For years we have heard the common refrain that “the people don’t get it,” or we’re “stupid,” or we “really don’t care.” Ignoring the Americans who serially vote Democrat because they have been bought off with welfare payments or some other benefit, I have always argued otherwise, and Reagan’s 1980 and 1984 landslide victories bore me out. Of course, as President, the senior Bush quickly smashed that resurgent national spirit with a “wicked political pivot” back to insipid mediocrity.

The truth is that since then our options have been limited. The mass media shuts out honest, serious analysis of the issues and censors or ostracizes political leaders who don’t. People have allowed themselves to be browbeaten into apathy and drugged with cultural distractions (like American Idol, for example) because they have had nowhere to turn for answers. Newt Gingrich inspired us for a short time by throwing out the utterly corrupt Congressional Democrats in 1994, but then proceeded to squander his historic victory with a meteoric descent into typical pork barrel politicking. The rest of the Republican caucus followed suit.

A decade of that, followed by four years of Democrat excess that has broken all prior records, a manufactured financial crisis that has driven this country to the edge of the abyss and the election of the most radical president in American history finally stirred us to action. We are now wide awake and looking earnestly for the kind of leadership that can save this country. And that is what we need, for despite the big Republican gains in the House of Representatives and larger gains in statehouses, we are close to the point of no return and the Democrats will push us over the edge if they can get away with it.

They have been pushing for decades to put a greater number of voters on the Liberal Plantation than there are among the working public. The “serial democrat voters” cited above are rapidly approaching the magic 50 percent of the voting population. For example, at present the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay a mere 3 percent of all federal income taxes. Obama evenhad a proposal to cut their FICA taxes. There is doubtless a similar comparison for states.

With the details just beginning to surface from Obamacare and all the other onerous legislation passed by this corrupt Congress over the past two years, the top 50 percent may well be paying all income taxes. If not, the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants here would provide that margin if granted amnesty. They might anyway, given Obama’s nationwide vote fraud machine.

So we continue to seek solutions; and look for leadership among those few hearty souls who understand the problem and have a demonstrated track record in backing words with action. Iowa Representative Steve King is one of these, and last week I had the honor to interview him on behalf of Right Side News.

(more…)

This week Congressional Republicans cut a deal with the White House to keep the current tax rates for at least two years, cut payroll taxes for one year, and reinstate the death tax. Whatever you think about the merits of this deal, one thing is crystal clear: Congress’ top priority next year must be to cut spending. It is important that conservatives continue to communicate that (1) Washington has a spending problem not a revenue problem and (2) that despite attacks from the left, conservatives do have clear, actionable plans for balancing the budget and reducing the national debt.

Over at The Heritage Foundation, our latest video highlights over $343 billion in specific spending cuts that can be tackled immediately. The cuts are focused on empowering state and local governments, consolidating or privatizing programs, and eliminating programs that have been proven to be ineffective.

But this is just the start.

(more…)

From Roll Call:

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

“It wasn’t loud,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member.”

(more…)

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  If that is true, then every non-union worker and legitimate union agent has great cause to be concerned. You see, the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board just paved the roadway and gave every unscrupulous union boss and employer the means and the roadmap to severely undermine workers rights in America.

On Monday, in the haste to do everything they can to put workers and their paychecks into union bosses’ hands at all costs, the union-controlled NLRB issued a decision that has those in control of today’s unions (and certain kinds of employers) grinning from ear to ear. You see, the union-controlled NLRB just legitimized “sweetheart unions” who come knocking on employers’ doors bearing gifts called “sweetheart contracts.”

In a decision [in PDF] involving the United Auto Workers and the Dana Corporation, the NLRB dismissed unfair labor practice charges that Dana employees filed in 2003 and 2004 against both the UAW and their employer.  The employees’ charges were based on the UAW and Dana entering into a Letter of Agreement on behalf of the then non-union employees that gave the UAW the right to unionize Dana’s employees without a secret-ballot election (through “card-check”) and established the parameters of a contract before the union was even their collective bargaining agent.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

House Democrats voted Thursday to reject President Barack Obama’s tax deal with Republicans in its current form, but it was unclear how significantly the package might need to be changed.

By voice vote in a closed caucus meeting, Democrats passed a resolution saying the tax package should not come to the House floor for consideration as written, even though no formal House bill has been drafted. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., introduced the resolution.

Said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas: “If it’s take it or leave it, we’ll leave it.”

The vote will at least temporarily stall what had seemed to be a grudging Democratic movement toward the tax package.

(more…)

We have been warning readers about the impact the pending Food and Drug Administration (FDA) whether to ration the late-stage cancer drug Avastin based on its cost will have on breast cancer patients. Should the FDA move forward their promises to be reverberations throughout our health care system as cutting edge, and frankly, expensive drugs, will be left on the clinic room floor in order to “reduce the cost of health care.”

What we didn’t necessarily realize is the impact the FDA’s decision would have prior to reaching a decision. Big Government has obtained information that three major health insurance carriers have already begun denying breast cancer patients coverage for Avastin because of the FDA’s pending decision.

– Regence Blue Shield, the large regional plan in the Pacific Northwest recently published an Avastin policy listing the breast cancer treatment as “medically unnecessary.”

– Utah Public Employee Health Plan a small regional payer in Utah has begun to deny all Avastin claims but has not yet bothered to publish a written policy.

– Health Care Service Corporation the parent company of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, New Mexico and Oklahoma recently published an Avastin policy that restricts use of Avastin.

In short, insurance companies are already taking their cue from the federal government and patients are being denied care as we speak.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Alex Pappas, a writer and reporter at the Daily Caller, to discuss the race for RNC Chair including, who’s running, and how the Tea Party may impact the race.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

RNC chairman race narrows; Conn. chairman, Chris Healy, says he will not run
Dick Cheney hosts fundraiser for potential challenger to RNC chairman Michael Steele
Hotline Whip Count: The RNC Chairman’s Race
Alex Pappas’ articles at the Daily Caller

(more…)

Affirmative action has always been a very bad bill of goods – sold (by force) as a remedy to our alleged inherent racial discrimination.  Under this oppressive regime everyone everywhere is mandated to take race into account – to make up for somebody somewhere maybe taking race into account, or for somebody fifty years ago doing so.

Affirmative action convicts and condemns everyone as guilty of racism – without any opportunity to prove otherwise.  You’re here – you adhere.  No explanations allowed, no waivers granted.

Left unanswered by affirmative action’s proponents – because we are not allowed to ask – is how we get to the righteous goal of a colorblind society by… paying attention to color.

As obnoxious and pernicious as affirmative action is, the one thing we are always told is that it absolutely does NOT mean quotas and race-based set-asides.  No way, no how.  Race is only supposed to be one of a myriad of criteria to be considered when making your hiring and admissions decisions.  They would certainly NEVER demand you arrive at certain melanin-delineated tallies.

“…(N)umerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results.…The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations … specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.”

United States Department of Labor

“Affirmative action plans do not impose quotas; they simply seek to increase the pool of qualified applicants by using aggressive recruitment and outreach programs, setting goals and establishing training programs, among other measures.”

University of California, Davis

“Affirmative action does not require, and does not mean, quotas or preferment of unqualified over qualified individuals.”

Stanford University President Gerhard Casper’s October 4, 1995 statement on affirmative action

Of course, Reality dictates that affirmative action inexorably leads to quotas – and set-asides to reach said quotas.

(more…)

It’s pretty clear the administration owes union bosses big, and the payoffs may take many forms. There was the failed attempt to push card check by legislation and now through the National Labor Relations Board. In the meantime, though, the administration is shelling out on smaller projects — such as today’s news of a $3.3 million gift to Big Labor to make a DC construction project union-only.

The story is a bit tough to follow because of federal contracting rules (click here for more details from The Truth About PLAs), but one thing is clear: taxpayers were forced to pay an extra $3.3 million after a project was already awarded just so it would carry a “project labor agreement.” That means no additional services, no higher quality, just the “value” of using union-only labor.

(more…)

The municipal bond market is having a tough time today largely in part of looming rumors concerning the expiration of the Build America Bond or ‘BAB’ program.  After all, this program was omitted from Obama’s tax deal with Republicans.

As a part of Obama’s Recovery and Reinvestment Act, BABs allow state and local governments to issue debt to fund basic infrastructure projects at a 35 percent discount on the bond’s interest costs, handing that bill to the federal government.

CNBC reports that the BAB program accounts for nearly 26 percent of today’s municipal bond market- with October being reported as the biggest month for the program, as issuers increasingly position themselves to reap the benefits of the program which is set to expire on the 1^st of January next year.

What will happen when municipal bond issuers are not able to borrow more cheaply?  Well, heaven forbid, they would be forced to pay market rates for debt.  If they can’t afford these rates, then they’ll have to cut spending and re-gear their budgets to enter the credit market.  The 2010 election results at the state level may indeed have changed things.   With a sweeping conservative, Republican wave in state and local governments this past election (the GOP took over a dozen state legislatures), it is almost certain that such cuts will now be possible.

According to Blackrock’s December 2010 Municipal Bond Market Report entitled State of the States and Local Governments, “[State and local governments] have accelerated spending cuts to reduce operating deficits.”  This incoming class at the state and local government level will only advance cost cutting and budget balancing.   They are being mandated to do so by their constituents.  Such a mandate may be just what will protect the American taxpayer from another Obama bailout.  Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) has most recently called for an audit on the $5.2 billion Dulles Rail project, which is already looking like it’s over budget.  Such oversight is exactly the attitude we can expect from the incoming class of elected officials at the state and local level.

(more…)

With the dust largely settled from the November 2010 elections, it is resoundingly clear that the majority of Americans are fed up with a government that has grown drunk on its own power and fat on their tax dollars. Tired of waiting for those in office to do the right thing, they took action and chose a different kind of leader to represent them.

The sentiment that drove voters is the heartbeat of my book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. In addition to pointing out where and how government has overflowed its boundaries, it explains how liberty is maximized by a limited government set closest to the people.

As a life-long conservative, I was more than pleased at the outcome of the 2010 elections, because I sense people reconnecting with the fundamental precepts of our republic, enunciated so clearly in the U.S. Constitution. As a governor, I’m particularly fond of the Tenth Amendment, and the narrow role it casts for the federal government.

Its key phrase reads…“powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The Bill of Rights’ authors had seen the oppressive effect of a distant, centralized government, while the rugged vitality of the American colonies showed that government closest to the people truly governs best. In short, free people work harder, live better and take better care of one another.

(more…)

Today, in 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested by federal officials.

As we have been chronicling in our Pigford coverage this week, the amount of evidence suggesting massive fraud is staggering and will continue to build and build.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack came out last week to say there have only been three cases of fraud out of the 20,000 claims.

Well Mr. Vilsack, why don’t you try this on for size?  And by the way, we will be bringing more crime rings your way very soon.

All excerpts from the Mississippi Clarion Ledger in Jackson, Mississippi:

Suspect admits she OK’d slaying

Date:  Jan 13, 2006

By Jimmie Gates

Two days after she denied knowing that federal witness Clovis Reed would be killed, Levon Edmond admitted Thursday that she agreed to the slaying and alleged one of her accomplices had killed another woman earlier.

The second woman’s body is buried in the same area where Reed’s headless and handless corpse was found in Simpson County in 2003, Edmond told U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate.

(more…)

WASHINGTON (AP) – American Indians and black farmers will be paid $4.6 billion to address claims of government mistreatment over many decades under landmark legislation President Barack Obama signed Wednesday.

The legislation “closes a long and unfortunate chapter in our history,” Obama said. “It’s finally time to make things right.”

At a signing ceremony at the White House the president declared that approval of the long-delayed legislation “isn’t simply a matter of making amends, it’s about reaffirming our values on which this nation was founded: the principles of fairness and equality and opportunity.”

Obama promised during his campaign to work toward resolving disputes over the government’s past discrimination against minorities. The measure he signed settles a pair of long-standing class-action lawsuits. The measure also settles four long-standing disputes over Native American water rights in Arizona, New Mexico and Montana. (more…)

One key to understanding the Pigford travesty is realizing how Barack Obama came to the point where today he is giving away billions in taxpayer dollars for potentially fraudulent Pigford-related claims. What may have begun as a legitimate 100 million dollar effort to repair genuine damages caused by alleged USDA discrimination evolved into what amounted to a pay-for-play scam with two linked goals – to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary, then get Barack Obama elected president. The Hill, not Big Government, let that cat out of the bag back in April of 2009:

Supporters of Obama’s presidential campaign argued the then-Illinois senator’s move to resolve late Pigford claims would endear him to Southern black voters during the tough Democratic primary race against former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). At the time of the bill’s introduction in 2007, Obama was finding his footing as a candidate and polls suggested he was struggling to attract black voters. He later won almost unanimously among this group against Clinton and then in the general election against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Now Obama may have to face off with several of his own campaign supporters over how best to compensate discrimination claims by black farmers. Clay, Davis and Thompson endorsed Obama during the presidential primaries.

Just as Obama is today caving to Republicans on a a tax deal, instead of standing up for American taxpayers regarding potential Pigford-related fraud, Obama is also opting to write a check for billions American taxpayers can ill afford – all to satisfy what can rightfully be called a campaign debt. (more…)

From a USDA employee with close to 30 years experience:

Pigford was a nightmare. There was lots of money to be made—most of it by the trial lawyers. There were legitimate claims. It happens that people do sometimes discriminate and those people should be compensated. But really everyone was put in the crosshairs. They were indicting the entire USDA.

Lawyers were churning applications. My name starts turning up on documents as someone who denied someone services. Trouble was those people were hundreds of miles away. I think there was something like 700 forms filed with my name on them—it was outrageous. I had never heard of any of them. I discovered that my name had been put on leaflets, which charges that I was a racist, and people just put my name on Pigford applications. I finally had to get black farmers to vouch for me. They all said I treated everyone fairly, which is what I tried to do. (more…)

In our report, we document two organizations, the Black Farmers and Agriculturists Association and the National Black Farmers Association.  These two groups round up tens of thousands of Pigford litigants and then lobby politicians with promises of votes and campaign cash in exchange for championing and funding their causes such as Pigford.

These two groups, and the Pigfored issue, hold huge sway over the rural black vote, and as you can see from this letter from the President of the BFAA John Boyd, Boyd is eager to get rewarded for helping to put President Obama into office.

Boyd’s reward comes today as President Obama signs Pigford II funding into law, and the circle of quid pro quo is complete.

The Dept. of Agriculture has claimed that there were only three cases of fraudulent claims filed for Pigford settlement money. Jimmy Dismuke, one of the original farmers who brought suit against the USDA, told Big Government that he was personally aware of many more cases that the FBI investigated and documented in Arkansas, but for political purposes they have not been made public.

Consider the following commentary on the economic situation:

Foolhardy procedures which are divorced from economic realities, or whose economic implications are not understood by their promoters, do not perforce become sanctified and wise merely by designating them as “action”; tilting at windmills does not draw water.

[W]hen a recovery program, which, while it may appear effective, depends for its efficacy upon much the same kind of “cheap money” inflation which . . . was the main cause of the recession from 2007 to 2009, then the present recovery must ultimately prove as illusory as the boom from 2001 to 2007, and it is the duty of economists to pierce the veil of illusion.

Certainly the recovery movement to the date of this writing [December 2010] is a peculiar one: it is shot through with anomalies. With [more than 15 million estimated to be] unemployed . . . with governmental relief rolls still at high levels, . . . there very obviously is something wrong, somewhere.

The fact would seem to be that the authorities who are undertaking the “management” of the current recovery, and congratulating themselves that prosperity is returning because they “planned it so,” are utterly oblivious of the fact that recovery is being engineered largely by the same means which produced the last boom – and recession. With this difference: whereas the banking system during the recent boom was producing an investment credit inflation by extending credit to business men and corporations, Government is now assuming the role of inducing new deposit currency in the banking system and thereby producing a consumption credit inflation. The Federal Government, instead of private corporations, is issuing the bonds which the banks are now purchasing, thereby inflating the deposit currency structure all over again. These “created” funds are in this instance being used principally to finance consumption expenditures through relief disbursements, make-work projects, and the like. . . . [T]he current inflation tends to conceal and to preserve the fundamental disequilibria which so prolonged the recession after 2007 and which we are now carrying over therefrom without having once squarely faced the problem of correcting them.

Notice, however, that the foregoing commentary, except for the terms in bold font, was written not yesterday, but, in its final form, in 1937. The authors, C. A. Phillips, T. F. McManus, and R. W. Nelson, placed this commentary, along with a wealth of related evidence and analysis, in their unjustly neglected book Banking and the Business Cycle: A Study of the Great Depression in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1937). The quoted passages, which appear on pp. 212-14, originally read as follows:

Foolhardy procedures which are divorced from economic realities, or whose economic implications are not understood by their promoters, do not perforce become sanctified and wise merely by designating them as “action”; tilting at windmills does not draw water.

(more…)