Now if we Could Just Combine Them…

Financially, The United States of America is heading the way of Greece, Britain and France. Rebellion and fiscal implosion are possible (likely?), and a dedicated third party is almost definite, if we don’t balance the budget by 2013. Unfortunately, few Members of Congress are willing to take the political risks necessary to balance the budget at all, never mind by 2013.

Fortunately, at least some Republicans are willing to take a stab at eventual balance of the budget. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has his Roadmap, but I do not consider it all that serious since it adds debt for over 50 years before balancing the budget. We can’t afford that. What we can perhaps afford is the Ryan-Rivlin proposal which, as Veronique de Rugy shows here, significantly diminishes the cost of health care over the next 40 years and saves hundreds of billions annually while doing so.

Unfortunately, it’s not enough to worry about the long-term debt if we can’t get past the short-term. This is where the decent, though not nearly expansive enough, Spending Reduction Act kicks in. Proposed this week in The Washington Examiner by Senator Jim Demint (R-SC), the House’s Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and the RSC’s Budget and Spending Taskforce leader Scott Garrett (R-NJ), it aims to cut $2.5 trillion in discretionary spending over the next decade.

However, no plan to balance the budget is complete without looking at national defense and budgetary fraud, and this is where Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) enters the field of play. First with his various attempts to combat $100 billion in Medicare and Medicaid fraud (see one example from the last Congress here), and secondly with his detailed memorandum last year, Coburn is a one-man wrecking machine in the Senate.

If even half of the potential savings in these efforts are realized, the federal budget would drop by over $200 billion right away. Add in the medium-term and long-term impacts of defense and health reforms and we might actually have a balanced budget before Indiana governor Mitch Daniels hits his second term. (Of course, with Chris Christie as his vice president, maybe it will happen even faster. One can only hope.)

Interview With Patrick Murray, Rep. Jim Moran’s Opponent

On Monday evening, a friend told me that Patrick Murray, the Republican opponent of Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), was holding an event on the roof of my apartment complex. Intrigued due to the RealClearPolitics video of Moran saying “the economy has recovered” this past weekend, as well as the ethics issues Moran was cleared of earlier this year, I attended the event, where the campaign allowed me a few minutes to interview Murray.

My first question to Murray was about the recession statement by Moran. Murray noted that the good job news was largely coming from the hiring of Census workers, and said the high unemployment rate showed that the stimulus didn’t work. He also said the comments by Moran showed that after 20 years in Congress, he was out of touch with his own constituents.

The final word on the Congressman’s comments? An emphatic “No!” regarding being out of the recession.

Following up on his comment of Moran being out of touch, I asked what Murray thought of term limits. He said he supported them, though he wasn’t certain what the best limitations were. He verified that he would want to hear different options before deciding on one, though he reiterated his support for term limits.

One of the Murray supporters at the event had told me she liked Murray because he was not a politician, which I found interesting. That brought me to ask Murray if he had chosen to run because of the ethics issues Moran had run into, and he simply and firmly said “No.” He then explained he was running because Moran was not the best person for the job, due to a variety of factors, including anti-Semitic remarks the Congressman made. He also stated he felt Moran was doing too much explaining to his constituents, and not enough listening. He cited a health care town hall where Moran brought former Vermont governor Howard Dean in to explain the health care bill, instead of listening to the concerns of his constituents. [Note: This was an infamously raucous town hall from last year.]

Murray launched into a few details regarding what he felt needed to be done. He said jobs; national security; and the national debt were front-end concerns, and said regarding the debt that we as a nation need to “turn this ship around.” He also said Moran and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were “at the heart” of the tax-and-spend policies of the current Congress.

Due to time constraints – Murray did say we could go into more detail should I want to sit down with him again – I asked only one more question: as a Republican, if he were elected, would Murray work to cut defense spending as part of an overall approach to turning the debt ship around?

Fiscal hawk Republicans like Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have put themselves on the record as supporting such a policy. Murray, a former Army Colonel with 24 years of experience in the military, said he could not comment on what Senator Coburn had done, but that he supported Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ recent proposal to cut between one and two percent of the defense budget after careful analysis. He said he was “very hesitant” to cut the budget in the middle of two wars, and that the first duty of the federal government is to provide for the common defense.

Unfortunately, I had to let Murray get back to the event, but I plan to follow-up. He seems like he has a pretty good head on his shoulders, and it would be great to have another conservative Republican with military experience since there are so few in Congress.

Author’s Note: I contacted the Moran office so they could respond to some of what Murray said, but as of the publication of this article his office had not responded.

Is Senator Coburn Throwing the Base Under the Bus?

Update: I took my original title from a comment someone made about Coburn’s comments on Facebook- a friend pointed out that I had used the term “enemy” which, given the circumstances I commented on below and the fact that most of the readers of this post will not have read the comment I took the original title from, is inappropriate. I have changed the title, and apologize for not catching this before.

Yesterday, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) defended Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) as a decent person:

“Come on now. She is nice – how many of you all have met her? She’s a nice person,” Coburn said as he went on to lecture the crowd about civility.

“Just because somebody disagrees with you dodn’t (sic) mean they’re not a good person,” Coburn said. “I’ve been in the senate for five years and I’ve taken a lot of that, because I’ve been on the small side –- both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.”

Coburn then went on to say that conservatives should not listen solely to Fox News, and refuted a talking point on Fox regarding the insurance mandate in the new health care law.

During the town hall, Coburn was hissed and booed at. Personally, I agree with him about Fox- conservatives need to use other resources to get their news. Fox is but one of the many available, and one that is certainly skewed both ideologically and, sometimes, factually.

However, I disagree with Coburn that Pelosi is a nice person. I’ve seen too much of her on TV, and read too much about her, to think otherwise. As such, I think Coburn is caught up in the Beltway attitude that caused former Senator Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Hatch (R-UT) to be good friends- namely, that one Member should gloss over the bad things a Member has done.

This is not to say that political disagreements should get in the way of friendship- quite the opposite, in fact. I have many friends who are Democrats and liberals, and I expect most Senators and Representatives have friends on the opposite side of the aisle (I ran into Reps. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, for example, walking and chatting together). However, when Kennedy kills a young woman and gets away with it, or Pelosi lies on national TV about the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, friendship and camaraderie should be hard to come by. Coburn is a great senator, and I believe his intent was to hearken back to the days of Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan, when they used to drink together after work…but to call Pelosi a good or nice person is really a stretch. There are many other examples of people Coburn could have used, including honorable and respectable Democratic Members such as Russ Feingold or Ron Wyden- Members who stick to their guns and don’t have the records of lying and manipulation Kennedy and Pelosi do.

Why This Bill Needs To Crash & Burn

With the House health care vote tomorrow likely to go in favor of Democrats, Republicans and conservatives are doubling down on their pressure on Democrats. We cannot let up until the final vote is cast. The vote is expected to happen tomorrow afternoon, so please call offices and spread around as much as you can just why we should oppose this latest boondoggle. I have gathered information from a variety of sources, and hopefully they can be of assistance.

Regarding the Congressional Budget Office score and other budget concerns:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) pointed was on Fox yesterday morning, and he pointed out some flaws in the CBO’s score of the House bill. They include accusations that the bill double-counts Medicare cuts, double-counts taxes, and doesn’t include the Doc Fix which, according to CBO in a report released after the bill’s score, would raise the deficit:

You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

Under current law, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO’s estimate of November 4, 2009.)…

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government’s payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.

Secondly, the CBO score assumes the following:

CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that the reconciliation proposal would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would continue to be fully implemented.

What are some of these provisions? They include hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts that Democrats will immediately move into covering the “Donut Hole.” So, as Ryan noted, the numbers are both double-counted and, furthermore, should we really believe Democrats are going to cut Medicare?

Secondly, the CBO never says the bill will save $1.3 trillion in the second decade, despite what Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and President Obama are claiming. If you read the letter sent to Pelosi, the CBO says the savings might, if things go really, really well, end up being equal to, or less than, a one-half of one percent of GDP in savings. Unless Democrats are expecting a $130 trillion GDP for America, their numbers are wrong.

Last, but certainly not least, according to The Washington Examiner’s Byrok York, the bill includes the CLASS Act, which is a long-term care program that the CBO accounts for in its analysis. The problem? The CLASS Act is unaffordable in the long run, but the CBO only counts the intake of money, not the expenditures. Furthermore, it includes the Democrats’ student loan modifications, which is where much of the savings for the bill will come from. (Both of these points are explained in some detail here.) So, to summarize, the bill takes in a lot of money, but does not spend much of it for years. These and other budgetary concerns are analyzed quite well here, and by the Senate Budget Committee’s minority staff here.

I need to clarify, by the way, that I am not criticizing the CBO. They analyze what they are given by politicians, and so their numbers are sometimes necessarily incorrect. Blame the politicians- on both sides, yes, but in this case, the Democrats- for gaming the system so dishonestly. Furthermore, the CBO letter is a preliminary letter, which means its analysis is necessarily vague and has many suppositions. As Daniel Foster notes at The Corner, the final one is supposed to be out this weekend.

More bureaucracy and cost for Americans:

According to The Washington Examiner, the bill to be voted on would increase the number of IRS employees by over 16,000. So let me get this straight- we need more IRS employees? Well, I suppose they were doing such a good job with Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and the rest…

It gets worse, however. According to Americans for Tax Reform, the following occur in the bill:

• The number of new tax increases in the healthcare bill: 19
• The number of tax increases that unquestionably violate President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000:  7
• The tax increase over the first decade if the healthcare bill becomes law: $497 billion
• The top federal tax rate on wages and self-employment earnings under this bill: 43.4%
• The annual tax hike for every man, woman, and child in America: $165
• The top federal tax rate on early distributions from HSAs under this bill: 59.6%

Next, according to Republican Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX) (H/T to the Examiner):

In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Thirdly, there are a number of tax increases in the bill. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth, in fact, and they would hit those making less than $250,000 in some cases. Once again, the president is violating his pledge to not hit lower-income Americans. For some reason, Democrats continue to want to reduce the budget by increasing taxes. Or, to put it another way, they believe that hurting the economic growth of America is the way to go.

Fun Fact: Caterpillar will have its costs increased by $100 million in the first year of ObamaCare.

Special Deals- Remember, President Obama doesn’t care about the process

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) made a Profile In Courage statement Thursday that should send chills down the backs of every Democrat who changes from a “No” vote to a “Yes” vote in the House tomorrow. He threatened to- brace yourselves- hold them accountable, as well as those Democrats who accept deals for their “Yes” votes. Check out the video of Coburn’s statement here.

Unfortunately, some Democrats haven’t paid attention, it seems. Fox News reports a number of states getting special deals, including North Dakota, where last year’s “Yes” vote Earl Pomeroy is from. However, Pomeroy has a tough race this year, and is rumored to be concerned about the abortion elements of the House vote. Is he being bribed with the North Dakota assistance? Considering his is the only state with a loophole regarding the nationalization of the student loan industry (the bank in North Dakota is the only state-run bank in the nation), and he was named Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee after the Rangel dust-up…I’d say it’s possible. (Full disclosure: my uncle is Pomeroy’s Chief of Staff, which is why I am saying it’s possible, not definite. My uncle wouldn’t work for a bought-and-paid-for Congressman, as my uncle is an honest guy.) The exemption may be pulled, however, as Democratic North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad is asking for it to be eliminated to avoid controversy.

Other deals noted by Fox include:

• Retains $300 million in extra Medicaid aid for Louisiana, which had helped win support for the Senate health bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. The state is still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.
• Keeps $100 million included in the Senate bill that is expected to go for a public hospital in Connecticut sought by Dodd, who is retiring.
• Preserves language won by Baucus permitting many of the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., to qualify for Medicare benefits. Some of them have asbestos-related diseases from a now-shuttered mine.
• Provides an additional $8.5 billion over the next decade for 11 states and the District of Columbia to help them pay for the more generous Medicaid assistance they have been providing low-income residents. These states are Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
• Maintains a Senate-approved provision giving extra money for hospitals and doctors in North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

Another possible deal is noted by the House Republican Conference on their website, where water regulation changes are being accused of acting as a quid-pro-quo. Is it true? We cannot be certain, but the water legislation comes dangerously close to two California Democrats’ support for the bill.

I guess I don’t understand- Americans are against the bill, against the process…and still Democrats can’t get the message?

In Short:

When it comes down to it, this bill is including the deals typically denigrated by Americans as normal in Congress; it raises the deficit significantly, at an estimated cost of over two trillion dollars; raises taxes on Americans; and continues the over-regulation of American health care. These and other reasons are why we need to keep pushing this over the next 22 hours, convincing our fellow Americans to tell their Democratic representatives to vote against the bill. Here is a partial list of people to call, and here is a lengthier one.

James O’Keefe Needs To Own Up

This is what James O’Keefe says about being busted in Senator Mary Landrieu’s office on BigGovernment.com:

The government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu’s office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent “gag order.”  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I “broke in” to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can’t get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

O’Keefe is correct that the mainstream media violated all sorts of ethical and other standards, as Andrew Breitbart, founder of Big Government, said here, but O’Keefe is clearly making excuses for himself. Why would members of his group (also arrested) pretend to be telephone repairmen? Why didn’t he just go in as a reporter and ask legitimate questions? Yes, I understand why he targeted Senator Landrieu, but many offices are incredibly busy with their phones right now, and since Landrieu was bribed to vote for the Senate health care bill in December, I imagine her more than most. (As a point of comparison, I called Senator Tom Coburn’s office last December, but the mailbox was full.) Furthermore, phone lines “being jammed” does not mean they are down. It means they are jammed by callers. Louisiana is a good-sized state; didn’t this occur to O’Keefe?

Lastly, and I look forward to being corrected on this, when did the government “confirm what has always been clear?” I have seen or heard nothing of the sort, and even some digging around on Google, Huffington Post, Hot Air, Daily Kos, Media Matters, Drudge Report and other sources brings up nothing. Sorry, Mr. O’Keefe, but you’ll have to provide some proof here. The FBI affidavit is pretty damning (pardon the language). It should not have taken “reflection” to stamp on the line between investigative journalism and illegal activity. This is not “sensitivity” in the negative sense you have described above. This is you almost certainly ignoring the law. Period.

Again, I look forward to being corrected on what I have said above. I understand my language has been harsh, and if evidence comes out that that the media, the affidavit and blogs have misrepresented the situation to the extent O’Keefe indicates, than I will offer a full-fledged apology. Until then, I look forward to the case going to court, and seeing if O’Keefe is found guilty. I hope he has done nothing illegal, but I’m not holding my breath.

Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech

Some Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech