Obamacare Unworkable, GOP Blamed

John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

Folder2 104The unforeseen difficulties of implementing the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) have key proponents scrambling for answers.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), one of the leading writers of the Obamacare legislation, now calls the program  “complex beyond comprehension. We had hoped that somehow, someone would’ve come up with sensible procedures for how the thing is supposed to work, but no such luck. The system’s as opaque as the day we passed it. Our high hopes are crashing down around us.”

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius blames Republicans for the mess. “Instead of rolling up their sleeves and helping us figure out how to implement this they’re just standing aside and letting us flounder,” she complained. “In a way they could be considered traitors to the common good.”

A few of the steps Republicans could be taking according to Sebelius include “appropriating additional funding to cover the unexpectedly higher costs of the program. While it had been our hope that comprehensive health care coverage would lead to lower costs, this sadly, has not turned out to be the case. “

Especially rankling to the Secretary has been the widespread refusal of states to establish the insurance exchanges called for in the law. “The law gives states the option to set up their own exchanges,” Sebelius pointed out. “Unfortunately, the majority of states controlled by the GOP have declined to take up this option. It’s like they’re saying ‘you made your bed, now lie in it.’ I say, we’ve already done our part. We came up with the idea. Now it’s their turn to do their share to make it happen.”

Majority of Democrats Have Favorable View of Income Tax

A recent Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that a majority (53%) of Democrats have a favorable impression of the federal income tax. Inasmuch as the cost of complying with this tax exceeds $400 billion per year and amounts to more than 20% of the revenues collected, this finding is a bit surprisng.

Even the liberal leaning Brookings Institution has characterized the federal income tax code as “a hopelessly complex mess, antithetical to growth, and crammed with conflicting incentives.” Though simplifying the code would save millions of man-hours of labor and billions of dollars expended on needless paperwork each year, it would also blunt the ability of politicians to trade tax breaks for campaign donations.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), enforcers of the tax code, are notorious for their robust approach to squeezing every dime they can out of those they deem worthy of paying larger amounts. The IRS has asserted that they have the authority to intercept emails, tweets, and other online communications without having to obtain a warrant. The IRS contends that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches makes no mention of electronic media.

As obnoxious as the IRS is to individual rights to privacy and liberty, the IRS is also perceived favorably by a majority (56%) of Democrats. As one Democratic poll respondent explained, “they only go after rich people who don’t want to share their money. What’s not to like about that?” “Every year they send me a refund check,” said another. “They’re okay in my book.”

In contrast, the poll showed only a minority of Republicans (30%) and Independents (33%) have a favorable view of the federal income tax.

President Proposes Mandatory IRAs, 401(k)s

As part of his budget proposal, President Obama is asking Congress to compel all working Americans to establish tax-deferred retirement accounts—either Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) or 401(k) “defined contribution plans.”

US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew explained that “the President is trying to inject a modicum of personal responsibility into the whole retirement planning scenario. The amounts that can be provided by Social Security are limited and may not even be available to the next generation. Yet, fewer than 10% of those eligible for these special tax-deferred retirement accounts take advantage of their opportunity. By forcing them to participate we would be priming them for the idea that they should take more care for their own post-employment years.”

At the same time that workers will be required to establish these accounts they will be barred from accumulating more than $3 million in them. “No one needs more than that amount to secure a comfortable retirement,” Lew declared. “Should a taxpayer be so lucky as to see his investment grow to exceed the $3 million threshold he shouldn’t mind if the government siphons off the excess to fund other pressing needs.”

Senator’s Pitch for Liberty Fails to Move Minority Audience

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s efforts to sell liberty to a mostly minority audience at Howard University collided with the enticements of the entitlement mentality. His vision of “getting the government off your back” failed to resonate with students who expect the government to provide for them.

“You say you’re working to get the government to leave us alone,” said one student during the question and answer phase of Paul’s talk. “I don’t want to be left alone. I want the
government to take care of me. In your ideal world I’d be on my own. I’d have to work for everything I want. I don’t see why I should prefer that to the world President Obama is creating where the good things of life are free for the taking.”

The Senator did receive some modest applause for his suggestion that America reduce its foreign military commitments, but his hope that this would lead to lower government expenditures did not go over well. “I like the idea of cutting back on bullets and bombs,” said one student. “This is money the government could be spending on people like me. They could buy me a house and a car with the kind of cash they’re wasting trying to conquer other countries.”

Obama Calls for Federally-Funded Pre-School for Four Year Olds

Saying that too many of our children are ill-prepared for the world of the future, President Obama urged Congress to enact federal funding for pre-schools.

“We need to replace the idiosyncratic influences of our ‘do-it-yourself’ methods of child rearing with a more cohesive approach,” the President said. “Leaving so much of the responsibility on each individual family is a formula for chaos. Different parents seek to instill different value systems. The result is that clashes of these value systems impede coordinated progress toward the collective well-being of all.”

“In addition to providing an environment for the inculcation of better values, a federally-funded pre-school program would alleviate a significant amount of parental suffering,” Obama added. “Having a place to ship your four-year-old off to each day for a few hours gives the parents extra free time they can spend on more satisfying pursuits while their child is under the capable care and instruction of trained education professionals.”

Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) endorsed the President’s proposal pointing out that “as Melissa Harris-Perry said on TV the other day, we’ve got to get past the notion that children belong to their parents. Children belong to the community. China understands this and has been pursuing an even more aggressive intervention with its children in order to ensure that a more uniform system of rearing the young contributes to a stronger and more unified nation. We need to get moving if we are to keep pace.”

EPA Blames Sequester for Release of Personal Info on Farmers

Under criticism for handing over personal data on farmers and ranchers to environmental groups, the Environmental Protection Agency defended its actions as “cost-effective under current budget constraints.”

“Normally, we’d harry these despoilers of the environment ourselves,” said Bob Perciasepe, Acting EPA Administrator. “But with the budget being hemmed in by the sequester we have to seek other ways of achieving our objectives. We saw arming these environmental groups with potentially useful information as a way of multiplying or leveraging our forces. We thought we’d get more bang for the buck, so to speak.”

Man Faces Charges for Shooting Bear

A 76-year-old Massachusetts man is facing weapons charges for shooting a bear in his backyard. Richard Ahlstrand of Auburn Massachusetts shot the bear when the 400 lb. animal attacked him as he was tending the bird-feeders he keeps on his property.

According to Massachusetts authorities, Ahlstrand should have called animal control officers to handle the wayward bear. “The State employs professionals trained in safe animal removal,” Rufus Bustard, spokesman for Massachusetts Attorney General. “A phone call would have brought these professionals to the scene within a matter of hours.”

Bustartd dismissed Ahlstrand’s assertion that he had only seconds to defend himself as “self-serving. Even if true, the value to society of the life of a 76 year-old vs. that of the bear is by no means certain. Maybe a jury will let him off, but it is our job to represent the interests of the wildlife that may be endangered by people like him.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

Please do us a favor.  If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.

Democrats Want Your Money and They Want it Now

Kirstyn Sinema isn’t around to make shocking remarks in the Arizona Legislature anymore. So Democrat socialist Ed Ableser (Tempe) is taking up the dubious insert-foot-in-mouth mantle.

Ableser just called churches and religious schools “freeloaders.” Invoking the old phrase “egg-sucking liberals” — Democrats who never saw another person’s dollar bill they didn’t want to vacuum up into a government sinkhole.

This lesson in absurd and outrageous Democrat greed and big government obsession cropped up over a bill introduced in the legislature that would protect religious schools from unemployment tax. With the Obama economy hurting families’ ability to send children to good private schools, Republicans have sought to ease their burden by exempting the schools from burdensome unemployment taxes. Most teachers and staff aren’t making much money by working at these much-needed antidotes to secular humanist government schools. Many an unfortunate family can’t afford to send their children to the best private schools, for financial reasons created and worsened by the Obama Administration and Democrats who sank the economy. Unemployment taxes could sink these small schools which are training up children in such admireable ways.

But Democrats like Ableser only see the money they think belongs to them, er uh, the government.

It’s not about “greed on Wall Street.” It’s about greed on West Washington Street in Phoenix and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

The Dark Side of Homosexual Parenting

Dawn C. Stefanowicz Public Hearing of the Judiciary Committee on the Marriage Amendment Boston, Massachusetts

Thank you for permitting me to speak.

I am supporting this marriage amendment.

My mother was very seriously ill. From infancy I grew up with a homosexual father. I loved my Dad, but my father exposed me to diverse sexual subcultures. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual subcultures did not have boundaries and principles of morality and monogamy. Rather it was experimentation, pansexuality, many sexual partners, and self-indulgent lifestyles. Gender and sexual orientation were blurred. Unisex dressing, transsexualism, and transient and anonymous multiple partners were common. My father and his associates were not limited by gender nor age. They frequented public areas. By age ten, for example, I was exposed to a gay nude beach, a sex shop, and a gay cruising park. My father had partners in the home from my infancy. All our vacations were to key GLBT areas where cruising was available.

I was traumatized by six years old in my household. I was stuttering, blacking out and having nightmares caused by molestation, physical and verbal abuse, and abandonment. My father would leave us alone for days to be with his partners. At eight, two of my father’s partners committed suicide. My father intimidated me into silence, making me fearful for my life, and unable to talk about my father’s lifestyle. Alcohol, drugs, gay bars and parties were part of the scene. Youthfulness, beauty, art, fashion, and travel were prized. However, the painful losses my father’s friends experienced were devastating. My father and his partners were involved in domestic violence and he dropped them like commodities. Males who were minors were at risk in my home of being preyed upon sexually.

Dad had encouraged me to be more open sexually, while teaching me by example that sex was gratuitous. I could not look to my father as a moral agent in my life. This left me confused about my sexual identity, and my feelings and roles as a girl and woman. My father could not show affection or affirmation to females, making me believe it was better to be a boy. He doted on his male partners – time, communication, affection and sex – travelling and buying them gifts, leaving me feeling worthless. If particular judges had their way, I would have had at least three “psychological” parents – men I would not have wanted to be named my parents.

I felt worthless and began seeking other boys’ affections by age twelve. Long-term, I became depressed, anxious, and suicidal. I was in and out of counselling between the ages of sixteen and thirty. All my family members were severely impacted.

My father left his associations within the subcultures in the late eighties, succumbing to death by AIDS in 1991 at the age of fifty-one. Many of his partners have died of AIDS, some in their early forties.

Children have no voice when they grow up in a homosexual household. Children are unwillingly forced to tolerate their parent’s sexual choices and living arrangements. If I spoke about what happened around my father, I would risk being sent to the streets or a group home. I was silenced for over forty years, afraid to share the reality of what I had lived through. I waited until both my parents had died before speaking publicly. Most other adult children feel that they cannot speak about their experiences until their parents have passed away. By the way, I know of 14 children who grew up with a homosexual parent, including myself. All of us have been negatively impacted long term. This includes adult children who have not been able to cope with their difficulties growing up – Some have tried to numb the pain with drug and alcohol addictions and sexual promiscuity.

My first thirty years around my father and his partners showed me how not to live my life. Marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is the best environment for children. Children need to see gender as male or female. Children need firm moral boundaries around sexuality. As a child, I could not comprehend the emphasis on being gender-neutral, unisex dressing, and pansexual practices. Group sex, bathhouse sex, cruising, and other expressions of diverse sexuality broke down the barriers between private and public sex.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, has stated, “Undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of virtually all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country,” according to Lifesite News.

Freedom of speech and democracy are eroded by hate crime and same-sex marriage legislation, and by judicial activism. Human Rights Tribunals in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their expressed opposition to homosexuality. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the person tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. On the other hand, the person making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint. All television, radio and print media are monitored. May what is happening in Canada serve as a warning to Massachusetts. Where can the children find safety if legislation is in place legitimizing homosexual marriage?

Administration Touts Obamacare as Jobs Engine

John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent

Folder2 104The complexities of the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) are now being hailed as a stimulant for the economy by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

“The GOP has been trying to lampoon the Health Care law as a ‘Rube Goldberg’ contraption that boggles the mind,” Sebelius said. “Well, the joke’s on them. It is the very complexity of the regulations that has opened up a need for hundreds of thousands of jobs for advisers to help patients navigate these regulations.”

“In the simplistic minds of the law’s detractors, the decision to seek medical assistance is an uncomplicated one—a person feeling ill consults a physician,” Sebelius observed. “The new law has so confused a vast number of potential beneficiaries that professional guidance is now essential if one hopes to get the best result.”

The suggestion that Obamacare’s extra layers of paperwork don’t add any real value was mocked by the Secretary. “At a time of high unemployment giving people something to do is vital to restoring economic growth,” Sebelius argued. “What’s more, these jobs are environment-friendly. In contrast, the jobs that would be generated by increasing access to fossil-based energy supplies by expanding oil drilling or constructing the Keystone Pipeline would tend to lower fuel costs and encourage more driving and air pollution.”

City Defends Hiring Non-Swimming Minorities as Lifeguards

While taking some flak for doing so, City of Phoenix officials are standing by their decision to accept non-swimming minorities as pool lifeguards.

“The problem with requiring swimming proficiency as a condition of employment is that minorities would be under-represented among those we hire,” City Parks and Recreation Administrator Alfredo Zote. “The Mayor has asked us to strive for a workforce that mirrors the composition of the City’s population. We can’t do that if we impose qualifications that have a disproportionate impact on any racial or ethnic groups.”

As to whether the ability to swim might not be a crucial skill in the performance of the job, Zote demurred. “Few of the annual drownings that occur in our state are at public pools,” he pointed out. “And we can team the non-swimming minority hire with a strong-swimming white hiree. That way the non-swimmer can help spot a potential drowning victim and direct the swimmer to rescue him.”

While Zote acknowledged that he had no idea on whether the new policy would have any negative consequences for the safety of visitors to any of the City’s 23 public pools he did ask that “critics balance any undesired outcomes at the pools with the social gains of our minority hiring policy. Providing employment for disfavored groups is not without its benefits. Whether their gains in self-esteem outweigh losses in terms of injury or fatalities at our sites is, in my opinion, a judgment call.”

$400,000 Study of Duck Genitalia Defended

The citation of $400,000 of taxpayer dollars being spent on a study of duck genitalia as an example of waste was assailed by National Science Foundation spokeswoman Deborah Wing.

“I would say that the poll showing nearly 90% of respondents disapproving of this kind of outlay by the federal government bolsters my confidence that we are on the right track in our funding decisions,” Wing contended. “To the average person, this looks like a poor use of money. This is why expert opinion must overrule an uninformed general public.”

“Lost in the rush to ridicule how federal funds are disbursed are the incredibly intriguing findings of studies like this,” Wing explained. “I mean, how many of these critics were aware that duck penises are cork-screw shaped—a piece of information that might never have come to light without this study? The future value of such information is incalculable. We must never permit the quest for knowledge to be stifled by the short-sighted selfishness of taxpayers and their advocates.”

President Complains of Constitutional Constraints

In a speech at a Democratic fund-raising event President Obama told the audience that “the good I can accomplish is limited by Constitutional constraints,” and emphasized the importance of “overcoming these constraints by electing more Democrats to Congress.”

“Just imagined what we could get done if Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) were once again the Speaker of the House,” Obama urged. “Instead of having Republicans blocking my initiatives with objections that the cost is too great we’d have the votes needed to ensure that vital new programs would get through.”

In support of his argument, the President recalled that “the Affordable Health Care Act would never have gotten passed if we hadn’t had Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. It was only the courage and faith of then-Speaker Pelosi’s determination to press ahead even though no one had time to read the legislation that made the enactment of Obamacare possible. We need to recreate those salutary conditions.”

For her part, Pelosi pledged, if given another chance, to “remove the impediments to the brighter future President Obama is trying to bring to America. What this country needs is a broad ‘enabling act’ that would give the President the unconstrained authority to move forward despite possible future Congressional opposition. If we had passed such an act before we lost our majority the President could now bypass GOP obstruction and institute the transformation he promised and voters elected him to accomplish.”

Legislator Laments Uproar over Bill to Restrict Gun Ownership

State Representative Beth McCann (D-Denver) expressed disappointment over having to withdraw her bill aimed at preventing “dangerous persons” from legally acquiring firearms. Under the proposed bill, the names of persons determined to be unworthy of owning firearms could have been confidentially entered onto a national registry and thereby blocking them from purchasing these weapons.

“The beauty of my proposal is that the doctors, nurses, and counselors blacklisting these threats would be protected from potential retaliation for doing what they felt was necessary for public safety,” McCann boasted. “The nuts that would’ve been systematically barred from ever obtaining a gun would’ve never known why.”

McCann maintains that “the desire to own a gun is, by itself, a likely marker for mental illness. In a sane world, the mere act of attempting to purchase a gun would be sufficient evidence to deny a person access to it.” In the Representative’s “sane world” the government would own all firearms and only authorized personnel would be permitted to carry these weapons.

In related news, US Representative Diana DeGette (D-Colo) rebutted contentions that citizens need the right to bear arms for self-defense. “The average person isn’t competent to use firearms to defend himself,” DeGette insisted. “The professional criminal is likely far more skilled. Crime victims are better off relying on the mercy an assailant is more likely to show if they don’t resist. Also, if police show up while the crime is still in progress their task will be simpler—just shoot the one with the gun.”

White House Complains “Drudge Is Muddling Our Message”

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer complained that the Drudge Report (a prominent website for news headlines) is “hurting our message.”

“If it were only Drudge we had to contend with we’d be okay,” Pfeiffer said. “The problem is other media are picking up his content and demanding to know our response. This flies in the face of the protocol we have striven to establish. We feel that the media should be getting their main thrust from us. They should not be badgering the Administration with notions originating from outside.”

Thus far, Pfeiffer’s approach toward combating this threat has been to seek to intimidate media representatives who cite Drudge as a source for questions they raise. “My first effort is to establish that mere mention of this discredited source is a reason for reporters to be embarrassed,” Pfeiffer bragged. “If this is insufficient to bring them into line, my suggestion that they may be cut off from participating in our future briefings if they don’t behave themselves usually does the trick.”

“In a perfect world irksome intrusions from pests like Drudge wouldn’t exist,” Pfeiffer added. “Getting from here to there, though, is likely to take some effort. For the time being we are going to have to swat them down whenever they rear their ugly heads. This doesn’t mean we aren’t seeking a more permanent solution.”

UN Calls for Disarming those 55 Years and Older

The recently passed UN Global Arms Trade Treaty contains a provision that would ban those over 55 years old from owning guns.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon explained that “most crimes are committed by gun-wielding assailants who generally are younger than their victims. If we allow those who are near the end of their lives to use guns to kill these younger assailants the human race will be losing more ‘life-years,’ on balance. Therefore, it is better that these elderly victims not be given the means to resist even if that means they will be slain by their attackers.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

Please do us a favor.  If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.

Andrew Thomas: ‘Me, Too Amnesty’ and the Hispanic Vote

By Andrew Thomas

It was, if nothing else, a fitting metaphor for the size and nature of the work before them. On March 27, 2013, four members of the “Gang of Eight,” a group of U.S. senators who have banded together to seek immigration reform, toured the Arizona-Mexico border. It was what Politico termed their “spring break” trip: Republican Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, back in their home state of Arizona, hosting two fellow members of the Gang of Eight, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado.

“In the last several years we have made improvements on the border,” McCain told the press later. The senators spoke of the need for more technology on the border, though they declined to say what future border security measures would be installed as part of their legislation, which was still being negotiated.

As they flew over the border near Nogales, a city that straddles both sides of the international border, they saw something that captured the magnitude of the problem. They saw a woman climb the border fence successfully. Senator McCain tweeted the event and informed the public that the Border Patrol later apprehended her.

Even as such events remind the nation of the severity of the situation, the senators remained confident a deal can be struck for new immigration legislation. One of the few known and certain components of the legislation being drafted is amnesty. The gang has agreed in advance the bill would grant probationary legal status to all illegal immigrants immediately—meaning they can remain in the country legally.

Yet as Republican establishment leaders treat this enterprise as the political salvation of the Grand Old Party, some observers are starting to question the very premise of the efforts. After all, if the political goal, accepted at its practical core, is to secure more Hispanic votes for Republicans, is this legislation truly the path to such success?

The Myth of the Romney Debacle

When we drill down below the conventional wisdom, and in particular when we examine hard polling data from Hispanic Americans, we find things are not as we have been told. The Republican Party’s challenges with Hispanics are of long standing and seemingly not connected to illegal immigration, but instead involve broader issues with the party’s platform and brand.

Consider first the much-discussed exit polls showing low Hispanic support for Mitt Romney in last year’s election. The results of a Fox News exit poll were typical. It found that 71 percent of Hispanics voted for President Obama and 27 percent for Mitt Romney. A Pew Research analysis of multiple exit polls confirmed this margin.

But grand political lessons should not be drawn from a single election. Here, we find Pew’s data much more illuminating, for they compared Romney’s showing to that of past Republican presidential nominees. This was not a one-time debacle because of GOP immigration rhetoric, but rather a long-term pattern of Republican inefficacy.

In 2008, John McCain won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote. That too was not his fault; it is in fact a typical percentage for Republicans in the modern era. In fact, the average percentage of the Hispanic vote won by a Republican candidate for president for the past nine presidential election cycles, going back to the first Reagan victory in 1980, is just 32.9 percent.

Bob Dole fared the worst, losing to Bill Clinton among Hispanics by 51 points (72 percent to 21 percent). No serious observer would contend that Bob Dole was or appeared to be an anti-Hispanic bigot.

George W. Bush received a greater share of the Hispanic vote. In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, he lost the Hispanic vote by 27 and 18 points, respectively. But there were important differences. First, he received a higher share of the overall vote than McCain and Romney. Bush was the former governor of Texas, and performed especially well among Hispanics in that state who were his former constituents. And Bush was not running against Obama, a racial minority with whom Hispanic voters naturally found common ground.

In other words, Romney did not nosedive because of tough anti-immigrant GOP rhetoric swirling around him. He merely performed slightly lower than average against America’s first minority president.

Broader Issues

Advocates of immigration reform as a brand-fixer for Republicans overlook broader issues that are at work. Hispanics favor a larger role for government than do white Americans or Republicans. And these differences are not going away.

Hispanic voters make political decisions as other Americans do. A Pew Research survey last year asked Hispanic registered voters to name the most important issues facing the country. Fifty-five percent listed education as “extremely important.” This was followed in descending order by a familiar litany of other top concerns: jobs and the economy (54 percent), health care (50 percent), federal budget deficit (36 percent) and taxes (33 percent). Immigration fell between deficits and taxes at 34 percent.

Accordingly, freshman Senator Ted Cruz, a virtual unknown at the start of his come-from-behind campaign in the Lone Star State of Texas registering just one percent in the polls, wrote in the Washington Post last January that the GOP should stand for “opportunity conservatism” by conceptualizing and articulating “every domestic policy with a single-minded focus on easing the ascent up the economic ladder.”

Further, he explained, “Under the Obama administration, the unemployment rate climbed above 10 percent among Hispanics last year and to 14 percent among African Americans. Yet Republicans never talked about this.”

However, Hispanics favor a larger role for government than the population as a whole. A 2012 survey by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Foundation found two out of three Hispanics favored a “larger federal government with many services” over a “smaller federal government with fewer services.” For all American adults, in contrast, 55 percent preferred a smaller federal government with fewer services and only 40 percent supported a larger federal government.

An Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll in 2011, echoing Ronald Reagan, offered more confirmation. Forty-two percent of white Americans, a plurality in the poll, agreed that “in the current economic environment government is not the solution to our economic problems, government is the problem.” Only 17 percent of African Americans and 25 percent of Hispanics felt the same.

In a Latino Decisions poll in 2012, 61 percent of Hispanic voters supported Obamacare, with only 25 percent who want it repealed. This contrasts with solid, sustained opposition to the law by a majority of Americans overall and white voters in particular.

Finally, the overwhelming Hispanic vote for Obama reflected a common belief that he and his party would do a better job of addressing the whole range of issues facing the country. Hispanic voters concluded Obama would better handle the economy, the chief issue for all voters of all races in 2012. A Latino Decisions poll, taken on November 5, 2012, the eve of the election, found that, when asked which candidate and political party “do you trust more to make the right decisions and improve our economic conditions,” 73 percent of Hispanic voters chose Obama and the Democrats and only 23 percent selected Romney and the Republicans. Those results mirrored almost precisely the election returns among Hispanic voters according to exit polls.

There is, then, a broader dissonance between the Republican Party and Hispanic voters on issues well beyond immigration. Hispanics prefer bigger government, even as this is antithetical to the core tenets of the Republican Party platform. Even the most committed Republican immigration reformers in Congress are not proposing that the GOP jettison its limited-government stance and rhetoric.

A Path to Lasting Political Success

The assumption that immigration reform will improve Republican political prospects is, then, questionable at best. George Hawley, a political science professor at the University of Houston, recently published a study which further reinforced this conclusion. He found that Republican incumbents seeking reelection to Congress who had supported liberalizing immigration laws did not fare better in the 2006 elections than did Republican Congressmen who opposed such legislation. In fact, Hawley concluded that the reform-minded Congressmen averaged less than 30 percent support from Hispanics—nearly identical to the totals that Mitt Romney gained from Hispanic voters in the presidential race six years later.

Hawley argues that the Republican Party may lose some of its base voters by trying to win over Hispanic voters, who are more in line with the Democratic Party on other issues besides immigration reform.

What, then, are Republicans to do? They risk alienating the base they have, which allows them to remain competitive nationally and win and retain a majority in Congress, by going along with amnesty. Furthermore, they will always be “outbid” by Democratic leaders, presumably, when it comes to accommodating illegal immigration.

A better approach is to be true to core Republican principles and accentuate areas of commonality with Hispanic voters, of which there are many. For example, a vigorous national defense benefits all and offers fertile common ground. Hispanics understand the need for deficit reduction as a way to provide for the needs of future generations, something that accords with love of family.

A “common ground” approach presents a more likely path to long-term political success than turning the Republican Party into the “me too” amnesty party.

Bisbee Promotes Social Breakdown

Attorney General Tom Horne has issued a letter to the Bisbee City Council stating that a proposed Civil Union Ordinance, if passed, would be unconstitutional and require the attorney general’s office to initiate an action in the courts to enjoin, or stop it.All three members of the legislature representing Bisbee have expressed deep concerns about the constitutionality of the ordinance.   In a statement today, Attorney General Tom Horne said: “I have today sent a letter to the Bisbee City Attorney and City Council members stating that they have no authority to pass the ordinance that they will be considering tonight.  This is in response to a complaint received from all three state legislators representing Bisbee: Senator Gail Griffin, Representative David Gowan and Representative David Stevens.

The ordinance seeks to change seven separate State statutes within the boundaries of the city, dealing with issues such as community property, inheritance of property, and appointment of personal representatives.  The only proper way to change a statute is through the Arizona Legislature, not through actions of the City Council attempting to change a State statute within its boundaries.  I emphasize that I am not expressing any opinion on the policy of the ordinance.  My job is to enforce the laws that exist and I am obligated to respond to complaints from state legislators. If the ordinance is passed, the Office will initiate a special action in the Courts to enjoin it.”

Civil unions are a radical, left-wing attempt to promote counterfeit “marriage.” They actually promote cohabitation — subjecting women and children to drastically heightened risks of violence.