The Laboratories of Democracy are Growing Stronger and More Republican

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, March 21, 1932.

I use the Brandeis quote to begin my comments of the new powers of the state legislatures after the 2014 election. I must, however, temper Brandeis’ comments in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann with a commentary by Michael S. Greve in his 2001 article in American Enterprise Institute. After all Brandeis was a liberal progressive and statist.

“Louis D. Brandeis favored federalist “experimentation in things social and economic” as a means to progressive, statist ends. Even his hagiographers concede that Brandeis would have held a very different view of state economic experimentation and its judicial review had those experiments run against, say, trade unions.

Modern justices have tended to overlook, or perhaps ignore, the instrumental and ultimately half-hearted nature of Brandeis’s federalist commitment. For example, they have quoted the “laboratory” dictum in the course of celebrating federalism’s virtues of diversity and attentiveness to local circumstances. Brandeis’s view of state experimentation, however, was entirely disconnected from those notions and instead emphasized its value as a step toward federal legislation. Similarly, profederalist justices have quoted the New State Ice dissent in opinions that reject, on Tenth Amendment grounds, federal impositions on state governments. Brandeis, as seen, did not believe in Tenth Amendment or any other constitutional federalism constraints.

One could easily live with an occasional out-of-context quotation. What distresses is the modern Supreme Court’s sustained Brandeisian tendency of subordinating federalism to progressive dictates and statist presumptions. The Court has empowered and protected state governments through creative interpretations of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments. It has, however, refrained from resurrecting constitutional doctrines—foremost, a robust enumerated powers doctrine—that would discipline state governments by forcing them to compete for productive citizens. On the rare occasions that the Court has limited enumerated powers, it first reassured itself that the states can and will in fact regulate the problem at hand—gun possession on school grounds or sexual violence.

On issues that we now call “social,” the Court acts as a superintendent of experimentation. Untoward experiments, such as operating an all-male college, are verboten. Experiments of the right kind are not; in a way they are affirmatively required. If states fail to liberalize, with sufficient speed, laws governing sexual and life-and-death matters, the Supreme Court will move them along; witness Roe v. Wade.”

This “Laboratories of Democracy” concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social “laboratories,” where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to [from] the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a basis for the "Laboratories of Democracy" concept, because the Tenth Amendment assigns most day-to-day governance responsibilities, including general "police power", to the state and local governments. Because there are 50 semi-autonomous states, different policies can be enacted and tested at the state level without directly affecting the entire country. As a result, a diverse patchwork of state-level government practices is created. If any one or more of those policies are successful, they can be expanded to the national level by acts of Congress. For example, Massachusetts established a health care reform law in 2006 that became the model for the subsequent Affordable Care Act at the national level in 2010.

Since the 1930s, and more so in the following decades, the "laboratories of democracy" concept has been undercut somewhat by the growth of federal power under expansive interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. See, for example, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

The Tenth Amendment may be stated as the cornerstone of Federalism. It was added to the Bill of Rights by our Founders. James Madison was not in favor of the Tenth Amendment as he believed the enumerated powers expressed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution would suffice to curb the power of the federal government. Madison finally succumbed to the wishes of the state conventions when he stated:

“I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.”

The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication.

This brings me to the focus of this blog — the growing power of the Republican Party in state legislatures and how this may begin to tamper the coercive and over reaching power of the federal government.

Today after last Tuesday’s election there are ninety-eight partisan state legislative chambers in our nation. (Nebraska has a unicameral and nonpartisan legislature.) Not all state legislative chambers had elections this November, but of the seventy-seven state legislative chambers that did have elections, Republicans gained seats in sixty-one, while losing seats in only ten.

This translated into shifting control of ten legislative chambers from Democrat to Republican and included: the State Senate in Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Maine, and New York and the State House of Representatives in New Mexico, Nevada, Minnesota, West Virginia, and New Hampshire. Republican power in state legislatures is at the highest point in a century, both in the number of chambers controlled and also in the number of Republicans in state legislature — important facts that tend to be submerged in higher profile races.

Looking at particular regions, the impact of these elections takes new meaning. In the five-state “Great Lakes” region of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana, Republicans made gains in state legislative chambers of each state and did not lose seats in any of the ten chambers. In the five legislative chambers in neighboring Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri that faced voters this midterm, Republicans made gains in all five.

In the Rocky Mountain purple states of Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, Republicans gained the Colorado Senate, the New Mexico House, the Nevada Senate, and the Nevada House without losing seats in any of the state legislative chambers. Those gains matter. Governor Martinez will have one house of the New Mexico legislature to help her push her conservative agenda; Governor Sandoval in Nevada goes from working with two Democrat houses of the legislature to a Republican legislature; and Colorado’s Democrat governor, who won a close race, now has to work with a Republican Colorado House.

In the South, in red states thought to be trending purple — Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia — Republicans gained seats in three legislative chambers and lost a seat in one, and the other two were unchanged. Despite the hopes Democrats have expressed of becoming competitive in the South, Republicans now control virtually every state legislative chamber there. Eight of those states had state legislative elections, and in those sixteen legislative chambers, Republicans gained seats in twelve chambers and lost seats in one.

The long-term impact of Republican power in the South and Rocky Mountain areas is enhanced by the fact that these are also the two fastest-growing areas of the country. These are the states that will have more congressmen after the next census, and Republican legislatures will be drawing the new congressional districts.

But even in the Democrat stronghold of the Northeast, Republicans did well. Republican governor Corbett of Pennsylvania lost re-election, but Republicans increased their existing majorities in both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature. Republicans came close to winning the governor’s race in New Hampshire, the only purple state in New England, but Republicans actually did capture the New Hampshire lower legislative chamber and increased the existing majority in the upper chamber.

Republicans now, for the first time in a while, have the power to stop Democrats in states like New York (which now has a Republican Senate) and Maryland, where the unexpected victory of Republican Larry Hogan in the gubernatorial race was complemented by the gain of eight seats in the Maryland House, enough to sustain a veto by Hogan. Republican gains in the Illinois Senate mean that incoming Republican Governor Rauner will now have both houses able to sustain his veto. Governor Dayton will have to work with a Republican Minnesota House.

Perhaps the most important consequence will be in those states where Republicans in state government have shown real gumption. Scott Walker, of course, tops the list. Increased Republican majorities in both houses of his legislature, along with his own re-election open the door for even more revolutionary reforms, which will no doubt include public sector pensions and school choice.. Re-elected Republican governors in Michigan, Ohio, and Florida have bigger Republican legislative majorities, which ought to embolden these governors to push hard reforms of public employee unions, educational systems, and voter integrity, as well as tort reform and other vital issues.

It also should be noted that the state houses (31) and state legislatures controlled by Republicans will no doubt play a major role in the 2016 presidential elections. If these governors and legislatures do good work for the people of their states they will have a great deal of influence in deciding 2016 presidential vote. Their focus should be on balanced budgets, eliminated deficits, increasing employment with business friendly policies and regulations, and repairing infrastructure. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Susanna Martinez of New Mexico, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and John Kasich of Ohio are showing the way.

Finally I think that there are a few points that can be made about the 2014 midterms.

After repeatedly putting off any action on immigration until after the election, Obama announced just prior to the election that he would use his pen to enact immigration reform. This served to motivate the Hispanic vote, but not in the way he intended. Exit polls show that 36% of Hispanics voted Republican. This is a huge change from 2012, when Hispanics voted Democrat at over 70%. It turns out that quite a few law-abiding conservative Hispanics are not fans of illegal immigration or late-term abortion.

Obama said in a speech on Oct. 2, "Make no mistake: my policies are on the ballot." I believe he thought that he could motivate that same base that re-elected him in 2012 to go to the polls by making the election about himself. Think about it. Up to that point in the election cycle, he had stayed in the background. His national poll numbers were dipping below 40%. The Democrat incumbents had run away from him and were trying their best to disassociate themselves from their voting records. Why would Obama, at that point, reinsert himself into the race? Because he was convinced that he could motivate his base to go to the polls to vote Democrat by making the election about him.

This turned out to be a huge miscalculation. It handed the Republicans powerful ammunition just 30 days prior to the election.

In his press conference Wednesday, Obama implied that since two thirds of the electorate didn't vote, he still had a mandate from the 2012 electorate to execute his vision. I disagree. Let's look at who didn't vote. Obama's black base didn't vote. Why? I think his black base is angry with him. They can't bring themselves to vote Republican, so what is the alternative? How has the black community expressed their dissatisfaction in previous elections? They stay home. So Obama's claim that he still has a mandate is hogwash. Everyone is mad, including his base.

The combined shift of the Hispanic vote and the unhappy black community is a real problem for the Democrats. Do you think that the black vote will show up for Hillary? I don't think so. They're mad. They're mad enough to not show up for Obama, even though he told them that he was on the ballot. If the Democrats can't figure out a way to regain the lost Hispanic vote and convince their black base that they need to vote, then 2016 will be another tough year for them.

There will doubtless be more “gridlock” in Washington. Obama is just too arrogant and ideological for anything else. But the chance for dramatic change — something to show America in 2016 — is in Republican hands in many states now. Surely the only counsel now to these Republicans is stay united and be bold.

Is Mr. Smith Truly Going To Washington

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." — Samuel Adams, in the Boston Gazette, 1781

In my last blog, “Will This Election Matter?”, I predicted the high probability that the Republicans would gain control of the United States Senate and the low turnout of the electorate. Both prediction of the low turnout was not too difficult as this is the historical number for mid-term elections. The prediction of control of the Senate was a bit more risky, but most pollsters were predicting this. I was, however, more that a bit surprised at the success of Republicans in gaining control of statehouses. Scott Walker of Wisconsin staved off the third attempt to unseat him. Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, and Arkansas, all blue states, elected Republican governors for a net gain of +3 (Pennsylvania Republican governor lost to his Democrat challenger). Now there are 31 Republican controlled statehouses and 17 occupied by Democrats with 2 races undecided. This was no doubt the largest surprise of the night.

On the Senate and House races the Republicans had a net gain of 7 seats to take control of the Senate 52 to 45 with two races still undecided (Alaska and Louisiana) Alaska will probably go to the Republican Dan Sullivan. With 100% of the precincts reporting Sullivan leads his Democrat opponent Mark Begich 48.96% to 45.34%. In Louisiana Mary Landrieu will face a runoff with her Republican challenger Bill Cassidy next month. The total for the two republicans in the race is 54.72% and Landrieu’s is 42.08%. Louisiana is becoming a Red state it is not to risky to say the Cassidy will win this seat. Also it is doubtful the Democratic Party will pour any money to support a losing candidate. If these two Senate seats are claimed by the Republicans their majority will increase to 54 to 45 with one independent.

For the House of representatives the Republicans picked up 3 seats to increase their majority to 243 to 179. There are still several undecided races but they will probably be split so there will not be much of a difference. This is the largest Republican majority in the House of Representatives since 1946.

So now what comes next? 31 (or 32) statehouses are now occupied by Republicans and 27 state legislatures are controlled by Republicans with 4 states with split control. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Florida, and Virginia (all states that went for Obama in 2014) have Republican controlled statehouses and legislatures. That bodes well for the nation as the states can play a dominant role in the Republic.

Republicans made historic gains in state legislatures in 2010. They held on in many states in 2012, or made up for losses in one state with gains in another — even though Democrats won the national election. And they won even more in 2014. This isn't an accident — it's the result of strategic fundraising from national Republicans, beginning in 2010, aimed at engineering statehouse takeovers. Out-of-state contributions were shuffled to states where they would make a difference, particularly as congressional partisanship and gridlock made policymaking in Washington increasingly unlikely.

And at a time of national gridlock, state legislatures have done an immense amount of legislating. Since 2010, 30 states, most controlled by Republicans, have passed a total of 205 new abortion restrictions. That's more restrictions than were passed in the entire first decade of the 2000s, according to the Guttmacher Institute:

Twenty-two states, 18 with Republican majorities, have passed laws making it more difficult for people to vote.

After the Newtown shootings, most new state laws surrounding guns actually eased restrictions on owning and carrying firearms. Seventy new laws loosening gun control were passed, 49 in states with Republican legislative majorities and Republican governors, compared to three in Democratically controlled states.

Then there was the fiscal experiment in Kansas, where Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and a Republican majority in the legislature slashed income taxes. State revenue came in well below projections and threatened Brownback's re-election — but he won, and has promised to accelerate the tax cuts in the future.

It should be noted that in 2020, state legislatures will redraw congressional district lines. That will mean that the GOP will have an opportunity to carve out districts favorable to their candidates. For those who cry "gerrymandering," I would gently point out that both parties do it and that almost every state's redistricting is subject to judicial review.

Republican wins at the state legislative level underscore just how complete their vanquishing of the Democrats on Tuesday was.

Now that the Senate and House will be under the control of the Republicans it will be time for them to begin lying out an agenda for the next two years. This is a moment when a meaningful change could be made to our nation’s downward trajectory.

When politicians on the Left win, they quickly abandon all man-of-the-people pretensions and reveal their true ideological devotion, which has to do with making democracy safe for activists, abortionists and the NEA.

As for conservatives, the old joke, oft repeated, is sadly applicable: They come to Washington believing it’s a cesspool, but soon discover it’s really a Jacuzzi.

Republicans are noted for, shall we say, losing their reformist edge. The combined influence of well-connected lobbyists, well-financed pressure groups, and well-ensconced party leaders tends to stoke the appetite for higher office and dampen enthusiasm for being tagged a loose cannon by standing on principle.

Whether GOPers can break old habits remains to be seen. But it’s never been more urgent that they do so. This country is in trouble. Serious trouble. And everybody knows it.

There’s a feeling abroad in the land that things are cracking apart. Barack Obama didn’t create the cracks, but the policies, decisions and actions of the last six years have pried them much, much wider.

What’s needed at this moment in history is more than mere tinkering around the edges of policies in place. We must reexamine the philosophical assumptions that have taken over our system of government and come to dominate our public life. We must ask some fundamental questions, like…

What happened to the notion that citizenship is a privilege involving both rights and duties — and for those seeking it, qualifications?

Where are the clear lines of legal jurisdiction and fiscal responsibility that once distinguished the various levels of government and kept power from becoming too concentrated?

When did the concept of civil liberty turn into a license for conduct unrestrained — or, for that matter, a mandate that everyone must accept any behavior, no matter how destructive, all in the name of personal autonomy?

Why is it we can no longer assume the protection of certain basic freedoms of conscience, opinion and expression?

How did the humane desire to help people caught in tough straits become an expectation of unlimited support?

Can they curb the vast influence over our state and local run public education system from Washington?

Will they curb the over regulations from the EPA and the rest of the administrative state.

Those are just a few on the domestic side. Let’s throw in some with a global scope, like…

How can we regain respect in a hostile world that sees us as increasingly irrelevant?

When will we reassert our territorial integrity, affirm our legitimate national interests, and recapture our status as the center of economic and technological leadership?

Can we ever achieve true strategic independence — in terms of both freedom from extreme overseas financial obligation and self-sufficiency in domestic energy resources?

Are there rational plans and realistic methods for beating back the latest waves of totalitarian revival and religious barbarity — which is to say, of securing our children’s freedom and spiritual patrimony?

All hold vast implications for policy development, which means there will be plenty of debate and — let’s hope — honest analysis. But more than that, they demand vision, courage, unity, steadfastness, and no small measure of moral courage.

Are Republicans up to the job?

Do they have the wherewithal to devise logical, comprehensive approaches to addressing our numerous problems? Can they build the necessary party discipline, restrain their individual ambitions, achieve the long-term perspective required for the daunting tasks of restoration and renewal?

Will they be able to craft a coherent message and develop means of communication sufficient to overcome media resistance and rally the people behind them?

Can they hold together solidly enough to oppose a radical administration unfettered by reelection concerns? Will they be confident in withstanding the accusations of “racism,” “misogyny,” “homophobia,” “exploitation,” and all the other contrived charges that have provided life-support to a failed ideology and a corrupt political cabal?

Then, beyond all that, are they prepared to defend their policies and actions in staunch defiance of Hillary’s inevitable onslaught?

Yes, I know this is the GOP we’re talking about — the party that hasn’t been able to save the 100-watt incandescent light bulb.

Many people are deeply disillusioned with the politics of our day. They’ve watched the demolition derby that’s gone on in Washington over the last few decades — since the end of the Reagan era, really — and they’ve concluded that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties.

I understand their feelings, but we now have an opportunity to find out whether their assumption is correct.

According to President Obama and his minions in the media Tuesday was not a reflection on his policies or lack of policy on his part. It was the fault of electorate who did not turn out. Most intelligent people know this is pure spin and balderdash. He will never move from ideological progressive/socialist roots. McConnell and Boehner will have to hold a firm line to get anything past his magic pen. This will require unity and public support. The public support will have to come from a unified message frequently delivered to the American people.

This past Tuesday might have been a turning point. Might have been. Now we shall see.

Will This Election Matter?

"No compact among men ... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." — George Washington, draft of first Inaugural Address, 1789

Much has been said and predicted about and for this upcoming midterm national election. The pundits and pollsters are falling over themselves to toss out predictions as to how many seats in the Senate and House the Republicans will take. The party “strategists” are doing their job of pushing the party’s talking points and spinning their message to potential voters.

The long-awaited midterm elections are but days away, and Republican optimism is beginning to cross the border into giddiness. Last week RedState’s Erick Erickson all but declared the Senate won, despite many close races:

“With the President’s numbers so bad and the GOP’s numbers so good, it makes you wonder what is going on in the state level polling that shows so many races so close. That national polling trickles down to states.

Perhaps there is some over-compensation and over-correction that is, ironically, going to cause a lot of pollsters to repeat the mistakes of 2012. There is no evidence that the voters who vote for Barack Obama are the Democrats’ voters. They are Barack Obama’s voters.

They did not show up for him in 2010 and the hysteria and race baiting the Democrats have stooped to in these final weeks suggests they know these voters will not show up for him in 2014 either.

The end of Barack Obama’s Presidency approaches.”

And at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has been predicting a wave that will finish off the Democrat majority in the Senate for some time. After looking at a round of polling showing GOP fortunes improving in the home stretch, his co-blogger Noah Rothman declared a “universal shift in momentum toward Republican candidates and away from Democrats and the independents who would caucus with them if elected. A late-breaking wave is cresting.”

Erickson, Morrissey, and Rothman aren’t alone. The conservative punditocracy seems almost united in its expectation of a coming Republican Senate, and there are even predictions that the GOP will not just sneak back into power, but will hold a majority with breathing room when the smoke clears.

The GOP currently sits at 45 seats in the Senate, but gains in non-competitive races in West Virginia and Montana — where the Democrats have quite possibly the worst candidate for the U.S. Senate in modern memory — are a given. Despite some buzz earlier in October to the contrary, a Republican pickup in South Dakota now looks more likely than not. And Republicans hold leads in Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and Colorado that appear safe enough for cautious optimism. Additionally, Iowa looks like a close victory for the GOP. That lineup would put the party at 53 seats. Then there are potential GOP upsets in North Carolina or New Hampshire, where Democrat incumbents are polling at significantly less than the magic number of 50 percent.

A Republican sweep, the wave election some predict, could carry those last two, push back the Democratic challengers in the red states up for grabs such as Kansas and Georgia, and run the GOP’s total up to 55 seats. And if the number gets that big, then it might even get bigger: Maine’s independent Senator Angus King might note the shifting of the winds and caucus with the Rs rather than the Ds (the Republican governor Paul LePage is now polling at a significant advantage, indicating King might be safer in the new majority in the near future) and it’s not impossible that West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, increasingly alienated from his own party, might decide to flip.

In Colorado, Mark Udall has been dubbed “Mark Uterus” for his incessant reliance on “War on Women” rhetoric against his Republican opponent Cory Gardner. So far a campaign on free contraception has failed to deliver on expectations, particularly when Gardner began to call for birth control to be sold over the counter. Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz earned the disgust of even many in the mainstream media for accusing, at least figuratively, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker of being an abuser of women.

In Louisiana, Democrats are using shadowy union-funded PACs to push black turnout through mailers and door-hangers. In North Carolina and Georgia, the appeal is even more naked — complete with imagery of lynchings and references to the Ferguson riots. A Florida-based, SEIU-funded group is selling bulletproof vests as a fundraiser to support a web ad telling black voters that unless they pull the lever for Democrats the police will shoot their children.

The turnout will be low, probably less than 35% of eligible voters, and the party that can generate the most passion in their supporters will probably win. In some states the election is a walk-away for the Republicans and in other states it’s too close to call. But the trend is towards the Republican Party due to the unpopularity of President Barack Obama. He has been laden with issues and scandals demonstrating his lack of leadership. Issues and scandals such as the; The IRS’s illegal attacking conservative groups, Fast and Furious, the Bengasi debacle, the handling of the Ebola virus, the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the aggressions of Russia in the Ukraine, the atrocious performance of the VA, the mass invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern border, and the targeting of reporters of FOX News. Yes, the man who, in 2008 at Mile High Stadium in Denver in front of Greek Columns and 200,000 screaming Germans at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, had the most popularity of and Democratic candidate in decades. Now his popularity ratings are dipping below 40% and the hope and change man is not a welcome guest on the campaign trail of many Democrats.

According to a recent article in the Washington Post:

“Democrats have been running from Barack Obama for some time, but now they’re already beginning to point fingers over the looming Election Day debacle. “This off-year election has become almost entirely a referendum on the president,” said one Democrat consultant. “It’s not just anger at [ObamaCare]. He has become, in my opinion wrongly, the symbol of dysfunction in Washington. That has led to a demoralized Democratic base, energized Republicans and those in the middle have an easy way of venting their frustration, and that is to punish the president’s party.” Another consultant added, “It is not all Obama but a lot of it is.” Part of the problem is that Obama thinks it’s all about Obama. “Make no mistake,” he said, “[my] policies are on the ballot.” And it’s killing Democrats.”

Oh yes this election matters to the politicians but will it really change the direction out Republic is going or stop the slide of governance away from the vision and Constitution of our Founders? I don’t think so. To me the election is synonymous with arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

For the past 100 years the progressive statists have been dragging the Republic away from our cultural, religious, and constitutional roots. The politicians may change, but the masters of the administrative state and academia will remain to carry out their cubicles and classrooms to dictate policy, regulate your lives, tax your earnings, and fill young minds with liberal-progressive clap trap. To change this it will take much more than one election. It may take 5, 10, or 20 elections along with the demise of the academics and statists. It will need a new generation of educated voters steeped in the values of our culture and dedicated to the vision of our Founders to really make a difference and bring our Republic back to the center.

I don’t mean to be a naysayer or negative about this important election, but I am a realists. I have written ad-nauseum about the rise of the administrative state and the power of the statists supported by the liberal progressive agenda along with the corruption of our education system from k12 through the university system. This is a powerful cabal that will be difficult to defeat if we want to return to the roots and visions that made this Republic the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes on culture for the Heritage Foundation:

“There is no sugarcoating it. With each passing year, on most cultural fronts, things have been getting worse. There is coarseness to our society and a shredding of real ties that bind us to one another. Only about half of Americans are currently married, and about half of the children in the U.S. will spend time outside a household with a married mom and dad. Whatever the circumstances, that has an impact on people and culture, and it shows up in indicators from fertility rates to teen drug use. Our brotherly social safety net is fraying, and we now look to government instead, compounding our problems. After all, bureaucracy doesn’t do love as well as civil society does.

The brave new world of family life today, with seemingly endless prospects for future chaos, makes one nostalgic for the days when we were at least agreed on some of the fundamentals for a good, healthy home environment for children and women and men. Our lack of a common vocabulary and understanding of human nature has made public opinion — and now even our lawmaking and courts—susceptible to wild claims about truth and tolerance in spite of social science evidence about marriage and family to the contrary. Devoid of reason, history, and tradition, these claims simply wouldn’t have made any sense a few decades ago.

As recently as a decade or so ago, a sensitive cultural observer might have referred to “broken homes” without the prospect of a politically correct shutdown. That shutdown of serious dialogue about the direction of our society is a hallmark of what has been dubbed an “Insatiable New Intolerance.” As a powerful, thinly veiled intolerance has established its power—throughout the culture: in education, the entertainment industry, medicine, and politics—the outlook can seem grim for anyone holding traditional views of marriage, family, and life.”

Americans have good reason to be proud of our country’s many achievements in science and technology. The U.S. is home to Silicon Valley, the technology capital of the world, and to 16 of the world’s top 20 scientific universities. Many of the essential devices we use every day such as the television, automobile, airplane, internet, personal computer and smartphone were invented by Americans.

The passion for scientific discovery in America goes all the way back to our nation’s founders, many of whom were deeply engrossed in the sciences as well as the politics of their day. In addition to authoring the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson was an excellent mathematician and a prolific inventor. Beginning in 1797, Jefferson served as president of the American Philosophical Society, the country’s leading scientific institution.

When he became president of the United States a few years later, Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark to explore the new Louisiana Territory and chart a route to the Pacific Ocean. Before the expedition embarked, Jefferson sent Lewis to Philadelphia for training in medicine and the natural sciences. The president was adamant that Lewis and Clark document every detail of their trip — the people they met, the animals they encountered, the plants they found, and the geology they observed.

The explorers sent many specimens back east to Jefferson, including some live animals (such as a prairie dog and a few magpies). They became the first people to describe a number of plant and animal species for science, including the grizzly bear.

The curiosity of the founding generation of Americans — including such figures as Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and others — shaped America profoundly. The spirit of discovery became one of the nation’s defining characteristics as Americans rushed west into the frontier, then connected the continent through a busy network of steamships, railroads, and telegraphs. The belief that there was a better future ahead — and that American ingenuity was the key to it all — was an important cultural foundation on which many of the accomplishments we see today were built.

Today, the pioneering sense of excitement about the future has all but disappeared, in part because we are doing a poor job of helping the next generation appreciate the great achievements of our past.

Indeed, for two generations now we have failed to teach American history in our schools, and as a result, many students struggle with the very basics. Just 20 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders and 12 percent of twelfth-graders are at grade-level proficiency in American history, according to the Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress.

A majority of fourth graders don’t know the purpose of the Lewis and Clark expedition, Department of Education data show. Most fourth graders can’t say why the pioneers moved west. And two-thirds don’t understand that westward migration resulted in new states being added to the union.

We must do a better job. If children fail to learn American history, they cannot possibly understand how America became the great country it is today. And more importantly, they won’t be able to help America remain the most pioneering and prosperous nation on earth.

So while this election can be a first step towards returning our Republic to the vision of our Founders it will mean little if we, as a nation, cannot, begin a return to our cultural, religious, and constitutional roots and reverse 100 years of liberal-progressive destruction of these roots. Politicians will follow the will of the people if that will is strong and continuous. Ronald Reagan showed us how to express this will and provide the constitutional leadership this Republic so urgently needs. If we cannot do this than this election is more of a trick than a treat.

Will the Democrats be Hurt by Obama’s Scandals?

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”— James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1788.

There have been more revelations in the IRS AP, and Benghazi scandals.

Rosen wasn’t the only Fox News employee to come under intense DOJ scrutiny.

Fox News’ Megyn Kelly said Monday that Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse and DOJ and national-security senior producer Mike Levine were also targeted by President Obama’s Justice Department. This is a developing story.

According to the AP White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior presidential advisers knew in late April that an upcoming IG report was likely to find that IRS employees had inappropriately targeted conservative political groups.

That disclosure on Monday expanded the known circle of top officials who were aware of the audit beyond those identified earlier by the White House.

The White House says McDonough and the other advisers did not tell President Barack Obama about the impending report, leaving him to learn the results from news reports later.

The White House defended the decision to keep the president in the dark, with press secretary Jay Carney saying Obama was comfortable with the fact that "some matters are not appropriate to convey to him, and this is one of them." In the parlance of Potomac-speak this is plausible deniability.

The outgoing IRS commissioner expressed regret today for a decision to use a planted question to go public with the agency's practice of targeting conservative groups, calling the move "an incredibly bad idea."

Steven Miller, appearing on the Hill for a second hearing in two weeks on the scandal, acknowledged that the agency was trying to get ahead of a damning investigative report at the time. As was confirmed over the weekend, he admitted the agency had a question planted at a conference two Fridays ago — a senior IRS official, in response to the question, then confessed to a long-running program that singled out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.

"Obviously the entire thing was an incredibly bad idea," Miller said.

Fox News reported:

“Miller explained that the agency had been trying to brief lawmakers on the Hill, in advance of the release of the inspector general report. But that "did not work out," he said, so they used the planted question.

"The report was coming, we knew that," he told the Senate Finance Committee.

The issue raised more questions for lawmakers about the way in which the agency addressed public concerns about the screening program. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, criticized the IRS for using the planted question to come forward, suggesting it compounded the problems with the agency's response.

In a tense round of questioning, Hatch also asked why neither Miller nor former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman acknowledged the program before -- Congress had been asking about the allegations since 2012.

Shulman claimed he did not have a "full set of facts," but said he was aware in the spring of 2012 there was an internal list that included the term "Tea Party." That list was used as the basis for singling out some groups applying for tax-exempt status. Shulman also said he did not know how the controversial program started, adding that lower-level officials "should have run up the chain" their knowledge about the program earlier.

"You should have corrected the record, and you should have done it long before today," Hatch said.

He also accused Miller of lying when he didn't acknowledge the program in letters to Congress last year, despite being aware of it.

"That's a lie by omission, there's no question about that in my mind," Hatch said. “

…

“The hearing comes after White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the president's counsel was told on April 24 about the preliminary findings of an IRS audit that showed tax officials unfairly targeted Tea Party groups. Senior legal counsel Kathryn Ruemmler was told about the audit on April 24, Carney said Monday. She then told Denis McDonough, Obama's chief of staff and other senior officials about the investigation.

"It was the judgment of counsel this is not a matter she should convey to the president," Carney said.

Carney also said while Ruemmler knew the subject of the investigation and potential findings, they were not given a draft of the report and understood details could change.

Ahead of the hearing, Baucus and Hatch sent a letter to the IRS Monday, asking for an explanation. The letter included 41 separate requests for information. They gave the IRS until May 31 to respond.

The two senators said the IRS had not been forthcoming about the issue in the past.”

It was just learned today that, According to ABC News, Lois Lerner, the top IRS official who is at the center of the controversy for the targeting of tea party and other conservative groups, will refuse to answer questions at a congressional hearing Wednesday and invoke her Fifth Amendment rights, ABC News has learned.

She is set to appear before the House Oversight Committee. Congressional aides said today that they received a notice from Lerner’s lawyers that she would not answer their questions because it is now part of a criminal investigation.

A mid-level State Department official sidelined in the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attack is speaking out, publicly accusing his bosses of scapegoating him for the security lapses in eastern Libya. 

Raymond Maxwell, who was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, told The Daily Beast he had "no involvement" with decisions on security at the vulnerable diplomatic outpost but was placed on administrative leave anyway along with a few other officials.

He claims he was given little explanation and no opportunity to appeal the status since he wasn't technically fired.

"They just wanted me to go away but I wouldn't just go away," Maxwell said. "I knew (former U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens). Chris was a friend of mine."

According to the Daily Beast report:

“The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was made by Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, according to three State Department officials with direct knowledge of the events. On the day after the unclassified version of the ARB’s report was released in December, Mills called Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones and directed her to have Maxwell leave his job immediately.

"Cheryl Mills directed me to remove you immediately from the [deputy assistant secretary] position," Jones told Maxwell, according to Maxwell.

The decision to remove Maxwell and not Jones seems to conflict with the finding of the ARB that responsibility for the security failures leading up to the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi should fall on more senior officials.

“We fixed [the responsibility] at the assistant-secretary level, which is in our view the appropriate place to look, where the decision making in fact takes place, where, if you like, the rubber hits the road," Pickering said when releasing the ARB report. (to see Pickering’s comments at Foreign Policy you may have to sign-up for an account. It’s free and worth it)

The report found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department,” namely the Diplomatic Security (DS) and Near East bureaus. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns testified in December that requests for more security in Libya, denied by the State Department, did reach the assistant secretaries, and “it may be that some of my colleagues on the seventh floor saw them as well."

But Jones was not disciplined in any way following the release of the report, nor was the principal deputy assistant secretary of State at NEA, Liz Dibble, who is slated to receive a plush post as the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in London this summer. In the DS bureau, the assistant secretary, the principal deputy, and the deputy assistant all lost their jobs. In the NEA bureau, only Maxwell was asked to leave.

Jones and Dibble were responsible for security in Libya, Maxwell and three State Department officials said. What’s more, when Maxwell was promoted to his DAS position in August 2011, most responsibility for Libya was carved out of his portfolio, which also included Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Although Maxwell did some work on Libya, all security-related decisions were handled by Dibble and Jones, according to the three officials.

One State Department official close to the issue told The Daily Beast that Clinton’s people told the leadership of the NEA bureau that Maxwell would be given another job at State when the Benghazi scandal blew over. Maxwell said Jones assured him he would eventually be brought back to NEA as a “senior adviser,” but that Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, reneged.

“The deal that NEA made with Cheryl Mills and the seventh floor was to keep Ray within NEA and just give him another portfolio. For whatever reason, it didn’t go down like that, and that was a complete shock to Beth [Jones], because that was the deal that Beth made with Cheryl,” the official said. “Behind Beth’s back, Maxwell ended up being put on administrative leave.”

Jones and Mills both declined to comment for this article, but a source close to Mills denied that any kind of deal was made or reneged on regarding Maxwell’s future employment. The decision to place Maxwell on administrative leave was based on the classified portion of the ARB’s report, which named Maxwell specifically, the source said, but since the ARB didn’t say that Maxwell had committed a “breach of duty,” he couldn’t be outright fired.”

…

“Maxwell just wants his day in court. He wrote a poem on his personal blog in April which referred to the State Department’s treatment of the four officials removed from their jobs after Benghazi as a “lynching.”

Last week, he posted another poem about the growing Benghazi scandal.

“The web of lies they weave gets tighter and tighter in its deceit until it bottoms out -at a very low frequency – and implodes,” he wrote. “Yet all the while, the more they talk, the more they lie, and the deeper down the hole they go.”

Last week, the Obama administration tried to stem the controversy by releasing 100 pages of emails and notes from the days following the attack. The documents, as previously reported, showed State Department and other officials trying to edit the internal story-line to remove references to prior security incidents and the possible involvement of Islamic extremist groups.

Last week I wrote about the memo issued by Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, in my “Can the Democratic Party Survive Barack Obama?” blog.

As I noted in the blog Sosnik issued his memo in advance of the House Benghazi hearings and the latest revelations and hearings regarding the IRS and DOJ scandals.

Two top-tier Democratic prospects recently bypassed running for Senate seats in Georgia and South Dakota — showing that Republicans aren't the only ones with internal jostling and recruiting hiccups ahead of next year's midterm elections.

The prospects’ decisions also show divisions within the Democratic Party and its challenge of finding candidates whose ideologies line up with voters in Republican-leaning states.

Democrats say they'll be fine even though Rep. John Barrow in Georgia and former Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin in South Dakota declined to seek seats left open by retirements. Both are moderate-to-conservative Democrats, whose views would seemingly play well in their states, giving the party a chance to win on GOP turf as Democrats look to hang onto power in the Senate. But without them running, Democrats probably will be forced to back more liberal, less-tested nominees who would likely have tougher races.

The circumstances underscore a particular challenge for Democrats: They have a five-seat cushion requiring that Republicans nearly sweep the most competitive races to gain enough seats for control. But many contests are in states where President Barack Obama never won and remains unpopular. Another hurdle for Democrats: Midterm electorates are generally older, whiter and more Republican than in presidential years.

Georgia Democrats are hoping to recruit Michelle Nunn, daughter of former Sen. Sam Nunn and a nonprofit executive in Atlanta. She's expected to announce a decision soon in the race to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

In the contest for retiring Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's South Dakota seat, Democrats' preferred candidate now appears to be Rick Weiland, once a top aide to former Sen. Tom Daschle and twice an unsuccessful candidate for Congress. Weiland launched his bid, with Daschle's backing, amid clamoring about Herseth-Sandlin and Johnson's son, Brendan, a U.S. attorney. State Democrats now say the younger Johnson likely won't run.

"It's a recipe for a challenging campaign," said Steve Dick, a former Daschle aide. "It's a tough race, without a doubt. And it's getting more difficult. We're a red state. We just don't have these opportunities that often."

South Dakota is one of three states where a Democratic senator is retiring in a state Obama lost last November; the others are Montana and West Virginia. There also are Democratic retirements in the swing-voting states of Iowa and Michigan, which Obama won.

Republicans also are aiming at four Democratic incumbents in states Republican Mitt Romney won: Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Georgia, which went for Romney by 8 percentage points over Obama, has one of two GOP seats opened by retirements; the other is in Nebraska, a virtual lock for Republicans.

Democrats say they can challenge Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, but they haven't yet recruited a top-tier candidate even though the Republican is unpopular at home.

At the National Republican Senatorial Committee, spokesman Brad Dayspring mocked Democrats for failing at a strategy he says was clear: Get conservative Democrats in Republican-leaning states. But Justin Barasky, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, dismissed the notion of an internal Democratic struggle or recruiting woes, and pointed to divisive primaries shaping up for Republicans in several states.

Clearly, Democrats are left with a tricky balance as they look for candidates with this criteria: Satisfy core Democratic voters, ensure successful fundraising and reach independents who voted for Romney and, before him, John McCain and George W. Bush.

Some Democrats thought Barrow and Herseth-Sandlin satisfied those standards.

Barrow is the Deep South's last white Democrat in the House, and he's beaten well-financed GOP nominees in a House district drawn to ensure his defeat. He's a gun owner who voted against the 2010 health care overhaul and voted to hold Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt of Congress. He supported the so-called fiscal cliff deal between Obama and congressional Republicans, and successfully wooed thousands of Romney supporters in his last campaign.

But the way Barrow keeps his job could explain why he abandoned the possibility of a promotion. He may keep his district seat, but a state-wide race is a horse of a different color.

Some Democrats had feared that Barrow would have drawn a primary opponent, and both national and state Democrats concede that the party's best chance for a Georgia upset is to avoid a divisive primary, while leaving a crowded GOP field to spend money and throw punches.

Fort said Nunn would be a compelling candidate. And Democrats, eager to dispute the notion that losing Barrow is a disappointment, point to polling commissioned by Senate Democrats that suggests Nunn would be the better candidate in a general election.

Former Rep. George "Buddy" Darden said Nunn's lack of experience could be an asset. She doesn't have a record to parse and can run as an outsider, he said, a particular upside if Republicans nominate one of the three sitting congressmen who are running.

In South Dakota, Herseth-Sandlin had been seen by national Democrats as a top-tier prospect because her profile fit the state, and they were aggressively courting her behind the scenes. The 42-year-old Sioux Falls lawyer was taking steps toward running, hoping to avoid a divisive primary in which her opposition to the health care bill in 2010 and support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2004 would be used against her.

Weiland, meanwhile, quickly entered the race, in part to keep Herseth-Sandlin out, a sign of tension between the moderate and liberal wings. Weiland, who lost to Herseth-Sandlin in the 2004 House primary, is a close Daschle ally.

That scenario becomes more probable should the race for the Republican nomination become contested, South Dakota Democrats said.

Former Gov. Mike Rounds is running and his fellow Republicans view him as a solid candidate. Yet popular GOP newcomer Kristi Noem, elected to the House in 2010, hasn't ruled out a candidacy. She's popular with the tea party and is seen as a better fundraiser than Rounds.

If these scandals continue to grow there is a distinct possibility more and more Democrats, especially in red or swing states will jump the Obama ship as Republicans did with Nixon. Nixon was reelected 1972 carrying 49 states but had a Democratic controlled Congress. By 1974 he had resigned the presidency under the cloud of impeachment.

For the next year Obama’s administration will be embroiled in continued and developing scandals of abuse of government powers and cover-up of foreign policy blunders. By the beginning of 2014, when the campaigns for the congressional elections begin it will be a very hot climate for Democratic candidates — especially in the areas of fund raising. Also Obama will be hamstrung in pushing his agenda forward. He already has lost a half year of his second term and will probably lose the remainder of the year.

If history plays out and the Republicans hold their majority in the House picking up three or four more seats and gain control of the Senate by picking up 6 seats the composition of the 114^th Congress would be Republicans 51, Democrats 49 and one Independent — Bernie Sanders the socialist from Vermont who was reelected in 2012 with 71% of the vote. Sanders, usually voting with the Democrats could throw the Senate into a tie leaving the deciding vote to Joe Biden, but the Republicans would control all committee chairs and Harry Reid could join Nancy Pelosi at a Del Webb retirement community.

This may sound like wishful thinking but political scandals have a way of influencing state-wide elections and there are enough red states Obama won that could make a difference in 2014.

Can The Democratic Party Survive Barack Obama?

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 51

As the walls of fortress Obama are begging to crumble his princes and princesses in the Democratic Party are starting to become fearful of their future when their king is dethroned. There are other rebel princes and princesses massing in the forest ready to take the castle and throne a king of the peoples choosing. These rebels, called Republicans and Libertarians, while diverse in their beliefs, are growing stronger each day as they see cracks in the fortress walls. Like Jericho, of biblical fames they are marching around the fortress walls blowing their trumpets.

Meanwhile the king is busy trying to convince the people that is has been anointed by God to rule the land and travels about giving speeches to his supporters urging them to believe in him leaving his princes and princesses to defend the castle.

Four the past five years the king has relied on his court jesters in the media to defend him from the slings and arrows of the rebels. Until now they have been the king’s most ardent protectors and have kept him safe from rebel attacks. But this is changing as the jesters see that the king they so zealously admired is really a very narcissistic and petty man who cares only for himself and his queen. Now many in the kingdom are chanting "The king never tried, his diplomats died."

The jesters, believing in the progressive ideology of the king are now beginning to look about for a new prince or princess to support, but they not having much success in their quest. You see the king jealous of his power and believing he is the anointed one has not allowed nor supported the rise of any other princes or princesses in the land either in his castle or their own fiefdoms called states.

If you think this parable is too fantastic to believe I offer the following from the real news.

One of the Democrats’ most veteran strategists warns that the party is “in decline” and “at considerable risk” when President Barack Obama is no longer on the scene.

“Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats,” Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clinton’s White House, writes in a new memo.

While Republican branding problems get the lion’s share of attention, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating has declined by 15 points since Obama took power. A Pew Research Center survey this January showed that the Democratic Party was viewed favorably by 47 percent of Americans, down from 62 percent in Jan. 2009.

With the likelihood of gridlock and near-record-low confidence in public institutions, Sosnik expects 2014 to bring the fourth change election in the past eight years.

“This puts Senate Democrats in a vulnerable position, while threatening Republican’s control of the House as well as their sizeable numerical advantage in the governorships across the country,” writes Sosnik, who advised Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race and now does consulting work for a variety of private-sector clients.

According to Sosnik Obama neither directly campaigned nor raised money for down-ticket Democrats last year. The post-election creation of Organizing for Action to push his own agenda has upset party regulars because it makes the Democratic National Committee less relevant than ever, squeezes fundraising for other Democratic groups and emphasizes issues that put moderates in a bind.

“Obama not only got elected by running against the party establishment, but he has governed as a President who does not emphasize his party label,” These memos are read closely by an influential community of insiders in the political and business worlds. In this one, Sosnik outlines several challenges facing his own party:

• Obama’s personal popularity does not easily translate for other candidates. The president is not building the Democratic Party’s institutional apparatus in a way that it will thrive when he’s gone.
• The losses in the 2010 midterms gave Republicans control of the redistricting process, which will be in effect until after the 2020 census. This gives the GOP a structural advantage in keeping the House.
• Millennials, born 1981 to 1994, and Generation X’ers, born 1965 to 1980, are voting Democratic, but a plurality identify themselves as independents — which makes them less reliable.
• Democrats cannot count on the same level of African-American turnout without Obama at the top of the ticket. Sosnik cites new analysis showing that in 2012 for the first time ever eligible black voters turned out a higher rate than whites.

While Republicans have a serious Hispanic problem, Sosnik explains, “younger Hispanics feel less of an allegiance to the Democratic Party than their elders.” Only 50 percent of Hispanic voters aged 18-34 identify themselves as Democrats, according to Gallup, compared to 59 percent of Hispanic voters 55 or older. Click here to view Sosnik’s graphs and charts.

If Hillary Clinton does not run, Sosnik fears that Democrats will be left with a thin bench of top-flight presidential contenders in 2016.

Looking to 2014, Democratic base groups also tend to turn out at lower rates for midterms than presidential elections.

In terms of actual policy making, Sosnik believes that it will be “almost impossible” for Obama to effectively engage Congress.

“Obama’s victory last November was a great political achievement, but the fact that he didn’t set out a clear policy agenda for a second term left him without a clear mandate to govern over a politically divided Congress,” he writes.

Sosnik notes that many Republicans are more concerned about losing in a primary than a general election, which makes compromise harder.

“Furthermore,” he writes, “there’s not a single member of either party who fears paying a political price for not falling in line with the President, making it even more difficult to get members to cast difficult votes.”

Sosnik is no doubt on to something and no doubt knows Washington politics better than I, but he no doubt wrote most of this memo before Wednesday’s hearings on Benghazi and Friday’s announcement by the IRS that they auditing tax returns of conservative organizations for political purposes. Both these scandals along with the gun-walking of automatic weapons to Mexico and his numerous failed energy investments will further weaken Obama and the Democrat Party if they blindly support him going forward. As the Benghazi scandal grows in scope and intensity Obama will lose more and more of the so called “independents.” Furthermore I don’t think he realizes how the media, which have supported him so fervently since his run for the presidency will being to dwindle as the spate of scandals grow.

Sosnik, however, is right on his point about the Republican control of state houses and the Democrats weak bench. While the House and Senate are not the farm club for presidents governorships are. There always are a few exceptions to every rule and Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz may be those exceptions. The Republicans are loaded with young, conservative governors who are making news on the national level. Governors such as:

Chris Christie of New Jersey a blue state

• Rick Snyder of Michigan – a blue
• Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania – a blue state
• Paul LePage of Maine – a blue state
• Rick Scott of Florida – a blue state
• Dave Heineman of Nebraska –a red state
• Bobby Jindal of Louisiana –a red state
• Sam Brownback of Nebraska –a red state
• Scott Walker of Wisconsin –a red state
• Mitch Daniels of Indiana – a red state
• Nicki Halley of South Carolina – a red state
• Susana Martinez of New Mexico – a blue state

(The color indicates how the state voted in the 1012 presidential election)

While this list is by no means complete it does show the strength of the Republican bench. Ant baseball team with this load of talent in their farm system would replicate the New York Yankees of the 50s and 60s.

On the other hand the Democrats have a very weak bench. Their current prospects are Andrew Cuomo (governor of New York) and Hillary Clinton. (I will address Clinton’s prospects latter.) To continue with the baseball analogy the Democrats look more like the old Washington Senators.

Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute has an excellent article on The Rise of the Republican Governors in which he states:

“Shortly after Barack Obama won reelection in November, New Jersey governor Chris Christie pointed out that Republicans’ cloudy political prospects had a bright silver lining. “One of the reasons you have 30 Republican governors in America, and why we’re the only organization to add Republican strength,” Christie said, “is because people see us getting things done.” Christie’s stance countered most of the elite postelection commentary, which gleefully pronounced the Republican Party’s political irrelevance. But the governor was right. Since Obama first took office in 2008, Republicans have picked up a net nine governorships, bringing their total to 30 states, which hold nearly 184 million Americans. In 24 of those states, containing 157 million Americans, Republicans also control the legislatures. Democrats boast similar power in just 12 states, with a population of 100 million. Even Republicans’ unimpressive national showing last November didn’t reverse their state-level momentum.”

…

“States are laboratories of democracy, in Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous formulation, and the very different experiments that their Republican and Democratic governors conduct over the next few years—especially on issues that go to the heart of economic competitiveness—will be eye-opening. In the months since President Obama’s reelection, it’s becoming clear that the Republican governors plan to lead in ways consistent with the reform agendas that got them elected. How they fare may steer the Republican Party’s course more decisively than any soul-searching in Washington does.”

The Democratic Party just loves Hillary Clinton why I don’t know. Perhaps it’s the name. Hillary left her post as Secretary of State in January with high hopes of beginning her run for the White House in 2016 and will be 69 years old. She accomplished very little as Secretary of State and avoided as much controversy as possible. She pretty much walked in Barack Obama’s shadow. Her hopes were high and prospects good until she appeared in front of a congressional committee and lost her composure when she shouted “what does it matter” when referring to a question regarding the dead Americans killed in Benghazi last September. She had additional damage heaped on her credibility as a leader during last Wednesday’s Benghazigate hearings.

With Benghazi, has Hillary Clinton hit what President Obama might call a “bump on the road” in her widely assumed bid for the presidency in 2016.

Some Republicans say yes. According to National Public Radio, “high-profile Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is displaying signs of being interested in a 2016 presidential run, recently told a Missouri audience that Clinton has disqualified herself for future public office by her actions.” At a “Spirit of Reagan” award ceremony, Paul said that, “I think that her dereliction of duty — I don't question her motives — but her dereliction of duty and her lack of leadership should preclude her from holding any other office.”

On the other hand Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House oversight committee looking into Benghazi, summarizes the response of the defenders of former Secretary of State Clinton. He says that Republicans are using the witnesses' statements at the Benghazi hearings for “political purposes.” While Cummings, a very ardent Hillary supporter may spin this, I think future revelations about Benghazi and Ms. Clinton’s role will prove him no more than the partisan hack he is.

The backdrop to Mrs. Clinton’s situation is what the news media call the “narrative” of her public and political life. Consistent with Congressman Cummings’ framing, that narrative — pushed by Mrs. Clinton’s admirers in her party and the press — is that she is so elevated in stature that she is “above” the petty bickering of “politics.”

This is patently absurd. Mrs. Clinton is clearly comfortable with her own brand of “political purposes.” As Bill Clinton’s wife, as a former First Lady in Arkansas and Washington, as a U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State and before that as a political activist, she has been deeply involved in politics going all the way back to her college days.

Indeed, she served as a researcher for the House Judiciary Committee about procedures, grounds and standards for impeachment at the time of Watergate. And now, with Benghazi, in a supreme irony, the same questions are being asked about Mrs. Clinton as were asked about former President Richard Nixon concerning Watergate:

What did she know and when did she know it? What did she do (or not do)? Did she lie, distort, cover up and evade responsibility? Did she place politics above ethics? Did she seek deniability over accountability? Did her staff and advisors peddle false stories about causes and effects? Did they try to impugn the integrity and motives of those who have criticized her? Was she devious and complicit? What were the broader human and political costs of her involvement in the events being investigated? How does all this affect her legacy and reputation (her past) and what implications does it have for her future as a public figure and a participant in public life?

Abraham Lincoln said that, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.”

The public sentiment about Hillary Clinton has traditionally been sky-high, as measured by the Gallup Poll. Three months after the Benghazi attack, in December of 2012, a Gallup Poll found Mrs. Clinton to be “the most admired woman in the world,” with 21 percent selecting her and with First Lady Michelle Obama a distant second at five percent. It was the 17th time in 20 years that Mrs. Clinton had taken that title.

The challenge to the public sentiment about Hillary Clinton with the Benghazi hearings depends on its effect on Mrs. Clinton’s carefully constructed personal and political narrative, which has always depended on a paradox: that she is both a victor and a victim.

Her supporters celebrate what they believe is Mrs. Clinton’s superior competence, intelligence, compassion and her toughness and resilience when under attack by her critics. In this, they portray her as a victor.

Simultaneously, Mrs. Clinton’s narrative depicts her as a victim. During her husband’s enmeshment in a scandal about his affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, Mrs. Clinton told NBC’s Matt Lauer that there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." Mrs. Clinton’s playing of the victim card and her conspiracy theories have encompassed an abundance of charges against her over the years, including her questionable investing record (Whitewater real estate, cattle futures trading) and her role in the so-called “Filegate” and “Travelgate” allegations.

Whether she is presented as a victor or a victim, the basis of Mrs. Clinton’s narrative has always been that she is a sympathetic figure, besieged by unsympathetic critics. But the officials testifying in the Benghazi hearings are initially coming across as sincere and emotionally sympathetic. The parents of the slain Americans at Benghazi who have appeared in TV interviews have likewise been sincere and emotionally sympathetic.

In her belated Senate testimony about Benghazi back in January, Mrs. Clinton looked markedly unsympathetic — angry, aggressive and insensitive — as she pounded the desk and shouted, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Even if a “smoking gun” is revealed about Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in Benghazi, it is wise to consider that she has survived other smoking guns in her and her husband’s past. The power of her personal and political narrative — with its soap opera-like ups and downs — is ingrained in America’s consciousness. And in good and bad times for her, Americans in Gallup polls keep expressing their admiration for her.

We are three years away from 2016 — and time and Hillary Clinton’s narrative are likely to work in her favor. The real opposition to Hillary Clinton will not come from the Republicans in 2016 but from the Democrat wannabes, like Andrew Cuomo, who not treat her with kid gloves as they make their run for the White House.

How 2016 will work out for the Republican bench but I hope it is nor a replay of 2012 with a covey of candidates stepping on each other and allowing the least controversial of the bunch to run against Obama. There is no sense replaying the 2012 Republican primaries. The Bench is much stronger now. Much will depend on the off-year election in 2014 and the continued success of those 30 Republican governors.

The 6.3 Trillion Dollar Gamble

“You can have open borders or you can have the welfare state, but you cannot have both.” — Milton Friedman

To view the video containing Friedman's remarks on immigration click here.

I am the first generation of immigrants on my father’s side and the second (by one year) on my mother’s. Subsequently I have a warm place in my heart and mind for immigrants — be they LEGAL.

Until 1913 the United States had an open immigration policy. The first waves were the English Puritans arriving in Massachusetts comprised the first of four great migrations to America. After the English Civil War a generation later, Royalist Cavaliers, Anglican Royalists, and sympathizers of the Crown fled Puritan-dominated England and settled in the Virginia area. The third transatlantic migration occurred between 1675 and 1725, when Quakers from the northern midlands of England arrived in the Delaware River Valley. The fourth of the great migrations was comprised of Scots-Irish who settled in the broad expanse of land from western Pennsylvania to the Shenandoah Valley. These are the people who gave us our Republican form of government. They were the stock our Founders came from.

The next large waves were the German and Irish waves of 1848. The German’s came and settled mainly in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. They were the farmers and small businessmen. They were also scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. They invented things, they discovered new pharmaceuticals, they designed and built things like the Brooklyn Bridge, and the started companies that grew in giant corporations like General Electric.

On the other hand the Irish immigrants were poor; many tenant farmers, who were escaping the potato famine that was sweeping Ireland. They settled in the big cities on the East Coast and provided the labor demanded by our growing industrialization. By the time of the Civil War many of these immigrants and their children were fighting for the Union.

After the Civil War it was the Irish immigrants were building the railroads, including the Transcontinental Railroad, our bridges, and roads. By 1880 most of the police forces of eastern cities such as New York, Boston, and Philadelphia were comprised of Irish as were the non-commissioned officers in the Army.

The next big wave of immigrants came from Southern and Eastern Europe with the majority being from Italy. Again these immigrants migrated to our big cities to fill the increasing demand for factory workers.

The one thing all of these immigrants had in common was their allegiance to the United States. They came for freedom and opportunity. Yes they brought their cultures and foods with them. They brought Italian pasta, Irish stew, and German beer and Bratwurst. What would we do today without Italian food?

Yes they settled in ghetto-like areas in the big cities with their clubs, restaurants and churches, but they all learned to speak English so they could learn the laws, gain employment, go to school, and eventually become citizens. There was no affirmative action, Multi-lingual schools, welfare programs, and special programs for immigrants. These immigrants worked hard to build their families, their homes, their churches, and mostly their communities. They were contributors, not takers

I had a close friend who was a second generation Italian. His parents had immigrated in the 1920’s. He told me that while Italian was spoken in the home his parents demanded of him and his siblings that the moment they stepped out of the house they were to only speak English. Mario went on to serve in WWII and was a decorated soldier. While these immigrants, like Mario, had an affection for their mother country’s language, food and, culture their allegiance was to the United States. This is why the United States was called a melting pot. It was like steel — it was comprised of various elements to give it strength and durability. When looking at a piece of good steel you cannot recognize those elements, but you know they are contained within.

Today our immigrants are different. We are becoming a salad bowl. According to a recent study by the Manhattan Institute more than 60% of Mexican immigrants cannot speak or read English. Writers from Aristotle to St. Augustine and Alexis de Tocqueville have stated that a common language is needed for the survival of the sovereignty of a civil society.

Many, if not most, of today’s immigrants (legal or illegal) are not coming to the United States as our previous waves on immigrants did. They are coming for one thing and that thing is money. This is mainly true for those crossing our Southern border. The economies in their home countries are so lousy and the opportunities are so slim they view the United States with its current immigration enforcement policies as place to earn money and send it home to their families. They express on real allegiance to the United States.

Legalizing an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants will cost taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion over the coming decades, according to a study released last Monday by the Heritage Foundation.

The study projects illegal immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and pay only $3.1 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes if they gain lawful status under comprehensive immigration reform pending in the Senate.

Heritage opposes the Senate immigration bill, which the group argues would provide amnesty to those who entered the country illegally. Its findings could make it tougher to move the bill through either chamber by rallying conservatives against it.

“Amnesty is unfair to those who come here lawfully and those who are waiting,” former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Heritage’s president, said during a presentation of the group’s findings. “It will cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars over the next several decades, and it will make our immigration problems worse.”

DeMint said the comprehensive immigration reform bill crafted by the Senate’s Gang of Eight was written in a way to minimize the costs accrued over the next ten years, the window typically used by the Congressional Budget Office to assess the cost of legislation.

He compared the bill to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which CBO estimated would reduce the federal deficit by $132 billion over 10 years.

“It’s clear a number of people in Washington who might benefit from an amnesty as well as a number of people in Congress do not want to consider the cost,” DeMint said. “Clearly, by the way the legislation was written just like with ObamaCare and other legislation, they play their normal tricks of trying to push some of the expenses outside the 10-year window to get Congressional Budget Office to estimate some actual savings.”

“No matter how you slice it, amnesty will add a tremendous amount of pressure on America’s already strained public purse,” said Robert Rector, Heritage’s senior research fellow in domestic policy studies.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to mark up the 844-page immigration reform bill this week.

The potential drain on the federal government was one of the principle arguments critics used against comprehensive immigration reform legislation to derail it in 2007.

The study states the typical illegal immigrant household receives $14,000 more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. Heritage estimates that gap would jump to $29,500 per household after ten years when immigrants would become eligible for welfare and other benefits, if the pending legislation became law.

Under the bill, millions of illegal immigrants would receive provisional legal status almost immediately and permanent legal status after a period of ten years. They would be eligible for citizenship after an estimated wait of 13-1/2 years.

After amnesty, the typical unlawful immigrant will receive government benefits for 50 years, meaning his household would receive $592,000 more in government benefits during his lifetime than he would pay in taxes,” Heritage concludes.

The average illegal immigrant would draw more than $3 in Social Security and Medicare for every dollar paid in Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, the study said.

The Executive Summary of the Heritage Report states:

“Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

Direct benefits: These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

Means-tested welfare benefits: There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Public education: At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.

Population-based services: Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.

The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.

The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.

Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.

The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.

Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.

In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality.

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and ObamaCare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.

After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and ObamaCare. At that point or shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically.

The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed.

• As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
• During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
• At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
• Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.

• Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
• In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
• At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
• In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)

The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.

If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution. The fact that the average household gets $31,600 in government benefits each year is a shock. The fact that a household headed by an individual with less than a high school degree gets $46,600 is a bigger one.

Many conservatives believe that if an individual has a job and works hard, he will inevitably be a net tax contributor (paying more in taxes than he takes in benefits). In our society, this has not been true for a very long time. Similarly, many believe that unlawful immigrants work more than other groups. This is also not true. The employment rate for non-elderly adult unlawful immigrants is about the same as it is for the general population.

Many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they will help relieve the fiscal strains of an aging society. Regrettably, this is not true. At every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants, on average, generate fiscal deficits (benefits exceed taxes). Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a “fiscal surplus” that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. This situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty.

Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has paid.

Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.

Following amnesty, the fiscal costs of former unlawful immigrant households will be roughly the same as those of lawful immigrant and non-immigrant households with the same level of education. Because U.S. government policy is highly redistributive, those costs are very large. Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century.

Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college, they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes.

Of course, not all the children of unlawful immigrants will graduate from college. Data on intergenerational social mobility show that, although the children of unlawful immigrants will have substantially better educational outcomes than their parents, these achievements will have limits. Only 13 percent are likely to graduate from college, for example. Because of this, the children, on average, are not likely to become net tax contributors. The children of unlawful immigrants are likely to remain a net fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, although a far smaller burden than their parents.

A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not those who have broken our laws.”

Free-market economist Milton Friedman once warned that open borders are incompatible with a welfare state. The $6.3 trillion cost of amnesty forecast by the Heritage Foundation illustrates it in spades.

As the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill wends through Congress, it's useful to have a report from Heritage showing just how much legalizing some 11 million unlawful immigrants will cost the taxpayers amid all the champagne-glass clinking from the anything-but-in-the-shadows illegals.

Based on direct benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation; means-tested benefits, which include more than 80 different welfare programs; public education, and city services such as police, fire and highways, the fiscal tab for legalizing illegal immigrants will come to $6.3 trillion over 50 years, the study showed.

That's because illegal immigrants, who on average have lower skills and education than U.S. citizens, already take $14,000 more in benefits than they contribute to the economy and amnesty will make them eligible for far vaster pools of taxpayers' money. These new benefits include Social Security, Medicare and welfare, and will raise the differential per household to $28,000, according to the study.

"Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits," the study reports.

Critics, such as the Cato Institute, point out that the study is flawed because its static accounting fails to account for economic growth and rising wages. That might be a fair criticism.

But there is also the question of how much an economy can grow if the government is saddled with $6.3 trillion in new costs, or in any case, the certainty of higher costs based on greater eligibility for benefits. And why can't this same projected growth from new immigrants be achieved through legal immigration, with the government putting a premium on admitting the world's most productive?

Yet that's not what's happening. The records show that among legal immigrants, U.S. officials have for years systematically ignored the law that prohibits admission of immigrants likely to become public charges. The figure among illegals is almost certainly comparable, and a demonstration of the sad fact that, there are large numbers of immigrants who cross the border to take the welfare benefits superior to those available in their home countries.

In other words, "If someone offers you a gift, you take it," as Friedman has said.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57% of all immigrant households with children use at least one welfare program, compared to 39% for native households with children. Illegal immigrants are high users of food assistance and Medicaid, but legal immigrants are consistently higher in the use of all welfare programs including those that illegals do not qualify for.

What it shows is "you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state," as Friedman said in 1999.

The University of Chicago Nobel Laureate understood precisely why, pointing out that in its own paradoxical way, illegal immigration is actually a good thing but — "only good so long as it's illegal.

"Why? Because so long as it's illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don't qualify for Social Security, they don't qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket," Friedman said.

Amnesty will ensure that illegals get those benefits — without ever being screened as desirable, contributory, productive, or any of the things that should make legal immigrants beneficial to the country and the American people who welcome them.

For those Republicans who believe that a comprehensive immigration bill will bring Hispanic voters to their party I have some news for them. According to a 2012 report published by the Pew Research Center on the voting trends of Hispanics no matter what the Republicans do about immigration they will not influence Hispanics. What the majority of Hispanic voters really want is free stuff. Since 1980 Hispanic voters have never given Republicans more than 40% of their vote even after Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, and considering that it was introduced by Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican.

• 1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% +21
• 1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24
• 1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39
• 1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36
• 1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51
• 2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27
• 2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18
• 2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36
• 2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44

According to February 2013 by the Gallup Polling Organization  Democrats enjoy 2-1 advantage over the GOP among Hispanics:

“The Democratic Party currently enjoys a significant lead in party identification among U.S. Hispanic adults. This advantage also appears to have intensified over the course of 2012, though this in large part likely reflects the general party identification patterns that affected all Americans during the election year. Factoring in Hispanic adults who lean toward a party but do not initially identify with that party, the Democrats have an especially robust advantage over the GOP among Hispanics -- a factor that may very well have shaped the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

As Republicans consider ways to increase their appeal among Hispanic adults, it is worth noting that Republicans made little progress over 2012 in terms of winning new Hispanic supporters, while the Democratic Party made noticeable gains. Perhaps even more worrisome for the GOP is its poor performance among young Hispanic adults. While the GOP is not particularly popular with any Hispanic age groups, those aged 18 to 34 constitute almost half of the overall Hispanic adult population. Indeed, they are the engine of the Hispanic vote and its future. Gallup's data indicate that this picture is not going to get any brighter for the Republicans on its own, merely by virtue of generational shifts. Despite the higher rate of U.S. nativity among young Hispanics compared with those 35 and older, young Hispanic adults are just as entrenched in the Democratic Party, thus perpetuating the high degree of difficulty Republicans face in trying to make inroads in this important and growing community.”

The Gang of 8 with Marco Rubio acting as the front man for Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin — two very untrustworthy politicians is touting this bill on national TV. The Democrats are pushing for this bill as they want to increase their share of government-dependent voters so they can gain even more power and change Texas from red to blue.. Rubio keeps telling us that this bill will provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegals now living in this country. He claims that they will not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, ObamaCare, or any other government welfare or educational program. No matter what Rubio thinks of tells us his will not happen. Even if a bill with these provision prevail in the final bill here is what will happen — mark my words.

Once comprehensive immigration bill goes into effect some illegal immigrant, given amnesty under the bill, will walk into a government office accompanied by an attorney for LULAC or MALDEF, probably in California. When the immigrant is denied the benefit the attorney will immediately file a suit in the Federal District Court. They will claim that under the 14^th Amendment they have been denied equal protection. No matter how the judge rules the case will advance to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals where once again no matter the decision the case will go up to the Supreme Court. There the decision will be left in the hands of 9 justices and if history tells us anything those portions of the bill denying the illegal immigrant his or her free stuff will be struck down and we will be in debt for 6.3 trillion dollars (money we will have to borrow from the Chinese) and the flood on immigrants from south of the border will continue.

Numerically, the left understands that this is the death-blow to the right they have long sought. Assuming 11 million such new voters (the number could be significantly higher), one need only apply the distribution of Hispanic votes in the last presidential election to grasp the endgame. Approximately 71% of Hispanic votes went to Obama, while only 28% went to Romney. While it is unlikely that every new quasi-citizen would get to the polls with his fresh license and ID, those who do will provide a 7-to-3 advantage for the left. There is no similar new bloc of voters to which the right can turn to rebalance that scale. A significant numerical advantage to the left lies in granting amnesty — enough so that they will dominate for the foreseeable future. And they know it.

Meanwhile, the Republicans fail to understand simple math. They have deluded themselves into thinking that if they are just nicer to illegals, and empower them to crush Republicans at the polls to ensure endless favors and political power, all will be unicorns and leprechauns. This is foolishness writ large, making it all the more disappointing that Senator Rubio appears to be guzzling the Kool-Aid. He appeared to be sharper than that, and hopefully he can still extract himself before the damage to his reputation is irreparable. No good can come to a Republican who consorts with Senator Schumer, or any Democrat senator. To be played by them so completely demonstrates gullibility rather than pragmatism.

The left has been at this successfully for decades. They are the Harlem Globetrotters, and the Republicans are the team they travel with — the one that always loses these games. The Democrats even tricked Reagan into believing they would fulfill their part of the bargain on amnesty, and scornfully reneged. Indeed, every single interaction between the political parties involving the left living up to its end of a deal for the last 30 years or more has been a farce. The preceding four years alone have been full of slaps in the face to Republicans, who seem destined to repeat their impressive pattern of cluelessness when it comes to sizing up their suitors.

As the Republicans are waltzed closer to the Democrats' bed, surrendering their conservative principles along the way, we stand on the edge of something very bad, indeed. We are about to say "Adiós" to any shot at political parity for a very long time. Once they have given it up, they won't get it back.

The Democrats will have gotten what they have wanted all along. They will have their class of dependent voters that will keep them in permanent power. The only problem is that they will have to hoist the Mexican flag above the capital building. It’s about free stuff — not immigration.