by Art Kelly

1.  A new Gallup Poll reveals that President Obama has the highest approval ratings from Muslims and the lowest from Mormons, while Catholics rate him near the national average, Jews above the average, and Protestants below the average.

In the period January to July 2010, the approval ratings of Obama from members of religious groups were:

78% Muslims
63% Atheists
61% Jews
50% Catholics
48% All Americans
43% Protestants
24% Mormons

As compared to the ratings from a year earlier (January to June 2009), Obama suffered declines in support from each of the religious groups:

-19% Mormons
-17% Catholics
-16% Jews
-15% Protestants
-15% All Americans
-12% Atheists
-8% Muslims

The decline in support for Obama is fairly consistent among all religious groups except Muslims who remained his most loyal supporters.  Atheists were his next biggest boosters.
 

by Art Kelly

Desperate Democrats, facing the increasing likelihood of defeats in the 2010 elections, have tried to strike back with claims that Republicans want to weaken or even eliminate Social Security.

Washington Post political analyst Chris Cillizza writes:

"Democrats, faced with a worsening national political climate and daunting historical midterm election trends, are turning to Social Security as an issue where they believe they can score political points and set the stakes of what a Republican-controlled Congress would look like.

"At least a half-dozen Democratic House candidates as well as several Democratic Senators in tight re-election races have featured claims that the GOP wants to either privatize or eliminate the retirement plan entirely in new television ads, and party strategists promise there are far more commercials to come."

Among the Democrats who are trying to use Social Security as an issue against Republicans include President Obama, Senators Harry Reid (NV) and Michael Bennet (CO), and Representatives Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Ben Chandler (KY), Allen Boyd (FL), Earl Pomery (ND), and Joe Donnelly (IN).

In the next two months, many other Democrats are likely to also use this tactic.

The independent FactCheck.org website flat out called these Democratic statements "not true."

An example of how irresponsible liberals can be on Social Security is an article in Politico by Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), an independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, which stated in part:

"The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039.

"Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years."

The facts are exactly opposite of what Sanders claims.

As reported in a recent issue of this newsletter, for many years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance the general operations of the federal government.  In return, the Trust Fund was given non-negotiable IOUs. 

The CBO clearly states the IOUs in the Trust Fund "are mainly accounting mechanisms and contain no economic resources."

And the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) explains, "The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the Government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury…The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, increase the Government's ability to pay benefits."

The payroll tax will not produce enough revenue to pay full Social Security benefits this fiscal year and next year, and then permanently after 2015.  At that time, according to the Social Security Trustees Annual Report, the amount owed the Trust Fund will be between $3.143 Trillion and $3.487 Trillion, depending on the economy (in current dollars). 

Liberals have defended the use of Social Security surpluses for NON-Social Security purposes.  Conservatives have advocated that Social Security surpluses be saved, not spent.  

Two bills have been introduced to stop the raid on the Trust Fund: 

The Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219, by Congressman Ron Paul (TX) and 18 cosponsors, to require the Trust Fund to contain real assets, such as certificates of deposit in FDIC-insured institutions.

The Savings for Seniors Act, HR 1712, by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN) and 22 cosponsors, to require Social Security surpluses to be saved in a special account and not spent on the general operations of federal government.

All of the sponsors and cosponsors of these important bills are Republicans. 

by Art Kelly

With two months until election day, all indications point to a possible Republican landslide, which will give the GOP control of the House and Senate, along with many governorships, state legislatures, and local offices.

In an article in the National Journal, political analyst Charlie Cooks writes, "Democrats find themselves heading into a midterm election that looks as grisly as any the party has faced in decades. It isn't hard to find Democratic pollsters who privately concede that the numbers they are looking at now are worse than what they saw in 1994."

The latest Gallup Poll shows the GOP at  51%, Democrats at 41%, and 8% undecided.  This is the largest lead in the 68-year history of the poll's tracking of midterm congressional elections. 

Perhaps even more significant, Gallup found that 50% of Republican said they were very enthusiastic about voting in November, while only 25% of Democrats felt that way.  If that 2 to 1 advantage is reflected in turnout in the elections, the GOP could win more than 60% of the vote nationwide.

Of course, the national percent of the vote each party receives does not indicate how many districts each of them will win, but Politico reports that "an increasing number of Democratic strategists now say privately that they fear the House is already lost."

With Republicans needing to pick up 39 seats to take control of the House, CNN lists the 50 most vulnerable House seats and 50 others that appear to be worth watching. 

In the top 50, only 3 GOP held seats appear to be in danger of being won by a Democrat, while 47 seats may switch from Democratic to Republican.  In the next 50, 12 GOP held seats are considered competitive, while 38 Democratic seats are considered competitive.  This could suggest a gain of about 70 seats for the Republicans in the House.

In an article, "Will House Dems Risk a Rout?" political strategist Dick Morris ponders the possible tactics of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:  Should they concentrate on defending the 50 most vulnerable Democrats--which are probably doomed no matter what they do?  Or should they concentrate on the 50 next most vulnerable--some of whom might be able to be saved?

"If they focus their funds and manpower on the most endangered seats, they may well let slip away dozens more seats that they might have defended successfully.  Futile efforts to protect a disappearing majority could lead to a loss of 60 to 80 seats, where a more prudent allocation of resources might hold the damage to 50 seats," Morris writes.

In separate article, "How Republicans Will Win the Senate," Morris points to polls which show GOP candidates likely to pick up the 10 seats needed to take control. It looks like Republicans will probably replace Democratic senators in 8 states: Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington, Arkansas, Delaware, North Dakota, and Indiana.  Two other states--Illinois and Nevada--are essentially tied, and California looks winnable.

And in a third article, Morris believes the GOP will achieve a larger GOP victory than the polls are indicating.  "For those who anticipate a major Republican win in 2010, you ain't seen nothin' yet," he writes.