The Great Spending Betrayal

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.

GOP Should Launch Offensive in Payroll Tax Fight

“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 RSC Jobs Plan: Jobs Through Growth

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:

Green Border Security is as Effective as Green Energy

Energy productivity isn't the only thing that is hampered by laws governing so-called endangered species.  For decades, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have encumbered border security operations with layers of environmental restrictions and regulations.  Additionally, the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has been forced to pay millions in taxpayer dollars, known as mitigation funds, to offset the "environmental effects" of their roads, fences, and surveillance towers in or near national parks and other federally owned lands.  Now, Rep. Rob Bishop is seeking to exempt the border patrol agents from these laws, so they can focus on their real job – protecting the border.

Bishop's bill (H.R. 1505) prohibits the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior from impeding border security operations that are currently stymied by three dozen environmental regulations, including the Wilderness Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and the 1965 law known as the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  This bill allows CPB to construct roads and fences, use patrol vehicles, and set up monitoring equipment within on all federal lands within 100 miles of both the northern and southern borders.

The bill passed the Natural Resources Committee on a party line vote.  Now Republican leaders must schedule a floor vote on this vital legislation.

Joe Walsh as the Model for 2012 House Candidates

In order to 'fundamentally restore' America, we will need to win back the House and Senate in 2012, in addition to the White House.  Yes – you read that correctly.  We don't control the House yet.

There is a popular misconception that all of the 87 freshmen members are intrepid conservatives – members of the "Tea Party Congress."  Sadly, many of the newbies are 'business as usual' types.  As Erick pointed out last week, there are members like Martha Roby, who represent conservative districts, yet, they are anything but conservative.  We will continue to name names.  These uninspiring Republicans don't vote with the Democrats and cannot be classified as RINOs, but they are lock-step followers of leadership.  If we continue electing more of the play-it-safe crowd, we will never reverse the inexorable march toward socialism and fiscal insolvency.

On Tuesday, House leadership is planning to pass Harry Reid's CR with unanimous consent.  In other words, they will lock in spending levels and policies that completely void the House-passed "Ryan" budget – without any debate.  How ironic that Boehner is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the Pledge to America with this emphatic declaration: "we’ve kept that pledge, and will continue to keep our promise to the millions of Americans who remain out of work and the small businesses hamstrung by today’s economic uncertainty."  In the pledge, they promised to "fight the growth of government" and "efforts to fund the costly new healthcare law."  Well, this CR will continue $26.3 billion in funding for Obamacare, and will pave the road for an Omnibus bill in November that will grow the size of government.  It will also continue the solar energy loan program that led to Solar-gate.

All of this would not have been possible had we elected a real "Tea Party Congress" – one that would have challenged the status quo mentality of leadership.  Undoubtedly, it is quite arduous for a new member to challenge the agenda of leadership; however, it is precisely that sort of indomitability that we will need to restore this country to its constitutional roots.

Ray LaHood Does Not Have Blank Check to Grant Waivers for EAS Program

Earlier this month, Senate Democrats brazenly forced a two-week partial shutdown of the FAA.  They were willing to hold 4,000 employees hostage and forgo millions in revenue from airline tickets, all for the purpose of securing their inveterate pork projects.  Democrats refused to pass the House extension bill because Republicans inserted minor limits on a rural pork program, better known as Essential Air Service (EAS).  They also blocked the bill because of an anti-labor provision that never existed in this stopgap bill.

The House-passed bill had two provisions to limit EAS: 1) It established a $1,000-per-ticket subsidy cap, which affects subsidized service at three airports.  2)  The extension eliminated subsidies for service to airports that are 90 miles or less from a large or medium hub airport.  This provision affects ten locations.

Originally, Harry Reid opposed the bill because his airport in Ely, Nevada, which enjoys a $3,720 per passenger subsidy, would be cut off under the first provision.  However, two weeks later, Reid admitted that "$3,500 per passenger is a little extreme," and was ready to pass the bill by unanimous consent.  A few hours later, Reid seemed to have amnesia of his earlier statement, and continued to block the bill on behalf of his colleague, John Rockefeller.  You see, Morgantown Municipal Airport, which enjoys a $1.5 million annual subsidy, is 75 miles away from the nearest medium hub airport in Pittsburgh.  As such, it would have suffered a cut under the second provision of the bill.  Rockefeller, the post-Byrd king of pork, was having none of that.

Finally, Rockefeller and Reid agreed to pass the House bill because they discovered language in the bill that grants the Secretary of Transportation authority to waive the restriction on subsidies for those within 90 miles of larger airports.  They were clearly anticipating that Secretary Ray LaHood, who used to be a Republican, would completely vitiate the intent of the bill.

There is only one problem: LaHood does not have a blank check to grant those waivers.  Pursuant to the text of the bill, the Secretary may grant a waiver only to those airports in which "geographic characteristics of the location result in undue difficulty in accessing the nearest medium or large hub airport."

George W. Bush in 1999 vs. Rick Perry in 2011

How Much We Have Grown As Conservatives 

Watching Governor Rick Perry’s speech at the Red State Gathering, I was struck by the degree to which conservatism has grown at the highest levels of electoral politics, including presidential elections, over the past decade.

Twelve years ago, another Texan, George W. Bush, announced his presidential bid by ushering in a new era of conservatism.  At the time, following the longest Republican exile from the presidency since the ’60s, many conservatives were willing to jump on the bandwagon of the first viable Republican candidate, irrespective of his veiled insults to conservatism.

Here is an excerpt from President Bush’s announcement speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on June 12, 1999:

“I’m running because my party must match a conservative mind with a compassionate heart. [...]
It is conservative to insist on education standards, basics and local control. It is compassionate to make sure that not one single child gets left behind.
I know this approach has been criticized. But why? Is compassion beneath us? Is mercy below us? Should our party be led by someone who boasts of a hard heart? I know Republicans – across the country — are generous of heart. I am confident the American people view compassion as a noble calling. The calling of a nation where the strong are just and the weak are valued.
I am proud to be a compassionate conservative. I welcome the label. And on this ground I’ll take my stand.”

The inconspicuous implication of Bush’s newfound dictum was that pure, unadulterated conservatism, while perspicacious in theory, lacked inherent compassion in its application.  He felt that it must be tempered with big government handouts and control over the educational system.  Consequently, upon assumption of the presidency, President Bush ushered in a new era of big government conservatism; an oxymoron, if there ever was one.  He governed with a muddled concoction of conservatism (pro-life and tax cuts) mixed with “compassion” aka statism (the largest expansion of government at the time).  And as the saying goes, the rest is history.

Why We Fight

Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and lots of courage

Over the past week, the Tea Party has been impugned and maligned with more ferocity than ever before.  Amidst our push to balance the budget, downsize job-killing government agencies and programs, and preserve our AAA credit rating, we have been condemned as extremists, suicidal, and traitors.  Sadly, most of these acrimonious ad hominem attacks were propagated by those who purport to share the aforementioned goals, but feel repulsed by our “intransigent” sense of urgency.  Some have even regurgitated Democrat talking points suggesting that Reagan would be labeled a RINO by the Tea Party.

These writers and commentators who supposedly share our ultimate goals for limited government, yet condemn our tactics and sense of urgency, are lacking a sober understanding of the severity of our current predicament in relation to Reagan’s era.

As grim as the situation was at the time of Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, it simply doesn’t compare to the magnitude of our problems precipitated by the growth of the federal government, the insolvent debt, and rampant government dependency.  Reagan came to power and fought for limited government in order to preclude the very eventuality that we are experiencing today.  Today, in 2011, we are suffering under every pernicious effect of a tyrannical government; the magnitude to which Reagan did not experience, but presciently attempted to avert.

Although Reagan succeeded in his fundamental goals of stalling the inexorable growth of government, cutting taxes, rolling back some regulations, and winning the Cold War, he realized at the end of his presidency that those victories were not sufficient to countermand the self-perpetuating growth of government dependency and tyranny.  He knew that due to factors which were mostly beyond his control he had failed to eliminate a significant number of agencies and programs that serve as the backbone for the statist society.

Reagan had learned that liberals had insidiously co-opted so many rent-seekers in government that it was impossible to win a war of attrition by fighting agency-to-agency and program-to-program warfare.  Fifty years of steady movement toward socialism had shown that any edict promulgated by the federal government, much like the ancient Persian government described in Esther, “may not be revoked.”  He realized that something drastic had to be done to prevent the immutable growth of government that he so ominously envisioned after his departure.

Here’s the Latest Democrat Plan

Will this ultimately be the best we can get, or will GOP leaders hold their own line?
Well, we really stuck it to the Democrats today.  Instead of passing Cut, Cap, and Balance, a plan that will never pass the Senate and would have foisted the blame of a default upon us (supposedly), we orchestrated a plan to really own them.  We came up with Boehner plan 2.0 that..well, …..will not pass the Senate – and will force a default, unless we agree to a watered down version of the watered down version.

As of late this afternoon, the underpinnings of a compromise Democrat plan were beginning to materialize:

Democrats are aiming for a debt-limit compromise similar to the House Republican plan, with at least one major difference: The second vote on raising the debt ceiling would not depend on Congress passing a broader deficit-reduction package.
The shape of this potential compromise meshes major elements of the proposals offered in recent weeks by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), according to Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.
Under the possible compromise, Congress could still get a second crack at voting on the debt limit within months. But rather than linking the vote to Congress approving the recommendations of a new 12-member committee — as it would be in Boehner’s bill — Democrats prefer McConnell’s proposal that allows President Barack Obama to lift the debt ceiling unless two-thirds of both chambers override his veto of a disapproval resolution, the officials said. (emphasis added)

So, if this is ultimately the best plan that Democrats will pass, should we support it?  What is the bottom line for GOP leaders, in which they would be willing to keep their a@#$ on their own line?

As we speak, House leaders are going through cerebral gyrations to convince Republicans that this is our last option.  Earlier today, Speaker Boehner refused to say whether he would force his own bill to the brink if and when Harry Reid rejects it in the Senate.

At the very least, these leaders owe the rank-and-file members two commitments:  1)  They will commit to fighting for at least some of the fundamentals of the House-passed budget.  2)  Even though they retreated on Cut, Cap, and Balance and are forcing them to vote for an “imperfect bill,” they will hold the line on Boehner 2.0, reject any further compromise, and tell Obama to get his a@#$ in line.

Or, is that bellicose rhetoric only reserved for fellow conservatives?

Cross-posted to RedState.com

What is the End Game for Big Government?

Is the Republican infighting really about strategy, or is it about ideology?

Those Republicans, such as the Wall Street Journal editors and the Weekly Standard writers, who criticize Tea Party opposition to Boehner’s plan, would have you believe that they are just as ideologically committed to downsizing government.  They are just advocating smarter and more politically savvy ways of achieving that goal; one that is supposedly less tendentious to independent voters.  As such, they have an obligation to create a political and policy road map that will reduce government – a goal they purportedly share.  Where is their plan?

We believe that unless we go to the brink, and use our leverage with the budget process to force fundamental and transformational government reform, we will never limit government.  These wizards of smart obviously believe that we will have better opportunities in the future.  What are those opportunities?

Over the last 75 years, and especially during the past decade, liberals have methodically constructed an incorrigible edifice of tyranny.  Their magnum opus, the federal government, has foisted $14.4 trillion in debt and $100 trillion in unfunded obligations on our families; it has promulgated $1.75 trillion in regulatory burdens on our job creators, it has sucked out millions of jobs and trillions in income growth from the “little guy.”  Most important, it has revoked an incalculable measure of liberty from everyone.

Any sane observer of politics, who is willing to learn from the lessons of history, should intuitively understand that a few billion in cuts, along with incremental changes to government, are no match for perennial, self-perpetuating socialism.  It is akin to stopping a speeding bullet train (the last to leave the station, to paraphrase Speaker Boehner) with some twigs.  Boehner’s 2.0 plan, which appears to be gaining traction, does just that.

Our detractors will protest, “but this is not the time and place for such reform; let’s wait until we have control of more than 1/3rd of one branch of government.”

“This is the best we can do, given the extraneous circumstances.”

“Wait for 2012; we’ll take back all of government and really show them.”

“Get your a@#$ in line.”

No, folks, it is we conservatives who have kept our posteriors on the line, while you retreated from it.

Boehner Grounds into a Double Play

Negating our leverage over the debt ceiling and next years' budget in one fell swoop

Late this afternoon, the CBO reaffirmed all of our concerns with Speaker Boehner’s Budget Control Act of 2011 – plus interest (pun intended).

We have asserted ad nauseam that any proposed budget plan that fails to countermand the current prodigal spending levels, including the modestly reduced spending levels of 2011, is not worth the paper it is printed on.  The CBO estimates that Boehner’s $1.2 trillion in discretionary spending cuts will only save us $850 billion over ten years.  This means that Obama’s credit card increase will be higher than the concurrent spending cuts, thus voiding the promise of the dollar-for-dollar agreement.  Moreover, the CBO estimates that all the cuts will be backloaded, as the estimated savings for next year – the only enforceable year – will be a negligible $1 billion!  It turns out that an extra $4 billion in mandatory spending for Pell Grants will ostensibly wipe out any savings from the paltry discretionary cuts.

This plan is worse than a strikeout; it’s a ground ball into a double play.

A mere lousy plan would have destroyed our leverage over the debt ceiling fight; Boehner’s plan obviates our future leverage over the FY 2012 budget fight in late September as well.  The House-passed budget resolution, known as the Paul Ryan budget, authorized $1.019 trillion in non-emergency discretionary spending for FY 2012.  Boehner’s bill authorizes $1.043 trillion.

Additionally, all the reforms in entitlement and welfare spending that were adopted in the Ryan budget (including reforms of Pell Grants) will be jettisoned and exchanged for a grand bargain formulated by the Super Commission.  Yes, I know, it’s a committee; not a commission.

Consequently, when the 2012 budget fight boils over after the summer recess, we will lose our leverage to fight for the Ryan budget.  So, all the hard work that has gone into passing the appropriations bills and fulfilling the mandate from the budget resolution would have been a waste.  The Boehner plan has already overshot the spending levels of those bills.  Democrats will laugh at them during those pretentious days at the end of the fiscal year.

Concurrently, there is another unforeseen vice to this plan.  The two largest non-defense appropriations bills; the Labor/HHS/Education and Transportation/HUD bills, are being saved until after August.  The Ryan budget blueprint achieved the most savings from these bills; $26 billion of the estimated $47 trillion in discretionary savings for 2012.  Boehner’s plan, or any 2.0 version of it, would allow liberal Republican appropriators to reinstate some of the spending to the most pernicious activities of some of the worst government agencies.  Congressman Steve LaTourette, a shill for Big Labor, is already agog over the opportunity to spend more on Labor.

John Boehner, to his credit, is planning to rewrite his bill.  He needs to go for a home run and stick with Cut, Cap, and Balance.  At the very least, we don’t need another double play.

If GOP leaders are serious, they will fight for a deal that upholds the integrity of the Ryan budget, both on the discretionary and mandatory sides of the ledger.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

There Are No Spending Cuts Without Downsizing Government

$1.5 trillion from Biden + $3.7 trillion from the Gang=0. There is no compromise. 

Republicans and conservatives have correctly asserted that the federal government doesn’t have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem.  However, a more trenchant summation of our public policy vices would go something like this: we don’t have a spending problem, per se; we have a big government problem.

While such a characterization might sound redundant, the Orwellian language used to describe spending cuts throughout the debt ceiling debate exposes a huge bifurcation between “spending cuts” and government reduction.  The very same politicians who increased the debt $3.7 trillion in just two and a half years, and have condemned us to a future trajectory of $10 trillion more over the next ten years, are now tossing out spending cut bids to the tune of trillions, as if we were sitting at a Barney Frank foreclosure auction.  Obama and the Democrats promote numbers like $4 trillion in cuts; no, $6 trillion; the Gangters of Six are staking their claim on $3.7 trillion.  Finally, we are all told that, at the very least, there is consensus around $1.5 trillion in cuts from the Biden bunch.

So how can the very people who increased spending by trillions just last year suddenly exhibit such gaiety in cutting spending?

As we have seen from the Gangrene proposal, these “spending cuts” – to the tune of $2.7 trillion – will magically materialize, without eliminating a single agency or department from discretionary spending, or a single welfare program on the mandatory side. The only definitive and consequential cuts will be incurred by the military.  Even after the most unprecedented era of prodigal spending that added $3.7 trillion in real debt, the Gangrene proposal would use phony and conflicting baselines to save $3.7 trillion over ten years, even while concurrently adding trillions more in debt.

The Gang plan, as well as every other negotiated proposal, achieves these spending cuts through slowing the rate of “straw men” baseline projections of growth.  Even the caps on rate growth might not take effect until closer to 2015.   Hence, we have spending cuts without downsizing one iota of government, along with all its pernicious effects on the private sector.

GOP Freshmen Take on MSNBC

The inimitable Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) strikes again.  He has a penchant for straight talk and producing epic videos, in which he articulates unvarnished conservatism in a provocative way.  His latest hit took place during an interview with Chris Matthews.  When Matthews began to get rude with Walsh, the good congressman put him in his place:

In a separate altercation between a MSNBC host and GOP freshman, the anchor intimated that Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) didn't understand the economy because he lacks a degree in economics.  The problem is that Brooks does indeed hold a degree in economics - in addition to a political science and law degrees.

The Entire Premise Behind Debt Negotiations is a Farce

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.”

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Taylor of Caroline, November 26, 1798

Obama and the Democrats have no intention to cut spending in any long-term, meaningful, and consequential way.  To do so, they would need to abrogate the very essence of their being and the dependency state along with it.  As such, they will never agree to cuts that will reduce the deficit.  Period.  As Congressman Louie Gohmert said, "quit believing the president."  So why does the GOP continue to parley with Obama in secret?

Some Republicans are impugning supporters of the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan for being suicidally intransigent.  They charge that our insistence on a deal that Democrats will not support will lead to a stalemate and an eventual default, which will invariably hurt Republicans, of course.  The problem with this rationale is that it overlooks the fact that Democrats will never support any meaningful shrinkage of their $3.7 trillion federal government behemoth.  It's not just a balanced budget amendment they oppose; they will vote down any authentic spending deal that cuts trillions - in real cuts.

The entire brouhaha over Obama's willingness to cut $4 trillion over 10 years, so long as the GOP acquiesces to tax increases, is a fraud.  Even if Republicans agree to massive tax increases tomorrow, Obama will never accede to a deal that substantially cuts, let alone eliminates, one major dependency program or government department (or even agency).

Much Needed Straight Talk from Rep. Walsh: Quit Lying, Mr. President

There has been much ink spilled trying to determine the best political strategy for Republicans in dealing with the debt ceiling.  Throughout the process, many Republicans have ceded ground to Obama by credulously buying into the premise that failure to raise the debt ceiling will spell disaster for the country.

Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL), one of those unvarnished freshmen conservatives, cuts thought the clutter and reminds Obama and fellow Republicans why people like himself were elected to Congress.  While everyone is focused on the fight over tax increases, many Republicans are forgetting that the $2, $3, or even $4 trillion in supposed spending cuts are nothing but unverifiable accounting gimmicks that will be based upon some contrived baseline.  Even if they would represent real cuts, the $4 trillion in deficit reduction would only extirpate $400 billion annually from a $1.4-1.6 trillion yearly deficit.
 

This three-minute video message should serve as a model for all Republicans as they "negotiate" with a proven liar:

This is what real conservative leadership looks like.  Are you watching, Senator McConnell?

Cut, Cap, Balance - or bust!

Cross-posted to RedState.com

Quit Believing the President, Mr Boehner

That was the admonishment from Congressman Louie Gohmert to Speaker John Boehner.  There is simply too much credulity among the Republican leaders if they believe that Obama has any intention of enacting meaningful and consequential cuts that would vitiate any part of the dependency empire - the empire that feeds the Democrat party.

Republicans need to rally behind Pat Toomey's bill to ensure that interests payments are prioritized.  They should also pass Michele Bachmann's bill to prioritize payments to military personnel (HR 2496).  Once they secure the short-term pitfalls of not raising the debt, they will have nothing to lose by fighting for a balance budget amendment; the only real long-term solution.

Watch the full press conference of Reps. Gohmert, King, and Bachmann here:

(HT: CNS News)

Bonus Video:  The Republican Study Committee came out with their latest video pushing for Cut, Cap, and Balance:

Must See Jim DeMint Recap Video of Obama's Failure

Jim DeMint put out a great video detailing the failures of the Obama administration.  The video is narrated by the good Senator himself.

It's a bit wonkish, but for those who love economic charts, this video contains them all.

Elimination of a Handout Program is not a Tax Increase

There is much debate within the conservative movement regarding the future of many government tax credits that are nothing more than handouts to specific individuals or industries.  The 45-cent per gallon ethanol tax credit is at the center of the debate in Congress.  Most conservatives view it as a gratuitous handout used to prop up a favored industry by the federal government.  Americans for Tax Reform views the elimination of this credit as tantamount to increasing taxes.  They assert that any chance in the tax codes that nets revenue for the government is considered a tax increase.

The problem with such a rationale is that there is no end-game for government programs that are ensconced in the tax code.  What if the government offers a tax credit for those who buy products of Democrat corporate cronies and then proceeds to repeal that credit?  Would it be deemed as a tax increase by ATR?  That question is already a reality due to the plethora of green tax credits.

Another dubious point about such a broad view of tax increases is its aversion to raising revenue.  As supply-siders, don't we all believe in the Laffer Curve - that certain tax deductions could actually spawn economic growth to the point that federal revenues go up?  Undoubtedly, we all desire to starve the federal behemoth, but should we oppose tax cuts on the counterintuitive assumption that such a move will increase federal revenues?

Investors Business Daily has a succinct article addressing this point in today's paper:

Joe Walsh’s Smackdown of Obama on Immigration

It's better alligators than Hollywood celebrities.



Like no other president in American history, President Obama supports the domineering use of government over every facet of our lives.  Yet, when it comes to one of the few core functions of government, like border security and the regulation of immigration, he is suddenly tepid about asserting power.  Worse, he uses the power of executive agencies to disregard and subvert immigration laws that were duly passed by Congress.  Now he is denigrating those who suffer from gang violence along the border and those who seek to fulfill our core constitutional responsibilities.

Earlier this week, Obama thought that he would interject his “White House Correspondents’ Dinner level of intellect” into our national security, by accusing Republicans of desiring an alligator-filled moat along the southern border.  Today, Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) offered a superlative smackdown of Obama’s immigration speech in El Paso through an open letter to the President: