An Indication of Seriousness, or More D.C. Manipulation?
H/T to Hot Air for linking to the deficit reduction plan by Republicans on the House Budget Committee. The plan would, according to Republican estimates, cut $1.3 trillion over ten years.
This is nowhere close to enough to even be a solid dent in the national debt (it averages out to $130 billion in annual savings- which is less than 1/10 of the deficit for this year alone), but at least it’s a start. The plan also, as Ed Morrissey pointed out, takes care of some of the major issues with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which are sucking tens of billions of dollars annually from the American taxpayer, and continue to be damaging to the economy and the possibility of an economic recovery.
Of course, Social Security, Medicare, defense cuts, Medicaid and subsidies to private companies (outside of TARP and the stimulus) are not addressed. This is disappointing, and may show a lack of reform seriousness on the part of Republicans. However, this plan is a start. Considering that House Democrats can’t even pass a budget, this is a great public relations step for Republicans, and a small bit of hope for those of us who want to see a functioning America 10 years.
The Republican press release can be seen here, and the specific cuts are outlined below, as posted by Morrissey:
- Cancel Unused TARP Funds. Prohibit the Treasury Secretary from entering into new commitments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]. Ending TARP would prevent up to $396 billion in additional disbursements; CBO estimates savings of $16 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.
- Cancel Unspent ‘Stimulus’ Funds. Rescind all unobligated budget authority authorized under the “stimulus” bill and dedicate to deficit reduction. Saves up to $266 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.
- Cut and Cap Discretionary Spending. Return non-defense discretionary spending to pre-Obama (fiscal year 2008) baseline levels. Saves up to $925 billion. Legislation introduced by Reps. Ryan and Hensarling (H.R. 3964) and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio (H.R 3298) include caps on discretionary spending.
- Reduce Government Employment. Hire one person for every two who leaves civilian government service until the workforce is reduced to pre-Obama levels (exempting the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs). Saves an estimated $35 billion. H.R. 5348 introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.
- Freeze Government Pay. Freeze Federal civilian pay for 1 year. Saves an estimated $30 billion.
- Adopt the Legislative Line-Item Veto. Enact a constitutional line-item veto law. The President’s FY 2011 budget included terminations, reductions, and savings that would achieve $23 billion in one year. While Congress may not accept all these savings, the Line Item Veto can help reduce spending. H.R. 1294 introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
- Reform and Bring Transparency to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Reform these companies by ending conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, reducing conforming loan limits, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure. According to CBO, the cost to taxpayers of putting government in control of Fannie and Freddie is $373 billion through 2020. Saves an estimated $30 billion. H.R. 4889 introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. H.R. 4653 introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey.
- Create a Sunset Commission. Establish a commission to conduct systematic reviews of Federal programs and agencies, and make recommendations for those that should be terminated; and provide for automatic sunset of programs unless expressly reauthorized by the Congress. H.R. 393 introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas.
Wanted: A Mainstream Media That’s Actually Mainstream
Yesterday, an interesting series of articles came out that say a lot about the national media and the Tea Party movement.
First, allow me to introduce a Washington Post article describing the anti-racism battle the Tea Party movement is fighting in the public arena. I found the article on the Huffington Post political page (since updated). According to the article,
The challenge is made tougher by one of the defining elements of the tea party movement: No one person controls it. There is no national communications strategy. And incidents of racist slogans and derisive depictions of President Obama continue to crop up, providing fuel for critics who say the president’s skin color is a powerful reason behind the movement’s existence.
In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most Americans see the movement as motivated by distrust of government, opposition to the policies of Obama and the Democratic Party, and broad concern about the economy. But nearly three in 10 see racial prejudice as underlying the tea party.
Supporters and opponents alike say the movement draws its strength from opposition to Obama’s policies, but they split deeply on the race question, according to the poll: About 61 percent of tea party opponents say racism has a lot to do with the movement, a view held by just 7 percent of tea party supporters.
A matter of perception
That indicates that the issue of race and the tea party is largely about differing perceptions, reflected in how people view the well-known illustration of Obama made up like the Joker from the Batman movie “The Dark Knight.” Some see the image, with its exaggerated lips, as an offensive reference to minstrelsy. Obama’s critics, however, say President George W. Bush was also portrayed as the Joker, as well as Dracula.
Now, there are multiple errors in this article, including the fact that neither of these Post sources regarding the poll cite the demographics in the poll- such as how many Democrats were polled, etc. Secondly, the article fails to note that the Joker picture was made by a liberal college student, not a conservative activist or conservative racist. Lastly, the racist slogans referred to could easily be the ones held by the liberal LaRouche supporters…but the Post simply sticks to the unprofessional and politically hackish general statement of “incidents,” without a single source or citation of the alleged incidents.
Next up on the “interesting article” stage is a Politico article describing the Post’s leftward tilt towards liberal bloggers. To be fair, the Post does have the tremendous writings of Charles Krauthammer and George Will, among other conservative columnists, but the article makes a great case that the Post is clearly heading towards a particular demographic- the young, Internet-savvy liberal. Given the initial article I quoted above, I think Politico was quite timely in its publication of the article.
Last, but not least, on stage we have The New York Times, which as of late has been acting strangely neutral/non-liberal in some of its articles. This latest betrayal of “mainstream” media values is a pretty interesting article about how a record number of black Republicans are running for Congress- a full 32. In the article, accusations of racism within the Tea Party are shot down by the candidates:
The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”
As Ed Morrissey noted (emphasis mine),
There was more violence at May Day rallies this past weekend than there have been in over a year of Tea Party rallies. Did the New York Times [sic] cover those and assign them to the entire liberal politisphere in the manner they do here with conservatives? Did they link that violence to the immigration-reform movement in the same way they have with no violence at all at Tea Parties with its attendees?
The same media double standard is true with the supposed racism they keep reporting at Tea Parties. These rallies back candidates like West, Princella Smith, Vernon Parker, Ryan Frazier, and others. They support these candidates for the simple reason that these candidates best represent their views on governance, fiscal policy, and national security. Will they all win? Probably not, although this year looks better than most, but it shows that conservatives have no barriers to entry except on policy and philosophy — just like any other political movement. The media spin on Tea Parties and conservatives has gotten very, very threadbare — and increasingly desperate.
Morrissey is absolutely correct. Poll after poll, as well as outright statements, show just how much liberal power players and media members are missing the mainstream-America nature of the Tea Party, and in doing so, are alienating themselves and their influence in providing real news. When you lose the Times, though…maybe it’s time to admit you have a problem.
Economics 101
The Congressional Budget Office, in its role as the God of Economic & Budget Estimates in Washington, DC, has done the unthinkable- it has concluded that putting a tax on the big banks that accepted government money would “invariably be borne to varying degrees by an institution’s customers, employees, and investors.” In non-Beltway speak: Duh.
As a conservative, I am very much against governments playing favorites through subsidies, bailouts etc. However, we must accept the reality that TARP passed. As such, I would note the following: the big banks have paid back a large portion of their borrowed funds. It is the government-owned companies (General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) which are failing to pay back what they owe.
I managed to find the CBO letter, which was sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) yesterday. According to the letter (Emphasis mine):
What is the overlap between firms that would pay the proposed fee and firms that generated losses for the TARP? For the most part, the firms paying the fee would not be those that are directly responsible for losses realized by the TARP. Some firms subject to the fee are expected to generate such losses, including the American International Group, GMAC Financial Services, and CIT Group (which filed for bankruptcy protection on November 1, 2009). However, the fee would not apply to firms in the automotive industry, which account for $47 billion of the program’s estimated total cost of $99 billion. Other firms that would be subject to the fee have either paid back all of the funds received from the TARP or are current on their repayment schedule and unlikely to generate losses from their participation in the program. However, all of the institutions that might be covered by the fee benefited to varying degrees from the program’s contribution toward stabilizing the nation’s financial system and overall economy.
In defending the tax, Think Progress- which had the link to the letter- made some excellent points rebutting conservative arguments cheering the CBO’s conclusions. They include, but are not limited to, the fact that the letter states smaller banks would have a leg up on their larger competitors because the tax does not go after them, and that the tax’s cost could be offset by lower employee compensation. (Read: executives could be paid less.) Additionally, something I noticed was that CBO said the economic impact would be minimal.
Think Progress and other liberal people and organizations will pounce upon the points noted above, and others, but when it comes down to it, the tax will not hurt the business’ executives, the “if we had to be honest” target of the tax-supporting Democrats. They will hurt, as the CBO said, consumers, investors and employees. It’s economics 101. Unfortunately, Democrats fail to understand this.
Ed Morrissey was kind enough to extrapolate this basic concept to other government policy proposals Democrats sometimes don’t understand- I’ll let him explain them:
Let’s make sure we extrapolate this for everyone onto other public policies, while we’re at it:
- Increasing the minimum wage forces businesses to pay more for labor. Either they hire fewer people or they raise prices — which undermines the buying power of those who make the least amount of money.
- A carbon tax or cap-and-trade bill will force energy producers to either raise prices to its customers or scale back power production, which will force businesses to either raise prices or cut back production, which will mean more cost or more scarcity for consumers — both of which are inflationary.
- Higher fees on insurers, medical-device manufacturers, and other goods and services in the health-care industry mean higher prices for consumers in the form of increased premiums or in greater scarcity as suppliers fail to come to market.
Imposing higher costs on business means higher costs for consumers. It means fewer jobs, less consumer choice, less innovation, and economic decline. I’d be surprised if the CBO analysis itself doesn’t end with the word duh in the last sentence.
To summarize this post:
What Democrats should be saying after this letter was publicized:
What Republicans (and the CBO) are saying to Democrats about their intent regarding the tax after the CBO letter:
Today At CPAC
I got to CPAC late today- so far, I haven’t done much, but I’m into the third round of the sumo suit competition. (I am a shade under 5’8 and weigh 168 pounds. I just beat a guy who is over 6′ tall and weighs 298 pounds.)
I also met Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and gave him my business card.
Update: They called the first time I won a draw (the other guy went out, but they thought I did until I appealed, so instead of giving me a victory they called it a draw). Next time, the guy outmaneuvered me, so I pulled on his head to drag him out of bounds, but they said that was illegal. (I mean, come on- what is head gear for?) The last time, he got me with the same move about the second time. So…I lost. Darn.
Pro-Choice Women Can’t Stand Freedom of Speech
The summary: Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow is in a Super Bowl ad sponsored by Focus on the Family, a conservative organization. CBS’ policy on such matters has been that it does not allow “advocacy” ads during the Super Bowl, though the policy has been somewhat changed recently. The ad, which describes Tebow’s mother ignoring doctor advice to commit an abortion, and Tebow’s gratitude for that decision, has ignited a firestorm among feminists across the country.
If you watch the video at the last link, you will see Bill O’Reilly destroy a pro-choice feminist who hates the ad. O’Reilly points out, time and time again, that the issue is about freedom of speech, not any false accusations that the ad violates CBS’ advocacy policy. Since the ad does not explicitly state any support for pro-life policy positions, it doesn’t violate even the initial CBS policy.
Other conservatives besides O’Reilly are taking up the cause for Tebow. Laura Ingraham demolished the same feminist O’Reilly tore apart today, and Ed Morrissey gives Tebow all sorts of compliments at Hot Air.
Oh, and nobody outside of CBS has seen the ad yet. So any accusations are jumping the gun, to say the least. The woman on O’Reilly admitted she had not seen the ad.
Free Speech is now Freer
Ed Morrissey reports and comments on the Supreme Court’s declaring McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. In short, freedom reigns and Congressional overreach is unconstitutional. He also has the official opinion and thoughts on the matter from CATO and Cal Thomas.
Morrissey makes the same point so many conservatives already know- that transparency is the key to reform:
Will this open the floodgates to corporate and union money in elections? Well, it never really left. The restrictions in the BCRA and other campaign-finance “reforms” just forced the money into less-transparent channels, creating mini-industries of money laundering in politics. This ruling will just allow the money to be seen for what it is, rather than hiding behind PR-spin PAC names and shadowy contribution trails.
The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, specifically defined in the Constitution. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution. Otherwise, work for transparency, something that would increase freedom of speech for the average person.
Destruction Among The Democrats
I was at my internship with Laura Ingraham earlier today, and as part of the job I had to look up information regarding the falling house of cards that is the Democratic Party and its domestic initiatives. Below is what I found:
1. President Obama’s Transportation Security Administration nominee has resigned after Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and other Republicans held up his nomination due to his lying to Congress.
2. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) is calling for health care voting to halt until newly-elected Senator Brown (R-MA) is seated.
3. White House officials and House Democrats see things differently on health care and the ramifications of the Brown election.
4. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) may very well have Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) as a challenger this year, despite his calling out the left today.
5. White House advisor David Axelrod and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs don’t get it.
Below is what I have found since:
6. Suddenly, deadlines aren’t so important to President Obama.
7. Moderate Scott Brown (R-MA) and conservative Jim DeMint (R-SC) are on the same page, it appears. Kind of makes Democrats look like the ones who are purging their own ranks.
8. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is kinda-sorta-not-really calling for health care reform to start over.
Update:
9. Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) has been rumored to be prepared to resign from Congress if the health care debate keeps going, and is being courted by a large insurance organization.
10. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is being hammered by the liberal members of her caucus.
None of this is to take away from the fact that Republicans still have work to do in creating a big tent- though Ed Morrissey continues to do great work regarding that goal- and that the Tea Partiers and many other Americans are as angry at the Republican Party as they are at the Democratic Party. While I think the Republicans will win several Senate seats, and 20-30 House seats, I also think the divisions between conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans, and between social conservatives and fiscal/economic conservatives, will hand several House races and at least one or two Senate seats to the Democrats in 2010. Of course, if President Obama keeps using his waning political capital to help Democrats in tough elections, perhaps Republicans will be fortunate enough to have another two years to get their own house in order before the 2012 elections.
The Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?
Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.
Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.
When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.
Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.
Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.
Health Care Updates
Lawsuits galore from at least a dozen states over the individual mandate, says The New York Times. The Times cites a Heritage Foundation legal analysis on the subject that is being used by many mandate opponents, including the Florida Attorney General highlighted in the article, to show how such an individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Other conservatives are attacking the mandate by reminding us that the Congressional Budget Office had multiple issues with the idea during the Clinton health care reform efforts.
Also, good times for Democratic Members of Congress and their trial lawyer buddies. Apparently, the latter worked really hard to make sure their industry wouldn’t get tagged in the health care reform efforts, and Democrats appeased them. Of course, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean made clear this would happen months ago. Unfortunately for Democrats, the CBO used real numbers and evidence to show tort reform would save the public $54 billion over ten years. (Conservatives, this is where we write, call, e-mail and fax our Senate and House Members of Congress to tell them they are not representing us…)
For fun- H/T to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air- here are some lobbying numbers from the law industry. Surprisingly, Republicans have averaged around 25% of lobbying efforts from lawyers since 1990. I didn’t expect it to be that high.
Some Members of Congress Just Can’t Help Themselves
The Miami Herald has a very in-depth report on connections between Members of Congress and indicted banker Allen Stanford. The federal government is currently investigating the connections. Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) is highlighted at the beginning of the article. The head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Sessions is is likely to be in a lot of hot water, both legally and in the eyes of the public. Unfortunately, he’s not the only Member who will be.
I first saw this at Daily Kos. Normally, this would be unfortunate, as bad things about Republicans on Daily Kos generally turn into bad news for that Republican and the party. However, in this case I am very glad they are spreading what is going on. Corruption should be stopped as soon as possible, by whomever will do it. Democrats haven’t done their job in rooting out well-known (if legally unproven) corruption with Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) and many others who are suspected of corruption, including Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). Regrettably, Republicans are little better, having failed to hold numerous members of their caucus to ethical standards, including prostitute-utilizer Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and Senator John Ensign (R-NV). Too, while not part of the Congressional caucus, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford is still in power despite the probable illicit taxpayer use for his travels.
Nothing illegal has been proven, as Stanford’s lawyer says in the Herald article. However, American citizens should insist that the Justice Department conduct a thorough review of Stanford’s records, and make certain all information comes to light well before the 2010 mid-term elections, and that arrests are made should the Justice Department decide illegalities were committed.
One last note: Daily Kos hammers Sessions, but neglects to note Democrats were large recipients of Stanford’s money as well. The latter is not their job- they are a liberal blog, after all, not a news source- but I would hope they would go after Rangel and the other Democrats mentioned in the article, if only in the interest of keeping Democrats honest. (Of course, if Sessions hadn’t said he “loved” Stanford, perhaps DK wouldn’t have gone after him quite so harshly.)
Update: Take a look at Judicial Watch’s list of the most corrupt members of Congress. Nine out of the ten are Democrats which, as Ed Morrissey explains, makes sense in the current political climate. However, added to the May 20 Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington report showing 12 of the 16 Members of Congress under investigation at that time were Democrats, perhaps Democratic politicians are just as bad as the corrupt Republicans hammered on back in 2006. (Just a guess…)
