So, Whose House is it Anyway?

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:

Now is Not the Time to Shirk From Obamacare Fight

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:

Chris Christie is Intellectually Dishonest

Earlier today, Chris Christie endorsed Mitt Romney for president, describing him as “a real hero in Republican circles.”  During his announcement, he disparaged conservatives who oppose Romneycare, by suggesting that any attempt to compare it to Obamacare is “completely intellectually dishonest.”  Governor Christie might want to look in the mirror or step down as a prominent spokesman for the Republican Party.
Any attempt to suggest that the two healthcare plans are fundamentally different is completely intellectually dishonest.

Romney on Romneycare


“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.” (FoxNews-Google Debate, Sept. 22)

Reality


Like every egregious government intervention in the private sector, MassCare drove up total health insurance costs in Massachusetts by $4.311 billion.  Massachusetts individual health premiums are now the highest in the nation.   The other 92% are being forced to pay higher premiums for what is no longer “market-based insurance.”  The 8% that are “uninsured” were put on government programs, primarily Medicaid.  That’s exactly what Obama seeks to do with Obamacare.  The costs will be even higher once the federal government stops subsidizing Romneycare through extra Medicaid grants.

The Entitlement Leviathan in Numbers

We need bold free-market, liberty-promoting solutions from our POTUS candidates.

Immediately prior to breaking for the August recess, Congress passed a bipartisan agreement to cut spending.  Well, sort of.

Leaders in both parties got together to do something evil and stupid; they agreed to the largest increase in the debt ceiling, without solving our debt problem.  They cut discretionary spending by $6.67 billion for FY 2012, from $1.0497 trillion to $1.043 trillion.  That's a bit more than half a percentage point.  Worse, discretionary spending (budget authority) only accounts for roughly 28% of our projected $3.7 trillion in outlays for FY 2011.  So we cut about 0.6% of 28% of our federal budget for next year!

But, fear not; the best is yet to come.  The mandatory entitlement spending reforms will be tackled by the super committee.  The only problem is that a committee with such luminaries as John Kerry, Patty Murray, and James Clyburn – will never cut a dime from mandatory spending.

Where does this leave us?

Here is a brief overview of our giant entitlement/dependency/welfare state, which if left unreformed, will lead to insolvency, engendering public riots to the degree that we have seen in Europe this year.

I Refuse to Obey the Law

What's good for the goose...
In yet another demonstration of contempt for the rule of law and the separation of powers, the Obama administration has announced that it will no longer enforce our immigration laws.  Secretary of Homeland Insecurity Janet Napolitano proclaimed in a letter to the Senate that she will suspend deportation proceedings and grant amnesty to those who ostensibly fit the criteria of the Dream Act – a bill that was defeated with overwhelming bipartisan support of Congress.  Hence, Obama is publicly declaring that he will ensure our laws are not executed faithfully.

This unprecedented abdication on the part of the president begs the question – what sort of message does this convey to our youth regarding the inviolability of the rule of law?

What other laws will this president refuse to execute faithfully?  Will he direct the EPA to enforce cap and trade, or instruct the DOI to block the issuance of drilling permits?  Oh, he is already doing that.

And, most importantly, if the president is above the law, then why should any of us be compelled to adhere to laws that we regard as undesirable or unfair?  If Obama can refuse to enforce his core constitutional duties, why can’t we disregard his individual insurance mandate – a law that is an anathema to the constitution?

Ironically, the very illegals that remain in the country as a result of Obama’s shirking of his constitutional duties, will receive healthcare benefits from the unconstitutional Obamacare.  Remember when Obama claimed that illegals would be barred from those benefits?  Well, as Congressman Joe Wilson so presciently and succinctly declared, “YOU LIE.”  I guess the real question is this: does an illegal have the authority to opt out of the individual mandate?  Or can they play both sides of this lawlessness?

Not only has this president refused to uphold our immigration laws; he has thwarted the states and law enforcement agencies from doing so.  He has taken the unprecedented step of siding with foreign nations and suing two of our states for upholding the laws that he refuses to recognize.  This is the most profound and dangerous form of extremism in our government today, as it undermines the very core of our political system.

What if citizens would stop paying taxes, or refuse to participate in Social Security?  If the executive branch can countermand a law of Congress, why can’t the voters – those who grant Congress its authority – do the same?

This administration is setting a dangerous precedent.

Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over immigration law.  They should hold public hearings and shed some light on the darkest corners of this administrative power grab.  Additionally, as part of any budget negotiations for the FY 2012 continuing resolution, Republicans should ensure that no funds are allocated for the joint DOJ-DHS task force charged with granting these administrative amnesties.

This extreme president is beneath contempt.  He must be stopped.

Cross-posted to RedState.com

The Unanswered Questions for GOP Leaders from Freshmen

What about Paul Ryan's budget?

Forget the tax issue or the timetable for a moment; any proposed “spending cut” deal that fails to slash funding for discretionary spending and welfare programs to pre-Obama levels, as proposed in Paul Ryan’s budget, is worthless.  As Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) tweeted earlier today, “debt “deals” that count on 10 years worth of spending cuts are the Mr Snuffleupagus of budget tricks. No one sees them except pols.”

If House leaders fail to stand by their own budget, freshmen members like Ross might pose the following question: was the entire Republican majority of the 112th Congress a waste of time?

A record number of freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular.

In April, Republicans had their first chance to fulfill their mandate by passing a continuing resolution for FY 2011 that slashed government and defunded Obamacare.  As the clock ticked down to a government shutdown, GOP leaders retreated in fear.  They forced the conference to pass a spending bill that maintained funding for Obamacare and only trimmed a paltry $352 million from the deficit, thereby abrogating their popular mandate from just five months before.

But we were told that the CR was not our fight, and that we should remain patient until we are presented with real opportunities; the debt ceiling fight and the Paul Ryan budget for FY 2012.

The Ryan budget, unlike the impending debt ceiling deal, more or less fulfills the mandate of the 2010 freshmen by defunding Obamacare and downsizing government to pre-Obama levels.  This is not the RSC plan or a Tea Party plan; it is the plan of the entire conference, supported by leadership.  Ever since the budget resolution was adopted on April 15, the House has worked diligently to carry out the budget blueprint and implement comprehensive cuts in every appropriations bill.