Changing the Electorate - Part 1
President Barack Obama’s poll num-bers are in a steep dive. According to the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll on December 13, only 23 percent of American voters strongly approve of his job performance. Strong disapproval is registered by a whopping 42 percent. Rasmussen’s Presidential Approval Index has fallen to a record low of –19. Overall, 47 percent of voters somewhat approve of the President’s performance, down from a lofty 65 percent during his first days in office. A majority, 53 percent, now disapproves, but it is the shattering 42 percent indicating strong disapproval that demonstrates the ferocity of voter discontent with his policies and proposed legislative agenda. This is an early indication of a potentially high turnout of anti-Obama voters versus a weak turnout of pro-Obama voters, unless political sentiments change dramatically by the 2010 elections. Among the crucial unaffiliated or independent voters, Obama is racking up a catastrophic 49 percent strong disapproval rating compared to only 21 percent strong approval.
Among those who consider fiscal policy the most important issue, Obama meets with almost universal disapproval, with 89 percent registering strong disapproval. His ratings are lowest among seniors and those making $40,000 to $100,000 per year. Much of the negative feeling regarding Obama’s fiscal and economic policies stems from revelations about the Senate Democrats’ opaque and largely unread and unreadable 2,500 page healthcare “reform” bill, which the Heritage Foundation believes will actually cost about $3.0 trillion dollars rather than the already budget-busting $1.0 trillion claimed by the Democrats. About 51 percent of voters disapprove of this “comprehensive” healthcare plan, while only 41 percent of voters approve of it. (The reader should note that the word “comprehensive” is quickly becoming part of the political vocabulary meaning deceptive and uncosted.) According to many objective sources, besides considerably jacking up an inflationary annual deficit and national debt, the plan will cost American citizens more and ration healthcare resources according to political criteria. The Democrats have refused to allow any amendments that would prevent illegal immigrants from using government healthcare programs despite rampant illegal immigrant abuse of present federal and state healthcare benefits. Furthermore, the 2,500 pages contain so many coercive phrases and commands that it seems to be a totalitarian nightmare come true.
Those whose political memory is short may be shocked to learn that Congressional estimates of the cost of healthcare and welfare legislation over the last 40 to 50 years has been woefully short of reality once such programs were implemented. James R. Edwards of the Center for Immigration Studies recently pointed out that a study by the Joint Congressional Economic Committee revealed that the actual costs of healthcare legislation exceeded estimates by ratios ranging from 1.6 to 16! As a lamentable example, the Lyndon Johnson Great Society programs passed in 1964 were estimated to cost $70 billion dollars per year in today’s (2009) dollars. However, that cost is already ten times higher, more than $700 billion dollars per year and will soon exceed six percent of the GNP. So what will Obamacare cost? The real cost may make the Heritage Foundation estimate of $3.0 trillion look very conservative. Judging from past programs, a cost of $9.0 to $10.0 trillion is not out of the question, especially if there is an amnesty for 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants. Based on the 1987 amnesty, we can expect two to three new illegal immigrants, over a span of 10-20 years, for every original amnesty. This powerful multiplier effect makes amnesty far more dangerous and devastating than imagined by those who would easily agree to it. Like the iceberg that sank the Titanic, most of the costs and consequences of amnesty are not immediately visible to a complacent public.
There is also other stupendous inflationary and job-killing legislation on Obama’s agenda. The “”Cap and Trade” solution to environmental issues and the hysterical quack-science global warming/climate change issue is already looming over Congress. It is going to take trillions of dollars, millions of lost jobs, and a much lower American living standard to please the international environmental-wacko class who are part of Obama’s financial and political base.
In his book, An Audacity of Hope, Obama has also promised the strongest possible federal government and financial support to bring all racial and ethnic groups to educational parity. This may prove less doable and vastly more expensive that the general public dreams. Much effort and billions of dollars have already been spent in this effort since the 1960s, but with negligible results. The solution, of course, will be to spend countless billions or trillions more in borrowed or taxpayer dollars or debased currency bolstering programs and ideas that have proved ineffective in decade after decade. But perhaps Obama will wait until his 2012 election victory to implement his gargantuan education agenda.
Education, by the way, is not a function delegated to the Federal Government by Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It should thereby, according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, be reserved to the States or the people. Both major political parties have grown into the habit of sacrificing Constitutional government and its protections against federal tyranny to dangerous political expedience.
With public discontent growing to the point of widespread outrage, how do Comrade Obama and the Socialist majority plan to win the 2010 and 2012 elections? Simple, they will change the electorate to one more amenable to a coercive social-welfare state. The answer is Amnesty (with a capital A) for millions of illegal immigrants whose political traditions and leanings are strongly Democratic because of the Democratic Party’s strong advocacy of social-welfare benefits and “affirmative action” policies that favor them over most other Americans. This would be followed by quick and easy citizenship and voting rights. This would probably result in a permanent Democratic majority with a substantially reinforced left wing. Along with it would come more government intrusion and coercion in every area of American life and culture.
Any one of the battles over Obama’s major legislative agendas—Healthcare, Cap and Trade/Climate Change, or Education—if lost, would have the potential to do tremendous damage to the American economy and the freedoms and quality of life we still enjoy. Amnesty and the flood of other third world immigrants that would follow would mean economic, cultural, and political devastation.
There are those, including many Republicans, who believe accommodation on immigration issues is the answer. There are abundant studies, statistics, and much history, however, that reveal such accomodationist policies to be a dangerous delusion. There are books of material on this, but the recent disastrous presidential campaign of chief Republican immigration accomdationist, John McCain, should be proof enough.
To Obama and the Democratic majority’s advantage in the immigration debate, is that the U.S public is poorly informed on immigration issues and the consequences of our terrible deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws. While a substantial majority of Americans oppose amnesty, especially if they are well-informed on its consequences, many are easily deceived by misleading political rhetoric and legislative gimmicks. There are also many strongly held myths and beliefs about past immigration that do not hold true to today’s situation. The public is also not fully aware of the enormous sums of lobbyist money that supports hiring cheap foreign labor at the expense of American workers and their families. In addition, there is the oppressive atmosphere of political correctness that chains rational thinking and debate on immigration. Future articles will attempt to inform readers on essential immigration facts and the deceptive methods of pro-amnesty partisans and politicians.
Mike Scruggs is a retired financial consultant and corporate business executive. He holds an MBA from Stanford University and a BS from the University of Georgia. He is a USAF combat veteran of the Vietnam War, holding a Distinguished Flying Cross and Purple Heart. He was recently Chairman of the Board of a Classical Christian School and is a former Republican County Chairman. He writes and lives in Hendersonville, NC.