Democrats and Republicans think US closer to arming Syrian rebels, after Israeli strikes

• 

Congressional Democrats and Republicans said Sunday that Israel’s recent airstrikes on Syria show President Assad's air defense system is not impenetrable, with one lawmaker suggesting the United States establish a no-fly zone over the Middle East country.

Israel on Sunday launched its second airstrike in three days in the Syrian capital of Damascus, targeting a shipment of guided Iranian-made missiles intended for the militant group Hezbollah, said an intelligence official in the Middle East.

A senior Israeli official told the Associated Press both airstrikes targeted shipments of Fateh-110 missiles bound for Hezbollah. The Iranian-made guided missiles can fly deep into Israel and deliver powerful half-ton bombs with pinpoint accuracy. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a covert military operation.

The attacks mark a sharp escalation of Israel's involvement in Syria's bloody civil war, which has claimed roughly 70,000 people. Assad has been accused of using SCUD missiles and chemical weapons against civilians in the uprising.

The White House declined for a second day to comment directly on the strikes, but said Obama believes Israel, as a sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself against threats from Hezbollah.

President Obama has said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a red line, but has not taken action beyond giving humanitarian aid and money to rebel forces for defensive military equipment. However, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said last week the administration is reconsidering its opposition to arming the rebel forces.

“The red line that the president of the United States [has] was apparently written in disappearing ink,” Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We need a game-changing action.”

McCain suggested the U.S. establish a “safe zone” and give weapons to “the right people” but repeated that American soldiers should not enter the country.

He also said the Israeli strikes “will probably put more pressure on this administration” to act.

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also suggested that Syria’s Russian-made air-defense system was not as solid as thought and suggested the U.S. is getting closer to arming rebel forces.

“The idea of getting weapons in, if we know the right people to get them, my guess is we will give them to them,” he said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton told NBC the U.S. should have started arming pro-Western rebel forces “months ago” and suggest the U.S. consider blocking Syrian air space.

“We have to arm the opposition,” he said. “I think we also need to move toward imposing a no-fly zone.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

• 

Congressional Democrats on Sunday distanced themselves from the Obama administration’s explanation of the Benghazi, Libya, attacks in the immediate aftermath of the fatal strikes, amid mounting evidence the information was revised to intentionally mislead Americans.

The original explanation of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, were written by CIA officials, then revised by State Department and White House officials, according to news reports and witness testimony made available to Fox News.

Removed from the CIA's so-called talking points were references to “Islamic extremists” and Al Qaeda in Libya. And five days later, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made the Sunday talk show rounds to say the attacks were, in fact, “demonstrations” sparked by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

However, the video is never mentioned in the numerous talking-points drafts, according to a Weekly Standard story last week, based in part on a 43-page House report and records of official emails.

“Well, it was scrubbed,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Steve Lynch told “Fox News Sunday.” “It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that. It was false information.  And what they try to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East.”

Lynch also acknowledged the talking points were likely revised to reflect President Obama’s decry – with his re-election bid in the balance -- that “Al Qaeda is on the run.”

Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also acknowledged Sunday the facts as told by Rice were wrong.

“At the time, as it turns out” the information was incorrect, he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

Ruppersberger, who was briefed by the CIA about the attacks in immediate aftermath, asked agency officials what congressional leaders could tell the public, according to The Weekly Standard story.

On Sunday, he also said he welcomes a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing this week in which Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of attacks, is expected to say Rice said the attacks didn’t appear to be “pre-meditated or pre-planned,” despite having information suggesting they were.

“That's what an investigation is about,” Ruppersberger told CBS. “Let's get the facts.”

View the original article here

Democrats now critical of Rice's Benghazi explanation, amid more damaging evidence

• 

Congressional Democrats on Sunday distanced themselves from the Obama administration’s explanation of the Benghazi, Libya, attacks in the immediate aftermath of the fatal strikes, amid mounting evidence that suggests the information was revised to intentionally mislead Americans.

The original explanation of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, was written by CIA officials, then revised by State Department and White House officials, according to news reports and witness testimony made available to Fox News.

Removed from the CIA's so-called talking points were references to “Islamic extremists” and Al Qaeda in Libya And five days later, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made the Sunday talk show rounds to say the attacks were, in fact, “demonstrations” sparked by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

However, the video is never mentioned in the numerous talking-points drafts, according to a Weekly Standard story last week, based in part on a 43-page House report and records of official emails.

“Well, it was scrubbed,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Steve Lynch told “Fox News Sunday.” “It was totally inaccurate. There's no excuse for that. It was false information.  And what they try to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East.”

Lynch also acknowledged the talking points were likely revised to reflect President Obama’s decry – with his re-election bid in the balance -- that “Al Qaeda is on the run.”

Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also acknowledged Sunday the facts as told by Rice were wrong.

“At the time, as it turns out” the information was incorrect, he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

Ruppersberger, who was briefed by the CIA about the attacks in immediate aftermath, asked agency officials what congressional leaders could tell the public, according to The Weekly Standard story.

On Sunday, he also said he welcomes a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing this week in which Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of attacks, is expected to say Rice said the attacks didn’t appear to be “pre-meditated or pre-planned,” despite having information suggesting they were.

“That's what an investigation is about,” Ruppersberger told CBS. “Let's get the facts.”

View the original article here

Democrats and Republicans think US closer to arming Syrian rebels, after Israeli strikes

• 

Congressional Democrats and Republicans said Sunday that Israel’s recent airstrikes on Syria show President Bashar Assad's air defense system is not impenetrable, with one lawmaker suggesting the United States establish a no-fly zone over the Middle East country.

Israel on Sunday launched its second airstrike in three days in the Syrian capital of Damascus, targeting a shipment of guided Iranian-made missiles intended for a militant group, said an intelligence official in the Middle East.

The attacks mark a sharp escalation of Israel's involvement in Syria's bloody civil war, which has claimed roughly 70,000 people. Assad has been accused of using SCUD missiles and chemical weapons against civilians in the uprising.

President Obama has said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.

He has not taken action beyond giving humanitarian aid and money to rebel forces for defensive military equipment. However, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said last week the administration is reconsidering its opposition to arming the rebel forces.

“The red line that the president of the United States [has] was apparently written in disappearing ink,” Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We need a game-changing action.”

McCain suggested the U.S. establish a “safe zone” and give weapons to “the right people” but repeated that American soldiers should not enter the country.

He also said the Israeli strikes “will probably put more pressure on this administration” to act.

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also suggested that Syria’s Russian-made air-defense system was not as solid as thought and suggested the U.S. is getting closer to arming rebel forces.

“The idea of getting weapons in, if we know the right people to get them, my guess is we will give them to them,” he said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton told NBC the U.S. should have started arming pro-Western rebel forces “months ago” and suggest the U.S. consider blocking Syrian air space.

“We have to arm the opposition,” he said. “I think we also need to move toward imposing a no-fly zone.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Sticking with what works when it comes to Medicare -- lessons for Republicans and Democrats

• 

The Democratic and Republican Congressional budget plans proffered by House and Senate budget committee chairs must be viewed more as acts of political theater than serious fiscal roadmaps. 

Even though symbolic votes have taken place, neither plan has a chance of passing the other chamber or becoming law. 

Making moderate spending cuts while preserving key pro-growth investments in job creation, infrastructure, health care, and education is critical. 

Republicans and Democrats would be wise to recognize the political value of sticking with what works in Medicare.

However, getting the calculus right requires necessary balance and making a point to replicate what's already working. In many ways, this is the key to moving beyond symbolism and ideology in our governing process, and enacting legislative proposals that the American people can really behind.

Consider the example of Medicare, which will be a focal point in every budget debate for the next several years. There are ways to drive cost savings in Medicare while delivering high quality health care for seniors and those with disabilities. 

This has already been tested and proven under the newest major part of Medicare: the Part D drug benefit, which provides prescription drug coverage to millions of seniors and disabled Americans. It relies on private sector competition, has a 90 percent approval rating among seniors and is on track to cost more than $340 billion less during its first 10 years than originally forecast.

And that’s one major place where I've seen problems with various proposals in recent weeks: some of them are focused on gutting Part D. While this often constitutes a talking point both in Washington and on the campaign trail, Republicans and Democrats would be wise to recognize the political value of sticking with what works in Medicare. 

Turning it into a voucher system, despite significant savings over time, isn't the solution as millions (especially those under 56) will be negatively impacted. 

Baby boomers already in retirement and those about to turn 65 are by most accounts paying closer attention as Medicare dominates political news cycles.

The same governing principle also applies to the need for comprehensive fiscal and budgetary reform, as well as an overhaul of the tax code to reduce rates and minimize or eliminate deductions. 

All should happen in a balanced fashion, but Americans will reward those policymakers who address our nation's fiscal challenges head on without going overboard and pursuing policies that will result in greater economic uncertainty. 

This will be increasingly important as the job market continues to improve and the economy finds its footing.

In aggregate, the Democrats’ vision presents a more practical approach to the country’s future. But members of my own party should take into account the importance of striving for balance, without disrupting what's already working. 

For both parties, offering a sincere, realistic and innovative vision for how we drive cost savings will send a signal that Washington is serious about enacting common sense reforms. 

Five months into the new campaign cycle and with the economy beginning to turn around, this can't be discounted.

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

Related Stories

Apply for Medicare if You Don't Need it Yet?

View the original article here

A conflicted Democrat's take on the GOP autopsy and CPAC

• 

After attending the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, I read the Republican National Committee’s “autopsy report” on the state of the party.  As a progressive who pretty much wants to see the conservative movement and its objectives roundly defeated, I'm feeling happily optimistic. But as an American, I'm worried. Here's why.

Conservatives lost the presidential 2012 election. Badly. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or heavily medicated. And Republicans didn't just lose because President Obama's campaign had better computer servers or “promised free stuff” to voters. No, the reasons for Republican loss — in the face of what arguably should have been an easy victory, if ever — are much deeper.

First, the people who vote for Republicans (especially older white folks) are shrinking as a percentage of the voter pool while the people who vote for Democrats (especially young people, people of color) are increasing their electoral power. For any Republican who understands simple math, this is a major problem.

As a progressive who pretty much wants to see the conservative movement and its objectives roundly defeated, I'm feeling happily optimistic. But as an American, I'm worried.

Second, Republican stances on the major issues of the day are increasingly unpopular. A majority of Americans, including a majority of gun owners, support the basic gun safety laws like universal background checks that the GOP opposes. A majority of Americans, and particularly young people, support the right of same-sex couples to marry. A majority of Americans want to protect Social Security, Medicare and other safety net programs and would, for instance, rather cut defense spending. And overall, voters remain more concerned about Washington creating jobs than curbing the deficit.

“We have a messaging problem and a messenger problem,” says Tony Katz, a conservative radio host attending CPAC. Come again? When vast swaths of the voting public, who are only increasing demographically, disagree with the Republican stance on core issues? “No,” insists Katz. “The thesis is still right.”

Denial, it turns out, is a river running through the Republican Party.

The problem in the 2012 election, says Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit blog, was that “Democrats defined Republicans before they could define themselves.” But the essence of the Republican definition? Not the problem, Hoft told me at CPAC.

Does the conservative movement have a demographic problem, I asked Nicole Douglin, a College Republicans leader from Connecticut. No. The current substance of conservatism appeals to communities of color, Douglin argues, it's just that “the media portrayal of conservatives is warped.”

There's an old saying that Democrats don't know how to win while Republicans don't know how to lose. I can vouch for this on the liberal side. I've been to progressive conferences even after significant liberal political victories where attendees have still been slouching around filled with self-criticism and remorse, or a sense of foreboding about what comes next.

Meanwhile, there is a cleavage on this point forming a cavernous gulf within the Republican Party.  The extremist Tea Party wing, arguably most to blame from alienating Republicans from moderate voters, don’t seem to have noticed they lost the election at all let alone the reasons why.  At CPAC, Tea Party adherents insisted that if there’s any problem, it’s that the Republican Party is not conservative enough.   Michelle Bachmann, Alan West and Sarah Palin were greeted like heroes at CPAC.  But these characters are increasingly the reason voters are laughing at and running from the Republican Party.

On the other hand, while the GOP itself is aware of major problems — one doesn’t perform an “autopsy” on something alive and thriving — their diagnosis also misses the mark.  Explaining the failure to win the presidency in 2012, RNC chair Reince Priebus said, “Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren't inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; our primary and debate process needed improvement.”  

The Republican establishment also seems to be missing the biggest problem, that voters are increasingly rejecting Republican orthodoxy that the party nonetheless continues to push.  Witness the House Republican budget, a plan that voters solidly opposed in the 2012 election and in exit poll after exit poll, including rejecting the man who proposed it, Paul Ryan.  A party that would double down on such an unpopular agenda isn’t just lacking good data systems but fundamentally tone deaf.

That's not to say there is no such introspection.  It’s encouraging to see the RNC autopsy suggest rethinking ideological orthodoxy at least on immigration reform and gay rights, albeit without outlining specifics.  

At the CPAC conference, there was a very heartening panel discussion in a packed room talking about the need for Republicans to embrace the gay community and adopt more pro-gay stances on issues, such as marriage equality, that not only would help the party demographically in elections but arguably square with conservative and libertarian philosophy. And yet the panel was excluded from the official CPAC agenda, and the gay Republican organization GOProud was yet again uninvited to CPAC this year in response to ongoing protests from religious conservative groups. So, literally, any soul searching on fundamental issues of substance and ideology is happening outside the influential conservative wing of the movement.

Which is why I'm feeling conflicted. On the one hand, since I personally believe that the essence of conservative ideas is beneficial mainly to elites and harmful to opportunity and prosperity for everyone else, I'm more than happy to see the Republican Party continue to alienate poor people, women, people of color and gay folks who will stand little to gain from conservatism anyway.

On the other hand, as an American who believes we should have (at least) two robust and representative political parties to hold each other and our democracy accountable, I'm devastated to see one of those parties continually slide toward irrelevance. We don't need a Republican Party that defends rape and attacks aspiring Americans as criminals while shilling for big business. But we do need a Republican Party that advocates for responsible spending and the balancing of private and public interests.

The Democrat in me is jumping for joy that conservative Republicans remain so willfully and painfully in denial about the essential unpopularity of their extremist agenda. But the American in me, a far greater part of my DNA, is just sad — sad for our political system and our nation's future.

Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer.  You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sallykohn.

Related Opinion

A real world review of the GOP 'autopsy'

View the original article here

Senate Democrats release first budget in four years, includes $1 trillion in tax increases

The Senate on Wednesday presented its first budget in four years, a proposal by leaders of the Democrat-controlled chamber that calls for nearly $1 trillion in tax increases but includes no strategy to make federal revenue match spending in the coming years.

The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

It also calls for $100 billion in new stimulus spending and cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray said the budget takes a balanced, “pro-middle-class” approach and argued the country’s economic problems started long before fellow Democrats entered the White House in 2009.

 “Despite some of the rhetoric you may hear from my Republican colleagues, the Great Recession didn’t start the day President Obama was elected,” said Murray, D-Wash.

The plan also calls for replacing the recent, $85 billion in spending cuts with more measured cuts.

Committee members will begin voting and submitting amendments Thursday, with a full Senate vote expected by next week.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Session, the committee’s ranking Republican, immediately criticized the proposal.

“It’s anything but balanced,” he said. “Raising taxes and spending is anything but balanced.”

The budget was presented one day after the Republican-controlled House rolled out its fiscal 2014 budget -- a plan to balance the budget in 10 years largely by slowing the rate of spending and adding in the roughly $600 billion in tax increase Democrats got in January.

The upper chamber announced the details as President Obama met with House Republicans.

Obama said after the meeting that it was "good” and “useful."

However, the recent optimism about Democrats and Republicans perhaps agreeing on a mix of tax increases and spending cuts to craft a single budget – or a so-called “grand bargain” – appears to be fading.

"Ultimately, it may be that the differences are just too wide," the president told ABC before going to Capitol Hill.

View the original article here

Democrats and Republicans must embrace radical moves to fix our fiscal mess

Federal deficits are too large and mounting national debt threatens future generations. Both Democrats and Republicans embrace demagoguery and refuse to address facts and acknowledge lessons of history.

Since 2007, federal spending is up $1 trillion dollars and deficits jumped from $161 billion to $1.2 trillion over five years.

Higher taxes on the wealthy and ObamaCare levies will pull down the gap in 2014 but then it will rise again. Health care, social security and slow growth, not low taxes, are the culprits.

Both sides need to be honest with Americans about working longer and accept a radically different role for government.

Tax rates and rules imposed in January will increase revenue’s share of GDP well above its average for the last forty years.

However, Americans spend 18 percent of GDP on health care, while the Germans and Dutch, with more government cost sharing and better care, spend about 12 percent.  

Even with ObamaCare, private insurance premiums and out-of pocket expenses are rocketing, while Medicare and Medicaid have suppressed provider reimbursements to levels that many physicians refuse to take publically-financed patients.

Benchmarked against Germany and Holland, U.S. private health care prices are too high, while government rates for the poor and elderly are too low to cover providers’ costs.

Republicans would rely more on markets and competition—scrapping most Obama Care mandates and giving elderly vouchers to buy private care—and hoisting the poor onto the states by replacing Medicaid with block grants.

Those would not bring down private health care prices—cash grants to the elderly and fragmenting Medicaid administration would raise those.

GOP strategies would leave many elderly and poor forgoing care, less healthy and dying too young—much the new reality for the former middle class and poor in Portugal, Spain and Greece.

The Germans do what Messrs Obama, Boehner and others are unwilling to conceive—directly reimbursing most health care costs, regulating most providers’ prices, slashing administrative burdens and executive salaries, and eliminating most malpractice suits.

The necessary taxes would be less expensive for U.S. businesses and individuals than the taxes, health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs they now bear.

Americans live longer and can work longer, and social security and government pension ages should be raised to 70. No system of social insurance or federal finance can work when folks can live another 20 or 30 years in retirement.

No tax increase can escape these realities—overtaxation caused nothing but slow growth, misery and decay in southern Europe.

Overregulation of the private sector does not mitigate, but rather exacerbates risks of financial crisis. The greatest threats come, not from private bank meltdowns and personal bankruptcies, but rather from a loss of confidence in government’s ability to promote adequate economic growth and hence raise revenues to finance its legitimate responsibilities.

President Obama inherited a mess—unemployment peaked at 10 percent in his first term—but since his recovery began, economic growth has averaged only 2.1 percent.

President Reagan inherited a mess too—unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent—but at the comparable point in his recovery, growth was averaging 5.3 percent. Fueled by continued strong growth, federal deficits dissolved in the 1990s.

Instead of campaigning that cutting federal spending one half of one percent will force food shortages, outbreaks of E. coli and streets without police, the President would do better to read more about Reagan and less about Lincoln—he faces a growth crisis not a civil war.

Republicans would do better to acknowledge that just as national defense can’t be left to private armies, markets and competition can’t solve health care inflation.

Both sides need to be honest with Americans about working longer and accept a radically different role for government if they want to leave the nation to their grandchildren as they inherited it—prosperous, secure and solvent.

Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist. Follow him on Twitter @PMorici1.

View the original article here

Why Paul Ryan believes Democrats have won a battle but not the war

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is looking beyond Friday and the beginning of the sequestration.

In an interview I conducted with him on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Ryan told me he believes a majority of Americans will come to understand how bad the debt is after the rhetoric gives way to reality.

"Mitt [Romney] and I shadowboxed against the theory of big government," he says, "while [President] Obama made all the great promises of what it delivered and used soaring rhetoric to sell it, but that will be different in a second term (when) the results start materializing."

Ryan believes a majority of Americans will come to understand how bad the debt is after the rhetoric gives way to reality.

As one example, Ryan mentions the impact of the Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare on seniors. He believes that when seniors begin to experience ObamaCare's negative effects it will "put us in a much better position not just to say, 'I told you so,' but to show there's a far better way than 15 people on a board appointed by the president making all these decisions that will ration your health care on top of all these ... price controls to providers that will restrict your access."

By the end of next year, Ryan believes, "...you'll see a lot of anxiety in the health care provider community that will damage access to health care for seniors and I think the bloom will come off the ObamaCare rose, such as it exists today (with) every additional year of implementation."

Ryan says health care providers are already telling some members of Congress about their "negative margins with ObamaCare kicking in" and how the law will either force them to close, or "they're going to stop taking people, or overcharge the private payers who increasingly will dump their employees into the ObamaCare program."

"The president said, 'if you like your plan you can keep it,'" Ryan said. "Not true. The president said this was going to improve Medicare. He said health care costs would go down. They've gone up.

Given all this, what will Ryan and the Republicans do when across-the-board spending cuts begin?

"Our job is to buy the country time," he tells me. "That means we need a down payment on the debt and deficits. We need to buy time for the bond markets to push off a debt crisis outside of the four-year window. We then go to the country with a real agenda of specific alternatives to this progressive experiment that's unfolding to win 2016 so we can actually fix this thing before it's too late."

He says he's not worried about polls that show a majority of the country will blame Republicans for the sequester: "Getting actual accomplishments by getting debt and deficits under control, stabilizing our debt to buy the country time so we don't have a debt crisis" will allow Republicans to "go to the country with a crystal clear choice that more clearly juxtapose(s) against the reality of big government under Obama is what we have to shoot for."

Ryan says the House next week will give the president "...some reprogramming authority to be able to direct cuts to lower priority areas from higher priority areas."

What if the Senate doesn't go along? "That's their choice," he says.

Ryan recalls how scare tactics failed in the 1996 debate over welfare reform when liberals lamented cuts to the welfare program that they believed would surely lead to poor children starving in the streets of America. Instead Clinton's welfare-to-work program made it possible for many low-income Americans to get jobs. Ryan calls the current GOP plan "Welfare Reform 2.0" and expects similar positive results by focusing on "improving prosperity, opportunity and individual responsibility."

Democrats have "won a battle, but not the war," Ryan says.

Is he optimistic he will win the war?

"I wouldn't be here if I wasn't."

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

View the original article here

Democrats summon the ghost of Joseph McCarthy

Just as Lenin's body remains on public display in Russia, because one never knows when he might be useful to rally the masses, so, too, does the ghost (but thankfully not the body) of the late Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., remain a useful symbol for Democrats in Washington.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., are the latest to summon McCarthy's ghost. After Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel whether he had been compensated by foreign interests hostile to the United States for speeches he made in which he seemed to favor their aspirations, Boxer said of Cruz's tenacious questioning, "It was really reminiscent of a different time and place, when you said, 'I have here in my pocket a speech you made on such and such a date,' and of course nothing was in the pocket. It was reminiscent of some bad times."

McCarthy said "hand," not "pocket," but why quibble?

That Democrats over the years have filibustered and smeared some people nominated by Republican presidents as "out of the mainstream," or "extremists" (remember Robert Bork?) does not register on the media hypocrisy meter, but hypocrisy is sometimes bipartisan, so let's move on to a more important topic.

Why do Democrats fear the double threats of Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.? A day after the State of the Union address, CNN ran a chyron that questioned whether Rubio's reach for a bottle of water during his pointed response to President Obama's speech might have been a "career-ender." Democrats wish.

After becoming the first Hispanic to win a Senate seat in Texas, Cruz told CBS News, "I think the values in the Hispanic community are fundamentally conservative, but you've got to have candidates that connect with that community in a real and genuine way and communicate that the values between the candidate and the community are one and the same."

This is what Cruz and Rubio are doing. They don't use their heritage as a wedge to divide; rather they are using it as an avenue for communicating ideas to those who share that heritage -- and to a wider audience -- in ways that can improve everyone's life.

Cruz talks about "opportunity conservatism," a phrase that contrasts with some Democrats' apparent belief that the federal government should reign supreme. Cruz and Rubio are dangerous to statists because they speak of things that ignited the Reagan revolution, including the belief that the power to improve your life is in you, not in Washington.

If those who have placed their faith and trust (and votes) in President Obama and the cult of big government awaken to the idea that only they have the power to change their circumstances, they won't need politicians. Such an awakening would not bode well for Democrats, whose political careers are often about bigger and more encroaching government and penalizing the successful with ever-higher taxes and burdensome government regulations.

Democrats aren't likely to sit still and allow Cruz and Rubio's ideas to reach not only Hispanics, but the rest of America. Their ideas are more powerful than the weapons used by Democrats in their race and class warfare where people are seen not as individuals, but as voting blocs.

That is why much of the media seems to focus on trivialities, rather than on what Rubio and Cruz are saying.

Some conservatives like to summon the ghost of Franklin Roosevelt, whose programs could be said to have sparked the modern entitlement mentality. For liberals, it's McCarthy. Both should be returned to the history books and removed from contemporary political debate. With McCarthy, it probably won't happen, because Cruz and Rubio threaten to damage the Democrats' base, and they can't have that. For some Democrats, it's more about political power and reliance on dysfunctional government than it is about ideas that work.

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

View the original article here