Our Task Moving Forward: Focus On Congress

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:

Obama’s Imaginary Senate Recess

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.

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.

Conservatives Must Throw Omnibus Under the Bus

“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?

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.

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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?

What is the Endgame for the Payroll Tax Fight?

Well, it looks like the ship already sailed on extension of the payroll tax cut.  Republicans introduced their own legislation to continue the current payroll tax cut from 6.2% to 4.2% for another year.  This proposal, which would cost $119.6 billion in revenue for the remainder of FY 2012 and the first few months of FY 2013, does not include the Democrat provisions to cut the employer’s share of the payroll tax. 

Yesterday, I detailed some of my concerns from a public policy standpoint, but from a personal standpoint I’m not complaining.  Who knows 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 from the $119 billion (additional) transfer from general revenues to Social Security?  Senator Dean Heller introduced the following plan:

•  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.

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

• 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).  They also propose closing an anomalous loophole that allows certain rich people to collect food stamps.  These latter proposals will save very little. 

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.

Republicans Must Oppose Reid's Minibus Bill

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.

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?