Red Meat Conservative

Can a Nonexistent Congress Issue $1.2 Trillion in Debt?

2012-01-15T17:18:00.002-05:00

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.

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.

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?

The Budge Control Act requires the following of Obama:

“the President submits a written certification to Congress 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. Upon submission of such certification, 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.”

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.

If Obama wants Congress to issue $1.2 trillion of debt while their gone, imagine what they can do when they’re “in session.”

Our Task Moving Forward: Focus On Congress

2012-01-13T00:00:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

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.
One of the unwavering and indefatigable members of the freshmen class, Mick Mulvaney, had this to say about his fellow rookies:

“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.”
“We cannot have another experience like we’ve had in my freshman class, of people saying one thing and doing another.”

Thus, despite Republicans winning control of the House, we are still a minority in the majority.
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.

For now, there are some clear winners in the Senate races. Here is a list to build on:

Jeff Flake (AZ)
Adam Hasner (FL)
Richard Mourdock (IN)
Josh Mandel (OH)
Don Stenberg (Neb)
Ted Cruz (TX)
Mark Neumann (Wis)

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.

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.

There is a lot to do and very little time left to make a difference.

We all must get to work.

Multiple Choice Mitt’s Changing Colors on Romneycare

2012-01-12T10:56:00.002-05:00

April 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.

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.

So how did Romney feel about his signature accomplishment of an otherwise uninspiring one-term tenure as governor?

At the time of its passage, Romney dubbed it as a “once in a generation” achievement. He referred to his magnum opus, 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.”

From Romney’s perspective, did he consider final passage of MassCare a meritorious ideal or a mediocre compromise watered down by the Democrat legislature?

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.”

At the time, did Romney feel that the framework for his healthcare plan was a virtuous policy endeavor for the rest of the nation?

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.”
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.

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 dismiss them as problems stemming from Democrat provisions in the bill – unspecified aspects that he supposedly opposed. In January 2007, at the beginning of the presidential campaign, he told a group of National Romney ~~Review~~ 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.”

Romney often cast doubts as to the future success of his plan as a result of the “Democrat legislature.” In Feb. 2007, he told a crowd in Baltimore “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.”

Well, the facts are in. Romneycare has failed to control costs, 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?”

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.

So which one is it, Mitt?

Romneycare, Bain Capital, 2012, and the Lost Opportunity to Assail Obamacare

2012-01-11T07:22:00.000-05:00

“Romney’s career as a venture socialist governor is what should concern us; not his career as a venture capitalist in the private sector.”

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.

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?”

Oh, wait. Those ads never ran.

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.

Romneycare is the antecedent to Obamacare. It dramatically distorted the free-market of private insurance; it dumped a few hundred thousand people onto federally funded Medicaid; it set up gov’t-run exchanges that disincentivize success and offer larger subsidies than those proposed in Obamacare; 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.

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 desirable simply because Romney had the “right” to implement it as governor of a state.

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:

Romney: “Obamacare is a disaster.”

Obama: “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?”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obamacare has raised the cost of private health insurance premiums by 9% in just one year, even before its enactment. One study estimates 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 plan to drop healthcare coverage.

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 FoxNews-Google Debate in September:

“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.”

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.

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 ominously predicts, “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."

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.

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.

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.

Oh Yes, It’s in Article 1

2012-01-11T00:22:00.000-05:00

At the beginning of the 112^th 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.’

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.

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:

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.
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.
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^st Session of the 112^th Congress.
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.

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.

The Anatomy of a Keynesian Recovery

2012-01-09T21:20:00.003-05:00

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.

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.

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 expanded by 4 million.

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.

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?

Wall Street Journal

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 end of the recession.

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.

The Biggest Mistake of the Worst Debate

2012-01-08T00:53:00.000-05:00

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?

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.

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 politics. 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.

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.

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.

Obama’s Imaginary Senate Recess

2012-01-05T17:52:00.000-05:00

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 employed absurd casuistry to suggest that the Senate has in fact been in recess for weeks:

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, 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. 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 wrote that the Senate cannot use sham “pro forma” sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.

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.

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.”

Update: House Democrats seem to disagree with Obama. They held a press conference 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.

Result of Iowa: They Didn’t Want Mitt in 2008;They Don’t Want Him Now

2012-01-04T13:06:00.003-05:00

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.

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 anyone against Romney.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Is Harry Reid Really the Most Successful Majority Leader?

2012-01-04T13:05:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, Roll Call published 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:

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.
Of the 32 cloture votes pushed by the Nevada Democrat this year, Reid won 19, or 59 percent. He lost 13 cloture votes.
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Harry Reid is not a political juggernaut; he is a paper tiger – one who could be vanquished by a principled opposition.

Quash the Ethanol Beast in Honor of Iowa Caucuses

2012-01-03T10:20:00.001-05:00

We still have work to do in ridding ourselves of the ethanol juggernaut

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.

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.

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.

Ethanol blenders have benefited from the 45-cent per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which may be refundable 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.

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.

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.

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, revealed that the new agenda “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.

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.

Sound confusing? It’s actually quite simple.

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.

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.

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.

Republicans should not squander this teachable moment and unique opportunity to completely kill ethanol while it is unpopular.

Will Obama be a Debt Man Walking in 2012?

2012-01-01T20:29:00.003-05:00

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.

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 chart of the week, the Heritage Foundation compares the average annual deficits of each president as a percentage of GDP. As you can see, it is no contest:

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?

Brain Dead Dem Congressman Thinks Spending is Too Low

2011-12-29T15:34:00.003-05:00

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, Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) suggested 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!

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.

Hmmm, what do you think was going on during 1943-1944? Oh yes, that WWII thing.

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 annual deficits. 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, our total debt was 97.6% of GDP, lower than our current 100.5% debt-to-GDP ratio.

Now if Rep. Holt wants to compare our spending levels to the WWII era, 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).

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?
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.”

It’s a shame we can’t ship these loons off to Greece.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Romney Fundamentally Lacks Conservative Principles on Healthcare…Or Anything Else

2011-12-28T14:11:00.003-05:00

“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.”

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.

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.

Here is what he had to say today on Fox and Friends [video ]:

“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, and it is fundamentally a conservative principle to insist that people take personal responsibility as opposed to turning to government for giving out free care.” [emphasis added]

Romney owes Republican primary voters answers to two questions; one ideological and one political.

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?

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 the highest premiums in the nation (indeed the other 92% of Massachusetts residents were affected after all),while dumping thousands of people onto federally funded Medicaid and disincentivizing people not to earn more money. Sounds a bit like Obamacare, huh?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 his insistence that he never intended to run for office again after 2008.

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?

Cross-posted to RedState.com

The Chickens of Debt Ceiling Deal Have Come Home to Roost

2011-12-27T22:51:00.004-05:00

Today, the Treasury Department announced 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.

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.

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?

At a time when many “prominent” conservative publications were blithely cheering on this disaster, we detailed nine reasons to oppose the deal. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Charting a Path Forward

2011-12-25T10:38:00.003-05:00

If 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 holidays 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 outflanked the Democrats on the tax cut and waged a separate battle over Unemployment Insurance (UI). Instead they begged Democrats to come to conference with them, a losing proposition from day one.

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.
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.

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.

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.

Unfortunately, ancillary benefits are all we have from this deal.

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) separately 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.

Instead, they agreed to a conference with Democrats and many squishy Republicans. The outcome is already a forgone conclusion. Along with another ineffectual temporary 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.

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?

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.

This verse from Kings 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.”

What Does $40,000 Mean to You?

2011-12-22T20:59:00.003-05:00

Obama's pathetic $40 Social security tax cut is nothing compared to his $40,000 debt increase

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 totally unworkable two-month extension. Obama has even set up a new web page asking people “what $40 per paycheck would mean to you.”

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.

You see, while the media has been focusing on Obama’s two-month Social Security tax cut, they have ignored another big story. Our national debt has surpassed 100% of GDP. With Q3 GDP revised downward, our economy now stands at $15.081 trillion. Our total federal debt is over $15.14 trillion.

How much of that debt is Obama responsible for?

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.

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.

We know that $40,000 is not much for the commander-in-chief of all class warfare, but what does it mean for you?

Pass A Payroll Tax Cut Extension...and Only a Payroll Tax Cut Extension

2011-12-21T18:58:00.000-05:00

“We need to stop forcing Republicans to face the grim choice between blocking a tax cut and fighting against more entitlement and deficit spending.”

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.

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 Wall Street Journal noted,” 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.”

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.

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 totally unworkable in the real world. 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 current 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.

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 workable extension plan. What about the offsets and Keystone pipeline provision?

Here’s the kicker:

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 separate 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.

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. Eric Cantor is already saying 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.

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?

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 roll call for the ridiculous Senate package, 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.

Now Senator Corker is erroneously using the arguments put forth in the WSJ op-ed to conclude 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.

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.

Coburn Details $7 Billion in Waste from 100 Dumb Projects

2011-12-21T11:15:00.001-05:00

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.

Nobody has been more assiduous and instrumental in identifying silly government projects than Senator Tom Coburn. Yesterday, Senator Coburn released his annual “Wastebook” 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?

Here are some of the greatest hits:

$120 million in retirement and disability benefits to federal employees who have died
$30 million to help Pakistani Mango farmers
$550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union
$10 million for a remake of “Sesame Street” for Pakistan
$764,825 to examine how college students use mobile devices for social networking.
$113,227 for a video game preservation center in New York
$765,828 to subsidize a “pancakes for yuppies” program in Washington, D.C.
$100,000 for a celebrity chef show in Indonesia
$175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail
$606,000 for a study about online dating
$17.80 Million in Foreign Aid to… China – (Department of State & U.S. Agency for International Development)
The Super-Bridge to Nowhere – (Alaska) $15.3 Million

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.

Coburn’s report gives us another 100 reasons why we should never pass omnibus bills.

New Gang of Five Coalesce Around McConnell’s Excrement Sandwich

2011-12-20T12:22:00.002-05:00

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 unworkable for businesses and helped preserve the entities that precipitated the housing crisis, I wouldn’t show my face in public for a while. Evidently, there are five GOP senators, some of which have flirted with “No Labels,” 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.

This, from CQ:

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. [...]
“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.”
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.”
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.
“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.”

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?

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.

We can start by helping out Lugar’s primary opponent.

House Must Decouple Payroll Tax Cut From Broader ‘Extenders’ Package

2011-12-18T18:27:00.004-05:00

“The Senate action was akin to grounding into a triple play for Team GOP, yet the underlying bill passed with unanimous consent.”

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.

In a premature capitulation, they agreed (89-10) 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 harder 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 unanimous consent.

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 is lending enthusiastic support to McConnell's Senate-passed extension. Besides, due to loopholes in the Keystone provision, the administration is already balking at compliance with the language of the bill.

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.

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, in what appears to be a unilateral move, has launched a drive-by preemptive assault on the House-passed proposal. Was he in such a rush to get home?

Now House Republicans are incensed, and for good reason.

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.

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?

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.

Jim DeMint said it best in an op-ed for The Hill:

“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.”

So where do we go from here?

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.

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.

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.

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. Don't opt for another closed-door conference committee agreement 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.

In this 11th hour of a very ugly year, Speaker Boehner has one last opportunity to shine.

The Great Spending Betrayal

2011-12-18T08:40:00.001-05:00

Over Friday and Saturday, 61% of House Republicans and 34% of Senate Republicans voted for the ~~omnibus~~ 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 more 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 that he had voted for a “crap sandwich."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, and by the way, Senator Ron Johnson voted no; Senator Roy Blunt voted yes.

Senate Republicans

Alexander, L. (TN)
Blunt (MO)
Boozman (AR)
Brown, Scott (MA)
Chambliss (GA)
Cochran (MS)
Collins, S. (ME)
Graham, L. (SC)
Heller (NV)
Hoeven (ND)
Hutchison, K. (TX)
Isakson (GA)
Johanns (NE)
Murkowski, L. (AK)
Roberts (KS)
Wicker (MS)

House Republicans

Aderholt, R. (AL-04)
Alexander, R. (LA-05)
Bachus, S. (AL-06)
Barletta (PA-11)
Barton, J. (TX-06)
Bass, C. (NH-02)
Benishek (MI-01)
Biggert (IL-13)
Bilbray, B. (CA-50)
Bilirakis, G. (FL-09)
Black, D. (TN-06)
Blackburn, M. (TN-07)
Bonner (AL-01)
Bono Mack, M. (CA-45)
Brady, K. (TX-08)
Buchanan (FL-13)
Burgess (TX-26)
Calvert (CA-44)
Camp, D. (MI-04)
Canseco (TX-23)
Cantor (VA-07)
Capito (WV-02)
Carter (TX-31)
Cole (OK-04)
Conaway (TX-11)
Crawford (AR-01)
Crenshaw (FL-04)
Culberson (TX-07)
Denham (CA-19)
Dent (PA-15)
Diaz-Balart (FL-21)
Dold (IL-10)
Dreier (CA-26)
Duffy (WI-07)
Ellmers (NC-02)
Emerson, J. (MO-08)
Farenthold (TX-27)
Fincher (TN-08)
Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Fleischmann (TN-03)
Flores (TX-17)
Forbes (VA-04)
Foxx (NC-05)
Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)
Gallegly (CA-24)
Gerlach (PA-06)
Gibbs, B. (OH-18)
Gibson, C. (NY-20)
Gosar (AZ-01)
Granger (TX-12)
Graves, S. (MO-06)
Griffin (AR-02)
Grimm (NY-13)
Hall, R. (TX-04)
Hanna (NY-24)
Harper (MS-03)
Hartzler (MO-04)
Hastings, D. (WA-04)
Hayworth (NY-19)
Heck (NV-03)
Hensarling (TX-05)
Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
Hunter (CA-52)
Issa (CA-49)
Jenkins (KS-02)
Johnson, S. (TX-03)
Johnson, Timothy (IL-15)
Kelly (PA-03)
King, P. (NY-03)
Kingston, J. (GA-01)
Kline, J. (MN-02)
Lance (NJ-07)
Lankford (OK-05)
Latham (IA-04)
LaTourette (OH-14)
Latta (OH-05)
Lewis, Jerry (CA-41)
LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Long (MO-07)
Lucas, F. (OK-03)
Luetkemeyer (MO-09)
Lungren (CA-03)
Marino (PA-10)
McCarthy, K. (CA-22)
McCaul (TX-10)
McKeon (CA-25)
McKinley (WV-01)
McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
Meehan (PA-07)
Mica (FL-07)
Miller, C. (MI-10)
Miller, J. (FL-01)
Myrick (NC-09)
Nugent (FL-05)
Nunes (CA-21)
Olson (TX-22)
Palazzo (MS-04)
Paulsen (MN-03)
Pearce (NM-02)
Pitts (PA-16)
Platts (PA-19)
Pompeo (KS-04)
Price, T. (GA-06)
Rehberg (MT-AL)
Reichert (WA-08)
Renacci (OH-16)
Rigell (VA-02)
Roby (AL-02)
Roe (TN-01)
Rogers, H. (KY-05)
Rogers, Mike (MI-08)
Rogers, Mike D. (AL-03)
Rohrabacher (CA-46)
Rokita (IN-04)
Rooney (FL-16)
Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)
Roskam (IL-06)
Runyan (NJ-03)
Ryan, P. (WI-01)
Scalise (LA-01)
Schock (IL-18)
Scott, A. (GA-08)
Sessions, P. (TX-32)
Shimkus (IL-19)
Shuster, Bill (PA-09)
Simpson, M. (ID-02)
Smith, Adrian (NE-03)
Smith, C. (NJ-04)
Smith, Lamar (TX-21)
Stivers (OH-15)
Sullivan (OK-01)
Thompson, G. (PA-05)
Thornberry (TX-13)
Tiberi (OH-12)
Turner, B. (NY-09)
Upton (MI-06)
Walden, G. (OR-02)
Webster (FL-08)
West, A. (FL-22)
Whitfield (KY-01)
Wolf (VA-10)
Womack (AR-03)
Woodall (GA-07)
Yoder (KS-03)
Young, C.W. (FL-10)
Young, D. (AK-AL)
Young, T. (IN-09)

So This is It?

2011-12-16T18:34:00.000-05:00

This is what we get from a new House Republican majority?

Call me naive, but from the onset of this legislative session I really expected we would witness some transformational change in the way Washington does business. That was obviously a foolish expectation.

GOP leaders agreed last night to pass the omnibus bill with largely the same provisions as the one they introduced yesterday. After all of the bravado and grandstanding throughout the year; after cutting a mere $352 million 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.

What about the riders? Democrats are bragging about the fact that they jettisoned all the major policy riders 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.

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.

And speaking of mandatory spending, what are we getting in return for agreeing to defacto permanent super-long-term unemployment benefits?

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 deal to extend it for another two months….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, we will never get them in two months.

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.

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?

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)?

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.

Call your Republican members of Congress and implore them not to cave on the omnibus, Keystone pipeline, and reforms of Unemployment Insurance.

Conservatives Must Throw Omnibus Under the Bus

2011-12-15T12:39:00.000-05:00

“Conservatives should not let GOP leaders and Harry Reid pocket their good will on the omnibus under false pretenses that Boehner will remain strong on the extenders package.”

The bill violates GOP pledge, funds Obamacare, and paves the way for a breaching of spending caps and capitulation on extenders package

There is an important rule - one that runs counter to DC conventional wisdom – that conservatives should heed when considering support for a piece of legislation. No legislation is better than bad legislation. To put that in today's relevant terms, passing no spending bill or a CR is better than passing a $1.050 trillion, 1217-page Omnibus just 36 hours after its inception.

Early this morning, minutes after midnight, the House Appropriations Committee released their omnibus as a package of three bills. They will need to violate even their interpretation of the three-day posting rule if they intend to pass it as a vehicle to avert a government shutdown Friday night. The first bill is the main omnibus appropriations package that bundles nine approps bills at a cost of $915 billion. This, coupled with the three approps bills already passed (via that ridiculous minibus bill) comes out to exactly $1.043 trillion in discretionary spending – the spending cap set under the Budget Control Act. Additionally, the omnibus appropriates another $115 billion for the annual OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) war spending and $11 billion in war funding for the State Department. The second bill funds emergency disaster spending to a tune of $8.6 billion, while the third bill offsets that spending with further recessions from the discretionary spending totals in the main bill.

Overall, this bill totally vitiates the House budget passed by the entire conference, by appropriating an extra $24 billion in discretionary spending. Also, the fact that they are proposing three bills gives House Democrats the ability to vote for the first two bills, but quash the third bill with the offsets, thereby consummating spending levels higher than those of 2011 ($1.052 trillion).

This entire package, which includes funding for 10 executive departments, will be voted on within the next 36 hours, in violation of two provisions of the Pledge to America; passing Omnibus bills and the 72-hour posting rule. Jeff Flake expressed his exasperation like this:

“We’ve barely seen the bill; it’s an awful big bill to get a vote on that fast.”
“Some riders got in, some got knocked out, and I don’t even know – and I’m on the appropriations committee,” he adds. “Whenever we come to an impasse, our leadership says, we can’t shut the government down. We haven’t had the leverage in any negotiation we’ve gone into. That’s what’s frustrating to me.”

Why are Republicans unilaterally violating their own pledge?

Earlier this week, Democrat and Republican appropriators were on the verge of signing off on the omnibus conference report (not a good thing for conservatives), when Harry Reid, at the behest of the president, pulled the bill. He didn’t want Republicans to pass the omnibus and head home, forcing the Senate to vote up or down on the House payroll tax cut/unemployment benefit extension package. Now Republicans are attempting to unilaterally pass their own omnibus so they can dump both bills on Reid’s lap, and head for the airport.

The problem is they are being clever by the half. In order to advance their payroll tax/UI package, which in itself is not the greatest thing in the world for conservatives, they are selling out their soul on this omnibus.

The details of the policy riders remain very murky, but this is what I am seeing:

While the Financial Services part of the omnibus would block funding to the IRS for enforcing the individual mandates, the HHS-Labor bill would largely preserve Obamacare programs. Some of those HHS agencies will enjoy increased funding. It also preserves most of the funding for the onerous Dodd-Frank regulatory beast and increases funding for the SEC. Also, the HHS component eliminates Republican cuts to Planned Parenthood.

Regarding energy, this bill jettisons virtually every GOP provision to defund EPA regulations, such as new rules covering greenhouse gas, clean air rules, and clean water regulatory schemes. It also appropriates $1.5 billion more than the House budget to the EPA. The only saving grace is that the Energy-Water component of the Omnibus blocks the new ban on incandescent light bulbs.

In terms of foreign aid, while the bill places some restrictions on aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and the Palestinians, ultimately, we will continue to fund them. The bill also eschews most of the restructuring of our UN funding.
The point is that there are so many details that remain unclear at this point. After all, we are trying to vote on almost the entire federal budget in one day. We need to pass these bills one-by-one so we can spotlight all the salient issues. We don’t need to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it.

As it stands now, it appears that Harry Reid might be willing to release the bipartisan conference report for the omnibus. But this is no solace to conservatives. They should not vote for any omnibus. Period. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that leadership will have the guts to stand by their extenders package with all the riders, even if there is an agreement on the omnibus. There are already some grumblings about Democrats dropping their demand for tax hikes (which were never going to happen anyway) in exchange for a removal of the Keystone pipeline provision (and others too). Moreover, if the GOP omnibus truly cuts parts of Obamacare and mandates rescissions from further discretionary spending, Democrats will never pass it. Republicans will wind up compromising yet again, and summarily gut the few positive riders in the bill. This is not a deal that is worthwhile for conservatives to embrace and break their pledge against voting for omnibus bills.

Conservatives should not let GOP leaders and Harry Reid pocket their good will on the omnibus under the false pretense that Boehner will remain strong on the extenders package. We’ve been through this too many times this year. They should immediately pass a CR at the House-budget spending levels, and get the heck out of town. Then, it will be Reid’s choice whether he wants to force a gov’t shutdown and cancel the payroll tax for his spending levels and policy provisions that were repudiated by the voters. At worst case, a clean CR would still be superior to an omnibus. We would at least have the opportunity to fight again next year, without the political pitfalls of blocking a tax cut extension.

Bottom line: Vote no on any and every form of the omnibus, both the House version and/or the conference report. Oppose any attempt to gut the extenders package from UI reform, cuts to the federal workforce, and the Keystone pipeline rider.

Hold your own line!

We Need More Fighters in Congress

2011-12-14T09:21:00.000-05:00

You can't win a war without warriors

“We all know which ones have been fighting hard to keep their campaign promises and which ones have remained stealth senators following the rudderless lead of Senator McConnell.”

The defeat of Ron Johnson for a leadership post in the Senate should serve as a wakeup call to conservatives. Despite our hard work during the 2010 elections, we have not done enough to elect conservative warriors to Congress.

Too many people assume that we have successfully flushed the Senate of liberal Republicans, with the exception of a few senators from the northeast. The truth is just the opposite. With the exception of a few fighters such as DeMint, Paul, Lee, Toomey, Johnson, Rubio, and a handful of others, we have no one who is willing to fight day and night to reverse the inexorable tide of statism.

While there are only a handful of true RINOs, members who consistently vote with Democrats, the lion’s share of the conference is satisfied to merely support Mitch McConnell’s uninspiring incrementalism to nowhere. Even though some of our most intrepid conservatives were elected as part the 2010 freshman class, we also elected a new crop of McConnell benchwarmers such as Boozman, Hoeven, and Portman. While we were focused on the high-profile intra-party fights in blue and purple states, we ceded precious ground in solid red states.

To be clear, the mainstream of the Republican conference, the McConnell loyalists, are not RINOs. We may even assume that they intuitively understand that free-market conservatism is what is best for the country. However, they are not fighters. They don’t wake up every morning and promise to dedicate themselves to the advancement of constitutional conservative principles. They wake up in the morning and determine the best way to play it safe and continue being….just another Republican senator. Either they simply lack the mettle to fight for their convictions or they believe that their convictions are political liabilities.

In a perfect world – one without truculent adversaries who are hell-bent on imposing socialism – these people, who constitute the majority of the Republican conference in both houses, would be sufficient to preserve the Republic. But we do not live in such a world. Our world is a world where liberals use every means at their disposal to advance their irremediable agenda. They leave nothing on the table. In such a world, you can’t bring a Lamar Alexander to a Chuck Schumer fight.

We can continue electing more people like Burr, Chambliss, Corker, Isackson, and Johanns, and Wicker, but we will never succeed in eradicating the inane cycle of government dependency and elected tyranny. The results of the past few election cycles are on vivid display for anyone who follows congressional affairs. The election of one Jim DeMint is worth more than 20 of these inanimate, lifelong benchwarmers. We all know which ones have been fighting hard to keep their campaign promises and which ones have remained stealth senators following the rudderless lead of Senator McConnell. I would imagine that the Blunt-Johnson election vote fell largely along the lines of these two camps.

There is not much we can do about the presidential election. The field is pretty intractable, and it looks like our best chance is with candidates that are less than reliable on issues that matter most to conservatives. To that end, we must double down on our efforts to elect conservatives, and most importantly, conservative fighters, to the 113^th Congress.

All too often, our efforts to elect conservative outsiders are impugned as purist purges of a big-tent party. We are accused of targeting and removing upstanding members from their seats. What our detractors fail to realize is that these seats do not belong to the members as defacto lifelong coronations. At every election, these Republicans must stand before Republican voters and articulate why they are best suited to represent their constituents. They must explain to Republican voters why they will fight the hardest for Republican values, in order to deserve their party’s nomination. There is clearly a lot of dead wood in both houses, particularly in deep red states and districts, where voters would find their Republican representatives deficient in keeping their promises.

Here is the question we must ask our elected officials: are you using Republican values as a vehicle to project power or are you using power as a vehicle to project Republican values?

Is your Republican senator and representative fighting for Republican values?

Annual Deficit Will Absolutely Top $1 Trillion in 2012

2011-12-13T12:40:00.002-05:00

“It's going to take a lot more than a few accounting gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions to cure our budget ailment”

Yesterday, the media was agog with glee over reports that CBO is projecting an annual deficit "below $1 trillion for the first time in four years."

How did they arrive at that conclusion?

This projection was extrapolated from the Treasury Department's report of the first two months of the fiscal year budget, which, as explained by the CBO's monthly budget review, pegs the current deficit at $236 billion — $55 billion less than at this time last year. The media is conflating this monthly report with an outdated long-term CBO budget outlook, which projects only a $973 billion deficit for FY 2012.

You might be wondering how we can achieve such a reduction when there are little or no spending cuts. After all, even the infinitesimal $6.6 billion in discretionary cuts will be cancelled out by additional emergency spending. Additionally, mandatory spending programs will only continue to grow this year. Yes – revenues are expected to climb; they have increased 7.1% from last year, but that would only reduce the deficit by $163 billion, when extrapolated on an annual basis.

Well, like most optimistic economic and budget projections, this one is garbage in, garbage out. It also involves shoddy work on the part of the media.

First, the CBO report that media outlets are referencing makes it clear why outlays for FY 2012 are sharply down from the previous year at this time – and it's not because of budget austerity. Most of the reductions come from an accounting shift. Most federal entitlement payments are sent out on the first of the month; however, this year, October 1 (which was also the first day of the fiscal year) fell out on a Saturday. As such, $31 billion of October's payments (accounting for 55% of this year's "deficit reduction" and 92% of outlay reduction) went out on the last day of September, thereby saving the new fiscal year from the extra accounting burden. When adjusting for the payment shift, CBO actually estimates that most areas of mandatory spending increased from the first two months of FY 2011, while defense spending has decreased. Consequently, overall spending has been virtually unchanged from this point in time last year.

Second, the CBO revenue estimate does not include the inevitable payroll tax cut extension, which will reduce revenues by $120 billion. The extrapolation of outlays does not include the extensions of unemployment benefits and Medicare doc fix. These measures will add anywhere from $55-75 billion in outlays. Even though these costs will be incurred over calendar year 2012 (which defers some of the burden to the first three months of FY 2013), it is safe to assume that roughly three-quarters of the cost will be actualized during fiscal year 2012.

Third, the $973 billion deficit figure that the media is throwing around comes from an outdated CBO report in August. That CBO report projected that spending would be virtually unchanged at $3.6 trillion, while revenues would climb from $2.31 trillion to $2.65 trillion during 2012. Everyone agree that barring an unforeseeable downturn in the economy, revenues will be higher this year than during the previous few years. However, as noted above, their estimate is probably overstating the revenue spike by a factor of two. The CBO revenue figures are predicated on unrealistic GDP growth during the last quarter of 2011 (Q1 of FY 2012) and 2012. They also don't include the annual AMT patch and tax extenders, which could reduce revenues by up to another $100 billion.

Therefore, is clear that the $973 billion annual figure is not a logical extrapolation of the Treasury reports from the first two months. The November CBO monthly budget review is a clear repudiation of its August budget outlook. Even at the time, CBO noted that their outlook was outdated, and had they factored in recent economic news, it would have “led CBO to temper its near-term forecast for economic growth.” The $973 billion figure is old news, and it is predicated on unrealistic revenues, an understatement of mandatory outlays, and the assumption that several important temporary tax and spending provisions will not be extended. This year's deficit will be roughly the same as last year's $1.3 trillion.

Another important factoid from this year's preliminary deficit figures is that payments for interest on the debt totaled $45 billion, up 19.5% from the same period a year ago. As long as we fail to cut welfare and reform entitlement programs, interest on the debt alone will cripple our economy, once rates begin to rise back to their historical norms.

If I were Mitt Romney, I would bet you a trillion dollars that the deficit will top $1 trillion this year. It's going to take a lot more than a few accounting gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions to cure our budget ailment that has been induced by an overbearing federal government.

Mitt Romney: Leader of the Pale Pastel Wing of Party

2011-12-12T17:12:00.002-05:00

During Saturday night’s GOP debate, Mitt Romney demonstrated once again why he is failing to gain traction with the conservative base. He continues to muddle the distinction between Obama’s policies and true free-market doctrine. Romney consistently invokes progressive policy doctrines, while tempering them with banal flavors of conservatism.

We must remember that every time a candidate failed to draw a sharp intellectual distinction between himself and the Democrats, that candidate was relegated to the ash heap of history. So far, Republican voters appear to have internalized that lesson.

Here are some examples of Romney’s insipid expression of ‘conservative’ policy.

Taxes/Class System

“His [Gingrich's] plan in capital gains, to remove capital gains for people– at the very highest level of income is different than mine. I’d– I’d– eliminate capital gains, interest, and dividends for people in middle income. So– we have differences of viewpoint on– on some issues. But– but the real difference, I believe, is our backgrounds. I spent my life in the private sector.
I– I understand how the economy works. And I believe that for Americans to– to say goodbye to President Obama and elect a Republican, they need to have confidence that the person they’re electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the American middle class.” [...]
“And– and in my view, the place that we could spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut is on the middle class, that’s been most hurt by the Obama economy. That’s where I wanna eliminate taxes on interest dividends and capital gains.” [emphasis added]

Romney goes on to criticize Gingrich for not joining him in recognizing a class system and spending “our precious tax dollars” only on middle class taxpayers. This is exactly what we mean when we say Romney is Obama-light. He doesn’t believe in raising taxes on the rich, but he believes in the pale pastel alternative of tax cuts only to certain “classes”. Worse, he views tax cuts as a means of “spending” as opposed to a means of returning wealth to its original owners. Accordingly, he believes that those “expenditures” should be granted to the right people.

Healthcare

“Speaker Gingrich said that he was for a federal individual mandate. That’s something I’ve always opposed. What we did in our state was designed by the people in our state for the needs of our state. You believe in the 10th Amendment. I believe in the 10th Amendment. The people of Massachusetts favor our plan three to one. They don’t like it, they can get rid of it. That’s the great thing about a democracy, where individuals under the 10th Amendment have the power to craft their own solutions.
By the way, the– the problem with President Obama’s plan is it does three things we didn’t in my opinion, among others. I understand we disagree on this. But among others, one, it raises taxes by $500 billion. We (NOISE) didn’t raise taxes. Two, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion. We didn’t do that, either. And three, it doesn’t just deal with the people that don’t have insurance. It’s a 2,000-page bill that takes over health care for all the American people. It is wrong for health care. It’s wrong for the American people. It’s unconstitutional. And I’m absolutely adamantly opposed to ObamaCare.”

Let’s get this straight: Romney opposes Obamacare, but only for the following four reasons; it is a federal program, raises taxes, cuts Medicare, and has too many provisions that affect too many people. This is a quintessential example of a pale pastel contrast that fails to uproot the entire liberal premise behind healthcare policy.

It is true that Obamacare raises taxes, cuts Medicare, and has many other onerous provisions. But 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. As an aside, Obamacare dumps scores of people on Medicaid.

Unfortunately, Romney lacked the gumption to mention these two additional prominent vices of Obamacare. The reason? They represent the same problems that Massachusetts faces with Romneycare. The subtle implication of Romney’s case against Obamacare is that as long as the plan doesn’t raise taxes or cut Medicare it is a laudable proposal, more meritorious than free-market anti-third-party-payer solutions.

And no wonder. Despite Romney’s ad nauseum lie about 92% of Massachusetts residents remaining unaffected by Masscare, the market-distortions have spiked the cost of private insurance for everyone in the state to a higher level than any other state. Government mandates and third-party interventions – both state and federal – necessarily raise the cost of health insurance. Also, Masscare, much like Obamacare, has dumped thousands of people onto Medicaid – to be paid for by taxpayers from other states.

Moreover, it is nonsensical and dangerous to believe that statism is tolerable as long as it is promulgated by state government. Federalism allows different states to experiment with legitimate functions of government, such as transportation and infrastructure spending. Statism, on the other hand, is wrong on every level. In fact, when Thomas Jefferson warned about “elected despotism” in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison), he was explicitly discussing state government.

Venture socialism is just as bad at a state level as at a federal level. Both Obamacare and Romneycare are driving up the cost of private health insurance, in the hope that private insurance will become unsustainable and unaffordable, thereby forcing single-payer down our throats. Both Obamacare and Romneycare will leave every taxpayer across the nation to pay for the inevitable collapse and the ensuing bailout.

Come next November, we need a choice not an [faint] echo.

GOP Must Block Maria del Carmen Aponte from Becoming Ambassador to El Salvador

2011-12-12T09:11:00.002-05:00

What is worse than an Obama radical czar? An ambassador to a sensitive South American country that had an affair with a Cuban spy.

Last August, stymied by Jim DeMint’s Senate hold, Obama used a recess appointment to name Maria del Carmen Aponte ambassador to El Salvador. She was originally selected as ambassador to the Domincan Republic during the Clinton administration, but she withdrew her name after refusing to take a polygraph test concerning her relationship with Cuban spy, Roberto Tamayo. Nonetheless, radical rejects of the Clinton administration are the very people whom Obama loves to recycle. Aponte’s recess appointment expires at the end of the year, and the Senate may vote on her permanent appointment as early as Monday afternoon.

While everyone is focused on the Middle East, few people are focusing on one of the most serious threats that hearkens all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine. There is a disturbing trend, known as the “Pink Tide”, of radical socialist tin-pot dictators obtaining power throughout Latin America and aligning themselves with Chavez and Castro. Many of these countries, such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, have already joined Venezuela in an unholy alliance against Iran. They are also strengthening ties with Iran.

There are many smaller developing nations in the region that have fallen to the Pink Tide, and El Salvador is one of them. We need to engage these countries from a position of strength and lure them away from their alliance with Chavez and his Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas and the newly formed Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). It goes without saying that those who are vested with such diplomatic power should not side with our enemies. Then again, the commander-in-chief sides with the Pink Tide anyway.

Call your senators and urge them to vote no on Maria del Carmen Aponte.

Newt Gingrich Tells the Truth About the Palestinian Non-Entity

2011-12-11T08:52:00.001-05:00

“The Palestinians are the ~~global warming~~ climate change of geopolitical conflict. They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda.”

Newt Gingrich hit it out of the park with his succinct assessment of the “Palestinian” cause.

One of the most incorrigible fallacies pertaining to the Middle East is the notion that the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own. This fallacy stems from the misconception that there is a nation of ‘Palestinians’, and to the extent that such a nation exists, this name is an accurate representation of the Arabs who live in modern Israel. This artful manipulation of the geopolitical lexicon was meant to bestow upon a group of random Arabs a false sense of geographical ties to the Holy Land.

In 1977, during an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, PLO Executive Committee member Zuheir Mohsen described the stratagem as this:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.”

This delusion is no trivial matter. For years, the left wing foreign policy establishment has rapturously promoted the ‘Palestinians’ as the cause célèbre of our national security interests. Instead of focusing on the real threats to our national security (such as those who, incidentally, fund the so-called Palestinians), the foreign policy establishment has singularly focused on creating a state for the most virulently anti-American people on the face of the planet. Their maniacal fixation on the Palestinians has left them devoid of solutions regarding the broader turmoil in the Middle East.

The first step in undoing this foreign policy mess is for the next president to deracinate the entire myth of a ‘Palestinian people’. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for finally telling the truth about the geopolitical cause célèbre of all the world’s imbeciles.

In a TV interview with the Jewish Channel, Gingrich made the following basic observation:

“Remember, there was no Palestine as a state — (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s.”

This is the type of fighting spirit that everyone on the right – both admirers and detractors – appreciates about Newt.

All students of history, barring those who attended left-wing universities, know that the origin of the term Palestine comes from the Roman Empire. When they captured Judea during the first century, the Romans renamed the Jewish kingdom ‘Palestine’ after the ancient Philistines referenced in the Bible. After the British kicked out the Ottoman Turks from Transjordan (comprised of modern-day Israel and Jordan), they renamed it the British Mandate of Palestine, once again hearkening back to its ancient etymology. Although the original Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish homeland in the entirety of this territory, 78% of it was ultimately siphoned off for the modern state of Jordan in 1946. Unsatisfied with 78% of the territory, Jordan invaded the new Jewish state of Israel in 1948 and illegally occupied half of the remaining 22% of the territory for 18 years.

In 1967, the Jordanians (not the so-called Palestinians), along with its Arab neighbors, invaded Israel once again in the hopes that they would wipe out the remaining Jewish presence. Israel won that war and kicked out the Jordanians from the land they illegally occupied, known as the West Bank. This land has nothing to do with a Palestinian people; it was illegally part of Jordan for 18 years. 80% of the so-called Palestinians are Jordanian Arabs. Hence, there already is a ‘Palestinian state’ in Jordan.

Not surprisingly, gas bag Michigan Senator Carl Levin decried Gingrich’s fact check as “cynical”, “divisive, and destructive,” even as he declined to challenge the veracity of the GOP hopeful’s statement:

“the vast majority of American Jews — including this one — and the Israeli government … are committed to a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side as neighbors and in peace.
“Gingrich’s cynical efforts to attract attention to himself with divisive and destructive statements will not help his presidential ambitions,” Levin said, “since they are aimed at putting the peace between Israel and the Palestinians that Americans yearn for even further out of reach than it is today.”

Memo to dinosaur Senator Levin: No, this is not a cynical ploy to garner Jewish support because Gingrich, and every other GOP candidate for that matter, understands that he will not obtain a significant minority of the Jewish vote, let alone a majority. Believe it or not, Mr. Levin, there are those who actually understand history, and intuitively reject the notion that we should invest our time and treasure into a lie. If there is anything cynical, divisive, and destructive, it is your pathetic attempt to use your religious identity to shield Obama from the vices of being the most pro-’Palestinian’ president in American history.

The Palestinians are the ~~global warming~~ climate change of geopolitical conflict. They use deceptive parlance to advance their agenda. Thankfully, Newt is speaking the truth, instead of worshiping at the altar of the pan-Islamists in the UN. Mitt Romney is accusing him of undercutting the Israelis, but Newt was wise to express the truth from the American perspective. There is no national interest for America in the creation of a state for a non-entity, irrespective of what the Israelis chose for their own interests.

It’s these moments of straight talk from Gingrich that resonate with conservatives. Now, if only he would govern with the same conviction and audacity that is reflected in his rhetoric…..

The GOP Payroll Tax Cut/UI Extension Proposal

2011-12-09T12:42:00.001-05:00

“will they finally hold the line on their own promises this time, or will they pass all the extensions without the reforms, riders, and spending offsets? This package must be the final offer.”

Earlier today, House Republican leaders unveiled their package deal to extend the payroll tax and unemployment benefits for another year and to continue Medicare ‘doc fix’ for another two years.

While bipartisan passage of the payroll tax cut and doc fix were a forgone conclusion, the real issues for conservatives were the UI extension and the spending cuts. Unfortunately, they are acquiescing to another extension, albeit with some reforms.
The major reforms include mandatory drug testing and participation in reemployment services as a condition for receiving benefits. Those receiving the 99 weeks of UI will gradually be reduced to 79, and then finally 59 weeks. Also, states would be authorized to use some of the funds for job training programs. The UI component of the bill falls short of transformational reform, but at least it precludes 99 weeks from becoming the standard duration of payments.

In order to ameliorate yet another welfare extension for conservative members, two more sweeteners were added: 1) A law to force Obama’s hand on the Keystone Pipeline 2) A provision that would keep illegal immigrants from receiving the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit, by requiring that recipients provide a valid SSN. This would save $10 billion over 10 years, according the GOP sources [more background on that issue here]. The bill also has a provision to reduce Clean Air Act regulations for industrial boilers.

The proposal, which includes the aforementioned three extensions, will cost about $200 billion. Republicans say they will pay for it with the following reforms, many of which were adopted from the Senate Republican proposal:

Extend the current two-year freeze on federal employees’ salaries from 2013 through 2015 and expand it to apply to employees of the legislative branch, including members of Congress.
Reduce the number of federal employees by 10% through attrition. This would follow the framework of the Simpson-Bowles proposal to only allow the hiring of one new employee for every three who leave the federal workforce. These reforms would be achieved by lowering discretionary spending caps another $3-4 billion per year, from 2013-2021. This would save about $26 billion in discretionary spending over and beyond the savings achieved from the spending caps in the Budget Control Act.
Cut some benefits to those individuals with an adjusted gross income over $1 million. They take some ideas from Senator Coburn’s report, such as cutting unemployment benefits for millionaires, and charging them higher premiums for Medicare part B and D (the parts that are not funded through payroll taxes). The Medicare savings would total $31 billion over ten years. They also propose closing an anomalous loophole that allows certain rich people to collect food stamps. These latter proposals will save very little.
GOP leaders are pledging to eliminate some unspecified Obamacare spending, which, along with the aforementioned healthcare reforms, would pay for the $39 billion price-tag of the two-year doc fix.

Some other provisions include the following (from the Speaker’s website)

Changes the co-pay structure for civilian federal retirees (saves $36 billion).

Raises Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) guarantee fees to better price the risks GSEs cover and reduce their unfair advantages over the private sector (saves $38 billion).

Includes spectrum auctions and other reforms to bring in significant revenues for taxpayers by making more efficient and effective use of the public’s airwaves (saves $16 billion).

Reforms the National Flood Insurance Program by eliminating the premium subsidy for certain properties (saves $4 billion).

While all these ideas are meritorious, I would point out that the $210 billion shortfall from the extension package (roughly $120 from the payroll tax cut, $50 from UI, and the rest from doc fix) will be incurred next year (or over two years, in the case of doc fix), while the overwhelming majority of the savings will occur during subsequent years. If Republicans fail to conjure up some more mettle over the next few years, it is likely that these measures will continue to be extended at a cost of well over $2 trillion. Moreover, I’m a bit skeptical of optimistic predictions of reduction in federal employees, and by extension, deficit reduction, when those predictions are born out of random hiring freezes, as opposed to actual elimination of programs or agencies. As long as the program or agency exists, it will somehow find a way perpetuate a need to retain its employees.

Let’s face it; this is not the type of thinking that will bend the trajectory on our unsustainable mandatory spending and our $15 trillion debt.

Nevertheless, I would totally support this package. When judged together with the sweeteners, the UI reforms, and some of the cuts, this is a reasonable compromise. As conservatives we would have rather they fight against another UI extension. We would have also preferred an authentic one-year offset, at least for UI and doc fix, but at least we got a legitimate compromise, not just a capitulation.

However, we still need to answer the million dollar question. When Democrats inevitably refuse to pass the GOP package, will they finally hold the line on their own promises this time, or will they pass all the extensions without the reforms, riders, and spending offsets? We’ve been down this road before, where leadership entices conservatives into supporting a watered-down, but satisfactory plan, only to pocket the support and completely cave to the Democrats. They haven’t been willing to go to the brink on spending bills when it came time to defund Obamacare and EPA rules. Will this time be different?

Before conservatives lend their support to this extension package, they should secure a guarantee from leadership that they will hold the line on most of the riders and reforms. This package must be the final offer.

Let’s not get played like fools once again.

Defeat That Omnibus!

2011-12-08T18:52:00.001-05:00

“Why are we bailing them out from their biggest debt with the voting public? Why are Republicans in a rush to move on from issues that embarrass Democrats?”

It is still inexplicable to me why Republicans should violate their pledge against passing an Omnibus, in order to meet an artificial deadline set by those who never passed a budget.

Democrats were too incompetent to pass a budget, even while they controlled all branches of government, thereby creating a need to pass the budget through a series of continuing resolutions. Now that Republicans control the House, and have a real budget on the table, Democrats have conveniently become disdainful of CRs. They have also undergone a cathartic conversion to meeting budget deadlines.

At this point, the big-government statists in both parties know that the only way for conservatives to fight for any semblance of the House budget – both in terms of spending levels and policy riders – is to drag out the process beyond December 16. Conservatives would be able to force Senate Democrats to pass the remaining nine spending bills one at a time. This would give House conservatives the leverage to amend each bill and force Democrats into defending embarrassing spending bills, which fund unpopular laws and agencies, on nine separate occasions. In plain English, this is exactly how the budget process is supposed to work, pursuant to the 1974 Budget Act.

“Oh, but it is already so late in the year,” cries Democrats, and oddly, Republican leaders. Well, dummies, whose fault is that? We passed our budget on time. Now you want to come in late and subvert the process under the guise of budget tardiness?

Instead, Democrats want to bundle the nine spending bills into an ~~omnibus~~ megabus (no, we’re not referring to the intercity bus service), and wash their hands of the FY 2012 budget process by December 16, when the current CR expires. This will allow them to suffer just one unpopular vote. Also, CRs would approriate less funding than an Omnibus for agencies like the EPA. More importantly, it will enable them to circumvent the House conservatives, and vitiate all of their policy riders, most notably, the ones defunding Obamacare. The conference committee is convening today (you can see the list of conferees here, and formulate your own opinion).

If you want to know why Democrats are taking this approach, here are the problems with the megabus bill:

1) Process: Republicans will be forced to throw their pledge to America under the megabus. They promised not to pass bundled appropriations bills. Moreover, this impending bill will be worse than a regular omnibus. Republican appropriators have agreed to use a bill that has already passed both houses (MilCon-VA) as a vehicle to send the megabus straight to conference. At that point, the bipartisan statists will control the entire process, and force House Republicans to vote up-or-down on the entire budget without any amendments.

2) Spending Totals: Not only will this bill completely nullify the House-passed budget – the only budget on the table – it will appropriate more money for FY 2012 than FY 2011. In other words, there will be no real cuts. Even though the Budget Control Act capped total discretionary budget authority at $1.043 trillion (down from $1.0497 in 2011), this infinitesimal cut will be cancelled out by up to $11 billion in emergency disaster spending, which is not subject to the spending caps. Also, once we account for the $11 billion cut in base-budget defense spending, it turns out that some non-defense expenditures will actually increase. In addition, mandatory spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the budget, will continue to increase.

3) Obamacare: The House version of the HHS-Labor bill will deny all funding to execute Obamacare programs. Also, the Financial Services bill contains two provisions barring the IRS from implementing Obamacare. The first would block certain transfers of money from HHS to the IRS related to implementation of Obamacare. The second provision would prohibit the IRS from using funds provided through the bill to verify that individuals have health care coverage and impose penalties on those who do not. The megabus will strip out these provisions.

4) Other Policy Rider: The Labor approps bill funds many malignant labor policies of the NLRB. The HHS bill funds abortion. The Interior- Environment bill funds many menacing EPA policies. The Financial Services bill funds Dodd-Frank. The Senate State-Ops bill funds the Palestinians and the UN. The list goes on and on. Obviously, we understand that we will not win on every policy rider. But we must not sell out on the major issues, such as Obamacare and the EPA, in place of some vapid, inconsequential gesture to gun owners or the pro-life lobby. Believe me; the appropriators will not willingly agree to a consequential pro-life rider, such as defunding Planned Parenthood. This is why we need to fight these issues one-by-one, bill-by-bill.

So why would Republican leaders and appropriators offer the Democrats all these gratuitous political and policy gifts?

Taking them by their word, they seem to be concerned about taking up more valuable legislative time with appropriations. They just want to get it over with.

But why abandon the biggest Democrat liability and treat it as if it’s a Republican liability? Republicans always complain that they can’t get anything done because they only control one-half of… Well, duh? They lack the ability to pass good legislation, but they still have the power to block pernicious legislation. To that end, why are they abrogating their pledge to block bad legislation in order to save time for other legislative work that won’t pass? They should spend the entire session forcing Democrats to defend Obamacare. Why are we bailing them out from their biggest debt with the voting public? Why are Republicans in a rush to move on from issues that embarrass Democrats?

Republicans should pass a stand-alone Labor-HHS appropriations bill defunding Obamacare and make the Democrats defend their efforts to reinstate that funding. Pass another separate Financial Services bill, which cuts off the IRS’s ability to enforce the individual mandate. Let Democrats defend their efforts on behalf of Obamacare once again. We will continue the narrative about Obamacare from a position of strength, instead of allowing Obama to change the subject to issues he views as more favorable.

It would be nice to know how the capitulations on policy are politically advantageous for Republicans. Then again, they are called the stupid party for a reason.

Don't Conflate Super-Long Unemployment Extension With Payroll Tax Cut

2011-12-07T17:13:00.001-05:00

The outcome of the impending payroll tax imbroglio seems to be clear. With Republicans offering spending offsets and Democrats demanding tax increases, my safe premonition is that, for better or worse, the simple tax cut extension will pass, albeit without either "offset" plan. Due to some divisions among conservatives, such an outcome seems to be intractable at this point.

At this point, we must focus on unemployment benefits with a unified message. My concern is that all of the proposed GOP packages conflate the passage of the payroll tax cut with UI extension. We all know that Democrats will abjure all Republican proposals to pay for the package, most notably, cuts to the federal workforce. The only thing this package will do is telegraph a public message to Democrats and the voters that Republicans agree to the premise of extending unemployment benefits.

As the clock winds down toward Christmas break, and Democrats balk at spending offsets, Republicans will once again be forced to acquiesce to yet another aspect of Obama's Santa Claus stimulus package. Worse, conservatives who want to support the tax cut will be forced to vote for a package of unprecedented UI benefits – without any offsets or structural reforms to the program. By voting for the full package, conservatives will be going on record as supporting UI extension. Then, the offsets will be jettisoned from the deal by Democrats, forcing conservatives into a no-win situation on the last day of the session.

At the very least, the GOP proposal for UI must be decoupled from the payroll tax bill.

Earlier this week, we laid out the case why Republicans should oppose the entire premise of a 99-week UI extension, irrespective of spending offsets. They must make it clear to Democrats that they will not pass an extension unless consequential structural reforms are made to the program. Any serious reform must restructure the program to resemble the insurance plan that originally characterized the program, instead of a new mandatory unfunded liability that resembles more of a European style welfare plan. Reforms that focus on pocket change from the few millionaires or prisoners who collect UI are non-sequiturs.

Republicans should pass a standalone UI reform bill, and make it clear to Democrats that it is their bottom line. Then they should go home.

As the program is currently constituted, it must not be extended. Conservatives understand that we won't come away with everything from the end-of-year legislative fights. Nonetheless, we should not walk into a trap of bundling tax cuts with the creation of a defacto permanent entitlement program.

GOP Should Launch Offensive in Payroll Tax Fight

2011-12-06T18:49:00.001-05:00

“in typical Democrat asinine fashion, they are promulgating a defacto permanent tax cut by telegraphing to the public that it is only temporary, thereby minimizing the pro-growth effect of the tax cut.”

After decades of monstrous lies about Social Security, Democrats have finally blown the cover off their stratagem. They have always proclaimed that our payroll taxes were held securely in a trust fund in order to purvey retirement checks for each pay roll tax contributor. Moreover, they emphatically promised that as much as $2.6 trillion in unspent tax revenue had accrued in the trust fund. Now, with their push for a defacto permanent payroll tax cut, they are shedding all effort to conceal their Social Security mendacity.

The fact that Democrats are attempting to permanently cut the employee’s share of the payroll tax by 50% is a clear repudiation of their first premise. And let’s face it; the cut will be permanent, as any subsequent relapse would be deemed a tax increase. Nonetheless, in typical Democrat asinine fashion, they are promulgating a defacto permanent tax cut by telegraphing to the public that it is only temporary, thereby minimizing the pro-growth effect of the tax cut.

Additionally, the fact that their bill calls for $185 billion in general fund transfers to Social Security helps depose the myth that there is anything left in the trust fund. It is clear that not only is there no existing money in the trust fund, but even the revenue from the current year (which would already come up $50 billion short, even without the tax cut) is insufficient to cover Social Security costs. In plain English, we would call that a Ponzi scheme, not a pay-as-you-go system.

Sadly, instead of using this as an opportunity to own up to their 70-year old lie, Democrats are doubling down on it. They are insisting that, due to their tax increases and faux spending cuts, all is fine and dandy with Social Security. “The legislation would not affect the Social Security Trust Fund by one penny, because it requires that the Social Security Trust Fund be made whole through transfers from the General Fund,” wrote Bob Casey.

The only problem is that the math doesn’t add up. Their plan would offset a $185 billion deficit in 2012 with tax increases over 10 years. Yes, they will also adopt the GOP plan to cut anomalous food stamp and unemployment benefits for millionaires – reforms that won’t even save $100 million over 10 years. In 2009, during the worst year of the recession, the IRS reported that 2,362 millionaires collected a total of $20.8 million in UI, according to Senator Coburn. On the other hand, a 50% payroll tax, which, for better or worse, will unlikely be repealed – will cost well over $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Consequently, it is incontrovertibly clear that Social Security will not “be made whole” without accelerating our crushing debt towards the Greece-like day of reckoning.

Now that Democrats have checkmated themselves on Social Security, it’s time for them to grow up and discuss entitlement reform so we can rectify their 70-year monstrous lie. They have no legitimate rationale to oppose private retirement accounts anymore. Which accusation will they hurl at us? Will they accuse us of bankrupting Social Security? They have already been quite auspicious in attaining that goal.

As for Republicans, they have two viable options; call out Democrats on their Social Security duplicity – and impel entitlement reform, or outflank them by proposing a permanent tax cut. Either way, they should abandon their current inscrutable strategy of supporting the temporary cut, albeit less enthusiastically, and with the promise of spending offsets – ones they have no intention of fighting for. They will gain nothing politically from playing follow the leader on the payroll tax cut. From a policy perspective, they will fail to offset the cost of the cut at the time it is incurred anyway. Besides, we all know that they will ultimately jettison the spending cuts from the deal (Democrats will never agree to more cuts in the federal workforce). Accordingly, why look like a fool for demanding something they have no intention of enforcing?

Furthermore, and most important, every spending offset proposal thus far includes extension of super-long unemployment benefits as part of the deal. These two issues should not be bundled in an effort to force conservatives to vote for a massive entitlement expansion along with tax cuts. We are now on pace to blow a massive hole in the deficit, and permanently enshrine unemployment as an entitlement, all for a temporary tax cut that will not engender much growth, as witnessed by this past year.

If Republicans want to make Social Security the issue, they should push for something like the Jeff Landry plan. Rep. Landry, along with Reps. Mulvaney and McClintock, have proposed a bill (HR 3551) which turns the payroll tax holiday into an opt-in system, allowing each worker to annually decide if he or she wants to continue receiving the holiday, in exchange for delaying retirement another month. This will force Democrats to stop avoiding entitlement reform.

On the other hand, if Republicans want to stay on message as supporting tax cuts, they should make the payroll tax permanent. What they shouldn’t do is play second fiddle to the Democrats on a non-offset temporary cut, while gaining nothing politically or policy-wise.

Why grant the Democrats multiple political victories for the price of one?

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Anti-Pipeline Dave Heineman Should Not Run for Senate in Nebraska

2011-12-06T10:11:00.001-05:00

One of the biggest political and policy winners for Republicans is their strong support for expeditious approval of the Keystone Pipeline. Their unified support for this propitious project has provided voters with a sharp contrast to Obama’s casual disregard for private-sector job creation and cheap energy for consumers. Hence, it is a no-brainer that the pipeline issue should be used as a rallying cry for all Republicans running for elected office in 2012.

In that vein, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman would be wise to remain in Lincoln, and discard any aspirations to run for Senate.

Toward the end of the summer, amidst pressure from members of his own administration, Obama was on the verge of signing off on the deal. The State Department had published yet another favorable environmental impact study, and even Energy Secretary Steven Chu seemed to concede that opposition to the pipeline was indefensible. But then came the vociferous protestations from Obama’s base; greenies, hippies, Hollywood bimbos, and….Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman.

Late in August, the Nebraska Republican penned a letter to the President and Secretary of State requesting that they deny the permit for the pipeline. Heineman stated that he objected to the route of the pipeline for fear that an oil spill would affect that Ogallala Aquifer – an underground water table in western Nebraska.

Never mind that unlike oil tankers, pipelines are much safer, and in the rare event of a spill, the affected area is measured in tens of feet, not thousands. Never mind that the EPA and the State Department saw no concern with the proposed route of the pipeline. Disregard the fact that the only legitimate threat to the water supply comes from the ethanol production that is so blithely promoted by Nebraska’s Republicans, without any concern for the Ogallala Aquifer. Dave Heineman felt that he must convene a special session of the legislature and block the pipeline, granting Obama the vital bipartisan cover he needed to scuttle the project.

Two months later, buoyed by Republican Heineman’s moral support, Obama suspended the pipeline until after the 2012 elections. As they say, the rest is history.

Now, Senators Cornyn and McConnell are imploring the governor to seek the Republican nomination in the Senate race against Ben Nelson.

Let’s not muddle our unified message on energy policy by electing the Keystone Pipeline slayer to the Senate?

We Need Employment Benefits, Not Another Permanent Welfare Program

2011-12-05T08:25:00.001-05:00

Force Democrats to pay unemployment reparations from their own coffers

Here we go again. After a full year of grandstanding against another extension of unemployment benefits, some Republicans are ready to cave.

“do we believe in free-market doctrine, which suggests that extended UI hurts the economy, or the Keynesian multiplier, which suggests that UI helps the economy?”

If you ever wondered why it is so hard to cut spending, and more importantly, to downsize government, look no further than the fight over extending unemployment benefits.

Despite a year full of political parlance concerning budget austerity, many have forgotten that we have only cut $6.67 billion from the FY 2011 $1.049 trillion discretionary budget authority. Even this miniscule cut might be cancelled out by up to $11 billion in emergency disaster spending, which is not subject to the spending caps. Moreover, after just one year of cuts, discretionary spending will steadily rise during each subsequent year, albeit at a slower rate than originally proposed by Obama.

But there is a more salient observation that must be publicized. These miniscule cuts, including the faux baseline cuts, are only applied to 28% of the budget – the part that is funded through the congressional appropriations process. The other parts of the budget are virtually unscathed, even from baseline cuts. To that end, even as we cut a few billion from baseline discretionary spending, we will still add hundreds of billions more in mandatory spending for each subsequent year.

These mandatory programs have created such inveterate dependency constituencies that nobody wants to touch them with a ten-foot pole. Even if we exclude Social Security, Medicare, and veteran’s benefits, there are still almost $800 billion in other mandatory programs, most of which is spent on welfare. This has become the fastest growing part of the budget, yet it will remain completely fortified from any budget control mechanisms.

The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program has been one of the biggest drivers of increased ‘other mandatory spending’. Over the past two years, due to unprecedented 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and bankrupt state unemployment programs, the UI program has cost between $130-160 billion per year, rapidly becoming the fourth largest expenditure (behind Medicaid) in the budget.

Are we prepared to eschew free-market principles, and permanently enshrine UI as part of the entitlement state?

Although Congress has previously extended benefits beyond the traditional 26 weeks during recessions, this time they are clearly attempting to establish unemployment as a permanent entitlement program. The 73-week extension of unemployment benefits helped balloon the cost of unemployment compensation to the extent that the employer payroll taxes are no longer sufficient to fund the benefits. Over the past three years, the federal government has collected roughly $135 billion in taxes, while paying out $416 billion in benefits.
Now there is bipartisan agreement to extend the 99-week handout, even though it is incontrovertibly clear that it has failed to “stimulate” job growth. In fact, it has helped stimulate exodus from the labor force and record duration of unemployment.

But don’t worry; Republicans are promising to pay for it with other spending offsets (over 10 years).
Unfortunately, the problem with the GOP plan is that they are agreeing to the premise that further extension is indeed a necessity, and not a drag on the economy. Consequently, once the Democrats ineluctably scuttle the idea of offset spending cuts, how will Republicans explain that they are opposing something they deemed inviolate? They will lose the political fight because the public will once again perceive that Republicans ultimately agree with the premises of the progressives, albeit less enthusiastically. As such, they will side with the more enthusiastic and professional supporters of government dependency.

Even if Republicans miraculously succeed in passing offsets, what will they do next year? Based upon past experiences, temporary extensions become impervious to relapse, due to the political climate. If we don’t terminate extraneous long-term unemployment insurance now, or seriously restructure the program, it will become another third-rail unfunded liability, along with the other big three expenditures. It will also stimulate and perpetuate more unemployment.

Furthermore, if we are granting benefits over and beyond what was paid into the system by employers, why not extend unemployment benefits to the millions of college graduates who cannot enter the workforce due to Obama’s economy? Where do we draw the line? At some point, we must ask ourselves do we believe in free-market doctrine, which suggests that extended UI hurts the economy, or the Keynesian multiplier, which suggests that UI helps the economy?

In order to preclude the creation of a fourth entitlement, Republicans should categorically oppose extension, irrespective of supposed spending offsets. They need to stand firm and reject the compassionate conservatism of the past.

Instead, they should counter with authentic employment benefits. Employment benefits would include across the board personal and corporate income tax reductions, repeal of thousands of odious regulations in the federal register, welfare reform, a comprehensive energy production program, and a cessation of job-killing, market-distorting subsidies. Such a program would create new jobs, elevate personal income, and lower the cost of living for consumers.

At the very least, they should demand passage of one of the GOP’s jobs bills (REINS Act, Keystone Pipeline bill, DeMint’s welfare reform, etc.) – a real stimulant of employment – as a precondition to passing more unemployment stimulation (and stand by that demand).

It might be politically tempting to cede the field on this issue. But if we can’t prevent the creation of a new permanent entitlement, how and when will we ever cut a single existing mandatory program? The road will never get easier if we are unwilling to complete our sentences and articulate free enterprise policies from a position of strength. Does anyone really believe that a few billion in discretionary spending cuts will slow our inexorable march towards Greek-style destruction?

Cross-posted to RedState.com

How Good are the New Unemployment Numbers?

2011-12-02T12:34:00.001-05:00

The much anticipated November jobs number have been posted. Here is a rundown of some of the highlights:

Jobs created in November: The net increase in new jobs this month was 120,000. There were 140,000 jobs added to the private sector, while the public sector shed 20,000. The U3 unemployment number dropped from 9.0% to 8.6%. In more good news, September’s numbers were revised up to 210,000 from 158,000, while October’s jobs numbers were boasted by 20,000 to a total of 100,000. Also, the U6 number, which counts discouraged workers, dropped to 15.6 percent from 16.2 percent, its lowest level since March 2009.
Types of Jobs: The largest share of new jobs came from the retail industry, which saw a 50,000 spike. On the other hand, manufacturing only gained 2,000, while construction shed another 12,000 jobs. This might be an indication that a lot of these jobs are temporary increases for the Christmas shopping season. Another related point is that the sharpest drop in unemployment was amongst those with little or no college education.
Size of civilian labor force: So why is this, at best, a mediocre jobs report? Well, if you shrink the size of the pool, the unemployment rate will actually go down. While a net-120,000 jobs were added in November, the civilian labor force shrunk by 315,000. In October, the civilian labor force stood at 154.198 million. Now, there are only 153.883 in the labor force. Moreover, the Civilian noninstitutional population grew by 172,000, yet there are now 487,000 more people not in the labor force than there were in October. Consequently, the labor participation number dropped from 64.2% to 64.0%. This, along with the upward revisions from the past two months, has caused the U3 rate to drop by .4%.
Duration of unemployment: The average (mean) duration of unemployment is 40.9 weeks, a record high. By comparison, the average duration was 19.9 weeks in January 2009.
Comparison to January 2009-Obama’s inauguration date: In January 2009, the labor force stood at 154.185. This means that a net 302,000 people have left the labor force since Obama was inaugurated. Concurrently, the size of the working age population grew over 5.7 million from 234.739 million at the time Obama was sworn in. Also, in January 2009, 142.201 million were employed, over 1.62 million more than today. So we have a larger population, a smaller workforce (resulting from discouraged workers), and more unemployed. As AEI’s James Pethokoukis points out, if the labor force was the same size as when Obama took office, the U3 rate would be 11%.

Bonus points:

-          Hours and Earnings: Wages slipped slightly with the average hourly wage dropping 2 cents an hour to $23.18. Average weekly earnings dropped $1.28 to $656.54. Aggregate hours worked also fell.
-          Black unemployment actually rose .4% to 15.5%.
-          A key point often overlooked is the difficultly for those entering the workforce to find a job. The unemployment rate for those 20-24 actually rose .2% to 14.2%, even as older demographics saw their unemployment rate decline. That increase was incurred entirely by young males, who suffered a 0.9% spike to 15.6% (the rate for women actually declined .6%)
-          Now is not the time to extend more 99-week unemployment benefits. They are clearly not stimulating jobs growth. Worse, they are incentivizing more long-term unemployed to give up.

Overall, it is clear that the across-the-board contraction of jobs has stopped. But is that really something to celebrate this far into a recovery, which is usually a time of robust growth? In terms of the job growth, it is still unprecedentedly mediocre, and would only account for .1% of the U3 drop if not for the labor force shrinkage. And therein lies the problem. Worse than a high unemployment rate, we have an unprecedented number of people permanently giving up on the job market, a record high duration of unemployment, and, despite the drop, a terrible U6 rate. At some point, the U3 rate has to climb back to 9% if and when those people return to the labor force. It's also worth noting that the more people sit out the labor force, the quicker Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent.

No – there probably won’t be a double-dip recession; there is not much more left to shed. However, this is the type of report you want to see in 2009, not late 2011. We will continue flat lining at (or near) the bottom of the employment trough indefinitely, especially if Obama and the Democrats get their way with extension of unemployment (stimulating) benefits. This is exactly what a Keynesian recovery looks like.

So, Whose House is it Anyway?

2011-12-02T09:26:00.001-05:00

Last year, the American people voted overwhelmingly for a Republican House of Representatives. Based upon their campaign pledges, the prevailing expectation of a “Republican House” was a body of revitalized Republicans who would not fund Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, downsize Freddie/Fannie, oppose appropriator-concocted omnibus bills, and fight for at least some of their priorities in the Ryan budget.

A year later, the prevailing sentiment amongst the GOP ruling class within the House is antithetical to those ideals. First it was the minibus; then it was the omnibus; now there’s talk about a megabus (coupled with unemployment benefits and tax extenders). Instead of demanding that Democrats pass a proper budget and allow both chambers to vote on one bill at a time, they are willing to genuflect before Harry Reid and Senate Democrats. The fact that we are running late on appropriations is not the fault of Republicans, and the American people know that. Why reward Democrats for their insouciance towards our budget process by granting them all the major policy riders and spending levels?

Yet, astoundingly, House appropriators are blaming conservatives for weakening their leverage. They bemoan how they are forced to seek Democrat votes in order to pass…Senate Democrat bills. The million dollar question is this: if they are demanding that we support Democrat bills in order to pass the House without Democrat support, what sort of leverage are they trying to achieve? Here is the latest from Roll Call:

“I’d guess we’ll see another 100-plus Republicans vote ‘no’ on the megabus. This is apparently the new governing coalition on major items: Most Democrats plus Republicans who still trust leadership that they’ll eventually do the right thing,” a GOP House aide said. […]
From the perspective of Republican appropriators, their party’s negotiating position was weakened when 101 Republicans voted “no” on the recent three-bill minibus.
“Without sufficient Republican votes, Labor-HHS will have to pass with Democrat votes and with Obamacare funding in it,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), adding, “If Republicans stick together, we’ll be in a much stronger position on Labor-HHS.”
Asked whether Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is prepared to bring legislation to the House floor that would fund the president’s health care law and that would pass with mostly Democratic votes, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel declined to comment.

So giving Democrats everything they want on all the fundamentals – the same fundamentals that propelled the GOP into power – is the new strategy for….gaining leverage against Democrats. And we are to believe that it is our enthusiastic support for the 2010 Republican platform, pledge, and budget that is handing control of the House to Democrats. Has the political parlance been turned upside down? When you need Democrats to pass your legislation, maybe you should look in the mirror when assigning blame.

Moreover, how much longer are we going to shirk from a direct confrontation over defunding Obamacare? Are we really going to place all of our aspirations in the capricious hands of Anthony Kennedy? And even if he agrees to overturn the individual mandate, it is likely that the rest of the bill will remain intact to destroy the healthcare system.

Well, you might ask, if the individual mandate is repealed, won’t the rest of the bill be rendered unfeasible? Yes, but it is already unfeasible, yet the Democrats don’t care.

Well, it would be politically unfeasible, you might retort. Yes, but it is already a political loser, yet the Democrats still refuse to repeal it.

The bottom line is that we will, most likely, need to defund Obamacare, and eventually repeal it. The longer we wait; the longer we refrain from using our real leverage to defund it, the more we lose our moral clarity and righteous indignation against it. After all, if it really will destroy the economy and permanently reshape our country, how can we allow it to remain funded for even one day?

It is conservatives who are the true “team players” – willing to remain on the battlefield and fight for what we all coalesced around during the elections. Whose House is it anyway?

Cross-posted to RedState.com

What is the Endgame for the Payroll Tax Fight?

2011-12-01T09:43:00.001-05:00

Well, it looks like the ship already sailed on extension ofthe payroll tax cut. Republicansintroduced their own legislation to continue the current payroll tax cut from6.2% to 4.2% for another year. Thisproposal, which would cost$119.6 billion in revenue for the remainder of FY 2012 and the first fewmonths of FY 2013, does not include the Democrat provisions to cut theemployer’s share of the payroll tax.

Yesterday, I detailedsome of my concerns from a public policy standpoint, but from a personalstandpoint I’m not complaining. Whoknows if we will receive our Social Security money? We as may as well keep the money now.

So how will they pay for the deficits that will result fromthe $119 billion (additional) transfer from general revenues to SocialSecurity? Senator Dean Heller introducedthe following plan:

Extend the current two-year freeze on federalemployees’ salaries from 2013 through 2015 and expand it to apply to employeesof the legislative branch, including members of Congress.

Reduce the number of federal employees by 10%through attrition. This would follow theframework of the Simpson-Bowles proposal to only allow the hiring of one newemployee for every three who leave the federal workforce.

Insert a line on every tax return for theRepublican version of the “Buffet Rule,” in which rich liberals can volunteerto pay more taxes.

Cut some benefits to those individuals with anadjusted gross income over $1 million. They take some ideas from SenatorCoburn’s report, such as cutting unemployment benefits for millionaires,and charging them higher premiums for Medicare part B and D (the parts that arenot funded through payroll taxes). Theyalso propose closing an anomalous loophole that allows certain rich people tocollect food stamps. These latterproposals will save very little.

Senators Heller and McConnell say that their proposal saves$230 billion over 10 years, leaving an extra $111 billion for deficitreduction. I would point out that the$119 billion shortfall from the payroll tax cut will be incurred next year,while the overwhelming majority of the savings will occur during subsequentyears. Moreover, I’m a bit skeptical ofoptimistic predictions of reduction in federal employees, and by extension, deficitreduction, when those predictions are born out of random hiring freezes, asopposed to actual elimination of programs or agencies. As long as the program or agency exists, itwill somehow find a way perpetuate a need to retain its employees.

We must also remember that there will be an additional fightover yet another unprecedented extension of unemployment benefits. There is little sign of anyappetite on the part of Republicans to fight the extension. Will these offset cover the extra $60 billionin unemployment spending, or will they propose other “cuts?” Again, those expenditures will be incurredimmediately.

Nevertheless, I would totally support this package. In fact, if we want to expose Social Securityas a Ponzi scheme, why not agree to a permanent cut for employers as well? At least that will engender pro-growthstimulus. However, the million dollarquestion is if Republican leaders will support their own proposal. We all know that such reductions, in lieu ofmajor tax increases, are dead-on-arrival with Democrats. Now that Republicans have boxed themselvesinto supporting the premise of the payroll tax, they must pass it even withoutthe spending offsets. Will they finallyhold the line on their own promises this time?

The College of Hypocritical Big Government Cardinals

2011-11-30T12:48:00.001-05:00

There is an old adage in Washington that describes the political system as consisting of three political parties; Democrats, Republicans, and Appropriators. The Appropriations Subcommittee chairmen, often referred to as the “College of Cardinals,” usually agree to concoct legislation that fuses the worst elements of the evil and stupid parties, resulting in something worse than a pure Democrat proposal.

This is exactly what transpired with the so-called minibus bill. The Republican-controlled House passed an agriculture appropriations bill that breached the spending caps of their own budget, but nonetheless remained within the confines of the spending levels established under the Budget Control Act. The Senate, after failing to pass a budget for over 900 days, tacked on two other appropriations bills that funded four other departments, and sent them straight to conference committee without the House ever voting on two-thirds of the bill. They added in more food stamps spending, $2.3 billion in non-offset disaster spending, and gutted all Republican policy riders. Then the bipartisan College of Cardinals went to conference committee for a compromise. This “compromise” contained even more spending on WIC and international food aid, and added a provision, which was inserted into the conference report, to expand the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The conference report passed the House, but not after 101 Republicans opposed it, forcing leadership to coddle together a majority with 165 Democrats. Now, the venerable Cardinals are really embarrassed and are asking Boehner to reaffirm his commitment to get the collective rumps of his caucus in line. In an article titled, “Cardinals to Boehner: Crack whip,” The Hill reports on the tantrums from anonymous Republican appropriators.

Here are some of the greatest hits:

“Nobody gives their votes away here for free around here. It just strengthens the Democrats in every negotiation going forward,” said a GOP lawmaker who requested anonymity, adding that “we’ve got some people who need to learn Politics 101. It either hasn’t been explained to them or they haven’t felt the need to play team ball. We don’t discipline much around here anymore.” [...]
“Hensarling votes against it, Price votes against it, two deputy whips vote against it, 101 Republicans. I mean, that’s not [Reps.] Jeff Flake [R-Ariz.] and Ron Paul [R-Texas] … and the leadership’s view is, ‘So what? We’ve got 218 with the Dems.’ Well, that’s not healthy,” a cardinal told The Hill. [...]
“When I see guys at the deputy whip table not voting for it, how about a little discipline around here? When the Democrats put more votes on the floor for an agreement than we do, and we’re in the majority?” a GOP lawmaker said.
The exasperated members, who are a reliable voting bloc for leadership, have told colleagues they are “tired of it,” according to a Republican appropriator

Let’s get this straight. These guys agree to negotiate with those who never passed a budget, and gratuitously agree to a deal that House Republicans never got to amend and that is worse than the Senate version. Yet, it is House conservatives who are weakening their leverage?

It is these supercilious Cardinals who have taken the Dems off the ropes by granting them a free ride on spending and policy riders. It is these pompous members who will allow the Democrats to cut more from defense in order to pay for the higher levels of spending in the Minibus bills. The Senate is already slated to pass a defense appropriations bill that is $18 billion below the House bill in order to accommodate the extra domestic speeding. Moreover, had Republicans rolled over on the first minibus, it would have paved the road for passage of more minibus bills – bills that eliminated provisions defunding Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, but would have denied the House the ability to amend them.

I guess these conservative rebels owe the Cardinals an apology for going along with leadership’s pledge to oppose bundled appropriations bills and to downside Freddie/Fannie. They didn’t realize that you desire to use your “leverage” to bolster the agenda of the Cardinals, instead of the agenda of Republicans.

Don’t Fall Into Democrats’ Payroll Tax Trap

2011-11-30T10:16:00.001-05:00

As the original 2% payroll tax cut for employees is set to expire next month, Democrats are proposing an even bigger cut. Earlier this week, they introduced legislation (S.1917) to cut the payroll tax to 3.1 percent for employees, and for employers on the first $5 million of their payroll. The bill would also eliminate the payroll tax paid by employers for the last quarter of 2011 and all of 2012 on the first $50 million of a company’s increased annual wage costs. In order to pay for it, they are proposing a “surtax on millionaires,” which applies a 3.25 percent tax on modified adjusted gross income over $1 million, or $500,000 for a married individual filing separately.

Even though this cut will discard 38% of the annual revenue for Social Security, Democrats are accusing opponents of supporting a tax increase on “working families.” For their part, most Republicans have only voiced opposition to the tax hikes, but shied away from assailing the very premise of a temporary payroll tax cut extension. In fact, Senator McConnell told reporters yesterday, “In all likelihood, we will agree to continue the current payroll tax relief for another year, but we believe it should be paid for.” He has yet to divulge how they would pay for it. Kudos to Senator Jon Kyl for uprooting the entire premise behind Democrats’ rationale by noting that this cut has not been pro-growth and it has only further endangered the future of Social Security.

Republicans must show how it is the Democrats who are treating Social Security like a Ponzi scheme by indiscriminately marauding it, while paying out the shortfall with deficit spending, in addition to tax hikes. Payroll taxes supposedly singlehandedly fund Social Security, yet Obama and the Democrats plan to cut 38% of its revenue source with this bill, even though SS already faces a $50 billion shortfall.

Republicans should force Democrats to answer the following questions:

1)      If temporary payroll tax cuts are so stimulative, how do you explain its failure to create jobs in 2011? Why will 2012 be different?
2)      If allowing the payroll tax cut to expire will engender a “downright scary” impact on the larger economy, as Harry Reid has suggested, then how scary will it be when the Bush tax cuts expire?
3)      If we can forego the revenue to Social Security for two years, how much longer will we continue extending the payroll tax without regard to Social Security? Why not extend it indefinitely, which will, at least, provide some pro-growth stimulus. Why not eliminate it completely?
4)      Last year, the payroll tax reduction necessitated $105.4 billion in general revenue transfers to Social Security, while this year’s plan will require an additional $265 billion. Does that reflect the accounting of a pay-as-you-go system or a Ponzi scheme?
5)      Why not repeal the Medicare payroll tax? Isn’t that also a burden on “the working class?” We’ll just borrow more money or tax the rich to pay for Medicare benefits. Also, the 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax is another regressive tax on the “working class.” Why not cut that tax for a year or two? What will happen to the Highway Trust Fund? We’ll just enact permanent tax increases on the rich to pay for this temporary cut.
6)      Should the rich be responsible to pay for everyone else’s Social Security? If so, why should anybody but the rich ever have to pay taxes that are earmarked for specific services? And if the rich should pay for current SS, why not divert the funds to private retirement accounts instead of the vapid SS Trust Fund? Why is this scheme less objectionable to the left than private accounts?

This is our opportunity to not only oppose tax increases, but to use their own arguments to push entitlement reform. It’s an opportunity to call out Obama for his duplicity on Social Security by showing how he refuses to allow us to keep our payroll taxes in secure personal accounts, but has no qualms about eliminating them altogether.

While extending the payroll tax cut sounds appealing even to many conservatives, such a move would necessitate tax increases or more deficit spending. Republicans say they will pay for it with spending offsets; however, that would require at least $115 billion in additional cuts for 2012 (not just over 10 years), a proposition that Democrats would never support. Hence, once we cede the premise that the Social Security tax cut must be extended, we lose all leverage to push for spending cuts. Instead, Republicans will fight the tax increases and settle for a deal that simply increases deficit spending.

Let’s go on offense instead of being cornered into supporting the wrong tax cut for the wrong reason.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

The Tragic Results of No Free-Market in Healthcare

2011-11-29T19:21:00.001-05:00

What has 40 years of no free-market in healthcare wrought on the American consumer? John Goodman, a healthcare expert at National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), posted this shocking graph:

As long as health insurance is treated as a primary payment instead of traditional insurance, the premiums will reflect this reality.

End All Green Corporate Handouts in 'Tax Extenders' Bill

2011-11-29T12:06:00.001-05:00

Here's our opportunity to end corporate cronyism, eco-socialism, and market distortions in the energy sector

It's that time of year again. The clock is ticking toward December 31, and green energy special interests are discreetly lobbying for the extension of their choice handouts, credits, and grants. We must remain vigilant against these powerful interests.

At the end of every calendar year, Congress passes a 'tax extenders' bill to temporarily reauthorize specific tax breaks that have not been permanently written into law. These bills have traditionally dealt with issues like the AMT patch, the R&D business credits, and universal deductions for depreciation, as well as state and local taxes.

In recent years, tax extenders have been magnets for non-universal carve-outs for green energy. The 2010 tax extenders bill also included extension of the Bush tax cuts, the annual Medicare 'doc fix,' a payroll tax cut, and an unprecedented extension of unemployment benefits. Most of these provisions are set to expire next month, and will consume the lion's share of the debate and media coverage. This will give the green industry the opportunity to surreptitiously slip in their handouts as part of a grand bargain revolving around the bigger issues and legitimate, universal tax deductions. They must be stopped.

By far, the most pernicious of the green tax extenders is the 45-cent per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC). This credit, along with the accompanying mandate and tariff, is nothing more than a pure handout to an industry that would otherwise produce no profit. In fact, this egregious market distortion has helped raise the cost of food and fuel, reduce gas mileage, harm automobile engines, and hurt the poor. This credit may even be refundable for those blenders that lack any excise tax liability. It costs $5.7 billion per year, and must be eliminated. Additionally, there are several other credits for cellulosic ethanol producers and the biofuels industry set to expire that should be eliminated.

The other major subsidies up for extension are the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the 2.2 cent/per kilowatt-hour Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind, geothermal, solar, hydropower, and biomass (PTC expires next year). Most of these industries, particularly Big Wind, make little or no profit, offer the public no investments, and pay no taxes, yet their productivity is almost completely subsidized. The Heritage Foundation estimates that if the oil industry received a commensurate subsidy, they would get a $30 dollar check for every barrel produced.

According to CRS, green energy investors may even “carry unused tax credits forward to offset future tax liability, or, alternatively, partner with a third-party tax-equity investor capable of providing cash in exchange for tax benefits.” Hence, these are not tax breaks; they are subsidies. You might consider them the earned income credits for corporations. Talk about handouts for the rich!

Another major green energy tax extender slated to expire is the “Section 1603” solar and wind grant that was enacted as part of the stimulus. Over the years, wind and solar has turned out to be such impotent and unprofitable sources of energy that even refundable tax credits were insufficient means of “stimulating” green energy projects. To that end, Section 1603 of the stimulus offered renewable energy project developers an immediate cash payment in order to recover up to 30% of eligible project capital cost expenditures. This program cost about $8.6 billion in less than three years, with wind receiving 84% of the grant award value and solar electric representing 75% of entities that have received grant awards.

In addition, there are over a dozen more credits that are slated to expire, such as those for alcohol fuels, biodiesels, renewable diesels, hydrogen, plug-in electric vehicles, alternative motor vehicles, and alternative vehicle refueling infrastructure. There are also a number of personal credits for energy efficient homes and appliances. They all distort the markets and help politically-connected industries.

After all of the subsidies, grants, and credits are factored in, solar is being subsidized by over 1200 times more than fossil fuels, while wind enjoys over 80 times more in taxpayer cash:

: Source: Institute for Energy Research

And what are the results of all these subsidies? In 2010, wind accounted for 0.9% of our energy supply, geothermal 0.2%, and solar 0.1%.

Don't let anyone convince you of the moral equivalence between these market-distorting, targeted handouts and universal deductions and credits such as those for depreciation and R&D. As long as corporations are still paying the 35% marginal tax rate, all universal deductions should be maintained. These green companies, on the other hand, can barely turn a profit, much less pay anything in taxes.

While Republicans are rightfully investigating Solyndra and other crony venture-socialist activities, their work will be rendered immaterial if they continue to extend these 'tax breaks.' As a means of preempting these tax extenders, Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) has introduced legislation (HR 3308) to sunset all of the aforementioned non-universal energy tax credits and grants, including those for fossil fuels and nuclear power. The bill would use the savings from the repeal of these credits (roughly $90 billion over ten years) to lower the corporate tax rate on everyone, including green energy companies (to the extent that they pay taxes at all). HR 3308 has 12 co-sponsors, including Paul Ryan. It should garner the support of the entire caucus.

We already know that the occupy Wall Street crowd will be missing in action during this fight against crony capitalism and venture socialism. Hopefully, Republicans will take up the cause, as it reflects prudent policy and good politics as well.

Fact Check: Ron Paul is Wrong About Defense Spending

2011-11-28T09:12:00.001-05:00

Sequestration imposes real cuts on the military, not just baseline cuts

During last week’s foreign policy debate, Ron Paul won accolades from the crowd when he professed that there are no real pending cuts to the military, just reductions in baseline spending. Here is the full quote:
“Believe me. They’re cutting — they’re nibbling away at baseline budgeting, and its automatic increases. There’s nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they’re not going — the budget isn’t going up as rapidly as they want it to. It’s a road to disaster. We had better wake up.”

This statement is absolutely false. Sequestration will indeed reduce military spending from ‘actual dollar amounts’ of FY 2011 spending levels over the next seven years.

In order to understand defense appropriations, we need to distinguish between the two categories of spending; base budget (ships, planes, weapons, troops) and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Using CBO’s numbers, roughly $703 billion (the DOD Comptroller’s office puts that number at $688 billion) was spent on total defense spending, with $552 billion allocated for base budget (true national defense) and the rest going toward the wars (OCO). When preparing a 10-year budget for defense spending, OCO appropriations are hard to predict because our war spending vacillates with our foreign policy decisions. Only the base budget figures are truly fixed into the budget, just like most domestic non-security expenditures. Consequently, whenever we mention the estimated $1 trillion in defense cuts, remember that they are exclusively incurred by the base budget, aka the military, not the war budget.

So what will the ten-year budget projection of our base defense budget look like after sequestration? Here are the results from the latest CBO report (CBO Testimony, October 26, pages 18-19):

The top line of the chart (highlighted yellow) shows the 10-year extrapolation of FY 2011 base defense appropriations in inflation-adjusted dollars. Note that these numbers do not factor in baseline spending; they factor in merely inflation. Now, scroll down to the fifth row of data (highlighted in red), “if no savings result from Joint Select Committee.” These numbers reflect the projected annual base budget appropriations under sequestration. It is glaringly obvious that defense will incur real dollar cuts, not even accounting for inflation. As we noted last week, under the proposed sequestration, defense spending as far in advance as FY 2018 will be lower than that of FY 2011. If we factor in inflation, defense spending will not reach current levels again until sometime outside of the 10-year budget frame. This is a veritable gutting of our military.

Overall, there will be $882 billion in inflation-adjusted non-baseline cuts to core military spending over ten-years (highlighted green). Even if we fail to account for any inflation – a reckless proposition when budgeting for our primary constitutional responsibility – we will still cut $228 billion over the next seven years. No, Congressman Paul, these are not merely baseline cuts.

So where do Ron Paul and some good conservative/libertarian commentators obtain their data to suggest that defense spending will still rise over the next ten years, albeit at a slower rate (baseline reductions)?
The answer is they are including the war spending (OCO) in their calculation. The CBO is forced to score current policy, irrespective of the likelihood of its implementation. Therefore, they not only assume the continuation of the war over the next ten years, they anticipate increased spending on OCO:

If you include those phantom numbers into the equation, then you can arrive at the conclusion that overall defense spending will not decrease over the next ten years, even after sequestration. However, this baseline is bogus because that money will never be spent. In fact, such projected war spending is so universally disregarded that conservatives (rightfully so) will not count “the war savings” as real cuts. The reality is that we will never spend that money, and as such, the baseline is irrelevant.

Moreover, as we explained earlier, 100% of the cuts will be incurred by the base budget, which supports our entire military infrastructure and weaponry. It is intellectually dishonest to include OCO spending, which will never be spent (and even if it is spent, it won’t be affected by sequestration), into the equation, in an effort to obfuscate the unprecedented cuts to the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the military. After sequestration, our base military spending will decrease to less than 3% of GDP, well below the historical post-WWII average.
Conservatives of all different stripes might disagree over the prudence of some of our military engagements throughout the world. Nevertheless, any conservative who subscribes to Reagan’s three-legged stool model must support the preservation of the military itself. It is the military itself that will suffer real spending reductions, not just baseline reductions.

As we fight to get the budget under control, it is heartwarming to see the public expose the big spenders for their duplicity on phony baseline spending cuts. Nonetheless, it is disingenuous of Ron Paul to abuse this vital distinction by throwing the proposed defense cuts into the mix. Don’t fall for the demagoguery.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Happy Thanksgiving!

2011-11-24T13:45:00.001-05:00

On this day of giving, you might want to ponder how much the government is taking from you. Here is a synopsis from Americans for Tax Reform of extraneous Thanksgiving costs "thanks" to government:

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, this year’s Thanksgiving meal for ten increased in cost by $5.73 to a total of $49.20—mostly due to rising food prices. Despite the most significant increase in food costs since 1990, government taxation still gobbles up $13.68 of your meal preparations.

Unfortunately this measure still does not account for beer and wine consumption. Between football games and meals, nearly 53 million cases of beer are consumed. Government collects $219 million in taxes—44.33 percent of the cost of each case. Thanksgiving attendees will also find it hard to be grateful for the 32.77 percent increase in the cost of each bottle of wine thanks to government.

Whether you fly or drive to be with your loved ones this Thanksgiving season, government heavily taxes your preferred mode of transportation. Of the 94 percent of travelers driving their cars, government will raise an estimated $1.1 billion in tax revenue—45.33 percent of the gasoline price tag. Similarly, government also increases the cost of the average $376 Thanksgiving flight, making up 43.57 of each ticket’s price.

Happy Thanksgiving to our entire conservative community. May we continue to be thankful for this blessed Republic.

The Non-Existent Spending Cuts…Except for Defense

2011-11-22T13:49:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, we observed the unique spectacle of a socialist president threatening to veto any bill that reinstates higher levels of spending. Did Obama just experience an epiphany?

No. We are merely talking about cuts in defense spending. Those are the good kind of cuts.

Throughout the entire supercommittee imbroglio, whenever Democrats or members of the media referred to spending cuts – to the extent that they exist – they were referring to baseline cuts. In other words, the cuts in discretionary spending will still enable the spending levels to rise each subsequent year, albeit at a slower pace. Welfare and entitlement spending is exempt from all cuts, even baseline reductions. Defense, on the other hand, will actually incur real reductions in 'actual dollar' spending in subsequent years.

: House Armed Services Committee Republican Staff

Actual reductions in spending, even from the previous year, are considered unprecedented in Washington. Yet, under the proposed sequestration gutting of the military, defense spending in FY 2017 will be lower than that of FY 2011. If we factor in inflation, defense spending will not reach current levels again until sometime outside of the 10-year budget frame. If we peg defense spending to our GDP, we will never recover the 45-year average of 5.2%, even if we factor in all of the war spending. Our total defense spending for FY 2011, including base budget and war supplemental was roughly $700 billion, or 4.7% of GDP.

Even Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned that under sequestration, our military will have “[t]he smallest ground forces since 1940”, “a fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915”, and “[t]he smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force.” Panetta described these cuts to Lindsey Graham as tantamount to "shooting ourselves in the head."

Keep in mind that all of these cuts are coming out of base defense spending, not war appropriations. So even under an Obama foreign policy, we will continue to engage in foreign military operations and commitments. Due to the impending defense cuts, in conjunction with an aging fleet of planes and ships, not only will our military be hamstrung by egregious rules of engagement and lack of actionable intelligence (no more interrogations), they will be forced to fight with cruddy weaponry.

The reason why defense will be hardest hit is because this vital function of government will suffer a double whammy onslaught in budget cuts. Defense has already absorbed half of the $917 billion in discretionary spending cuts ($465 billion) from the first tranche of the Budget Control Act. Now, defense is slated to absorb another $600 billion from sequestration. Remember that these spending reductions are coming off the heels of initial defense cuts under the Obama administration, even as every other facet of the budget had metastasized uncontrollably. Even though sequestration will affect some discretionary programs, almost all of the welfare and entitlement programs, which comprise 65% of the budget, will be exempt from any baseline reductions, let alone real dollar cuts. Over the next seven years, we will not spend an additional penny on defense, yet total federal and state welfare spending will increase 40%.

Source: Heritage Foundation

If we would budget the next 10 years of welfare spending in the same manner that we are treating defense spending, we would be close to solving our debt problem. Unfortunately, liberals only have an appetite to cut the few legitimate constitutional functions of government, while preserving all of the unconstitutional redistributive programs.

Sadly, as our public debt is slated to reach 252% of GDP by 2035 (June CBO report, page 32), we won’t have to worry about maintaining a military.

The best alternative for conservatives is to follow the Phil Gramm plan. Gramm, who is the original author of the old sequester process, advocates that the GOP offer an alternative to sequestration in 2013. Under the original Gramm-Rudman process, which was reinstated by the Budget Control Act, the majority leader in either house can offer an alternative plan to sequestration. That motion is considered privileged, and according to Gramm, "can be amended only with relevant amendments, debated for only 10 hours and can't be filibustered."

What should that alternative resolution include? Among other things, it absolutely must include repeal of Obamacare. This plan would kill three birds with one stone; satisfy the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts, save the military, and most importantly, repeal Obamacare without sixty votes. It would be akin to political malpractice if Republicans fail to win back the Senate in 2012, given the lopsided political map this cycle. As such, Republicans must use this campaign season to reaffirm their promise to preserve the military and repeal Obamacare; two goals that resonate with the electorate.

If they really have the gumption to trigger such a process, perhaps the entire debt ceiling deal would have been worthwhile after all. The clock is already ticking.

The Anatomy of a Compromise From Hell

2011-11-21T10:10:00.001-05:00

I just recovered from my weekend hangover celebrating our reward for raising the debt ceiling in August. All good things are worth waiting for, and after three and a half months, we got our vote on a balanced budget amendment! And you know what? It was summarily defeated, even before it came to the Senate. Oh, and 25 of the most vulnerable Democrats now have austerity-proof records to shield them next November.

Oops.

We who opposed the debt ceiling deal and the budget bills this year have been censured as intransigent rubes incapable of compromise. While the mantra about the need for compromise is in itself quite dubious, let’s discuss the virtues of a true compromise.

As the year comes to a close, it is important to reflect upon the results of the multiple “compromise” deals. Even purists like us support the idea of a real compromise, just not a capitulation. A real compromise is one in which our side would gain substantive results, albeit not everything that was desired. Moreover, the degree to which a compromise is considered a success is largely determined by the magnitude of leverage that we have going into the debate. In the realm of politics, that leverage is most profoundly affected by public opinion and electoral reprisal. By that measure, we should have accrued a year of supreme success.

Over the past two years, Americans have shown an unparalleled appetite for sweeping imminent budget cuts. Consequently, the overarching issues of the 2010 election were opposition to Democrats’ profligate spending and Obama’s massive new budget-busting entitlement; Obamacare. The electorate empowered Republicans for the express purpose of cutting spending and repealing Obamacare. Every public opinion poll confirms a majority support for both of those goals.

Additionally, while Democrats suffered historic defeat in 2010 for promoting decadent spending and new entitlements, the 2012 elections may be cataclysmic for them. Democrats are facing one of their worst election cycles in the upcoming Senate elections. They must defend 23 Senate seats, eight of which are in states that were carried by George Bush and are hostile to Obama’s agenda.

Bolstered by these electoral tailwinds, Republicans pledged to defund Obamacare and achieve transformational budget reforms, which would bend the trajectory away from insolvency.

So how effectively did they harness their unprecedented level of public support?

In December 2010, during the lamest of lame duck sessions for the bludgeoned Democrats, Republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Although extension of the Bush tax cuts would have been considered a pipe dream back in 2009, the 2010 elections had dramatically altered the dynamic. Obama simply could not have raised taxes in middle of a de facto recession. As such, full extension of the tax cuts should have been the floor – the starting point for negotiations. Nevertheless, Republicans let Obama believe that he was giving them the world by extending the tax cuts. To that end, they agreed to revive the death tax, albeit with a higher exemption (making it harder to repeal in the future). They also agreed to extend ethanol and green handouts, a staggering 13 months of additional unemployment benefits, and a payroll tax cut that would necessitate a $106 billion transfer of general fund revenues to the SS Trust Fund. To make matters worse, individual members of the party helped Democrats pass START, repeal DADT, and impose an FDA takeover of the food industry.

This needless show of weakness on the part of Republicans granted Obama a temporary, but sharp spike in approval. That sure was a magnanimous gesture to the party that had just been vanquished by the voters. But hey, these were just the old guys; wait until the new “Tea Party Congress” shows up, we were told.
Republicans came into power promising to end Democrats’ unfinished FY 2011 budget by cutting $100 billion, in addition to defunding Obamacare, parts of the EPA, Planned Parenthood, and public broadcasting. As always, they started out with a bang, introducing their budget bill (HR 1) under an unprecedented open rule. The bill defunded those four entities, but oddly trimmed only $61 billion in baseline spending. In what would turn out to be an ominous pattern for the rest of the year, Republicans chose a watered-down version of their initial pledge as a hill to die on…and then failed to die on it. Ultimately, as they telegraphed to the Democrats an incorrigible fear of a government shutdown, they caved on every major policy rider, including Obamacare. Furthermore, the final 2011 CR only cut $37 billion in baseline spending and $352 million in non-Washingtonian spending.

Nonetheless, the FY 2011 budget was old hat and small potatoes; just wait until the debt ceiling battle and the FY 2012 budget, we were promised. “Then we’ll be talking about trillions.”

In April, after passing a budget resolution (the Ryan budget) which, more or less, fulfilled their election promises, we all relished the opportunity to fight for its major provisions later in September. In addition, the July battle over the debt ceiling gave us another point of leverage to exact transformational change from Democrats in return for an increase in the debt ceiling. Originally, Republican leadership tantalized the base by coalescing around Cut, Cap, and Balance. Then, a week before the deadline, there was an insidious effort to ambush CCB with a Trojan horse Gang of Six proposal – a plan that was never intended to become legislation. It allowed Boehner to gut CCB for a plan that would raise the debt ceiling in two tranches and create an 18^th debt commission.

At first, Boehner promised to make passage of a BBA a pre-condition to one of the tranches. There was no intention of ever fighting for that provision, but it was necessary to force many conservatives into supporting the deal. Eventually, we were left with a promise to vote on a BBA in return for giving Obama the entire increase. As they say, the rest is history.

We all understand the necessity to compromise, but we would expect to enjoy benefits from such compromise that are commensurate to our superior leverage. Let’s review the scorecard of the debt deal:

Benefits for Democrats

Obamacare is preserved and shielded from cuts
Obama-era discretionary and mandatory spending levels are permanently enshrined
All welfare programs are exempt even from baseline cuts
After accruing $4 trillion in debt, Obama gets green light to run up an additional $2.1 trillion
Obama doesn’t have to request another politically damaging debt increase – until after the election
The creation of Supercommittee charged with deficit reduction, not spending cuts, opens the door for tax increases, while endangering Bush tax cuts – an opportunity they would have never enjoyed
Failure of Supercommittee leads to automatic cuts in defense – an opportunity they would have never enjoyed
Dems are not forced into transformational change with passage of BBA
The deal overwrote the entire Ryan budget, obviating any further GOP leverage on budget policy for the rest of the year

Benefits for Republicans

$917 billion in baseline discretionary cuts over 10 years
The creation of 18^th debt commission is somehow the Republican part of the deal
There is a required vote on a BBA
The only saving grace is Phil Gramm’s jujitsu plan to preempt sequestration with an alternative privileged amendment that repeals Obamacare with a simple majority. Will they have the guts to use it?

As The Hill reporter Molly Hooper noted last week, “Democrats’ Satan Sandwich is starting to taste pretty good.”

Cross-posted to RedState.com

The 4th Circuit Appeals Court Becomes Casualty of Obama Presidency

2011-11-20T14:21:00.001-05:00

While everyone is focused on Obama promulgating socialism through the executive and legislative branches of government, we often overlook the third branch; the judiciary. Since Reagan, we have been making substantial progress in rolling back the liberal stranglehold on the courts. In recent years, the 4th circuit has been a bastion for conservative originalist jurisprudence. But in case you haven't noticed, a panel of that circuit actually agreed to uphold Obamacare's individual mandate. It's no coincidence; Obama has packed the court with like-minded radicals.

The Baltimore Sun has an interesting report on the shift in the ideological bent of the 4th circuit, which covers the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern states:

When Obama took office, the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., had 11 sitting judges — six Republican appointees and five Democratic picks — and four vacancies.

The spots were left open because the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate of 2007 and 2008 refused to approve President George W. Bush's 4th Circuit appointments, including Rod J. Rosenstein, who had been named Maryland's U.S. attorney a few years earlier based on a Bush recommendation.

The inaction on judicial nominations paved the way for Obama to make an impact with his choices, which have focused on diversifying federal courts based on race, gender and sexual orientation. Since he took office, two more vacancies opened on the 4th Circuit, allowing him to nominate six people in total. Five have been approved: a woman, two black men, a Latino, and a white man.

That makes the split on the court nine Democratic appointments to five Republican. Another Obama pick, Stephanie Thacker, was nominated this year and is awaiting confirmation by the Senate.

The new makeup could have an effect on national policy, given the kinds of cases handled by this court, legal analysts said.

Once again, we are paying for the tepid leadership of the Republican Senate during the middle of the decade.

Mainstream Americans Oppose Citizenship for Children of Illegals

2011-11-18T09:06:00.001-05:00

For years, conservatives have been impugned for opposing so-called Birthright Citizenship, the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal alien parents. Most of us with commonsense intuition just could not fathom how someone could run across the border, overstay their visa, or exploit "birth tourism" - and proceed to reap the benefits of citizenship for their children.

We have always asserted that just a convoluted interpretation of the 14th amendment only serves to attenuate the value of American citizenship. After all, the 14th amendment was meant to guarantee citizenship for blacks who lived in this country for centuries; not for those who break our laws as their first act on American soil.

Now, the latest Rasmussen poll confirms that this is indeed mainstream thought in America:

Voters oppose more strongly than ever granting automatic U.S. citizenship to a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country.
Now, nearly two-out-of-three Likely U.S. Voters (65%) say if a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child here, that child should not automatically become a U.S. citizen.

Only those who live in the New York-Washington ivory tower could possibly view American citizenship any other way. Unfortunately, they control the media, and as such, will ensure that the immigration polling data is not reported, even though these are the people who live and die by polls.

Republicans Throw Their ‘Pledge To America’ Under the OmniBus

2011-11-18T08:29:00.001-05:00

This afternoon, the House passed Harry Reid’s first minibus appropriations bill (Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, Transportation-HUD), which contains record levels of spending for Food Stamps, WIC, and international food aid. It also contains $2.3 billion for disaster spending, which is excluded from the budget caps. Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers promised today on the House floor that spending will not exceed the $1.043 trillion spending cap. Well, the extra $2.3 billion in disaster spending allowed him to do just that. Moreover, if they continue to adopt the higher spending levels of the Democrats, the only way to stay below the cap will be to cut defense appropriations. Worse, this bill has a provision, which was inserted into the conference report, to expand the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Last year, as part of their ‘Pledge To America,‘ Republicans promised to downsize Freddie/Fannie. They also promised to end the practice of minibus bills. Today, they violated both pledges. Yes, we know that mantra; it’s a minibus bill; not an omnibus. But the reality is that House Republicans never had an opportunity to vote and amend two-thirds of the bill.

Fortunately, more and more members are hearing the voice of the grassroots. Even though the ‘don’t call it an Omnibus’ bill passed 298-121, it was opposed by 101 Republicans, and only passed with the help of Democrats. In the Senate, Jim DeMint and David Vitter have already blocked Harry Reid from passing a second minibus bill. So what is the response of the political appropriations establishment?
This, from CQ:

With the apparent collapse of the Senate leadership strategy of packaging overdue spending bills in small bundles, the top House appropriator is preparing to wrap the remaining bills into a single measure.
During a meeting of the Rules Committee on Wednesday, Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., outlined his plan for an omnibus package including nine of the regular spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
Congress “will have to put together a rest of the bus,” Rogers said.

Indeed they will opt for an omnibus after all. And in the process, they will throw their 2010 campaign pledge under the bus.

Update: Thank you to the 101 House Republicans and 30 Senators who voted to uphold the pledge:

House

Adams, S. (FL-24)
Akin (MO-02)
Amash (MI-03)
Amodei (NV-02)
Austria (OH-07)
Bartlett, R. (MD-06)
Barton, J. (TX-06)
Blackburn, M. (TN-07)
Boustany (LA-07)
Brady, K. (TX-08)
Brooks (AL-05)
Broun (GA-10)
Bucshon (IN-08)
Buerkle (NY-25)
Burgess (TX-26)
Burton, D. (IN-05)
Canseco (TX-23)
Chabot (OH-01)
Chaffetz (UT-03)
Coffman (CO-06)
DesJarlais (TN-04)
Duffy (WI-07)
Duncan, Jeff (SC-03)
Duncan, John (TN-02)
Farenthold (TX-27)
Fincher (TN-08)
Flake (AZ-06)
Fleischmann (TN-03)
Fleming (LA-04)
Foxx (NC-05)
Franks, T. (AZ-02)
Garrett (NJ-05)
Gingrey (GA-11)
Gohmert (TX-01)
Gowdy (SC-04)
Graves, T. (GA-09)
Griffith (VA-09)
Guinta (NH-01)
Harris (MD-01)
Hensarling (TX-05)
Herger (CA-02)
Herrera Beutler (WA-03)
Huelskamp (KS-01)
Huizenga (MI-02)
Hultgren (IL-14)
Hurt (VA-05)
Jenkins (KS-02)
Johnson, Timothy (IL-15)
Jones (NC-03)
Jordan (OH-04)
King, S. (IA-05)
Kinzinger (IL-11)
Labrador (ID-01)
Lamborn (CO-05)
Landry, J. (LA-03)
Lankford (OK-05)
Lummis (WY-AL)
Mack (FL-14)
Marchant (TX-24)
McClintock (CA-04)
McCotter (MI-11)
McHenry (NC-10)
Miller, C. (MI-10)
Miller, J. (FL-01)
Mulvaney (SC-05)
Murphy, T. (PA-18)
Myrick (NC-09)
Neugebauer (TX-19)
Noem (SD-AL)
Nugent (FL-05)
Paulsen (MN-03)
Pearce (NM-02)
Pence (IN-06)
Petri (WI-06)
Poe (TX-02)
Pompeo (KS-04)
Posey (FL-15)
Price, T. (GA-06)
Quayle (AZ-03)
Reed, T. (NY-29)
Ribble (WI-08)
Rigell (VA-02)
Ross, D. (FL-12)
Royce (CA-40)
Ryan, P. (WI-01)
Schmidt (OH-02)
Schweikert (AZ-05)
Scott, A. (GA-08)
Scott, T. (SC-01)
Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Southerland (FL-02)
Stearns (FL-06)
Stutzman (IN-03)
Sullivan (OK-01)
Terry (NE-02)
Tipton (CO-03)
Walberg (MI-07)
Walsh (IL-08)
Westmoreland, L. (GA-03)
Wilson, J. (SC-02)
Young, T. (IN-09)

Senate

Ayotte (NH)
Barrasso (WY)
Burr (NC)
Chambliss (GA)
Coats (IN)
Coburn (OK)
Corker (TN)
Cornyn (TX)
Crapo (ID)
DeMint (SC)
Enzi (WY)
Grassley (IA)
Hatch (UT)
Heller (NV)
Inhofe (OK)
Isakson (GA)
Johnson, R. (WI)
Kirk (IL)
Lee, M. (UT)
Lugar (IN)
McCain (AZ)
Paul, Rand (KY)
Portman (OH)
Risch (ID)
Rubio (FL)
Sessions, J. (AL)
Shelby (AL)
Thune (SD)
Toomey (PA)
Vitter (LA)

The $15 Trillion Super Circus

2011-11-17T12:17:00.001-05:00

It's not about revenue or lack of compromise; it's about knee-jerk capitulation on spending

The day has arrived. Our total debt has surpassed $15 trillion. At the close of business on Wednesday, the debt stood at $15.033 trillion, and is on the cusp of overtaking our GDP. Overall, the federal debt has risen $4.41 trillion (41.5%) since Obama took office and $6.36 trillion (73%) since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Our GDP has grown by only $1.3 trillion during Obama’s presidency. Pick your adjective of choice to describe this calamity: unparalleled, unprecedented, uncharted. No word can begin to describe the destruction that Obama has wrought on our republic.

Over the next few days, you will read many factoids and statistics about the federal debt, but here is one acerbic point you may miss. Ninety-one percent of Obama’s $4.41 trillion legacy of debt comes from the debt held by the public.

You see, the national debt consists of two components; debt held by the public and intra-government debt. The debt held by the public is the sum of the treasury securities held by those outside the federal government, with the lion’s share owned by foreign countries. The debt held by the public currently stands at $10.31 trillion. The other component, the intra-governmental share, is owed to other federal agencies and accounts, most prominently, the non-existent Social Security Trust Fund, as well as accounts holding pensions for military veterans and government workers. That share of the debt currently stands at $4.71 trillion. Overall, Obama has increased the public share of the debt by $4 trillion (63%), more than Bush ever ‘accomplished’ in his entire eight year presidency.

It is through this dour prism that we must view just how vacuous is the current debate over the budget. The prevailing narrative is that the entire supercommittee enmeshment is the result of the inter-party (and intra-party) debate over tax hikes. The glaring reality is this: IT’S THE SPENDING, STUPID.

Republicans and conservatives can agree to enormous tax hikes from now until next year, but we still will not have a true compromise – a balanced approach. This is because the Budget Control Act and the supercommittee don’t plan to cut one cent of spending. The entirety of the $917 billion ten-year discretionary savings comes from reductions to the prodigal baseline. We will never cut one penny from current spending levels. In fact, not only did we lock in the aforementioned unparalleled spending rates, we committed ourselves to add over $800 billion more in deficit spending. In other words, we are applying plastic breaks to a high-speed porkulous rail.

Moreover, the supercommitte plans to leave the other 65% of the budget, the mandatory spending, virtually untouched. There will be no prudent reforms of Social Security and Medicare, and the $950 billion in mandatory welfare spending will go untouched. Worse, Republicans are about to approve an Agriculture spending bill that raises spending on Food Stamps to an unfathomable $80.4 billion, double its funding level from just three years ago.

Outside conservative groups are often impugned as ‘intransigent’ bomb-throwers, unwilling and unable to compromise. The stone-cold truth is that most of us would be willing to make some painful concessions on the revenue side, in the event that Republicans would fight for real reductions in government programs and departments. That would be an authentic compromise; that would embody a true balanced approach. Instead, Republican leaders are on the cusp of approving an ‘Israeli-Palestinian style compromise’, aka an unmitigated capitulation.

What you won’t hear coming out of this bipartisan concession super duper committee is that we cannot possibly raise enough revenue from tax increases to cover the deficits. The top 1% already pays 36.7% of federal income taxes, even though they only earned 16.9% of all income. The recession has reduced their adjusted gross income from $2 trillion in 2007 to $1.3 trillion in 2009. Will tax hikes really offer them incentives to earn more money? While we might gain some revenue in the short-term, we will lose the golden goose in the long-run. Either way, we will never recover enough revenue to deal with the perennial trillion dollar deficits, the unfunded liabilities from entitlements, and the burgeoning growth in future interest payments.

We’ve been in this situation a number of times this year, and sadly, we will continue this tortuous cycle of submission to those who are mortgaging off our future. Must we breach the $20 trillion milestone before we wake up?

Cross-posted to RedState.com

The Supercommittee of Super Insanity

2011-11-16T22:43:00.001-05:00

As the tumultuous year of 2011 winds down, Congress will be facing a number of crucial budget deadlines. Aside for the supercommittee deadline to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction (over ten years), they must contend with the December 31 expiration of three provisions of the 2010 tax extenders deal; payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and ethanol subsidies. Now the Washington Post is reporting that the supercomittee might attempt to extend unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts as part of the final deal. The rubber is meeting the road, and conservatives need to mobilize rapidly.

By my count, the supercommittee's final report gives us five issues to deal with; oppose the three extensions, fight tax hikes, and push for real spending cuts (cuts that will make 2013 spending levels below 2012 levels). Over the past year, the GOP has caved on virtually every budget battle. They are now slated to pass every one of Harry Reid's appropriations bills – bills that allocate more funds for programs than requested by Obama; that jettison all Republican policy provisions; that expand the role of Freddie/Fannie. Is there a single issue where GOP leaders will hold the line and coalesce around a coherent conservative policy?

Thanks to the inane and insane debt ceiling deal, which many other conservative outlets supported wholeheartedly, we are confronted with a double-edged sword. We must either accept tax increases and nebulous spending cuts as part of the supercommittee report, or we face sequestration – a process that will kill the military and cut funding to healthcare providers, as well as the border patrol. And guess which programs are exempt from the automatic cuts? Yup – Social Security, Medicaid, S-Chip, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), public housing, Food Stamps, SSI, Child Nutrition, refundable tax credits, Pell Grants, and federal employees' retirement. Those programs easily amount to over $1.4 trillion, and when coupled (as it should be) with the inviolable veterans’ programs (roughly $140 billion), we have about 55% of the non-defense budget (roughly $2.85 trillion) off limits.

Now Boehner is offering to compound the problem by passing an extension of the payroll tax cut and 151 weeks of unpaid unemployment compensation. How do they plan to pay for that? With $700 billion in phony war savings, of course.

If Republicans are going to cave on tax increases and inconsequential spending cuts, they should at least hold the line against extension of Obama's two stimulus programs.

Unemployment Benefits

Unemployment Insurance (UI) is a joint state and federal program created by the 1935 Social Security Act to offer payments to unemployed workers. It is funded by employers' payroll taxes, with the tax rate set according to that company's layoff history. Those revenues are usually sufficient for states to properly fund their unique unemployment programs for 26 weeks’ worth of benefits. During tough economic times, the federal government has historically reimbursed states for an additional 13 weeks.

Since taking office, Obama, with the help of Republicans, has extended UI benefits for an unprecedented 99 weeks. Over the past three years, state and federal governments have shelled out over $450 billion in benefits, even though they only collected about $175 billion in employer payroll taxes. Obama's proposed extension to 151 weeks will cost another $62 billion in deficit spending. UI is rapidly becoming the fourth largest non-defense expenditure of the federal government and is on the precipice of being enshrined as a permanent entitlement program. If extension of unemployment benefits actually stimulated the economy, we must be missing something. Quite the contrary, unemployment benefits are helping perpetuate unemployment. Extension of extraneous UI benefits is simply indefensible, even if they are offset with real spending cuts (not to mention fake war savings).

Payroll Tax Cut

As part of Stimulus 2.0, Obama is proposing another extension of his temporary 2% payroll tax cut for employees, as well as some additional cuts for employers. While we all like tax cuts, payroll taxes are different from all other forms of taxation. Payroll taxes 'supposedly' single-handedly fund Social Security, yet Obama plans to cut 36% of its revenue source with this stimulus bill, even though SS already faces a $50 billion shortfall. Last year's tax extenders bill authorized $105 billion of general fund transfers in order to cover the shortfall of the payroll tax cut. This year's bill will do the same. Yes, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and as such, there is no money in the trust fund. So any further cuts in revenues will necessitate more deficit spending.

Instead of renewing Obama policies that obviously failed to stimulate the economy, Republicans should use this as an opportunity to expose his cavalier attitude to the SS Trust Fund, and call for real free-market reforms. Proper articulation and communication to the American people will work wonders.
Remember that the creation of the supercommittee was supposed to be our 'reward' for giving up our leverage on raising the debt ceiling. Everyone understands that conservatives can't win every concession; however, amidst robust public support for downsizing government, can we at least salvage something from our 2010 victories? We certainly were never supposed to lose out on the deal by incurring tax increases without real spending cuts – or were we?

And if Republicans are incapable of holding the line against tax hikes, trivial spending cuts, defense cuts, Social Security Trust Fund raids, and unemployment welfare, can they please oppose ethanol? Hey, even Bill Clinton and Al Gore agree on that one.

CBO Director Admits Stimulus Will Shrink Economy

2011-11-16T07:53:00.001-05:00

Another Keynesian beast has been slain

We could have done a lot of good things with the $830 billion that was flushed down the toilet through the 2009 stimulus. That money could have been used to permanently transform our entitlement programs to free-market personal ownership accounts. It could have been used for massive pro-growth tax cuts. Instead, it was used to grow perennial dependency and for special interest handouts. But all of the supercilious smart economists say that it helps stimulate the economy, right? After all, it is called stimulus.

Well, earlier today, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf admitted to Senator Sessions that in the long run the stimulus will shrink the economy. He testified at a Senate Budget Committee hearing that the stimulus will indeed “be a drag on GDP” over the next ten years. Any diligent student of history already knew that, but now we have the “gold standard” of budget and economic scoring to affirm that self-evident truth. Nevertheless, fear not, the stimulus will have a stimulating effect in the short-term. That’s why we are enjoying a robust annual average GDP growth of…..1.4%.

Senator Coburn: The Agony of a Pragmatic Conservative Amidst Inflexible Liberals

2011-11-15T19:09:00.001-05:00

Senator Tom Coburn released a report, Subsidies of the Rich and Famous, detailing a list of subsidies, transfers, and “tax breaks,” that are paid to individuals with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of over $1 million. The report found that millionaires have received at least $9.5 billion in “government payments” since 2003 and $113.7 billion in “tax breaks” since 2006. Accordingly, Coburn concludes that many of these tax deductions should be eliminated, while benefits for the rich should be means-tested or reduced.

As our debt approaches $15 trillion, Coburn’s heart is undoubtedly in the right place; however, many of his proposals are misguided. While some of the deductions enumerated in this report should be eliminated immediately, most of the savings will come from revoking universal tax deductions from those who already have the highest tax burden. Additionally, while some of the subsidies, such as the farm and green handouts, should be abolished, most of Coburn’s savings on government benefits would come from reducing Social Security payments to the rich. Social Security payments, unlike welfare and other subsidy programs, represent real money that was paid into the system through payroll taxes. Any effort to deny those payments from the rich would engender further redistribution of a program that was not conceived for redistribution. Also, it would ostensibly be a 12.4% tax increase on those high-income earners, as they would pay the tax without receiving the retirement checks.

Let’s drill through the numbers of the report. Here is a list of government payments that Senator Coburn has identified as subsidies for the rich:

As you can see, $9 billion of the $9.5 billion in government payments to the rich were nothing more than Social Security checks – the same payments that every American retiree enjoys. Unlike the farm and conservation payments (which are relatively small), Social Security payments come (or at least, are supposed to come) directly from the 12.4% payroll tax. Are the rich not entitled to Social Security? Should they pay into the system without receiving their due benefits?

In regard to Medicare, Senator Coburn was unable to obtain the cost of benefits for millionaires, but he suggests that they be means-tested like Social Security. The problem is that upper-income earners are the only ones who, on average, earn the full cost of their Medicare benefits. As we noted a few weeks ago, due to the lack of income caps on Medicare payroll taxes (unlike Social Security taxes), those making more than $130,000 every year of their career will earn their benefits. Again, should the rich pay into the system without receiving their due benefits?

Senator Coburn seems to think so. He asserts that Social Security was never intended to be a universal insurance program, but “a safety net for low-income earners.” He concludes that “returning the purpose of the program to a need-based service instead of one available universally may help keep Social Security solvent for future generations.”

There are several problems with this approach.

First, Social Security was never sold as a welfare program for low-income earners. In all of FDR’s speeches, he referred to the system as a universal insurance program for all retirees. In a 1936 campaign speech, FDR promised that payroll taxes would be “held by the Government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age.” He referred to Social Security as an insurance program numerous times throughout the speech, concluding that “in effect, we have set up a savings account for the old age of the worker.” This description of Social Security cannot possibly be misconstrued to define a transfer program similar to Medicaid and Food Stamps.

Second, since the inception of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 1972, we already have a means-tested program for retirees. That program costs us $56 billion a year and is already funded by general revenues, 36.7% of which comes from the top 1% of earners. If we have SSI for the poor, why should we double-dip on wealth redistribution by turning Old Age and Survives benefits into a means-tested program? Moreover, it is precisely low-income earners who are the only true beneficiaries of the current Social Security system. According to most studies, middle and upper-income earners actually lose money off the program, when the expectation for reasonable interest returns is factored in.

Third, collecting payroll taxes from millionaires without granting commensurate benefits is ostensibly a massive tax increase. Such a proposition would also inject more progressiveness and redistribution into a system that is already one of the most progressive in the world. Presumably, the good senator opposes an outright increase in the top marginal income tax rates. So why would he support this de facto increase of the payroll tax. Or put another way, if he believes that making the rich pay more is a fair and perspicacious way to deal with the debt, why not directly raise taxes on the rich?

This brings me to the second half of the Coburn report – tax deductions for the rich:

As conservatives, we can all agree that green social engineering must be eliminated from the tax code – for everyone. Senator Coburn has done yeoman’s work exposing the folly of ethanol and green handouts. However, regarding the mortgage interest deduction, why should we eliminate that for the rich? Many (but not all) conservatives argue that we should institute a low flat tax, but eliminate this deduction because it distorts the market. Nonetheless, the revocation of this deduction should be universal, and it should not be implemented before comprehensive tax cuts are enacted.

The same thing holds true for the Rental Expenses Deduction. That is a universal deduction for any property owner who puts money into his property. Most of these people are already paying up to their noses in taxes. Moreover, this deduction is pro-growth because it encourages property owners to hire many new workers. The contractor that is now making $100,000 more as a result of the owner’s rental expensing will also pay more taxes.

What about the Gambling Losses Deduction? This is not a handout to the rich. One can only deduct gambling losses from gambling gains, which are completely taxable. Anyone who is in the highest income tax bracket would pay 35% on their gambling earnings. The Gambling Losses Deduction merely allows them to reduce their taxable gambling earnings, not their general taxable income.

If there are a few individual millionaires who pay little or no income taxes as a result of quirks in the system, then it should be dealt with in a broader reform of the tax code. However, the overwhelming majority of millionaires pay more in taxes than any other group. Again, in 2009, the top 1% paid 36.7% of income taxes, even though they only earned 16.9% of AGI. Does Mr. Coburn agree with Democrats that they don’t already pay enough?

The bottom line is that our debt problem is not the result of a dearth of means-tested programs or an insufficient tax burden on the rich. If we confiscated the entire AGI of those who earn over $1 million (roughly $730 billion), we would still fail to cover the $950 billion (and rapidly growing) price tag of the 185 means-tested programs. At best, these “reforms” would trade small, short-term deficit reductions for long-term economic decline. Clearly, if redistribution was the solution to the debt crisis, Europe would be in great shape.

We certainly don’t need more redistributive taxes to fund more means-tested programs. Instead, we need a reduction in subsidization that is balanced with a reduction in taxation, regulation, litigation, along with an American energy production program, free-market healthcare reform, and private retirement accounts. An authentic reduction in dependency, together with a transformation to a free-market society, would foster such economic growth and prosperity that we would no longer need welfare programs beyond the most basic and limited safety net. The rest would be dealt with through the civil society.

Undoubtedly, as a good conservative, Senator Coburn agrees with the aforementioned objectives. In fact, his previous magnum opus, Back in the Black, seeks to accomplish just that. Unfortunately, the good senator perceives those goals as out of reach. Consequently, he is willing to do anything that would result in deficit reduction, even if it is short-lived and exacerbates the redistributive socialism in our society.

I understand where he is coming from, but strongly urge him to consider this rule: Don’t show your cards on willingness to raise taxes and means-test universal insurance programs until Democrats show as much alacrity to diminish the welfare state.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Obama's Eco-Fascism Will Eliminate 2.6 Million Jobs

2011-11-14T09:34:00.001-05:00

While Obama is wrought to fib about the number of jobs he "saved," he fails to disclose the number of jobs lost as a result of his inane environmental policies. Fortunately, some are keeping score. Doug Ross has a terrific blog post detailing Obama's jobs record by the numbers. Here is the tally of jobs lost, or slated to be eliminated, as a result of radical environmentalism:

Description	Jobs Destroyed	Source
Delaying the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the 2012 election	20,000	LA Times
Forcing lignite coal plants in Texas to close (EPA)	14,000	Heritage
Gulf Drilling Moratorium (Interior)	72,000	LA Times
EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule	1,440,000	Daily Caller
EPA's determination that coal ash is a "hazardous waste"	250,000	Western Caucus
EPA's shutdown of AEP plants	5,000	CAPPS Online
EPA's commercial and industrial boiler regulations	800,000	Clatskanie Chief
Interior Department's protection of lizards and smelt fish	75,000	Human Events
Jobs killed by the Obama environmental machine	2,676,000

The IRS as Tax Preparers?

2011-11-14T09:31:00.001-05:00

When conservatives and liberals advocate tax reform they are referring to radically divergent concepts. Conservatives desire a low, flat, and universal tax code, while liberals desire reform that would result in increased revenues. The obvious way to achieve that goal is to impose radical redistributive tax increases, such as the ones Obama has recently proposed. However, there is a more subtle way that is beginning to percolate into the liberal mainstream. Liberals envision a future in which the IRS would automatically pre-file your tax returns for free, sending you the bill.

Earlier this year, Tennessee Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper introduced "The Simple Return Act," a bill that, according to Cooper's assessment, would "get the IRS to do your taxes for you" using "the financial information it already receives from each taxpayer’s employer and financial institution: W-2 and 1099." Cooper asserts that roughly 40 million Americans file tax returns that are simple enough for the IRS to pre-file. This idea was originally floated by Obama’s former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee. In a 2006 op-ed for the New York Times, Goolsbee cited Denmark and Sweden as success stories for government-run tax preparation.

Although this bill has failed to garner any co-sponsors, there is some concern that Max Baucus, a member of the super committee, will try to push the simple tax return as part of a 'benign' means of raising revenue. In the past, he has been a vocal advocate for finding innovative ways to close what he refers to as "the $345 billion annual tax gap," the amount of taxes owed that go unpaid each year.

Moreover, Obama has already expressed support for the concept of the IRS serving as tax filer and tax collector. In 2007, in a speech at the Tax Policy Institute, Obama promised to establish a simple return system during his presidency. He opined that "the government already collects wage and bank account information, so there's no reason the IRS can't send Americans free file tax forms to verify."

Well, I can think of a couple of reasons.

Even though the government already knows how much you earn, they lack information on other specifics, such as payments for tuition, charity, or child care. What Obama fails to mention is that many of these Americans are eligible for credits and deductions that would be omitted from the IRS's tax form, due to missing information. Even if they opt for the standard deduction, the IRS would not necessarily have enough information to award them the requisite credits. After all, there are very few truly "simple returns." This is nothing more than a surreptitious effort to squeeze more money out of taxpayers by luring them in to "free" tax filing.

A few years of revenue raising pre-filed tax returns on the part of the IRS will lead to the other side of the double-edged sword. Once such a system is established, and people inevitably protest their higher tax liability, the IRS would be forced to gather more information about the tax filer in order to accurately factor all credits, deductions, and exemptions. While such a system would remain optional in its incipient years, it would invariably fall victim to mission creep, requiring the IRS to gather more and more financial information about everyone.

So what could go wrong with such a scenario?

Aside for the obvious vices of having the IRS accurately track the lifestyle changes of 40 million Americans, there are serious security concerns. Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report (see page 12) citing “information security deficiencies" at the IRS, which “limit its ability to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are fairly presented.” The report concluded that “these issues increase the risk of inappropriate access, alteration, or abuse of proprietary IRS programs and electronic data and taxpayer information.”

Do we really want to entrust these bungling bureaucrats with enough information to properly prepare our income taxes? As the tax code is currently constituted, such a proposition would necessitate the collection of a plethora of personal information – information that would be vulnerable to abuse and fraud.

Unfortunately, this IRS simple return plan has also found a Republican supporter. During an Appropriations Subcommittee hearing in June, Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) implored the IRS Commissioner to develop online technology for his agency to process tax returns, in lieu of private organizations like TurboTax. Although most Republicans intuitively distrust the IRS, there is concern that in their newfound willingness to raise revenue, they might consider simple return as an innocuous way to evince bipartisanship. This is why we should nip the plan in the bud and support Sam Johnson’s Taxpayer Freedom to File Protection Act (HR 2528), which prohibits the IRS from developing or implementing a return-free tax system. Unlike Cooper’s bill, this one already has 27 cosponsors.

This meretricious idea of transforming IRS tax collectors into tax preparers is being sold as a means of saving you time and money. In reality, it is a classic deceleration of what Reagan mocked as, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Why don’t we just have the fox guard the hen house?

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Maryland's Costly Green Tax Credits

2011-11-13T19:26:00.001-05:00

We hear a lot of feigned outrage from the left concerning tax credits and deductions for upper-income earners. Unfortunately, their antipathy for tax "loopholes" are nowhere to be seen when they are being disseminated to green special interests.

Last year, Maryland began awarding tax credits to purchasers of electric cars. It turns out that the first few beneficiaries of the credit actually gain more in tax credits than they save in energy expenses. Here is the report from the Washington Examiner:

Maryland's tax incentives for electric vehicles cost the state almost twice as much as the cars saved in energy expenses last year, according to a report from the Maryland Energy Administration.
Sixty-four drivers who bought an electric vehicle in fiscal 2011 cashed in on the state's tax credit, which cost Maryland $126,387. Those drivers saved an estimated $71,300 total in petroleum costs, according to the energy agency.
The savings from the electric vehicles are ongoing, however, estimated to reduce gas purchases annually by more than $1,100 per car for at least eight years -- the expected life span of the car batteries. The tax credit, implemented on Oct. 1, 2010, provides $2,000 in savings from the state's excise tax for the purchase of a plug-in vehicle.

And which county was the biggest beneficiary? You guessed it; the people's republic of Montgomery County:

Of the 64 tax credits the state awarded in fiscal 2011, 39 credits worth $76,388 went to Montgomery County drivers, while the remaining 25 credits were divided among drivers in seven counties and Baltimore City.

Now is Not the Time to Shirk From Obamacare Fight

2011-11-11T12:47:00.001-05:00

By now, we are all intimately acquainted with the bromide that "Republican's only control one-half of one-third of government." Nonetheless, we must remember that, in the realm of appropriations, they control the most consequential body of government; the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, almost a year into their stewardship of that body, they have shown only a tepid inclination to defund Obamacare.

Despite months of diligent work on appropriations bills, House (and Senate) Republicans are abdicating their budget powers to Harry Reid's "minibus" scheme – a scheme in which the House is jettisoned from two-thirds of the process, while conference committees adopt the spending bills favored by Senate Democrats [more here and here]. Next week, the Senate will vote on the second minibus bill. Reid is using the House-passed Energy-Water bill (HR 2354) as a vehicle to carry the Financial Services (S.1573) and State-Foreign Operations (S.1601) bills (even though they were never voted on by the full House). So we will have one appropriations bill that covers such disparate expenditures as the IRS and the State Department. But don't worry, it's a minibus bill; not an Omnibus bill. Hence, Republicans will get the green light to vote for it. All but 14 of them already voted for cloture to proceed with the 'don't call it an omnibus bill.'

Here are the issues with Reid minibus number two:

1) The entire package will appropriate $129.5 billion, roughly $8 billion more than the House version. Most of the excess appropriations are for the State Department.

2) The House version of the State-Ops bill (passed out of Subcommittee), HR 1905, contains many cuts in foreign aid to unsavory entities, such as the Palestinians and the UN. There are also provisions that force the administration to crack down on those who do business with Iran. The final Senate version, the one that will prevail in committee without a chance to amend in the House, will not contain those cuts.

3) The House version of the Financial Services bill (reported out of committee), HR 2434, which funds the Treasury Department, the federal judiciary, the District of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President and a number of other agencies, has a provision to limit funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Senate version will contain no limits on that entity or any other Dodd-Frank related expenditures.

4) Most importantly, the House version of the Financial Services bill contains two provisions barring the IRS from implementing Obamacare. The first would block certain transfers of money from HHS to the IRS related to implementation of Obamacare. The second provision would prohibit the IRS from using funds provided through the bill to verify that individuals have health care coverage and impose penalties on those who do not. The Senate stripped out these provisions.

5) All of the additional Senate funding for odious big-government programs will have to come at the expense of defense spending. The overall discretionary spending cap was already set at $1.043 trillion. As such, if Republicans continue to allow more funding for these bills, there will be an inevitable hit to the Defense appropriations bill.

Despite the jarring vices of the Senate minibus bills – both in terms of policy content and process – Republicans are credulously voting for cloture on these bills. They are doing so because Harry Reid promised them votes on their amendments to reinstate some of the House provisions. So Republicans are granted opportunities to offer amendments that are summarily defeated, in return for final passage of the bill...without the amendments! It doesn't get more pathetic than that.

Republicans still have several opportunities to defeat these minibus bills and reassert House control over the process. First, Senate Republicans must oppose Harry Reid's amendment to turn the Energy-Water bill into a three-legged minibus bill. Next, they should vote against cloture to shut off debate (they already agreed to commence debate on the bill). Finally, if the bill passes the Senate, House Republicans must object to unanimous consent (requested by the appropriators) on the motion to instruct conferees to conference committee. They must demand an opportunity to offer amendments, which will strip out funding for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and aid to evil foreign entities.

Now is not the time to go wobbly on spending, especially as it relates to Obamacare. Even as other conservative measures went down to defeat this week, the Obamacare individual mandate was voted down in Ohio with overwhelming support.

Earlier this month, Congressman Steve King bemoaned the waning alacrity of Republicans to defund Obamacare. “I have seen the fervor to repeal and defund Obamacare diminish significantly to kind of a flat line,” he told CQ. Unfortunately, this might be another consummate example of the American people being ahead of their elected leadership; even ahead of those who were elected to defund Obamacare.

About that Perry Debate Blunder

2011-11-09T23:01:00.001-05:00

Everyone has their own take on Perry's debate meltdown, in which he froze while attempting to remember the names of the departments he would eliminate. Many of Perry's ardent supporters are devastated by this seemingly fatal mistake. However, I would point to two observations about Perry's utter lack of ability to articulate his message.

1) This was bound to come out at some point. Whether he was able to remember the three departments tonight or not, the result would have been the same. Perry would have been a debater in the general election debates. The bottom line is that you can survive the general election as a mediocre debater, but not a disastrous one.

2) Despite the fact that many suggest Perry's hear is in the right place (conservatism), do we really want to nominate someone who cannot articulate those convictions?

It is an unfortunate end to a very promising candidate. I never thought I would say this, but I'm beginning to wonder if Newt Gingrich is the only electable alternative "conservative" to Romney.

Bipartisan Big Spenders Appointed to Conference Committee for Spending Bills

2011-11-04T06:38:00.002-04:00

After dithering for almost three years without a budget, Democrats are in a hellfire rush to finish all of the 12 annual appropriations bills. Unfortunately, Republicans leaders are in such a hurry to bury the hatchet on spending fights, they are willing to void all of the House-passed bills, in return for bipartisan conference reports. These conference committee versions – chock full of Senate Democrat amendments – will be forced down the throats of House conservatives without a chance to amend them, even though they never voted on two-thirds of the underlying bill. Worse, virtually all of the conferees are leftists, appropriators, and squishes.

Senator Sessions and other Senate conservatives tried to warn Republicans that Harry Reid was manipulating the process to insert $11.1 billion in extra spending to the Agriculture minibus bill. While overall discretionary spending caps have already been set at $1.043 trillion, Democrats still have leverage (thanks to weak Republican leadership) to spend tens of billion more on transfer programs, while compensating for the extra expenditures with massive cuts to –you guessed it – the Defense appropriations bill. They also have the ability to raise spending levels on mandatory programs, which are not subject to the spending caps imposed by the debt deal. Moreover, the Senate stripped out many of the House-passed policy riders, such as a provision to defund most of the FDA food takeover bill (FDA Food Safety Modernization Act ).

The Senate version of the bill, and the inevitable conference report, contains millions more in spending for virtually every domestic and international food program, including WIC. However, the most jarring difference between the two versions is the spending level for Food Stamps. Despite the fact that Food Stamp spending has doubled in just three years, the Senate bill – which passed with 16 Republican votes – appropriates $80.4 billion for this dependency program. That is $12.2 billion above the spending level set in the House version. Take a look at the unprecedented growth of this program, when total appropriations and actual outlays are taken into account.

SNAP now ranks as the most expensive means-tested program after Medicaid. If Republicans can’t hold the line on excess food stamp spending, over and beyond the president’s request, then how can they tackle entitlement reform?

And who are the conferees for the Ag minibus bill?

Senate Democrats
Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tim Johnson (R-S.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)

Senate Republicans
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)

House Democrats
Norm Dicks (Wash.), Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), John Olver (Mass.), Ed Pastor (Ariz.), David Price (N.C.), Sam Farr (Calif.), Chaka Fattah (Penn.) and Adam Schiff (Calif.)

House Republicans
Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (Ky.), Reps. Bill Young (Fla.), Jerry Lewis (Calif.), Frank R. Wolf (Va.), Jack Kingston (Georgia), Tom Latham (Iowa), Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.), John Culberson (Texas),John Carter (Texas), Jo Bonner (Ala.) and Steven LaTourette (Ohio)

Hmmm, which version do you think will dominate the conference report, the Senate or House?

Sadly, we know the answer. Therefore, House conservatives must watch the committee with vigilance. They should not feel obligated or pressured into supporting bad legislation just for the sake of time. After all, wasn’t it House conservatives who passed a budget on time this year?

If there is not enough time to draft these bills in a transparent manner, then it is those who came late to the game who should lose out. Then again, Republicans are called the stupid party for good reason.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Current Status of Spending Bills

2011-11-02T16:28:00.001-04:00

The Heritage Foundation has a useful chart out today detailing the current status of apprpriations bills:

Despite thefact that the topline spending figure is already locked in at $1.043 trillion, there is still wiggle room for Democrats to add more spending to their priorities. How will they accomplish this? By cutting defense spending, of course. They plan to cut military spending by $17 billion, while adding more spending to health, labor, and food programs. Republicans must fight for the House-passed bill during conference committee next week.

The RSC Jobs Plan: Jobs Through Growth

2011-11-02T15:12:00.001-04:00

One of the more positive ancillary benefits of this presidential primary season is the newfound focus on taxation, regulation, and energy production. The prominence of the presidential election has helped jumpstart a vital discourse on long-term reforms for those three policies.

The RSC, which is the most respected conservative group within Congress, has proposed a jobs growth plan today, which seeks to achieve those reforms, albeit in a more inclusive way than some of the proposals from presidential candidates, like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain. It appears that they are seeking changes to the tax and regulatory system that have already received broad support within the Republican party (and some lip service from Democrats, in regard to certain provisions), and are bundling them into one package, “The Jobs Through Growth Act.”

Here are some of the major provisions of the proposal:

Taxes

Much like Rick Perry’s flat tax plan, the RSC bill would offer an optional transition to a new, flatter system; however, the details are slightly different. The RSC’s optional plan includes:

Just two rates 15% (first $50,000 taxable income for single filers, $100,000 for joint filers) and 25% (taxable income above that);
A standard deduction of $12,500 for single filers and $25,000 for joint filers;
An additional deduction of $12,500 for each dependent; and
No other individual deductions or credits or exclusions
Also, after the initial choice is made, individuals are allowed one additional changeover
between the two systems. Individuals are also allowed to
change tax systems when a major life event (death, divorce, marriage) changes their tax filing status.

Governor Perry’s plan offers one 20% tax rate, while this plan has two tax brackets; 15% and 25%, but excludes any and every deduction, including the market-distorting mortgage interest deduction (retained in both Perry and Gingrich plans) and the deduction for state and local taxes (retained in Perry’s plan). Both plans include a $12,500 standard deduction and dependent deduction (Gingrich’s is $12,000).

It is important to note that under all of these plans, including the new RSC bill, lower-income earners, who enjoy positive tax liabilities, will still have the option of staying in the new system and receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit. Also, many middle-class single filers, who only receive one $12,500 deduction, but incur a large mortgage, might opt for the old system as well. The RSC option would really benefit large middle and upper class families, who don’t receive refundable credits and pay a higher marginal rate under the current system. Overall, when coupled with the option to remain in the current system, this bill would reduce tax rates to the lowest level in 80 years.

Other major provisions of the bill include changes to the current system as well:

“Reduces America’s top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. The legislation also directs the House Ways and Means Committee to identify tax deductions and credits that could be eliminated and to report legislation transitioning the U.S. to a territorial tax system.” Also, they would seek to eliminate the pernicious employer healthcare exemption.
Permanently repeals AMT and Death Tax
The legislation lowers the tax on foreign-earned profits repatriated by U.S. corporations to 5.25% for one year
Permanently keeps CapGains taxes at 15% (Bush tax cuts). Additionally, it eliminates the government’s ability to impose CapGains taxes on the value of the investment that rose due to inflation.

In terms of revenue, this plan is modeled after the Taxpayer Choice Act of 2007, which would have produced revenues commensurate to 18% of GDP – the RSC spending target level proposed in Cut, Cap, and Balance.

Again, when compared to some of the more transformational plans from the presidential candidates, the RSC bill is not as extensive. On the other hand, it does set the table for a complete elimination of all credits and deductions. This will have the effect of eliminating market-distortions in housing and healthcare, while ending the incentives for states to levy high taxes. It is also a plan that can, and should, pass the House right now, while placing the onus on Harry Reid to oppose it. When coupled with the spending side – Cut, Cap, Balance, this is the boldest plan being proposed within Congress.

Regulations

The REINS Act: requires congressional approval for all regulations with a projected cost that exceeds $100 million. This is a good piece of legislation that already has the support of the Republican leadership and the entire caucus.
Places an immediate moratorium on new regulations until unemployment dips below 7.7%
Provides regulatory relief to small businesses by raising the designation of a small business from 50 employees to 200, and by allowing them to opt out of all regulations promulgated since 2007

Energy Production

Consumer Relief for Pain at the Pump Act: This is a comprehensive bill that we highlighted a while back. It identifies all of the main impediments to increased energy production, and seeks to eliminate them. The bill opens up all federal lands and waters to drilling, eliminates restrictions and regulations on land use, offers a revenue sharing scheme with states, streamlines the permit process, and most importantly, reforms the judicial review process for eco-lawsuits against the energy sector. [more information here]
Expedites approval of the Keystone Pipeline project

Here is a video presentation of the premise behind the bill:

The RSC has been instrumental in injecting the outside conservative voice into the halls of Congress. They conceived the idea of Cut, Cap, and Balance, which has now become a major cornerstone for national conservative policy. This plan is relatively modest in comparison to CCB. As such, it is our hope that the entire Republican conference adopts the proposal – for real this time.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Republicans Must Oppose Reid's Minibus Bill

2011-11-01T10:27:00.000-04:00

Last week, we noted that Harry Reid, with the help of Republican leadership, is attempting to come late to the 2012 budget game and commandeer the entire process through a series of 'minibus' bills. They are using House-passed appropriations bills as vehicles to tack on at least two additional disparate spending bills. Such a maneuver will allow the Senate to force a conference committee vote on spending measures and policies that the House never amended. Although the topline discretionary spending figure is already set, Reid is wagering that his fast track minibus strategy will allow him to override House-passed policies, while inserting his own policies into the bills. Thus far, he has been successful.

The first minibus is comprised of the House-passed Agriculture appropriations bill (HR 2112), along with the Senate's version of the Commerce-Justice-Science (S 1572) and Transportation-HUD (S 1596) measures. Democrats assert that this package, which authorizes $128 billion in discretionary spending, is actually $1 billion below last year's levels. To that end, it is slated to pass today with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The problem is that this bill will actually increase spending. As Senator Sessions observed, this bill increases spending by $2.2 billion because it contains extra emergency spending – without any offsets. Moreover, this bill increases mandatory spending by $8 billion on Food Stamps. The Food Stamp program (SNAP) is, by far, the fastest growing government program, as it is emblematic of Obama’s socialist transformation of our country. In just three years, SNAP enrollment has jumped from 27 million to 45 million, while its budget has doubled to over $77 million for FY 2011. Yet, many Republicans are ready to sign their life away to Harry Reid.

Two weeks ago, Senator Sessions attempted to cut spending on Food Stamps by eliminating “categorical eligibility.” This is a practice in which states automatically grant Food Stamps to people who had received a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families brochure or contacted a pregnancy hotline funded by that program. Categorical eligibility allows many people to enroll in SNAP who would otherwise be disqualified because of their income level. Last year, members of the Government Accountability Office flagged this wasteful practice, and called for congressional action. Unfortunately, Sessions’s amendment to the minibus bill was defeated with the help of six Republicans.

Today, the Senate will be voting on final passage of the minibus bill, following votes on six Republican amendments. While these are very constructive amendments, Democrats will invariably vote them down. As such, Republicans must vote against final passage of this bill. If the bill passes the Senate, House conservatives must oppose efforts of their leadership to steer the minibus away from the House floor directly into the hands of the appropriators in conference committee. Conservatives must get a chance to vote down pernicious policies and extraneous spending in bills that never saw daylight in the House.

Martin O'Malley's War on Maryland Taxpayers

2011-10-31T20:21:00.000-04:00

Here is a succinct article from the Daily Caller that sums up the state of affairs in Maryland, as we face a torrent of tax hikes next year:

This past July, a 50 percent increase in the state’s sales tax on liquor went into effect. The measure was rammed through by Democrat legislators and signed by O’Malley, despite opposition from small business owners and taxpayers. In its first year, it will raise $88 million in revenue on the backs of low- and middle-income Marylanders.

Now, O’Malley is pushing for a $1-per-pack cigarette tax increase. Lifestyle taxes, because they are generally not value-added — as is the case with the cigarette tax proposal — disproportionally affect the poor. O’Malley’s cigarette tax proposal would come on top of President Obama’s 61-cents-per-pack federal tobacco excise tax, which Obama signed into law in 2009.

In addition to increasing taxes on cigarettes, O’Malley wants to increase Maryland’s gas tax by 15 cents per gallon, which is expected to raise $491 million in its first year of implementation. An increase in the gas tax would disproportionately hit small business owners and working families who have to travel in order to find employment in Maryland’s weak economy.

You can read the entire article here.

Tax hikes and the impending redistricting plan will be our biggest battles during the coming months.

Telling the Truth About Medicare

2011-10-31T15:41:00.003-04:00

We must end the vicious cycle of third-party payer and rising healthcare costs

By far, our largest unfunded liabilities are Social Security and Medicare. According to recent actuarial reports, Medicare faces a $25 trillion liability and Social Security has an unfunded liability of $21 trillion. And those numbers are regarded as low-ball figures, due to their unrealistic accounting for cost-cutting measures. They already represent the largest expenditures of the federal government, with Social Security and Medicare consuming 20.2% and 14.6% of the budget respectively. Those numbers are slated to skyrocket as the retirement population doubles over the next three decades. Hence, any meaningful discussion of balanced budgets must include a plan to fix these two entitlement behemoths – brought to you by previous Democrat presidents.

The first step to entitlement reform must include an acknowledgement of the dichotomy between the two largest programs. Social Security and Medicare are very different programs. Consequently, they face divergent problems and require dissimilar solutions.

Last week, healthcare expert Christopher Conover posted an analysis at the American Enterprise Institute, illustrating the differences between Social Security and Medicare. He found that while most people (except low-income earners) receive Social Security benefits that are roughly commensurate to their contributions from the 12.4% payroll tax, the same cannot be said of Medicare benefits. The average Medicare recipient, according to Conover, received $2-$6 per every dollar paid into the system via the 2.9% Medicare tax. Moreover, the only people who earn all of their Medicare benefits are those earning an average of $130,000 a year over their entire career – the very people who will see a payroll tax increase under Obamacare.

The two entitlement programs must be addressed with honest solutions, albeit with drastically different approaches. Social Security is very simple. It is not an entitlement program. With the exception of low-income earners, most people receive less than the aggregate contributions paid into the system, when the expectation for reasonable interest returns is factored in. Social Security is a mandatory Ponzi scheme that offers lousy returns, taxes some of those returns, and commandeers those returns from the estate of a deceased recipient.

Accordingly, people who decry attempts to cut Social Security by using the rallying cry, "it's my money," are absolutely correct. It is their money – and if they were given an opportunity to invest that money in private accounts, they would be able to retire comfortably and enjoy a better rate of return. Thus, a gradual move towards private accounts is the way to go.

Medicare, as Mr. Conover observes, is a very different challenge. Not only is Medicare, as it's currently constituted, a burgeoning budget-busting entitlement program, it is the most prominent market-distorter amongst the plethora of market distorting programs Democrats have injected into the healthcare system over the years. This open-ended third-party program has engendered a self-fulfilling cycle of unaffordability into the healthcare system. Its very existence has raised the cost of care to the point that very few people can afford to retire without it. To that end, unlike with Social Security benefits, Medicare recipients lack the ability to say (they say it anyway), "give me my money back, and I'll take care of my own healthcare."

The bottom line is that the aggregate savings from the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax and the premiums for retirees are insufficient to pay for today's healthcare costs – costs that were spiked by the counterintuitive nature of third-party open-ended payments. This is how liberals have distorted the costs of healthcare and created dependency over the past few decades. Whatever is left of free-market healthcare after Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SChip, and all the mandates on private insurance – will be decimated by Obamacare.

While the ultimate goal of any Medicare reform must be the same as Social security reform; less dependency and empowering individuals, we must first lower healthcare costs by fixing the entire system. The way to lower direct healthcare costs is through malpractice reform. The way to lower the cost of health insurance, and by extension, actual healthcare costs, is by reinstating the free market into the health insurance industry. That will necessitate reforms that help peg services and healthcare usage with actual costs.

Being that Medicare is the biggest driver of healthcare costs, it should be the biggest priority on the agenda of reformers. Medicare must be transformed from an unlimited third-party payer system to one that empowers the individual to buy his/her own insurance with the payroll tax funds that are commensurate to the cost of the plan. Either a direct voucher system or Paul Ryan's premium support plan would fit the bill.
Other reforms should include the following: expansion of tax free HSAs, removal of anti-free market mandates and one-size-fits-all mandates on insurance companies, block granting Medicaid to the states and allowing them to use funds to covert Medicaid and SChip to private insurance vouchers, converting VA benefits to vouchers for private insurance (but supplement all extra costs), and eliminating the tax incentive gap between employer-based insurance and personal insurance. The last reform would involve either the elimination of the employer tax exclusion for health insurance, or the extension of that deduction to individuals who buy health insurance.

All of these reforms will have the effect of creating downward pressure on healthcare costs, while concurrently restoring the concept of health insurance to its original purpose – long-term protection; not a third-party market-distorting payment system. Only these free-market reforms will lower healthcare costs to the extent that the payroll taxes would, for the most part, cover the medical costs of retirees.

In order to achieve these reforms, the next president will have to eloquently tell the truth about Medicare to the American people. These free-market reforms will lower the cost of healthcare for everyone; however, future retirees will have to pay a reasonable, albeit higher price for their healthcare than they do under the current system. As long as people are misled to believe that they pay for every cent of the current Medicare system, such reforms are untenable. The next generation of retirees must understand that they are paying less than 50% of their Medicare benefits, a reality that is unsustainable. They must come to realize that nothing in life is free, certainly not the best healthcare system in the world. We all know those people who complain about paying even a $20 co-pay for medical care, while blithely shelling out hundreds of dollars for car repairs. If we continue to seek the best healthcare for free, we will become free of the best healthcare system in the world. We simply don't have the money.

While it is impossible to continue a system in which we enjoy the best healthcare for free, the next best option is a system that is reasonably affordable. There is only one panacea for our healthcare ailments; free-market reform – along with veracious leaders to champion the prescription.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Reagan's Recovery vs. Obama's "Recovery"

2011-10-30T09:29:00.003-04:00

The media is truncating the latest GDP report, which shows a mild improvement in economic growth. Aside for the fact that the internal numbers of the report aren't nearly as promising as the top-line 2.5% figure, the historical context of such a lackluster recovery is jarring. Compare our current economic recovery to the same time period following the 1981 recession during Regan's presidency:

(Courtesy of Market Watch)

Indeed!

The CBO Has Been Occupied by OWS's Intellectual Inequality

2011-10-28T13:27:00.000-04:00

We already are the most progressive redistributive country in the world – and that is the problem

One fundamental liberal desideratum is the achievement of equal results at the expense of equal opportunity. Conservatives believe in implementing policies that protect our God-given rights, which provide every human being with an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberals reject policies that foster unfettered equal opportunity because they invariably produce unequal results, being that human beings have different talents, capabilities, work ethic, and luck. On Tuesday, the CBO decided to throw in with the left-wing affinity for highlighting income inequality and advocacy for equal outcomes – outcomes that would be dictated by our venerable federal government.

While the focus on income inequality in itself is a dubious endeavor for the CBO, their conclusions are downright scandalous. Their most outlandish conclusion was that income inequality has increased between 1979 and 2007 due to a decrease in “government transfers” and tax cuts for the rich. Here was their punch line:

Government Transfers and Federal Taxes Became Less Redistributive
Government transfers and federal taxes both help to even out the income distribution. Transfers boost income the most for lower-income households, while taxes claim a larger share of income as people’s income rises.
In 2007, federal taxes and transfers reduced the dispersion of income by 20 percent, but that equalizing effect was larger in 1979.
The share of transfer payments to the lowest-income households declined.
The overall average federal tax rate fell.

You might be scratching your head wondering how CBO can posit such a falsehood at a time when welfare spending is at an all-time high, the top 1% pay 36.7% of income taxes, even though they only earn 16.9% of AGI, and 47% pay zero income taxes.

Well, for one thing, they conveniently chose 2007 as the final year of their trend line. The reality is that the recession has caused a sharp decline in income for the top 1%, food stamp usage has almost doubled since 2007, and the EITC and ACTC (along with the Make Work Pay Credit in 2009 and 2010) have made the tax code even more progressive. However, the trend toward a more progressive tax code and a more robust government transfer system –the opposite of what was suggested in the CBO report – began long before 2007.

Taxes

The inconvenient truth for the left is that the tax code has become more progressive over the past few decades. This trend has grown because of the tax cuts, not despite them. While class warriors like to focus on the fact that Republican tax cuts lowered taxes on the rich, they forget that those tax cuts also removed millions of people from the tax rolls through the elimination of tax brackets and the expansion of the EITC and Child Tax Credit.

Let’s compare the change in share of the tax burden since 1980:

	Top 1%	Top 5%	Top 10%	Top 25%	Top 50%	Bottom 50%
1980	19%	36.80%	49.30%	73%	93%	7%
2009	36.70%	58.60%	70.50%	87.30%	97.75%	2.25%

As you can see, the tax code has become increasingly progressive, to the extent that the rich pay almost twice the share of taxes they did in 1980. Incidentally, 2007, which is the final year of the CBO trend line, was the most progressive year ever. The top 1% paid 40.4% of all income taxes that year. The number has actually declined slightly due to the recession.

Now let’s examine the trend line of lower-income earners. Due to the Bush tax cuts and growth of refundable credits, in particular, more people than ever pay no income taxes. In 2009, 25 million tax filers claimed the refundable portion of the earned income credit, at a cost of $54 billion. Additionally, 21 million people claimed the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit, at a cost of $27.5 billion. Another 32 million enjoyed the two-year Making Work (refundable) Credit, at a cost of $13 billion. In other words, the government spent more money ($94 billion) on giving people positive tax liabilities than it did on the burgeoning Food Stamp program ($77 billion). Put another way, the government (i.e. the rich taxpayers) spent more on refundable tax credits than the entire sum of tax revenue generated by the 25%-50% tax percentile – the critical middle class. [See tax info from the Tax Foundation here]

All these credits, along with the elimination of lower tax brackets, has engendered a dynamic in which almost half of tax filers paid no income taxes, while 30% actually make money from the tax code. In 1979, just 22.6% had a zero tax liability. In 2001, prior to the Bush tax cuts, that number was still as low as 27%.
Yes – I know. Many of these people (but not all) still pay payroll taxes. But that is a non-sequitur because everyone receives Social Security and Medicare. Those programs are not supposed to serve as welfare, so everyone must pay into them, irrespective of their income. Therefore, one cannot expect to receive full benefits without paying into the system, or without transforming those programs into redistributive schemes. CBO’s use of the payroll tax to justify their assertions only serves to obfuscate the purpose of the payroll tax.

Whether you think this is a virtue or a vice, the reality is that we have the most progressive tax system in the world, and it has become dramatically more progressive over the past 30 years. To suggest otherwise is to live in the world of the unwashed protesters in Manhattan.

Government Transfers (aka Welfare)

The CBO report intimates that we haven’t been spending enough on transfer programs relative to the increased income of the rich. That is the most absurd assumption that someone could possibly make, as it relates to public policy. Total federal and state spending on roughly 185 means-tested programs (cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services for the poor) topped $950 billion for FY 2011. In 1979, we spent less than $300 billion in inflation adjusted dollars on welfare. Take a look at the trend line from this Heritage Foundation chart:

Additionally, welfare has been our fastest growing expenditure over the past few decades, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. In 1979, welfare spending was just over 3% of GDP; today, it accounts for 6.25% of our economy. Current levels of welfare spending account for 73% of the gross income of the top 1% ($1.3 trillion).
Here’s a 1979-2011 study that CBO should undertake. The following is a list of welfare categories, along with their inflation-adjusted percentage increase in costs since 1979 :

Medicaid- 612%%
Food and Nutrition – 209%
SSI- $266%
Earned Income Credit- 22-fold increase
Housing assistance – 112-fold increase

How can anyone in their right mind conclude that we don’t spend enough on transfers? If there is any conclusion to be made, it is not that there is insufficient wealth transfer; it’s that redistribution of wealth has not worked. Robert Rector estimates that we spent $16 trillion on welfare between 1965 and 2008. That number has probably grown another $2.6 trillion just in the past three years (the part that’s not included in CBO’s analysis). And what have we gotten for it? We are languishing under record poverty.

So we can actually conclude that, despite the growth of “income inequality” on initial earnings, we are experiencing a record level of wealth distribution through the tax code and unparalleled growth in government transfer programs. In other words, we have already implemented the very policies that these crazies are demanding…and they have failed to close the gap! When will we end this circuitous madness?
Those who advocate more wealth redistribution need to answer the following questions:

1) If 36.7% for the top 1% and 58.6% for the top 5% of taxpayers is not enough, then what level of taxation would be sufficient?
2) If payroll taxes are too regressive for low-income earners, and you oppose private retirement accounts, how can we provide them with Social Security without creating another welfare program on top of SSI?
3) If $950 billion worth of welfare is not enough to satisfy our “government transfers” quota, then what is?
4) By any measure, the past three years have proven that unprecedented levels of welfare simply don’t work. Why would a further increase make a difference?

Hopefully, we won’t be bankrupt by the time these leftists learn that spreading the wealth in the pursuit of equal outcomes will only perpetuate and exacerbate poverty. Unfortunately, those vested with expertise in fiscal policy have failed to heed that lesson.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Red Meat Conservative

Can a Nonexistent Congress Issue $1.2 Trillion in Debt?

Our Task Moving Forward: Focus On Congress

Multiple Choice Mitt’s Changing Colors on Romneycare

Romneycare, Bain Capital, 2012, and the Lost Opportunity to Assail Obamacare

Oh Yes, It’s in Article 1

The Anatomy of a Keynesian Recovery

The Biggest Mistake of the Worst Debate

Obama’s Imaginary Senate Recess

Result of Iowa: They Didn’t Want Mitt in 2008;They Don’t Want Him Now

Is Harry Reid Really the Most Successful Majority Leader?

Quash the Ethanol Beast in Honor of Iowa Caucuses

Will Obama be a Debt Man Walking in 2012?

Brain Dead Dem Congressman Thinks Spending is Too Low

Romney Fundamentally Lacks Conservative Principles on Healthcare…Or Anything Else

The Chickens of Debt Ceiling Deal Have Come Home to Roost

Charting a Path Forward

What Does $40,000 Mean to You?

Pass A Payroll Tax Cut Extension...and Only a Payroll Tax Cut Extension

Coburn Details $7 Billion in Waste from 100 Dumb Projects

New Gang of Five Coalesce Around McConnell’s Excrement Sandwich

More Problems With Senate Extenders Package

House Must Decouple Payroll Tax Cut From Broader ‘Extenders’ Package

The Great Spending Betrayal

Senate Republicans

House Republicans

So This is It?

Conservatives Must Throw Omnibus Under the Bus

We Need More Fighters in Congress

Annual Deficit Will Absolutely Top $1 Trillion in 2012

Mitt Romney: Leader of the Pale Pastel Wing of Party

GOP Must Block Maria del Carmen Aponte from Becoming Ambassador to El Salvador

Newt Gingrich Tells the Truth About the Palestinian Non-Entity

The GOP Payroll Tax Cut/UI Extension Proposal

Defeat That Omnibus!

Don't Conflate Super-Long Unemployment Extension With Payroll Tax Cut

GOP Should Launch Offensive in Payroll Tax Fight

Anti-Pipeline Dave Heineman Should Not Run for Senate in Nebraska

We Need Employment Benefits, Not Another Permanent Welfare Program

How Good are the New Unemployment Numbers?

So, Whose House is it Anyway?

What is the Endgame for the Payroll Tax Fight?

The College of Hypocritical Big Government Cardinals

Don’t Fall Into Democrats’ Payroll Tax Trap

The Tragic Results of No Free-Market in Healthcare

End All Green Corporate Handouts in 'Tax Extenders' Bill

Fact Check: Ron Paul is Wrong About Defense Spending

Happy Thanksgiving!

The Non-Existent Spending Cuts…Except for Defense

The Anatomy of a Compromise From Hell

The 4th Circuit Appeals Court Becomes Casualty of Obama Presidency

Mainstream Americans Oppose Citizenship for Children of Illegals

Republicans Throw Their ‘Pledge To America’ Under the OmniBus

The $15 Trillion Super Circus

The Supercommittee of Super Insanity

CBO Director Admits Stimulus Will Shrink Economy

Senator Coburn: The Agony of a Pragmatic Conservative Amidst Inflexible Liberals

Obama's Eco-Fascism Will Eliminate 2.6 Million Jobs

The IRS as Tax Preparers?

Maryland's Costly Green Tax Credits

Now is Not the Time to Shirk From Obamacare Fight

About that Perry Debate Blunder

Bipartisan Big Spenders Appointed to Conference Committee for Spending Bills

Current Status of Spending Bills

The RSC Jobs Plan: Jobs Through Growth

Taxes

Regulations

Energy Production

Republicans Must Oppose Reid's Minibus Bill

Martin O'Malley's War on Maryland Taxpayers

Telling the Truth About Medicare

Reagan's Recovery vs. Obama's "Recovery"

The CBO Has Been Occupied by OWS's Intellectual Inequality

Taxes

Government Transfers (aka Welfare)