NJ Jewish Standard: It's Ari's Party
Friday, October 11, 2013
By: Larry Yudelson, New Jersey Jewish Standard
You don’t get much more Jewish than the name “Ari.”
And you don’t get much more Republican than serving as White House press secretary for President George W. Bush.
Which makes Ari Fleischer a natural public face of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Fleischer was in Teaneck last week, as a four-city “Blueprint for Victory” barnstorming tour featuring him and RJC director Matthew Brooks touched down at Congregation Bnai Yeshurun.
The session was moderated by the synagogue’s Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, an enthusiastic partisan.
“Sometimes I watch Republican spokesmen and I wonder why the response is not more forceful,” Pruzansky said at one point to Fleischer.
“Rabbi, you’d make a great press secretary,” Fleischer replied.
Jewish Republicans are rare and lonely, Pruzansky admitted, noting that the recent Pew Survey found 70 percent of American Jews identify as Democrats or leaning that way, versus 22 percent as Republican. While Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal often is seen as having created the Jewish Democratic vote, Pruzansky said it went back further — it was Warren Harding, elected in 1920, who was the last Republican to receive a majority of the Jewish vote. “Maybe because his middle name was Gamliel,” Pruzansky joked — though Ronald Reagan came close in 1980.
But in the Orthodox community, the political leanings go the other way. The Pew Survey reported that among the Orthodox, 57 percent are or lean Republican, and only 36 percent are Democratic or lean that way.
Looking back at the last election, Brooks said that for the Republican Jewish Coalition, “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”
Worst, because “the Republicans were blown out of the water across the board” with the defeat of Mitt Romney.
Best, because “it was our greatest year ever. We had the most sophisticated, largest, most expensive outreach in the Jewish community. At a time when Republicans were being wiped out across all constituent groups, we actually increased by 50 percent. John McCain got 22 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008; Romney got 32 percent in 2012,” Brooks said.
“We’ve gained market share in the Jewish community in five of the last six national elections. We’ve gone from 11 percent in 1992” when Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush. “This trajectory underscores that we’re having an impact in the Jewish community.”
But if Republicans did better among the Jews, why did they not succeed in the general population?
“I’m the child of an immigrant,” Fleischer said. “My mother got out from Hungary in 1939. Romney sent a signal that we don’t want that here. That’s in contrast to my old boss who said, ‘Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.’ When Bush said that, Hispanics would listen to the next sentence. Republicans won’t get the White House again unless we’re able to get a sizable chunk of Hispanic votes. Bush got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Romney got 27 percent.”
Fleischer, who was among the authors of a 100-page Republican National Committee post mortem released in the spring, said Romney was a flawed candidate.
“Too many people looked at that person and did not feel he represented them enough,” he said. “Did the candidate care about me, or just about the wealthy? That’s a question the Republicans have to do a better job of addressing.”
Fleischer’s report was criticized quickly by Rush Limbaugh and other leaders of the party’s right wing. Some of the internal party tensions were quietly audible in the interplay between Fleischer and Pruzansky, who at one point complained about the general “demonization” of the Tea Party movement.
“It’s very hard to compete with the party of the free stuff,” Pruzansky asked. “How do you compete against the free stuff?”
Fleischer pushed back against the premise.
“It’s not just people who are getting free stuff, the poor or low income,” he said. “It’s people from all walks of life. It’s corporations who are getting tax benefits they don’t need anymore. It’s wealthy people who get tax cuts they don’t need anymore. I don’t limit my criticism of people who get free stuff to just one group of people.
“What wins it for the Republicans is the power of aspiration. If we have that optimistic, sunny can-do candidate, with the sense of calling American to its higher aspirational self, we can win on those grounds,” he said.
In response to a question on the key differences between the Republicans and Democrats on issues of concern to the Jewish community, Brooks pointed to Israel.
“In Congress, there is strong bipartisan support for Israel,” he said. “What really worries me is what’s taking place at the grass roots level. In poll after poll, when asked who do you most side with in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the overwhelming majority of Republicans stand with Israel. Not even a majority of Democrats do.
“What happened at the Democratic convention in Charlotte should send a chill down everyone’s spine. The leadership scrambled to get Jerusalem back into the platform to the boos of the activists in the hall. The Democrats have to do some serious soul-searching,” he said.
© The Jewish Standard. Story link.
The "Blueprint for Victory" town hall event in Northern New Jersey drew a large and enthusiastic crowd. Photo credit: RJC
By: Larry Yudelson, New Jersey Jewish Standard
You don’t get much more Jewish than the name “Ari.”
And you don’t get much more Republican than serving as White House press secretary for President George W. Bush.
Which makes Ari Fleischer a natural public face of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Fleischer was in Teaneck last week, as a four-city “Blueprint for Victory” barnstorming tour featuring him and RJC director Matthew Brooks touched down at Congregation Bnai Yeshurun.
The session was moderated by the synagogue’s Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, an enthusiastic partisan.
“Sometimes I watch Republican spokesmen and I wonder why the response is not more forceful,” Pruzansky said at one point to Fleischer.
“Rabbi, you’d make a great press secretary,” Fleischer replied.
Jewish Republicans are rare and lonely, Pruzansky admitted, noting that the recent Pew Survey found 70 percent of American Jews identify as Democrats or leaning that way, versus 22 percent as Republican. While Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal often is seen as having created the Jewish Democratic vote, Pruzansky said it went back further — it was Warren Harding, elected in 1920, who was the last Republican to receive a majority of the Jewish vote. “Maybe because his middle name was Gamliel,” Pruzansky joked — though Ronald Reagan came close in 1980.
But in the Orthodox community, the political leanings go the other way. The Pew Survey reported that among the Orthodox, 57 percent are or lean Republican, and only 36 percent are Democratic or lean that way.
Looking back at the last election, Brooks said that for the Republican Jewish Coalition, “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”
Worst, because “the Republicans were blown out of the water across the board” with the defeat of Mitt Romney.
Best, because “it was our greatest year ever. We had the most sophisticated, largest, most expensive outreach in the Jewish community. At a time when Republicans were being wiped out across all constituent groups, we actually increased by 50 percent. John McCain got 22 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008; Romney got 32 percent in 2012,” Brooks said.
“We’ve gained market share in the Jewish community in five of the last six national elections. We’ve gone from 11 percent in 1992” when Bill Clinton defeated George H. W. Bush. “This trajectory underscores that we’re having an impact in the Jewish community.”
But if Republicans did better among the Jews, why did they not succeed in the general population?
“I’m the child of an immigrant,” Fleischer said. “My mother got out from Hungary in 1939. Romney sent a signal that we don’t want that here. That’s in contrast to my old boss who said, ‘Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.’ When Bush said that, Hispanics would listen to the next sentence. Republicans won’t get the White House again unless we’re able to get a sizable chunk of Hispanic votes. Bush got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Romney got 27 percent.”
Fleischer, who was among the authors of a 100-page Republican National Committee post mortem released in the spring, said Romney was a flawed candidate.
“Too many people looked at that person and did not feel he represented them enough,” he said. “Did the candidate care about me, or just about the wealthy? That’s a question the Republicans have to do a better job of addressing.”
Fleischer’s report was criticized quickly by Rush Limbaugh and other leaders of the party’s right wing. Some of the internal party tensions were quietly audible in the interplay between Fleischer and Pruzansky, who at one point complained about the general “demonization” of the Tea Party movement.
“It’s very hard to compete with the party of the free stuff,” Pruzansky asked. “How do you compete against the free stuff?”
Fleischer pushed back against the premise.
“It’s not just people who are getting free stuff, the poor or low income,” he said. “It’s people from all walks of life. It’s corporations who are getting tax benefits they don’t need anymore. It’s wealthy people who get tax cuts they don’t need anymore. I don’t limit my criticism of people who get free stuff to just one group of people.
“What wins it for the Republicans is the power of aspiration. If we have that optimistic, sunny can-do candidate, with the sense of calling American to its higher aspirational self, we can win on those grounds,” he said.
In response to a question on the key differences between the Republicans and Democrats on issues of concern to the Jewish community, Brooks pointed to Israel.
“In Congress, there is strong bipartisan support for Israel,” he said. “What really worries me is what’s taking place at the grass roots level. In poll after poll, when asked who do you most side with in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the overwhelming majority of Republicans stand with Israel. Not even a majority of Democrats do.
“What happened at the Democratic convention in Charlotte should send a chill down everyone’s spine. The leadership scrambled to get Jerusalem back into the platform to the boos of the activists in the hall. The Democrats have to do some serious soul-searching,” he said.
© The Jewish Standard. Story link.
The "Blueprint for Victory" town hall event in Northern New Jersey drew a large and enthusiastic crowd. Photo credit: RJC
Mishpacha Magazine: Swinging for the Fences
Mishpacha Magazine published extensive coverage of the RJC's outreach program in Israel with iVoteIsrael. To read the entire article, click here to see a PDF of the full 4-page spread.
Israel is not an American state and it doesn’t have any electoral votes to boast of. But with the 2012 presidential race looking like a cliffhanger, President Bush’s former press secretary and the head of the Republican Jewish Coalition traveled to Israel to make voter registration in the Jewish state a priority cause...
Click here to see the entire article.
Mishpacha Magazine: Swinging for the Fences
Mishpacha Magazine published extensive coverage of the RJC's outreach program in Israel with iVoteIsrael. To read the entire article, click here to see a PDF of the full 4-page spread.
Israel is not an American state and it doesn’t have any electoral votes to boast of. But with the 2012 presidential race looking like a cliffhanger, President Bush’s former press secretary and the head of the Republican Jewish Coalition traveled to Israel to make voter registration in the Jewish state a priority cause...
Click here to see the entire article.
Fleischer: The Latest News on Tax Fairness
Monday, July 23, 2012
By: Ari Fleischer
If fairness in paying taxes means the amount you pay is based on the amount you make, then the only group in America paying at least a "fair share" is the top 20%—people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.
You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.
There's also another way of looking at fairness, and that's the tax burden. Here, consider the top 20% of income earners (over $74,000). They make 50% of the nation's income but pay nearly 70% of all federal taxes.
The remaining 30% of the tax burden is borne by 80% of the taxpayers, those who make less than $74,000. In short, this group's share of taxes paid, 30%, is lower than the share of income they earn, 50%.
Yet President Obama says that "for some time now, when compared to the middle class," the wealthy "haven't been asked to do their fair share."
He's right that the system isn't fair, but not because the top 1% pay too little. It is because they pay too much.
Mr. Obama has said that some wealthy employers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. True, some are able to lower their effective federal tax rate by giving millions to charity. Or because they derive much of their income as capital gains or from tax-free municipal bonds.
But middle- and low-income Americans who do not invest also pay lower rates thanks to the deductions they receive, such as a $1,000 per child tax credit (which phases out for couples who make more than $110,000), or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which no one making more than $50,000 is supposed to receive.
The CBO report ("The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009") covers the years 1979-2009. It makes plain that the impression conveyed by the president about what upper-income Americans pay in taxes does not hold up to scrutiny.
First of all, the share of taxes paid by the top 20% has gone up over the last 30 years, while the share of taxes paid by everyone else has gone down. It has gone up despite the tax cuts enacted by President Clinton in 1997 and by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. But that makes no difference to the president. The only group of taxpayers he calls on to "sacrifice" are those already doing all the tax sacrificing.
The top 20% in 1979 made 44.9% of the nation's income and paid 55.3% of all federal taxes. Thirty years later, the top 20% made 50.8% of the nation's income and their share of federal taxes paid had jumped to 67.9%.
And the top 1%? In 1979, this group earned 8.9% of the nation's income and paid 14.2% of all federal taxes. In 2009, they earned 13.4% of the nation's income but their share of the federal tax burden rose to 22.3%.
Meanwhile, the federal tax burden on middle- and lower-income earners is lighter. In 1979, the bottom 20% paid barely any taxes at all, just 2.1%. Now their share of taxes is a minuscule 0.3%. The burden on the middle-income earners ($34,900 to $50,100) has dropped too. In 1979, they paid 13.6% of all federal taxes; in 2009 they paid 9.4%.
One reason our country is so divided is because the president keeps dividing us. If taxes need to be raised to fight a war or fund a cause, the president should ask everyone to pitch in. If the need is national, the solution should be national—and that includes all of us.
But that's not how Mr. Obama governs. We learned during the 2008 campaign that he believes in spreading the wealth around. And recently we learned he doesn't believe that successful people made it on their own. Without the government, the president tells us, job creators and entrepreneurs would not be able to make it in America.
It's really the other way around. Without job creators and the successful, the government wouldn't have any money. So next time Mr. Obama meets someone in the top 1% or even the top 20%, instead of saying they're not paying their fair share, he should simply say thank you.
Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, is president of Ari Fleischer Communications and a member of the RJC Board of Directors.
This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2012. Reprinted with permission of the author.
By: Ari Fleischer
If fairness in paying taxes means the amount you pay is based on the amount you make, then the only group in America paying at least a "fair share" is the top 20%—people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.
You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.
There's also another way of looking at fairness, and that's the tax burden. Here, consider the top 20% of income earners (over $74,000). They make 50% of the nation's income but pay nearly 70% of all federal taxes.
The remaining 30% of the tax burden is borne by 80% of the taxpayers, those who make less than $74,000. In short, this group's share of taxes paid, 30%, is lower than the share of income they earn, 50%.
Yet President Obama says that "for some time now, when compared to the middle class," the wealthy "haven't been asked to do their fair share."
He's right that the system isn't fair, but not because the top 1% pay too little. It is because they pay too much.
Mr. Obama has said that some wealthy employers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. True, some are able to lower their effective federal tax rate by giving millions to charity. Or because they derive much of their income as capital gains or from tax-free municipal bonds.
But middle- and low-income Americans who do not invest also pay lower rates thanks to the deductions they receive, such as a $1,000 per child tax credit (which phases out for couples who make more than $110,000), or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which no one making more than $50,000 is supposed to receive.
The CBO report ("The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009") covers the years 1979-2009. It makes plain that the impression conveyed by the president about what upper-income Americans pay in taxes does not hold up to scrutiny.
First of all, the share of taxes paid by the top 20% has gone up over the last 30 years, while the share of taxes paid by everyone else has gone down. It has gone up despite the tax cuts enacted by President Clinton in 1997 and by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. But that makes no difference to the president. The only group of taxpayers he calls on to "sacrifice" are those already doing all the tax sacrificing.
The top 20% in 1979 made 44.9% of the nation's income and paid 55.3% of all federal taxes. Thirty years later, the top 20% made 50.8% of the nation's income and their share of federal taxes paid had jumped to 67.9%.
And the top 1%? In 1979, this group earned 8.9% of the nation's income and paid 14.2% of all federal taxes. In 2009, they earned 13.4% of the nation's income but their share of the federal tax burden rose to 22.3%.
Meanwhile, the federal tax burden on middle- and lower-income earners is lighter. In 1979, the bottom 20% paid barely any taxes at all, just 2.1%. Now their share of taxes is a minuscule 0.3%. The burden on the middle-income earners ($34,900 to $50,100) has dropped too. In 1979, they paid 13.6% of all federal taxes; in 2009 they paid 9.4%.
One reason our country is so divided is because the president keeps dividing us. If taxes need to be raised to fight a war or fund a cause, the president should ask everyone to pitch in. If the need is national, the solution should be national—and that includes all of us.
But that's not how Mr. Obama governs. We learned during the 2008 campaign that he believes in spreading the wealth around. And recently we learned he doesn't believe that successful people made it on their own. Without the government, the president tells us, job creators and entrepreneurs would not be able to make it in America.
It's really the other way around. Without job creators and the successful, the government wouldn't have any money. So next time Mr. Obama meets someone in the top 1% or even the top 20%, instead of saying they're not paying their fair share, he should simply say thank you.
Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, is president of Ari Fleischer Communications and a member of the RJC Board of Directors.
This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2012. Reprinted with permission of the author.
Fleischer: The Latest News on Tax Fairness
Monday, July 23, 2012
By: Ari Fleischer
If fairness in paying taxes means the amount you pay is based on the amount you make, then the only group in America paying at least a "fair share" is the top 20%—people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.
You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.
There's also another way of looking at fairness, and that's the tax burden. Here, consider the top 20% of income earners (over $74,000). They make 50% of the nation's income but pay nearly 70% of all federal taxes.
The remaining 30% of the tax burden is borne by 80% of the taxpayers, those who make less than $74,000. In short, this group's share of taxes paid, 30%, is lower than the share of income they earn, 50%.
Yet President Obama says that "for some time now, when compared to the middle class," the wealthy "haven't been asked to do their fair share."
He's right that the system isn't fair, but not because the top 1% pay too little. It is because they pay too much.
Mr. Obama has said that some wealthy employers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. True, some are able to lower their effective federal tax rate by giving millions to charity. Or because they derive much of their income as capital gains or from tax-free municipal bonds.
But middle- and low-income Americans who do not invest also pay lower rates thanks to the deductions they receive, such as a $1,000 per child tax credit (which phases out for couples who make more than $110,000), or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which no one making more than $50,000 is supposed to receive.
The CBO report ("The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009") covers the years 1979-2009. It makes plain that the impression conveyed by the president about what upper-income Americans pay in taxes does not hold up to scrutiny.
First of all, the share of taxes paid by the top 20% has gone up over the last 30 years, while the share of taxes paid by everyone else has gone down. It has gone up despite the tax cuts enacted by President Clinton in 1997 and by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. But that makes no difference to the president. The only group of taxpayers he calls on to "sacrifice" are those already doing all the tax sacrificing.
The top 20% in 1979 made 44.9% of the nation's income and paid 55.3% of all federal taxes. Thirty years later, the top 20% made 50.8% of the nation's income and their share of federal taxes paid had jumped to 67.9%.
And the top 1%? In 1979, this group earned 8.9% of the nation's income and paid 14.2% of all federal taxes. In 2009, they earned 13.4% of the nation's income but their share of the federal tax burden rose to 22.3%.
Meanwhile, the federal tax burden on middle- and lower-income earners is lighter. In 1979, the bottom 20% paid barely any taxes at all, just 2.1%. Now their share of taxes is a minuscule 0.3%. The burden on the middle-income earners ($34,900 to $50,100) has dropped too. In 1979, they paid 13.6% of all federal taxes; in 2009 they paid 9.4%.
One reason our country is so divided is because the president keeps dividing us. If taxes need to be raised to fight a war or fund a cause, the president should ask everyone to pitch in. If the need is national, the solution should be national—and that includes all of us.
But that's not how Mr. Obama governs. We learned during the 2008 campaign that he believes in spreading the wealth around. And recently we learned he doesn't believe that successful people made it on their own. Without the government, the president tells us, job creators and entrepreneurs would not be able to make it in America.
It's really the other way around. Without job creators and the successful, the government wouldn't have any money. So next time Mr. Obama meets someone in the top 1% or even the top 20%, instead of saying they're not paying their fair share, he should simply say thank you.
Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, is president of Ari Fleischer Communications and a member of the RJC Board of Directors.
This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2012. Reprinted with permission of the author.
By: Ari Fleischer
If fairness in paying taxes means the amount you pay is based on the amount you make, then the only group in America paying at least a "fair share" is the top 20%—people who make more than $74,000. For everyone else, the tax code is a bargain.
You wouldn't know this from President Obama's rhetoric, but our tax system, according to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is incredibly progressive. Consider: The top 1% of income earners pay an average federal tax rate of 28.9%. (See the nearby table.) The average federal tax rate on the top 20% is 23.2%. The 20% of taxpayers earning between $50,100 and $73,999 pay an average 15.1%, and so on down the line. The CBO report includes payroll as well as income taxes paid.
There's also another way of looking at fairness, and that's the tax burden. Here, consider the top 20% of income earners (over $74,000). They make 50% of the nation's income but pay nearly 70% of all federal taxes.
The remaining 30% of the tax burden is borne by 80% of the taxpayers, those who make less than $74,000. In short, this group's share of taxes paid, 30%, is lower than the share of income they earn, 50%.
Yet President Obama says that "for some time now, when compared to the middle class," the wealthy "haven't been asked to do their fair share."
He's right that the system isn't fair, but not because the top 1% pay too little. It is because they pay too much.
Mr. Obama has said that some wealthy employers pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. True, some are able to lower their effective federal tax rate by giving millions to charity. Or because they derive much of their income as capital gains or from tax-free municipal bonds.
But middle- and low-income Americans who do not invest also pay lower rates thanks to the deductions they receive, such as a $1,000 per child tax credit (which phases out for couples who make more than $110,000), or the Earned Income Tax Credit, which no one making more than $50,000 is supposed to receive.
The CBO report ("The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009") covers the years 1979-2009. It makes plain that the impression conveyed by the president about what upper-income Americans pay in taxes does not hold up to scrutiny.
First of all, the share of taxes paid by the top 20% has gone up over the last 30 years, while the share of taxes paid by everyone else has gone down. It has gone up despite the tax cuts enacted by President Clinton in 1997 and by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. But that makes no difference to the president. The only group of taxpayers he calls on to "sacrifice" are those already doing all the tax sacrificing.
The top 20% in 1979 made 44.9% of the nation's income and paid 55.3% of all federal taxes. Thirty years later, the top 20% made 50.8% of the nation's income and their share of federal taxes paid had jumped to 67.9%.
And the top 1%? In 1979, this group earned 8.9% of the nation's income and paid 14.2% of all federal taxes. In 2009, they earned 13.4% of the nation's income but their share of the federal tax burden rose to 22.3%.
Meanwhile, the federal tax burden on middle- and lower-income earners is lighter. In 1979, the bottom 20% paid barely any taxes at all, just 2.1%. Now their share of taxes is a minuscule 0.3%. The burden on the middle-income earners ($34,900 to $50,100) has dropped too. In 1979, they paid 13.6% of all federal taxes; in 2009 they paid 9.4%.
One reason our country is so divided is because the president keeps dividing us. If taxes need to be raised to fight a war or fund a cause, the president should ask everyone to pitch in. If the need is national, the solution should be national—and that includes all of us.
But that's not how Mr. Obama governs. We learned during the 2008 campaign that he believes in spreading the wealth around. And recently we learned he doesn't believe that successful people made it on their own. Without the government, the president tells us, job creators and entrepreneurs would not be able to make it in America.
It's really the other way around. Without job creators and the successful, the government wouldn't have any money. So next time Mr. Obama meets someone in the top 1% or even the top 20%, instead of saying they're not paying their fair share, he should simply say thank you.
Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary for President George W. Bush, is president of Ari Fleischer Communications and a member of the RJC Board of Directors.
This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2012. Reprinted with permission of the author.
RJC Announces Voter Registration Drive, Absentee Ballot Program, and Advocacy Initiative in Israel
Monday, July 02, 2012
By: RJC Press Office
To Help American Citizens in Israel Exercise Their Right to Vote in the U.S. Election
Washington, D.C. (July 2, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition announced today that RJC Board of Directors member and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks will travel to Israel the week of July 9-13 to engage with American citizens living in Israel as part of a voter registration drive, absentee ballot program, and advocacy initiative.
This effort will be comprehensive in scope and will include media events, town hall meetings with U.S. citizens living abroad, and meetings with leading bloggers and social media activists on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms who are expert in communicating directly with potential voters.
The RJC is very excited about this first-time project. The RJC is supporting the efforts of iVoteIsrael (ivoteisrael.com) and Republicans Abroad Israel (www.republicansabroad.org.il/).
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "With so many critical issues before us and so much at stake, it is important that every American citizen participate in this election. Americans living abroad are deeply concerned about America's growing debt burden, about jobs and health care, and about foreign policy issues that affect America's international standing. We're very excited to help Americans living in Israel to exercise their right to vote in the U.S. election this year."
According to recent estimates, there are approximately 150,000 Americans living in Israel who are eligible to vote in the November presidential election. A significant percentage of these voters are registered in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The number of Americans from these battleground states might be enough to tip the scales in 2012.
"I'm proud to be part of this advocacy initiative," said Fleischer. "As Republicans, we have a point of view to share with the American community in Israel and I look forward to sharing it. It's a long flight, but when you think about Israel being home to 150,000 American voters, it's also the equivalent of visiting Dayton, Ohio or Ft. Lauderdale, FL to get out the message. In this election, every vote is going to be important."
By: RJC Press Office
To Help American Citizens in Israel Exercise Their Right to Vote in the U.S. Election
Washington, D.C. (July 2, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition announced today that RJC Board of Directors member and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks will travel to Israel the week of July 9-13 to engage with American citizens living in Israel as part of a voter registration drive, absentee ballot program, and advocacy initiative.
This effort will be comprehensive in scope and will include media events, town hall meetings with U.S. citizens living abroad, and meetings with leading bloggers and social media activists on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms who are expert in communicating directly with potential voters.
The RJC is very excited about this first-time project. The RJC is supporting the efforts of iVoteIsrael (ivoteisrael.com) and Republicans Abroad Israel (www.republicansabroad.org.il/).
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "With so many critical issues before us and so much at stake, it is important that every American citizen participate in this election. Americans living abroad are deeply concerned about America's growing debt burden, about jobs and health care, and about foreign policy issues that affect America's international standing. We're very excited to help Americans living in Israel to exercise their right to vote in the U.S. election this year."
According to recent estimates, there are approximately 150,000 Americans living in Israel who are eligible to vote in the November presidential election. A significant percentage of these voters are registered in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The number of Americans from these battleground states might be enough to tip the scales in 2012.
"I'm proud to be part of this advocacy initiative," said Fleischer. "As Republicans, we have a point of view to share with the American community in Israel and I look forward to sharing it. It's a long flight, but when you think about Israel being home to 150,000 American voters, it's also the equivalent of visiting Dayton, Ohio or Ft. Lauderdale, FL to get out the message. In this election, every vote is going to be important."
RJC Announces Voter Registration Drive, Absentee Ballot Program, and Advocacy Initiative in Israel
Monday, July 02, 2012
By: RJC Press Office
To Help American Citizens in Israel Exercise Their Right to Vote in the U.S. Election
Washington, D.C. (July 2, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition announced today that RJC Board of Directors member and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks will travel to Israel the week of July 9-13 to engage with American citizens living in Israel as part of a voter registration drive, absentee ballot program, and advocacy initiative.
This effort will be comprehensive in scope and will include media events, town hall meetings with U.S. citizens living abroad, and meetings with leading bloggers and social media activists on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms who are expert in communicating directly with potential voters.
The RJC is very excited about this first-time project. The RJC is supporting the efforts of iVoteIsrael (ivoteisrael.com) and Republicans Abroad Israel (www.republicansabroad.org.il/).
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "With so many critical issues before us and so much at stake, it is important that every American citizen participate in this election. Americans living abroad are deeply concerned about America's growing debt burden, about jobs and health care, and about foreign policy issues that affect America's international standing. We're very excited to help Americans living in Israel to exercise their right to vote in the U.S. election this year."
According to recent estimates, there are approximately 150,000 Americans living in Israel who are eligible to vote in the November presidential election. A significant percentage of these voters are registered in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The number of Americans from these battleground states might be enough to tip the scales in 2012.
"I'm proud to be part of this advocacy initiative," said Fleischer. "As Republicans, we have a point of view to share with the American community in Israel and I look forward to sharing it. It's a long flight, but when you think about Israel being home to 150,000 American voters, it's also the equivalent of visiting Dayton, Ohio or Ft. Lauderdale, FL to get out the message. In this election, every vote is going to be important."
By: RJC Press Office
To Help American Citizens in Israel Exercise Their Right to Vote in the U.S. Election
Washington, D.C. (July 2, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition announced today that RJC Board of Directors member and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks will travel to Israel the week of July 9-13 to engage with American citizens living in Israel as part of a voter registration drive, absentee ballot program, and advocacy initiative.
This effort will be comprehensive in scope and will include media events, town hall meetings with U.S. citizens living abroad, and meetings with leading bloggers and social media activists on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms who are expert in communicating directly with potential voters.
The RJC is very excited about this first-time project. The RJC is supporting the efforts of iVoteIsrael (ivoteisrael.com) and Republicans Abroad Israel (www.republicansabroad.org.il/).
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "With so many critical issues before us and so much at stake, it is important that every American citizen participate in this election. Americans living abroad are deeply concerned about America's growing debt burden, about jobs and health care, and about foreign policy issues that affect America's international standing. We're very excited to help Americans living in Israel to exercise their right to vote in the U.S. election this year."
According to recent estimates, there are approximately 150,000 Americans living in Israel who are eligible to vote in the November presidential election. A significant percentage of these voters are registered in the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The number of Americans from these battleground states might be enough to tip the scales in 2012.
"I'm proud to be part of this advocacy initiative," said Fleischer. "As Republicans, we have a point of view to share with the American community in Israel and I look forward to sharing it. It's a long flight, but when you think about Israel being home to 150,000 American voters, it's also the equivalent of visiting Dayton, Ohio or Ft. Lauderdale, FL to get out the message. In this election, every vote is going to be important."