Oh Yes, It’s in Article 1

At the beginning of the 112^th Congress, as part of an effort to inject more transparency into the legislative process, the House adopted a rule requiring that each bill be accompanied by a Constitutional Authority Statement.  The purpose of the rule was to expose the cavalier attitude of those members who desire to legislate ‘just because they can.’


Well, after a year of legislating under this rule, it appears that we are in serious need of accountability measures to provide some clarity and specificity to the authority statement.  Otherwise, the rule will be regarded as yet another “transparency” gimmick of Congress.

Republican congressional staffers combed through almost 3800 bills and joint resolutions that have been introduced this year, in an effort to gauge the clarity and specificity of the Constitutional Authority Statements.  For the most part, the results are pretty pathetic.  Here are some of their key findings:

• Overall, 945 bills contained authority statements which do not reference a specific power granted by the Constitution.  Many of these merely cited “Article 1” or “Article 1 Section 1” “Article 1 Section 8.” In other words, they just cited the fact that Congress has the power to legislate, but failed to divulge which constitutional power or specific clause is supporting their legislation.
• There were 732 bills which only referenced the commerce clause, 660 which only referenced the general welfare clause, and 321 which mentioned the necessary and proper clause without reference to a previous Constitutional clause to which the necessary and proper clause might apply.
• In total, there were 2658 Constitutional Authority Statements that were either questionable or vague.  That represents roughly 69% of all bills and resolutions introduced in the 1^st Session of the 112^th Congress.
• While more of the vague citations are attributable to Democrat bill sponsors, many Republicans were lax in offering meaningful authority statements.  Almost as many Republicans used the inexplicit commerce clause as Democrats.

After the first year of the Constitutional Authority rule, it is clear that it has failed to dissuade members from proposing frivolous legislation.  At a minimum, every authority statement should detail the specific clause and power that authorizes the legislation.  Moreover, the statement should be accompanied by a brief explanation describing the reason why there is a constitutional mandate for that particular bill.  Without further improvements, this rule is just a waste of ink and paper.

Brain Dead Dem Congressman Thinks Spending is Too Low

In case you were wondering why we are doing nothing to slow our inexorable march towards Greek-style insolvency, look no further than those who are vested with the power of the purse string.  Yesterday, Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) suggested that we are not spending enough “to invest in research and development, education and infrastructure that would allow America to compete in this increasingly global economy.”  He proved his assertion by comparing our deficits to….the WWII era!

According to the Office of Management and Budget, America’s deficits were more than twice as large in the 1940s as they are today. In 1943, the deficit was 30 percent of our economy’s size; in 1944, it was 23 percent. Today, it is less than 9 percent. As for publicly held debt, it was significantly larger as a share of our economy in 1944 than it is today.

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

Obviously, we had a massive military buildup – the most unprecedented in world history – which was very costly at the height of the war.  But those were temporary annual deficits.  Immediately after the war, our deficits returned to historical lows.  Consequently, our total gross debt dipped well below 60% of GDP during the next decade, and eventually, under 35% of GDP.  Just three years after the war ended, total federal outlays were just 11.6% of GDP; today’s outlays are 24.5% of our economy.  Even in 1944, at the height of the biggest war on world history, our total debt was 97.6% of GDP, lower than our current 100.5% debt-to-GDP ratio.

Now if Rep. Holt wants to compare our spending levels to the WWII era, let’s take defense and war spending out of the equation for a moment.  In 1944, defense spending accounted for an astounding 86.6% ($79.1 billion) of total federal outlays ($91.3 billion), while non-defense spending accounted for just 13.4% ($12.2 billion) of the budget.  In other words, non-defense spending in 1944 was pegged at 5.5% of GDP ($219.7 billion).

In 2012, total defense and war spending will check in at $662.4 billion, or roughly 18% of our estimated $3.7 billion budget.  That means that our non-defense spending will come in at 20% of our GDP (roughly $15.092 trillion), compared to 5.5% in 1944.  This year, our defense spending will account for 4.4% of GDP compared to 36% in 1944.  So if we want to engage in absurdity and use WWII spending as an accurate yardstick, why not reduce our non-defense spending to WWII levels, and cut spending by over $2 trillion?
The irony is that the military is the only expenditure that Democrats want to cut, yet they are using WWII – when defense consumed almost our entire budget – as a paradigm for auspicious government “investments.”

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

Cross-posted to RedState.com

The Chickens of Debt Ceiling Deal Have Come Home to Roost

Today, the Treasury Department announced that Obama will ask for another $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, carrying our national debt to $16.394 trillion by next year.  This will bring Obama’s total share of the debt to $5.77 trillion by the end of his tenure, far more than any other president.  Unfortunately, there is not a darn thing we can do about it.  Yet, it didn’t have to be this way.

Looking back at this year of legislative battles, there is no doubt that the debt ceiling deal wins the award for the most insane capitulation of the year.  In July, Obama, who had already accrued $3.6 trillion in debt, was faced with the embarrassing prospect of asking for yet another increase in the debt limit.  That was our opportunity to extract transformational concessions from Obama in return for the ability to issue more debt.  That was our time to push for Cut, Cap, Balance, or at the very least, a plain balanced budget amendment.

Not only did GOP leaders strike out and squander the entire opportunity, they ground into a double play.  They gave Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling another $2.1 trillion, just enough to spare him from another embarrassing debt increase right before the 2012 election.  What did we get in return?  Our reward for giving him the increase was, in fact, a twofer gift to Obama.  We were “rewarded” with the creation of the 18th debt commission and the Budget Control Act, which completely abrogated the Republicans budget, thereby obviating any leverage we would have during the remaining budget battles of the year.  After all, how could we go back on our word?

At a time when many “prominent” conservative publications were blithely cheering on this disaster, we detailed nine reasons to oppose the deal.  Among other things, we noted that the deal would encourage notional spending cuts, preserve Obamacare, destroy the Ryan budget, engender deep cuts in defense, and grant Obama a lifeline, all the while, failing to prevent a credit downgrade.

Sadly, my premonition has come to fruition.  After enjoying a free ride on the first $900 billion of debt, Obama now has the authority to issue another $1.2 trillion of debt.  He has blown through the first ‘tranche’ of the debt ceiling increase at a rate of almost $6 billion per day.  Now, pursuant to the debt deal, only a resolution of disapproval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress can preempt such an increase.

Those who promoted this debt ceiling scheme last July with oleaginous columns and speeches, while denouncing its critics as “intransigent,”  should hang their heads in shame.

What Does $40,000 Mean to You?

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


Obama has been running around all day making a fool of himself as he promotes his $40 Social Security tax cut.  Yes, the tax plan that will create a new class warfare Social Security Taxable Wage limit in order to accommodate his totally unworkable two-month extension.  Obama has even set up a new web page asking people “what $40 per paycheck would mean to you.”

Republicans should respond by setting up a web page asking every taxpayer to explain how a $40,000 increase in their share of debt will affect their finances and those of their grandchildren.

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

How much of that debt is Obama responsible for?

When Obama took office, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion.  Obama’s share of the debt increase is roughly $4.5 trillion.  There are approximately $112.7 million taxpayers.  That means that the individual share of the Obama debt is about $40,000.

So while Obama is bragging about his $40 tax cut, he is obfuscating the fact that he is increasing more entitlement spending along with the package.  This will only increase the $40,000 share of debt for every taxpayer.

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

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

“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:

Coburn Details $7 Billion in Waste from 100 Dumb Projects

At some point we will need to go beyond merely cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.  We will eventually have to wind down the welfare state and close government departments and agencies.  However, there is no reason we shouldn’t demand an immediate bipartisan effort to eliminate programs that are just plain dumb, even according to Democrat socialist ideology.

Nobody has been more assiduous and instrumental in identifying silly government projects than Senator Tom Coburn.  Yesterday, Senator Coburn released his annual “Wastebook” profiling 100 “unnecessary, duplicative, or just plain stupid projects spread throughout the federal government.” The total cost of these programs is $6.9 billion.  Cutting these programs would only account for roughly 40 hours of our debt, but why spend a penny on this stuff?

Here are some of the greatest hits:

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

Yes, this is mere pocket change; we will not balance the budget by eliminating these preposterous projects.  Nevertheless, they reveal just how apathetic our lawmakers are in handling public funds.  They are also emblematic of the ridiculous budget process that has been in place in recent years.  If we are going to pass 1200-page bills that fund the entire government with such short notice, we will invariably continue to fund these projects.

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

More Problems With Senate Extenders Package

The Senate-passed payroll tax cut extenders package was already on the ropes with House Republicans over the weekend.  The bill (HR 3630) offers a pathetic two-month extension of the payroll tax cut.  In addition, it extends long-term unemployment benefits for the ninth time, along with the annual Medicare doc fix.  The bill gutted all House-passed reforms to medicare and unemployment insurance, while offsetting the cost through phantom revenue increases generated through Freddie and Fannie.  Reliance on these fees for spending offsets will actually make it more difficult to close down these harmful entities.

Today, we are discovering two more problems with the Senate package:

1) Earlier today, Senators Brown, Heller, and Lugar blasted House Republicans for holding up the short-term deal.  “There is no reason to hold up the short-term extension while a more comprehensive deal is being worked out,”cried Heller.  Well, here is a good reason.

Aside for the obvious vices of a two-month payroll tax extension, this tenuous law will make life difficult for providers of payroll processing services.  Section 101 of the legislation establishes a new Social Security Taxable Wage limit of $18,350.  All wages in excess of $18,350 for January and February will be taxed at the old rate of 6.2%.  This provision was inserted in order to preclude those with high incomes from meeting their full payroll tax obligation during the first two months.  Such an eventuality would create a disparity in which middle-income earners, who would still incur a payroll tax liability after February, would pay a higher rate (6.2%) on the rest of their income than high-income earners would have to pay.  Many high-income earners receive large bonuses at the beginning of the year, and Democrats were not about to let them take advantage of this short-term payroll tax cut.

Now, the National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC), a trade association representing payroll processing companies, is charging that this provision is untenable.  Such a drastic change would force payroll processors to implement significant changes to their program software.  In a letter sent to the chairmen of the tax-writing committees obtained by Jake Tapper, NPRC's president warns that there is not enough time to implement these changes before January.

A full 12-month extension would obviate the need for this wage limit, thereby sparing payroll processors the two-month headache.  Unfortunately, Senator Brown excoriated House Republicans for fighting the Senate bill, calling their "plan to scuttle the deal to help middle-class families" "irresponsible and wrong."  The only thing irresponsible and wrong was his vote for an inane two-month extension.

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.

So This is It?

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

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

GOP leaders agreed last night to pass the omnibus bill with largely the same provisions as the one they introduced yesterday.  After all of the bravado and grandstanding throughout the year; after cutting a mere $352 million in non-baseline spending in FY 2011, they are prepared to cut nothing off the 2012 budget.  In fact, with the $8.6 billion in extra disaster spending, the total discretionary budget authority will surpass last year’s levels by roughly $3 billion.  Yes, we know that there are spending offsets, but they were cleverly packaged in a separate bill from the rest of the omnibus, allowing Democrats to vote them down.

What about the riders?  Democrats are bragging about the fact that they jettisoned all the major policy riders except for the block on light bulb bans.  We now have a 1200-page bill that encompasses funding for most of the federal government, yet it cannot be amended.  That leaves one option for conservatives: vote no on the entire package.

Hey, I guess we can take solace in the fact that we slowed baseline spending from what it would have been had Democrats retained control of Congress.  Then again, all these numbers only account for discretionary spending, or about one-third of the federal budget.  The other two-thirds, mandatory and entitlement spending, continues to grow out of control.

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

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?

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:

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:

Fact Check: Ron Paul is Wrong About Defense Spending

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

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

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

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

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

The Non-Existent Spending Cuts…Except for Defense

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

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

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

House Armed Services Committee Republican Staff

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.

Current Status of Spending Bills

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

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

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?