Government dependency is on the rise according to a new Heritage Foundation study. Americans can thank President Barack Obama for a huge spike in the numbers of Americans dependent on government resources, but both parties can share in the blame. If the federal government does not make government smaller and less intrusive, then there may not be much private sector wealth creation for government bureaucrats to take to redistribute to dependent Americans. American are relying on government handouts rather than hard work for many of the necessities of life. One in five Americans rely on the federal government for housing, health care, food, college tuition and retirement resources. The 10th year of The Heritage Foundation government dependency study, the 2012 Index of Dependence on Government , proves that members of both parties need to take a hard look in the mirror and figure out a way to slow, then end, the creeping expansion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives. John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily writes that that the Obama presidency can take credit for 23% of the surge in dependency. The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation. Merline points out that the Obama increase is the largest two-year jump since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. The reason for the stimulus in government dependency was President Obama’s and Congress’ efforts to increase housing subsidies, expand Medicaid and more welfare spending including food stamps. If more people become reliant on government, expect Americans to go down the road of our European friends who have relied on big welfare states for years. With a big welfare state and less people working to pay for big government, the federal government’s natural inclination is to raise taxes on job creators to engage in wealth redistribution. The take away from this study is that big government and a shift to a dependent society will be the death of free markets and the idea of a relatively unencumbered version of capitalism. Get ready for the slow walk to socialism that we can see every day destroying Europe. As Patrick Tyrrell of The Heritage Foundation, my employer, puts it “ Dependence on Government at All-Time High .” Tyrrell points to some facts in the new study that should shock Americans. Dependent Americans – One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington. Government Stimulus for Dependency – Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement. Record High Dependency Spending – The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446). Almost 50% of Americans Don’t Pay Income Tax – At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes. Future Dependency Spending Projected to Explode – In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care. 70% of Federal Budget Dedicated to Dependency – As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed. Government debt stands at about $15.2 trillion; a number higher than the economic output of the United States for an average year. Dependency is growing as government grows. These trends are bad for freedom and the future of America. Although this trend toward government dependency has accelerated under President Obama, he is not wholly to blame. Both parties have supported a massive expansion of welfare programs over the past few years. The food stamp program is the fourth largest entitlement program and stands at about $89 billion for this year. There are 72 means tested welfare programs that grow in size and scope every year. Bailouts have made big corporate America dependent on government money when they can’t make ends meet. Medicare Part D was a creation of a Republican administration that expanded dependency of the elderly on government subsidized prescription drugs. If both parties don’t stop promising more government largess in an effort to buy off American voters, our nation is endanger of insolvency.
See the article here:
President Barack Obama: “The Dependency President”
[Posted by Karl] That’s the verdict from the normally easygoing Ed Morrissey . While I agree with his biggest criticism of the poll, it is still possible to get something out of it. I agree with Ed that the recent tactic of not disclosing the party breakdown of the sample is simply absurd. In an era where trust in institutions — including journalism — is low and demands for increased transparency are on the rise everywhere, hiding this basic information from public view invites skepticism and ridicule. The WaPo, ABC News, and Gary Langer ought to be embarrassed. However, Ed also complains that it’s “a poll of general population adults rather than registered or likely voters, so it’s not even a proper polling type for the predictive outcome they claim.” The poll does in fact provide head-to-head results for both adults and registered voters; the WaPo noted both results for each in its accompanying coverage: In a general-election test, Obama leads Romney 52 to 43 percent among all Americans; more narrowly, 51 to 45 percent, among registered voters. Among all adults, it’s Obama’s first time topping 50 percent in a head-to-head matchup with Romney since July; it’s his first time ever above that point among registered voters. (Ed has updated his post to reflect this, while noting that other hyped aspects of the story do not give the RV numbers, which is certainly a fair critique.) The history of this poll, and comparison to other polls, can tell us a bit about what is going on in this particular poll, even without the party breakdown of the sample. Ed correctly notes that the sample in this poll tends to produce Dem-friendly results, which is probably why the recent decision to omit data about the sample really set him off. However, I would add that the dynamic producing those results has been that this poll historically tends to undersample both parties (and disproportionately undersample Republicans). The corollary, which (afaik) Ed has not stressed, is that the result inflates the sample of Independents. Accordingly, this nugget from the WaPo coverage is doubly notable: Obama’s momentum since mid-January has evened the score with Romney among political independents. Among independent voters in the last Post-ABC poll, Romney held a 12-point edge; now these voters split 48 percent for Obama, 47 percent for Romney. First, this reportage tells you that the poll is still collecting the party data but not reporting it in the released results. Second, when you compare this poll’s results to other recent polls (1/12 – 2/5), the Obama +6 result is not particularly out of line. Indeed, the topline results here merely add 2 or 3 points to each side of the Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted at roughly the same time, which is margin of error type stuff. And it’s not all that different from the mid-January PPP poll which showed a more pronounced Obama surge with independents. This poll’s similar gap with higher numbers suggests this poll’s sample probably includes more Republicans and possibly more Democrats (as the PPP poll did) at the expense of the now supposedly more Obama-friendly Indies. What accounts for the supposed Obama surge with Indies? One possibility the WaPo coverage raises is the State of the Union speech, which fell within this poll’s window. However, that would not account for the surge in the PPP poll. A more plausible explanation is the modest uptick in the economy (and it’s overhype in the establishment media). This poll has Obama improving a few points not only in overall job approval, but approval on how he’s handling the economy. However, even this poll has his job approval with Indies underwater , so presumably his approval on the economy does not look great with Indies. Accordingly, the underlying dynamic in this poll is probably similar to that seen in the PPP poll: it’s not about Obama as much as it is about Romney. Q25 in this poll shows 52% say that the more they hear about Romney, the less they like him, which is not as bad as Newt Gingrich’s 60%, but still bad. This is a function of the campaign and its media coverage. Technically, Romney gets marginally better coverage than Obama … but Romney is getting more coverage than Obama . Thus, people are hearing more negative coverage of Romney than Obama. Obviously, the balance will shift once the GOP nominee is effectively known. And this is one reason why head-to-head polling is basically meaningless at this point in the cycle . So it’s a bit ironic that the head-to-head is where the WaPo/ABC poll chose to report the results for registered voters. — Update : I wasn’t even going to mention this, but Dem pollster Margie Omero does at the HuffPo: Today the Washington Post/ABC News released a survey showing Obama over majority support among registered voters (51% Obama, 45% Romney). But as Romney’s pollster Neil Newhouse (a partner in the firm Public Opinion Strategies) pointed out in a blast email, the poll asked about a few of Romney potential liabilities just prior to the vote question. This goes against polling best practices, and it’s possible the survey shows elevated Obama numbers as a result. Omero also notes that Obama’s liabilities were not questioned before concluding that the underlying issue is Romney’s likability. Again, if Romney is the nominee, that is likely to shift. But Omero highlights that the problem with the poll mirrors the dynamic in the media coverage. –Karl
See more here:
Is the WaPo/ABC News poll “worthless”?
The topline number in this Pew survey shows that the current breakdown among registered voters is 43/48 GOP/Dem, which is a seven point shift from their 39/51 results in 2008. Now that alone should worry the Democrats, seeing as Pew found that the breakdown in 2010 was 43/47, which was the year where Democrats got shellacked across the country; but the news is if anything worse when you look at the breakdown by religious affiliation. A lot of attention will be on how Jewish support for the GOP went from 20/72 to 29/65 between ’08 and today; but what may be even more important is that that GOP support among white Mainline Protestant and white Catholic voters flipped from 45/45 and 41/49 in 2008 to 51/39 & 49/42 in 2011. How this will translate into likely voters is, of course, anybody’s guess… but if you’ve been wondering why the President is suddenly talking about how neat God is, it’s probably because somebody on his staff is keeping track of Pew. As to how this breaks down in the 2012 election… well, obviously the increase in Jewish support (as Pew notes, those new supporters are identifying as Republicans, not as Republican-leaning) is going to have an impact in Florida, which is a state looking increasingly like it’s going to be leaving the Democratic column. But possibly what may be even more important was what happened with Mormon support: it went from 68/19 in 2008 to 80/17 in 2011. If I had to guess as to why , I suspect that this represents fallout from the incredibly racist* Democratic response to California’s Proposition 8; and if you’re wondering what the point is then I suggest that you look at this map of LDS population percentages in 1990. Mormons make up somewhere around seven and a half percent of Nevada’s population, and while the numbers are much smaller in Colorado and New Mexico they are still significant. While Obama comfortably won all three states in 2008, they are all considered in play for 2012 : couple that with Republican gains among white Catholics and we’re seeing a suddenly-rickety Democratic position in the Mountain West. And that’s with a Generic Republican candidate. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *Oh, yes, rushing to blame white Mormons for their opposition to same-sex marriage – as opposed to African-American and Latino Californians, both of which groups voted to pass Proposition 8 – counts as racism; after all, there was no earthly reason to do it except that one group had a conveniently low average melanin count in their skin. And the reaction to such blatant scapegoating should – but probably will not – act as a cautionary tale.
View post:
Pew: Democrats getting hammered by religious voters.
WARNING: The YouTube Video below is not safe either for work or Mitt Romney. There’s a part of me that hopes that the Rap-Artist known as Chapter engaged in evil satire when she wrote and performed the song portrayed in the video above. I also hope that GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney was engaging in satire when he made the following comment. “I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” Romney said. “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” With only one foot in his mouth, Romney still remained hungry after his tiring victory in the Florida Primary. He rides further into his dung heap below. “I’m not concerned about the very rich,” he continued. “They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.” Reaction from the Left was predictable. Chuck Todd tweeted his predictably nausea-inducing bilge. Many a POTUS prayer breakfast speech includes talk of caring about the poor but today when one hears it, seems to take on a diff meaning? Austin Goolsbee scored higher on the sense-of-humor metric. Headline: Romney not worried about the very poor, has nice roof cages available for any that “like fresh air. (HT: The Hill) But just how do we approach this gob-smacking gaffe from The Right? Clearly it disqualifies Mitt Romney from professional consideration as a future conservative leader. Clearly it inspires all of those in America who want to trash the Conservative Movement, and run the welfare spending odometer well into the tens of trillions. It was political equivalent of drinking strychnine, and we need to get this political cadaver named Romney embalmed and buried as rapidly as possible. But how do we critique this without opening the floodgates to dependency nation? We start by learning from one of our most intellectually-gifted political opponents; Former Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan served as one of Lyndon Johnson’s Assistant Secretaries of Labor. In this position he wrote an famous/infamous federal report entitled The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. Apparently “Safety Net” Mittens hasn’t given this work any perusal. The Moynihan Report has had long-lasting and important implications. Writing to President Lyndon Johnson, then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Patrick Moynihan argued that, without access to jobs and the means to contribute meaningful support to a family, black men would become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers. This would cause rates of divorce, abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket in the black community (a trend that had already begun by the mid-1960s)—leading to vast increases in the numbers of female-headed households and the high rates of poverty, low educational outcomes, and inflated rates of abuse that are associated with them. (HT:Wikipedia) The obvious tragedy and failing of Moynihan’s brilliance is that it focused solely on blacks. This led critics to just write off the truth as racism. Anyone diligent enough to make it all the way to the end of Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant will quickly realize that it’s not just African-American families that are disintegrating under the perverse incentives of the modern safety net. The lower ten percent of African-Americans are far from the only group of people in America just living for free; off the EBT. Even Ann Coulter now seems to be drinking the RomneyCare Bug Juice. (HT: Jeff Emanuel). When Mitt Romney says not to worry about the poor, they have a safety net, he’s telling us to get over our foolish and anachronistic Conservatism. We don’t empower people to improve themselves and thereby redeem their particular corner of our tragically fallen world. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day…” is out the window in Mitt Romney’s version of the GOP. It’s more like give every ten of them a ball and hope you don’t have too many armed robberies next Saturday Night. The Poor know when they are condescended to. They know when they are being treated like cattle. They know when they are being bribed with transfer payments not to put the torch to Los Angeles. This may not always be articulated, but the poor are not human if that simmering anger and resentment isn’t there. My family comes from working-class roots. My Father worked on the farm to help his Dad make both ends meet. I know enough of what Lower Income America goes through to know good and well that our current safety net is one of the worst things that ever happened to America’s working poor. If we really intend to nominate “Safety Net” Mittens and bribe the poor with EBT Cards not to riot for the next four years, then the poor are morally right to hate The Republican Party.
See original here:
Mitt Had Better Worry About The Poor
Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post ‘s resident Romney campaign mouthpiece, has been joined by another conservative pundit in the “I left my dignity at the altar of Mitt Romney” club. This time, as you may have heard, the offender is Ann Coulter, whose support for the former Massachusetts governor (and lack of publicity to date leading up to her CPAC appearance next week) has led her to offer – in print – a full-throated (albeit screechy) defense of the biggest piece of baggage Romney possesses: the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act of 2006, or ‘Romneycare.’ Coulter’s column, titled “ THREE CHEERS FOR ROMNEYCARE! ” (yes, the title is all caps in the original), provides a defense of Romneycare that simply and completely ignores both conservative objections and the reasons why it has been a dismal failure as policy. For example, she drops the names of people and organizations that supported it at the time, despite the fact that such supporters were few and far between (opposition was much more commonplace), and that many of those supporters have since publicly changed their minds. An example of this is her declaration that “A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.” Fine – but what Coulter ignores is the fact that Heritage has since repudiated the idea of an individual mandate at any level, writing in an amicus brief (pdf) filed in a challenge to Obamacare that “since [the passage and implementation of Obamacare], a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option .” Where she does acknowledge the obvious issues with Romneycare, Coulter simply throws mud at “Democrats” for ruining Romney’s beautiful program. She writes: What went wrong with Romneycare wasn’t a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats. First, the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature set the threshold for receiving a subsidy so that it included people making just below the median income in the United States, a policy known as “redistribution of income.” For more on this policy, see “Marx, Karl.” Then, liberals destroyed the group-rate, “no frills” private insurance plans allowed under Romneycare (i.e. the only kind of health insurance a normal person would want to buy, but which is banned in most states) by adding dozens of state mandates, including requiring insurers to cover chiropractors and in vitro fertilization — a policy known as “pandering to lobbyists.” Philip Klein has deals with this claim appropriately at the Examiner : This is more silliness. To start, Romney signed the health care law with a smiling Ted Kennedy at his side knowing that Democrats had the votes to override any symbolic line-item vetoes of certain provisions. Furthermore, when he signed the law, he had already announced he wasn’t seeking reelection as governor and knew that it would almost certainly fall on Democrats to implement the law. Part of being a limited government Republican is realizing that once you put the infrastructure in place, successors can always add to it. Regardless, what he actually signed was bad enough. Additionally, Coulter puts her derision for members of the conservative movement on full display by declaring that the only reason opposition to the law exists is because the nickname ‘Romneycare’ sounds like ‘Obamacare.’ Seriously. Of course, that’s not the issue at all – nor is the issue whether or not Romneycare is ‘constitutional’ according to the guiding documents of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a straw man Coulter spends the remainder of her column arguing against. The problems with Romneycare are plenty without adding straw men to the list. Access to insurance has been increased (as have the penalties for not purchasing it). thanks in no small part to Massachusetts’ ability to stick the federal government and national taxpayers with a hefty portion of the program’s tab, but insurance is not care – a fact many casual participants in the health care debate conveniently ignore. The price of care and treatment has skyrocketed, causing the Office of the Attorney General to declare that government price controls (including the requirement that patients pay the difference out of pocket if they see a provider that charges more than the government-approved rate) must be implemented a quickly as possible to stem the rising tide. The Beacon Hill Institute found that , between Romneycare’s 2006 implementation and 2011: State health care expenditures have risen by $414 million over the period Private health insurance costs have risen by $4.311 billion over the period The federal government has spent an additional $2.418 billion on Medicaid for Massachusetts Over this period, Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion Problems abound besides just these key points, but to understand them in their proper context, it’s important to address just what Romneycare’s three-pronged approach to dealing with the “problem” of the state’s uninsured population, which was relatively low at the time (about 550,000 according to state figures, and 657,000 according to the U.S. Census Bureau), consisted of. Some of the numbers below reference FY 2008 because a portion of this description comes from an analysis I wrote in 2009, when the program was being used as a blueprint for Obamacare. First, Romneycare expanded subsidies for low-income (below 300% of the federal poverty line) residents to obtain health insurance. While this sounds like a valuable benefit being provided to indigent Massachusetts residents, the funding for those subsidies was primarily pulled from the state’s so-called “free care pool,” which had provided medical and mental health services to poor Bay Staters at locations ranging from community clinics to emergency rooms, regardless of their insurance status. As an ironic result of this program, more poor residents had access to subsidized insurance, but fewer could afford care when faced with a deductible and coinsurance – meaning the amount the patient had to pay up front before insurance kicked in, and the percentage of treatment costs past the deductible that fall on the policyholder. The burden of paying for service the Health Care Reform Act placed on the state’s indigent population, combined with the draining of resources from facilities that had previously cared for the poor free of charge, left a larger number of poor Massachusetts residents without access to care than before the system was ostensibly “reformed” to help them gain more affordable access to care. Second, under the Health Care Reform Act, all businesses with over 11 employees located within Massachusetts were legally required to provide health coverage for their workers or face a fine of $295 per uninsured employee. Besides being a flagrant violation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) – a federal law that, among other things, prevents states from mandating employer benefits – the employer mandate has failed to fulfill its primary purpose in the eyes of those who pushed for its inclusion in the bill: not enough employers opted to pay the fine (rather than offer health insurance to employees) to cover the portion of the program cost ($45 million) that proponents expected. In fact, by Spring of 2008, only $5 million had been collected from businesses that declined to offer coverage to their workers – an amount less than one-half of one percent of the $1.1 billion the program cost state taxpayers that year. The vast majority of the rest of that cost had to be covered by diverting funds from the “free care pool,” which, again, severely limited the indigent population’s access to care. Third, Romneycare included its famous individual mandate, making the failure to carry health insurance a violation of state law which that is punishable by a four-figure fine. That fine, collected along with state income tax, essentially operates as an onerous, regressive tax on the uninsured (despite the fact that those who actually file and pay income taxes are statistically the least at risk of being uninsured). The fine can be avoided if an uninsured individual can prove to the state that “no affordable coverage is available” – something that over 20% of the state’s total uninsured have successfully shown, despite promises that the Health Care Reform Act would bring the cost of insurance down to a level that would be affordable by all of the state’s residents. A new “independent agency,” called the Connector, was established by the state government to oversee the enactment of the employer and individual mandates and the implementation of health insurance subsidies for the indigent population. Along with monitoring compliance with those mandates, the Connector is responsible for determining what insurance policy each resident must enroll in, be they subsidized or paying full price, and for enforcing a rationing of care to those who qualify for subsidized coverage. Benefits for those who are below 300% of the poverty line (thus qualifying for subsidies) are limited by what the indigent individual is able to pay in terms of premium, deductible, and coinsurance, with those at the bottom of the income pyramid often qualifying for such severely restricted coverage that they would have been far better off remaining uninsured and continuing to receive care at facilities funded by the “free care pool.” While the establishment of an agency to study the relationship between the uninsured and high health care costs and to help those who qualify for state-administered health coverage programs choose the best fit for their circumstances is not a bad idea in principle – Pennsylvania’s Health Care Cost Containment Council is a good example of one that functions well – the Connector has simply become another regulator, on top of the existing Massachusetts Department of Insurance, that gums up the health care market with excess regulation and adds to the cost of health insurance through the surcharges added to premia in order to fund its continued operation. As with most government-related oversight boards, the Connector has been beset by requests from special-interest advocates, and it has had a very difficult time saying no to many of them. The result has been the imposition of onerous coverage mandates on the insurance policies state residents are now required by law to purchase. With four dozen coverages that are required to be included on every single policy sold within the state, from coverage for the services of nurse midwives to Mental Health Parity (an innocent-sounding mandate that requires mental health to be covered, dollar-for-dollar, to the same level as physical health), insurance premium and health care costs have skyrocketed under the Health Reform Act. Further, the addition of so many mandates actually caused nearly 200,000 previously insured Bay Staters to lose their coverage status because the prescription drug coverage in their private policies was no longer deemed “up to snuff” by the new gatekeeper of health insurance “quality” in Massachusetts. Massachusetts’s attempt at health care reform has increased the number of insured residents by 443,000 (covering about 66% of those who previously lacked insurance). However, the program has cost far more than predicted ($1.1 billion in FY 2008 and $1.3 billion in FY09), due in part to the fact that over half of those added to the rolls of the insured qualify for some form of subsidy. As the program was hemorrhaging cash in 2008, current Governor Deval Patrick (D) declared that it would be kept afloat at all costs, even though (quite ironically) the only way to continue funding it was to drain money from the public hospitals and community clinics that had already been providing care, under the free care pool, to those who were now appropriating that funding in the form of insurance subsidies. Further, the state’s redirecting of free care pool funding and imposition of caps on reimbursements for care has created an access problem by dramatically reducing the number of providers available to see and treat patients, regardless of whether those patients have insurance or not – a reinforcement of the fact that insurance, even when it is as universally prevalent as a government can make it, does not equal access to care. Far from reducing the cost of health insurance, Massachusetts’s individual mandate has driven costs up at twice the average national rate. This was entirely predictable; after all, what can possibly reduce downward pressure on a price more effectively than a legal requirement to purchase it, whatever the cost? According to the Connector, the least expensive price for an insurance policy for a 50 year old non-smoker in 2008 was $3,599 a year ($299.94 per month), with a $2,000 deductible. Next door in Connecticut, that price was just $1,468 a year ($122.36 per month, with a $2,500 deductible) – and Connecticut hadn’t even spent $1.3 billion on controlling and engineering their state’s health care marketplace! The biggest issue with Romneycare from the conservative perspective, though, is simply the massive expansion of government size, control, and intrusion that it represents. Constitutional or not, similar-sounding to ‘Obamacare’ or not, and effective at expanding insurance or not, the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act is a law which requires individuals living in the Commonwealth to purchase a good or service, allows the state government to decide what an acceptable form of that good or service is and how it can be used, forces healthy individuals into costly high-risk pools to balance out risk and cost (thereby increasing price and severely limiting choice), and demands that residents of Massachusetts and the other 49 states pay an ever-increasing bill to sustain the ever-growing program. Whether or not you support Mitt Romney, the simple truth is that Romneycare is in no way a conservative program, and is in no way supportable by conservatives. Period. On a personal note, I’ve had little use for Ann Coulter for some time now. It’s been clear to me for years that Coulter’s only interest and commitment is herself and the publicity she can garner, not conservatism, the conservative movement, or the GOP. One of my RedState colleagues went so far a few years ago as to call her a “detestable harpy,” and while that may not be the most accurate choice of words to describe her, this latest “contribution” to the primary election discussion simply reinforces Coulter’s lack of direction, conviction, or compass outside of her personal gluttony for publicity.
View post:
‘Three Cheers for Romneycare’
