Conservatives are gearing up for a showdown on the House floor over an across-the-board spending cut that would trim the federal government by an additional $20 billion this year. The amendment, which will be offered by a member of the Republican Study Committee, would reduce spending on top of the $100 billion in cuts already proposed by GOP leaders.

House Republicans, keeping their promise for an open amendment process, have devoted the entire week to a debate on the fiscal 2011 continuing resolution. With the current spending plan set to expire March 4, Republicans are using the bill to make cuts to discretionary spending.

Hundreds of amendments are expected to be filed, but the RSC’s across-the-board cut stands out as one of the largest.

The move comes after GOP leaders made notable progress last week toward the magic number of $100 billion in non-security discretionary spending cuts as outlined in the Pledge to America. The current proposal includes $81 billion in cuts, plus another $19 billion from security spending. The RSC hopes to achieve a full $100 billion in non-security spending.

(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 James Taylor to discuss the regulation of phosphates and why your dishwasher doesn’t work anymore, then Pejman Yousefzadeh talks about the White House and Egypt.

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:

Another Triumph for the Greens
Phosphorous Fertilizer Bans Are Ignoring Science
EPA Likely Underestimating Costs of Florida Water Nutrient Restrictions
Environmental and Climate News
The Obama Administration: Missing in Action on Egypt

(more…)

President Obama’s FY-2012 budget shows a failure of leadership by a man who claimed that he would change the way Washington works. Red ink continues to be spilled at record rates with no end in sight and yet President Obama continues to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room – our climbing $14 trillion national debt.

America is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, but the President’s own budget projects that the federal debt will top $15 trillion this year – equal to the size of our entire economy – and will reach $21 trillion within five years time! President Obama’s budget will spend $3.8 trillion this year; that correlates to 25.3 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, the highest since World War II. The Democrat chairman of President Obama’s very own debt commission, Erskine Bowles, said the budget released today is “nowhere near where they have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare.” America must get its fiscal house in order, or our economy will sink into a financial abyss.

President Obama states, “We need to act now to secure and strengthen Social Security for future generations,” but he fails to lay out a clear and precise plan on how he would reform Social Security and Medicare. These entitlement programs are draining America’s resources at an alarming rate. Nobody is saying that this is an easy fix, but not even addressing it in a budget plan is a serious oversight by the Obama Administration. President Obama has chosen his short term election prospects over doing what is right for future generations. He just continues to kick the debt crisis can down the road, but at some point that can will fall off the cliff. When that happens, the American people will remember this failure of leadership.

(more…)

Judicial Watch’s pursuit of records detailing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s political contributions continues. We recently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in our lawsuit against the Obama Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

According to officials at FHFA, the agency might possess documents responsive to our Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, but they won’t give them up without a fight. In fact, the agency claims it is not obligated to release any such documents to the public. Our position is that now that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are wholly operated by the federal government these records are subject to FOIA law. Here’s a squib from our appeal:

…the boards of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accepted conservatorship by the FHFA with the full knowledge that the FHFA would obtain all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the enterprises, including legal title to their books and records.

Since that time, the FHFA, a federal agency subject to FOIA, has had full legal custody and control over all of the records of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Because the FHFA obtained these records and has exercised full legal control over them since it placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, the requested records became subject to FOIA just like any other agency records.

We filed our original FOIA request on May 29, 2009. The FHFA acknowledged receipt of the request July 1, 2009. The agency claimed that while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might have the records, the FHFA was not obligated to release them under FOIA because the agency does not “control” them.

As the Obama administration said in its court filing, “…Any records created by or held in the custody of the Enterprises [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] reflecting their political campaign contributions or policies, stipulations and requirements concerning campaign contributions necessarily are private corporate documents. They are not ‘agency records’ subject to disclosure under FOIA.”

(more…)

Dale Smith has been cutting hair for over 50 years.  The Oregon barber is well-known in his hometown for walk-in appointments and $8 cuts — at least, until he got shut down by bureaucrats from Oregon’s Board of Cosmetology.

Dale’s crime?  He forgot to renew the barber license he earned 54 years ago.

The bureaucrats are saying that in order for Dale to return to work, he has to pass a 75-question examination, similar to the one he passed in 1957.  Further, he has to demonstrate to their satisfaction that he still knows how to cut hair:

Dale had to post a sign in his window saying that he was closed until further notice.  He doesn’t want to cut through all the red tape and isn’t sure what he’ll do next.

As Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Clark Neily explains in the video above:

Americans have a constitutional right to earn a living in the occupation of their choice, free from unreasonable government interference.  What happened to this man is the very definition of unreasonable.  A properly engaged judiciary is one that takes rights seriously, including the right to earn a living.  And it says to government officials, you have to treat people reasonably.  You have to respect their constitutional right to earn a living.

Of course, Dale is not alone.  In November, IJ economic liberty expert Paul Sherman spoke about armed government agents raiding barbershops and handcuffing barbers in front of their clients.  Big Government readers know that occupational licensing abuse is rampant in America.

(more…)

That’s the way Winston Churchill, whose 1939 words we borrowed for our headline this week, were he asked about America, might answer that question today.  In foreign affairs we have spent much of the past two years trying to reset our relationships with the rest, or much of the rest, of the world.  So far we have little, perhaps nothing, to show for it other than the alienation of some old friends and no new friends.

Domestically (according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office) we’ll overspend to the tune of $1.5 trillion this year, on top of the $1.3 trillion we overspent last year.  At the rate we’re going, we’ll add more to our debt during President Obama’s first term than all the debt accumulated by all of his predecessors combined, according to Michael Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University.

Does the Administration want to see real economic growth in the country?  Of course.  Obama can’t retain the White House without a strong economic turnaround. Has he been pursuing policies to achieve that goal? Hardly. Quite the contrary.  His Administration is spending much more effort stoking the fiscal fire than dousing it. The President has largely ignored the recommendations of his own Debt and Deficit Commission, making it easy for those Republicans and Democrats who oppose the commission’s recommendations to have rendered the report dead on arrival.  There is a growing expectation among analysts and economists including Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office that U.S. debt will lose its AAA credit rating within the next three years.

And while we have written, at great length, about the sad state of the federal fisc, the financial condition of the many states is worse.  At least the federal government can, in a pinch, print money to meet its obligations.  The states, collectively, seem to be a train wreck waiting to happen.

(more…)

Today, in 2005, YouTube was launched. Yes, just six years ago.

From the Albany Herald:

Shirley Sherrod, ousted from her position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture after an internet video produced by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart surfaced, has filed suit in District of Columbia Superior Court alleging defamation, false light and infliction of emotional distress.

Breitbart confirmed that his company, breitbart.com, LLC,had been served with a copy of the suit over the weekend. In addition to Breitbart, producer Larry O’Conner and an unknown ‘John Doe’ are also named in the suit.

Sherrod resigned as Georgia’s Director of Rural Development after the video clip appeared last July. The edited clip showed a speech she gave at an NAACP function where Sherrod spoke of not offering her full help and support to a white farmer, Roger Spooner, in 1986.

(more…)

My participation in “Carbon Nation” came about quite fortuitously. After I retired from the Army, I was working as a government analyst, looking at the tactical implications of energy security. I was leaving that position to try to encourage commercial interest to get involved with the Department of Defense to help solve what had been a strategic dilemma since the ‘70s: oil dependance. A friend asked me to speak to a documentary film maker about my concerns. I met Pete Byck outside the U.S. Capital building on a bright spring day and tried to tell the story of DOD’s efforts to solve a national security issue.

Having received a post graduate degree in National Security and Strategic Planning from the U.S. Naval War College, I put those tools to work to understand the larger implications of our addiction to fossil fuels. What I concluded was that climate change was a concern, the economic drain was unfortunate and that the national security implications were terrifying.

Energy Security for the United States creates a critical vulnerability in all of the elements of national power. In order to protect the free flow oil for ourselves and our markets, the U.S. commits billions of dollars in military, diplomatic, economic and information management efforts. Interruptions of the free flow means increased cost for American consumers and increased trade deficit with our trading partners. The cartel nature of Middle Eastern oil production means we must engage in other than free market activities to maintain the life blood of the economy.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. imports 51% of its petroleum requirements. In 2009 this equated to 11.7 million bbls a day. 51% of our imports come from the Western Hemisphere with the Persian Gulf and Africa providing 17% and 22%, respectively. Although prices fluctuate, given U.S. consumption of 378 million gallons of gas a day, a one dollar rise in gas prices diverts $2.6B a week from other spending. A $15 a bbl rise in oil prices causes a 1% decrease in US GDP.

The international nature of markets links us to regimes that may not have our best interests at heart. After all, nations have interests, not friends.

(more…)

Jim Puff is a Kansas entrepreneur. He has been in the grocery store business for 43 years, and owns a convenience store, a cafe, a catering company and a grocery store in Alma, Kansas.

Unfortunately, in order to invest in his businesses and provide jobs for his employees, Jim must battle Kansas liquor laws. While some of Kansas’ neighboring states permit grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, his stores must make do with reduced alcohol content beer, or 3.2% beer.

How would modernizing Kansas liquor laws help Jim Puff and others like him? Right now, Kansas grocery stores may not sell full-strength beer. Consumers wishing to buy full-strength beer must go to a different store that is only able to sell strong beer, wine and spirits – no food items. This is a lose-lose situation. For consumers, it adds unnecessary time, effort, and money. For retailers, these regulations reduce profit potential. Current laws that prohibit what grocery stores and convenience stores can sell place a huge burden on Kansas retailers, especially when faced with escalating rent, and energy costs for lights and refrigeration. In effect, the state of Kansas is regulating businesses into oblivion.

Allowing grocery stores to sell full-strength beer, wine and spirits, and allowing liquor stores to sell grocery items will result in increased competition, benefiting both retailers and consumers in the form of increased economic activity and lower prices. Senate Bill 54 would do just that. Allowing retailers to sell additional items, such as beer, wine and spirits, would add an entirely new department to retailers; growing their product availability, increasing the need to hire new employees, and incentivizing customers to shop locally rather than drive to larger cities or bordering states where they can purchase products in one stop. SB 54 would provide sustainable economic growth for years to come.

(more…)

A second federal judge has just ruled that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it mandated that most Americans must purchase health insurance starting in 2014.

Whatever the Supreme Court eventually decides on that constitutional question, the so-called “individual mandate” is an unprecedented expansion of government power.

The government has long claimed the power to coerce you not to act in specific ways.  In other words, the government says “You can’t do X.”  This happens, for example, when a law says you can’t drive above the speed limit or steal from your neighbor.

The government also claims the power to coerce you to act in specific ways, but when it does so, it rarely says “You must do X.”  Instead it says, “If you choose to do X, you must do X in a certain manner.”  For example, if you choose to build a house, you must comply with building codes.  Or it says, “If you choose to do X, you must do Y as well.”  If you choose to earn taxable income, you must file a tax return and pay a tax; or if you choose to drive a car on public roads, you must purchase auto insurance.

Until now, the only time the federal government has flat out said “You must do X” has been in the case of military conscription.  In that case, the government coercion has had nothing to do with a choice you’ve made.  It has applied merely because you reside in this country. (State laws requiring the education of children are similar.)

The Obamacare individual mandate is like military conscription.

(more…)

When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee ran for President in 2008, he did so in the guise of a conservative. But those of us who listened closely to his speeches heard a message that was far from compatible with the ideals of limited government and expanded liberty: two benchmarks of conservatism by any measure. Instead we heard Huckabee openly support a nationwide, federally mandated smoking ban, and expanding the powers of the federal government to mandate limits on carbon emissions via cap and trade.

Because of the exponential growth things like a national smoking ban and cap and trade legislation would cause in the size of government, Rush Limbaugh often warned that Huckabee was a “populist” rather than a conservative. In other words, Huckabee had a good grasp on how to give speeches in the vernacular of heartland America, but his solutions to the problems faced by those same people rested in an expansion of government for which the constitution made no provision. (Like Clinton, Huckabee could feel our pain, and like Obama, he could ease that pain via government intervention.)

And believe it or not, Huckabee’s record on taxes (and tax increases) is even more dismal than his record on smoking bans and cap and trade legislation. While Governor of Arkansas, he literally begged state legislators to support tax increases on the citizens of that state.

When Arkansas faced what FOX NEWS’ Carl Cameron described as “general revenue shortfall in the state budget,” a desperate Huckabee stood before the state legislature and told them he’d found a way to meet Arkansas’ near $100 million shortfall:

“There’s a lot of support for a tax at the wholesale level for tobacco, and that’s fine with me. I will be very happy to sign that, because it’s a revenue stream that will…help us meet that 90 to 100 million target.

Some have suggested [a tax on] the retail level of tobacco. If that ends up being your preference I will accept that. Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax. That’s acceptable: I’m fine with that. Others have suggested perhaps a sales tax. That’s fine.

Yet others have suggested a hybrid [tax] that would collect some monies from any one or a combination of [these] various ideas. And if that’s the plan the House and Senate agree upon, you will have nothing but my profound thanks.”

Not only was Huckabee’s support for any and every tax scheme imaginable antithetical to the conservative mind, but the way he groveled before the legislature was shameful: not at all indicative of a leader.

(more…)

How do bonuses equal to 50% of your annual salary sound?

Wait – how do they sound if you’re not receiving them – but paying for them?  And (most likely) on salaries far greater than the one you’re currently earning.

(If you’re actually earning one – and not a member of the unfortunate and overly numerous unemployed.)

General Motors (Government Motors [GM]) in 2008 received Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) coin.  TARP being the first of the giant government violations of the private sector – about which then President and capitalism assailant George W. Bush ridiculously said “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”

These multi-trillion dollar government money anvils – TARP, the 2009 alleged “stimulus,” Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, ad nauseum – have been repeatedly dropped on our collective economic heads.

Wonder why the national “recovery” has been so slow as to resemble non-existent?  In large part because the private sector has been dragged into inertia by these serial Keynesian anchors.

Government Motors’ bailout was huge – $49.9 billion.  They then got obnoxious and completely dishonest about it.

In April of last year, they paid for and copiously ran (again, with our money) a television advertisement in which then Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre asserted “We have repaid our government loan in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule.”

Ummm, no, they did not.  They in fact paid only a tiny fraction thereof – and did so with other government money.  It was a TARP money shuffle, a Boz Scaggs special.

(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 is joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss rising food prices, inflation and the overthrowing of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

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:

Ron Paul: Bernanke Is Delusional About Inflation
Fed chief says inflation not a threat to U.S.
Boehner warns: ‘We’re broke’ as Obama plans to increase speed of spending cuts to $1.1trillion
Hosni Mubarak Steps Down, “Egypt is Free”
(more…)

Like the dog that finally catches the car, the radicals have become the establishment. Those free-wheeling students of the ’60s – fighting “the man,” bombing government buildings, burning draft cards – now work for that government and are counting the days when they’ll receive their taxpayer-funded pension and retiree health care.

In fact, the radicals of the 1960s are now pushing retirement age, wrapping up careers that saw them control so much of American society — the news media, academia, government bureaucracy and Hollywood. When Obama told audiences during the 2008 campaign that “We are the change we’ve been waiting for,” it must have been an unsettling realization for these radicals, and likely triggered an existential crisis for some of them.

In my research of the left, I’ve gone down a few rabbit trails. I visited New Orleans and talked to Wade Rathke, a few months before the ACORN tree came crashing down. I met Frances Fox Piven in New York and interviewed her about a range of things at her home. (I’ve never met a socialist with a doorman before.) I wrote about the radical Jack Gerson, an SDS alum now influential in the Oakland, CA teachers union.

Which led me to Fred Klonsky. Klonsky, along with his brother Mike, were leaders of Students for a Democratic Society. Fred now is living comfortably as a public school teacher and union leader in the upscale Park Ridge community in suburban Chicago. Mike was reportedly lauded by Mao Zedong for his work spreading communism throughout the United States.

My organization, Education Action Group, suspected Klonsky could be using his school district e-mail account for inappropriate purposes. So we submitted a Freedom of Information request for all the e-mails sent from his school account. According to Illinois state law, e-mails of government employees are considered public records.

Seemed routine.

(more…)

President Obama unveiled his fiscal year 2012 budget today, and there’s good news and bad news. The good news is that there’s no major initiative such as the so-called stimulus scheme or the government-run healthcare proposal. The bad news, though, is that government is far too big and Obama’s budget does nothing to address this problem.

But perhaps the folks on Capitol Hill will be more responsible and actually try to save America from becoming a big-government, European-style welfare state. The solution may not be easy, but it is simple. Lawmakers merely need to restrain the growth of government spending so that it grows slower than the private economy.

Actual spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that’s needed to slowly shrink the burden of government spending relative to gross domestic product.

Fortunately, we have two role models from recent history that show it is possible to control the federal budget. This video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to demonstrate the fiscal policy achievements of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

(more…)

Since June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the required ninth state to ratify the US Constitution, the seventeen enumerated powers specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution have slowly expanded to allow central government involvement in virtually all aspects of life in America.  Thomas Jefferson, were he among us today, would call for a second insurance of the Declaration of Independence.  The expansion of those powers resulted from broad interpretation of the Constitution’s commerce clause and general welfare clause for the stated purpose of promoting societal good.  Jefferson warned us about this in his writings with, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

This gradual erosion of our liberty has only surfaced because of the unsustainable financial support necessary to fund an ever increasing role of government in our lives.  Newly elected Republicans in the 112^th Congress recognized that the financial structure of our nation is at the brink of collapsing under the weight of government that has grown too large for its citizens to support.  They are pressing for deep cuts in spending, but are getting pushed back from President Obama and Democrats whose ideology is rooted in central authority control.  Even if successful, the $100 billion in cuts for the remainder of the 2011 budget, called for by the Republicans, will do little when staring at a projected deficit for 2011 of $1.5 trillion.  This deficit will push our national debt to a level that will threaten our ability to fund our military.  It can spark an inflationary cycle that will spike the cost of food, energy and other commodities resulting in hardships for all citizens and for businesses, which would fail creating higher unemployment.

The Treasury Department is forecasting that our national debt will reach $19.6 trillion by 2015.  If our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grows at a respectable annual rate of 3.5% over that same period, it will reach $17.7 trillion by 2015, trailing the debt by almost $2 trillion.  Mr. Obama’s recent proposal to cut $1.1 trillion in deficit spending over the next ten years, while the debt is forecast to increase by more than $5 trillion in only five years, is laughable at best and a cruel diversion to mask the truth at worst.  Can you imagine running your family household by planning to spend more than you anticipate your income to grow for ten years?  You would be bankrupt and that is exactly where our nation is heading.

The clash between our federalist style of government (where the states and the people have the power) and an all powerful central government will drive the debate in the 2012 Presidential Election.  However, we need to deal with the financial crisis now.

(more…)

Universally, democracy is being exalted.

Everywhere one turns, one hears of its virtues: how democracy ensures human rights, fosters prosperity and shepherds in modernity.

Yet democracy represents nothing more than the tyranny of the majority.  In other words, contrary to the ideals of western liberalism, democracy does not ensure that the smallest minority, the individual is protected.

In the vast majority of circumstances, people free to choose their government get the government they desire.  In Russia, the people have chosen again and again to elect KGB criminals.  In Gaza, the people have chosen to elect either Hamas or Fatah, terrorist parties in perpetual war.  Democracy does not a free society ensure.

Democracy is merely a system of election – it is not inherently good as its results are entirely predicated on the voters themselves.  Freedom-loving peoples will generally establish a political system to protect freedom.  Those who prefer strict rule will devise a political order that squelches it.

I would argue that any Islamic society will refuse to establish a system grounded in property rights, individual liberty and free market principles because it is completely anathema to Islamic culture, history and religious tenets.

(more…)