Well, it appears that our efforts are paying off.  Responding to our charge that the GOP was violating the pledge against bundled megabills, Boehner announced that he will split the proposal into three separate bills; the highway bill (HR 7), pension reform (HR 3813), and expanded oil and gas drilling (HR 3408).  This from Roll Call:

In a joint statement with Rules Chairman David Dreier (Calif.), the Ohio Republican sought to cast the decision as part of his pledge for a more open environment in the House.

“Republicans pledged to pass bills in a more transparent manner and reverse the era of quickly moving massive bills across the floor without proper examination. Accordingly, the energy/infrastructure jobs plan will be considered on the floor in the same manner in which it was written and voted upon in committee — in separate pieces,” Boehner and Dreier said.

Such a process will allow “each major component of the plan to be debated and amended more openly, rather than as a single ‘comprehensive’ bill with limited debate and limited opportunity for amendment,” they added.

This is great news.  But here’s the catch (via CQ subscription):

Read More →

Well, it appears that our efforts are paying off.  Responding to our charge that the GOP was violating the pledge against bundled megabills, Boehner announced that he will split the proposal into three separate bills; the highway bill (HR 7), pension reform (HR 3813), and expanded oil and gas drilling (HR 3408).  This from Roll Call:

In a joint statement with Rules Chairman David Dreier (Calif.), the Ohio Republican sought to cast the decision as part of his pledge for a more open environment in the House.

“Republicans pledged to pass bills in a more transparent manner and reverse the era of quickly moving massive bills across the floor without proper examination. Accordingly, the energy/infrastructure jobs plan will be considered on the floor in the same manner in which it was written and voted upon in committee — in separate pieces,” Boehner and Dreier said.

Such a process will allow “each major component of the plan to be debated and amended more openly, rather than as a single ‘comprehensive’ bill with limited debate and limited opportunity for amendment,” they added.

This is great news.  But here’s the catch (via CQ subscription):

Read More →

Poor John Feehery had the impossible task of arguing both against host Chris Matthews and MSNBC regular, sir frog voice himself Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post who both took turns shilling for, defending, and promoting Mr. Obama’s new budget for 2013. Now, I have yet to read the budget and all the details but from what I’m hearing it’s a two fold pile of donkey crap mixed with ice cream and tax hikes. Never mind the rehashed vomit, like this obsession the left has with building roads and bridges, there’s also plans to train  2 million Americans at community colleges….because we don’t have job training programs and technical schools in this country as it is. Boy what would we do if the left didn’t exaggerate all things that exist in the world? They seem to play on the premise that more of the same is best, even when more of the same has undeniably weakened this nation’s fiscal and economic standing long term.

When Mr. Feehery tried to argue the dangers of long term deficits caused by short term politically influenced spending, he was shot down by Eugene Robinson because according to Mr. Robinson better we leave our children with a belt busting deficit and debt than a bad economy. Well what if we’re setting our children and grandchildren up to inherit both? Hmm, you know I bet liberals didn’t stop to think about the 1,0000th way you could die before exhausting the possibilities of the first 999.

Spending our way into a more sustainable economy doesn’t work and the facts bare that out. Our deficit remains a key component as to why no matter how short term a so called “recovery” lasts, the fact that the United States is set to hit at or near the 26 trillion dollar mark in terms of our net debt and deficit is something that seems to fall on the ears of the profoundly dumb, aloof, and blind. But hey, perception is key and the unemployment rate is falling, never mind the reason why the unemployment rate continues to go down, Media Matters and the mainstream media have the details covered so many Americans won’t have to inform themselves about the truth.

Ignorance and intellectual laziness will ultimately in my view spell the end of what was, and what no longer is a credible nation. I’m just being honest when I say America is a at best now a top tier second rate nation on borrowed time. We’re like a former pound for pound fighter who at such a relative young age is now shot and without real presence because he’s been in too many wars in the ring. We’re like said fighter who continues to chase the fast buck fighting the young studs whom he knows he can no longer compete with on an equal level. He keeps fighting and fighting because he needs to make out with the grip because he knows it’s not too far along when that one young stunner clears the deck with that one perfect knockout punch and boom, end of story.

We can’t compete with China, Brazil, and India right now so we teeter around them sight unseen as to not get noticed and vaporized in this global contest for world supremacy. The Chinese laugh at us because they know the more we spend the closer they’ll get to owning us. But unfortunately our president doesn’t care because his long game is reelection and his strategy is class warfare. So he’s going to spend trillions and he wants the rich to pay for it. Now, math was my worst subject but let me try to calculate the cost: 1% of 99% are to pay for a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. So it’s like you mom and dad who make 100,000 dollars a year each, paying the college tuition costs for you, your sister, your brother, your friends, and their brothers and sisters combined for the next four years, give a year or two depending. By the time your folks calculate the expenses they’ll have not even begun to even dent the surface because they have expenses of their own.

And my friends that’s the misfortune of having personal responsibilities. If you 250,000 dollars a year chances are you aren’t just partying and buying private jets and yachts all day long. You have bills, you have to maintain your property, you see being well off means more than just the power of purchase. This may surprise liberals, even rich liberals but rich people work harder than poor people you know why? Rich people work harder than poor people because rich people are rich. Think about how Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became millionaires and eventually billionaires. I’m sure the man or woman behind the most iconic companies and or products our there had many set backs and doubts before ultimately making good or their risk taking.

I’m not bashing poor people just stating a fact. It’s much harder making a lot of money than it is making enough money to get by. Any Joe out there can find a job flipping hamburgers for tips, but how many Joe’s are willing to work hard enough to move up and one day own the company or start their own burger joint?

I almost want Democrats to raise taxes though because I want to them to run out of rich people to tax. I want to see their faces when they realize the number of wealthy Americans has declined under their policies. Why, who will donate to their campaigns if that happens?

On Monday, Obama is slated to release his annual budget proposal for FY 2013, along with a 10-year budget (2012-2021) outlook.  One would think that after talking incessantly about cutting spending, Obama would spend less money next year than this year.  Yet, in Obama’s world, a spending cut means spending less than you were slated to spend, even though it is still higher in nominal terms.  The Wall Street Journal has already obtained the outline of his budget:

President Barack Obama’s budget request to Congress on Monday will forecast a deficit of $1.33 trillion in fiscal year 2012 and will include hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed infrastructure spending, according to draft documents viewed by Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

The projected deficit is higher than the $1.296 trillion deficit in 2011 and also slightly higher than a roughly $1.15 trillion projection released by the Congressional Budget Office last week.

Hence, even though revenues are projected to go up by $220 billion this year, the deficit will still tick up another $37 billion.  Using CBO’s baseline, that would mean spending will rise $257 billion this year under Obama.  And that’s during an election year.  You can imagine what he would pull out of the hat if he wins a second term.

Read More →

On Monday, Obama is slated to release his annual budget proposal for FY 2013, along with a 10-year budget (2012-2021) outlook.  One would think that after talking incessantly about cutting spending, Obama would spend less money next year than this year.  Yet, in Obama’s world, a spending cut means spending less than you were slated to spend, even though it is still higher in nominal terms.  The Wall Street Journal has already obtained the outline of his budget:

President Barack Obama’s budget request to Congress on Monday will forecast a deficit of $1.33 trillion in fiscal year 2012 and will include hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed infrastructure spending, according to draft documents viewed by Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

The projected deficit is higher than the $1.296 trillion deficit in 2011 and also slightly higher than a roughly $1.15 trillion projection released by the Congressional Budget Office last week.

Hence, even though revenues are projected to go up by $220 billion this year, the deficit will still tick up another $37 billion.  Using CBO’s baseline, that would mean spending will rise $257 billion this year under Obama.  And that’s during an election year.  You can imagine what he would pull out of the hat if he wins a second term.

Read More →

Do you remember the Jubilee 2000 Drop the Debt Campaign?  I for one, thought it absurd.  However, many, many people (dare I say especially liberals) jumped on the Drop the Debt Campaign.

Here is some of what was said:

• Debts should be cancelled because they are unjust in terms of their origin, and also because they worsen poverty.
•  Poor countries are paying debts to the World Bank, the IMF, other international bodies (all controlled by rich countries), to rich country governments and to companies.
• High levels of debt divert scarce resources from health care, education, clean water and other socially beneficial programs to make debt service payments.
• Much of the debt results from borrowing that has benefited primarily the rich while the burden of repaying the debt falls heavily on poor people, and can not be paid without causing great social and environmental harm.

 Fast forward to 2012 and use Greece as a test case.

• Debts should be cancelled because they are unjust in terms of their origin — check
• and also because they worsen poverty — check
• Poor countries are paying debts to the World Bank, the IMF, other international bodies, to rich country governments and to companies — check
• High levels of debt divert scarce resources from health care, education, clean water and other socially beneficial programs — check
• Much of the debt results from borrowing that has benefited primarily the rich — check
• while the burden of repaying the debt falls heavily on poor people — check
• and can not be paid without causing great social and environmental harm — check

I bet the people of Greece and many other countries would agree that their debts should be cancelled.

If it was a good idea for poor countries in 2000, it certainly is a good idea for the new poor countries in 2012.

I’m a huge fan of lotteries. It is one of the few taxes that citizens pay willingly. Spending a dollar for the prospect of winning a hundred million is kind of fun. And the fact that the state’s provide the fig leaf of responsibility by suggesting all funds go to support education makes players feel like they are doing their part to support the kids… Imagine, a way of taxing people that is actually voluntary!

Unfortunately however, most taxes are anything but voluntary, particularly those levied by the federal government. In 2011 the federal government took in $2.3 trillion in taxes. Not only did all of that get spent, but about $1.4 trillion more. And now Barack Obama is in charge of the spending machine. In the three years he has been President, Obama has spent over $11 trillion. That includes not only the $6.6 trillion Uncle Sam took in in taxes, but an additional $4.6 trillion that has been borrowed on your behalf, or at least for which you have the responsibility to repay. If we split that sum up amongst every one of the 310 million people in the country that would mean that Barack Obama has racked up $15,300 in debt on behalf of every American… in a mere three years.

I’d like to give that $4.6 trillion sinkhole a little perspective. Imagine that instead of that money going to failed green jobs scam companies like Solyndra or to university research departments to play World of Warcraft, something completely different happened. Imagine that on January 20, 2009 Barack Obama had knocked on your door, teleprompter in hand, and said “(Insert taxpayer’s name here) I’d like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to be your President. And to show my gratitude I’d like to give you $5,000 a year each of the next three years. Now, you’ll have to pay it back of course, but I’ll spread the payments over 30 years and give you an interest rate of about zero.” You think to yourself “If I don’t take the deal he’s just going to barrow it in my name and spend it on poetry readings or some such thing.” Deciding you could come up with much better places to spend the money, you respond “Thank you Mr. President. I’ll take the checks.”

Wow. He gives you the check. Now you have a $5,000 you didn’t have the day before. You start dreaming…”What am I going to spend my new found money on?” Well, if you were an average driver, who uses approximately 700 gallons of gas a year, you could pay for gasoline for the year and still have about $3,000 left over. You could then spend $720 on clothes, $1,000 on entertainment and still have enough left over to cover half of your healthcare expenditures. “Not bad” you think.

Now of course, that is just one $5,000 check. Given that the average American home has 2.6 people in it, the President quickly takes the $5,000 check back and gives you a $13,000 family sized check instead. You think “Wow, almost $40,000 over three years! Now that’s some serious cash!” At $13,000 the government just covered more than 80% of the total cost of what the average American family spends on housing. That’s pretty nice. At a rate that is lower than your mortgage as well. “This is going to be great” you tell yourself.

Then, suddenly, just as the President is about to leave you stop dreaming and start thinking about the big picture. “Mr. President! Wait! $13,000 a year for my family would be nice, God knows we could use it, but I don’t want to bankrupt the country or close down the government or endanger the national defense.” “Good citizen” President Obama calls you, “Don’t worry about that, we’ll make do with the just the $2.2 trillion or so we take in in taxes annually, which is, exactly what we spent way back in the ancient period known as 2004.” – remember this is a dream.

The wheels start turning in your mind… How different is your life in 2009 relative to 2004, and how much did a bigger government have to do with making it better or worse? Recognizing that the growth in government didn’t do much to make life any better over that time, you decide you can indeed live with a government budget circa 2004. “Ok, Mr. President, never mind, I’ll keep the money! Thank you!”

Of course, that was all a dream. Unfortunately for you – and the rest of America – you are apparently too stupid to know what to do with your own money, or in this case, the money the government borrows but forces you to pay back. As such, no mortgage payments for you. No gas money, movie money, no check to cover your family’s annual food and insurance bills combined. No, unfortunately, while you are indeed on the hook for the money, guys like Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Barney Frank get to decide where all that money (and much more) goes…

Fundamentally that is the problem. And it’s not just money. Nor is it just the federal government. Increasingly it’s all levels of government and it’s seemingly about everything. Rather than parents being responsible for their kid’s fitness, schools have to ban burgers and pizza. Rather than drivers being able to purchase the kinds of vehicles they want, the government mandates auto companies sell cars no one wants and forces drivers to put inflation spurring ethanol into them. Rather than consumers and markets deciding what banks, and energy companies and health insurance companies should succeed, the government sticks its nose in virtually everywhere at almost every turn.

At the end of the day, few people could or would run their lives the same way the government runs the country – and unfortunately running the country is exactly what governments try and do. Fantasy budgeting and accounting, a distinct lack of accountability, a nonexistent correlation between success and continued funding, and a Pollyanna notion that all human problems and foibles can be obviated by government fiat.

Whether we get another four years of Barack Obama (God help us…) or a first term of one of the big government “conservatives” currently vying for the GOP nomination, voters should understand that the deficits and the regulation creep and the basic suffocation of the capitalist system that made America great will not be put asunder until we nominate and elect a President who:

1. Recognizes that the power of the federal government is constrained by the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment;
2. Understands that role of government is to do only those things which citizens cannot do themselves and nothing more;
3. Has the intelligence to know where the line between the two is;
4. Has the courage to tell voters to begin acting accordingly.

That doesn’t sound like too difficult a task. One wonders why the GOP can’t seem to figure it out.

So this is what the “age of budget austerity” looks like?

Yesterday, the Senate voted against a measure to disapprove of Obama’s request for an additional $1.2 trillion of debt.  Every Democrat (except for Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin) voted against the resolution.  Consequently, pursuant to the Budget Control Act (the “debt ceiling deal”), Obama will automatically get his new credit card.  Our debt will increase by another $1.2 trillion, topping $16.4 trillion by the end of the year.

Here are the relevant numbers that should define Obama’s presidency, yet they will not be disseminated in the major media.  When Obama took office, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion.  By the end of his first term, the debt will be at least $16.4 trillion, an increase of $5.8 trillion.  To put that in perspective, it took us until late 2001 (from our nation’s founding) to accrue $5.8 trillion in debt.  Even President Bush, who was a big-spending Republican, racked up “only” $4.9 trillion over 8 years.

Let’s now explicate the debt figures as a percentage of our economy.  Our total federal debt and our GDP stand at parity.  The debt is $15.281 trillion, while our GDP is 15.294 trillion.  It is unlikely that our economy will grow by more than a 2-2.5% annualized rate in the coming year.  On the other hand, with the additional $1.2 trillion of debt, our national debt will grow by 7.9%.  In other words, our GDP will remain below our gross debt indefinitely.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are not innocent from reproach in this debt crisis.  While every Republican except for Scott Brown voted for the resolution of disapproval, most of them supported the debt ceiling deal that engendered this disaster in the first place.  Only 19 of the 47 Senate Republicans opposed the debt deal, which gave Obama a defacto blank check to raise $2.1 trillion in debt without any transformational budget reforms.  We have already raised the debt ceiling by $900 billion since passage of the Budget Out of Control Act.  Today, by default, Obama was granted the rest.

This just underscores the need to focus on congressional races.  We might win back the Senate in November; however, if we continue to elect those who will vote for similar inane legislation, it will be worthless.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

So this is what the “age of budget austerity” looks like?

Yesterday, the Senate voted against a measure to disapprove of Obama’s request for an additional $1.2 trillion of debt.  Every Democrat (except for Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin) voted against the resolution.  Consequently, pursuant to the Budget Control Act (the “debt ceiling deal”), Obama will automatically get his new credit card.  Our debt will increase by another $1.2 trillion, topping $16.4 trillion by the end of the year.

Here are the relevant numbers that should define Obama’s presidency, yet they will not be disseminated in the major media.  When Obama took office, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion.  By the end of his first term, the debt will be at least $16.4 trillion, an increase of $5.8 trillion.  To put that in perspective, it took us until late 2001 (from our nation’s founding) to accrue $5.8 trillion in debt.  Even President Bush, who was a big-spending Republican, racked up “only” $4.9 trillion over 8 years.

Let’s now explicate the debt figures as a percentage of our economy.  Our total federal debt and our GDP stand at parity.  The debt is $15.281 trillion, while our GDP is 15.294 trillion.  It is unlikely that our economy will grow by more than a 2-2.5% annualized rate in the coming year.  On the other hand, with the additional $1.2 trillion of debt, our national debt will grow by 7.9%.  In other words, our GDP will remain below our gross debt indefinitely.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are not innocent from reproach in this debt crisis.  While every Republican except for Scott Brown voted for the resolution of disapproval, most of them supported the debt ceiling deal that engendered this disaster in the first place.  Only 19 of the 47 Senate Republicans opposed the debt deal, which gave Obama a defacto blank check to raise $2.1 trillion in debt without any transformational budget reforms.  We have already raised the debt ceiling by $900 billion since passage of the Budget Out of Control Act.  Today, by default, Obama was granted the rest.

This just underscores the need to focus on congressional races.  We might win back the Senate in November; however, if we continue to elect those who will vote for similar inane legislation, it will be worthless.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

In years past, I’ve chosen to forego attending President Obama’s annual State of the Union speech, and instead focused on interacting with my constituents through live, virtual town halls while I watched the speech in my office. This wasn’t out of disrespect, but because I wanted to see real-time responses from Georgians and to get their ideas for what might jumpstart our economy.

This year, I decided to attend the State of the Union in hopes that the president might have learned something from his failed policies and for a change in direction in this particular speech. I went with my colleagues to the House floor and awaited the president’s arrival, hoping that he would deliver a speech that would give us real, honest solutions to get our economy going and create jobs outside of government.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. Last night, we got nothing more than a campaign speech from President Obama that outlined his plans to further divide America for political gain. The State of the Union revolved around raising taxes, increasing spending, and enacting more government regulations – nearly all in conflict with the original intent of our Constitution.

President Obama, his administration, and most of my Democrat colleagues have it all wrong. More taxes, more spending and more government regulation will never be the solutions to our fiscal crisis. Real American growth and lasting prosperity will only prevail through the successes of the private sector. The president’s “Blueprint for an America Built to Last” has a serious, fundamental flaw: You can’t build a sturdy structure on a cracked foundation.

Read More →