by Herman Cain
March 13, 2012
The federal government doesn’t think you should have to prove you’re who you say you are. Well, actually that depends. If you’re getting on an airplane, you not only have to show your ID, you have to let them look through your bag and let them take a picture of you with their special X-ray vision.
But when you show up to vote, that’s another story. Texas is the latest state to find itself in the crosshairs of the feds because it passed a law requiring citizens to show picture ID before they show up to vote.
The movement to require photo ID when voting has gained steam in recent years as we’ve heard more stories of voter fraud. To demonstrate how easy it is to commit voter fraud, conservative activist James O’Keefe showed up at various polling places on the night of the New Hampshire primary, identifying himself each time as a person who had recently died but was still on the voter rolls. The poll workers did not ask him for an ID, and even told him it wasn’t necessary when he offered to go back to his car and get one.
So why would anyone be against this requirement? You have to show ID to pick up a package from FedEx, but you don’t have to prove you’re who you say you are to vote?
Every state that has passed voter ID has been met with a challenge from the Obama Administration, which argues that these laws disproportionately disenfranchise minorities because they are more likely than the population as a whole to lack photo ID.
Now let’s be honest here. We’ve all heard the stories of dead people in Chicago helping to catapult John F. Kennedy to the White House in 1960. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Republicans tend to favor voter ID laws and Democrats tend to oppose them. Republicans suspect that voter fraud tends to have a pro-Democratic bias, probably for good reason.
But there is another side to this story that’s worth remembering. I am a black man from the south, and I came of age to vote in the 1960s. Attempts to disenfranchise black voters were real in those days, and they made it necessary to pass laws like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. I happen to think that most Democrats who object to voter ID laws are insincere, and are concerned about little else besides their own electoral advantage.
But Republicans who favor these laws should go the extra mile to make sure voter ID laws do not have the effect of making it harder for anyone to vote.
The simple way to do that is to match the stringent nature of your photo ID requirement with a concerted outreach to let people know what is necessary to get the required ID. My home state of Georgia instituted a voter ID requirement in 2008. In response to concerns that many voters would be disenfranchised by not having the required ID, Republican Secretary of State Karen Handel initiated a widespread, grassroots voter education program to make sure people knew what they needed, and how to get it.
That seems like the right mix. Photo ID requirements should make it hard to cheat, but they should not make it harder to vote – and that goes for anyone who wants to vote.
If there are some Republicans out there who wouldn’t mind if voter ID requirements drive down the voting turnout from Democratic constituencies, I say this: Instead of discouraging these people from voting, why don’t you make the case to them for why they should vote Republican? It can be done.
Photo ID requirements are basic common sense to prevent voter fraud. When people object to this, it’s hard to believe they really care about voting rights as opposed to cheating rights. And the states who pass these laws should undertake aggressive outreach, as Georgia did, to make sure all voters have the ID they need. It’s simply the right thing to do in a society where we value the right to vote, and vote honestly.
March 19, 2012
Why do you really object to voter ID laws, Democrats?
March 12, 2012
Mainstream Media Protects Obama
by Herman Cain
March 12, 2012
You probably heard last week what a radio host said about a law student, but you didn’t hear the news that really matters. That’s because the dinosaur media in this country doesn’t report the news that really matters.
In fact, if you’re like most Americans, you’ve never even heard of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It sounds like some obscure committee buried deep in the bowels of government, but it is actually a creation of ObamaCare that has the power to deny you vital treatment that could be essential to your health.
When people laughed at Sarah Palin for speculating about “death panels” in ObamaCare, they either didn’t know – or ignored – the reality of the IPAB. Maybe that’s why the media ignored a 17-5 vote last week by a crucial House subcommittee to eliminate the IPAB – a vote that gained support from two Democrats on the committee. Why did they vote to get rid of the IPAB? Because it is an unelected, unaccountable group of so-called “experts” that ObamaCare would empower to decide which kinds of health care deserves to be covered.
This is the dirty little secret behind the Obama claim that ObamaCare controls costs. The claim is absurd on its face because any time you make a service free by forcing a third party to pay for it, you drive demand through the roof and costs will go up. That is so basic you can’t even call it Economics 101. It’s the first day in class.
If ObamaCare had existed six years ago when I was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and my insurance company had to follow ObamaCare rules, the IPAB might have looked at my 30 percent chance of survival and denied my surgery and chemo treatment. I am now six years totally cancer free because I could choose my surgery and chemo treatment, not the government.
Plain and simple, the IPAB is the government agency that will direct health care rationing once ObamaCare causes demand to run laps around supply, which is inevitable.
ObamaCare’s defenders claim disingenuously that Congress has oversight powers to override IPAB rulings, just as they have had oversight powers over Fannie and Freddie, and the Federal Reserve. How’s that working out for us?
There is no requirement for an affirmative vote in Congress to approve the IPAB’s decisions, and that means 15 unelected people will have an awful lot of power to decide how people will be treated – or not treated.
So why didn’t the media report on the House vote this week? A Google news search turns up nothing from the AP, the major newspapers, networks or cable news channels. You only find a handful of press releases and references on conservative news sites.
There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that the mainstream media doesn’t cover actual policy substance, which is why you got your fill of Sandra Fluke but nothing about IPAB. Another big reason is that the mainstream media protects Obama. They do so on matters large and small. Obama’s claim that his father served in World War II may well have been a slip of the tongue intended to reference his grandfather. His father was born in 1936 and he would have had to enlist at the age of five. Impossible!
But I could live with their failure on small matters like this, if they would report things that actually matter. They don’t. They completely ignored the fact that Obama double counted $500 billion in “savings” in the scoring of ObamaCare. There have been precious few headlines reporting on the failure of Democrats in Congress to pass a budget since 2009 – a failure that Obama spokesman Jay Carney said recently the White House has no problem with. The mounting failures of the “green energy” companies Obama has subsidized have been headline news in alternative conservative media, as you would expect, but they receive scant coverage in the MSM.
It’s tough to defeat an incumbent president when the news media protect him by ignoring his failures – not to mention his “accomplishments” that are bad for the country, like ObamaCare and the establishment of the IPAB. So it should come as no surprise that the House subcommittee vote to eliminate the IPAB got such little attention, even though the vote was bipartisan.
If we want the public to understand Obama’s real record, then we’ll have to report it ourselves, because the MSM will not do it. That’s why nearly 50 percent of the public continues to think President Obama is doing a good job.
They are clueless and the MSM media wants to keep it that way.
March 12, 2012
You probably heard last week what a radio host said about a law student, but you didn’t hear the news that really matters. That’s because the dinosaur media in this country doesn’t report the news that really matters.
In fact, if you’re like most Americans, you’ve never even heard of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It sounds like some obscure committee buried deep in the bowels of government, but it is actually a creation of ObamaCare that has the power to deny you vital treatment that could be essential to your health.
When people laughed at Sarah Palin for speculating about “death panels” in ObamaCare, they either didn’t know – or ignored – the reality of the IPAB. Maybe that’s why the media ignored a 17-5 vote last week by a crucial House subcommittee to eliminate the IPAB – a vote that gained support from two Democrats on the committee. Why did they vote to get rid of the IPAB? Because it is an unelected, unaccountable group of so-called “experts” that ObamaCare would empower to decide which kinds of health care deserves to be covered.
This is the dirty little secret behind the Obama claim that ObamaCare controls costs. The claim is absurd on its face because any time you make a service free by forcing a third party to pay for it, you drive demand through the roof and costs will go up. That is so basic you can’t even call it Economics 101. It’s the first day in class.
If ObamaCare had existed six years ago when I was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and my insurance company had to follow ObamaCare rules, the IPAB might have looked at my 30 percent chance of survival and denied my surgery and chemo treatment. I am now six years totally cancer free because I could choose my surgery and chemo treatment, not the government.
Plain and simple, the IPAB is the government agency that will direct health care rationing once ObamaCare causes demand to run laps around supply, which is inevitable.
ObamaCare’s defenders claim disingenuously that Congress has oversight powers to override IPAB rulings, just as they have had oversight powers over Fannie and Freddie, and the Federal Reserve. How’s that working out for us?
There is no requirement for an affirmative vote in Congress to approve the IPAB’s decisions, and that means 15 unelected people will have an awful lot of power to decide how people will be treated – or not treated.
So why didn’t the media report on the House vote this week? A Google news search turns up nothing from the AP, the major newspapers, networks or cable news channels. You only find a handful of press releases and references on conservative news sites.
There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that the mainstream media doesn’t cover actual policy substance, which is why you got your fill of Sandra Fluke but nothing about IPAB. Another big reason is that the mainstream media protects Obama. They do so on matters large and small. Obama’s claim that his father served in World War II may well have been a slip of the tongue intended to reference his grandfather. His father was born in 1936 and he would have had to enlist at the age of five. Impossible!
But I could live with their failure on small matters like this, if they would report things that actually matter. They don’t. They completely ignored the fact that Obama double counted $500 billion in “savings” in the scoring of ObamaCare. There have been precious few headlines reporting on the failure of Democrats in Congress to pass a budget since 2009 – a failure that Obama spokesman Jay Carney said recently the White House has no problem with. The mounting failures of the “green energy” companies Obama has subsidized have been headline news in alternative conservative media, as you would expect, but they receive scant coverage in the MSM.
It’s tough to defeat an incumbent president when the news media protect him by ignoring his failures – not to mention his “accomplishments” that are bad for the country, like ObamaCare and the establishment of the IPAB. So it should come as no surprise that the House subcommittee vote to eliminate the IPAB got such little attention, even though the vote was bipartisan.
If we want the public to understand Obama’s real record, then we’ll have to report it ourselves, because the MSM will not do it. That’s why nearly 50 percent of the public continues to think President Obama is doing a good job.
They are clueless and the MSM media wants to keep it that way.
March 5, 2012
Gas Price Solution: $2.50 is bold and achievable
March 5, 2012
By Herman Cain
When George W. Bush left office, gasoline was less than $2 a gallon. When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, it was $1.13 a gallon.
Today, it’s inching toward $4 a gallon. Remember when Democrats used to blame Bush for what they said were “high” gas prices because he and his Texas oil buddies were all in cahoots or something?
No politician is to “blame” for the price of a global commodity. Contrary to what a lot of people think – and what the media leads you to believe – the president of the United States does not “micro-manage” the price of goods.
But on a larger scale, government policy can affect both supply and demand, and when government energy policy becomes exceedingly ridiculous – as it is now – it’s no surprise that we start paying excessive prices at the pump.
Federal policy today is about as unfriendly to energy independence as it has ever been. We put severe restrictions on domestic oil drilling (both on- and off-shore), on the operation of refineries and even on the distribution of existing gasoline supplies. We rely heavily on unfriendly nations like Venezuela, and on Middle Eastern nations who may not be enemies per se but are certainly not our close allies.
Even a proposed pipeline allowing us to buy oil directly from friendly Canada has been met with presidential opposition.
And the worst thing of all, as Energy Secretary Steven Chu admitted last week, is that the Obama Administration doesn’t care that all these policies drive up gas prices. They want gas prices high! Chu said in 2008 that he wishes we were more like Europe, where they pay much higher prices than we do in order to force conservation. Straining the family budget is not conservation, it’s dumb.
When you have policies like this, it doesn’t leave much that anyone can do to make a positive difference. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) wants to ask the Saudis to increase production to help us out. That’s what you’re reduced to when you refuse to maximize our own energy resources – begging sheikhs, emirs and princes for favors.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) wants the Commodities Trading Commission to do an investigation. Are you kidding me? The rest of the Democrats just keep blaming the oil companies and Bush, as if it wouldn’t be nice to have gas prices back where they were when Bush left office.
There are, however, things we can do. I was campaigning with Newt Gingrich last week when he unveiled a plan that can bring gas prices back down to $2.50 a gallon. Newt’s plan is bold, even though it mainly consists of common-sense measures that recognize the principles of supply and demand.
Newt’s plan would:
• Remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States, off shore and on land.
• End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where shale gives us the potential to produce three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.
• Give coastal states federal royalty revenue-sharing, so they will have an incentive to allow off-shore development.
• Reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production by enacting loser-pays laws. That way, if someone files a frivolous environmental lawsuit and loses, the plaintiff will have to pay all legal costs for the other side. That will make a lot of people think twice before abusing the legal system.
• Use new oil and gas royalties to finance cleaner energy research and projects. For some reason, Democrats act as if we have to choose between oil and alternative sources of energy. That’s ridiculous. The answer to our energy needs is all of the above.
• Get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, which does nothing but drive up energy prices and kill jobs, and establish a new Environmental Solutions Agency. The new agency would use positive incentives, and would work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes. The idea is to meet both our energy needs and important environmental standards, rather than constantly going to war against energy on behalf of the environment, which is what the EPA does.
This can be done. Newt’s $2.50 plan is as bold as my 9-9-9 tax code replacement plan. But first we need leaders who think energy independence matters, and is worth achieving. We don’t have leaders like that now, which you should remember the next time you pay way more than $2.50 a gallon for a tank of gas.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
By Herman Cain
When George W. Bush left office, gasoline was less than $2 a gallon. When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, it was $1.13 a gallon.
Today, it’s inching toward $4 a gallon. Remember when Democrats used to blame Bush for what they said were “high” gas prices because he and his Texas oil buddies were all in cahoots or something?
No politician is to “blame” for the price of a global commodity. Contrary to what a lot of people think – and what the media leads you to believe – the president of the United States does not “micro-manage” the price of goods.
But on a larger scale, government policy can affect both supply and demand, and when government energy policy becomes exceedingly ridiculous – as it is now – it’s no surprise that we start paying excessive prices at the pump.
Federal policy today is about as unfriendly to energy independence as it has ever been. We put severe restrictions on domestic oil drilling (both on- and off-shore), on the operation of refineries and even on the distribution of existing gasoline supplies. We rely heavily on unfriendly nations like Venezuela, and on Middle Eastern nations who may not be enemies per se but are certainly not our close allies.
Even a proposed pipeline allowing us to buy oil directly from friendly Canada has been met with presidential opposition.
And the worst thing of all, as Energy Secretary Steven Chu admitted last week, is that the Obama Administration doesn’t care that all these policies drive up gas prices. They want gas prices high! Chu said in 2008 that he wishes we were more like Europe, where they pay much higher prices than we do in order to force conservation. Straining the family budget is not conservation, it’s dumb.
When you have policies like this, it doesn’t leave much that anyone can do to make a positive difference. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) wants to ask the Saudis to increase production to help us out. That’s what you’re reduced to when you refuse to maximize our own energy resources – begging sheikhs, emirs and princes for favors.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) wants the Commodities Trading Commission to do an investigation. Are you kidding me? The rest of the Democrats just keep blaming the oil companies and Bush, as if it wouldn’t be nice to have gas prices back where they were when Bush left office.
There are, however, things we can do. I was campaigning with Newt Gingrich last week when he unveiled a plan that can bring gas prices back down to $2.50 a gallon. Newt’s plan is bold, even though it mainly consists of common-sense measures that recognize the principles of supply and demand.
Newt’s plan would:
• Remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States, off shore and on land.
• End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where shale gives us the potential to produce three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.
• Give coastal states federal royalty revenue-sharing, so they will have an incentive to allow off-shore development.
• Reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production by enacting loser-pays laws. That way, if someone files a frivolous environmental lawsuit and loses, the plaintiff will have to pay all legal costs for the other side. That will make a lot of people think twice before abusing the legal system.
• Use new oil and gas royalties to finance cleaner energy research and projects. For some reason, Democrats act as if we have to choose between oil and alternative sources of energy. That’s ridiculous. The answer to our energy needs is all of the above.
• Get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, which does nothing but drive up energy prices and kill jobs, and establish a new Environmental Solutions Agency. The new agency would use positive incentives, and would work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes. The idea is to meet both our energy needs and important environmental standards, rather than constantly going to war against energy on behalf of the environment, which is what the EPA does.
This can be done. Newt’s $2.50 plan is as bold as my 9-9-9 tax code replacement plan. But first we need leaders who think energy independence matters, and is worth achieving. We don’t have leaders like that now, which you should remember the next time you pay way more than $2.50 a gallon for a tank of gas.
It doesn’t have to be that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)