Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Sunday, January 18, 2026
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 1045)

In what is widely considered  a shocking move, a visibly shaken Silvio Berlusconi stood before the Senate in Italy on Wednesday and announced that his center-right party would support the fragile coalition government, a dramatic reversal after the former prime minister had spent days vowing to bring down the government and force new elections.

The move by Berlusconi’s People of Freedom Party allowed the prime minister, Enrico Letta, to easily win a confidence vote in the Italian Senate Wednesday afternoon. Mr. Letta was expected to win a similar vote in the lower house of Parliament, where he commands a safe majority, later in the day.

“Putting together the expectations and the fact that Italy needs a government that produces institutional and structural reforms, we have decided to vote for the confidence motion, not without internal pain,” Mr. Berlusconi said.

The latest in political crisis in Rome came when Berlusconi threatened to withdraw his ministers from Letta’s government, which consists of a fragile left-right coalition charged with implementing painful structural reforms. Being convicted of tax fraud, being almost out of legal options for an appeal, and facing a potential ban from politics, Berlusconi hoped to give new life to his political career by toppling the government and forcing new elections.

However, he was headed off by a rebellion inside his own center-right party, a humiliating turn for the man who has occupied the center of Italian political life for the better of the last decade. Silvio Berlusconi, who has dominated Italy’s center-right for two decades, was confronted with an unexpected rebellion among many, with some saying publicly they would vote in support of Mr. Letta’s government. Earlier in the day, there had been reports that the center-right would split, though it was unclear if Mr. Berlusconi’s surprise announcement could hold the party together.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Letta made a 46-minute address to the Italian Senate that was broadcast on national television. Mr. Letta’s government was midwifed into existence five months ago by Italy’s president, Giorgio Napolitano, after unresolved national elections. It was an unlikely coalition of Italy’s center-left and the center-right, led by Mr. Berlusconi.

Mr. Letta said that the credibility of Italy’s political class was at stake, not only with Italian citizens, but also with other Europeans. He argued that european neighbors fear the political instability in Rome could bring problems for the euro zone. He noted that the period when the Italian republic enjoyed political stability — from 1947 to 1968 — was also coincided with an era or rapid economic growth and public optimism.

Now, Mr. Letta said, a “new” Europe is taking form out of the euro crisis and Italy could not be stuck in a “bunker” of petty, partisan politics. The country, he said, needed a stable, collaborative government to tackle structural reforms on election laws and financial issues.

“The Europe of the next 15 years is being formed now,” he said. “We can’t confront this with an absence of leadership.”

In what is widely considered a

U.S. private employers added a fewer-than-expected 166,000 jobs in September, according to Wednesday data from payrolls processor, underscoring still sluggish growth in the labor market. Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast the ADP National Employment Report would show a gain of 180,000 jobs. August’s private payrolls gains were revised to 159,000 from the previously reported 176,000.

“It basically says that the stimulus will continue,” said Chris Gaffney, senior market strategist, EverBank Wealth Management in St. Louis, Missouri. “The government shutdown will be a negative impact on the U.S. economy, extending the need for additional stimulus.”

The U.S. Federal Reserve had been deciding whether to start pulling back on its $85-billion-per-month bond buying program, but has thus far kept up its purchase pace on worries that the economy. The Fed continuously cites factors, including the labor market, which has not yet gathered enough fundamental economic strength to stand on its own.

The ADP report has taken on added significance this week as the government shutdown looks likely to limit other labor market data for September. Friday’s key nonfarm payrolls report from the Labor Department now seems likely not to be released according to schedule.

It is worth mentioning, that in Wednesday’s report small employers added 74,000 jobs, more than either medium or large businesses.

The ADP report is developed jointlywith Moody’s Analytics.

U.S. private employers added a fewer-than-expected 166,000

If the Republican Party gets blamed by the public for the 2013 government shutdown, then they have only themselves to blame. But maybe not in the way you may think.

Over the past week, Republicans should have learned two very valuable lessons, which if ignored, will continue to be a detriment to the party. It is hard to assign a priority of importance, but let’s begin with the media coverage.

Everyone knows, unless they are complete simpletons, that the mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda extension of the Democratic Party. Against all the facts, the Republican Party was painted as “extremists,” “anarchists” and even “terrorists,” who threatened to shutdown the government if they couldn’t satisfy the far-right wing of the party, or as one Democratic Senator put it on MSNBC – the “Teabaggers.” Let’s briefly look at a video, then look at the facts surrounding this debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UXvDasVu3pU

The way in which CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield portrayed the events over the last week is absurd on so many levels. First, as far as how these events played out, Harry Reid flat-out refused to call back the Senate before Monday’s scheduled 2 p.m. ET session. Even prior to the weekend, President Obama was mulling over the idea of calling congressional leaders to the White House for negotiations, which Harry Reid threatened he would not even bother to attend. But if we just looking at the specific issues Reid was so adamant about not compromising on, it is completely backward to blame the GOP.

All of the national polls show House Republicans are merely doing exactly what America wants them to do. A majority of Americans oppose a government shutdown and the vast majority oppose Obamacare. We will talk about how and why the numbers moved on the question of a government shutdown in a moment, but for now, let’s focus on the credibility of the media narrative that holds the Republican Party is extreme.

There is not one credible pundit or analyst who would disagree with the assertion that if put to a national vote today, Obamacare would be defeated in a historic landslide. The latest CNN poll found record high opposition to Obamacare, with 57 percent opposed and just 38 percent favoring the law. That 19 percent gap is the largest CNN has measured. Save for the Quinnipiac poll that found 47 – 45 in opposition, which is clearly an outlier, not one reputable polling company has ever found a majority favors Obamacare. Fact in point, nobody disagrees that if Obamacare were put to a vote on the floor of the Congress today, it would fail in both houses miserably.

How is it the media – and thanks to their efforts, now the public – says it is radical for the House to use its constitutional power of the purse to defund a program America does not want, and never wanted?

Sadly, the truth is even worse than the media making Republicans out to be extremists for opposing a law that Americans hate. The truth, is that Republican leadership is more concerned with their country club memberships than they are about the will of their constituents, or the negative effects the policy they give up the fight on will have on their lives. They are cowards who are both incapable and unwilling to engage in the necessary PR war to expose the media for what they are – an extension of the Democratic National Committee – which leaves conservative pundits and base operatives on the fringe of such allegations, leaving the public with the perception it’s nothing more than some ring-wing conspiracy.

That brings me to the second lesson from this messaging debacle. The first Republican Party president, Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided cannot stand,” but there is always a deep divide between party leadership and the folks. Not in the Democratic Party, where they lock-step march to the far-left with zero concern for blowback. Perhaps that may contribute to how it is they are able to refuse to compromise on their deeply unpopular position and still come out on top of public opinion?

Yet Republican leaders do not grasp this simple concept, instead choosing to regurgitate the same old tired, inaccurate excuses for their cowardice. It so predictable, it’s shameful.

We can’t win this fight. We have been here before in the 1990s, and the press will crucify us. The White House has the bully pulpit and we can’t raise our voices over his microphone. The polls will turn against us and we will lose in the upcoming election.

I have even heard so-called “conservatives” suggest that the GOP adopt the strategy to let Obamacare take effect, and it will be such a disaster that the people will abandon the Democratic Party in 2014. Aside from the disgusting lack of sympathy that view holds for those whose lives will inevitably experience a loss of quality from the policy, it isn’t even accurate.

In 1996, following the 1995 government shutdowns, Americans elected a Republican-controlled Congress back-to-back for the first time since the 1920s. Republican candidates even narrowly won the popular vote for the House. Republicans actually gained a seat in a special election held in a Democratic-leaning district in between government shutdowns in 1995, and narrowly lost a Senate seat in Democratic-leaning Oregon just after the last shutdown of the year, but went on to win an open Senate seat in the same state by a comfortable four point margin in November.

Going into the 1996 elections, Republicans held 236 seats in the House. When the elections were over, they held 228, losing just 8 seats, including one in a Democratic-leaning district held by one of the five Democrats who earlier turned Republican after the Republican Revolution. You can read more numbers analysis if you want here, but the point is that seats lost by the Republican Party after the 1995 government shutdown, did not have much to do with the shutdowns at all. It was the inevitable vulnerability that comes from a landslide election, which is a landscape that no longer exists today, despite what the generic congressional ballot might say.

Historically, the only accurate analogy should be related to the fact that the public did not turn on Republicans in the 1990s until the party abandoned Newt Gingrich, and they did so when he abandoned House conservatives after repeated ear whispering from then-Rep. John Boehner. Boehner was of the mind from the beginning that the politics of a shutdown would be bad for the party. People don’t follow leaders who do not have the courage of their own convictions, and that is what you are again seeing play out.

Last week, as well as this week, polling data showed that the public agreed a government shutdown would hurt the economy. However, last week, 53 percent of Americans were still willing to swallow the pill. But earlier this week, support for a government shutdown had dropped to 45 percent, down from 53 percent early last week when Sen. Cruz began his 21-hour “sorta” filibuster. Data then suggests that the inability of the Republican Party to unite against unpopular policy – whether you agree or disagree with the strategy – has caused many Americans to back the side they see united, and as a consequence coming out on top.

Had Senate Republican leadership showed the same unity in opposing cloture that the Democrats always show defending a deeply unpopular bill, it would have left a very different impression in the minds of the public, not to mention box Harry Reid in a corner. We certainly wouldn’t be here today.

While I have a seemingly endless number of candidates to show as an example, consider this coward – Rep. Peter King R-NY, in the video below:

Who is God’s name wants to follow that? The answer is quite clearly, nobody. And if the Republican Party is blamed for the 2013 government shutdown, then they have only themselves to blame.

If the Republican Party gets blamed by

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the world community not to be fooled by the new Iranian president’s conciliatory words, using a U.N. address to call Iranian President Rouhani as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Netanyahu, speaking to the U.N. General Assembly session on Tuesday in New York, looked to counter the positive reviews Iranian President Hassan Rouhani got from the media during his first international gathering as a world actor. As the U.S. reaches out to Iran under its new leadership, the Israeli prime minister suggested Hassan Rouhani, in realty, is no better than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“Rouhani didn’t sound like Ahmadinejad, but when it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was the wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Netanyahu said. “A wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community.”

Netanyahu spoke after meeting in person with President Obama on Monday in Washington. Netanyahu, to say the least, is skeptical over efforts to re-launch diplomatic talks between the U.S. and Iran, following the historic phone call on Friday between Obama and Rouhani. The Obama-Rouhani phone call was the first between an American and Iranian president since the Iranian revolution of 1979, which sent U.S.-Iranian relations spiraling.

Western leaders viewed Rouhani’s speech before the U.N. General Assembly last week as conciliatory in tone, and Secretary of State John Kerry has begun working with other diplomats to potentially rekindle talks over Iran’s nuclear program.

But Netanyahu used his address to revisit Iran’s bloody history in the wake of the 1979 revolution, and enlighten the world leaders – actually, it was probably more directed to their citizens – Rouhani’s role in the upper echelons of the regime during Iran-tied terror plots around the world. He called the new president a “loyal servant of the regime.”

“I wish I could believe Rouhani, but I don’t – because facts are stubborn things,” he said, adding Iran’s “savage record” contradicts Rouhani’s “soothing rhetoric.”

Netanyahu repeated the message he brought to the White House a day earlier, saying sanctions must remain in place – as well as a viable,  credible threat of military action – even as nuclear talks go forward. He said Israel would not allow Iran to produce a nuclear weapon, even if it stands alone in stopping the regime.

Netanyahu said the international community has Iran “on the ropes” and should strengthen its sanctions against the country.

“If you want to knock out Iran’s nuclear weapons program peacefully, don’t let up the pressure,” he said.

Netanyahu said to cease Iran’s nuclear program, its uranium enrichment capabilities must be stopped, its stockpiles of enriched uranium must be removed, its infrastructure for nuclear development must be dismantled, and all work at a reactor in Iraq – which is aimed at producing plutonium – must end.

Obama, sitting beside Netanyahu on Monday, agreed that “words are not sufficient” and western leaders need to see “actions.” But Obama’s own words do not comport with his own actions, or rather inactions. He said it is “imperative” that Iran not possess a nuclear weapon, and added: “We have to test diplomacy,” which i exactly what Iran is hoping the U.S. will do in order to buy more time.

He pledged to stay in “close consultation” with Israel, which certainly is not very relieving for Netanyahu and definitely not the response he was hoping for. It is no secret that the two men do not like each other. Now, Obama’s move has sent Netanyahu and Israel on the fringe of the world community.

Israeli leaders watched with shock, horror, and dismay what they opening call the “smiley campaign” by Iran’s new president last week. Netanyahu, who contends Iran is using the gestures as a smoke screen to conceal an unabated march toward a nuclear bomb, said before boarding his flight to the U.S. that: “I will tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and the onslaught of smiles.”

An Iranian representative at the U.N. offered a rebuttal to Netanyahu’s speech after he left the podium, saying that Iran is cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency – who last August admitted that Iran was roughly two-thirds along the way to having enough fissile material – and repeated statements from Rouhani that the country’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

“We just heard an extremely inflammatory statement,” the representative said. He said he didn’t want to spend any time answering to Netanyahu’s allegations, other than to “categorically reject” them.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the

On the first day of enrollment, the ObamaCare website reads, “the system is down at the moment.” The site and system has been plagued by technical glitches on federal and numerous state-run insurance exchanges, which are delaying and turning away Americans.

An employee in Atlanta told journalists, “we just ahve to wait a while, like a while.” Could we really have expected anything else? Forgive us for not providing a link, but you can see the screen shot above.

Apparently a government shutdown isn’t the only shutdown Obama has to worry about. The following is a round-up of the day-long reports of problems.

Washington: “Connection Refused”

The state-run exchange in Washington state was not on the national radar for potential problems in recent days, but the site experienced hiccups on Tuesday and was still down by midday.

Visitors were greeted with the words “Connection Refused” on an otherwise blank, white screen.

Oregon: Anticipated glitches materialized

Oregon, which has one of country’s 16 state-based exchanges, warned residents that anything might happen Tuesday on the site and that they would need the assistance of an insurance agent or other third-party to enroll over the next several weeks.

Sure enough, site visitors on Tuesday were told: “Online enrollment is coming soon! Sign up to receive an email notification when it’s available.”

However, officials’ worst-case scenario that the site could “crash and burn” and they would have to close it down did not happen.

Maryland: Four-hour delay

Maryland, which also has a state-run exchange, had technical problems, too, causing a roughly four-hour delay.

Like the federal government, Maryland had already delayed enrollment for small businesses. The new projected start date is early January, delaying coverage until March at the earliest, according to The Washington Post.

National: ObamaCare exchange site opens with error messages

Many visitors to the official website for the federally run ObamaCare insurance exchanges were met Tuesday morning with an error message. The site was apparently overloaded with traffic but went live after about 11:30 a.m.

“We have a lot of visitors on our site right now and we’re working to make your experience here better. Please wait here until we send you to the login page. Thanks for your patience!” read a website message.

By mid-morning, the healthcare.gov site declared “the system is down at the moment,” and directed would-be participants to contact a call center if they need help immediately.

Thirty four states are either using the federal site or have a state-federal partnership.

Sept. 30: 

Rhode Island: State site still needs adjustments

Christine Ferguson, director of Rhode Island’s site, recently told reporters that people are working around the clock to meet the Oct. 1. deadline. But she also acknowledged, “As this unveils, it is going to be very clear that everything can’t be done on a computer.” Ferguson predicted the system would get “a lot more user-friendly” over the next several months.

Washington, D.C., Nevada: Delay in launch of Spanish-language site

The Obama administration tried Thursday to portray its delay of small business’s online access as a positive development, saying officials thought that “taking a little bit of additional time” was in the best interest of the business owners. But the administration also announced the launch of the Spanish-language version of the federal insurance exchange would be delayed until late October.

Meanwhile, administration and state officials point out that the millions of Americans who want coverage through the federally subsidized Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can still enroll by phone, mail or third party.

In Nevada, the state-based site also will delay the start of its Spanish-language version. Many of the roughly 600,000 Nevada residents without insurance are Hispanic, but the start of the Spanish version of the Silver State Exchange could be delayed until as late as Nov. 15.

Oregon: Third-party needed to enroll

Oregon — among the 16 state-based marketplaces or “exchanges” – is requiring residents to use an insurance agent or community group to enroll online through at least mid-October.

“I have no idea what this thing’s going to look like Oct. 1,” Rocky King, the exchanges executive director, said last week, according to The New York Times. “We could crash and burn and have to close it down.”

District of Columbia: Software glitch reported

The District, also running its own exchange, revealed last week that a glitch in its exchange software as it tries to calculate insurance-premium costs when factoring in tax credits, or subsidies, for lower-income customers. Officials also said the site still cannot determine who would be eligible for Medicaid, which about half of U.S. states are expanding under ObamaCare.

Colorado: Problems calculating subsidies

The state-based, online exchange — Connect For Health Colorado — will be live Tuesday for the roughly 700,000 residents without health insurance, but it also will not be fully operational because of problems calculating the subsidies. Customers can still get the subsidies, but not without calling for assistance for at least the first month.

A spokesman for the exchange said the state has hired 180 people to man a call center to help insurance shoppers.

The administration had already given some businesses – those with more than 50 full-time employees – the option to delay coverage.

In June, the White House announced it was delaying the so-called “employer mandate” that requires such companies to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. The one-year delay, officials said, was to give employers more time to prepare.

On the first day of enrollment, the

Government terminology is always misleading, with the names themselves meant to describe what the government wants the public to perceive, rather than what it truly means. As of 12:01 AM ET, the government is so-called closed, but the so-called Obamacare exchanges are open. Here is your guide to both misnomers.

Obamacare exchanges are not exactly exchanges, because mandated government-run healthcare does not exactly represent willing, open-market participants freely giving and receiving goods. Nevertheless, Americans can finally log on to the insurance-purchasing websites, or virtual Obamacare exchanges. Given the well-documented software glitches in the prelude to enrollment day, what will happen when millions of Americans jump online is not yet known. However, other questions will have to be answered before federally subsidized coverage begins on Jan. 1, 2014.

One of the most import of the issues is whether or not millions of Americans will find premium costs to be higher or lower compared with customers’ existing policies, as several think-tanks have already forecasted. Another question is whether or not Americans’ confusion about the many mandatory changes to the U.S. health care system remain. The latest Gallup survey found awareness of the new Obamacare exchanges is low among the uninsured, with less than half planning to get coverage through them.

The battle for information and education on the law continues. A new site, OptedOut.org, particularly targets young people to provide answers to the many questions they still have and encourages them to opt-out. They tout the slogan, “Young Americans Had Options Before Obamacare. We Still Do!”

Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether or not the country will benefit in the end, when an estimated 48 million uninsured Americans get access to coverage or will Obamacare kill even more jobs, resulting in the “train wreck” its author called it. The latest CNN poll shows opposition to the law was exploding on the eve of the Obamacare exchanges officially being open for business. Conducted from Sept. 27 – 29, the survey found the gap between Americans who oppose and support the law to be 19 percent, with opposition being at 57 percent to just 38 percent who support the law.

Second, a partial government shutdown does not mean the functions of government cease. Only functions that are deemed “nonessential” services are temporarily discontinued. Even before the deadline, the White House budget office ordered agency heads to execute an “orderly shutdown” of their operations due to lack of funds. If Democrats always make it seem as if the sky is about to fall, Americans will be poisoned by bacteria-laden foods without the FDA, grandma and grandpa will go hungry without their Social Security and veterans  will go without care and compensation, then someone should provide a guide to government shutdowns.

Although it’s been 17 years since the last government shutdown, this is actually the 18th shutdown since 1977. Some of the Democrats’ claims regarding what happens when there is a funding lapse are absolutely ridiculous, with Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) talking the cake when he claimed that a shutdown would be “as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War.” Below is a Q&A provided by the Heritage Foundation, which will put some fears to rest, and hopefully better educate the American public on the realities of a partial government shutdown.

Q: Are government shutdowns and funding lapses unusual?

A: No, such a lapse in funding would be neither unusual nor catastrophic. There have been 17 funding gaps just since 1977 ranging in duration from one to 21 days. Under applicable federal law, operations and services would continue for those essential for “the safety of human life or the protection of property,” as well as those programs funded through multiyear or permanent appropriations.

Q: What actually happens during a so-called government “shutdown?”

A: The truth from the experience of prior shutdowns, applicable federal laws, Justice Department legal opinions, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directives, is that crucial government services and benefits would continue without interruption. In fact, as the Justice Department said in a legal opinion in 1995, “the federal government will not be truly ‘shut down’…because Congress has itself provided that some activities of Government should continue.” Any claims that not passing a continuing resolution (CR) will result in a “shutting down” of the government “is an entirely inaccurate description,” according to the Justice Department.

Q: Would retirees and veterans get their benefit checks?

A: Yes, mandatory government payments such as Social Security and veterans’ benefits would continue to be paid. During a prior government shutdown in 1995, 80 percent of Social Security Administration employees kept working because they were considered “essential” to making benefit payments.

Q: Would national security suffer from a shutdown?

A: No, national security, including the conduct of foreign relations by the President, is considered an essential function that would continue.

Q: Would food and drug safety be compromised by a shutdown?

A: No, the federal government would continue to conduct testing and inspection of food, drugs, and hazardous materials, because these are considered essential for the safety of Americans.

Q: Would we still be able to travel?

A: Yes, the government has said during prior shutdowns that the air traffic control system and other transportation safety operations are essential to the safety of the country and would continue to operate. So air traffic controllers would keep directing air traffic at airports around the country, and you would continue to be searched by agents of the TSA when you board a flight.

Q. What would a shutdown mean for implementation of Obamacare?

A. Some parts of Obamacare are funded with multiyear appropriations and would not be affected by a lapse in current funding. Other parts are not. While the Administration may have some funding available to continue to implement those parts of Obamacare, it would not be able to legally implement all of the many different parts of the law. There is no doubt, however, that the President is likely to assert that all of the different parts of the law are “essential” and should continue to operate even without funding.

Q: What happens to federal law enforcement activities?

A: During a shutdown, all federal law enforcement and border control functions continue to operate. So the FBI would continue to make arrests and conduct criminal investigations. The U.S. Border Patrol would continue to patrol the American borders. The federal Bureau of Prisons stays open, and convicted criminals are not released.

Q: Would there be any problems with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department’s supervision of our financial system during a shutdown?

A: No, all activities essential to preserving the money and banking system of the U.S., including borrowing and tax collection, would continue. So the IRS would keep on collecting the tax revenues that help pay for the operation of the federal government.

Q: What if there is a natural disaster like a hurricane during a government shutdown?

A: Emergency and disaster assistance are considered essential to protecting life and property, so federal disaster assistance continues during a government shutdown.

Q: Would many federal employees be furloughed?

A: Federal employees who are not considered essential would be furloughed; based on prior funding lapses, this is a relatively small number of employees in comparison to the entire federal workforce. When President Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution in November 1995 in a dispute with the House of Representatives over a balanced budget and welfare reform, only about 800,000 out of a total of almost 4.5 million federal employees were furloughed. In a second funding gap from December 1995 to January 1996, only about 300,000 employees were furloughed. So the vast majority of federal workers will keep right on working.

Also of note, NASA is one those federal government agencies that will experience a near total closure during the shutdown, but it should not endanger American astronauts who are currently in space.

“NASA will shut down almost entirely, but Mission Control will remain open to support the astronauts serving on the space station,” U.S. President Barack Obama said Monday during a statement delivered from the White House.

House Speaker John Boehner was burning the midnight oil – actually, the 1:30 AM oil – when he gave a brief press conference offering the Senate a chance to go into conference in order to “resolve our differences.” But Harry Reid has given no inclination that he is willing to compromise on anything.

As of 12:01 AM ET, the government

In 2012, Mitt Romney won independent voters by 5 percent over Barack Obama, but still lost the election. But this has hardly diminished their importance in the eyes of pundits and politicians. And rightfully so, because independent voters are an essential bloc, that is, if you can get them to vote in substantial numbers, which among other mistakes made was what Romney failed to do.

However, there has been some interesting data research conducted by Micah Roberts of the Republican polling firm, Public Opinion Strategies. Roberts, who works at a partisan firm, has been compiling data from years worth of NBC/Wall Street Journal polls, which are conducted by both Democratic and Republican firms in collaboration. He gathered all of the monthly information on independents for the years 2010, 2012 and 2013, giving him a statistically significant group makeup of independents in each of those years.

The results of the data shine a ray of optimism on a party increasing negative about the future electoral prospects of their candidates. Roberts focused on congressional preference, which tends to give a broad picture of voting behavior, but useful in an apples to apples comparison. In other words, at this point, I would view the data with a grain of salt on the presidential level, if that.

However, as it relates to upcoming midterm elections, the Republican Party may have a greater opportunity to retake the Senate and dominate House races than some may believe.

For instance, in 2013, independent voters tilt more heavily Republican on their congressional preference than they did in 2010, when Republicans picked up 63 seats to retake control of the House. In 2010, 40 percent of independents said that they preferred a Republican-controlled Congress, while just 26 percent said they wanted a Democratic-controlled Congress. In an NBC-WSJ survey conducted from July to September of this year – 2013 – 43 percent of independents said they wanted GOP control, while again, just 25 percent preferred a Democratic-led House.

Democrats picked up eight House seats in 2012, when independents were split, with 35 percent choosing Democrats to 34 percent for Republicans.

To some extent, I could see some of these voters just simply Republicans who are frustrated with the state of the party and are temporarily identifying themselves as independents. It is certainly true that there has been a small trend since the election demonstrating just that, most recently in a Pew study. I suspect that many of these voters are the very same voters who were responsible for Bush’s net gain of 3 percent over his polling numbers in 2000, who supported him again 2004, and stayed home in 2012.

But as far as the theory that they are merely Republicans-turned-independents, Roberts makes a good argument to support the assertion this is minimal, suggesting the demographics among independents across 2010, 2012 and 2013 are so similar that it cannot possible be the case.

In 2010, which was a tidal wave election for Republicans, 58 percent of independents were men. And two years later, a decent year for Democrats, 55 percent of independents were men, representing a decrease of just 3 percent. Now, in 2013, 56 percent of independents are men. Men are more likely to identify with the Republican Party, but an even more reliable indicator, men are more likely to vote Republican. Voting behavior is far more accurate than fluid party identification when it comes to predictive models. The data show the same is true across age, ideology and geographic region. Voters who are identified as independents in 2010 and, again in 2012, are the same people who identify as independents now.

Even though it may be a broad indicator, at the very least, it couldn’t hurt the GOP in 2014. At the very best, the Republicans are in an extremely good position to take control of two-thirds of the federal government. Roberts explains the shift to the GOP by pointing to Obama’s fallout with independents, who then generalize the party with the president. President Obama has seen a dramatic drop in support as of late.

Let’s see if the Republican Party – once again – snatches defeat out of the hands of victory.

Independent voters are tilting Republican heavily, which

(Credit – REUTERS)

Congress has missed a midnight deadline to pass a crucial spending bill, triggering the beginning of a partial government shutdown – which is the first in 17 years.

Lawmakers missed the deadline after being unable to resolve their stand-off over ObamaCare, despite a volley of 11th-hour counterproposals from the House. Each time, Senate Democrats refused to consider any changes whatsoever to ObamaCare as part of the budget bill, even popularly supported measures.

House Republicans refused to back off their demand that the budget bill include some measures to rein in the health care law – a large part of which goes into effect on Tuesday.

Lawmakers spent the final minutes before midnight trying to assign blame to the other side of the aisle, rather than coming together, because they were just too far apart. Republicans are no doubt wary of the blame their party was assigned during the Clinton-era shutdown, while Democrats were too eager to pile the blame on the GOP. In fact, Harry Reid’s actions were enough to accuse of intentional obstruction, after he threatened to not even show up to a meeting if the president summoned congressional leaders to the White House.

Americans will begin to feel whatever the effects of a partial government shutdown will be by Tuesday morning, as national parks close, federal home loan officers scale back their caseload, and hundreds of thousands of federal workers face furlough. Most of these workers are administrative workers who participate in nonessential bureaucratic functions, which the Democrats would have concealed from the American public.

The president, alone, can make life difficult for the American people who receive federal assistance through welfare, social security, medicaid, and medicare. These programs, while it is possible to experience a delay, will still be funded, despite what Democrats say.

The question remains how long this partial government shutdown or stand-off will last. Congress is fast-approaching another deadline, in mid-October when they must decide how or when to raise the debt limit, or face a U.S. government default. Lawmakers, one would be safe to assume, will want to resolve the status of the partial government shutdown quickly in order to shift to that debate.

Throughout the day Monday, lawmakers engaged in a day-long bout of legislative hot potato. The House repeatedly passed different versions of a bill that would fund the government while paring down the federal health care overhaul. However, each and every time, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said no and sent it back, hoping to put the ball in Speaker John Boehner’s court.

“Republicans are still playing games,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared on the Senate floor late Monday night.

As a last-ditch effort, House Republicans floated the possibility of taking their disagreement to what’s known as a conference committee – a bicameral committee where lawmakers from both chambers would meet to resolve the differences between the warring pieces of legislation.

“It means we’re the reasonable, responsible actors trying to keep the process alive as the clock ticks past midnight, despite Washington Democrats refusal – thus far – to negotiate,” a GOP leadership aide said.

Reid, though, said the Senate would not agree to the approach unless and until the House approves a “clean” budget bill. The rhetoric got more confrontational as the deadline neared.

“They’ve lost their minds,” Reid said of Republicans, in rejecting the latest proposal. “Senate Democrats have made it perfectly clear that they’d rather shut down the federal government than accept even the most reasonable changes to ObamaCare,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell countered.

The latest House bill, which the chamber backed on a 228-201 vote, would have delayed the law’s individual mandate while prohibiting lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care.

The Senate voted 54-46, completely along party lines to reject it. President Obama said he was holding out hope that Congress would come together “in the 11th hour.”

The deal, of course, did not come to pass.

A prior Republican effort to include a provision defunding ObamaCare in the budget bill failed. House Republicans then voted, early Sunday, to add amendments delaying the health care law by one year and repealing an unpopular medical device tax.

The Senate, in a 54-46 vote, rejected those proposals on Monday afternoon. At this point, congressional leaders are hard at work trying to assign blame.

Democrats have already labeled this a “Republican government shutdown.” But Republicans on Sunday hammered Reid and his colleagues for not coming back to work immediately after the House passed a bill Sunday morning.

Congress has missed a midnight deadline to

(Credit – REUTERS)

The Senate voted for the second time Monday to kill yet another Republican counter-offer that would reform ObamaCare while funding the government, kicking the bill back to the House with only a couple hours left on the clock before the government begins to shut down.

Lawmakers are facing a midnight deadline to reach an agreement on a government spending bill. Senate Democrats vow they will not accept any proposal that targets ObamaCare.

The latest House bill would have delayed the law’s individual mandate while prohibiting lawmakers, their staff and top administration officials from getting government subsidies for their health care.

The Senate voted 54-46 along party lines to reject it.

“The American people don’t want a shutdown and neither do I,” Boehner said. “…Here we find ourselves in this moment dealing with a aw that’s causing unknown consequences and unknown damage to the American people and our economy. And that issue is ObamaCare. Those who don’t recall, it was passed in the middle of the night. 2,300 pages that no one ever read and all types of consequences for the American people, our constituents.”

But Democrats just can’t seem to bring themselves to support popular reforms, as if it has become a point they simply want to make to teach Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Marco Rubio a point. Representative Stenny Hoyer refuted the speaker’s remarks, dismissing them as nothing but pure politics and rhetoric.

“Tonight is about the continuing destructive obsession that our Republican friends have and their refusal to recognize there was an election just some months ago…As a result, you are about to shut down the government. You an get up here and say over and over and over again, we don’t want to shut down the government. But your actions, Mr. Speaker, their actions belile their words.”

The bill is for a fourth time now, in House Republican lawmakers hands, as Speaker John Boehner works to strike a deal with a deeply divided government. House sources tell FOX Business any action on a new CR would involve at least the following three steps:

  1.                   -A briefing with House GOP to decide how to proceed with a new proposal
  2.                   -A Rules Committee meeting to write the new rule to handle the new proposal on the floor
  3.                   -New debate and a vote on the fourth CR of this fiscal battle

It remains to be seen whether the Senate will reconvene to again table the fourth round of House amendments later in the night.

The Senate voted for the second time

In a vote of 228 to 201, Speaker Boehner and the House of Representatives passed their third bill aimed at staving off a partial government shutdown at midnight Tuesday. The legislation includes a one-year delay of the Obamcare individual mandate, as well as a provision that subjects certain lawmakers and administration officials to the ACA.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where Senator Reid has assured its demise, in a vote that is expected around 9:30 p.m. ET. Depending on vote timing, Capitol Hill insiders say that the whole process is expected to take as little as 15 minutes, keeping with what Reid has attempted to do this entire time, which is leave the House Republicans with a hot potato in the final hour.

This House CR contains a provision that would delay the the Obamcare individual mandate by one year, as well as the inclusion of the Vitter amendment, which subjects members of Congress, members of the president’s administration, and other government members to the same requirements the general American public is subjected to under Obamacare.

Though the House’s third CR cleared the chamber, the passage was not without a fight, and it came from squishy Republicans who chose to ally themselves with Democrats. With the threat of a partial government shutdown looming, so-called conservative members who once campaigned on their positions to support a repeal or replacement of Obamacare began to get weak in the knees as the clock moved closer to midnight.

Shortly before the bill’s final vote series, Representative Peter King R-NY – a vocal critic of the Tea Party conservatives – voiced his concern in the midst of the mounting pressure on House Republcans.

“If we didn’t stop (the back and forth), we’re not going to stop (Obamcare). Now we’re off to just hopefully get a clean CR in time,” he said. “If this were a secret ballot, we’d have three-fifths or two-thirds voting to end all this. There’s just a lot of pressure on people right now. On this (vote), it was particularly hard because it looks like if you’re voting no, you’re voting to protect a privileged class.”

I say there is a three-fifths or two-thirds chance that Rep. Peter King will be a Democrat before the decade is out.

In a vote of 228 to 201,

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial