This page was last updated on August 31, 2012.
Focus on Romney’s lies; Michael Connifey; Beaver County Times; August 30, 2012.
Previous Connifey letters are here, here, and here.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Last Sunday’s paper found Kirstin Kennedy claiming that courageous Mitt Romney was among the first to say that Todd (a woman’s reproductive parts shut down during ‘legitimate rape’) Akin should resign. Not so.”
[RWC] This is Mr. Connifey’s fourth letter since June and his second in eight days.
Mr. Connifey is referring to the BCT editorial “Hats off, pants on” written by Ms. Kennedy, a member of the BCT editorial board. Since restarting its in-house editorial effort, the BCT chose not to post its editorials on its website.
“Look at the timeline. On Aug. 19, Akin makes his comments. On Aug. 20, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), followed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the National Republican Senate Committee, Karl Rove, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Reince Priebus ( the Republican National Committee Chairman), Charles Summers (R-Mass.), and Amy Kremer (Tea Party) call on Akin to resign. On Aug. 21, Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.), Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Sen. Olympia Snow (R-Minn.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Ashcroft, and Rush Limbaugh call for Akin’s resignation.
“Only then did Mitt Romney join into the fray -- two days after Akin’s comments. A flash of leadership? I don’t think so. Kennedy would do better to focus on Romney’s lies, especially that President Obama took $716 billion worth of benefits out of Medicare and that President Obama no longer requires welfare recipients to work.”
[RWC] Sorry, Mr. Connifey, but according to The Hill, “Mitt Romney’s campaign on Sunday [Aug. 19] quickly condemned a comment from Republican Rep. Todd Akin (Mo.) claiming that pregnancy from rape was rare and said the presumptive GOP nominee and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would not take steps to block abortions in cases of rape.”
As for the Medicare comment, wrong again. President Obama conceded this point in at least two interviews prior to the passage of Obamacare.
Interviewer: “One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.”
Mr. Obama: “Right.”
Interviewer: “The CBO has said specifically that the $500 billion that you say that you’re going to save from Medicare is not being spent in Medicare. That this bill spends it elsewhere outside of Medicare. So you can’t have both.”
Mr. Obama: “Right.”
The CBO updated the $500 billion figure to $716 billion in July 2012.
As for the welfare [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)] work requirement, that’s trickier. An HHS letter to “States administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and other interested parties” asserts “HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.” Section 407 (Mandatory Work Requirements) contains the guts of “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” Another section of the law states, “a waiver granted under section 1115 or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 407 to the State.” Therefore, the Obama administration’s letter appears to claim the HHS has the power the law says it does not have to waive work requirements. Here’s the bottom line. Under the guise of “experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects,” states could reduce/remove work requirements without adversely affecting a state’s federal funding. While the aforementioned letter appears to have rules to keep this from happening today, the long-term problem is the HHS interpretation that it has the ability to change work requirements, in clear violation of the law. Does anyone doubt where this will go if HHS is allowed to change work requirements at will?
I can’t read Mr. Connifey’s mind so I don’t know if he’s lying or simply misinformed. In any case, Mr. Connifey should probably be more careful about accusing others of lying.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.