Washington, D.C. (November 5, 2013) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) congratulates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on his landslide reelection. Christie demonstrated an ability to win broad-based support, including strong bipartisan support in the Jewish community.

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "Governor Christie has brought significant, positive change to New Jersey, including education reform, tax relief, and pension reform. He did it by reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats in the state legislature for the benefit of the people of New Jersey. Democrats in Washington could learn something from the success of that cooperation in Trenton."

He continued, "Under Governor Christie's leadership, New Jersey has demonstrated that Republican ideas work. Today, the voters thanked him by choosing him to continue to lead the state. We commend the Governor on bringing people together to improve the lives of the citizens of New Jersey and we warmly congratulate him on winning reelection."

Washington, D.C. (November 5, 2013) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) congratulates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on his landslide reelection. Christie demonstrated an ability to win broad-based support, including strong bipartisan support in the Jewish community.

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "Governor Christie has brought significant, positive change to New Jersey, including education reform, tax relief, and pension reform. He did it by reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats in the state legislature for the benefit of the people of New Jersey. Democrats in Washington could learn something from the success of that cooperation in Trenton."

He continued, "Under Governor Christie's leadership, New Jersey has demonstrated that Republican ideas work. Today, the voters thanked him by choosing him to continue to lead the state. We commend the Governor on bringing people together to improve the lives of the citizens of New Jersey and we warmly congratulate him on winning reelection."

Wednesday, July 17, 2013
By: RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks

When President Obama came into office in 2009, he had big plans: close Gitmo, strengthen the economy, cut unemployment, make friends with the Muslim world, make peace in the Middle East, and bring about the day when “the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal…”

Many of those plans, including the ones about making friends with the Muslim world and bringing peace to the Mideast, failed miserably in Obama’s first term. His second term is looking pretty tough, too. So like many an embattled president, Obama has called his old-time friends to the White House, to circle the wagons and advise him at the highest levels of government.

There are half a dozen old friends of the President who became Cabinet members, were nominated to a Cabinet post, or were chosen to be a top advisor in his second term. Some of these names were too controversial to put forward for Senate confirmation before, but here they are today, to reassure the President that his early ideas were the right ones and to “have his back” in the policy fights to come as he tries to flesh out his administration’s legacy. The record of each one’s relationships with Pres. Obama and especially his or her record on Israel and Middle East issues raise serious concerns.

Robert Malley
Robert Malley is reportedly a frontrunner for the post of deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs and special advisor on Syria. Malley went to Harvard Law School with Barack Obama. He served in the Clinton administration and was a member of Clinton’s Mideast policy team during the Camp David talks in 2000. Malley blamed Israel for the lack of success of those talks. Later he acted, in the Obama presidential campaign’s words, as an informal advisor to candidate Obama. The campaign severed ties with Malley in May 2008 after the British Times newspaper reported that Malley had met directly with representatives of Hamas, a group on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Malley has long advocated for bringing Hamas into the Mideast peace process. Malley served on J Street’s Advisory Council.

Samantha Power
Samantha Power has written and worked extensively on human rights and genocide, which brought her to the attention of then-Senator Barack Obama. She was a senior advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign until March 2008, when she resigned in the backlash to having called Hillary Clinton “a monster” in a public interview. She joined Obama’s State Department transition team and became a special assistant to the President on the National Security Council regarding human rights. She was the first head of the President’s Atrocities Prevention Board, which was silent on the violence in Syria and in South Sudan, and other conflicts. She has made several controversial anti-Israel remarks in the past. She was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, replacing Susan Rice in that post.

Susan Rice
Susan Rice served on the National Security Council under President Clinton and later went to the Brookings Institution. She was a senior policy advisor to presidential candidate Obama and was on his transition advisory board. President Obama restored the position of ambassador to the United Nations to a Cabinet level post when he chose her for that job in 2008. Rice was a controversial ambassador who was criticized for missing important U.N. sessions. In an official statement explaining the U.S. veto on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, she said, “Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity… Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.” Rice famously lied on the Sunday morning talk shows about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She became the symbol for the administration’s evasions and lies about what happened that night. In the subsequent uproar, she withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State. President Obama has now named her national security advisor, a post that does not require Senate confirmation.

Chuck Hagel
Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama became friends as members of the U.S. Senate. As a veteran Senator, Hagel advised freshman Senator Obama on various issues. He served as an advisor to presidential candidate Obama. After retiring from his Senate seat in 2008, Hagel entered academia. Pres. Obama nominated him to be Secretary of Defense in January 2013. Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran caused the RJC and several other major groups to protest his nomination in the strongest terms. Hagel reportedly called the State Department “an adjunct to the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office” and said, “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up [in Congress].” Hagel opposed sanctions against Iran and called for direct negotiations with the Iranian regime. He has also advocated for direct talks with Hamas and Hezbollah in the past. All but four Senate Republicans opposed his Defense nomination, but it was approved with unanimous Democrat backing in February.

Michael Froman
Michael Froman went to Harvard Law School with Barack Obama and was on the law review with him. He advised then-Senator Obama on economic policy and was central in helping presidential candidate Obama develop his economic team. Froman served as national security advisor for economic affairs. He was nominated to be U.S. Trade Representative in May 2013 and was confirmed in June.

Penny Pritzker
Penny Pritkzer is an old Chicago hand, part of a very influential family known for having owned the Hyatt hotel chain, the TransUnion credit bureau, and the Royal Caribbean cruise line, among other prominent holdings. Pritzker chaired the national finance committee for the Obama campaign in 2008. Thanks to her business connections and strong support for Obama, she raised the millions of dollars that helped get him elected President. She was considered a top choice for Secretary of Commerce in 2009, but was involved at that time in the breakup of Pritzker family-owned Superior Bank, in the subprime home mortgage meltdown. It was thought too controversial to put forward the owner of a large failed bank as a possible commerce secretary. She remained in the finance world until President Obama tapped her for commerce secretary in May 2013. She was confirmed on June 25.

In a second term, Presidents feel they have “more flexibility” to do what they want, whether the voters would approve or not. In this instance, President Obama has nominated some people who were too hot to nominate in 2009, but whose ideas and past statements are no longer a political issue. Some of those ideas – like Robert Malley’s take on the peace process, Susan Rice’s thoughts on Israeli policies, and Chuck Hagel’s views on Iran – raise particular concern about the trajectory of Obama administration policies in the next three years.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013
By: RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks

When President Obama came into office in 2009, he had big plans: close Gitmo, strengthen the economy, cut unemployment, make friends with the Muslim world, make peace in the Middle East, and bring about the day when “the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal…”

Many of those plans, including the ones about making friends with the Muslim world and bringing peace to the Mideast, failed miserably in Obama’s first term. His second term is looking pretty tough, too. So like many an embattled president, Obama has called his old-time friends to the White House, to circle the wagons and advise him at the highest levels of government.

There are half a dozen old friends of the President who became Cabinet members, were nominated to a Cabinet post, or were chosen to be a top advisor in his second term. Some of these names were too controversial to put forward for Senate confirmation before, but here they are today, to reassure the President that his early ideas were the right ones and to “have his back” in the policy fights to come as he tries to flesh out his administration’s legacy. The record of each one’s relationships with Pres. Obama and especially his or her record on Israel and Middle East issues raise serious concerns.

Robert Malley
Robert Malley is reportedly a frontrunner for the post of deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs and special advisor on Syria. Malley went to Harvard Law School with Barack Obama. He served in the Clinton administration and was a member of Clinton’s Mideast policy team during the Camp David talks in 2000. Malley blamed Israel for the lack of success of those talks. Later he acted, in the Obama presidential campaign’s words, as an informal advisor to candidate Obama. The campaign severed ties with Malley in May 2008 after the British Times newspaper reported that Malley had met directly with representatives of Hamas, a group on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Malley has long advocated for bringing Hamas into the Mideast peace process. Malley served on J Street’s Advisory Council.

Samantha Power
Samantha Power has written and worked extensively on human rights and genocide, which brought her to the attention of then-Senator Barack Obama. She was a senior advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign until March 2008, when she resigned in the backlash to having called Hillary Clinton “a monster” in a public interview. She joined Obama’s State Department transition team and became a special assistant to the President on the National Security Council regarding human rights. She was the first head of the President’s Atrocities Prevention Board, which was silent on the violence in Syria and in South Sudan, and other conflicts. She has made several controversial anti-Israel remarks in the past. She was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, replacing Susan Rice in that post.

Susan Rice
Susan Rice served on the National Security Council under President Clinton and later went to the Brookings Institution. She was a senior policy advisor to presidential candidate Obama and was on his transition advisory board. President Obama restored the position of ambassador to the United Nations to a Cabinet level post when he chose her for that job in 2008. Rice was a controversial ambassador who was criticized for missing important U.N. sessions. In an official statement explaining the U.S. veto on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, she said, “Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity… Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.” Rice famously lied on the Sunday morning talk shows about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She became the symbol for the administration’s evasions and lies about what happened that night. In the subsequent uproar, she withdrew her name from consideration for Secretary of State. President Obama has now named her national security advisor, a post that does not require Senate confirmation.

Chuck Hagel
Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama became friends as members of the U.S. Senate. As a veteran Senator, Hagel advised freshman Senator Obama on various issues. He served as an advisor to presidential candidate Obama. After retiring from his Senate seat in 2008, Hagel entered academia. Pres. Obama nominated him to be Secretary of Defense in January 2013. Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran caused the RJC and several other major groups to protest his nomination in the strongest terms. Hagel reportedly called the State Department “an adjunct to the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office” and said, “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up [in Congress].” Hagel opposed sanctions against Iran and called for direct negotiations with the Iranian regime. He has also advocated for direct talks with Hamas and Hezbollah in the past. All but four Senate Republicans opposed his Defense nomination, but it was approved with unanimous Democrat backing in February.

Michael Froman
Michael Froman went to Harvard Law School with Barack Obama and was on the law review with him. He advised then-Senator Obama on economic policy and was central in helping presidential candidate Obama develop his economic team. Froman served as national security advisor for economic affairs. He was nominated to be U.S. Trade Representative in May 2013 and was confirmed in June.

Penny Pritzker
Penny Pritkzer is an old Chicago hand, part of a very influential family known for having owned the Hyatt hotel chain, the TransUnion credit bureau, and the Royal Caribbean cruise line, among other prominent holdings. Pritzker chaired the national finance committee for the Obama campaign in 2008. Thanks to her business connections and strong support for Obama, she raised the millions of dollars that helped get him elected President. She was considered a top choice for Secretary of Commerce in 2009, but was involved at that time in the breakup of Pritzker family-owned Superior Bank, in the subprime home mortgage meltdown. It was thought too controversial to put forward the owner of a large failed bank as a possible commerce secretary. She remained in the finance world until President Obama tapped her for commerce secretary in May 2013. She was confirmed on June 25.

In a second term, Presidents feel they have “more flexibility” to do what they want, whether the voters would approve or not. In this instance, President Obama has nominated some people who were too hot to nominate in 2009, but whose ideas and past statements are no longer a political issue. Some of those ideas – like Robert Malley’s take on the peace process, Susan Rice’s thoughts on Israeli policies, and Chuck Hagel’s views on Iran – raise particular concern about the trajectory of Obama administration policies in the next three years.

Governor Scott Signs into Law Historical, Cultural, and Business Items Important to Floridians and the Jewish Community

Boca Raton, FL (May 31, 2013) -- Today the Republican Jewish Coalition of Florida and Board of Directors member Ambassador Mel Sembler applauded Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature for completing a budget that included initiatives important to Florida's Jewish community and all Floridians.

The following statement was released:

On behalf of the members of the Republican Jewish Coalition, I applaud Governor Rick Scott and his partners in the Florida Legislature who included three key items in the final budget signed into law. The Florida Families First Budget includes:

• $950,000 for the Florida Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg, to continue the important mission of educating our youth to remember and respect the Holocaust, its victims and survivors.

• $1 million for Space Florida R&D which will be matched dollar-for-dollar by Israel, to support innovative research for the economic benefit of both nations.

• $100,000 to establish a Tel Aviv office of Enterprise Florida. This will provide an Enterprise Florida location in Israel, focused on facilitating joint economic development between Florida and Israel.

These three items benefit all Floridians and are important to the Jewish community. They demonstrate a deep understanding for the struggle of the Jewish people and an appreciation of Florida's unique position in the business and cultural alliance between the United States and Israel.

Governor Scott Signs into Law Historical, Cultural, and Business Items Important to Floridians and the Jewish Community

Boca Raton, FL (May 31, 2013) -- Today the Republican Jewish Coalition of Florida and Board of Directors member Ambassador Mel Sembler applauded Governor Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature for completing a budget that included initiatives important to Florida's Jewish community and all Floridians.

The following statement was released:

On behalf of the members of the Republican Jewish Coalition, I applaud Governor Rick Scott and his partners in the Florida Legislature who included three key items in the final budget signed into law. The Florida Families First Budget includes:

• $950,000 for the Florida Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg, to continue the important mission of educating our youth to remember and respect the Holocaust, its victims and survivors.

• $1 million for Space Florida R&D which will be matched dollar-for-dollar by Israel, to support innovative research for the economic benefit of both nations.

• $100,000 to establish a Tel Aviv office of Enterprise Florida. This will provide an Enterprise Florida location in Israel, focused on facilitating joint economic development between Florida and Israel.

These three items benefit all Floridians and are important to the Jewish community. They demonstrate a deep understanding for the struggle of the Jewish people and an appreciation of Florida's unique position in the business and cultural alliance between the United States and Israel.

When members of the Democratic Party booed the inclusion of God and Jerusalem in their party platform this year, I thought of my parents.

They would have been astounded.

The immigrant family in which I grew up was, in the matter of politics, typical of the Jews of Boston in the 1930s and '40s. Of the two major parties, the Democrats were in those days the more supportive of Jewish causes.

Indeed, only liberal politicians campaigned in our underprivileged neighborhood. Boston's Republicans, insofar as we knew them, were remote, wealthy elites ("Boston Brahmins"), some of whose fancy country clubs didn't accept Jews.

It therefore went without saying that we were Democrats. Like most Jews around the country, being Democrat was part of our identity, as much a feature of our collective personality as our religion.

So why did I leave the party?

My critics nowadays like to claim it's because I got wealthy or because I didn't want to pay taxes or because of some other conservative caricature. No, the truth is the Democratic Party has changed in ways that no longer fit with someone of my upbringing.

One obvious example is the party's new attitude toward Israel. A sobering Gallup poll from last March asked: "Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?" Barely 53% of Democrats chose Israel, the sole liberal democracy in the region. By contrast, an overwhelming 78% of Republicans sympathized with Israel.

Nowhere was this change in Democratic sympathies more evident than in the chilling reaction on the floor of the Democratic convention in September when the question of Israel's capital came up for a vote. Anyone who witnessed the delegates' angry screaming and fist-shaking could see that far more is going on in the Democratic Party than mere opposition to citing Jerusalem in their platform. There is now a visceral anti-Israel movement among rank-and-file Democrats, a disturbing development that my parents' generation would not have ignored.

Another troubling change is that Democrats seem to have moved away from the immigrant values of my old neighborhood—in particular, individual charity and neighborliness. After studying tax data from the IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all voted for President Obama. My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house, would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats.

Democrats would reply that taxation and government services are better vehicles for helping the underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal policies simply don't deliver on their promises of social justice.

Take, for example, President Obama's adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois's finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State "has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net," according to the report.

Political scientist Walter Russell Mead summed up the sad results of these findings at The American Interest: "Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country's potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state's distress."

At times, it seems almost as if President Obama wants to impose the failed Illinois model on the whole country. Each year of his presidency has produced unsustainable deficits, and he takes no responsibility for his spending. Worse still, unemployment has become chronic, and many Americans have given up on looking for work.

Whenever President Obama deplores the wealthy ("fat-cat bankers," "millionaires and billionaires," "at a certain point you've made enough money," and so on), it tells me that he has failed to learn the economic lessons of Illinois, and that he still doesn't understand the vital role entrepreneurs play in creating jobs in our society.

As a person who has been able to rise from poverty to affluence, and who has created jobs and work benefits for tens of thousands of families, I feel obligated to speak up and support the American ideals I grew up with—charity, self-reliance, accountability. These are the age-old virtues that help make our communities prosperous. Yet, sadly, the Democratic Party no longer seems to value them as it once did. That's why I switched parties, and why I'm now giving amply to Republicans.

Although I don't agree with every Republican position—I'm liberal on several social issues—there is enough common cause with the party for me to know I've made the right choice.

It's the choice that, I believe, my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel, the party that better exemplifies the spirit of charity, and the party with economic policies that would certainly be better for those Americans now looking for work.

The Democratic Party just isn't what it used to be.

Mr. Adelson, an entrepreneur and philanthropist, is a member of the RJC Board of Directors.

This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 4, 2012.

When members of the Democratic Party booed the inclusion of God and Jerusalem in their party platform this year, I thought of my parents.

They would have been astounded.

The immigrant family in which I grew up was, in the matter of politics, typical of the Jews of Boston in the 1930s and '40s. Of the two major parties, the Democrats were in those days the more supportive of Jewish causes.

Indeed, only liberal politicians campaigned in our underprivileged neighborhood. Boston's Republicans, insofar as we knew them, were remote, wealthy elites ("Boston Brahmins"), some of whose fancy country clubs didn't accept Jews.

It therefore went without saying that we were Democrats. Like most Jews around the country, being Democrat was part of our identity, as much a feature of our collective personality as our religion.

So why did I leave the party?

My critics nowadays like to claim it's because I got wealthy or because I didn't want to pay taxes or because of some other conservative caricature. No, the truth is the Democratic Party has changed in ways that no longer fit with someone of my upbringing.

One obvious example is the party's new attitude toward Israel. A sobering Gallup poll from last March asked: "Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?" Barely 53% of Democrats chose Israel, the sole liberal democracy in the region. By contrast, an overwhelming 78% of Republicans sympathized with Israel.

Nowhere was this change in Democratic sympathies more evident than in the chilling reaction on the floor of the Democratic convention in September when the question of Israel's capital came up for a vote. Anyone who witnessed the delegates' angry screaming and fist-shaking could see that far more is going on in the Democratic Party than mere opposition to citing Jerusalem in their platform. There is now a visceral anti-Israel movement among rank-and-file Democrats, a disturbing development that my parents' generation would not have ignored.

Another troubling change is that Democrats seem to have moved away from the immigrant values of my old neighborhood—in particular, individual charity and neighborliness. After studying tax data from the IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all voted for President Obama. My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house, would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats.

Democrats would reply that taxation and government services are better vehicles for helping the underprivileged. And, yes, government certainly has its role. But when you look at states where Democrats have enjoyed years of one-party dominance—California, Illinois, New York—you find that their liberal policies simply don't deliver on their promises of social justice.

Take, for example, President Obama's adopted home state. In October, a nonpartisan study of Illinois's finances by the State Budget Crisis Task Force offered painful evidence that liberal Illinois is suffering from abject economic, demographic and social decline. With the worst credit rating in the country, and with the second-biggest public debt per capita, the Prairie State "has been doing back flips on a high wire, without a net," according to the report.

Political scientist Walter Russell Mead summed up the sad results of these findings at The American Interest: "Illinois politicians, including the present president of the United States, have wrecked one of the country's potentially most prosperous and dynamic states, condemned millions of poor children to substandard education, failed to maintain vital infrastructure, choked business development and growth through unsustainable tax and regulatory policies—and still failed to appease the demands of the public sector unions and fee-seeking Wall Street crony capitalists who make billions off the state's distress."

At times, it seems almost as if President Obama wants to impose the failed Illinois model on the whole country. Each year of his presidency has produced unsustainable deficits, and he takes no responsibility for his spending. Worse still, unemployment has become chronic, and many Americans have given up on looking for work.

Whenever President Obama deplores the wealthy ("fat-cat bankers," "millionaires and billionaires," "at a certain point you've made enough money," and so on), it tells me that he has failed to learn the economic lessons of Illinois, and that he still doesn't understand the vital role entrepreneurs play in creating jobs in our society.

As a person who has been able to rise from poverty to affluence, and who has created jobs and work benefits for tens of thousands of families, I feel obligated to speak up and support the American ideals I grew up with—charity, self-reliance, accountability. These are the age-old virtues that help make our communities prosperous. Yet, sadly, the Democratic Party no longer seems to value them as it once did. That's why I switched parties, and why I'm now giving amply to Republicans.

Although I don't agree with every Republican position—I'm liberal on several social issues—there is enough common cause with the party for me to know I've made the right choice.

It's the choice that, I believe, my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel, the party that better exemplifies the spirit of charity, and the party with economic policies that would certainly be better for those Americans now looking for work.

The Democratic Party just isn't what it used to be.

Mr. Adelson, an entrepreneur and philanthropist, is a member of the RJC Board of Directors.

This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 4, 2012.

Thursday, November 1, 2012
By: Matthew Brooks, RJC Executive Director

As Will Rogers said, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" In the last four years, the Obama administration has dug our country deeper and deeper into several painful and dangerous holes. It's time to stop digging and find better solutions.

Pres. Obama's economic policies have eroded the earning power of the middle class and mired us in the slowest-growing post-recession economy in decades. A wave of new taxes will hit working families in January. Billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on a useless "stimulus" and "green" companies that went bankrupt. To date, Pres. Obama has added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt since taking office.

Meanwhile, unemployment stood above 8 percent for 43 straight months during Pres. Obama's tenure. Companies aren't hiring – in large part because of the uncertainty and poor prospects created by heavy-handed government regulations and a chaotic tax environment.

Mitt Romney has a better solution. By lowering tax rates across the board, while eliminating deductions and loopholes for high-end earners, we can broaden the tax base and bring in more revenue without raising taxes on the middle class. Responsible bipartisan efforts to cut non-security spending and reform the tax code, along with opening up more energy resources on this continent, will spur economic growth and cut the deficit. Lower corporate tax rates and more sensible regulations will make it possible for new businesses to start and for established businesses to grow.

Another hole is being dug by the rising costs of health care and the looming bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security. Obamacare is already adding to the cost of health care for families and many employers have said they may have to drop their employee insurance plans under its restrictions. We will have to slash entitlement benefits and raise taxes to punishing levels if we don't get a handle on how Medicare and Social Security are structured.

The answer to these problems lies in allowing increased competition to bring down costs, while providing a secure safety net for those in need. Mitt Romney wants to repeal and replace Obamacare with a free-market system that protects people with preexisting conditions and the poor. His plan for Medicare reform shields everyone age 55 and older from any changes to the system and will keep traditional Medicare available for those younger workers who choose it. That will strengthen Medicare and offer the same benefits at lower cost to today's younger workers when they reach retirement age.

In foreign policy, Pres. Obama has pursued a naïve and dangerous policy that has given our enemies new openings to harm us, as in Benghazi, Libya. Pres. Obama's mixed messages and inaction during the Arab Spring have allowed Islamist forces to gain ground in several countries. He was silent during the 2010 freedom demonstrations in Iran and his response to the civil war in Syria has not advanced freedom, peace, or U.S. interests in the region.

Mitt Romney proposes a principled policy that puts America's national interests first and that projects American diplomatic, economic, and if absolutely necessary, military strength to protect those interests. Romney understands that we must stand with our allies and continue the fight against the radical Islamists who threaten our security and our democratic values.

The U.S.-Israel alliance has been badly hurt by the antipathy Pres. Obama has shown to Israel and her leaders. The military cooperation mandated by our pro-Israel Congress is strong, but the level of trust and cooperation between the two governments is low. Pres. Obama's made the "1967 borders" and Israeli construction freezes starting points for negotiations, which reinforced Palestinian intransigence and made peace between Israel and the Palestinians even more elusive.

Mitt Romney will stand with Israel, knowing that Israel is our best ally and an important partner with the U.S., and understanding that strong strategic, economic, and moral ties bind the two countries.

One of the most dangerous threats to American national security today is the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Congress supported sanctions on Iran (sometimes over the President's objection) but the diplomatic effort to support those sanctions has been weak and ineffectual. That is why Russia and China have routinely stymied efforts to create a truly effective international sanctions regime that might deter the Iranians. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and a clear threat to America's interests and those of our European and Asian allies. The President's policies have given Iran almost four years to continue enriching uranium; they now approach the quantity and quality needed to create nuclear weapons.

Mitt Romney is committed to stopping Iran from acquiring the capability to build nuclear weapons. Our national security, and the security of our most important allies around the globe, depends on a strong U.S. policy toward Iran.

The American people face a significant choice in just a few days' time: a choice between a government-run, top-down economy and a free-market, opportunity economy; a choice between the weakness that invites attacks and the strength to keep our country secure; and a choice between leaving our children a country that we have built and enriched with freedom and ingenuity, or leaving them a country shackled in debt and diminished in scope. It's not too late to stop digging holes and start building our country again.

Thursday, November 1, 2012
By: Matthew Brooks, RJC Executive Director

As Will Rogers said, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!" In the last four years, the Obama administration has dug our country deeper and deeper into several painful and dangerous holes. It's time to stop digging and find better solutions.

Pres. Obama's economic policies have eroded the earning power of the middle class and mired us in the slowest-growing post-recession economy in decades. A wave of new taxes will hit working families in January. Billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on a useless "stimulus" and "green" companies that went bankrupt. To date, Pres. Obama has added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt since taking office.

Meanwhile, unemployment stood above 8 percent for 43 straight months during Pres. Obama's tenure. Companies aren't hiring – in large part because of the uncertainty and poor prospects created by heavy-handed government regulations and a chaotic tax environment.

Mitt Romney has a better solution. By lowering tax rates across the board, while eliminating deductions and loopholes for high-end earners, we can broaden the tax base and bring in more revenue without raising taxes on the middle class. Responsible bipartisan efforts to cut non-security spending and reform the tax code, along with opening up more energy resources on this continent, will spur economic growth and cut the deficit. Lower corporate tax rates and more sensible regulations will make it possible for new businesses to start and for established businesses to grow.

Another hole is being dug by the rising costs of health care and the looming bankruptcy of Medicare and Social Security. Obamacare is already adding to the cost of health care for families and many employers have said they may have to drop their employee insurance plans under its restrictions. We will have to slash entitlement benefits and raise taxes to punishing levels if we don't get a handle on how Medicare and Social Security are structured.

The answer to these problems lies in allowing increased competition to bring down costs, while providing a secure safety net for those in need. Mitt Romney wants to repeal and replace Obamacare with a free-market system that protects people with preexisting conditions and the poor. His plan for Medicare reform shields everyone age 55 and older from any changes to the system and will keep traditional Medicare available for those younger workers who choose it. That will strengthen Medicare and offer the same benefits at lower cost to today's younger workers when they reach retirement age.

In foreign policy, Pres. Obama has pursued a naïve and dangerous policy that has given our enemies new openings to harm us, as in Benghazi, Libya. Pres. Obama's mixed messages and inaction during the Arab Spring have allowed Islamist forces to gain ground in several countries. He was silent during the 2010 freedom demonstrations in Iran and his response to the civil war in Syria has not advanced freedom, peace, or U.S. interests in the region.

Mitt Romney proposes a principled policy that puts America's national interests first and that projects American diplomatic, economic, and if absolutely necessary, military strength to protect those interests. Romney understands that we must stand with our allies and continue the fight against the radical Islamists who threaten our security and our democratic values.

The U.S.-Israel alliance has been badly hurt by the antipathy Pres. Obama has shown to Israel and her leaders. The military cooperation mandated by our pro-Israel Congress is strong, but the level of trust and cooperation between the two governments is low. Pres. Obama's made the "1967 borders" and Israeli construction freezes starting points for negotiations, which reinforced Palestinian intransigence and made peace between Israel and the Palestinians even more elusive.

Mitt Romney will stand with Israel, knowing that Israel is our best ally and an important partner with the U.S., and understanding that strong strategic, economic, and moral ties bind the two countries.

One of the most dangerous threats to American national security today is the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Congress supported sanctions on Iran (sometimes over the President's objection) but the diplomatic effort to support those sanctions has been weak and ineffectual. That is why Russia and China have routinely stymied efforts to create a truly effective international sanctions regime that might deter the Iranians. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and a clear threat to America's interests and those of our European and Asian allies. The President's policies have given Iran almost four years to continue enriching uranium; they now approach the quantity and quality needed to create nuclear weapons.

Mitt Romney is committed to stopping Iran from acquiring the capability to build nuclear weapons. Our national security, and the security of our most important allies around the globe, depends on a strong U.S. policy toward Iran.

The American people face a significant choice in just a few days' time: a choice between a government-run, top-down economy and a free-market, opportunity economy; a choice between the weakness that invites attacks and the strength to keep our country secure; and a choice between leaving our children a country that we have built and enriched with freedom and ingenuity, or leaving them a country shackled in debt and diminished in scope. It's not too late to stop digging holes and start building our country again.