Gay Patriot Header Image

Herman Cain’s Plan To Revive The American Economy

Common sense solutions from my candidate for President….

Herman Cain in Wall Street Journal: “My Plan to Revive Economic Growth”
Published: Thursday, September 15, 2011

Last week, President Obama unveiled his eagerly anticipated jobs plan. After 43 minutes of his speechifying, Americans were left wondering: We waited 30 months for this?
Indeed, it seems Mr. Obama’s first term has been spent advancing a legislative agenda that pays no mind to our ailing economy and the Americans whose sufferings are casualties in his ideological war. After a failed stimulus package, preferential industry bailouts, and the disastrous government overhaul of the health-care industry, it seems the plight of the American worker has remained an afterthought.

This is the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression. If the Obama administration’s aim was to merely tie for last place with the previous worst recovery, it would have created eight million more jobs, based on comparative data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If our recovery were more typical of the postwar era, as former Sen. Phil Gramm reported on this page in April, we would have 14 million more jobs today.

As a longtime leader in the business community, I know firsthand that government does not create jobs. It can only create the conditions in which businesses operate. These conditions can spur growth, or they can suppress it. The conditions imposed by the current administration have suppressed growth.

Still, there is hope. That hope begins with economic certainty, a sort of assurance the president seems unwilling to provide. I, on the other hand, have proposed a plan that would stabilize and grow our economy:

“Cain’s Vision for Economic Growth,” also known as the 9-9-9 Plan, is founded upon three guiding economic principles: Production drives the economy. Risk-taking creates growth. Units of measurement must be dependable.

The plan begins with restructuring the tax code to include the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rate. The elements are:

• A 9% corporate flat tax. Businesses would deduct purchases from other businesses and all capital investment. The resulting gross income is taxed at 9%.

• A 9% personal flat tax. Individuals would deduct charitable contributions, then pay 9% on the rest of their income. Capital gains are excluded.

• A 9% national sales tax. This levy would be placed on the consumption of all new goods. Used goods purchased would be excluded.

My plan would also permanently eliminate taxes on repatriated profits, as well as payroll taxes and the estate tax.

All of these measures would free up capital, spur production, and incentivize risk-taking, thereby fueling the economy and creating jobs. The plan has been designed to be revenue neutral initially, and then revenues would grow in line with the economy.

But these policies must be coupled with sound money. A dollar must be worth the same tomorrow as it is today. Stabilizing the dollar’s value starts with the federal government taking significant measures to rein in its spending and pay down the national debt. Americans must be assured that the federal government will live within its means and get serious about eliminating our crippling debt. Repealing ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Dodd-Frank bank-regulation bill would be critical steps.

Finally, my plan promotes enterprise zones, also known as “empowerment zones.” Coupled with tax reform and monetary stabilization, empowerment zones would revitalize inner cities by providing tax credits to businesses that hire workers living and working in underprivileged areas.

Some of the most tragic unemployment numbers can be found in minority communities and in urban centers around the country. Empowerment zones would create a whole new generation of wage-earners providing for their families. The late Jack Kemp, a secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development and a dear friend, was one of the first lawmakers to propose empowerment zones. He understood the tremendous economic benefits they would provide.

Each job lost today is not merely a statistic. Americans are struggling to determine whether to pay their mortgages or buy groceries, whether to buy school uniforms or pay the electric bill.

Such despair is unfitting for the greatest nation the world has ever known. After all, it is inherently American to work, to risk and to dream. Our government’s policies should encourage that, not stifle it.

Mr. Cain, a Republican, is running for president of the United States. He is a former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and a former chairman of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

HERMAN CAIN FOR PRESIDENT

I am proud this morning to announce my support for Herman Cain for President.

This is a personal decision by me and does not reflect the views of my co-bloggers nor should be construed as an official endorsement by GOPROUD of which I am a board member.

Now that I’m done with that disclaimer….let me shout this from sea to shining sea — AMERICA NEEDS HERMAN CAIN!!!! I have been flirting with the Cain candidacy for over a year now. I had the pleasure to meet him at CPAC and I have been closely following his campaign long before most people knew his name.

I felt it was important to declare my preference publicly today as I have decided to become actively involved in Team Cain to assist in the South Carolina primary and beyond. I owe my readers the transparency of knowing why I am writing about certain things and not to be confused by my intent.

Why Herman Cain? Well, haven’t been this excited about a Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984 (the first year I was old enough to truly know anything and make a difference).

Some will now say, “now Bruce….there will never be another Ronald Reagan!” And that is true. And I am NOT equating Mr. Cain to Mr. Reagan. What I am saying is that Mr. Cain excites me with his common sense ideas, love of country, and ability to connect to the American psyche. Choosing a President has always been a “gut feeling” thing for America. I have a great feeling about Herman Cain.

Herman Cain has been plucked by destiny to arrive at America’s electoral doorstep at just the right time. He has a solid business background, is an inspirational leader of people, and understands the complexities of the world economy. He wasn’t a community organizer, he is a jobs and growth creator. He wasn’t a concocted creation of America’s radical left and academic centers of power, he is a true child of the American Experience. He has never scoffed at American values, he embraces our nation’s special place in the history of mankind and knows we are teetering on the edge.

Mr. Cain is familiar with rescuing failing enterprises, which to me is his most important qualification. In a sheer coincidence to the timing of my announcement, Daniel Henninger wrote this yesterday in the Wall Street Journal:

Does a résumé like Herman Cain’s add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we’ve fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I’m rewriting my presidential-selection software. [Emphasis added.]

Conventional wisdom holds that this week’s Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they’ve got.

Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain’s life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.

No other GOP candidate can bring the fight to Obama over the sorry state of the American economy than Herman Cain. Our other choices are, I’m sad to say, more of the same old thing — career professional politicians. Yes, even Ron Paul, folks.

So there you have it. My big announcement. Herman Cain is the first Presidential candidate I will actively and ENTHUSIASTICALLY campaign for through blood, sweat, money & tears since Ronald Reagan in 1984. That’s a long time of being unmoved by GOP nominees, don’t you think?

There will be more to say about Herman Cain and the issues. But I wanted to stand up today and proudly declare my support for the 45th President of the United States of America and the next true heir of the American Experience — Mr. Herman Cain.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

On Bruce’s Announcement (& disagreement among GayPatriots)

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:28 pm - September 28, 2011.
Filed under: Blogging,National Politics,Tea Party

Our readers have engaged in considerable speculation about the “important announcement” Bruce will be making tomorrow on this blog.  We settled on Thursday for this announcement as it is Rosh Hashanah and I will be in synagogue praying and unable to blog.

For the record, I have been privy for some time now to the content of this announcement, but have refused to even hint at what it might entail until such time as Bruce makes it official.  The only thing I will say, as per my communication with Bruce is that this is one of those few issues where he and I do not see eye to eye (hence the advantage of making it when I won’t have the opportunity to reply).

I expect to offer a rebuttal to Bruce’s argument in short order.  Let this occasion remind y’all that while Bruce, Eric, Nick and I all blog on the same site, we don’t always agree with one another.

Searching for “bloodthirsty” Republicans; ignoring mean-spirited Democrats

Yesterday on CNN, Jack Cafferty joined the chorus of his journalistic class in lamenting the barbarism of Republican rallies.  Yesterday, he asked if Republican debate crowds were “bloodthirsty”.  Wonder how many pundits ever asked the same question about Democratic rallies when say someone on stage with the politician called for taking out his political adversaries.

“What’s worse,” Cafferty intone in the highest of dudgeon, “is the candidates don’t at the time say, you know what? You don’t speak for anybody in this room, and just sit down and shut up, or get out of the hall. But nobody says a word.”  Has Cafferty ever called upon Democratic politicians, to, borrowing an expression, “differentiate themselves” from nasty rhetoric at their events?

Going back to the 2008 campaign (at least), Cafferty and his colleagues, entirely in sync with the talking points of the Democratic Party, have made much of isolated and invented mean-spirited rhetoric at Republican rallies (while ignoring or otherwise downplaying such rhetoric at Democratic ones).

It might be fun to go and find examples of angry and hateful rhetoric at Democratic rallies and then see whether or not Cafferty chastised the candidate for not calling out the audience member for his mean-spirited language.  Yet, for folks like Jack, an isolated, angry audience member defines a Republican audience, but is ignored at a Democratic event.

Look for the media to play such examples as a means to discredit the GOP.  With the president facing “a titanic struggle” for reelection, his only path to victory may well lie in such efforts to discredit the opposition.  And heck, some of his ideological allies may try to infiltrate the crowd, pretending to be conservative supporters so as yelling angry slogans or wave signs with hateful expressions.  They’ve tried it before.

Florida’s Folly

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:27 pm - September 28, 2011.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

We begin our presidential election process way too early.  When Rick Perry announced his candidacy at the beginning of last month, pundits call his a late entry — even though he joined the field fifteen months before the general election.

Now, with reports that Florida “officials are likely to choose Jan. 31 as the date for the state’s 2012 presidential primary“, we’re likely to see a “land rush among other early voting states to move the timing of their own contests forward in an already front-loaded GOP primary schedule.”

Over at the Washington Examiner, Conn Carroll posts “a possible primary schedule” should the Sunshine State settle on the January date, with Iowa hosting its caucuses on Monday, January 2, and the New Hampshire primary just eight days later. People will hardly have time to recover from New Year’s festivities — or even to take down their Christmas decorations before the politicking begins.

This won’t give Republicans in the early voting states much chance to review the candidates.  And makes it more difficult for someone entering the race at the same time in this cycle as Bill Clinton did in the 1992 cycle to make his case to voters before they start preparations for the holidays.

It should be a rule that no state can start its delegate selection process until March 4 of the election year.  And yeah, we do need to consider why Iowa and New Hampshire insist on being, respectively, the first caucus and first primary in the nation.

Federal government increasingly threatens our freedom

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:25 pm - September 28, 2011.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Freedom,We The People

In a poll showing that Americans are expressing “historic negativity” toward the federal government, Gallup found that our fellow Americans have a growing

sense that the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals’ rights and freedoms is also at a new high, 49%, since Gallup began asking the question using this wording in 2003. This view is much more pronounced among Republicans (61%) and independents (57%) than among Democrats (28%), although when George W. Bush was president, Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to view government as a threat.

2003-2011 Trend: Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?
Via Instapundit.

Just another piece of evidence that the president is increasingly out of touch with the American people. No wonder Obama’s chief political advisor has conceded his boss’s “road to a second term in the White House as “a Titanic struggle.

Why did people believe a Chicago pol was a bold and daring reformer cut from a different cloth than other machine politicians?

“Remember,” Ed Morissey wrote yesterday with some nostalgia, those “heady days of ‘hope and change’?

That was Obama’s argument that only he could change the way Washington worked as an outsider with few obligations to the Establishment.  How voters bought that notion from a Chicago Machine politician is a matter for future psychiatrists and comedians, but Obama’s jerk to the Left and the embrace of old class-warfare arguments and policies appear to have derailed any serious attempt to curtail deficits, at least for the short term.

And the longer Obama governs, the more we see that the image he and his campaign created is at odds with his record.  Ed’s right; that people bought into it is indeed a matter for psychiatrists and comedians.

That our journalists did not delve into his record to see if it matched his rhetoric causes one to question their competency.  Sarah Palin’s daughter’s ex-boyfriend becomes a source of information on the accomplished Alaska reformer, but Barack Obama’s minister of twenty years (about as long as that ex- had been alive, much longer than he knew the Palins) is off limits.

Today, two of my favorite sources of libertarian/conservative opinion, Glenn Reynolds and the WSJ.com’s Political Diary (available by subscription) linked and/or excerpted Peter Wehner’s must-read piece on Obama’s Disquieting Heroic Fantasies.  Wehner notes how Obama created this image of this new kind of politician out of whole cloth,about which Morrissey recently reminisced, offering an image of himself opposite to the actual politician Obama has been:

I have written before about Obama’s deep, almost desperate, need to portray himself as the opposite of what he is, to conceive of himself in a way that is at odds with reality. We have seen it in all sorts of areas, including claiming himself to be a voice of civility, portraying himself as a champion of bi-partisanship, lecturing others about profligate spending, and saying he is the only responsible “adult” in Washington. (more…)

How dishonest critics of Guantanamo harmed America’s image

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:02 pm - September 27, 2011.
Filed under: American Self-Hatred,Noble Republicans

The president has also suggested that Guantanamo should be closed because it is hurting America’s image around the world. But it’s not Guantanamo that does the harm, it is the critics of the facility who peddle falsehoods about it.

Dick Cheney, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir

A figure to bear in mind as the budget debate resumes

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:10 am - September 27, 2011.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

In his piece on the reactionary nature of the president’s policies, Fred Barnes reminds us just how much Democrats have increased spending under their watch:

Since his rebuke in last Novem-ber’s election, the president has talked up deficit reduction. His new plan, he says, will shrink the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee, which has far more credibility than Obama on budget numbers, says the “actual deficit reduction” is $1.4 trillion, none of it from spending cuts. The Obama plan would leave federal spending at 24 percent of GDP in 2021, the staff said, “a stunning 18 percent increase in the size of government relative to the historical average.” And it would add $9.7 trillion to the national debt over 10 years.

Emphasis added.  The federal government doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

If the president is serious about deficit reduction, he’ll put forward — or at least sign onto — a plan that reduces federal spending to levels closer to the historical average.

Defining a political party by the boorish behavior of an anonymous isolated individual

When someone on the right behaves boorishly, our friends in the media highlight the incident and pronounce that such behavior defines the GOP, the Tea Party or the conservative movement.  When a liberal behaves in a similar manner, his boorish behavior is just that, boorish behavior, signifying nothing, perhaps just an overzealous individual subject to the passions which, from time to time, overwhelm us all.

It seems that some on the left are just waiting for a conservative to behave badly, so they can use his bad behavior to define the party.  Shortly after an individual booed a gay soldier asking a question at last week’s Republican debate, liberals rushed to make this anonymous lout the face of the Republican Party, with a liberal friend on Facebook posting this dishonest slogan:

Dishonest and perhaps prejudiced as it ascribes to an entire political party the rude actions of one individual. Some Democrats insist that a number of people booed. I watched the clip of the question several times and heard two, possibly three, people booing. Ann Althouse, who did the same, stands by her perception that “only one person audibly” yelled “boo.”

Despite this likely lone boor, the media, John Hinderaker laments, “won’t let the facts get in the way.” Seems there were more people shushing and/or criticizing the boor:

I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here’s my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.

There were more people in this Republican audience criticizing the lout(s) who booed a soldier than there were louts booing. A more accurate description (than the one provided in the image above) of the Republican crowd would be that even Republicans seek to silence and criticize man who boos a gay soldier.

But that just doesn’t fit the narrative.

Contending that “Republicans need to push back hard against this distraction tactic,” Hinderaker reminds us that

On a near-constant basis, Democratic Congressmen blurt out outrages far worse than those attributed to anonymous citizens who attend GOP debates, yet the newspapers will never try to make those absurdities the dominant narrative of the Democratic Party (more…)

Watch This Space!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:25 pm - September 26, 2011.
Filed under: National Politics,Tea Party

I’ll be making an important announcement on Thursday here at GayPatriot. 

Let the speculation begin…..

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Another Sign of our Low Grade Civil War?

Wow.  This from Gallup today:

  • 49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.
  • A record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, adding to negativity that has been building over the past 10 years.

Oh, there’s so much more…. read the whole thing.

Hey, someone should write more about this “Low Grade Civil War” thing!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The Political Inertia of Gay Liberalism

Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds linked Jeff Carter’s post, Out of The Closet Conservative in A Democratic City. If we changed just words and substituted our own anecdotes, we could use the balance of his post to describe our own experiences as gay conservatives.

Living in the Windy City, Carter finds

. . . that there are very few true blue Democrats in Chicago. It’s just that the machine is established in the Democratic Party and inertia pushes them that way. So many people make so much money off the machine, you just can’t change it. But, there are enough hard core true believing Democrats around to keep the ship sailing straight.

And so it is within the gay community. Substitute “Gay Inc” for “the machine” and you realize many gay people support HRC and vote Democratic not because of genuine appreciation for the work said organization does or enthusiastic support for the political party it backs, but because of inertia. They’re just signing on to the cause and the political party their peers support. This inertia more than anything defines the voting habits of many gay people.  To be sure, there are also enough hard care true believing gay Democrats to toe the line for their party and maintain the pretense of a caring political party.

When Carter comes out as a conservative to his Chicago peers, he often encounters the same types of reaction we get when we come out to our gay peers:

When people find out that I am a conservative, there are three reactions. One, they can’t believe it and think I am kidding them, but then talk to me and we become friends. The second is abject horror, they sort of tolerate me but behind my back they insult me. The third is they start pigeon holing me into the most radical of conservative classes.

It’s always fascinating to me that liberal Democrats are supposed to be all accepting, and the live and let live party. However, in practice I find they are less tolerant, and want to tell and direct everyone more than the right wing Christian conservatives they love to pillory.

Many times at cocktail parties, my wife and I are introduced as “they’re conservatives but they are okay”, or “our favorite Republicans”, or “the only Republicans I know”.

I do have some very good friends that are pretty liberal and they are accepting of me. We actually have a lot of common ground on some things. We get together and have a good time, but I wonder how they would feel if they were in the minority?

Read the whole thing.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Ted B. (Charging Rhino) observes:

Like the HRC, most gay Liberals just go through the motions without any self-examination, finding comfort in their familiar political rituals; denial, finger-pointing and demonization.

Indeed.

AOL Flacks for DNC and Obama

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 5:46 pm - September 25, 2011.
Filed under: Media Bias,Obamania

Love how they use their home-page to flack for the Administration and make it appear that the GOP is the party with all the problems:

They take it on faith that the White House has debunked Republican arguments which they have reduced to “talking points.” A more accurate headline would be “White House challenges Republican position on taxes.”

So, one candidate’s troubles (in a sizable field) means the whole party is “in disarray”?

Santorum’s bizarre response to question on gays in military

To explain why I found former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s response to the question on gays in the military so bizarre, let me fisk the entire comment and offer a conclusion at the end of the post.  First, the question from Stephen Hill, a serviceman deployed in Iraq:

In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I’m a gay soldier, and I didn’t want to lose my job.

My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

And the candidate’s response:

Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to –

I chose to break the former Senator’s comment here because up until this point, I agree with everything he is saying.  Our soldiers should not be engaging in sexual activity while on duty.  And the military shouldn’t give special privileges to any group.

To be sure, it’s bizarre that the Senator begins his response as he has, saying sexual activity has no place in the military.  (He’s right about that.)  Perhaps, he believes that if gay people serve, they would necessarily engage in sexual activity with their fellow soldiers.

and removing “don’t ask/don’t tell” I think tries to inject social policy into the military.

Well, he does quality his remarks with an “I think,” but his thought is at odds with the meaning of repeal.  Here he makes a huge leap from the first part of his response.   (more…)

This is cool

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:00 pm - September 24, 2011.
Filed under: Gays in Other Lands,Politics abroad

Gay candidate leads race to be Irish president: poll.

Cool though it is, the poll is of a multi-candidate field so he doesn’t (yet?) command the support of a majority of Irish voters:

A gay Irish senator is the favourite to become Ireland’s next president, while former IRA commander Martin McGuinness is in third place, an opinion poll said Saturday.

Senator David Norris had the backing of 21 percent of those surveyed in a Red C/Sunday Business Post poll ahead of the October 27 election to succeed President Mary McAleese.

If he does win, I believe he would be the first openly gay head of state in the modern era.

Is federal money funding Obama campaign?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:37 am - September 24, 2011.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,HopeAndChange

As I was reading about the Solyndra kerfuffle, I wondered how much the company and its various executives, whose incomes derive(d) in large part from the generous federal loan for which Obama administration officials lobbied, donated to various Democratic organizations and candidates.

Yesterday, Jim Hoft reported that one recipient of federal stimulus money seems to be funneling his windfall back into the Democrat’s campaign coffers:

Tom Carnahan, brother of Robin and Russ Carnahan, was gifted with $107 million in stimulus money for his wind farm project in Missouri.

This coming week Tom Carnahan will host a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for President Obama.

Read the whole thing. Seems those interested in “accountability journalism” might want to look into this matter.

Do wonder if any “mainstream” news outlets (beyond Politico) will investigate this story and study the extent to which various outfits who support Democratic causes and candidates were more likely to receive federal funds — and whether their donations to Democrats increased after they received such monies.

Wonder how many gay lefty bloggers will report this?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:57 pm - September 23, 2011.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gays In Military

Some bloggers on the gay left are trying to make much of no more than three** audience members who booed a gay soldier asking a question in last night’s debate, with one blogger saying the Audience Boos Gay Army Soldier Asking Santorum About DADT. The audience didn’t boo him. At most, three disrespectful jerks did.

But, for some on the left if there is one nutbag in a conservative crowd, said nutbag defines the crowd.

Despite his unusual answer* last night, the inconsequential presidential candidate did the right thing today. The former Pennsylvania Senator condemned those who booed the soldier:

“Yeah, well, I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier,” said Santorum. “That soldier is serving our country, I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job. I hope he is safe, and I hope he returns safely, and does his mission well.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  V the K is “not sure that the soldier was being booed”:  ”The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.”   Wonder which gay lefty bloggers reported that.  He also reminds us:

. . . multiple incidents of union violence, the display of socialist icons at Democratic party events, a pattern of cronies and campaign donors getting huge Government “loans” and subsidies … are all supposed to be aberrations that don’t typify the left at all.

* (more…)

Are Senate Democrats Trying to Shut Down Government for Political Reasons?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - September 23, 2011.
Filed under: 112th Congress,Media Bias

It sure looks that way:

The Senate on Friday rejected a House-passed measure to keep the government funded past Sept. 30, signaling that Senate Democrats are ready for an eleventh-hour fight with House Republicans over billions of dollars in disaster aid in the bill.

By a vote of 59 to 36, the Senate tabled the $1.043 trillion resolution to funding the government from Oct. 1 through Nov. 18. Congress has to send some kind of temporary funding measure to the president’s desk by Sept. 30 or the government will shut down.

Seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can’t stomach the notion of offsetting the costs of disaster relief, thus showing an incredible obliviousness to the federal government’s burgeoning budget deficits.

He’d rather see the government shut down than hold the line on spending at a time of record deficits.   Guess he prefers pandering to Democratic special interests to acting in the national interest.

Senate Democrats just want this Congress to fail.

So, tell me again, why did young people vote for Obama?

Maybe it’s that they don’t want to grow up. From Yahoo!’s homepage today:

The real story though is that although they helped elect the incumbent, delivering two-thirds of their votes to Barack Obama, they’re the group suffering the most from his economic polices. Although that Democrat saw his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act sail through a Democratic Congress in 2009, that supposedly stimulative legislation has failed to generate the jobs he promised.

And now only “only 55 percent of young Americans have jobs, [the] lowest [figure] since WWII“:

Unemployment among young adults is at its highest point since World War II, new data show. And it’s having a disconcerting impact on the trajectory of their careers and lives.

We have a monster jobs problem, and young people are the biggest losers,” Andrew Sum, an economist with the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University told the Associated Press.

Just 55.3 percent of people between 16 and 29 were employed in 2010 on average, the according to new figures released by the Census Bureau. That represents an enormous drop from 67.3 percent in 2000. Among teens the figure was less than 30 percent.

Emphasis added.