!!!

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed             Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ We got to slow down the growth of Food Stamps. One […]

Republicans for more food stamps?

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth __________________ We got to cut spending and we must first start with food stamp program and we need some Senators that are willing to make the tough cuts. Food Stamp Republicans Posted by Chris Edwards Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but […]

Obama promotes food stamps but Milton Friedman had a better suggestion

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they […]

400% increase in food stamps since 2000

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ If welfare increases as much as it has in the […]

Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration

The sad fact is that Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration. A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps Amy Payne May 21, 2013 at 7:01 am Tweet this Where do food stamps come from? They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually […]

Which states are the leaders in food stamp consumption?

I am glad that my state of Arkansas is not the leader in food stamps!!! Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which State Has the Highest Food Stamp Usage of All? March 19, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The food stamp program seems to be a breeding ground of waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the horror stories […]

Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting […]

Food Stamp Program is constantly ripped off and should be discontinued

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at http://oversight.house.gov The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]

 

My rough draft letter to President Elect Biden that will be mailed on January 26, 2021! (Part 7) The Empirical Evidence on School Choice and Milton Friedman

January 26, 2021

President Biden c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

 

The federal government debt is growing so much that it is endangering us because if things keep going like they are now we will not have any money left for the national defense because we are so far in debt as a nation. We have been spending so much on our welfare state through food stamps and other programs that I am worrying that many of our citizens are becoming more dependent on government and in many cases they are losing their incentive to work hard because of the welfare trap the government has put in place. Other nations in Europe have gone down this road and we see what mess this has gotten them in. People really are losing their faith in big government and they want more liberty back. It seems to me we have to get back to the founding  principles that made our country great.  We also need to realize that a big government will encourage waste and corruptionThe recent scandals in our government have proved my point. In fact, the jokes you made at Ohio State about possibly auditing them are not so funny now that reality shows how the IRS was acting more like a monster out of control. Also raising taxes on the job creators is a very bad idea too. The Laffer Curve clearly demonstrates that when the tax rates are raised many individuals will move their investments to places where they will not get taxed as much.

I have written about 66 heroes of mine in the House of Representatives that voted “no” on the Obama/Biden debt ceiling increase request in 2011. I believe we must have representatives that will vote to restore our freedom and that means voting to cut spending and lower taxes like the Patriots of long ago wanted. Today the Tea Party represented my views the most closely.  Lord knows I have written a lot about that in the past. . I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

I have written and emailed Senator Pryor over, and over again with spending cut suggestions but he has ignored all of these good ideas in favor of keeping the printing presses going as we plunge our future generations further in debt. I am convinced if he does not change his liberal voting record that he will no longer be our senator in 2014.

I have written hundreds of letters and emails to President Obama in the past, and I must say that I have been impressed that he has  had the White House staff answer so many of my letters. The White House answered concerning Social Security (two times), Green Technologieswelfaresmall businessesObamacare (twice),  federal overspendingexpanding unemployment benefits to 99 weeks,  gun controlnational debtabortionjumpstarting the economy, and various other  issues.   However, the Obama/Biden policies have not changed, and by the way the White House after answering over 50 of my letters before November of 2012 has not answered one since.    The Obama/Biden administration was  committed to cutting nothing from the budget that I can tell. I am hoping your administration,  President  Biden, will be more open minded and look at the facts.

 I have praised over and over and over the 66 House Republicans that voted no on that before. If they did not raise the debt ceiling then we would have a balanced budget instantly.  I agree that the Tea Party has made a difference and I have personally posted 49 posts on my blog on different Tea Party heroes of mine.

THIS BRINGS ME TO ONE OF MY BIGGEST ECONOMIC HEROES AND IT IS THE LATE MILTON FRIEDMAN. Friedman had such revolutionary policies such as eliminating welfare and instituting the negative income tax and putting in school vouchers.

The problem in Washington is not lack of revenue but our lack of spending restraint. This video below makes that point.

Free-market economics meets free-market policies at The Heritage Foundation’s Tenth Anniversary dinner in 1983. Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and his wife Rose with President Ronald Reagan and Heritage President Ed Feulner.

Free-market economics meets free-market policies at The Heritage Foundation’s Tenth Anniversary dinner in 1983. Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and his wife Rose with President Ronald Reagan and Heritage President Ed Feulner.

Since the passing of Milton Friedman who was my favorite economist, I have been reading the works of Daniel Mitchell and he quotes Milton Friedman a lot, and you can reach Dan’s website here.

Mitchell in February 2011.
Wikipedia noted concerning Dan:

 

Mitchell’s career as an economist began in the United States Senate, working for Oregon Senator Bob Packwood and the Senate Finance Committee. He also served on the transition team of President-Elect Bush and Vice President-Elect Quayle in 1988. In 1990, he began work at the Heritage Foundation. At Heritage, Mitchell worked on tax policy issues and began advocating for income tax reform.[1]

In 2007, Mitchell left the Heritage Foundation, and joined the Cato Institute as a Senior Fellow. Mitchell continues to work in tax policy, and deals with issues such as the flat tax and international tax competition.[2]

In addition to his Cato Institute responsibilities, Mitchell co-founded the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, an organization formed to protect international tax competition.[1]

Milton Friedman on School Vouchers

_______________

Just the facts Mam.

APRIL 18, 2013 5:17PM

School Choice Works

The evidence is in: school choice works. Yesterday, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released their third edition of their report “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice.” The report provides a literature review of dozens of high-quality studies of school choice programs around the country, including studies from scholars at Harvard University, Stanford University, Cornell University, the University of Arkansas, the Brookings Institution, and the Federal Reserve Bank. The studies examine the impact of school choice programs on the academic performance of participants and public school students, the fiscal impact on taxpayers, racial segregation, and civic values.

The report’s key findings included the following:

  • Twelve empirical studies have examined academic outcomes for school choice participants using random assignment, the “gold standard” of social science. Of these, 11 find that choice improves student outcomes—six that all students benefit and five that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found a negative impact.
  • Twenty-three empirical studies (including all methods) have examined school choice’s impact on academic outcomes in public schools. Of these, 22 find that choice improves public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found that choice harms public schools.
  • Six empirical studies have examined school choice’s fiscal impact on taxpayers. All six find that school choice saves money for taxpayers. No empirical study has found a negative fiscal impact.
  • Eight empirical studies have examined school choice and racial segregation in schools. Of these, seven find that school choice moves students from more segregated schools into less segregated schools. One finds no net effect on segregation from school choice. No empirical study has found that choice increases racial segregation.
  • Seven empirical studies have examined school choice’s impact on civic values and practices such as respect for the rights of others and civic knowledge. Of these, five find that school choice improves civic values and practices. Two find no visible impact from school choice. No empirical study has found that school choice has a negative impact on civic values and practices.

On the same day, a new study from researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution found that a school choice program boosted college enrollment among African-American participants by 24 percent.

While many of the findings show only modest improvement, they consistently show that school choice programs produce the same or superior results across a gamut of measures. Moreover, not all the benefits of choice are easily measurable. Some families are looking for a school that better meets a student’s special needs, instills the parents’ values, inspires a lifelong love of learning, or where a student is safe from bullying. These outcomes are sometimes difficult if not impossible to measure in the aggregate, but parents are in the best position to tell the difference for their own children.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, 

 

Related posts:

Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980), episode 3 – Anatomy of a Crisis. part 1

“The Power of the Market” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 5)

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 5-5 How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms.  I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the […]

“The Power of the Market” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 4)

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 4-5 How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms.  I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the […]

“The Power of the Market” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 3)

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 3-5 How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms.  I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the […]

“The Power of the Market” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 2)

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 2-5 How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms.  I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the […]

“The Power of the Market” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 1)

Milton Friedman The Power of the Market 1-5 How can we have personal freedom without economic freedom? That is why I don’t understand why socialists who value individual freedoms want to take away our economic freedoms.  I wanted to share this info below with you from Milton Friedman who has influenced me greatly over the […]

Open letter to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on school vouchers

The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more […]

Brummett still resistant to vouchers because he wants us to save public schools at all cost

John Brummett in his article, “A new civil rights struggle in Little Rock?” Arkansas News Burea, August 25, 2011, asserted the main role vouchers should have is  “providing new models for regular public schools to emulate, not about replacing regular public schools.” The Heritage Foundation cares nothing about saving the public schools. If the public […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 290) (Vouchers)

Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System Published on May 9, 2012 by BasicEconomics The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 287) (on vouchers)

(This letter was mailed before Oct 25, 2012.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]

Open letter to President Obama (Part 254) (on vouchers)

The Machine: The Truth Behind Teachers Unions Published on Sep 4, 2012 by ReasonTV America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children. That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more […]

Listing of transcripts and videos of Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” on www.theDailyHatch.org

Everywhere school vouchers have been tried they have been met with great success. Why do you think President Obama got rid of them in Washington D.C.? It was a political disaster for him because the school unions had always opposed them and their success made Obama’s allies look bad. In 1980 when I first sat […]

Public school staffing has skyrocketed, we must turn to voucher system

Milton Friedman – Public Schools / Voucher System (Q&A) Part 2 Published on May 7, 2012 by BasicEconomics __________ Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog is always critical of the voucher system but has he taken a closer look at what has been going on in the public schools the last few decades with […]

Listing of transcripts and videos of Free to Choose by Milton Friedman: Episode “What is wrong with our schools?” on www.theDailyHatch.org

Everywhere school vouchers have been tried they have been met with great success. Why do you think President Obama got rid of them in Washington D.C.? It was a political disaster for him because the school unions had always opposed them and their success made Obama’s allies look bad. In 1980 when I first sat […]

 

 

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 48) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 47) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46)

  Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 46) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 45)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 45) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 44)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 44) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 43)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 43) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 42)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 42) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 41)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 41) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 40)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 40) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

 

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 39)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 39) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 38)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 38) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 37)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 37) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 36)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 36) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 35)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 35) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 34)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 34) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 33)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 33) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 32)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 32) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31)

Congressmen Tim Huelskamp on the debt ceiling Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 31) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative […]

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 30)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 30) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 29)

 Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 29) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 28)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 28) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 27)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 27) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25)

Uploaded by RepJoeWalsh on Jun 14, 2011 Our country’s debt continues to grow — it’s eating away at the American Dream. We need to make real cuts now. We need Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25) This post today is a part of a series […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 24)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 24) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

 

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 19)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 19) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 18) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 17) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 16) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15)

Sen Obama in 2006 Against Raising Debt Ceiling The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 15) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

______________________

Here’s the Latest on Litigation Over Election Results

Attorney General William Barr says federal prosecutors have the authority to investigate evidence of voter fraud. Pictured: Barr leaves the Capitol after meeting Monday with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ordered county election boards in Pennsylvania to comply with guidance requiring them to keep ballots received after 8 p.m. Election Day “in a safe, secure, and sealed container separate from other voted ballots,” as Newsweek and other outlets reported Friday. How could Alito’s directive affect returns for the presidential election?

Additionally, The Associated Press reported that 24 Wisconsin counties had completed canvassing of election results as of Monday morning, but that “all 72 must be in before President Donald Trump could call for a recount.” How long will that take, and will other states besides Georgia recount?

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, joins the podcast to discuss.

We also cover these stories:

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

  • The Supreme Court hears arguments about ending Obamacare, but some conservative justices apparently don’t see a need for the health care law to be repealed in its entirety.
  • Attorney General William Barr announces that prosecutors at the Justice Department can look into evidence of voting irregularities.
  • Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., pledges that he will not support packing the Supreme Court with more justices or ending the Senate filibuster.

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also can leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com.

Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by Jason Snead. He’s the executive director of the Honest Elections Project and also a former colleague of mine at The Heritage Foundation. Jason, it’s great to have you with us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Jason Snead: It’s great to be here.

Del Guidice: Well, Jason, to start off with the question that’s really foremost on everyone’s minds, do you think there was any voter fraud in this election or any potential voter fraud?

Snead: Well, there’s always voter fraud in any election to some degree. We know that because you can look at the convictions, it’s on the Heritage voter fraud database. And you see that in essentially every election cycle there are people who are willing to cheat, willing to take illegal steps to try to rig or steal elections.

So the media narrative that you get that voter fraud just does not exist in any way, shape, or form is simply erroneous, and it has a lot more to do with political spin than with reality.

The question now seems to be, is there evidence of widespread, organized, systemic fraud that could’ve thrown a presidential election? That’s been certainly alleged by the president, by folks involved in his campaign, and his campaign’s legal team. And I think that we’re waiting to see what evidence they’ve got to back up those assertions.

So I think that we need to be, of course, keeping a close eye on that. We need to be careful not to believe necessarily every claim of fraud that we see. But I think beyond any doubt whatsoever, fraud does occur, and it probably occurred in the 2020 election as well.

Del Guidice: Since you’re saying it probably did occur, how do you think, Jason, this should be handled and investigated?

Snead: I think it should be handled carefully and deliberately. And I think that if the facts ultimately do merit prosecutions against individuals who did commit fraud, then I think the prosecutions would be justified.

But what we, I think, need to also be careful about is jumping to conclusions too quickly about the degree to which fraud occurred.

There are undoubtedly instances that are more credible than others that have already come to light. For instance, I saw a report out of Wisconsin that, I believe it was four felons voted in the 2020 election despite being apparently ineligible to do so. I believe that they were all on parole or probation.

So that sort of a thing, to my mind, would obviously be very credible. But I think that in terms of some of the grander concerns, I think that we need to see what evidence we’ve got and examine that very carefully.

Del Guidice: I’m curious about your perspective on one of the big headlines yesterday. Attorney General Bill Barr announced that he will allow the [Justice Department] to investigate voter fraud. What all does this mean, and is this appropriate?

Snead: Well, I certainly share the attorney general’s perspective, at least in so far as he spelled it out in the letter, that credible accusations of fraud or malfeasance in the elections absolutely need to be investigated.

One of the most difficult things about this area of law and policy is that proving that fraud occurred is a very difficult thing to do. And sometimes what happens is claims of fraud, even credible ones, wind up not getting investigated or not getting prosecuted, particularly after an election is over, for various reasons.

So I certainly share the sense that if you’ve got a concern that fraud could impact the election of 2020, that it ought to be investigated.

And there’s really two reasons to do that, right? One is that, of course, if the concern is valid and if fraud did occur, then you absolutely want to get to the bottom of that and bring the people who are responsible to justice.

But the flip side of that is that if fraud did not occur, then you want to be able to say with certainty that it did not happen, and here’s the evidence to rebut the concern that it did.

Because at the end of the day, you want to be able to tell voters that the election was conducted fairly, that it was conducted honestly, and that the result can be trusted.

I don’t think that you can tell voters that if the response to every single concern that gets raised either about mischief or mismanagement, which is another part of this conversation, the mismanagement of elections or bureaucratic incompetence, if all of those concerns are simply going to be brushed aside, I think that sends the wrong message to voters.

And I’m not sure that you can seriously say that you’re taking seriously the credibility of democracy if you’re just ignoring all problems.

Del Guidice: Speaking of potential issues of voter fraud, The Federalist reported on Monday that there might have been incidents of curing of ballots in Wisconsin. And this is where officials count a ballot that is legally disqualified or difficult to read.

How, Jason, do you think this should be responded to, and are there other instances of voter irregularities that you’ve heard of yourself?

Snead: We’ve been looking at some of the concerns about irregularities and trying to determine, frankly, what actually has happened in some of these places like Philadelphia, like Detroit, and elsewhere, and understand what some of the problems were.

I think that really one of the things when it comes to counting ineligible ballots and concerns about the process—which, that’s what a lot of the lawsuits that have been filed are about, is really about the process.

One of the overarching concerns that often is getting left out of media coverage is the fact that all across the country, states, particularly battleground states, wound up either changing their election rules or having those rules essentially changed for them in the course of often very partisan, very politicized lawsuits that were brought by groups on the left, including the [Democratic National Committee] itself, where they were suing to invalidate voter identification and verification requirements for absentee ballots, to try to legalize ballot harvesting, to really change the rules.

And it’s sort of similar in some respects to changing the rules of baseball in the middle of the seventh inning. No one would really think that that was entirely fair or trust that the only reason for changing the rule is just for the benefit of the fans, not because the umpire was picking favorites or picking sides. But that’s what was going on.

So that risks not only, of course, the credibility of the election, but it also risks confusion about what the rules actually are.

And so I think that one of the big lessons that we need to take away from 2020 is that rules should not be changed, particularly not through partisan lawsuits, close to an election because that really risks the integrity of the entire process.

Del Guidice: Well, Jason, even though the Biden campaign has claimed victory in the presidential election, the Trump campaign has filed lawsuits with current litigation pending in, I think, at least five states. I know in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. Can you sort of walk us through the latest on what’s happening on those efforts?

Snead: Well, as I said, pretty much all of these cases at this point are talking about procedural issues that deal with the counting of votes.

So for instance, trying to get ballots that were received after a statutory deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots segregated. That happened in Pennsylvania. Concerns about poll watching. Concerns about ballots.

In Maricopa County, [Arizona], I saw one lawsuit there about ballots where the concern is about an apparent over-vote situation where, for one reason or another, the machine was reading a ballot that was cast and counting it anyway.

And the problem when you’ve got an over-vote situation is that that would essentially cancel out the votes of that particular person for, in this case, president.

So we’ve got a lot of concerns about procedure. And some of these, of course, could affect the vote count. And any lawsuit that does affect the vote count should be taken seriously.

What we’re now seeing, really what we’re now waiting to see, I think, is some of the lawsuits that could potentially affect the outcome of the election to the degree that would be necessary to overcome [former Vice President Joe] Biden’s lead in places like Pennsylvania where the separation between them is several—I think it’s about 40,000 votes, 45,000 votes at the time that we’re recording this.

Del Guidice: On Friday, Newsweek reported that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made an order saying that all county boards of election must comply with guidance that requires them to keep ballots received after 8 p.m. on Tuesday in a safe, secure, and sealed container separate from other voter ballots.

What is your perspective on this directive from Justice Alito? And what’s the update on what’s happening here as we’re now getting into the middle of the week?

Snead: Well, the order that Alito gave to segregate ballots is mostly to preserve the ability for any postelection litigation that impacts those late-arriving ballots to actually be carried out and potentially to invalidate those votes, depending on the outcome of the litigation.

The backstory here is that going into Election Day, there was a torrent of legal activity in Pennsylvania because you had a situation where the left was suing the state. The secretary of state was trying to enter into a consent decree to change the state’s ballot receipt deadline from Election Day to several days after the election.

And eventually, that wound up going to the United States Supreme Court, and the court deadlocked and split, four justices to four justices, allowing a ruling by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court upholding that extension to be in effect for this election.

Now that case in Pennsylvania is back before the Supreme Court. There’s a cert petition pending. A number of states filed amicus briefs supporting the court taking that case.

My group has filed one, as well as others, supporting the court taking the case and deciding the issue once and for all—whether or not a court can indeed extend the statutory deadline or whether that power is vested in the legislature and the federal Constitution. And there are some variations on that question in other states as well.

So the order from Justice Alito is preserving the segregation of ballots that arrived after 8 p.m. on Election Day so that in the event that the court does take up the issue and in the event that it does rule that those ballots are constitutionally invalid, that you still know what ballots are actually affected, what the numbers are, and then you can have a remedy available to you.

Del Guidice: In terms of recounts, some states, and I know the Trump campaign is asking for those, The Associated Press reported this week that 24 counties in Wisconsin had completed their canvassing of last week’s election results as of Monday morning, but that also two counties must be in before the Trump campaign could call for a recount.

How long, Jason, do you think it will be before Wisconsin does a recount? And are there other states that you expect recounts from?

Snead: I’m not sure how long we’ll be waiting on Wisconsin, but I do expect that there will be recounts. There could potentially be a recount in Arizona. There could be a recount in Georgia.

Pennsylvania seems unlikely that if there is a recount that it would seriously affect the vote tallies just because, historically speaking, recounts don’t usually result in significant changes to the numbers.

We’re talking something on the order of hundreds or maybe a couple thousand votes at the outside. So I think that probably a recount is going to be most significant in places like Arizona and Georgia where it’s relatively closely divided.

Del Guidice: Per the Congressional Research Service, the Electoral College will be meeting in just about a month to cast their votes. And since this is just about a month away, maybe a month and a few days, how far do you think litigation will be able to progress before this vote happens?

Snead: I think that we’ve got a long way to go before we get to the meeting of the Electoral College. Of course, if you’re looking for some historical precedent here, look back to 2000 with Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling right before the safe harbor deadline.

The safe harbor deadline is the statutory deadline that Congress has set that states have to certify their elections and impanel a seat of electors for the Electoral College. And as long as they get it in before that date, then it’s not subject to second-guessing by Congress. And so that extended right up until that deadline.

So we could be looking at litigation that could stretch for the next four or five weeks until we get to the safe harbor deadline in early December this year. And I guess the alternative argument here is that the litigation could be resolved before that, but certainly we could be in for a scenario where it goes the full distance.

Del Guidice: Going back briefly to election irregularities, the Public Interest Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit last month alleging that 21,000 dead people were on the Pennsylvania voter rolls before Election Day.

Jason, do you think that this impacted the election outcome, having these 21,000 people that shouldn’t have been registered still on the voter rolls?

Snead: I certainly think that it’s a concerning situation anytime you see that a state is not adequately maintaining its voter rolls because there are actually two federal laws that require that states take action to maintain clean, accurate, and reliable voter registration records. And the reasons are pretty obvious, right?

If you’re talking about having an honest and fair election, that starts with having clean voter rolls so that you actually know how many voters there are in your community and who is eligible and who is not to cast a ballot. That’s a very important thing to understand.

And every year you’ve got about 10% of the U.S. population that moves. You’ve got many millions more who either pass away or become ineligible because they’re, say, convicted of a felony. So the voter rolls are not static things. They have to constantly be updated.

But despite the fact that it is not only legally required but it’s just common sense to be cleaning up your voter rolls and removing old, outdated, or duplicative entries, that has become a very contentious process.

Many states quite deliberately drag their feet in this and do not prioritize list maintenance, even actively resist engaging in the practice. And there are a lot of outside groups on the left that will sue states trying to stop them.

So I look at examples like this as just further evidence of the fact that states are often not doing enough in this area and need to be doing more. Because, again, to get back to an earlier point, you want to be able to show voters that the system works, that it works well, that you can trust the results.

And when you see information like that coming out, that’s a very concerning thing because, yes, not only does that open up the door to fraud, but it also sends up a red flag that maybe the system is not working as well as it should.

Del Guidice: On that note, Jason, as we wrap up, many voters right now are concerned about fraud and how ballots are being counted. Do you have concerns about election integrity, specifically in this 2020 election?

Snead: Well, I do. And in fact, I’ve been concerned from the beginning because we saw almost immediately when the pandemic hit and all of the closures started that there was a concerted push to take advantage of that situation to push a political agenda that amounted to reshaping elections and doing away with lots of the basic safeguards: verification, identification, ballot harvesting bans.

You saw legislation being pushed in Congress. You saw litigation being brought in nearly every state by some very deep-pocketed liberal organizations, including the Democratic Party itself.

It was a concerted strategic push to undermine the safeguards and the rules that, by and large, Americans support and that undergird the system and provide, I think, some great benefits to help with democracy.

So I do have concerns that going forward, not only in terms of how we’re processing 2020, but then looking to future elections, I have concerns about this trend continuing where the process of voting itself is increasingly politicized, the rhetoric surrounding it is increasingly toxic.

And you’ve now got a baseline standard that really began back in 2018 with Stacey Abrams refusing to concede to her opponent in the gubernatorial race to now where you basically got a situation where if my side doesn’t win, then I think that the entire process is rigged.

I think that’s a very difficult place to be if we’re talking about the election system writ large. We need to talk about this from the issue of principles, not politics. Preserving the integrity of our elections goes hand in hand with preserving the credibility of democracy.

And I think that we need to be fighting for fair, transparent voting processes protected with things like voter ID laws, protected with ballot harvesting bans that make sure that everyone knows that their vote counts and that their voice is going to be heard

Del Guidice: What a strong note to end on. Jason, thank you so much for joining us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.” It’s great having you.

Snead: Thank you.

——

11 observations in a dark time

Dennis Prager: Leftists consider it a moral obligation to cheat in order to stop ‘dictator’ Trump

As there is too much to say in the space of one column, I will simply offer some thoughts on the state of the country a week after the 2020 elections.

No. 1: While I am not certain the reported election results are dishonest, I suspect they are. Worse, about half this country believes this, too.

This is unprecedented in American history.

One might counter that this is not unprecedented, that this was precisely what half the American electorate felt in 2000, when many Democrats rejected the 2000 Supreme Court decision regarding Florida’s ballot counting. But that was entirely different. No one alleged widespread Republican fraud in the election of George W. Bush. The issue in that extremely close election involved a faulty voting system that resulted in hand recounts using differing ballot-counting standards from one jurisdiction to the next. Liberal justices joined the 7-2 vote in ruling for Bush that the recounts could not constitutionally go forward.

Therefore, the fact that nearly half the country is far from certain that Joe Biden was honestly elected is unprecedented.

Half this country believes, with good reason, that if Democratic Party officials believe they can get away with cheating, they will do so. Aside from the Democrats having a history of ballot-manipulation, there is an even more compelling reason to believe Democrats would cheat. For four years, they have been telling the nation and telling one another that President Donald Trump is a dictator, a fascist and a white supremacist. Therefore, if a leftist considers himself a moral individual and works in tabulating election results, and he can help prevent the reelection of a white supremacist fascist dictator, wouldn’t he do so? Wouldn’t he be morally obligated to do so?

No. 2: For four years, the mainstream print and electronic media waged daily, indeed hourly, vicious attacks on Trump as a human being. Rarely did they attack his policies, since they were so beneficial to America (some of the greatest economic figures in memory and the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded) and to the world (a major weakening of Iran and a major strengthening of Israel and Israel-Arab peace). Worse, the media and the Democratic Party immersed the country in a three-year lie about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

Yet, 70 million Americans still voted for Trump. The Democrats lost seats in the House and will probably not gain control of the Senate, despite the larger number of Republican incumbents who were up for reelection.

Americans watched Democratic governors and mayors do nothing as left-wing thugs burned their cities. And then they watched Democratic mayors and city councils defund their police departments. That is one reason Democrats fared so badly.

No. 3: The mainstream media are now perceived as fraudulent by half of America. This has never been the case. But from The New York Times’ mendacious claim that America’s true founding was in 1619 and was founded in order to preserve slavery – for which the equally dishonest Pulitzer Prize committee awarded the paper a Pulitzer Prize – to the entire mainstream press’s ignoring of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, only left-wing Americans now believe the mainstream media.

No. 4: That is one reason the tech companies shut down conservative voices. The more people hear nonleft ideas, the more they gravitate away from the left. As a result, for the first time in American history, free speech is seriously threatened – not by government, but by private companies. Free speech is the most important freedom of all. If we lose it, it is the end of our country. What may happen then is the division of America, either formally or informally, into two nations, each with its own media and its own schools.

No. 5: Despite four years of being accused of racism and xenophobia, Trump increased both his black and Latino vote. If Trump lost honestly, it was due to his loss of the white male vote – from +31 in 2016 to +23 in 2020.

No. 6: The Democratic Party was once liberal. It is now leftist. And the left, everywhere in the world, suppresses dissent wherever it takes over – from Lenin to the modern American university to Twitter and the rest of Big Tech.

No. 7: Liberals loved America. The left loathes it. Therefore, since the left governs American education, America-hatred dominates the education system from kindergarten to graduate school. You are risking the poisoning of your children’s minds, souls and consciences by sending them to most American schools and nearly all American colleges. Don’t. Home-school, or find a school that teaches rather than indoctrinates.

No. 8: Hydroxychloroquine, one of the safest and oldest medications known to man, when given with zinc to almost anyone as soon as the individual develops symptoms or tests positive with COVID-19, prevents death and even hospitalization in the overwhelming majority of cases. History will likely note that the politicians and scientists who opposed hydroxychloroquine have a lot of blood on their hands.

No. 9: Those who can work from home are far more likely to support lockdowns than those who cannot work from home. As a rule, the former are more likely to be Democrats and more likely to be wealthier than the latter.

No. 10: All over the country, stores in big cities were boarded up solely to protect themselves from left-wing rioters should Trump have won. When Biden was declared the winner, the boards came down. Because everyone knows that conservatives don’t riot.

No. 11: If Biden wins, more and more nonleft Americans will lose their reputations, their businesses and their freedom to speak.

All of which plausibly renders the Georgia runoffs for U.S. senator the most important elections in American history.

Where things stand in the House

The Democrats majority is shrinking and three dozen races have yet to be called

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s majority has shrunk in House, a shock to Democrats and pollsters who were projecting the California Democrat would expand her caucus after Tuesday’s election.

Democrats were optimistic they could flip roughly 10 seats but their expansion efforts came up short, especially in Texas, and they ended up losing seats in Flordia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and elsewhere.

DEM CAUCUS ERUPTS AS MEMBERS SAY PARTY’S LEFTWARD DRIFT HURT MODERATES IN ELECTION

As of 3 p.m. on Friday, Democrats had won 212 seats compared to Republicans’ 194. Another 29 races have yet to be called. Democrats had a net loss of four seats.

Outstanding races are in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere. When all those votes are counted, Republicans are optimistic their numbers could swell to 208 and beyond, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

What’s known is that Republicans have flipped at least seven seats from blue to red and an eighth seat in Michigan that was most recently occupied by a Libertarian. Here’s a snapshot of the GOP victories:

GOP gains in the House

–In Florida, Republican candidate Carlos Gimenez defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in the 26th district. Republican Maria Elvira Salazar defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala in the 27th district.

–In Oklahoma, Republican Stephanie Bice unseated freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn. Horn flipped the seat from red to blue last cycle.

— In South Carolina, freshman congressman Democrat Joe Cunningham was projected to lose his reelection to state GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, flipping South Carolina’s 1st District back to red.

— In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Fischbach ousted longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, toppling the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the most pro-Trump district held by a Democrat.

— In New Mexico, Republican Yvette Herrell defeated freshman Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a freshman Democrat who flipped the 2nd Congressional seat from red to blue in 2018.

— In Iowa’s First Congressional District, Republican state representative and former TV news anchor Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic incumbent Abby Finkenauer.

– In West Michigan, Republican Peter Meijer, an Iraq war veteran whose grandfather started Meijer superstores, defeated Democrat Hillary Scholten, a former Department of Justice and nonprofit lawyer. The Third Congressional District was open after Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, did not seek reelection.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW HOUSE RESULTS

Republicans say more victories are on the horizon

.

Party officials are most optimistic about reclaiming two seats in New York that Democrats flipped in 2018. Votes are still being counted but Republican Nicole Malliotakis has a notable lead over freshman Rep. Max Rose in the Staten Island-Brooklyn district. And former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney was also ahead in the 22nd District seat she lost two years ago to Rep. Anthony Brindisi.

Democrats have gained two open seats in North Carolina thanks to redrawn congressional maps that favored them and will welcome Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning to their caucus in January.

And Democrats flipped Georgia’s 7th Congressional District held by retiring Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux beat GOP candidate Rich McCormick in the suburban Atlanta district, the Associated Press called on Friday.

That means Democrats so far have a net loss of four seats in the House.

WHERE THINGS STAND: BATTLE FOR THE SENATE

Democrats think they can hold onto many close races that have not been called and have two other possible pick-up opportunities by defeating Rep. Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey and Rep. Mike Garcia in California.

On a call Thursday afternoon with Democratic House members, Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), expressed frustration with the polling and election forecasts that all pointed to House Democrats expanding their majority.

“I’m furious,” Bustos told her colleagues, according to a source familiar with the call. “Something went wrong here across the entire political world. Our polls, Senate polls, Gov polls, presidential polls, Republican polls, public polls, turnout modeling, and prognosticators all pointed to one political environment – that environment never materialized.”

I have written about the tremendous increase in the food stamp program the last 9 years before and that means that both President Obama and Bush were guilty of not trying to slow down it’s growth. Furthermore, Republicans have been some of the biggest supporters of the food stamp program. Milton Friedman had a good solution to help end the welfare state and wish more people would pay attention to it.   Growing government also encourages waste and hurt growth but more importantly it causes people to become dependent on the government as this article and cartoon below show.

My great fear is that the “social capital” of self reliance in America will slowly disappear and that the United States will turn into a European-style welfare state.

That’s the message in the famous “riding in the wagon” cartoons that went viral and became the most-viewed post on this blog.

Well, this Glenn McCoy cartoon has a similar theme.

Obama Voter Cartoon

The only thing I would change is that the rat would become a “pro-government voter” or “left-wing voter” instead of an “Obama voter.” Just like I wasn’t satisfied with an otherwise very good Chuck Asay cartoon showing the struggle between producers and moochers.

That’s for two reasons. First, I’m not partisan. My goal is to spread a message of liberty, not encourage people to vote for or against any candidate.

Second, I’ve been very critical of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t matter.

But I’m getting wonky. Enjoy the cartoon and feel free to share it widely.

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.

Related posts:

If increase in food stamps was just because of recession then why spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007?

If the increase in food stamps was just because of the recession then why did the spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007? The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm (7) Newscom A recent US News & […]

Tell the 48 million food stamps users to eat more broccoli!!!!

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed             Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ We got to slow down the growth of Food Stamps. One […]

Republicans for more food stamps?

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth __________________ We got to cut spending and we must first start with food stamp program and we need some Senators that are willing to make the tough cuts. Food Stamp Republicans Posted by Chris Edwards Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but […]

Obama promotes food stamps but Milton Friedman had a better suggestion

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they […]

400% increase in food stamps since 2000

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ If welfare increases as much as it has in the […]

Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration

The sad fact is that Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration. A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps Amy Payne May 21, 2013 at 7:01 am Tweet this Where do food stamps come from? They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually […]

Which states are the leaders in food stamp consumption?

I am glad that my state of Arkansas is not the leader in food stamps!!! Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which State Has the Highest Food Stamp Usage of All? March 19, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The food stamp program seems to be a breeding ground of waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the horror stories […]

Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting […]

Food Stamp Program is constantly ripped off and should be discontinued

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at http://oversight.house.gov The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]