President Barack Obama Spams

On Monday, February 2, 2009 10:33 AM, I received spam from President Barack Obama. It took awhile for me to figure out how he obtained my email address. I have never emailed or registered with either the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Then, I remembered that I had sent an email message to Hillary Clinton after the last presidential primary, encouraging her to take her fight to the Democratic Convention in Denver. My best guess is that she sold or gave my address to them without my permission.

In any event, it was a shock to see email from the President in my inbox. I was incensed that he had the gall to send unsolicited email to me. Then, when I opened it, I became amused.

The silly man sent a lifelong Republican an invitation to host an “Economic Recovery House Meeting” the weekend of February 7th-8th. Its purpose would be to drum up support for the economic stimulus package. Hosts were suppose to show a video with Governor Tim Kaine “outlining the recovery plan and answering questions about what it means for your community.” I could even submit my questions regarding the plan online prior to the meeting.

Oh, I was so tempted to volunteer to host a meeting. This Republican would have had one heck of a good time explaining and reviewing this so-called stimulus package. I thoroughly reviewed the information on the host guides. They gave the suggested agenda and timeframes as well as action plans before, during, and after the meeting. I chuckled my way through the “talking points” for the economic stimulus plan.

However, I resisted the temptation to host one of these meetings. After all, volunteering would only encourage future email from Obama and the Democrats. I get enough spam, thank you, even with a spam filter.

Instead, I am filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This piece of email violates existing anti-spam legislation in two ways. First, it was sent without invitation to someone who has no existing business relationship with the President or the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Secondly, it did not correctly identify the physical address of the sender as required. Finally, the purpose of the email was not clearly defined in the subject line.

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act), which became effective January 1, 2004, “bans false or misleading header information. Your email's 'From,' 'To,' and routing information – including the originating domain name and email address – must be accurate and identify the person who initiated the email.” This email’s header showed:
From: "President Barack Obama"

However, at the bottom of the email was this information:
“Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003”

The FTC clearly instructs that the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 requires that every commercial email “also must include your valid physical postal address.” Now, everyone knows the President’s actual physical address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not 430 S. Capitol St. SE, which is where the DNC has its headquarters. Clearly this violates the F.T.C. rules.

Another proviso of the Act “prohibits deceptive subject lines. The subject line cannot mislead the recipient about the contents or subject matter of the message.” The SUBJECT LINE of this email was: “What recovery means for you.” One can legitimately debate if this was deceptive. However, the email did little to answer the question posed in the header’s subject. Instead, it primarily focused on this meeting and organizing support for passage of the stimulus package.

Each violation of these FTC rules “is subject to fines of up to $11,000.” Stay-tuned for the outcome of my complaint. If successful, it will be far more beneficial for my personal economic stimulus than anything in the President’s plan.

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac: “Just the Facts, Ma’am”

Previously, I looked at the systemic roots of the current economic crisis. Today, let us look at the near-term causes of why we are being asked to foot an additional $700 billion bailout of our credit markets. Everyone seems to be ignoring or has already forgotten that the taxpayers have already incurred a $780 billion bailout in the last two weeks when the federal government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [M&M].

Every economist agrees that the need for a second bailout, this time of Wall Street, is the direct result of the housing bubble and the risky lending behind it. That lending was fueled by and supported by M&M. Before the Federal government was forced to take over M&M a few weeks ago, they owned or guaranteed “about $5.2 trillion worth of mortgages,” according to The Wall Street Journal. About 15 percent or $780 billion are in very risky “Alt-A” and sub-prime loans.

How and why did M&M get away with those kinds of risky business practices when they are government-sponsored entities, supposedly regulated by Congress? Well, M&M bought their protection from scrutiny.

M&M, over the past ten years, have spent over $200 million in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions to buy influence in Congress and protect them from stronger regulation. For the 2008 elections, they have contributed over $2 million to House and Senate members, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Who have been the beneficiaries of this largesse from M&M? Between 1989 and 2008, the top recipients of campaign contributions from M&M have been:

#1 Christopher Dodd received $165,400 ($116,900 from individuals and $48,500 from Political Action Committees)
#2 Barack Obama received $126,349 ($120,349 from individuals and $6,000 from PACs)
#62 John McCain who received $21,550 (all from individuals)
[Source: Center for Responsive Politics, The St. Petersburg Times PolitiFact Check http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/ and http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/09/18/all-recipients-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-campaign-contributions-1989-2008/]

Why was Sen. McCain dead last among all Congressional recipients of M&M contributions? Sen. McCain joined Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] and Sen. John Sununu [R-NE] to co-sponsor the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 [S.190] authored by Sen. Charles Hagel, [R-NE]. This bill would have improved regulations on “secondary mortgage market enterprises” or M&M. In support of this legislation, Sen. McCain spoke on the Senate floor on May 25, 2006:

Mr. President [of the Senate], this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S.190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole. [emphasis added]

[Source: The Congressional Record http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190]

The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 passed the House of Representatives but was killed in the Senate by the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sen. Christopher Dodd [Democrat]. M&M’s contributions to Dodd, who received more than any other member of Congress, paid off handsomely by staving off stricter control and oversight by Congress.

The Democrats in Congress have repeatedly fought off Republican efforts to reform M&M. President Bush had proposed similar reforms in the previous Congress. “Democrats in Congress have sought to preserve the quasi-governmental status of the mortgage giants, seeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as places to locate former top Democratic Party operatives, where they have earned millions in compensation, despite a continuing series of financial scandals.” [Source: Jerome R. Corsi, ”Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs now offering advice to Obama Senator's links to mortgage giants also include campaign contributions,” WorldNetDaily, September 17, 2008 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586]

During the current election cycle, Fannie Mae has given 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions and Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president."

[Source: Open Secrets.org http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html]

Why would M&M give over $126,000 to a freshman Senator, Barack Obama? It is remarkable that in a mere four years Sen. Obama outstrips all but Sen. Dodd in total funds received from M&M over a twenty-year period. Is it because M&M expects a President Obama would continue the Democrats’ protection against reform of the financial markets?

Three of Sen. Obama’s top advisors were former M&M executives: Franklin Raines, James Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick. Raines, budget director under President Clinton, was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. He earned $21 million during his last year there. Johnson was a former aide to Vice President Walter Mondale and the successor to Raines as Fannie Mae’s CEO from 1999 to 2004, earning $90 million.

“Even after he left, Fannie continued to pay him an annual fee of at least $300,000 a year for consulting services and a $71,000 monthly pension, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission… Fannie also paid for Johnson’s support staff, communications services and provided him a car and driver.”

[Source: Lisa Lerer, “Fannie, Freddie spent $200M to buy influence,” Politico, July 16, 2008 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html] Gorelick, Clinton’s deputy attorney general, was vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003. He earned $26 million in that role.

All three were involved in various scandals and questionable accounting practices while at Fannie Mae, according to reports from The Washington Post and The Associated Press. Raines is Obama’s advisor on housing. He had to return $15.6 million in Fannie Mae stock options in a settlement negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). “Until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down,” Johnson led Obama’s vice presidential selection committee. Gorelick was accused of conflict-of-interest while serving as a member of the 9/11 Commission in 1995 when she attempted “to establish barriers that barred federal anti-terrorist criminal investigators from accessing various federal records and databases that may have assisted them in their criminal investigations.” Dean and professor of law at Harvard Law School Elena Kagan and others have said Gorelick is Obama’s choice for Attorney General if he wins the election. [Source: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586]

To be fair, Sen. McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis is a former lobbyist for M&M. Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., McCain’s vice presidential search committee head, was a former employee. Questioned about these links, McCain’s economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin responded, “Sen. McCain has favored GSE reform in the past and continues to favor GSE reform. That’s unchanged.” [Source: op.cit.]

Commentator and reporter John Gibson in a recent interview with Heather Nauert put these issues in perspective. He said:

“Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs…Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn’t afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions…Now remember, Obama’s ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy’s [sic] lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem.”
[Source: Ed Morrissey, “McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005; Obama can’t get AIG right,” HotAir, September 17, 2008 http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/]

Those are the facts. You decide which candidate -- Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama -- is most likely to reform our financial system as President.

Democrats Declare Tax War on the Middle Class

The Democratic Party has declared a tax war on the American middle class. Whether Clinton or Obama become their nominee, if the Democrats win, the Middle Class loses. The reason is both candidates have promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts. In the Democratic twisted view of reality, all tax cuts are evil because they only benefit the wealthy, the so-called "fat cats" or "filthy rich."

So, who are these "fat cats" or "filthy rich" who have benefitted from President George W. Bush's tax cuts? Are they only the millionaires and billionaires? Far from it. Instead, they are the vast majority of middle class Americans. Here's the proof from the Tax Foundation.

Note: These figures do not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that these taxpayers may have had to pay. They presume the taxpayers have no dependents and are taking the standard deduction.

Back in 1999, when Bill Clinton was still President, if you were single and making $30,000 per year, you paid $3,158 in federal taxes. Today, under President George W. Bush, you paid $2,756 or 13% less than under Clinton. If you were married and filing jointly with an income of $60,000 per year, under Clinton, you owed $6,585 in federal income taxes. In 2008, under Bush, you owed only $5,513 or 16% less.

If you are a little better off and make $50,000 as a single person, you paid $7,263 in federal income taxes under Clinton, but only $6,606 or 9% less under Bush. A married couple filing with a joint income of $75,000 paid $9,427 under Clinton, but only $7,763 or 18% less under Bush.

For the upper middle class, singles making $75,000 per year paid $14,263 in taxes under Clinton. Under Bush, they pay $12,856 or 10% less. For married couples with a joint income of $125,000, they paid $23,427 under Clinton and $19,463 or 17% less under Bush.

Another way to look at it is when Tax Freedom Day falls. Tax Freedom Day is the day when the average American taxpayer stops working just to pay taxes (local, state, and federal) and starts earning income for personal use. In 2000, Tax Freedom Day was May 3rd, the latest in history. In 2008, we celebrated Tax Freedom Day on April 23rd. Despite the Bush tax cuts, the average American worker pays more in taxes than on food, clothing, and housing combined.

The danger to all American taxpayers, if the Democrats win the White House or continue to control Congress, is the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent. Many taxpayers do not realize that the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to "sunset" in 2011. According to the Tax Foundation's "The Effect of Temporary Tax Relief on a Typical American Family of Four" report,

"If Congress and the President do not act to make permanent the Bush tax cut, known formally as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), a family of four earning the median income can expect its federal income tax bill to increase by $2,681 between 2010 and 2011, a 48.8 percent increase. This will amount to 3.3 percent of the family’s adjusted gross income in that year and roughly equals what the average family of four spends on out-of-pocket health care costs each year."

What will happen if Bush's tax cuts are not made permanent, a move most Democrats oppose? The 10% tax bracket for the lowest income workers will increase to 15%. The child tax credit which will be $1,000 in 2010 will be reduced to $500. And, married couples will once again pay a marriage penalty. Because married couples pay the majority of all federal income taxes, they were the biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts and stand to loose the most if they are sunsetted (eliminated). These are only some of the painful results that are scheduled to occur on January 1, 2011.

The greatest irony is that if the Democrats get their way and do not make the Bush tax cuts permanent, then the top 20% earners will pay a smaller percentage of the total tax liability than they do now with the Bush tax cuts. In other words, the "fat cats" or "filthy rich" will pay 78.7% or 3% less of all federal income taxes under the Democrats' plan than the 81% they currently pay under the Bush plan. Is this why the wealthiest Americans contribute more to Democratic than Republican candidates?

Source: The Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

Other recommended Tax Foundation reports are:
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
The Effect of Temporary Tax Relief on a Typical American Family of Four http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/134.html
The Effect on a Typical Family of Four of Accelerating Scheduled Tax Cuts and Making Temporary Tax Relief Permanent http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/130.html
Impact of Bush Tax Cuts on AMT and Non-AMT Returns for 2007 Under Current Law http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22424.html
Married Couples Pay Majority of Federal Income Taxes, Received Majority of Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/66.html
The Tax Code's Day of Reckoning: January 1, 2011 http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1476.html
Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/323.html
Comparing Popular Tax Deductions to the Bush Tax Cuts http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22447.html

Media Ignores Mike Huckabee

The bias against Mike Huckabee is becoming more evident. After Mitt Romney bowed out of the Republican race, the media anointed John McCain as the presumptive winner of the party's nomination. They have ignored the fact that there are still two running, Huckabee and Ron Paul. Both are vowing to continue.

It takes 1,191 delegates to win the Republican nomination. Now, I can count as well as anyone, and it would be hard for Huckabee and impossible for Paul to overcome McCain's lead. However, this whole primary season has been one of surprises and reversals. According to the Green Papers website (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-HS.phtml), the current delegate count is as of Friday, Feb. 8:

McCain: 683 pledged and 16 unpledged = 699
Huckabee: 156 pledged and 23 unpledged = 179
Romney: 118 pledged and 57 unpledged = 175
Paul: 5 pledged and 16 unpledged = 21

In the Super Tuesday vote, the conservative vote was split. "Twenty-eight percent of Republican voters said they were 'very conservative.' Of them, 45% voted for Mr. Romney and 30% for Mr. Huckabee. Mr. McCain took just 19% of these votes" (The Wall Street Journal, 02/07/08). McCain has not won that conservative base in any of the primaries thus far.

McCain has many issues that make conservative Republicans nervous and Senate votes to explain. Democrats will be able to accuse him of Kerry-style flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts, judicial nominations, and immigration reform. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts but now says he wants them made permanent. He says he will appoint only strict constructionist judges, yet McCain is one of the "Gang of 14" that denied several conservative judges floor votes on their appointments. McCain claims to be pro-life, but he opposes a constitutional amendment to quarantee the right to life to the unborn. Similarly, he opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Most recently, McCain's support of comprehensive immigration reform with its amnesty provisions has turned many conservatives against him.

In his exit, Romney did not endorse McCain. Most of those Romney delegates will be up for grabs by the three remaining candidates. It is far more likely that a majority will be inclined to vote for Huckabee over either McCain or Paul. There are many states that have not held their primaries or caucuses, yet. As Huckabee keeps saying, "It's not over until it's over." David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, said: "If either Romney or Huckabee wins more than their share [in coming states], McCain could end up in trouble." He cautioned, "You wouldn't want to mortgage your house and bet on that happening."

Charlie Crist for Vice President?

John McCain had a coup with the endorsement of Florida's Governor Charlie Crist the weekend before Florida's primary. Crist's and General Schwartzkopf's endorsements may well put McCain over the top Tuesday. Crist, who enjoys an approval rating of over 70% from Florida voters, will influence wavering Republicans. The General will sway Florida's large contingent of retired veterans, as will McCain's own military ties in the state.

If John McCain becomes the Republican Party's presidential nominee, I expect Charlie Crist to be his running mate. Because of Florida's importance as a swing state, there has been speculation that Crist, with his popularity in Florida, would be on any nominee's short list of possible vice presidential candidates. Time will tell if McCain and Crist brokered a deal for v.p. over the weekend.

Rasmussen Reports Poll: Real People Are Polled

In case you wonder if real people are polled by polling companies like Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen, the answer is "yes." I was polled by Rasmussen Reports on Thursday, August 9th. It was an automated telephone poll of "likely voters" that was quite lengthy. The questions ranged from my opinion of President George Bush to the presidential primary candidates to my political ideological bent to homeland security issues. It was fun to participate.

This is the second time I have been polled in a national political poll. Gallup called me a number of years ago. so, real people do answer these polls that the news media thrive on during political season.

Rasmussen Reports is one of the more reliable polls because of their methodology. They came closest to accurately predicting the outcome of the 2006 presidential race between Bush and Kerry. They survey "likely voters" with a balanced weighting to reflect the population. (See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology for details of their poll design )

The results of the Rasmussen poll I participated in were reported on Friday, August 10th. According to Yahoo! News, "this national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 8-9, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070810/pl_rasmussen/wiretapping20070810_1 )

Here are the results of some of the questions I remember and how I answered them. Then, I note the results reported by Rasmussen. (Caution: The questions may not be the exact wording used in the poll; they are how I recall them. Nearly all the possible answers included the option "unsure," which I have not noted below since I did not select that for any of mine. When it comes to politics, I always have an opinion!)

• What is your opinion of the job President Bush is doing? Excellent? Good? Fair? Poor? I answered "Good" as did 21% of respondents. Overall, 39% approve of the President's job performance and 58% disapprove. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval )

• If the Republican primary were held today, who would you vote for? Thompson? Guiliani? Romney? McCain? Other? I answered "other." Then, I was given the names of the "second-tier" candidates. I voted for "Tom Tancredo." The results were Thompson, 19%; Guiliani, 28%; Romney, 12%, McCain, 10%, and 31% either Other or Unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history )

• Do you believe Rudy Guiliani is Conservative? Moderate? Liberal? I answered "Liberal." The poll's results were 30% Conservative, 46% Moderate, and 12% Liberal. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rudy Guiliani? I hold an "unfavorable" opinion as do 42% of other likely Republican voters. Fifty percent are "favorable." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: John Edwards? Rudy Guiliani? Other? I answered "other" because I would vote third party if Guiliani gets the Republican nomination. I will never, ever vote for a pro-choice Republican. In that match-up, Edwards would win 49% to 42%, according to the poll. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: Fred Thompson? John Edwards? Other? I answered "Thompson" as did 39% of all polled. Edwards won 50% of likely voters. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you believe allowing the government to intercept phone calls from foreign suspected terrorists makes America safer? I was included in the 59% of all voters and 79% of Republicans who answered "Yes." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Did Congress vote recently to allow the government to expand its ability to intercept phone calls of foreign terrorist suspects and other electronic communications without warrants? I was also among the 34% who were aware that Congress had approved the legislation allowing this without warrants. Thirty percent incorrectly said Congress rejected it and 36% were unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Does the government worry too much about individual rights or national security too much or is the balance about right? I answered "about right" as did 29% of those polled. Thirty-four percent said it worries too much about individual rights and 27% said it is too concerned about national security. There is marked differences between Republicans and Democrats on this question. Democrats line up 39% that the government is too worried about national security whereas only 12% Republicans said that. Fifty-two percent of Republicans believe that concern for individual rights is excessive versus 12% who say national security concerns are excessive. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Who do you trust more to keep the balance between concerns regarding individual rights and national security needs? Democrats or the President? I said "the President" along with 41% of pollees. Forty-eight percent trust Democrats more. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )