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

“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:

New Gang of Five Coalesce Around McConnell’s Excrement Sandwich

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

“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.

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.

We Need More Fighters in Congress

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.

Mitt Romney: Leader of the Pale Pastel Wing of Party

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.

Defeat That Omnibus!

“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:

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.

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

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

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?

The College of Hypocritical Big Government Cardinals

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:

The Anatomy of a Compromise From Hell

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.

Republicans Throw Their ‘Pledge To America’ Under the OmniBus

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:

The Supercommittee of Super Insanity

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.

Bipartisan Big Spenders Appointed to Conference Committee for Spending Bills

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.

Stop Harry Reid's Egregious Budget Power Grab

Don't let the fox guard the hen house

Senate Democrats (and all other Democrats, for that matter) have not passed a budget for over 900 days, yet they are planning to come late to the game and commandeer the appropriations process.  After delaying the process for over two years, Harry Reid, with the help of some Senate Republicans, is planning to expedite appropriations bills in a way that disavows standard procedures of transparency.  House Republicans must rebuff this insidious plan.

When Republicans assumed control of the House earlier this year, they completed the job that Democrats refused to do regarding the FY 2011 budget.  Additionally, they passed a concurrent budget resolution for FY 2012, and proceeded to complete half of the 12 annual appropriations bills.  When it became clear that Senate Democrats were dithering with roll call votes and speeches, and had no intention of even passing a budget resolution, Republicans held back the remaining approps bills, in an effort to wait for the Senate to get its act together.

Now, instead of coming to the table and passing the 12 individual appropriations bills along with a budget resolution, Harry Reid is seeking to circumvent the process by using “Minibus” bills.  He rightfully perceives that a 12-bill omnibus package would be politically unpopular, so he is planning to bundle the 12 appropriations bill into four minibus bills, containing three spending bills apiece.

Why does Reid want to use this awkward and obscure process for appropriations bills?

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.

All You Need to Know About Mitt Romney

in his own liberal words:

After a half century of robust growth in the conservative movement, it would be a travesty to nominate this guy.

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.

GOP Plans to Cave on Transportation Spending

We’ve seen this show before.  Republicans propose grand ideas to cut spending and implement free-market reforms; they speak ebulliently about their new ideas, and …they summarily scuttle them and cave to the Democrats.

Earlier this year, Republicans proposed a commendable plan to end the bipartisan pork fest of surface transportation spending.  Instead of continuing the inexorable expansion of transportation spending, House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica proposed a six-year highway bill that actually cut spending from $286 billion to $235 billion.  The bill was supposed to cap spending to the levels of its funding source; the 18.4-cent gasoline tax and the 24.4-cent tax on diesel fuel.  Additionally, this bill would have eliminated 70 duplicative projects and cut spending on mass transit.

Two weeks ago, Republicans agreed to pass an eighth stop-gap highway bill, which will lock in the excess levels of spending until next April.  They also passed the 22^nd stop-gap FAA reauthorization bill, which will continue to fund the wasteful rural pork programs until next February.

Now CQ is reporting that Republicans plan to cave on the long-term bill altogether: