• Mitch Daniels,  President 2012

    Updated: President 2012: Mitch Daniels to Kick Off Presidential Run?; Wife Who Shuns Political Spot Light to Deliver Speech

    Indiana GOP Governor Mitch Daniels

    Perhaps or is it just another policy speech?

    Mitch Daniels has been mostly tethered to Indianapolis during a contentious legislative session, but he’s planning a trip to Washington next month to deliver what’s sure to be a high-profile speech on education.

    The Indiana governor will address the American Enterprise Institute on May 4, POLITICO has learned, discussing what has been the centerpiece of his agenda this year.

    Thousands of opponents and supporters have descended on the Indiana state capitol in recent months to weigh in on Daniels’ push to offer school vouchers, expand charter schools, overhaul teacher tenure and weaken the collective bargaining rights of teachers.

    The Hoosier has been mum about whether he intends to run for president, but has indicated he’ll make up his mind after his legislative session, now slated for April 29th. Should legislators meet their deadline, Daniels’ AEI speech could amount to his unofficial campaign debut. At the very least, it’ll be watched closely for clues as to whether he’s inclined to run.

    If Mitch Daniles is going to run, there will be a some sort of bat signal to the blogosphere – so stay tuned.

    Update:

    Sort of a bat signal here.

    Indiana’s low-profile first lady will step out as the main speaker at a state Republican Party dinner about the same time as Gov. Mitch Daniels could say whether he’ll run for president.

    Cheri Daniels will be the keynote speaker for the May 12 fundraising dinner in Indianapolis, focusing on her role as first lady, the state Republican Party announced Monday.

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for April 5th on 06:36

    These are my links for April 5th from 06:36 to 07:58:

    • Top 10 dumb arguments against Paul Ryan’s budget – Liberals with furrowed brows are conjuring up attacks (many contradictory) on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget. To save them time, I’ve come up with 10 of these that don’t pass the laugh test ( and I even explain why the arguments aren’t worth making):

      1. It doesn’t balance the budget in 10 years. Ryan’s budget puts us in “primary balance” ( the term President Obama is fond of using) in 2015; Obama’s never does. In 2012 the deficit is less than $1 trillion; Obama’s is over a trillion in 2012, the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. If you want to balance the budget in a decade you are looking at massive tax increases and substantial cuts in entitlement benefits for current retirees. Does Obama want to make that proposal?

      2. It favors the rich. Actually, the rich are “hurt” by items such as Medicare means testing and by wiping out corporate welfare. The White House’s plan to do nothing on Medicaid will eventually leave the poor with a defunct health plan.

      3. Ryan spares defense. He follows Obama’s defense spending cuts — $178 billion in the 2012 budget. Considering we are now fighting three, not two, wars under Obama, that seems rather draconian actually.

      =======

      Read it all.

    • Charlie Cook: Warning Signs Among the GOP – Until recently, Republicans were taking solace in a number of things as they looked forward to 2012. For one, Republicans knew that the party not holding the White House rarely suffered large House and Senate losses in presidential reelection years.
      In fact, the only time that has happened in recent history was to Republicans in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won the White House a year after the assassination of President John Kennedy. 
      Republicans also took comfort in knowing that they would control redistricting efforts in states with 202 congressional districts, compared to Democrats who have control over the lines in states with just 47 districts. 
      The huge Republican redistricting gains many had predicted before the new year appear less likely today. Republicans will be able to protect a number of their freshmen in redistricting, but Democrats could reap a bonanza of new seats in Illinois and possibly in Florida and California, if new processes in those two jackpots play out as Democrats believe they will.
      In the end, the GOP’s remapping gains might not be large enough to offset losses among some of the more exotic and problematic freshmen who won narrowly in swing districts.
      Finally, Republicans have had even more reason to feel secure since redistricting was occurring the year after a huge wave benefited them, and Democrats have to win 25 seats for control in the House to flip.

      =======

      Sorry Charlie – but there are no signs of concern.

      The economy is not improving and except in California., Obama is toxic and Pelosi is more so.

  • Mitch Daniels,  President 2012

    President 2012: Mitch Daniels to Kick Off Presidential Run?

    Indiana GOP Governor Mitch Daniels

    Perhaps or is it just another policy speech?

    Mitch Daniels has been mostly tethered to Indianapolis during a contentious legislative session, but he’s planning a trip to Washington next month to deliver what’s sure to be a high-profile speech on education.

    The Indiana governor will address the American Enterprise Institute on May 4, POLITICO has learned, discussing what has been the centerpiece of his agenda this year.

    Thousands of opponents and supporters have descended on the Indiana state capitol in recent months to weigh in on Daniels’ push to offer school vouchers, expand charter schools, overhaul teacher tenure and weaken the collective bargaining rights of teachers.

    The Hoosier has been mum about whether he intends to run for president, but has indicated he’ll make up his mind after his legislative session, now slated for April 29th. Should legislators meet their deadline, Daniels’ AEI speech could amount to his unofficial campaign debut. At the very least, it’ll be watched closely for clues as to whether he’s inclined to run.

    If Mitch Daniles is going to run, there will be a some sort of bat signal to the blogosphere – so stay tuned.

  • Illegal Immigration,  Welfare

    Study: Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children

    Read this new study and now you know where many of your taxpayer dollars are going and why illegla immigrants continue to flood the United States.

    Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.

    Among the findings:

    • In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
    • Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
    • A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
    • Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
    • Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
    • The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
    • We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
    • Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
    • High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.
    • An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.
    • If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.
    • Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.
    • For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.
    • Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.
    • The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.

    None of this is surprising, since I live in California and go into the stores in Los Angeles County and see the Food Stamps, WIC and whatever being used routinely. And, the California POLS wonder why there are massive state and federal budget deficits?

    California is broken and the first start of a solution is to secure the Mexican border, adopt E-Verify for employment and modify the welfare rules ala the Bill Clinton reforms in the 90’s – like in many states.

  • Jyllands-Posten,  Muhammad Caricatures

    Swede Sabhi Zalouti Extradited to Denmark Over Muhammad Cartoon Plot

    The office of Jylands-Posten Daily where the Muhammad Cartoons were published

    Off Sabhi Zalouti goes to Denmark to stand trial over a foiled murder plot at Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper who published the Muhammad Cartoons.

    Sabhi Zalouti, a 37 year-old Swede of Tunisian origin, was arrested in Stockholm in December while three of his alleged accomplices — two of them Swedish citizens — were arrested and are currently held in Denmark.

    “Sabhi Zalouti will be sent to Denmark for legal proceedings in accordance to the European arrest order Denmark’s justice ministry put out on March 9th 2011,” the Attunda district court in the Stockholm suburb of Sollentuna said in its decision

    Court documents showed Zalouti agreed with the decision on the basis that he could serve his sentence in Sweden.

    He was being held on suspicion of “preparing terrorist crimes” and is wanted in Denmark on charges of attempted terrorism.

    Danish officials said Zalouti and his accomplices were planning to kill as many as possible at the Copenhagen offices of the Jyllands-Posten daily.

    And, the reason for the speedy extradition?

    Zalouti was promised he could serve his sentence in Sweden.

    Great…..the Europeans coddling terrorists.

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for April 5th on 05:49

    These are my links for April 5th from 05:49 to 05:57:

    • Sen. Lindsey Graham Responds to Steyn, Stuttaford – In response to the criticism by Mark Steyn and Andrew Stuttaford about his weekend comments on free speech and Koran burning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) called me this afternoon to flesh out his thoughts on the matter.

      Here is the transcript:

      NRO: Some of my National Review colleagues are being pretty rough on you today. What is your response to some of the outrage on the right about your comments regarding free speech?

      GRAHAM: General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to [condemn] Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that, but I don’t like that. I don’t like burning the flag under the idea of free speech. That bothers me; I have been one of the chief sponsors of legislation against burning the flag. I don’t like the idea that these people picket funerals of slain servicemen. If I had my way, that wouldn’t be free speech. So there are a lot of things under the guise of free speech that I think are harmful and hateful.

      ======

      Read it all and vote Graham out of office at the next GOP primary election.

    • Lindsey Graham & the First Amendment – By Andrew Stuttaford – Lindsey Graham’s reaction to the barbarous murder of U.N. workers by an Afghan mob “in response” to the (admittedly idiotic) deeds of Florida’s most incendiary preacher shows a rather poor grasp of the First Amendment. This, quite remarkably, is what Graham said:

      I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy.

      Well maybe you did, but I suspect that they were aimed at stopping people from publicly proclaiming the virtues of the Adolf Hitler crowd. An over the top condemnation of all things German would, I reckon, have been highly unlikely to trigger the wrath of the law.

      Don’t get me wrong. I think Jones’s actions were ill-judged and unhelpful to what the U.S. is trying to do in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, if we start allowing Muslim mobs to dictate the limits of American free speech, this country will have sunk a very long way down.

      ======

      Read it all

    • Mark Steyn: Lindsey Graham and the First Amendment – Andrew, ever since I ran into a spot of bother in Canada, I’ve found myself giving speeches in defense of freedom of expression in Toronto, London, Copenhagen, etc. I did not think it would be necessary quite so soon to take the same stand in the land of the First Amendment against craven squishes of the political class willing to trade core liberties for a quiet life. I have no expectations of Harry Reid or the New York Times, but I have nothing but total contempt for the wretched buffoon Graham.

      A mob of deranged ululating blood-lusting head-hackers slaughter Norwegian female aid-workers and Nepalese guards — and we’re the ones with the problem?

      I agree with the Instaprof: Lindsey Graham is unfit for office. The good news is there’s no need for the excitable lads of Mazar e-Sharif to chop his head off because he’s already walking around with nothing up there. And, as for his halfwitted analogy with World War II, he’s too ignorant to realize it but he’s singing the dhimmi remake of an ancient Noel Coward satire.

      =====

      Unfit for office is mild treatment.

      Lindsey Grahamnesty needs to be primaried out of the U.S. Senate

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for April 4th through April 5th

    These are my links for April 4th through April 5th:

  • Twitter

    @Flap Twitter Updates for 2011-04-05

    Powered by Twitter Tools