The Media’s Obama-Defending Snit-Storm, Day Six
Morning Jolt February 24, 2015
Outstanding news to start the morning: Hugh Hewitt, syndicated radio host and longtime friend of NR, will be one of the questioners for one of the Republican presidential debates scheduled for September 16th at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. The Media's Obama-Defending Snit-Storm, Day SixRudy Giuliani gave his "I do not believe that the president loves America" speech Wednesday night, and Politico broke the story just before midnight that evening. We're five days in. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank just wrote his second "have you no shame, Governor Walker?" column in three days. Would any Republican presidential candidate lose primary votes by disagreeing with Giuliani? Or by saying they think Obama is a Christian? Morning Jolt readers, you're a big, tumultuous, teeming crowd of hundreds of thousands of conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, independents, and liberals who find me so charming you just can't resist reading. Many of you will vote in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. If any Republican candidate said, "I have no reason to doubt that Barack Obama is a Christian, and as much as I think Obama's agenda is terrible for our country, I have no doubt that he loves America . . ." (like Rubio said) would you vote against that candidate? Is that a deal-breaker for anyone? A 2012 Gallup survey found that 18 percent of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim; just 24 percent said he was "Christian" or "Protestant." The largest plurality, 47 percent, said they didn't know what religion he was. Is the political cost of two weeks of being caught in the middle of a Category Five media snit-storm worth losing some votes from among that 18 percent or so? Of course, if you read Scott Walker's full answer to the question from Dan Balz and Robert Costa, it sounds better. Walker sounds incredulous that he's being asked the question by Washington Post reporters, and eager to move on to more substantive topics: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a prospective Republican presidential contender, said Saturday he does not know whether President Obama is a Christian. "I don't know," Walker said in an interview at the JW Marriott hotel in Washington, where he was attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association. Told that Obama has frequently spoken publicly about his Christian faith, Walker maintained that he was not aware of the president's religion. "I've actually never talked about it or I haven't read about that," Walker said, his voice calm and firm. "I've never asked him that," he added. "You've asked me to make statements about people that I haven't had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?" Walker said such questions from reporters are reflective of a broader problem in the nation's political-media culture, which he described as fixated on issues that are not relevant to most Americans. "To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press," he said. "The things they care about don't even remotely come close to what you're asking about." Walker said he does not believe that most Americans care about such matters. "People in the media will [judge], not everyday people," he said. "I would defy you to come to Wisconsin. You could ask 100 people, and not one of them would say that this is a significant issue." (So did Balz or Costa tell Walker "Obama has frequently spoken publicly about his Christian faith"? When either one said that, were they thinking of Obama's 2008 declaration to Rick Warren at Saddleback Church that "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix"? Because all that seemingly devout profession of faith was, we now know, BS . . . told to a pastor . . . in a church. So the notion that some of Obama's public comments about his faith might really be vote-chasing showmanship and spin really isn't the most unthinkable conclusion, fellas.)
HUD Inspector General: We're Wasting at Least $37 Million Per Month The short version: To live in public housing, you have to meet a community-service or self-sufficiency requirement. A recent HUD Inspector General audit found that about 27 percent of the public housing residents they checked weren't meeting the requirement, amounting to $37 million per month going to undeserving residents. The longer version: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development runs public housing programs to provide "decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities." About 1.2 million American households live in public housing units, managed by approximately 3,300 public housing authorities. HUD provides subsidies to public housing authorities to assist in funding their operating and maintenance expenses. To qualify for public housing, residents must meet a monthly "community service and self-sufficiency requirement." Under the requirement, every non-exempt adult resident of public housing must contribute 8 hours of community service each month or participate in an economic self-sufficiency program -- job training, employment counseling, work placement, basic skills training, and education. Residents can be exempt from the requirements if they are 62 or older; blind or disabled, working, or in a welfare-to-work program. A new Inspector General audit found "HUD subsidized housing for 106,000 units occupied by noncompliant tenants, out of nearly 550,000 potentially CSSR-eligible units nationwide. Out of the nearly 740,000 adult tenants living in these units, HUD's system contained incorrect CSSR status codes for 201,000 tenants." That amounts to 27 percent of all adult tenants in those public housing units! The report blamed HUD for not having adequate controls to monitor compliance with the community service requirements, and estimated the Department paid more than $37 million in monthly subsidies to residents who didn't meet the requirements. That's $37 million per month, every month, adding up to $444 million per year. But wait, there's more! The Inspector General's office said the exact same thing . . . six years ago! We issued audit report 2008-KC-0002, HUD Did Not Ensure That Housing Authorities Properly Administered the Community Service and Self-Sufficiency Requirement, on March 24, 2008. In that audit, we found that HUD did not have adequate controls to ensure that housing authorities properly administered CSSR. Specifically, HUD did not have sufficient guidelines, adequate data collection and reporting systems, or effective enforcement mechanisms. Of 68 statistically selected households, 44 did not comply with CSSR and were, therefore, ineligible for continued occupancy. Based on these results, we estimated that housing authorities improperly renewed or extended the leases of at least 85,000 ineligible households, costing an estimated $21.5 million in monthly operating subsidies. What happened after the 2008 report? "HUD did not apply sanctions against housing authorities that failed to enforce CSSR compliance." Hey, I'm sure the Obamacare subsidies will work out a lot better. Maybe VA Secretary McDonald Can Be Interviewed by Brian Williams Sigh. Robert A. McDonald, the secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department, apologized on Monday for falsely claiming last month that he had served in the United States Special Forces. Mr. McDonald, a 1975 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, where he completed jungle, arctic, desert warfare and Ranger training, according to his official biography. But his assertion to a homeless veteran in Los Angeles that he was in Special Forces — captured on camera for a CBS News report — was false, he acknowledged on Monday. ADDENDA: From the 'Friends and Peers Who Have Written Books' Department… First and foremost, our Charlie Cooke offers The Conservatarian Manefesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right's Future. He describes it simply: The book is in part a look at the growing number of self-identified "conservatarians" — those people whose worldview is broadly right-leaning, but who are dissatisfied with the Republican party and with much of libertarianism. I also make some suggestions as to how conservatives can update their offering, propose a framework within which their various constituents can once again co-exist, and take on the notion that there is such a thing as a "social issue" per se. At the book's heart is a sustained defense of federalism and of a thriving and diverse civil society. (The fact that our Charlie has written a little red book is very much part of the joke, folks.) Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham, the dynamic duo from Townhall, Fox News, and Hot Air offer End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun). Frank J. Fleming, the offbeat comedic mind behind the IMAO blog, offers his first sci-fi novel, Superego, one of the first big works from Adam Bellow's Liberty Island publishing. Javier Manjarres of the Shark Tank blog offers Brown People: Hispanic Politics and the Disgruntled State of Amigos, which is earning praise from David Limbaugh and Allen West.
|
Comments
Post a Comment