tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-306558172024-03-07T03:34:14.439-05:00Red Meat Conservative"Only red meat conservatism, not political correctness, will help paint the map red."Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.comBlogger535125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-80815776390661277072012-02-16T10:42:00.002-05:002012-02-16T11:20:46.082-05:00MD-House: Wade Kach Must Go<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have long argued that Republicans in Maryland cannot win
by being Democrat-lite. Aside for the fact that liberal Republicans fail
to inspire a following and fail to galvanize voters to their cause, they are
automatic losers. Once we adopt the views of the opposition, we have
lost, period. As such, even if we somehow enjoy electoral success, it is
irrelevant because, in essence, we are not winning anything.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, that is the type of party which state Delegate Wade Kach
(RINO-Baltimore Co.) wants us to be. He is advocating that we accept the
most extreme positions of the Democrat Party, <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/blog/bal-gop-del-kach-will-vote-yes-on-marriage-20120216,0,2582761.story">including
the redefining of marriage</a> to include...well, just about anything.<br />
<br />
Earlier today, Kach announced that "as a proud member of the party of
Lincoln, I believe that we as legislators should be more concerned with
relieving the tax burden of families than telling them how to behave in their
own homes."<br />
<br />
Kach is using the typical illusory parlance that is associated with the pro-gay
marriage forces. He is falsely charging that opponents of gay marriage
are telling people how to behave. That is absolutely false. The
reality is that nobody is regulating the behavior of individuals, no matter how
morally licentious it is. We are merely upholding the basic definition of
one of the most fundamental concepts since the dawn of times. <br />
<br />
Again, for the millionth time, a homosexual relationship is not a
marriage. Kach and his ilk refuse to address the issue at hand.
Nobody is seeking to govern people's private behavior, although the nation was
founded on bedrock values in which homosexuality stands as an anathema to our
beliefs. But let's forget about that for a moment. This is not an
issue of liberty. It is a matter of honoring a sacrosanct relationship
and legal definition that has been so basic to humankind since creation.
You could talk about liberty until you turn blue in the face, but it doesn't
change the fact that unicorns don't fly, and a gay relationship is not a
marriage.<br />
<br />
All Americans, including gays, have the full liberty to get married;
nobody is stopping them. Additionally, nobody is preventing them from
acting out their immoral impulses in private. It is they who want society
to change the basic definition of marriage - something that is totally
intractable.<br />
<br />
It is also preposterous and shameful to intimate that Lincoln would support
something like gay marriage. It's very sad that we've descended to such moral
decadency that we have Republicans who are advocating for such immorality - the
degree to which has never been suggested until this generation. While
homosexuality has existed for a long time, nobody ever had the audacity to
suggest that such a relationship constitutes a marriage. One need not be
overtly religious to appreciate that the basic legal definition of marriage is
a special bond between one man and one woman.<br />
<br />
If we are going to attenuate the meaning of marriage to the extent that it can
include two men, why not change the other components of marriage, such as the
number of parties involved? Why not recognize polygamist marriages, or
man-dog relationships? I love my one-year-old son to death; can I marry
him? The concept of marriage is really not an enigma, except to those who
are biased by their libertine beliefs.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Moreover, as we have seen all too often, there is no such thing as a
social liberal who is a strong fiscal conservative. If you follow the
voting records of the 535 members of Congress, you will find that, with
few exceptions, it is an extinct political breed. When you have a small
God, you have a big government; when you have a big God, you have small
government. The vacuum must be filled with something. Consequently,
secular humanists will fill that vacuum of religious values with the
"religious values" of big government.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, it is no surprise that Kach is a big government
statist, along with being a social liberal. Among many fiscally liberal votes that Kach has cast in the legislature, <a href="http://www.votesmart.org/bill/8515/23043/6170/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative-and-additional-emission-caps">he voted for Maryland's cap and trade law in 2006</a>. What happened to intruding
on people's personal lives, Mr. Kach? Or, does your doctrine of
freedom only cover a <u>libertine</u> world view - and not a <u>libertarian</u> one? <br />
<br />
If Kach has such a desire to join those who seek our moral destruction, why not
join the Democrat Party? We already have one party that is engaged in an
inexorable battle to reshape the character of this great nation. We need
a choice, not an echo.<br />
<br />
Only 30% of the Maryland House is comprised of elected Republicans. They
have absolutely no power. Is it too much to ask that they all share our
core values and basic understanding of fundamental concepts? There is
plenty of room in the Democrat Party for those like Wade Kach. </div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-27736481545537754632012-01-15T17:18:00.002-05:002012-01-15T17:18:58.115-05:00Can a Nonexistent Congress Issue $1.2 Trillion in Debt?<div class="entry">
Pursuant to the Budget Control Act, brought to you by the GOP
leadership’s sellout, Obama notified Congress yesterday that the federal
debt is approaching the statutory ceiling of $15.194 trillion. [The
actual total debt is already $15.237 trillion, but a small amount is not
subject to the limit.] As such, he is calling on Congress to grant him
another $1.2 trillion in debt, conveniently enough to last him until
after the election, with the possibility of saddling his successor with a
tough decision over yet another debt limit increase. It is really more
of a notification than a request. Obama will automatically receive his
$1.2 trillion supercharged credit card unless two-thirds of Congress
votes to disapprove of the request within 15 days.<br />
<br />
In just three years, he has accrued $4.6 trillion in debt, more than
Bush amassed during his entire eight-year tenure. Now he will add
another $1.2 trillion by the end of his first term, and, thanks to the
horrendous budget deal, which was cheered on by the same outlets that
are now fawning over Mitt Romney, there’s nothing we can do about it.<br />
<br />
But here’s the question: If Congress is in recess and cannot fulfill
its responsibility to advice and consent, as the President has
suggested, how can Obama fulfill his obligation of submitting a
certification to Congress?<br />
<br />
The Budge Control Act requires the following of Obama:<br />
<blockquote>
“the President <strong>submits a written certification to Congress</strong>
that the President has determined that the debt subject to limit is
within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 3101(b) and that further
borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the Secretary of
the Treasury may exercise authority to borrow an additional
$900,000,000,000, subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of
disapproval enacted pursuant to this section. <strong>Upon submission of such certification</strong>,
the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) (referred to in this
section as the ‘debt limit’) is increased by $400,000,000,000.”</blockquote>
Is this submission invalid? Do we need a new submission to start the
15 days Congress has to disapprove of the increase in debt? How was
the House able to file the resolution of disapproval and set up a vote
for next week? After all, Congress is all but gone, according to
Obama.<br />
<br />
If Obama wants Congress to issue $1.2 trillion of debt while their gone, imagine what they can do when they’re “in session.”<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-43582868274056541152012-01-13T00:00:00.000-05:002012-01-15T17:18:13.978-05:00Our Task Moving Forward: Focus On Congress<div class="entry">
Irrespective of the outcome of the presidential primaries, it is
highly unlikely that we will nominate a reliable and consistent
conservative. Unfortunately, with the exceptions of Coolidge,
Goldwater, and Reagan, we never do. Not on a presidential level. This
year we might nominate someone who is not a conservative at all.
Perforce, our most important task going forward (aside for defeating
Obama) is to win majorities in both houses of Congress.<br />
<br />
What is even more essential is that we elect enough reliable
conservatives – ones who will keep their campaign pledges – that we will
not be relegated to the minority in those majorities. With the
prospect of electing an unpredictable Republican president, in
conjunction with tepid leadership in Congress, it is vital that we
choose Republicans who will stand on principle, not benchwarmers who
will merely serve as yes-men for leadership.<br />
<br />
Last year, many of us thought we achieved a historic breakthrough by
electing 87 “Tea Party” freshmen. Undoubtedly, many of them have been
stalwart fighters for liberty and the limited government principles that
buoyed them into office. Unfortunately, many of them voted for the
debt deal and every single spending bill, in violation of multiple
campaign pledges. Indeed, many of them are anything but Tea Party
leaders.<br />
One of the unwavering and indefatigable members of the freshmen class, Mick Mulvaney, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71292.html">had this to say about his fellow rookies:</a><br />
<blockquote>
“I would be embarrassed to tell you how many folks ran
saying that they weren’t going to spend a bunch of money, they weren’t
going to raise the debt ceiling, and then they went to Washington, D.C.,
and did exactly that.” My dad told me something long before I was in
politics, and when your dad gives you advice every single day,
eventually one or two of the things stick in your mind. And he said,
don’t believe what people say, believe what they do.”<br />
“We cannot have another experience like we’ve had in my freshman class, of people saying one thing and doing another.”</blockquote>
<span id="more-2904"></span><br />
Thus, despite Republicans winning control of the House, we are still a minority in the majority.<br />
We must internalize this lesson and commit ourselves to harness any
opportunity to elect a steadfast conservative. We have very little time
this year because all of the primaries have been moved up for the
presidential election. There are many solid conservative districts with
members who supported every solitary sellout of the legislative
session. The disappointment of the presidential election is serving as
my inspiration to highlight these races in the coming weeks. Hopefully,
you will share that inspiration as well.<br />
<br />
For now, there are some clear winners in the Senate races. Here is a list to build on:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="http://www.jeffflake.com/">Jeff Flake</a> (AZ)<br />
<a href="http://www.adamhasner.com/">Adam Hasner</a> (FL)<br />
<a href="http://richardmourdock.com/">Richard Mourdock</a> (IN)<br />
<a href="http://www.joshmandel.com/">Josh Mandel</a> (OH)<br />
<a href="http://stenbergforsenate.com/">Don Stenberg</a> (Neb)<br />
<a href="http://www.tedcruz.org/">Ted Cruz</a> (TX)<br />
<a href="http://neumann2012.com/">Mark Neumann</a> (Wis)<br />
<br />
It is also important that we choose a worthy candidate in the wide
open primaries for Senate seats in New Mexico and Pennsylvania, two
critical swing states. It would be nice if we could light a fire in
conservative states like Tennessee and Mississippi. Some of the other
senatorial primaries are, for better or worse, already forgone
conclusions. Others still need to be sorted out.<br />
<br />
Then, with all the open seats, new districts, and disappointing
freshmen (and old bulls), there are dozens of House seats that are ripe
for picking.<br />
<br />
There is a lot to do and very little time left to make a difference.<br />
<br />
We all must get to work.<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-42601433340723467612012-01-12T10:56:00.002-05:002012-01-12T10:56:31.269-05:00Multiple Choice Mitt’s Changing Colors on RomneycareApril 12, 2006 is a day that will live on in infamy. That was the
day that then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed his signature socialized
healthcare bill into law with Ted Kennedy standing over his shoulder.
It was the first time in American history that government of any sort
compelled its citizenry to purchase health insurance. It served as the
catalyst for an individual mandate on a federal level, paving the road
for Obamacare.<br />
<br />
At the time, John Kerry heaped accolades on Romney, ominously
suggesting that “we really need to be doing that on the national level.”
Ted Kennedy praised it as “just what the doctor ordered,” and observed
that we “may well have fired a shot heard round the world.” It took
less than four years for the shot to metastasize into a bombardment –
one that will permanently attenuate our free-enterprise economy.<br />
<br />
So how did Romney feel about his signature accomplishment of an otherwise uninspiring one-term tenure as governor?<br />
<br />
At the time of its passage, Romney dubbed it as a “once in a generation” achievement. He <a href="http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2006/06-04-14.htm#Herald">referred to his magnum opus</a>,
which created subsidies for government run exchanges (larger than those
created under Obamacare), as a “landmark” achievement “to get all of
our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover.”<br />
<br />
From Romney’s perspective, did he consider final passage of MassCare a
meritorious ideal or a mediocre compromise watered down by the Democrat
legislature?<br />
<br />
Well, immediately after he signed the bill into law, he told Newsweek
reporter Jennifer Barrett that “the final legislation incorporates
about 95 percent of my original proposal.”<br />
<br />
At the time, did Romney feel that the framework for his healthcare
plan was a virtuous policy endeavor for the rest of the nation?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="more-2895"></span><br />
On the day he signed the bill, he put out a press release quoting
then-Secretary of HHS Tommy Thompson (who, by the way, must be defeated
in Wisconsin) saying, “Massachusetts is showing us a better way, one I
hope policy makers in Statehouses and Congress will follow to build a
healthier and stronger America.”<br />
Being that Romneycare was Mitt’s “landmark” and “once in a
generation” accomplishment, you would have expected him to tout it
incessantly during his presidential campaign later that year and in
2007. Instead, Romneycare became the best kept secret of his
presidential campaign.<br />
<br />
As the crushing costs of Romneycare –both to the public and private
sector – became evident, and as Romney began to court conservative
voters opposing McCain, he placed his signature accomplishment in the
Mittness Protection Program. Not only did he decline to offer it as a
national solution, Romney never spoke about MassCare unless prodded by
conservative figures. When pressed about the vices of his healthcare
bill, Romney would summarily <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202418.html">dismiss them as problems stemming from Democrat provisions in the bill</a>
– unspecified aspects that he supposedly opposed. In January 2007, at
the beginning of the presidential campaign, he told a group of National
Romney <del>Review</del> Online supporters that “we believed we’d get
everybody insured in an economic way, but I don’t know what is going to
happen down the road as the Democrats get their hands on it.”<br />
<br />
Romney often cast doubts as to the future success of his plan as a result of the “Democrat legislature.” In Feb. 2007, <a href="http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2007/02/03/romney_distances_self_from_mass_health_plan/?page=full">he told a crowd in Baltimore</a>
“if Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a
model for the nation. If not, other states that are copying aspects of
Massachusetts’ [plan] will find a better way, and then we can copy
them.”<br />
<br />
Well, the facts are in. Romneycare <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/09/15/romneycare-a-microcosm-of-obamacare-according-to-conservative-study/">has failed to control costs</a>,
and has dramatically raised the price of health insurance on everyone.
Nevertheless, Mitt Romney denies the facts and continues to view his
signature legislation as a success. He has repeatedly asserted that 92%
of Massachussets residents are unaffected by Romneycare. Yet, he has
consistently and vehemently declined to endorse a similar plan on a
national level. What happened to his conviction that ” if Massachusetts
succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation?”<br />
<br />
In 2006, while he was Governor, Romneycare was a “once in a
generation” accomplishment that should be mimicked on a national level.
In 2007, while running to the right of McCain, it was a dirty skeleton
in the closet that was exacerbated by Democrat sabotage. Now it is a
resounding success….but only on a state level. God forbid it to be even
entertained on a national level.<br />
<br />
So which one is it, Mitt?Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-45026713563996983202012-01-11T07:22:00.000-05:002012-01-11T15:23:16.572-05:00Romneycare, Bain Capital, 2012, and the Lost Opportunity to Assail Obamacare<div style="color: black; float: right; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 22px; height: 5em; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 90px; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: right; width: 250px;">
“Romney’s
career as a venture socialist governor is what should concern us; not
his career as a venture capitalist in the private sector.”</div>
At this point, residents of South Carolina are already getting tired
of those TV ads and documentaries detailing the destruction wrought by
Romneycare. They are jaded by the flashing screens of middle class sob
stories from respectable Massachusetts taxpayers – taxpayers who never
requested handouts – being forced to struggle with skyrocketing health
insurance costs as a result of the market-distortions engendered by
Romneycare.<br />
<br />
Every South Carolina resident can recite the now infamous closing
line of the anti-Romney ads by heart: “shall we nominate the grandfather
of Obamacare to run against its father?”<br />
<br />
Oh, wait. Those ads never ran.<br />
<br />
Amidst this week’s contretemps over Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital,
for some reason, we are obscuring the real albatross around Romney’s
neck; the issue of healthcare. While Romney’s record at Bain might
provide Obama with his biggest campaign weapon, Romneycare will disarm
Romney, and by extension, all Republicans, of our biggest campaign
weapon, namely, Obamacare. And while Bain might provide Romney’s
Republican opponents with a useful political argument (Romney’s
electability problems in the general election), it does not provide them
with a prudent and virtuous ideological argument. Romneycare, on the
other hand, provides the Mitt-alternatives with inviolable ideological
arguments as well as political ones.<br />
<br />
Romneycare is the antecedent to Obamacare. It dramatically distorted
the free-market of private insurance; it dumped a few hundred thousand
people onto <span style="text-decoration: underline;">federally</span> funded Medicaid; it set up gov’t-run exchanges that disincentivize success and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm">offer larger subsidies than those proposed in Obamacare</a>;
it placed unreasonable mandates on employers to fund their employee’s
healthcare. The net result of Romneycare was the archetypical outcome
of every statist policy; the price of a vital service was purposely
distorted as a means of enticing more people to become dependent upon
government.<br />
<br />
Yes, it was all orchestrated by state government, not the federal
government. Such a rationalization, according to Mitt, will ameliorate
all of Romneycare’s vices – vices that are identical to those inherent
in Obamacare. Somehow, regressive statism is <em>desirable</em> simply because Romney had the “right” to implement it as governor of a state.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<span id="more-2881"></span><br />
Moreover, as a political argument, how will Romney be able to employ
our most potent weapon in a way that won’t be perceived as
hypocritical? Try to imagine a general election debate over healthcare
between Romney and Obama:<br />
<br />
<strong>Romney</strong>: “Obamacare is a disaster.”<br />
<br />
<strong>Obama</strong>: “If you like your health care plan, you can
keep your health care plan. People outside of the exchange will be
unaffected by the changes. Further, Mr. Romney, we actually got the
ideas of subsidized healthcare exchanges and the individual mandate from
you. Weren’t they pretty successful in Massachusetts?”<br />
<br />
Now, had Romney disavowed his Massachusetts disaster, he would be in a
good position to articulate the failures of government-run healthcare
vis-à-vis controlling costs. He could point to the skyrocketing costs
of insurance premiums in Mass. as the canary in the coal mine for the
rest of the nation.<br />
<br />
He could observe the fact that the rest of the nation is indeed
incurring the inimical effects of market distortions that he originally,
yet erroneously, implemented in his home state a few years earlier.<br />
<br />
He could apply political jujitsu against Obama’s class warfare by
explaining how it is Obama’s regressive ‘progressive’ policies that are
summarily driving up the cost of healthcare on “the middle class,” with
the intent of forcing them on government-run health programs.<br />
<br />
He could implore the nation to learn from the mistakes of
Massachusetts in mandating guaranteed issuance and community rating.
Community rating forces insurance companies to charge all customers
similar premiums, irrespective of their station in life and risk
potential. These mandates are the biggest drivers of healthcare
insurance inflation and are an anathema to all our conservative
beliefs. They failed in Massachusetts. They will fail nationally as
well.<br />
<br />
Obamacare has raised the cost of private health insurance <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-27/health-benefit-costs-rise-most-in-six-years-surpassing-15-000-per-family.html">premiums by 9% in just one year</a>, even before its enactment. <a href="http://www.ohioexchange.ohio.gov/Documents/MillimanReport.pdf">One study estimates</a>
that Obamacare will raise the cost of individual health insurance
premiums by 55%-85%, while a healthy young male may experience a rate
increase of between 90% and 130%. Worse, many employers <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/30-percent-employers-drop-health-coverage-because-obamacare">plan to drop healthcare coverage</a>.<br />
<br />
Sadly, not only has Romney failed to disavow the Massachusetts
travesty, he defends it in the exact manner which Obama defends his
signature accomplishment. He had this to say at the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/22/fox-news-google-gop-2012-presidential-debate/"><em>FoxNews-Google Debate</em></a><em> in September: </em><br />
<blockquote>
“Let me tell you this about our system in Massachusetts:
92 percent of our people were insured before we put our plan in place.
Nothing’s changed for them. The system is the same. They have private
market-based insurance. We had 8 percent of our people that weren’t
insured. And so what we did is we said let’s find a way to get them
insurance, again, market-based private insurance. We didn’t come up with
some new government insurance plan.” <em></em></blockquote>
There you have it. Romney, just like Obama, denies the fact that
government interventions in the private market will invariably harm all
consumers and businesses. Perforce, he will have no response to Obama
other than the vapid “that was state, this is federal” argument. Yup,
something so terrible on a federal level is so superlative on a state
level.<br />
<br />
In other words, Romney will completely disarm us of our most
successful electoral weapon. We should be able to harness the
anti-Obamacare sentiment even more deftly this year than in 2010, as the
higher premiums stimulated by the bill are being actualized. Yet, we
will squander this paramount opportunity because none of the other
candidates seem to care. As Philip Klein <a href="http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/how-republicans-will-spin-romneycare/304426">ominously predicts</a>,
“should he [Romney] become the nominee, the Massachusetts program will
no longer be a problem just for him, Romneycare will become a thorny
issue for the entire Republican party."<br />
<br />
One of the most inscrutable aspects of the primary campaign is the
failure of the super PACs to concoct half-hour documentaries on
Romneycare. Guaranteed issue, community rating, government-run health
exchanges, and Medicaid expansion are bigger imprecations to the
free-market than Romney’s career at Bain. Romney’s career as a venture
socialist governor is what should concern us; not his career as a
venture capitalist in the private sector.<br />
<br />
After three years of campaigning against Obamacare, we are on the
verge of elevating the Thomas Edison of anti-free-market healthcare to
the party’s highest honor.<br />
<br />
With the presidential election going downhill, it is probably time to
apply our Tea Party energy to the congressional elections. In the
coming days we will redouble our efforts here at Red State to elect
conservative members to the Senate and House.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-49237405537445500832012-01-11T00:22:00.000-05:002012-01-11T00:22:03.277-05:00Oh Yes, It’s in Article 1At the beginning of the 112<sup>th</sup> Congress, as part of an
effort to inject more transparency into the legislative process, the
House adopted a rule requiring that each bill be accompanied by a
Constitutional Authority Statement. The purpose of the rule was to
expose the cavalier attitude of those members who desire to legislate
‘just because they can.’<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, after a year of legislating under this rule, it appears that we
are in serious need of accountability measures to provide some clarity
and specificity to the authority statement. Otherwise, the rule will be
regarded as yet another “transparency” gimmick of Congress.<br />
<br />
Republican congressional staffers combed through almost 3800 bills
and joint resolutions that have been introduced this year, in an effort
to gauge the clarity and specificity of the Constitutional Authority
Statements. For the most part, the results are pretty pathetic. Here
are some of their key findings:<br />
<ul>
<li>Overall, 945 bills contained authority statements which do not
reference a specific power granted by the Constitution. Many of these
merely cited “Article 1” or “Article 1 Section 1” “Article 1 Section 8.”
In other words, they just cited the fact that Congress has the power to
legislate, but failed to divulge which constitutional power or specific
clause is supporting their legislation.</li>
<li>There were 732 bills which only referenced the commerce clause, 660
which only referenced the general welfare clause, and 321 which
mentioned the necessary and proper clause without reference to a
previous Constitutional clause to which the necessary and proper clause
might apply.</li>
<li>In total, there were 2658 Constitutional Authority Statements that
were either questionable or vague. That represents roughly 69% of all
bills and resolutions introduced in the 1<sup>st</sup> Session of the 112<sup>th</sup> Congress.</li>
<li>While more of the vague citations are attributable to Democrat bill
sponsors, many Republicans were lax in offering meaningful authority
statements. Almost as many Republicans used the inexplicit commerce
clause as Democrats.</li>
</ul>
After the first year of the Constitutional Authority rule, it is
clear that it has failed to dissuade members from proposing frivolous
legislation. At a minimum, every authority statement should detail the
specific clause and power that authorizes the legislation. Moreover,
the statement should be accompanied by a brief explanation describing
the reason why there is a constitutional mandate for that particular
bill. Without further improvements, this rule is just a waste of ink
and paper.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-47365702233439295202012-01-09T21:20:00.003-05:002012-01-09T21:20:27.683-05:00The Anatomy of a Keynesian Recovery<div class="entry">
Almost two and a half years since the recession officially
ended, we are finally observing a modest recovery in the job market.
Even if we discount the 42,000 new holiday season jobs for “couriers and
messengers,” there is clearly some jobs growth in key sectors of the
economy. Unfortunately, aside for the fact that the recovery is languid
and underwhelming by historical standards, it is also unwholesome. Our
economic recovery is similar to a computer that is repaired from a
serious virus; it functions adequately but is never the same. In other
words, we are reaping the benefits of a government-managed Keynesian
recovery.<br />
<br />
During 2008-2009, instead of letting the economy settle and enjoy a
robust recovery through the perennial business cycle, the Bush and Obama
administrations engaged in fiscal stimulus, monetary stimulus, housing
stimulus, bailouts, and takeovers of major industries. Perforce, our
economy, as much is it will inevitably recover, will be fundamentally
weaker than it was prior to the recession. Historically, we have always
come out of recessions in a stronger position than prior to the
economic downturn, but not this time.<br />
<br />
Nothing is more emblematic of our permanently damaged economy than
the interminable shrinkage of our labor force. Our labor force is
roughly 850,000 smaller than it was when the recession ended in middle
of 2009, even though the civilian population of working age people has
increased by roughly 4 million. At this point in the Reagan recovery,
the labor force had <span style="text-decoration: underline;">expanded</span> by 4 million.<br />
<br />
The labor force participation rate has steadily declined from 65.7%
in mid-2009 to 64.0%, even as unemployment has eased. During that same
period, almost another 200,000 people gave up looking for work. If the
participation rate were back to its recent average, the U3 unemployment
rate would be well over 11%. This is not even accounting for the U6
number of underemployed and part-time workers, which is still
astronomically high (15.2%). Overall, 23.7 million are either out of
work or underemployed.<br />
<br />
Oh, and what about the fact that the Black unemployment rate has
climbed another 0.8% to 15.8% over the past three months? Is this good
news? Or is it more soft bigotry of low expectations?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="more-2850"></span><br />
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" id="attachment_2856" style="width: 290px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/files/2012/01/ED-AO749_1morej_G_20120106191804.jpg"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-2856" height="290" src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/files/2012/01/ED-AO749_1morej_G_20120106191804.jpg" width="280" /></a></div>
<div class="wp-caption-text">
Wall Street Journal</div>
<div class="wp-caption-text">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What’s equally disconcerting is the fact
that the employment-population ratio, the proportion of working-age
people who are employed, is near an all-time low at 58.5%. How are we
going to sustain Social Security, as well as all the welfare programs,
with such a small workforce relative to the population? With less
people working, we will permanently forfeit much of our economic
output. The median household income has already dropped 5.1% since the <em>end</em> of the recession.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Unless we end the bipartisan micromanagement
of our economy, a sluggish economy and a permanently anemic labor force
will be the new norm. As long as our entire GDP is consumed by debt,
we will be relegated to European style economic growth forever. And
that is exactly what Obama intended when he campaigned on fundamentally
transforming America.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-56627643223501050802012-01-08T00:53:00.000-05:002012-01-08T17:53:53.204-05:00The Biggest Mistake of the Worst Debate<div class="entry">
Let’s face it: the ABC News New Hampshire debate was the worst
debate of the entire election cycle. And that is saying something,
considering the sheer volume of debates. How many years and election
cycles will it take before Republicans learn to turn to conservatives as
moderators for presidential debates, instead of washed up Democrat
hacks disguised as journalists?<br />
<br />
Now, to the extent that such a pathetic debate is worthy of any
analysis, the clear winner was Mitt Romney. Watching the debate, you’d
think Ron Paul was the frontrunner. All of the verbal altercations
played out between Ron Paul and one of the other candidates. Romney was
able to sit pretty throughout the entire debate, except for one
monologue from Santorum at the end of the debate. Undoubtedly, the
platform for the debate, along with the inane questions, wasn’t exactly
conducive to attacking Romney’s liberal record as governor. However,
they all had an opportunity during the opening salvo of the debate.
They failed miserably.<br />
<br />
The candidates were given an opportunity to assail Romney’s business
record at Bain Capital as a job killer. Gingrich and Santorum should
have parried the question and gone after Romney on his record in <span style="text-decoration: underline;">politics</span>.
They should have praised Romney’s record as a businessman while ticking
off his liberal vices and his terrible record as Governor, most
prominently, his record on healthcare. They should have decried the
fact that we are on the precipice of nominating Obama’s inspiration for
Obamacare as his successor. Instead, they chose an awkward position –
one that placed them to Romney’s left on free-market entrepreneurship.
Why attack his record as a CEO when you can destroy him on his liberal
record as governor? This was the biggest mistake on the part of those
who are seeking to derail Romney.<br />
<br />
To be sure, it was refreshing to hear Santorum finally take Romney to
task for his class system rhetoric; however, he obviated his argument
by making “blue collar worker” a prominent part of his lexicon.
Santorum should have also used that response as an opportunity to attack
Romneycare for its inherent class warfare. Romneycare disincentivizes
success and upward mobility by offering greater subsidies for lower
income earners.<br />
<br />
I still can’t get over the fact that we are about to nominate the
godfather of market-distorting government-run healthcare in an election
against government-run healthcare. This is insane.<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-36852961989856588032012-01-05T17:52:00.000-05:002012-01-08T17:52:53.573-05:00Obama’s Imaginary Senate Recess<div class="entry">
Yesterday, Barack Obama engaged in one of the most unprecedented
assaults on the Constitution. He appointed Richard Cordray as the
first chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and named three
new members to the National Labor Relations Board, even though the
Senate did not approve them and is not in recess. Obama <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/04/americas-consumer-watchdog">employed absurd</a> casuistry to suggest that the Senate has in fact been in recess for weeks:<br />
<blockquote>
Here are the facts: The Constitution gives the President
the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant
positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents
have exercised. The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks,
and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to
prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, <strong>Republican
Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which
are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead
one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of
seconds.</strong> But gimmicks do not override the President’s
constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government
running. Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised
President Bush on recess appointments <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101405441.html">wrote</a> that the Senate cannot use sham “pro forma” sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.</blockquote>
You might have been at the golf course on December 23, Mr. President,
but here are the real facts. On that day, during a “gimmicky” pro
forma session, the House and Senate passed a sweeping tax extenders
bill, which granted tax cuts to almost every worker, unemployment
benefits to millions of the jobless, and reimbursement payments to
hundreds of thousands of healthcare providers. That is much more
consequential than a few agency appointments. If Congress can do all
that during a “recess,” they certainly have the ability to advise and
consent on a handful of executive branch nominations.<br />
<br />
And if a pro forma session is indeed considered a recess, can we now
vitiate the ridiculous two-month extenders package? What if Congress
would send you another stimulus bill to sign during a “gimmick”
pro-forma session; would you reject it? As you know, Mr. President,
many consequential things can occur during those few “seconds.”<br />
<br />
<strong>Update</strong>: House Democrats seem to disagree with Obama. They <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/house_democrats_press_on_payroll_issue-211344-1.html?pos=hbtxt">held a press conference</a>
calling on Republicans to come back to Washington and join them in
working on the conference committee for the extenders package. That’s
some recess going on there.<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-75921199647325400902012-01-04T13:06:00.003-05:002012-01-04T13:06:42.436-05:00Result of Iowa: They Didn’t Want Mitt in 2008;They Don’t Want Him Now<div class="entry">
The results of the Iowa Caucuses are in. To the extent that you
can draw conclusions from the votes of 123,000 individuals, here are
some quick observations.<br />
<br />
1) The Media will invariably focus on which conservative candidates
should drop out. They will also focus on the fact that there is nobody
who has a definitive roadmap to defeat Romney. But the larger point
they will overlook is how much the Republican electorate dislikes
Romney. He spent million of dollars in 2008 and got crushed by
Huckabee. He spent millions of dollars this year, yet he failed to
improve on his 2008 showing (Santorum spent just $30,000 on ads). The
punchline is that 75% of GOP voters are willing to vote for anyone <span style="text-decoration: underline;">anyone</span> against Romney.<br />
<br />
2) It appears that Romney’s base of support is limited to rich
secular voters. That’s not exactly the appeal you want to have going
into this election. There is very little overlap between Romney’s 2008
voters and his current supporters. In other words, he is last cycle’s
McCain.<br />
<br />
3) As we head into New Hampshire and South Carolina, I have a feeling
that Romney will finally incur aggressive and sustained attacks from
multiple candidates. In particular, Newt is seeking his revenge – to
the extent that he wants Romney to lose more than he wants to win
himself.<br />
<br />
4) With 27% of the electorate being Independent voters, and Ron Paul
garnering support of almost half those voters, can we finally end this
nonsense of having non-Republicans vote in a Republican primary/caucus?<br />
<br />
5) With the prospects of electing a conservative president becoming
dimmer by the day, we really need to divert some of our attention to the
congressional races. In a presidential election year, all of the
primaries are much earlier, including those for Senate and House
candidates. We need to mobilize for conservatives down the ticket. Our
Republican president will need a strong conservative Congress to
prevent a rehash of the 2001-2006 era of compassionate conservatism.<br />
<br />
6) The most important observation from Iowa? Republicans are
dramatically underwhelmed by the current field. In a year when
Republicans are fired up to defeat Obama, they barley broke the 2008
turnout record, and when the increase in Independent voters is factored
in, there were probably less Republican voters this time around. Unlike
previous elections, there is a huge opportunity for a conservative
candidate to enter the race and sweep the field. Unless someone else
gets in, Gingrich appears to be the only one who still has a decent
level of national support to drag Romney into a protracted primary
battle.<br />
<br />
7) On a personal level, I’ve always said that I would support the
anti-Romney whomever that would be (except for Paul), just as I would
support any Republicans nominee against Obama in the general election.
For now, with Perry headed back to Texas and Santorum with little
support outside of Iowa, it appears that Newt is the only hope for those
who proudly declare: Mittens Delenda Est. McCain’s impending
endorsement of Romney will only galvanize us to kill (politically, of
course) two Republican imposters with one stone.<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-83092919474260874162012-01-04T13:05:00.003-05:002012-01-04T13:05:45.329-05:00Is Harry Reid Really the Most Successful Majority Leader?Yesterday, <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/harry_reid_beat_back_majority_of_filibusters_in_2011-211303-1.html?pos=hbtxt"><em>Roll Call</em> published</a>
an article suggesting that Harry Reid has had quite an auspicious year
as Majority Leader. They observe the fact that Reid has won a larger
percentage of cloture votes this year than in 2010, even though his
caucus has been diminished from 59 senators to 53:<br />
<blockquote>
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to win more
than half of the filibuster-breaking votes on the Senate floor in 2011,
besting his success rate from the previous year.<br />
Of the 32 cloture votes pushed by the Nevada Democrat this year, Reid won 19, or 59 percent. He lost 13 cloture votes.<br />
That comes after hitting a success rate of 54 percent in 2010, when
he won 28 cloture votes and lost 24. Sixty votes are needed to cut off
debate and kill a filibuster, or invoke cloture.<br />
Reid’s majority shrunk from 59 Senators in 2010 to 53 in 2011,
increasing the number of Republicans needed to vote with the majority of
Democrats in order to reach the 60-vote threshold.</blockquote>
I’ll be the first person to tell you that Senate Republicans have
capitulated too much this year; however, that is not the primary reason
for Harry Reid’s successful cloture record. His high degree of success
this year is more a symptom of a do-nothing Senate than a successful
rate of filibuster-busting on the part of Reid. In fact, there have
been very few actual filibusters this session, and the few that were
mounted were successful.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="more-2824"></span><br />
<br />
Harry Reid has made it standard operating procedure to automatically
file for cloture, even when there is no actual filibuster. Most of the
19 “successful” cloture votes were not filed to break a live
filibuster. They were filed for non-controversial votes, such as
presidential nominations. Even those cloture votes that pertained to
controversial issues were not directed towards ending a filibuster. On
issues like the patent reform bill, omnibus, minibus, and other
appropriations bills, McConnell already agreed to cave ahead of time,
pursuant to a deal that was already worked out with Boehner. Reid only
filed cloture to expedite Senate business. Some of these
non-filibustered bills had two cloture votes; one on a motion to proceed
and one on passage of the bill. When these factors are accounted for,
there are very few instances in which Reid successfully killed off a
filibuster backed by the Republican conference.<br />
<br />
The reality is that Harry Reid has led the biggest do-nothing Senate
ever. He has spent the majority of time on quorum calls and
presidential nominations. When there are few legislative issues brought
to the floor, there are few filibusters; when there are few filibusters
there are few unsuccessful cloture votes. On average, there have been
50-55 cloture votes in recent years. In 2010, there were only 39
because Reid enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority for much of the time,
thereby precluding the need for a cloture vote. Therefore, 32 cloture
votes is actually remarkably low given the fact that Reid had nothing
near a filibuster-proof majority this past year. Then again, there
wasn’t much to filibuster in the first place.<br />
<br />
Democrats enjoyed many legislative victories this year, but they were
not a result of Harry Reid’s parliamentarian tenacity or successful
cloture votes. They were the result of gratuitous capitulations on the
part of GOP leaders, most notably, on budget bills. The worst offense
was McConnell’s unilateral surrender on the payroll tax/UI bill, which
undercut the superior leverage of House Republicans. That capitulation
was accomplished without a single cloture vote, as there was no
filibuster in place. Jim DeMint was left out in the cold – without 40
fellow travelers. No filibuster; no cloture votes.<br />
<br />
Harry Reid is not a political juggernaut; he is a paper tiger – one who could be vanquished by a principled opposition.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-75989542097423587832012-01-03T10:20:00.001-05:002012-01-03T10:20:19.470-05:00Quash the Ethanol Beast in Honor of Iowa Caucuses<b>We still have work to do in ridding ourselves of the ethanol juggernaut </b><br />
<br />
As the clock struck 12 am January 1, one of the most anti free market
government interventions expired without renewal and without fanfare.
In honor of the Iowa Caucuses, we can now declare that the ethanol
subsidies and tariffs are finally dead. However, before we celebrate
this rare piece of good news, we must remember that in order to
deracinate the ethanol beast from our midst, we must destroy its third
leg; the 10% blenders mandate.<br />
<br />
<br />
Over the past decade, ethanol has been the poster child for the worst
aspects of big-government crony capitalism. The ethanol industry has
used the fist of government to mandate that fuel blenders use their
product, to subsidize their production with refundable tax credits, and
to impose tariffs on more efficient sugar-based ethanol from Brazil.<br />
<br />
This onerous mega-intervention on the part of government has had a
devastating effect on the price of food and gas and it has forced
consumers to purchase inefficient and often damaging fuel. Yet worst of
all, it has enriched an industry that would have otherwise faltered in
the natural order of the free-market. Ethanol production has increased
719% during the past decade, as almost half of all corn grown in the
country is diverted for this unnatural and odious use of a product that
was traditionally grown for livestock feed. Government-backed venture
socialism is indeed a powerful force.<br />
<br />
Ethanol blenders have benefited from the 45-cent per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), <a href="http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/federal-tax-incentives-veetc">which may be refundable</a>
for those companies that lack any excise tax liability. The ethanol
industry has pocketed over $45 billion in subsidies since 1980, with a
$6 billion annual price tag in recent years. Additionally, all foreign
ethanol imports incurred a 54-cent-per-gallon import tariff, which
coupled with a mandatory 2.5% ad valorem tax, adds up to an increased
cost of about $0.60 per gallon.<br />
<br />
These two policies are unlikely to be renewed; however, the most
egregious part of the three-legged ethanol beast –the mandate – is still
intact. Industry leaders are employing a rope-a-dope strategy
vis-à-vis the subsidies, while launching a counterattack to double down
on the mandates. They must be stopped.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="more-2816"></span><br />
Under current law, the federal government mandates that 10% of fuel
contain ethanol. This is on top of the generic mandate that requires
the consumption of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. All
these government interventions and coercions have had such a tendentious
effect on ethanol production, that there is now a massive surplus of
domestic ethanol. By far, the tyrannical mandate requiring everyone to
use this ineffectual product is more effective than the subsidy or
tariff.<br />
<br />
Now, the ethanol industry is planning an aggressive lobbying effort
to expand the mandate in order to sell off their government-sponsored
surpluses. Tom Buis, CEO for the industry group Growth Energy, <a href="http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4007451">revealed that the new agenda</a>
“is opening up the market place with E15 (15% ethanol blend), and flex
pumps and flex fuel vehicles.” Such an increase in ethanol
concentration will have a dangerous effect on automobile engines, yet
these leeches only care about their bottom line.<br />
<br />
While expansion of the mandate is an uphill battle for ethanol
peddlers, they will use the inevitable price increase at the gas pump as
casuistry for their agenda. Repeal of the subsidy for ethanol blenders
will increase the cost of gas, even though ethanol is an ineffectual
and inefficient fuel mixture that has engendered higher gas prices.<br />
<br />
Sound confusing? It’s actually quite simple.<br />
<br />
In the real world of the free-market – one in which we would use 100%
petroleum – gas prices would necessarily decrease. However, as long as
the mandate for 10% ethanol concentration is left intact, we will be
forced to purchase this more expensive fuel, albeit at a higher price,
due to the expiration of the subsidy. Industry lobbyists will use this
counterintuitive argument to promote an increase to the destructive E15
mandate.<br />
<br />
House Republicans must preempt this act of aggression by repealing
the sections of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct, P.L. 109-58) and
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140)
that mandate ethanol fuel blends. In fact, they should probably repeal
those laws entirely.<br />
<br />
Not only is this good policy; it is good politics (outside of Iowa).
This is a quintessential opportunity for Republicans to stand on
principle on an issue that resonates with populist factions on both
sides of the aisle. There is no better example of how government
regulations and corporate welfare are used to enrich a select few – to
the detriment of all American consumers – than the ethanol boondoggle.
There is no worse form of tyranny than using the boot of government to
force consumers to purchase a particular product.<br />
<br />
Republicans should not squander this teachable moment and unique opportunity to completely kill ethanol while it is unpopular.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-10372256712657920052012-01-01T20:29:00.003-05:002012-01-01T20:29:26.787-05:00Will Obama be a Debt Man Walking in 2012?<div class="entry">
2011 was a disastrous year for our debt. Yes, the Republican
Congress prevented Obama from passing his budget, which would have added
$1.6 trillion in new deficit spending. Instead, they passed a budget
that added an additional $1.3 trillion to the national debt. Overall,
federal outlays in FY 2011 (which ended September 30) were $141 billion
more than the previous year. For FY 2012, thanks to the disastrous
omnibus bill, we are on pace to spend at least an additional $55
billion, including $10 billion more in discretionary spending. With
welfare programs skyrocketing out of control, and as unemployment
continues to remain abnormally high, those mandatory spending estimates
will ineluctably be revised upward.<br />
<br />
This president is so pathetic that after just three years in office
he has accrued $4.5 trillion in debt, worth 30% of our current GDP.
That’s more debt than Bush’s compassionate conservatism left us with
after eight years in office. By the end of his first (and hopefully,
only) term, he will leave the taxpayers with a $5.7-$5.9 trillion bill.
Historically, most major spikes in deficit spending were precipitated
by major increases in defense and war spending. This president will
rack up record deficits even as he downsizes the military. In their<a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/01/chart-of-the-week-u-s-presidents-ranked-by-budget-deficits/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter"> chart of the week</a>,
the Heritage Foundation compares the average annual deficits of each
president as a percentage of GDP. As you can see, it is no contest:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/files/2012/01/budget-create-deficits-6004.jpg"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-2805" height="455" src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/files/2012/01/budget-create-deficits-6004.jpg" width="481" /></a></div>
<br />
As this election year begins to mature, we will finally receive an
answer to the $15 trillion question: With 47 million people on food
stamps, 50 million on Medicaid, and almost 50% not paying taxes, are
there enough people who care?<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-12053613955105178602011-12-29T15:34:00.003-05:002011-12-29T15:34:51.215-05:00Brain Dead Dem Congressman Thinks Spending is Too Low<div class="entry">
In case you were wondering why we are doing nothing to slow our
inexorable march towards Greek-style insolvency, look no further than
those who are vested with the power of the purse string. Yesterday, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/201551--dem-rep-suggests-federal-spending-levels-too-low-">Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) suggested</a>
that we are not spending enough “to invest in research and development,
education and infrastructure that would allow America to compete in
this increasingly global economy.” He proved his assertion by comparing
our deficits to….the WWII era!<br />
<blockquote>
According to the Office of Management and Budget,
America’s deficits were more than twice as large in the 1940s as they
are today. In 1943, the deficit was 30 percent of our economy’s size; in
1944, it was 23 percent. Today, it is less than 9 percent. As for
publicly held debt, it was significantly larger as a share of our
economy in 1944 than it is today.</blockquote>
Hmmm, what do you think was going on during 1943-1944? Oh yes, that WWII thing.<br />
<br />
Obviously, we had a massive military buildup – the most unprecedented
in world history – which was very costly at the height of the war. But
those were temporary <em>annual deficits</em>. Immediately after the
war, our deficits returned to historical lows. Consequently, our total
gross debt dipped well below 60% of GDP during the next decade, and
eventually, under 35% of GDP. Just three years after the war ended,
total federal outlays were just 11.6% of GDP; today’s outlays are 24.5%
of our economy. Even in 1944, at the height of the biggest war on world
history,<a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/hist_stats.html"> our total debt</a> was 97.6% of GDP, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">lower than our current 100.5% debt-to-GDP ratio</span>.<br />
<br />
Now if Rep. Holt wants to compare our <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals">spending levels to the WWII era</a>,
let’s take defense and war spending out of the equation for a moment.
In 1944, defense spending accounted for an astounding 86.6% ($79.1
billion) of total federal outlays ($91.3 billion), while non-defense
spending accounted for just 13.4% ($12.2 billion) of the budget. In
other words, non-defense spending in 1944 was pegged at 5.5% of GDP
($219.7 billion).<br />
<br />
In 2012, total defense and war spending will check in at $662.4
billion, or roughly 18% of our estimated $3.7 billion budget. That
means that our non-defense spending will come in at 20% of our GDP
(roughly $15.092 trillion), compared to 5.5% in 1944. This year, our
defense spending will account for 4.4% of GDP compared to 36% in 1944.
So if we want to engage in absurdity and use WWII spending as an
accurate yardstick, why not reduce our non-defense spending to WWII
levels, and cut spending by over $2 trillion?<br />
The irony is that the military is the only expenditure that Democrats
want to cut, yet they are using WWII – when defense consumed almost our
entire budget – as a paradigm for auspicious government “investments.”<br />
<br />
It’s a shame we can’t ship these loons off to Greece.<br />
<br />
Cross-posted to <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/29/brain-dead-dem-congressman-thinks-spending-is-too-low/">RedState.com </a><br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-81971239908565051052011-12-28T14:11:00.003-05:002011-12-28T14:11:59.343-05:00Romney Fundamentally Lacks Conservative Principles on Healthcare…Or Anything Else<div style="color: black; float: right; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 22px; height: 5em; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 90px; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: right; width: 250px;">
“His
only contribution to the party has been his five-year interminable
presidential campaign, despite his insistence that he never intended to
run for office again after 2008.”</div>
When Mitt Romney was seeking the Republican nomination in 2008, he
deflected criticism of Romneycare by blaming its disastrous effects on
the liberal legislature in Massachusetts. That was four years ago, when
Romney was attempting to win the hearts of the conservative base as the
alternative to John McCain.<br />
<br />
This time around, as he seeks to eschew any ideological principles,
Romney is pronouncing his signature healthcare reform as a meritorious
and quite ideal plan, at least for his state. In fact, in recent days,
he has gone so far as to proclaim MassCare as a fundamentally
conservative principle.<br />
<br />
Here is what he had to say <a href="http://thehill.com/video/campaign/201489-romney-says-universal-healthcare-is-a-conservative-principle">today on Fox and Friends [</a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c2MWsTl41o&feature=share">video</a><a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/28/romney-fundamentally-lacks-conservative-principles-on-healthcare%e2%80%a6or-anything-else/%E2%80%9CI%E2%80%99m%20happy%20to%20stand%20by%20the%20things%20that%20I%20believe.%20I%E2%80%99m%20not%20going%20to%20change%20my%20positions%20by%20virtue%20of%20being%20in%20a%20presidential%20campaign,%E2%80%9D%20Romney%20said.%20%E2%80%9CWhat%20we%20did%20was%20right%20for%20the%20people%20of%20Massachusetts,%20the%20plan%20is%20still%20favored%20there%20by%20three%20to%20one,%20and%20it%20is%20fundamentally%20a%20conservative%20principle%20to%20insist%20that%20people%20take%20personal%20responsibility%20as%20opposed%20to%20turning%20to%20government%20for%20giving%20out%20free%20care.%E2%80%9D">]</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
“I’m happy to stand by the things that I believe. I’m not
going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential
campaign,” Romney said. “What we did was right for the people of
Massachusetts, the plan is still favored there by three to one, <strong>and it is fundamentally a conservative principle</strong>
to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to
turning to government for giving out free care.” [emphasis added]</blockquote>
Romney owes Republican primary voters answers to two questions; one ideological and one political.<br />
<br />
1) If Romneycare is built on such inviolable conservative principles;
if Romneycare has been such an auspicious healthcare reform plan, then
what is so terribly offensive about Obamacare? Yes, we’ve heard that
dubious distinction between state governments having the ability to
promulgate tyranny, whereas the federal government is constrained by the
constitution. But why not amend the constitution so we can implement
Romneycare (Obamacare) on a federal level? Why not share your paramount
success with the rest of the nation?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="more-2780"></span><br />
Moreover, as conservatives, we believe the most offensive part of
Obamacare is that it permanently raises the cost of healthcare and
health insurance on everyone in the country. It represents the
motherload of all market-distorters in an industry that is already
plagued by high costs, due to the lack of a free-market. It also dumps
scores of people on Medicaid. It is incontrovertibly clear that
MassCare has engendered <a href="http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/state/x1852604642/Massachusetts-individual-health-premiums-highest-in-Nation">the highest premiums in the nation</a> (indeed the other 92% of Massachusetts residents were affected after all),<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottharrington/2011/09/23/romney-on-romneycare/">while dumping thousands of people</a> onto <span style="text-decoration: underline;">federally funded</span> Medicaid and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm">disincentivizing people not to earn more money</a>. Sounds a bit like Obamacare, huh?<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Romney obdurately denies these studies and insists that
92% of Massachusetts residents weren’t affected by implementation of
MassCare. Let’s concede the point for a moment and say that Romney is
correct. Now if Romneycare was so successful, and in fact, was not a
catalyst for major spikes in premiums and increase in Medicaid
enrollment, isn’t Obama correct when he says that most Americans who
like their current insurance will not be adversely affected by
Obamacare?<br />
<br />
Again, how is Romneycare fundamentally conservative and a great
success, yet Obamacare is supposedly the worst thing in the world? Is
it the fact that Obamacare is funded by tax increases? Then lets just
repeal the tax hikes and fund this laudatory and necessary program
through deficit spending, like a good old compassionate conservative.
The infinitesimal differences between Romneycare and Obamacare fail to
account for the wide bifurcation of Romney’s attitude towards the two
programs. The reality is that both programs are incompatible with
American values of limited government; both seek to undermine individual
liberty and responsibility.<br />
<br />
2) Politically speaking, if Romney were to be the nominee, how can he
assure us that he will be able to effectively use Obamacare – our
biggest political weapon – to our advantage? Even if we concede that
there are some differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, are they
evident enough for him to feel comfortable while attacking Obamacare?<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that we all know he will avoid Obamacare like the
plague in the general election, thereby disarming Republicans of their
most potent political weapon.<br />
<br />
Romney’s primary vice is that he fundamentally has no conservative
principles. While most of the other candidates have significant and
diverse flaws – both personal and ideological – they have fought for
conservatism on some level and at some point in their career. The
highest honor in the Republican Party – the presidential nomination –
should be bequeathed to an individual who has fought in the trenches for
the ideals of the party. Romney, unlike any other candidate, has
produced absolutely nothing for conservatives. Romney merely served for
four years as a liberal governor, while promoting policies that are
antithetical to our beliefs – with no counterbalance of conservative
achievements to ameliorate his abysmal conservative record. His only
contribution to the party has been his five-year interminable
presidential campaign, despite <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204464404577114591784420950.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&_nocache=1324930193002&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj&_nocache=1325085706449&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj">his insistence that he never intended to run for office again</a> after 2008.<br />
<br />
Has our swift growth as a movement over the past few years been only
to nominate someone like this for the highest honor of our party?<br />
<br />
Cross-posted to <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/28/romney-fundamentally-lacks-conservative-principles-on-healthcare%E2%80%A6or-anything-else/">RedState.com </a>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-64944589995518416712011-12-27T22:51:00.004-05:002011-12-28T08:21:04.388-05:00The Chickens of Debt Ceiling Deal Have Come Home to RoostToday, the Treasury Department<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ask-debt-limit-hike-treasury-official-152416457.html"> announced</a>
that Obama will ask for another $1.2 trillion increase in the debt
ceiling, carrying our national debt to $16.394 trillion by next year.
This will bring Obama’s total share of the debt to $5.77 trillion by the
end of his tenure, far more than any other president. Unfortunately,
there is not a darn thing we can do about it. Yet, it didn’t have to be
this way.<br />
<br />
Looking back at this year of legislative battles, there is no doubt
that the debt ceiling deal wins the award for the most insane
capitulation of the year. In July, Obama, who had already accrued $3.6
trillion in debt, was faced with the embarrassing prospect of asking for
yet another increase in the debt limit. That was our opportunity to
extract transformational concessions from Obama in return for the ability
to issue more debt. That was our time to push for Cut, Cap, Balance, or
at the very least, a plain balanced budget amendment.<br />
<br />
Not only did GOP leaders strike out and squander the entire
opportunity, they ground into a double play. They gave Obama the
ability to raise the debt ceiling another $2.1 trillion, just enough to
spare him from another embarrassing debt increase right before the 2012
election. What did we get in return? Our reward for giving him the
increase was, in fact, a twofer gift to Obama. We were “rewarded” with
the creation of the 18th debt commission and the Budget Control Act,
which completely abrogated the Republicans budget, thereby obviating any
leverage we would have during the remaining budget battles of the
year. After all, how could we go back on our word?<br />
<br />
At a time when many “prominent” conservative publications were blithely cheering on this disaster, <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/08/01/9-reasons-to-oppose-boehner-4-0-debt-deal/">we detailed nine reasons to oppose the deal</a>.
Among other things, we noted that the deal would encourage notional
spending cuts, preserve Obamacare, destroy the Ryan budget, engender
deep cuts in defense, and grant Obama a lifeline, all the while, failing
to prevent a credit downgrade.<br />
<br />
Sadly, my premonition has come to fruition. After enjoying a free
ride on the first $900 billion of debt, Obama now has the authority to
issue another $1.2 trillion of debt. He has blown through the first
‘tranche’ of the debt ceiling increase at a rate of almost $6 billion
per day. Now, pursuant to the debt deal, only a resolution of
disapproval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress can preempt such
an increase.<br />
<br />
Those who promoted this debt ceiling scheme last July with oleaginous
columns and speeches, while denouncing its critics as “intransigent,”
should hang their heads in shame.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<span id="more-2766"></span><br />
It is now incontrovertibly clear that this deal was worse than giving
Obama a ‘clean extension.’ We could have fought it out another day;
extracting a modicum of reforms from Democrats during each battle.
Instead, the bipartisan Budget Control Act, while slowing Obama’s
unrealistic baseline spending, will consummate the current unsustainable
levels of spending for the next decade. As long as those who were
signatory to the deal are still leading the House, they will be
constricted by the spending levels of the BCA. Republicans can
formulate any budget they want this coming April, yet they will feel
compelled to commit to the higher spending levels promised under the
debt ceiling deal.<br />
<br />
So after months of garrulous promises to cut spending, we are left
with a budget that fails to cut a penny from discretionary budget
authority, even as mandatory spending continues to rise unabated.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is often better to do nothing than to pass bad
legislation. Thanks to this failed idea, there is no realistic roadmap
for entitlement reform; not a single agency or program will be
eliminated; Obamacare is off limits; there will be no balanced budgets,
ever.<br />
<br />
A simple strikeout would have been far superior to grounding into a
double play. Then again, Republicans are called the stupid party for a
reason.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-26121459015327561032011-12-25T10:38:00.003-05:002011-12-25T10:38:56.053-05:00Charting a Path ForwardIf the traditional description of the political parties wasn’t
evident enough before the payroll tax/UI kerfuffle, it certainly is now:
Democrats are evil and Republicans are stupid. Democrats are evil for
insidiously driving up the deficit, perpetuating unemployment, lying
about Social Security and passing short-term unworkable Social Security
tax <em>holidays</em> for political gain. Republicans are stupid for a)
having Mitch McConnell as Senate Leader and b) coming back to fight the
evilness… but then failing to fight it. They should have <a href="http://www.redstate.com/2011/12/21/pass-a-payroll-tax-cut-extension-and-only-a-payroll-tax-cut-extension/">outflanked the Democrats on the tax cut and waged a separate battle over Unemployment Insurance (UI</a>). Instead they begged Democrats to come to conference with them, a losing proposition from day one.<br />
<br />
Undoubtedly, there is a lot of blame to go around, with the lion’s
share going to Mitch McConnell. However, the important thing is to
forge a strategy going forward into next year.<br />
While everyone is focused on the payroll tax part of the deal,
Democrats are quietly getting what they wanted vis-à-vis the UI program.<br />
<br />
We were all aghast with indignation last year when we found out that
an unprecedented 99 weeks of UI was inserted into the deal that extended
the Bush taxes. We kicked ourselves for allowing that travesty to pass
and promised never to let it happen again. Unfortunately, GOP leaders
waited until it was too late to formulate a coherent principled stance
against the entire premise of extending UI welfare. They made a
compromise to extend the long-term benefits, but gradually reduce
eligibility by 40 weeks. And, by George, it would be paid for.<br />
<br />
Well, now that we foolishly agreed to tie UI benefits to the payroll
tax issue, the fate of the UI extension is inexorably tied to the fate
of the payroll tax cut. Consequently, we will get the full 99 weeks in
perpetuity…and it won’t be paid for. If we were like Democrats, who put
political gain ahead of country, we might be cheering the ancillary
fact that this deal will help perpetuate unemployment and hamper Obama’s
reelection efforts. Another ancillary benefit of this payroll tax
brouhaha is that Democrats will have no leg to stand on when they try to
let the Bush tax cuts expire.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, ancillary benefits are all we have from this deal.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<span id="more-2735"></span><br />
You see, once Republicans agreed to cave on the two-month extension
yesterday, there was no need for them to commit to a conference on a
long-term deal, which isn’t even long-term. They should have started
out fresh next year by dealing with the three issues (payroll taxes, UI,
and Doc fix) <span style="text-decoration: underline;">separately</span>
in the House, and then ship them off to the Senate. They should have
demanded real long-term solutions, by either outflanking Democrats with a
permanent abolishment of the payroll tax or a demand that we tackle
Social security reform. Assuming that Republicans in the Senate would
hold the line against Democrat proposals (that might be a big assumption
with McConnell at the helm), the House would, once again, reclaim their
superior leverage as the only body that could pass a bill.<br />
<br />
Instead, they agreed to a conference with Democrats and many squishy
Republicans. The outcome is already a forgone conclusion. Along with
another ineffectual <em>temporary</em> payroll tax cut extension, they
will permanently consummate 99 weeks of unemployment into the
entitlement empire. And of course, the super-long UI benefits will not
be paid for, at least not in a meaningful way.<br />
<br />
During his press conference today, Harry Reid said (after praising
McConnell for his treachery) that he was choosing conferees who would
fight for full UI extension and against any cuts to the federal
workforce. So there you have it. And one more thing – that conference
report will be impervious to amendments, once again forcing
conservatives into an up-or-down vote on two competing interests; a tax
cut and permanent entitlement spending. So either Democrats will get
everything they want or we will be forced to play defense in blocking
it. What are we going to do next: tie a tax cut vote to legalizing gay
marriage?<br />
<br />
We look back at this year and forlornly recall all of the legislative
failures; all of the lost opportunities. It is clear that Republicans
need to do some soul searching during the recess and decide whether they
want to fight for limited government or not. If they desire to fight
on principle, then they should do so consistently, articulately, and
coherently. If they feel that – with control of just one house – they
are impotent and helpless, they should stop setting themselves up for
battles they are unwilling to win decisively.<br />
<br />
This verse from <em>Kings</em> comes to mind: “And Elijah came unto
all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the
LORD [be] God, follow him: but if Baal, [then] follow him.”Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-14069700076595970962011-12-22T20:59:00.003-05:002011-12-22T20:59:48.452-05:00What Does $40,000 Mean to You?<div class="entry">
<b>Obama's pathetic $40 Social security tax cut is nothing compared to his $40,000 debt increase</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Obama has been running around all day making a fool of himself
as he promotes his $40 Social Security tax cut. Yes, the tax plan that
will create a new class warfare Social Security Taxable Wage limit in
order to accommodate his <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/two-month-payroll-tax-holiday-passed-by-senate-pushed-by-president-cannot-be-implemented-properly-experts-say/">totally unworkable two-month extension</a>. Obama has even set up a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/40dollars">new web page</a> asking people “what $40 per paycheck would mean to you.”<br />
<br />
Republicans should respond by setting up a web page asking every
taxpayer to explain how a $40,000 increase in their share of debt will
affect their finances and those of their grandchildren.<br />
<br />
You see, while the media has been focusing on Obama’s two-month
Social Security tax cut, they have ignored another big story. Our <a href="http://www.usdebtclock.org/">national debt has surpassed 100% of GDP</a>. With Q3 GDP revised downward, our economy now stands at $15.081 trillion. Our total federal debt is over $15.14 trillion.<br />
<br />
How much of that debt is Obama responsible for?<br />
<br />
When Obama took office, the total federal debt stood at $10.6
trillion. Obama’s share of the debt increase is roughly $4.5 trillion.
There are approximately $112.7 million taxpayers. That means that the
individual share of the Obama debt is about $40,000.<br />
<br />
So while Obama is bragging about his $40 tax cut, he is obfuscating
the fact that he is increasing more entitlement spending along with the
package. This will only increase the $40,000 share of debt for every
taxpayer.<br />
<br />
We know that $40,000 is not much for the commander-in-chief of all class warfare, but what does it mean for you?<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-69170042281606828742011-12-21T18:58:00.000-05:002011-12-21T18:58:04.950-05:00Pass A Payroll Tax Cut Extension...and Only a Payroll Tax Cut Extension<div data-mce-style="color: black; float: right; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 22px; height: 5em; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 90px; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: right; width: 250px;" style="color: black; float: right; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 22px; height: 5em; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 90px; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: right; width: 250px;">
“We
need to stop forcing Republicans to face the grim choice between
blocking a tax cut and fighting against more entitlement and deficit
spending.”</div>
There are two inexorable political realities at this
point: the payroll tax cut must be extended and those who block it will
incur a needless political reprisal. To that end, Republicans must
outflank the Democrats on the payroll tax cut, while dealing with the
entitlement extensions in another bill.<br />
<br />
As conservatives, we all
agree that a short-term payroll tax holiday – without Social Security
reform – is inane policy, both in the realm of economic growth and
entitlement reform. We should have either categorically opposed a
Keynesian stimulus holiday by calling out the Democrats for their
hypocrisy on Social Security, or we should have outflanked the Democrats
and called for a permanent diversion of the payroll tax to private
retirement accounts. Unfortunately, the ship already sailed on that a
long time ago. As the <em><a data-mce-href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110573867064702.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110573867064702.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop">Wall Street Journal noted</a></em>,”
if Republicans didn't want to extend the payroll tax cut on the merits,
then they should have put together a strategy and the arguments for
defeating it and explained why.”<br />
<br />
Republican leaders already agreed
to another "holiday," albeit with the condition that it be paid for.
With less than two weeks to go before its expiration and with a
universal expectation that it will be extended, Republicans must pass a
clean extension of the payroll tax cut. Anything less would enable the
Democrats to get to the right of Republicans on tax cutting.<br />
<br />
Last
week, Republicans secured superior leverage by becoming the first body
to actually pass an extension, while the Senate was unable to pass its
own bill. However, Mitch McConnell launched a broadside on his party by
agreeing to a lousy two month extension – one that is <a data-mce-href="../../../../../2011/12/19/more-problems-with-senate-extenders-package/" href="http://www.redstate.com/2011/12/19/more-problems-with-senate-extenders-package/">totally unworkable in the real world</a>.
Nevertheless, its 89-10 margin of support gave Democrats all the
leverage they needed. Now House Republicans are begging Democrats to
join them in a conference agreement to iron out the discrepancies
between the two bodies. But this is only playing into the narrative
that Republicans are the ones who are obstructing the “only” plan to
extend the tax cut. House leaders are justified in their outrage
towards the Senate, but we need to focus on <span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;">current</span>
strategy. [We can talk about canning McConnell another time.] Their
current strategy of asking for a conference will get them nowhere and
will only hurt them.<br />
<br />
This is why, for the last time, I call on
House Republicans to pass a clean 12-month extension without any strings
attached; no riders, reforms, offsets, and extraneous extensions
attached. That will totally put the ball back in the Democrats’ court,
forcing them to support or reject the only <em>workable</em> extension plan. What about the offsets and Keystone pipeline provision?<br />
<br />
Here’s the kicker:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<img alt="" class="mceWPmore mceItemNoResize" data-mce-src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" title="More..." />If
Republicans pass a clean payroll tax cut extension, and only a payroll
tax cut extension, Democrats will still need them to pass the rest of
the package, which contains the spending that is most undesirable to
conservatives. Republicans should insert their riders (including the
pipeline), reforms, and spending offsets into the <span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;">separate</span>
UI extension bill. Democrats would be forced to acquiesce to the
reforms if they desire their UI extension. Republicans would be able to
fight bad components of the package – 99 weeks of UI and no
consequential spending offsets – without worrying about blocking a tax
cut. That should be handled in a separate bill. If Democrats block
that bill, they will be held accountable.<br />
<br />
At present, this is the
best option to salvage some of the good provisions, preclude long-term
UI benefits from becoming permanent, and prevent Republicans from being
blamed for a tax increase. Begging for a conference with Senate
Democrats will only put us on defense. Besides, we will never get those
spending offsets through conference as long as we are negotiating from a
weak position. <a data-mce-href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/200725-gop-to-hold-photo-op-meeting-on-payroll-tax-cut" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/200725-gop-to-hold-photo-op-meeting-on-payroll-tax-cut">Eric Cantor is already saying</a>
that the duration of the tax cut is "the only issue on which we differ
with the Senate." Well, that in itself is already a capitulation on the
numerous other discrepancies such as UI reforms, duration of benefits,
and a freeze on hiring in the federal workforce.<br />
<br />
Moreover, even
the GOP House bill only offsets the spending over the course of ten
years. Thus, we have nothing to lose from passing a clean extension,
while making Democrats beg for the rest of the extenders package – the
part that is not nearly as politically volatile. Keep in mind that the
unemployed will still receive benefits commensurate to what was paid
into the system for them. It's only the ridiculous, unprecedented
99-week handout that would be terminated. What are we going to gain
from the current strategy?<br />
<br />
We need to stop forcing Republicans to
face the grim choice between blocking a tax cut and fighting against
more entitlement and deficit spending. If you look at the <a data-mce-href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00232" href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00232">roll call for the ridiculous Senate package</a>,
you’ll see that even some good senators, such as Mike Lee and Marco
Rubio, voted for it. The bottom line is that they felt this was the
last opportunity to prevent a tax increase before the end of the
session. As such, they were forced to vote for extension of 99 weeks of
UI, phantom offsets, and a new class warfare-induced Social Security
Taxable Wage limit that will turn payroll preparation into a nightmare.
For this failure of leadership, McConnell should resign his post.<br />
<br />
Now Senator Corker <a data-mce-href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200705-sen-corker-says-gopers-need-to-pass-payroll-extension-and-move-on" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200705-sen-corker-says-gopers-need-to-pass-payroll-extension-and-move-on">is erroneously using the arguments put forth in the WSJ op-ed to conclude</a>
that the House pass the Senate’s embarrassing bill. But that bill is
untenable. Instead, they should outflank them by passing a clean
extension for at least another year, while extracting the spending
offsets from Democrats in the separate UI extension bill.<br />
<br />
Why are
we stuffing in extraneous entitlement spending into a tax cut bill
anyway? It is terrible policy and divisive politics for the GOP
conference. There is no other option left.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-75181045121543287172011-12-21T11:15:00.001-05:002011-12-21T11:15:50.580-05:00Coburn Details $7 Billion in Waste from 100 Dumb Projects<div class="entry">
At some point we will need to go beyond merely cutting waste,
fraud, and abuse. We will eventually have to wind down the welfare
state and close government departments and agencies. However, there is
no reason we shouldn’t demand an immediate bipartisan effort to
eliminate programs that are just plain dumb, even according to Democrat
socialist ideology.<br />
<br />
Nobody has been more assiduous and instrumental in identifying silly
government projects than Senator Tom Coburn. Yesterday, Senator Coburn
released his <a href="http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365">annual “Wastebook”</a>
profiling 100 “unnecessary, duplicative, or just plain stupid projects
spread throughout the federal government.” The total cost of these
programs is $6.9 billion. Cutting these programs would only account for
roughly 40 hours of our debt, but why spend a penny on this stuff?<br />
<br />
Here are some of the greatest hits:<br />
<ul>
<li>$120 million in retirement and disability benefits to federal employees who have died</li>
<li>$30 million to help Pakistani Mango farmers</li>
<li>$550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union</li>
<li>$10 million for a remake of “<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Sesame Street</span>” for <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Pakistan</span></li>
<li>$764,825 to examine how college students use mobile devices for social networking.</li>
<li>$113,227 for a video game preservation center in New York</li>
<li>$765,828 to subsidize a “pancakes for yuppies” program in Washington, D.C.</li>
<li>$100,000 for a celebrity chef show in Indonesia</li>
<li>$175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail</li>
<li><strong></strong>$606,000 for a study about online dating<strong></strong></li>
<li>$17.80 Million in Foreign Aid to… China – (Department of State & U.S. Agency for International Development)</li>
<li>The Super-Bridge to Nowhere – (Alaska) $15.3 Million<strong></strong><strong><br />
</strong></li>
</ul>
Yes, this is mere pocket change; we will not balance the budget by
eliminating these preposterous projects. Nevertheless, they reveal just
how apathetic our lawmakers are in handling public funds. They are
also emblematic of the ridiculous budget process that has been in place
in recent years. If we are going to pass 1200-page bills that fund the
entire government with such short notice, we will invariably continue to
fund these projects.<br />
<br />
Coburn’s report gives us another 100 reasons why we should never pass omnibus bills.<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-19530425656261880942011-12-20T12:22:00.002-05:002011-12-20T12:22:18.375-05:00New Gang of Five Coalesce Around McConnell’s Excrement Sandwich<div class="entry">
If I had voted for a bill that not only screwed my party, but
also screwed the country, I would keep a low profile. If I had passed a
bill that was <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/two-month-payroll-tax-holiday-passed-by-senate-pushed-by-president-cannot-be-implemented-properly-experts-say/">unworkable for businesses</a> and helped <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/19/more-problems-with-senate-extenders-package/">preserve the entities that precipitated the housing crisis</a>, I wouldn’t show my face in public for a while. Evidently, there are five GOP senators, <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_77/Heller-Pursues-Bipartisanship-With-an-Eye-on-2012-211185-1.html?pos=hftxt">some of which have flirted with “No Labels,”</a>
who are unfazed by their vote for McConnell’s pathetic extenders
package. Worse, they are demanding that the House join them in helping
their own reelection prospects at the expense of the rest of the
country.<br />
<br />
This, <a href="http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4003541">from CQ</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Republicans Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Dean Heller of
Nevada, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan
Collins of Maine called on the House to change course, which Senate
Democrats are gleefully noting. [...]<br />
“I’m hopeful, maybe without basis, the House of Representatives will
pass the bill the Senate passed and it will do so tonight,” Lugar said
on MSNBC on Monday. “I’m hopeful that our majority, Republicans and
Democrats today, will proceed, because it seems to me this is best for
the country as well as for all the individuals who are affected.”<br />
Snowe told Maine’s Portland Press Herald that it was “paramount at
this point” that the payroll tax cut not lapse. Collins added, “At this
point, we must act, as the Senate has done, to prevent a tax increase
that will otherwise occur on Jan. 1.”<br />
Heller said in a statement that [“There is no question we need to
extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the entire
year..."]“there is no reason to hold up the short-term extension while a
more comprehensive deal is being worked out.” Heller is set to face
Rep. Shelly Berkley, D-Nev., in a close race next year.<br />
“The House Republicans’ plan to scuttle the deal to help middle-class
families is irresponsible and wrong,” Brown said in a statement. “The
refusal to compromise now threatens to increase taxes on hard-working
Americans and stop unemployment benefits for those out of work.”</blockquote>
Blocking a two-month extension that is untenable for payroll
processors is “irresponsible,” Senator Brown? Really? You can’t think
of any reason to hold up a short-term extension, Senator Heller? We
need another 99-wees of unemployment together with a tax cut, really?
This is really the best thing for the country, Mr. Lugar? Or is this
the best thing for your reelection?<br />
<br />
The best thing for the country is to remove some of these political
hacks, who hypocritically place their political ambitions ahead of the
good of the country.<br />
<br />
We can start by <a href="http://www.richardmourdock.com/">helping out Lugar’s primary opponent</a>.<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-79652093282184503912011-12-19T17:55:00.001-05:002011-12-19T17:55:23.430-05:00More Problems With Senate Extenders PackageThe Senate-passed payroll tax cut extenders package was already on
the ropes with House Republicans over the weekend. The bill (<a data-mce-href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/~c112ekiozw::" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:4:./temp/%7Ec112ekiozw::">HR 3630</a>)
offers a pathetic two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. In
addition, it extends long-term unemployment benefits for the ninth time,
along with the annual Medicare doc fix. The bill gutted all
House-passed reforms to medicare and unemployment insurance, while
offsetting the cost through phantom revenue increases generated through
Freddie and Fannie. Reliance on these fees for spending offsets will
actually make it more difficult to close down these harmful entities.<br />
<br />
Today, we are discovering two more problems with the Senate package:<br />
<br />
1) Earlier today, Senators Brown, Heller, and Lugar <a data-mce-href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2011/12/brown-blasts-house-gop-on-payroll-tax-cut-108035.html" href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2011/12/brown-blasts-house-gop-on-payroll-tax-cut-108035.html">blasted House Republicans</a>
for holding up the short-term deal. “There is no reason to hold up the
short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is being worked
out,”cried Heller. Well, here is a good reason.<br />
<br />
Aside for the
obvious vices of a two-month payroll tax extension, this tenuous law
will make life difficult for providers of payroll processing services.
Section 101 of the legislation establishes a new Social Security Taxable
Wage limit of $18,350. All wages in excess of $18,350 for January and
February will be taxed at the old rate of 6.2%. This provision was
inserted in order to preclude those with high incomes from meeting their
full payroll tax obligation during the first two months. Such an
eventuality would create a disparity in which middle-income earners, who
would still incur a payroll tax liability after February, would pay a
higher rate (6.2%) on the rest of their income than high-income earners
would have to pay. Many high-income earners receive large bonuses at
the beginning of the year, and Democrats were not about to let them take
advantage of this short-term payroll tax cut.<br />
<br />
Now, the National
Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC), a trade association representing
payroll processing companies, is charging that this provision is
untenable. Such a drastic change would force payroll processors to
implement significant changes to their program software. In a <a data-mce-href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/NPRC%20Letter%20re%20HR%203630.pdf" href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/NPRC%20Letter%20re%20HR%203630.pdf">letter sent to the chairmen of the tax-writing committees</a> obtained <a data-mce-href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/two-month-payroll-tax-holiday-passed-by-senate-pushed-by-president-cannot-be-implemented-properly-experts-say/" href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/two-month-payroll-tax-holiday-passed-by-senate-pushed-by-president-cannot-be-implemented-properly-experts-say/">by Jake Tapper</a>, NPRC's president warns that there is not enough time to implement these changes before January.<br />
<br />
A
full 12-month extension would obviate the need for this wage limit,
thereby sparing payroll processors the two-month headache.
Unfortunately, Senator Brown excoriated House Republicans for fighting
the Senate bill, calling their "plan to scuttle the deal to help
middle-class families" "irresponsible and wrong." The only thing
irresponsible and wrong was his vote for an inane two-month extension.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<img alt="" class="mceWPmore mceItemNoResize" data-mce-src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" title="More..." /><br />
2)
In addition to the three major provisions of the extenders package, the
bill also extends Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which
is set to expire at the end of the year. TANF is the main cash payment
welfare program, which is typically extended on a temporary basis, at
an annualized cost of $16.5 billion. Throughout the year, Republicans
have been trying to reinstate some of the welfare reforms that Obama
jettisoned as part of the stimulus in 2009. In the House version of the
extenders package, they inserted a provision that prohibited TANF funds
from being accessed at ATMs in strip clubs, liquor stores, and
casinos. The Senate made sure to strip out that provision.<br />
<br />
At
this point, Boehner wants to go to conference with the Senate to work
out a deal. I'm concerned that conservatives would get railroaded in
such a process, as they always are. A better idea would be to end this
insanity of tying a tax cut to entitlement spending. As <a data-mce-href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/18/house-must-decouple-payroll-tax-cut-from-broader-%E2%80%98extenders%E2%80%99-package/" href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/18/house-must-decouple-payroll-tax-cut-from-broader-%E2%80%98extenders%E2%80%99-package/">we advocated yesterday</a>,
they should pass a clean payroll tax cut extension in a separate bill
from the UI extension and other provisions. All of the policy riders,
reforms, and spending offsets should be in the spending bill, not in the
tax cut bill. It's time to stand and fight.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-51594362448266788322011-12-18T18:27:00.004-05:002011-12-18T18:27:28.513-05:00House Must Decouple Payroll Tax Cut From Broader ‘Extenders’ Package<div data-mce-style="color: black; float: right; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 22px; height: 5em; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 90px; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: right; width: 250px;" style="color: black; float: right; font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 22px; height: 5em; line-height: 23px; margin-bottom: 90px; margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: right; width: 250px;">
“The Senate action was akin to grounding into a triple play for Team GOP, yet the underlying bill passed with <em>unanimous</em> consent.”</div>
Over
the weekend, Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans obviated the
superior leverage of House Republicans by passing a two-month extension
of the payroll tax cut, along with a clean extension (no reforms and
offsets) of doc fix and unemployment benefits.<br />
<br />
In a <em>premature</em> capitulation, they agreed (<a data-mce-href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00232" href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00232">89-10</a>)
to amend the House extenders bill by eliminating most of the spending
offsets, all of the UI reforms and the policy riders, with the exception
of the Keystone pipeline provision. They will fill in the $33 billion
two-month gaping budget hole with nebulous revenue increases from higher
Freddie/Fannie mortgages over ten years. To the extent that those
revenues will be actualized, this deal will indeed make it <span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;">harder</span>
to shut down these officious venture-socialist enterprises. The Senate
action was akin to grounding into a triple play for Team GOP, yet the
underlying bill passed with <em>unanimous</em> consent.<br />
<br />
Yes – we
can already see the ecstatic pronouncements emanating from the McConnell
Republican echo chamber. “We got the pipeline,” they will exclaim.
But here is the problem: the ship already sailed on that. This issue
was such a political liability for Obama that, despite his rhetoric, it
was a foregone conclusion he would be forced to cave on it. He was not
going to allow this to become an albatross around his neck during the
election. Accordingly, the White House <a data-mce-href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/200143-white-house-backs-senate-payroll-bill-over-house-objections" href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/200143-white-house-backs-senate-payroll-bill-over-house-objections">is lending enthusiastic support</a> to McConnell's Senate-passed extension. Besides, due to loopholes in the Keystone provision, the administration <a data-mce-href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2011/12/sperling-keystone-wont-be-approved-on-day-review-107909.html" href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2011/12/sperling-keystone-wont-be-approved-on-day-review-107909.html">is already balking at compliance with the language of the bill</a>.<br />
<br />
This
is all about understanding your leverage; something that has been lost
on GOP leaders throughout the year. And speaking of leverage, this
capitulation has totally undermined the superior leverage of House
Republicans.<br />
<br />
Until Saturday, the House was the only body that had
proposed a workable solution to preempt a tax increase on every American
worker. The Democrats had been on the run for the entire week. Sadly,
in his last act of the year, McConnell, <a data-mce-href="http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4002965" href="http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4002965">in what appears to be a unilateral move</a>, has launched a drive-by preemptive assault on the House-passed proposal. Was he in such a rush to get home?<br />
<br />
Now House Republicans <a data-mce-href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200123-senates-payroll-tax-cut-extension-not-popular-with-house-gop" href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200123-senates-payroll-tax-cut-extension-not-popular-with-house-gop">are incensed</a>, and for good reason.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<img alt="" class="mceWPmore mceItemNoResize" data-mce-src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" src="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" title="More..." /><br />
Due
to political considerations, conservatives have already been forced to
compromise on extending long-term unemployment benefits and an
ineffectual temporary tax cut, while paying for them over 10 years.
Nonetheless, they agreed to play team ball and vote for the extension on
condition that GOP leaders would hold the line on the agreed-upon
proposal, which would reduce unemployment benefits to 59 weeks, extend
the hiring freeze on the federal workforce, and ban illegal aliens from
receiving refundable tax credits. We were promised up and down that,
although the extension was a necessity, by George, it would be paid
for…even if it takes 10 years.<br />
<br />
Instead of evincing a unified
front, the Senate has paved the door for a defacto permanent extension
of all three components (payroll tax cut, UI, and doc fix) without
paying for them. Worse, on paper they are only extending them for 2
months. However, even though we all know they will be renewed in
perpetuity, the only half-decent part of the bill – the payroll tax cut –
will now lose any pro-growth potency it might have had. Why blow a
hole in the budget for a lousy two-month tax cut?<br />
<br />
Once again, we
will hear about the victory regarding the pipeline. But we must
remember that the paramount issue of our time is budget insolvency. And
as it relates to the budget, this deal is a disaster. After
Republicans failed to cut one penny from discretionary budget authority
this year, they are prepared to increase mandatory spending by
enshrining UI as a permanent fourth entitlement program.<br />
<br />
Jim DeMint said it best in an op-ed for <em><a data-mce-href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/200119-sen-demint-a-shameful-end-to-the-year" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/200119-sen-demint-a-shameful-end-to-the-year">The Hill</a>: </em><br />
<blockquote>
“I
opposed both of these bills [the omnibus and extenders package]. We
don't have a temporary economy and we can't continue operating on
temporary tax policies. We need permanent tax reform that eliminates
special interest carve-outs and lowers rates for everyone. We cannot
keep extending unemployment insurance for up to two years of benefits,
which encourages chronic joblessness. And we will never balance the
budget by passing bloated appropriations bills that keep spending more
than the year before.”</blockquote>
So where do we go from here?<br />
<br />
House
Republicans must do something that should have been done a few weeks
ago. They should decouple the payroll tax cut from the rest of the
extenders package and pass them in separate bills.<br />
<br />
While there are
divergent conservative opinions regarding the perspicacity behind a
short-term payroll tax cut proposal, the eventuality of the tax holiday
extension is politically irrevocable. To that end, conservatives are
forced to choose between voting against a tax cut and extending
super-long unemployment benefits. We are confronted with the
uncomfortable reality that the harder we push for strong reforms or
elimination of long-term UI, the more we risk shooting the hostage; the
payroll tax cut extension. This unnecessary false choice prompted some
good senators to support the McConnell package out of fear that it was
the last chance to preempt a major tax increase. This is bad policy and
bad politics.<br />
<br />
House Republicans should return Monday morning and
pass a clean 12-month extension of the payroll tax cut; no riders,
reforms, offsets, and extraneous extensions attached. This will force
the Senate to vote up or down on the only clean extension on the floor.
Then, the House should pass a separate bill that reduces UI to 59
weeks, extends doc fix, and contains all of the offsets and policy
riders, including the Keystone provision. Free of the perilous burden
of blocking a tax cut, Republicans will be able to negotiate hard for a
‘take it or leave it’ approach to the rest of the package. If Democrats
decline to support our package, tough luck on them; they’ll get no UI
extension at all. That’s what should happen anyway.<br />
<br />
After a year
of batting .000 on legislative fights, it’s time for Republicans to
negotiate from a position of strength. Separate out the payroll tax cut
and fight to the finish for the House-passed UI package. <a data-mce-href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200153-boehner-opposes-senate-payroll-tax-bill-calls-for-conference-committee" href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200153-boehner-opposes-senate-payroll-tax-bill-calls-for-conference-committee">Don't opt for another closed-door conference committee agreement</a>
that will block amendments from House conservatives. Boehner owes it
to his rank-and-file members for agreeing to the compromise plan in the
first place.<br />
<br />
In this 11th hour of a very ugly year, Speaker Boehner has one last opportunity to shine.Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-222842635730153492011-12-18T08:40:00.001-05:002011-12-18T08:40:09.210-05:00The Great Spending Betrayal<div class="entry">
Over Friday and Saturday, <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll941.xml">61% of House Republicans</a> and <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00235">34% of Senate Republicans</a> voted for the <del>omnibus</del>
megabus bill. In doing so, not only did they violate their pledge
pertaining to bundled (1200-page) bills and the 72-hour layover rule and
agree to fund Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Planned Parenthood, the EPA, the
PLO and the UN; they actually agreed to spend almost $9 billion <em>more</em>
than last year. Overall, budget authority will be $33 billion higher
than the House budget, while appropriations for non-defense spending
will be $45 billion more. One of the members who voted in the
affirmative even agreed <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/200011-gop-lawmaker-omnibus-bill-is-a-crap-sandwich">that he had voted for a “crap sandwich</a>."<br />
<br />
Throughout the process, GOP leaders and appropriators swore
incessantly that the spending measure would not breach the $1.043
trillion cap and would cut $6.7 billion from last year’s budget
authority. Well, they have lied.<br />
<br />
In a cynical subterfuge that has become all too common in Washington,
House leaders placed the offsets for the additional $8.6 billion of
emergency spending in a separate bill. This allowed members who voted
for the omnibus to go on record as saying that they voted to offset the
extraneous spending, thereby keeping their pledge to spend less than the
previous year. It also enabled Senate Democrats to pass the underlying
omnibus bill, along with the emergency spending, but easily vote down
the offsets in the third bill. And that is exactly what they did today.<br />
<br />
Thanks for being pawns in this insidious inside-the-beltway game.
What a way to end of a year that began with so much potential.<br />
<br />
Below the fold is a list of Republicans who supported the omnibus.
With the presidential election largely narroewed down to a few unideal
choices, we need to ramp up Tea Party 2.0 for the 2012 congressional
elections.<br />
<br />
Oh, and by the way, Senator Ron Johnson voted no; Senator Roy Blunt voted yes.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="more-2629"></span><br />
<h3>
<strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Senate Republicans</span></strong></h3>
Alexander, L. (TN)<br />
Blunt (MO)<br />
Boozman (AR)<br />
Brown, Scott (MA)<br />
Chambliss (GA)<br />
Cochran (MS)<br />
Collins, S. (ME)<br />
Graham, L. (SC)<br />
Heller (NV)<br />
Hoeven (ND)<br />
Hutchison, K. (TX)<br />
Isakson (GA)<br />
Johanns (NE)<br />
Murkowski, L. (AK)<br />
Roberts (KS)<br />
Wicker (MS)<br />
<h3>
<strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">House Republicans</span></strong></h3>
Aderholt, R. (AL-04)<br />
Alexander, R. (LA-05)<br />
Bachus, S. (AL-06)<br />
Barletta (PA-11)<br />
Barton, J. (TX-06)<br />
Bass, C. (NH-02)<br />
Benishek (MI-01)<br />
Biggert (IL-13)<br />
Bilbray, B. (CA-50)<br />
Bilirakis, G. (FL-09)<br />
Black, D. (TN-06)<br />
Blackburn, M. (TN-07)<br />
Bonner (AL-01)<br />
Bono Mack, M. (CA-45)<br />
Brady, K. (TX-08)<br />
Buchanan (FL-13)<br />
Burgess (TX-26)<br />
Calvert (CA-44)<br />
Camp, D. (MI-04)<br />
Canseco (TX-23)<br />
Cantor (VA-07)<br />
Capito (WV-02)<br />
Carter (TX-31)<br />
Cole (OK-04)<br />
Conaway (TX-11)<br />
Crawford (AR-01)<br />
Crenshaw (FL-04)<br />
Culberson (TX-07)<br />
Denham (CA-19)<br />
Dent (PA-15)<br />
Diaz-Balart (FL-21)<br />
Dold (IL-10)<br />
Dreier (CA-26)<br />
Duffy (WI-07)<br />
Ellmers (NC-02)<br />
Emerson, J. (MO-08)<br />
Farenthold (TX-27)<br />
Fincher (TN-08)<br />
Fitzpatrick (PA-08)<br />
Fleischmann (TN-03)<br />
Flores (TX-17)<br />
Forbes (VA-04)<br />
Foxx (NC-05)<br />
Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)<br />
Gallegly (CA-24)<br />
Gerlach (PA-06)<br />
Gibbs, B. (OH-18)<br />
Gibson, C. (NY-20)<br />
Gosar (AZ-01)<br />
Granger (TX-12)<br />
Graves, S. (MO-06)<br />
Griffin (AR-02)<br />
Grimm (NY-13)<br />
Hall, R. (TX-04)<br />
Hanna (NY-24)<br />
Harper (MS-03)<br />
Hartzler (MO-04)<br />
Hastings, D. (WA-04)<br />
Hayworth (NY-19)<br />
Heck (NV-03)<br />
Hensarling (TX-05)<br />
Herrera Beutler (WA-03)<br />
Hunter (CA-52)<br />
Issa (CA-49)<br />
Jenkins (KS-02)<br />
Johnson, S. (TX-03)<br />
Johnson, Timothy (IL-15)<br />
Kelly (PA-03)<br />
King, P. (NY-03)<br />
Kingston, J. (GA-01)<br />
Kline, J. (MN-02)<br />
Lance (NJ-07)<br />
Lankford (OK-05)<br />
Latham (IA-04)<br />
LaTourette (OH-14)<br />
Latta (OH-05)<br />
Lewis, Jerry (CA-41)<br />
LoBiondo (NJ-02)<br />
Long (MO-07)<br />
Lucas, F. (OK-03)<br />
Luetkemeyer (MO-09)<br />
Lungren (CA-03)<br />
Marino (PA-10)<br />
McCarthy, K. (CA-22)<br />
McCaul (TX-10)<br />
McKeon (CA-25)<br />
McKinley (WV-01)<br />
McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)<br />
Meehan (PA-07)<br />
Mica (FL-07)<br />
Miller, C. (MI-10)<br />
Miller, J. (FL-01)<br />
Myrick (NC-09)<br />
Nugent (FL-05)<br />
Nunes (CA-21)<br />
Olson (TX-22)<br />
Palazzo (MS-04)<br />
Paulsen (MN-03)<br />
Pearce (NM-02)<br />
Pitts (PA-16)<br />
Platts (PA-19)<br />
Pompeo (KS-04)<br />
Price, T. (GA-06)<br />
Rehberg (MT-AL)<br />
Reichert (WA-08)<br />
Renacci (OH-16)<br />
Rigell (VA-02)<br />
Roby (AL-02)<br />
Roe (TN-01)<br />
Rogers, H. (KY-05)<br />
Rogers, Mike (MI-08)<br />
Rogers, Mike D. (AL-03)<br />
Rohrabacher (CA-46)<br />
Rokita (IN-04)<br />
Rooney (FL-16)<br />
Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)<br />
Roskam (IL-06)<br />
Runyan (NJ-03)<br />
Ryan, P. (WI-01)<br />
Scalise (LA-01)<br />
Schock (IL-18)<br />
Scott, A. (GA-08)<br />
Sessions, P. (TX-32)<br />
Shimkus (IL-19)<br />
Shuster, Bill (PA-09)<br />
Simpson, M. (ID-02)<br />
Smith, Adrian (NE-03)<br />
Smith, C. (NJ-04)<br />
Smith, Lamar (TX-21)<br />
Stivers (OH-15)<br />
Sullivan (OK-01)<br />
Thompson, G. (PA-05)<br />
Thornberry (TX-13)<br />
Tiberi (OH-12)<br />
Turner, B. (NY-09)<br />
Upton (MI-06)<br />
Walden, G. (OR-02)<br />
Webster (FL-08)<br />
West, A. (FL-22)<br />
Whitfield (KY-01)<br />
Wolf (VA-10)<br />
Womack (AR-03)<br />
Woodall (GA-07)<br />
Yoder (KS-03)<br />
Young, C.W. (FL-10)<br />
Young, D. (AK-AL)<br />
Young, T. (IN-09)<br />
</div>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30655817.post-84237004298324070042011-12-16T18:34:00.000-05:002011-12-17T18:34:31.238-05:00So This is It?This is what we get from a new House Republican majority?<br />
<br />
Call me naive, but from the onset of this legislative session I really expected we would witness <em>some</em> transformational change in the way Washington does business. That was obviously a foolish expectation.<br />
<br />
GOP leaders agreed last night to pass the omnibus bill with largely the same provisions as the one <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/12/15/conservatives-must-throw-omnibus-under-the-bus/">they introduced yesterday</a>. After all of the bravado and grandstanding throughout the year; after cutting a mere $352 <strong>million</strong>
in non-baseline spending in FY 2011, they are prepared to cut nothing
off the 2012 budget. In fact, with the $8.6 billion in extra disaster
spending, the total discretionary budget authority will surpass last
year’s levels by roughly $3 billion. Yes, we know that there are
spending offsets, but they were cleverly packaged in a separate bill
from the rest of the omnibus, allowing Democrats to vote them down.<br />
<br />
What about the riders? <a href="http://democrats.appropriations.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=854:norm-dicks-statement-on-the-conference-report-for-the-remainder-of-fy2012-appropriations-&catid=223:press-releases&Itemid=4">Democrats are bragging about the fact that they jettisoned all the major policy riders</a>
except for the block on light bulb bans. We now have a 1200-page bill
that encompasses funding for most of the federal government, yet it
cannot be amended. That leaves one option for conservatives: vote no on
the entire package.<br />
<br />
Hey, I guess we can take solace in the fact that we slowed baseline
spending from what it would have been had Democrats retained control of
Congress. Then again, all these numbers only account for discretionary
spending, or about one-third of the federal budget. The other
two-thirds, mandatory and entitlement spending, continues to grow out of
control.<br />
<br />
And speaking of mandatory spending, what are we getting in return for
agreeing to defacto permanent super-long-term unemployment benefits?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span id="more-2616"></span><br />
At this point, we are looking at another short-term extension of UI
benefits, along with Medicare doc fix and the payroll tax cut. They are
looking at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/congressional-negotiators-preparing-2-month-payroll-tax-cut-jobless-benefits-extension/2011/12/15/gIQADXPvwO_story.html">a deal to extend it for another two months</a>….and
then have the same discussion again. Republicans will never block the
permanent extension, and will only achieve notional cuts over 10 years
to fill in the gaping hole in the budget. If we don’t push for the
Keystone pipeline, UI reforms, and cuts in the federal workforce now, <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/news/harry_reid_floats_two_month_extension_payroll_tax_cut-211124-1.html?pos=hftxt">we will never get them in two months</a>.<br />
<br />
I could just hear the echo chamber now; “yes, but we only control
one-half of…..” Actually, in recent months, Republicans have eschewed
that excuse in favor of a more political argument. They are simply too
scared to stand for unfettered free-market policies. They are scared to
death of electoral reprisal. Period.<br />
<br />
Well, I have news for you. The road will not get any easier from
here. If Republicans are scared of being blamed for political fallout
when they only control one branch of government, will they be less tepid
if and when they control all branches of government?<br />
<br />
And one more thing. If Republicans can’t preempt the creation of a
fourth permanent entitlement, is there any way they will have the moxie
to push even for Paul Ryan’s watered-down Medicare reform plan (which
was watered down from the original free-market voucher plan in the
Roadmap)?<br />
<br />
Then again, this is all a game to these people. It’s the red team versus the blue team. Forget about the purpose of the team.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><a href="http://www.opencongress.org/people/senators?sort=state"><span style="color: red;">Call your Republican members of Congress</span></a> and implore them not to cave on the omnibus, Keystone pipeline, and reforms of Unemployment Insurance.</span>Daniel Horowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10107342765455566384noreply@blogger.com0