logo
Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand

Democrats are in the polling dumps — fighting America on this key demand

New York Posta day ago

The Democratic Party has never been more unpopular — yet no Democrat seems to understand why.
Some say they're not fighting President Donald Trump hard enough.
Others say they aren't messaging their agenda well enough.
In reality, they're fighting too hard for an agenda that Americans reject, with a central demand of welfare for all.
Thirty-two years after President Bill Clinton promised to 'end welfare as we know it,' no idea unifies the Democratic Party more than the belief that welfare should be never-ending.
This vision of government dependency spurred their most notable policies of recent years, and explains their intransigent opposition to Republican reforms.
While some Democrats show an increasing willingness to compromise on other leftist priorities, such as biological men in women's sports, the party brooks no dissent on welfare — even though Americans want to fix the system's many failures.
Consider the ongoing federal budget battle.
House Republicans have put together a reconciliation bill that would slow the rate of Medicaid growth — from a projected 59.6% increase to 40% — over the next decade.
Democrats oppose even that, including GOP attempts to end waste, fraud and abuse.
Yet the latest federal data show that 22% of Medicaid payments and 12% of food-stamp payments went to ineligible recipients.
More than 70% of likely voters want to protect taxpayers from fraud and abuse, polls show, yet Democrats essentially deny there's a problem that needs to be solved.
In fact, when the Trump administration proposed a rule in March to end $11 billion in improper ObamaCare subsidies — aiming solely to curtail fraud — Democrats immediately opposed it.
Democrats are just as adamant when it comes to work requirements for welfare recipients.
My organization, the Foundation for Government Accountability, recently found that six in 10 able-bodied adults on Medicaid don't work at all, hoovering up resources that would benefit the truly vulnerable.
When voters in purple Wisconsin were asked two years ago if welfare recipients should work as a condition of receiving benefits, nearly 80% said yes — but national Democrats now say no.
They also reject Republican attempts to block Medicaid payments for illegal immigrants, which would save billions of dollars over the next decade.
More than 70% of voters don't want illegal immigrants to receive government benefits, yet Democrats bizarrely disagree.
But it's not just Congress; Democrats are striking the same strange tune in state capitols.
Over the past 10 years, virtually all Republican-led states have taken steps to purge waste, fraud and abuse from welfare programs.
By contrast, Democrat-run states have expanded illegal immigrants' access to Medicaid and pushed able-bodied adults onto welfare programs.
In recent months, Democratic governors in Kansas and Arizona have vetoed Republican bills that would ban food-stamp purchases of soda and junk food — a reform that could lower state and federal Medicaid spending and encourage healthier choices.
Democrats have a long history of supporting restrictions on consumers' options, but as soon as welfare enters the picture, they oppose it.
Apparently limiting freedom is fine by them, but limiting federal welfare is unthinkable.
The left's unwillingness to support even modest welfare reforms reflects the reality that government dependency is the biggest thing Democrats now offer Americans — even beyond limitless immigration and the Green New Deal.
The Affordable Care Act, the central achievement of Barack Obama's presidency, dramatically expanded Medicaid while creating a new welfare system for the individual health-insurance market.
Joe Biden enacted a work-destroying child tax credit and sought perpetual expansions of Medicaid and food stamps under the guise of pandemic relief.
A slew of Biden regulations made it easier for people to abuse the taxpayer's generosity, from Medicaid to food stamps to free school lunches for rich kids.
Democrats' end goal is clear: Get every American on the dole.
Yet insisting that government dependency is always the answer means Democrats can't publicly admit that seemingly infinite welfare has any shortcomings.
In fact, the left's agenda of welfare-for-all is profoundly harmful, and voters know it.
Democrats have built a welfare system that taxpayers can't afford while pushing millions of people out of the workforce — a dual assault on the economic growth.
They've left fewer resources for disabled children and the elderly by prioritizing able-bodied adults and illegal immigrants.
And they're corrupting the foundational American belief that welfare is temporary assistance whose recipients should work to get back on their feet.
No wonder Democrats are so unpopular: They're fleecing taxpayers, crippling the economy, hurting the truly needy and giving handouts to those who don't deserve them — none of which has Americans' support.
The first Democrat who wakes up on welfare will be the hero their party desperately needs.
Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount

CNBC

time34 minutes ago

  • CNBC

An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount

Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."

Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents
Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents

Axios

time35 minutes ago

  • Axios

Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents

Democrats in Congress have largely closed ranks around Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) — but centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) is panning what he calls their "politics as theater." Why it matters: Golden represents a district President Trump won last year and is always walking a careful line between supporting his party and maintaining his independence. On this, he is steering hard away from the party line. "I think that it's never good when a senator or member of Congress gets roughed up by law enforcement," he said in an interview with Axios at the Capitol. But, he added, "I don't think politics as theater is what our job is here." What happened: Padilla was forcibly removed by law enforcement as he tried to confront Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem during a press conference at the Los Angeles FBI Headquarters on Thursday. Officers detained Padilla, held him on the ground and handcuffed him, though the senator was later allowed to meet with Noem. The incident came after McIver was indicted for allegedly assaulting law enforcement during a scuffle with DHS officers outside an ICE facility in her home state last month, which she denies. What he's saying: "Storming into the FBI headquarters and trying to break up a press conference and rushing on a [cabinet] secretary is not really the job of an elected official," Golden said. Of McIver he said: "Where I come from, if you shove a police officer, you're probably getting arrested." Still, he added: "I am not in any way saying that means law enforcement should be slamming people around." The other side: "Everyone is entitled to their respective opinions … For me, the video I saw was clear," Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios when asked about Golden's comments. "He was at his place of work. He works in that building. He went to the press conference, ... he identified himself as a U.S. senator and then they manhandle him to the ground and arrest him," Garcia said. "I think it's crystal clear that that is unacceptable and an incredible overreach and quite dangerous ... and I think the American public is as outraged as the Congress." What to watch: Some Democrats are already talking about investigating the Padilla incident. "We only saw clips of it, so I'd like to find out everything that happened and how that occurred," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the acting ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. "He was very roughly handled, and it seemed like he was just trying to interject and attend the [press] conference. So, yeah, I think we need to take a good hard look at it."

Democrats challenge Trump on immigration enforcement
Democrats challenge Trump on immigration enforcement

Axios

time35 minutes ago

  • Axios

Democrats challenge Trump on immigration enforcement

Democratic state leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration's policies and threats this week. The big picture: As protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids escalate nationwide, particularly in California, lawmakers are seizing the moment to challenge the administration's bluff about not cooperating with Trump's enforcement policies. Trump and members of his administration have threatened to arrest any government officials who stand in the way of the president's policies, especially when it comes to immigration. The president's border czar Tom Homan said he wouldn't rule out arresting Democratic officials who impede law enforcement or harbor undocumented immigrants. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) dared Homan to do so, and Trump suggested the governor indeed be arrested amid an escalating feud. Yes, but: Arrests aren't the only concern facing Democrats. In the latest flareup, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was physically removed from a Los Angeles press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday as he said he tried to ask a question. Padilla's encounter follows another between three House Democrats from New Jersey and ICE agents last month, which ultimately resulted in the indictment of Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) McIver is charged with three counts of "forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers." The New Jersey Rep. said she plans to plead not guilty and called the charges a "brazen attempt at political intimidation." State of play: President Trump has doubled down on his sweeping immigration crackdown, deploying 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to California this week amid fiery demonstrations against federal immigration raids. Newsom, along with other Democratic city and state leaders, have fiercely opposed the military's deployment to quell protesters. Still, Trump has sent troops into the state. Meanwhile, Trump vowed that protests responding to his multimillion-dollar military parade in D.C. this weekend will be met with "very big force." Zoom in: Democratic lawmakers have for months been challenging the administration's policies — on everything from immigration to tariffs. A coalition of 20 Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit against the administration last month over threats to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding if they don't follow his immigration enforcement polices. This week, the focus has been on the administration's hardline immigration policies. During an hours-long congressional hearing Thursday, three governors cast the administration's immigration policies and response to protests as undemocratic while Republican lawmakers grilled them on state-level enforcement. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said Homan could "try" to arrest them over their disconnects on the issue. Zoom out: Congresspeople are not the only ones challenging the administration, with a battle at play between the executive and judiciary. Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan, who was charged in April by the FBI with allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest, has painted her case as a broader defense of the judiciary's independence from the Trump administration. Meanwhile, LA Mayor Karen Bass and other Democratic regional leaders at a Wednesday briefing called for the ICE raids to end, as demonstrations continued across the country.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store