Gallup Week-in-Review

→ All Gallup Headlines | 25 May 2013 | 2:00 am MDT

Congressional Black Caucus Member Shocked to Discover Farrakhan Speech He Was Nodding to was Anti-Semitic and Racist

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 5:59 pm MDT

Krauthammer's Take: Holder's ‘Days Have to Be Numbered’

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 5:03 pm MDT

On Special Report Charles Krauthammer laid out the case for attorney general Eric Holder’s exit from the Obama administration in the not-too-distant future. Citing the president’s charging Holder to investigate the surveillance that Holder himself authorized, Krauthammer observed, “If that’s not meddling, nothing is.”

Krauthammer laid out the possibilities for Holder’s actions, which range from perjury to incompetence, “and this is always the case with Holder: the most benign explanation is incompetence.” “The reason why I think his days have to be numbered,” Krauthammer explained, “is because the president is now involved#...#. This is entirely untenable.”

To the Slaughter

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 4:34 pm MDT

Mark Steyn's weekend column.

Ponnuru: Holder to Investigate . . . Holder

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 4:24 pm MDT

National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru appeared today on CNN’s The Lead, hosted by Jake Tapper, to discuss the AP surveillance scandal. The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza reported today that the Obama administration received approval from a federal judge to keep the Rosen surveillance secret, arguing that the secrecy was necessary because the DOJ might need to return to the tapped e-mail account in the future.

Ponnuru also observed the absurdity of President Obama’s putting attorney general Eric Holder in charge of investigating the DOJ’s overreach -- which new information suggests Holder authorized himself.

He appeared alongside Lizza and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress.

Need to Know Welcomes Robby George

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 4:20 pm MDT

This week on Need to Know, Jay and I welcome the great Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. We discuss his new book Conscience and Its Enemies and then consider the scandal-laden week just past. Is Obama Nixonian, or something worse? Does the messianism of his presidency encourage corner-cutting, even contempt for law? How much should conservatives care about Eric Holder’s sweeping investigations into the press? We note with wry amusement Charlie Rangel’s outrage at the IRS, and examine the possible motives of other Democrats.

I endorse human cloning.

Robby and Jay disagree about whether Romney and Ryan deserve censure for failing to campaign on questions like the birth-control mandate, life, and marriage.

We all agree that Republicans should use their power in the House to the fullest -- issue subpoenas, grant use immunity to witnesses, assign lawyers to ask questions at the hearings, and avoid the word “impeachment.” The overriding goal should be to get the truth, not to see people go to jail.

Finally, a Need to Know first: Our closing music is Robby himself playing the banjo. A Renaissance man! 

Re: Health Costs and the Budget

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 3:38 pm MDT

Yuval has a fine post below detailing the flaws with the latest progressive narrative about fiscal policy: that growth in government health-care spending is slowing down, and, therefore, that entitlement reform is no longer necessary. The more aggressive advocates of this narrative, such as HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, double down by arguing that Obamacare is responsible for the slowdown.

Here is a chart I put together for a recent talk at Yale Medical School, in which I compared growth in U.S. health spending, growth in Medicare spending, growth in Medicare per-enrollee spending (because the retirement of the Baby Boomers is leading to a rise in enrollment), and growth in spending across the industrialized OECD countries.

What you'll notice in the chart is that growth in spending across the industrialized world has come down significantly in the last several years, as represented by the black line. Indeed, in 2010 and 2011, growth in U.S. spending — whether you look at overall spending or just Medicare — is higher than the OECD average.

The bottom line: The most likely explanation of recent trends in health spending is that they are a reflection of economic conditions in the developed world. Other factors may play a role, but we certainly can't be sure.

— Avik Roy is a columnist at NRO. You can follow him on Twitter at @avik.

Tesla Repays Its DOE Loan

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 3:12 pm MDT

Yesterday, we learned that Tesla, an electric-car company, repaid its DOE-guaranteed loan nine years ahead of schedule. Good for Tesla and good for taxpayers. However, this goes to the core of my problem with the DOE loan-guarantee programs. As I have said over and over again, while the demise of Solyndra and Fisker Automotive and the loss of millions of dollar on taxpayers' money is frustrating, the real problem with these loan programs is that the most of the money goes to companies that could have gotten capital on their own.

Tesla, for instance, managed without the help from the federal government for the first nine years of its existence. And who has any doubt that NRG Energy, the energy giant and the biggest recipient of the DOE's 1705 loan program, could have gotten capital without the help of the government? I don't. The same is true for the second-biggest recipient of the 1705 loan, Prologis. Ditto Congentrix, which received a $90 million loan guarantee from DOE even though the company is back by Goldman Sachs. You may also remember that, when SolarCity was approved for a DOE loan but was later denied (I suspect because of closer scrutiny over the political connections of DOE-loan recipients in the aftermath of Solyndra), the company then proceeded to get Bank of America to lend the company the money. 

What am I upset about, you ask? So the private sector doesn't need the government to lend money to these companies, but what is the harm? If the loans are repaid or if the loans are low-risk to taxpayers, you'd think the program is a great idea.

First, I believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of lending money to private companies or encouraging banks to lend money to companies -- whether the money will be repaid or not. That's absolutely not the role of the federal government. Besides, there is something unseemly when so much in government subsidies goes to produce a car that only a few Americans can afford. (So far, Tesla's main product ranges in price from $62,400 to $87,400 -- including a $7,500 federal tax credit, and depending on the states other tax credits can apply).

But more important, the government meddling in the lending business introduce serious distortions and also destroys the level playing field by creating unfair competition for the companies that are not getting a federal guarantee. First, the companies that benefit from the government guarantee get much better terms than they would get without the government's help. They get lower interest rates than they would on their own and than their competitors will get, and they get to borrow more money than they would on their own and than their competitors can get. Further, the loan guarantee from the federal government opens the door to many other subsidy sources, from state governments and elsewhere. Finally, the government guarantee attracts private-sector capital that those who don't get the guarantee won't have access to. These distortions are important and unfair. Here are some examples of how that works:

Eric Lipton of The New York Times reported in November 2011 that green giant NRG Energy obtained a $1.2 billion guarantee to build its California Valley Solar Ranch “at the exceptionally low rate of about 3.5 percent compared with the 7 percent that executives said they would otherwise have had to pay.” The lower rate saves the company $205 million over the life of the loan, Lipton explained. The company has also received two other packages of federally backed loans totaling $2.6 billion. And the deal gets even sweeter: Section 1705 guarantees 80 percent of a project’s total cost, a much higher portion than private banks usually agree to finance. 

State backing confers subtler advantages as well. In 2010 the Government Accountability Office concluded that federal subsidies signal to investors that a company is relatively safe, a perception that helps attract additional private capital. During a July 18 statement before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Craig Witsoe, former CEO of Abound Solar, one of the Section 1705 companies that recently went under, explained that his company managed to collect an additional $350 million from private investors after it had secured its government guarantee. Much of that funding could be the product of the security that the federal support implied.

Section 1705 loan guarantees are not the only subsidies available to alternative energy firms. NRG received more than three dozen grants under the 2009 stimulus. NRG is also eligible for money from the Treasury Department’s Section 1603 grant program, which provides up to 30 percent of a project’s cost in cash. Eric Lipton calculated that the company would be eligible for a $430 million cash payment on its $1.2 billion Section 1705 project once the construction of the California Valley Solar Ranch is completed. NRG also could receive additional cash under the Section 1603 for its other two 1705 projects. 

These federal goodies are often duplicated at the state and local levels. Lipton noted that “under a state law passed to encourage the construction of more solar projects, NRG will not have to pay property taxes to San Luis Obispo County on its solar panels, saving it an estimated $14 million a year.” California offers depreciation tax breaks for renewable energy plants, reducing NRG’s corporate income taxes by $110 million. 

What is true for the 1705 loan program is true for all other loan-guarantee programs. In other words, getting a loan guarantee by the federal government gives a considerable advantage to the company receiving the loan over its competition. This is why many companies that could get capital on their own are eager to get their hands on government-subsidized loans. In fact Elon Musk said that much about the loan Tesla received from the government:

Elon Musk had something to clarify. He believes government subsidies are usually bad, except when they are good.

Tesla Motors didn’t need the federal government loan to go public or to survive, said Musk, chairman, product architect and chief executive of the electric-car company.

Musk jumped in to comment on government subsidies even before the topic was raised by Alan Murray, who moderated the opening session of The Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara on Wednesday. Musk said that generally he doesn’t believe government subsidies are good, but in some cases they do help.

In the case of Tesla, the $465 million loan that was awarded to the company by the Department of Energy in January 2010 helped the company stage a successful initial public offering the same month that another company backed by a federal loan, Solyndra, pulled its initial public offering. Musk said Tesla’s IPO would have happened anyway, though “it wouldn’t have been as good.”

In the end, we are all better off that Tesla has reimbursed its loan guarantee, and certainly the company should be commended for it. Tesla, I am told, produces fantastic cars and, as long as consumers are willing to pay for them, it should be fine. However, if people aren't willing to buy the car, there is no reason for taxpayers to keep the company afloat to sell cars that taxpayers don't want to buy at the price it is sold for. Ideally, the company will renounce the many tax credits and other subsidies it received for its car and fly on its own. I also hope that, in the future, the federal government will get out of the private-sector lending business and stop subsidizing companies of any sort, whether green-energy ones or oil-and-gas firms.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on Tesla today.

London Police Took 20 Min to Respond to Muslim Beheading, But Quickly Arrest 85-Year-Old British Woman for Islamophobia

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 3:10 pm MDT

Justice asked judge to keep Fox reporter in the dark over tracked email

→ News | 24 May 2013 | 2:54 pm MDT

Justice argued in 2010 that the traditional 30-day notice period did not apply to Fox's James Rosen.

More to Read

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 2:50 pm MDT

David Pryce-Jones on the Woolwich attack.

Menendez: Immigration bill doesn’t have votes to pass Senate

→ News | 24 May 2013 | 2:46 pm MDT

Sen. Robert Menendez said Friday that the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill doesn’t have enough votes to pass the Senate.

New Gallup Survey: Mixed News for Social Conservatives

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 2:33 pm MDT

This week Gallup released their annual survey that asks Americans to rate the morality of various social issues. Overall, the news was not particularly good for social conservatives. On a variety of issues relating to sex and marriage, Americans are becoming more social liberal. Since 2001, a significantly smaller percentage of Americans are morally opposed to gay and lesbian relations, divorce, and sex between unmarried individuals. There was even a seven-percentage-point increase in the number of Americans who thought polygamy was morally acceptable.

However, the news was not all bad. Opposition to pornography held relatively constant. The report also indicated that since 2001 a smaller percentage of Americans find physician-assisted suicide morally acceptable. Furthermore, moral opposition to abortion has remained constant since 2001.

Opinion trends on abortion are interesting. Since 2001, Gallup polls have shown that opinions toward the morality of abortion have remained fairly constant. However, the percentage of Americans willing to identify themselves as “pro-life” has increased. Six of the last nine Gallup polls taken since 2009 have shown that Americans are more likely to describe themselves as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice.” The fact that more Americans are translating their moral unease about abortion to political and legal opposition toward abortion is a positive development -- and is a nice testament to the good work of the pro-life movement

— Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan – Dearborn, a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New.

Marking the World Day of Prayer for the Church in China

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 2:24 pm MDT

A year ago today, when I met with some of the 80,000 underground Catholics of Wenzhou, China, they were rebounding from serious hardship. Just months before, authorities had detained their bishop, Peter Shao Zhumin, and chancellor, Paul Jiang Sunian. The authorities pressured the two men to register with the Catholic Patriotic Association, submitting to state control. They even took Shao on a mandatory fieldtrip to Sichuan Province, sitting him down with government-appointed bishop of Leshan, whom the Vatican considers illegitimate. But despite government pressure, both the bishop and the chancellor of Wenzhou refused to yield, and they were both eventually released.

As we gathered at the “underground” Qiao Tau Mang Catholic church — a conspicuous five-story structure built beside a government building — the Catholics were celebrating their leaders’ return. But more than that, they were happy because it was the World Day of Prayer for the Church in China, held each May 24.

If the Communist government had its druthers, there would be no religion practiced in Chinese borders. But Maoist efforts to eradicate faith failed, so Beijing instead tightly controls it through a religious bureaucracy. Even so, many Christians choose to worship outside the official system. These underground Christians are subjected to periodic crackdowns and religious persecution.

Because Protestants don’t adhere to rigid hierarchy, they’re more flexible in their response to government control. House churches sprout up, and it’s tough for the government to even keep track of the new pastors.

But the Catholic Church’s top-down, orderly structure often makes it an easy target.

Government control of Catholics continued this year, most notably in Shanghai. Bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin announced in December that he was leaving the Catholic Patriotic Association, which governs state-sanctioned Church activity. Since then, he’s been placed under house arrest.

As Chinese Catholics gathered today, Ma's plight reflected their own. The Church in China is divided, as worshippers in the underground and official churches try to cope with government intervention in their worship. The one-child policy, as well as government closure of seminaries, has resulted in a priest shortage. And persecution continues.

The World Day of Prayer for the Church in China is a high point of Catholics’ year because, many told me, it’s the only day they feel connected to the global church.

Health Costs and the Budget

→ National Review Online - The Corner | 24 May 2013 | 2:19 pm MDT

Having been away last week and part of this one, I’ve been catching up on my favorite blogs, and this now–almost ancient post by Jonathan Chait seems worth a word (with apologies in advance for a long post).

Chait is a sharp and often knowledgeable commentator, I've learned a lot from him, but in this case he evinces what strikes me as a significant and common misreading of some important trends.

I’ll freely admit that his post first caught my eye because part of it is a rather bizarre critique of my own work. Chait, for instance, accuses me of arguing that our current fiscal difficulties are a function of a debt crisis even as he quotes me saying the opposite. He argues I support austerity by citing an essay in which I argue against it. He accuses me of urging Republicans away from “half-measures” and compromise because I opposed the particular counterproductive price controls the president has proposed for Medicare — but I’ve often argued in praise of half measures, including on Medicare in particular, just not in favor of worsening a bad situation.

But none of that is your problem. The problem is Chait’s larger argument: that the concerns of those of us who urge policy reforms to avoid a federal fiscal catastrophe have been proven wrong by recent developments — that, as his title puts it, “the facts are in and Paul Ryan is wrong.”

His first point on that front assumes that what Paul Ryan or I or others on the right argue for is a version of European austerity, which it plainly isn’t, and that conservative fiscal worries were based on the particular finding of a particular paper by two Harvard economists that has been shown to have had some data errors. That latter notion is surely among the more curious liberal hallucinations of the past few years.

But Chait’s more serious point is that the burden of health costs, which I at least do take to be central to the fiscal prospects of the federal government, is dramatically abating, and therefore that the projections on which the worriers base their worries are wrong. In fact, he seems to have taken this point to be so powerful and important that he repeated it a few days later in an attack on the Wall Street Journal’s long-running critique of Obamacare.

In describing recent trends in health costs in both posts, Chait repeatedly refers and links to this New York Times article, which discussed some of the trends and their possible causes and implications. The narrative he takes from that story is that conservative worries expressed in the early Obama years were based on assumptions developed at a time when health costs seemed to be soaring, but that we now know that cost inflation has been slowing since 2009, not just because of the recession, and it looks like the slowdown could persist — perhaps in part because of Obamacare.

The core of the problem with this tale is probably the fault of how the Times story itself lays out the matter. It describes the basic recent trends this way:

Between 2009 and 2011, total health spending grew at the lowest annual pace in the last five decades, at just 3.9 percent a year, although rising out-of-pocket costs have hit millions of families. In contrast, between 2000 and 2007, those annual growth figures ranged between 6.2 and 9.7 percent, according to government figures.

Here are the figures from which the Times draws its description — the official HHS figures for year-over-year health cost inflation from 2000 to 2011:

One way to describe this trend is to say, as the Times does, that health inflation ranged from 6.2 percent to 9.7 percent between 2000 and 2007 and was at 3.9 percent from 2009 to 2011. Another is to say that a major slowdown in cost inflation began in 2003 and ended in (or at least appears to have paused since) 2009. It had not reversed as of 2011, and that’s very important. That’s what the discussion about the effects of the recession and various other factors in the Obama years is about. But it’s not about the original cause of the slowdown, which began in dramatic fashion five years before the recession.

That’s part of what makes the role of Obamacare in the Chait narrative so odd. If we have to attribute the deceleration of cost growth to a federal law, the most plausible candidate given this data would seem to be the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which enabled a vast expansion of catastrophic-coverage insurance with health savings accounts and created a premium-support system to provide prescription drugs in Medicare. And indeed, the Times story suggests that greater consumer cost-sharing has played a part, and the Congressional Budget Office, in explaining its recent downward re-estimate of near-term Medicare costs, noted that “the largest downward revision in the current baseline is for spending for Medicare’s Part D (prescription drugs).” As a former Bush White House health staffer, I’d love to make that argument, but I’m sure the story is not nearly so simple or convenient. But the case for Obamacare playing a role in slowing cost growth is far, far harder to justify. Was it already working its magic on expectations a decade ago? Did it bring the slowdown to an end? Prevent a reversal? Isn’t none of the above the most likely answer given the data we have, not to mention the fact that the law doesn’t really take effect until next year?

It should be noted, too, that the slowing trend of the Bush years is part of a longer-term slowdown that has been going on, with a few significant reversals, since the impossibly large annual growth figures of the early 1980s. Here’s annual growth in national health expenditures since 1980, from HHS:

It’s not particularly clear to me what Chait’s kind of analysis wants to make of this pattern, especially as it relates to the federal budget, which is the point he’s trying to argue. After all, the nature of federal health spending (and the relation between annual growth and overall scope) means that while this has been going on with annual health-spending growth, the pattern of federal health spending in relation to the economy has looked like this:

I’m not actually suggesting that juxtaposing these two charts makes any point in particular. I’m just suggesting that it means Chait’s use of the former data to make a point about the latter doesn’t really make sense. The very high rates of growth in the early period of the first chart means that you’re growing a much larger pie in the latter period of that chart, which means that in order to make the growth of health costs sustainable you need a dramatic efficiency improvement in health financing combined with stronger economic growth. That’s roughly what conservatives are arguing for, and we think that if you don’t have that then the federal government will be in very serious fiscal trouble. Nothing about the facts of the past few years suggests otherwise, and nothing about Obamacare suggests it can achieve these goals — quite the contrary.

Chait’s argument seems to imply that the sorts of CBO projections we worry about were made in the midst of a cost explosion and assumed it would go on forever. But they were made in the midst of a dramatic slowdown in health inflation and made what seem to have been quite sensible assumptions about the trajectory of health spending. The Obama administration has made rosier but not fundamentally different assumptions. HHS expects annual health-spending inflation to average 6.1 percent over the next decade; it has averaged 5.9 percent over the last decade. I think their projection is on the low side, particularly because it vastly understates Medicare spending (the latest projection report deadpans its expectation of a gargantuan “scheduled 30.9-percent physician payment rate reduction mandated under the Sustainable Growth Rate Formula” which obviously has no chance of happening) and because it understates the inflationary effects of Obamacare. But whether I’m right or the administration is, or CBO, or the scholars cited in the Times, Chait’s story doesn’t hold up — especially as a case for doing nothing about health-entitlement costs.

And that, in the end, is what his argument is all about. He wants to suggest that conservative arguments for fundamental health-care and entitlement reform are based on the notion that costs are now exploding and that if they aren’t then those arguments fall apart. But no one argues the peak of the crisis is already here. The point is that it’s coming, and we ought to do what we can in advance. Chait doesn’t even really try to argue against that point. Like the liberal fiscal deniers more generally, he says we shouldn’t think about any of this now and implies that maybe we should sometime later when a huge crisis is right upon us, though it’s far from clear what kind of action he would find acceptable even then. This is one irony of our entitlement debate: the two sides disagree less than you might think, they’re just talking about different things. The Left, in essence, says we don’t need to do anything right now so we need not worry, while the Right says we’re eventually going to have to do something so we might as well figure out what. The difference between them is about whether it makes sense to prepare for the future.

The aging of our society, combined with the character of Obamacare, offer some strong reasons to expect that health-spending growth will begin to rise again in the near term and in any case that (because of the demographic facts especially) in the decade after this one we will confront an immense and unprecedented entitlement funding challenge. Medicare, in particular, requires fundamental reform to be made sustainable. And the most recent relative slowdown of costs in that program suggests a path for such reform. The prescription drug program most responsible for CBO’s mildly improving outlook on Medicare spending is a premium support plan of exactly the sort that the House Republican budget proposes for the larger program. And the economic logic behind it is of exactly the sort that is behind some of the key conservative alternatives to Obamacare.

Those reforms could help constrain both national health spending and federal health spending, and they would be very good for growth, without shirking the government’s obligation to the needy and the elderly. That’s the difficult combination we need, and every passing year of denial and distortion makes it more difficult to achieve such reforms without major disruptions in the lives of vulnerable people.

Maybe the growth of health costs will start slowing again. Maybe Obamacare will not significantly increase it. Maybe Medicare will somehow be fine. Maybe. The facts are not in, but the prospects don’t look good.

Huffington Post UK Director Who Called Non-Muslims Animals, Claims Islam is Not Hateful

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 11:17 am MDT

Poll: Nearly four in 10 say sequester hurt them personally

→ News | 24 May 2013 | 10:51 am MDT

Some 37 percent of Americans report being personally impacted by the sequester, and half that group say the harm has been "major," according to a new poll released Friday by ABC News and The Washington Post.

That's up substantially from the 25 percent of Americans who reported feeling the impact of the $80 billion across-the-board cuts implemented after Congress failed to strike a budget deal.

Americans also disapprove of the sequester at a higher rate, with 56 percent of Americans saying they disapprove of the move and only 35 percent backing the cuts. Of those who say the sequester has caused them serious harm, eight in 10 oppose the sequester; two-thirds of those reporting slight harm echo that feeling. 

London Beheader’s Imam: “When You Meet [Westerners], Slice their Own Necks.”

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 10:40 am MDT

Possible Hijacking Attempt on Flight from Pakistan to UK

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 10:11 am MDT

Sen. Murphy loses 6 pounds on food stamp challenge

→ News | 24 May 2013 | 8:34 am MDT

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has lost six pounds, but in an unconventional way.

The freshmen senator has been on the food stamp challenge, where he lives on $4.80 a day.

The lawmaker has been tweeting about it, writing about his weight loss on Friday morning.

Living this wk on $4.80/day food budget. Got on scale this morning - lost 6 lbs in 4 days. #foodstampchallenge

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) May 24, 2013

Murphy is taking part of the weeklong SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) Challenge, which encourages participants to live like millions of low-income Americans live, on an average of $4 a day.

Roger Ailes: Obama administration efforts to intimidate Fox will fail

→ News | 24 May 2013 | 8:16 am MDT

Ailes: “We will not allow a climate of press intimidation ... to frighten any of us away from the truth.”

London Beheader Fell in With Muslim Gang, Turned to Drug Dealing and Jihad

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 8:05 am MDT

JFK: “Fascism?’ The right thing for Germany.”

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 7:56 am MDT

Why is Kerry Pandering to Turkey?

→ FrontPage Magazine | 24 May 2013 | 7:56 am MDT

Fewer Americans Identify as Economic Conservatives in 2013

→ All Gallup Headlines | 24 May 2013 | 2:00 am MDT

South Asians Heavily Reliant on Informal Money Transfers

→ All Gallup Headlines | 24 May 2013 | 12:00 am MDT

The London Horror and Jihad Denial

→ FrontPage Magazine | 23 May 2013 | 10:40 pm MDT

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out (III)

→ FrontPage Magazine | 23 May 2013 | 10:38 pm MDT

Americans Sour on IRS, Rate CDC and FBI Most Positively

→ All Gallup Headlines | 23 May 2013 | 2:45 pm MDT

Three in Four U.S. Workers Plan to Work Past Retirement Age

→ All Gallup Headlines | 23 May 2013 | 2:00 am MDT

Older U.S. Federal Employees Use Their Strengths Less

→ All Gallup Headlines | 23 May 2013 | 2:00 am MDT

Americans' Outlook for U.S. Moral Values Still Pessimistic

→ All Gallup Headlines | 22 May 2013 | 2:00 am MDT

Pensions Are Top Income Source for Wealthier U.S. Retirees

→ All Gallup Headlines | 21 May 2013 | 11:15 am MDT

U.S. Economic Confidence Reaches Five-Year Weekly High

→ All Gallup Headlines | 21 May 2013 | 6:30 am MDT

In U.S., Record-High Say Gay, Lesbian Relations Morally OK

→ All Gallup Headlines | 20 May 2013 | 1:15 pm MDT