Congress owes America better start for 2012, and not to repeat the way it ended 2011.

Even if the Senate is hopelessly dysfunctional, the House could do better.  The final House session of 2011 was a prime example of how to lose public confidence.  The body was gaveled into session on short notice Friday morning, December 23^rd, and a mere ten members approved legislation for the entire 435-member House.  The others had left for the holidays, so instead of a roll call vote on a controversial two-month lowering of the “payroll tax,” the bill passed by “unanimous consent” of the handful who were there.

House leaders had given Members insufficient time to return to Washington.  Representatives who had scattered for the holidays were informed at 5 pm that Thursday of a key vote at 10 am Friday.  This unusual procedure for a major vote was possible only because the House a few days before had voted for a “martial law” procedure that removed the normal requirement for greater advance notice.

That is why only ten House Members were present for the vote according to the Washington Times—four Republicans and six Democrats.

The rush was purely political.  Had Members been told to return for a vote after Christmas, no deadline would have been missed and the public would have the accountability of a regular roll call vote.  Many Republicans had publicly opposed the two-month extension, but we will never know how they would have voted.

(more…)

You can sum up in one word why Republicans find it tough to build public support for major spending cuts before the debt limit might be raised.  That word is “secrecy.”

By agreeing to closed-door meetings, Republicans enabled President Obama to mislead the country about his positions and to mischaracterize the GOP’s goals.  Using his bully pulpit, the President can promote a false picture of what’s gone on outside of the public view while the other side is muted.

Obama’s messaging has been trumpeted loudly by the media.  Meanwhile, details leaked from the meetings that don’t jibe with his message have gone mostly unheralded. Those details reveal that the “cuts” Obama supposedly would accept are mostly an agreement that politicians would reduce spending years from now—but almost nothing would happen any time soon.

For example, Obama’s supposed willingness to raise the age of Medicare eligibility?  Turns out it wouldn’t happen until 2029, and then it would rise by only one year, to age 67. That ballyhooed $1 trillion in “agreed” spending cuts?  Turns out to be maybe $55 billion, with only $2 billion of that in the first year.

Oh, and by the way, the President also wants over $100 billion in new spending added to the package.  No wonder the White House insisted on secrecy in its budget talks!

(more…)

Seeking to make virtue out of vice, the political Left has launched a desperate, devious and dangerous ploy to prevent the spending cuts that the public demands.

They are laying the groundwork for President Obama to bypass negotiations and to ignore the $14.3-trillion statutory ceiling on federal debt.  They want him to instruct the Treasury to borrow whatever it needs to satisfy grandiose spending designs, by claiming that the borrowing limit is unconstitutional.

If this happened, it would add a constitutional predicament to our economic crisis.  And it would worsen our economic problems.

The Left bases their plan on a dangerous misreading of the 14^th Amendment.  They employ deceptive rhetoric to depict the big spenders as the saviors of the Constitution.  They claim it’s the Constitutional remedy to protect our economy from the supposed alternative Armageddon’s of defaulting on debt or devastating reductions in spending.

The Left adds that this also would save us from the evil Republicans who won’t go along with job-killing tax hikes.

(more…)

“Can anyone recall when any rushed-through plan ever lived up to its hype?”

Our future should not be determined behind closed doors.  Yet that’s where the White House and Congress are holding secret talks about our debt ceiling and about taxes and spending.

We deserve openness instead.  We don’t need another farce when the players suddenly burst from their huddle, line up Members of Congress, and rush through their plan on a quick count.

The two keys are first, frequent and detailed progress reports from the now-secret talks, and second, ample time for review of any agreement.

We’ve been told that participants supposedly agree on how to save $1-trillion.  But they’ve given zero details.  Their $1-trillion claim is suspect because they could be planning political gimmicks rather than true and immediate spending cuts.

In addition to ending the secrecy, we need complete and thorough disclosure of any agreement well in advance of any votes.  Those who don’t do their work on time should not claim that things have become too urgent to give us time to study and discuss their agreement.

(more…)

“It’s an uncomfortable fact that sending a message of solidarity with our NATO allies is more important than sending a message to President Obama.”

It’s tempting to cut off funds immediately for President Obama’s ill-conceived Libya offensive.  But it’s not the right course.  For the sake of our allies, Congress needs to be patient in using the power of the purse to correct Obama’s misadventure.

The policy is indeed a mess.  Even if the ongoing air attacks chased Muammar Qadhafi from power, he might be replaced by a radical Islamist regime.  We have no good intelligence on what the rebels would establish if they took over.

Obama’s ham-handed approach has been an insult to Congress’ constitutional role “to define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,” as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Obama failed to make any meaningful consultation with Congress before he committed American forces, much less obtain any type of actual approval.

Yes, it’s tempting for Congress to “teach him a lesson” by voting to cut off U.S. funding immediately for Libyan operations.  The power of the purse is their strongest counter-balance to the President’s role as commander-in-chief.

But the countervailing argument is that our NATO allies—a key component of America’s national security—have been pulled into the Libya fray based on assurances and urgings from the Obama Administration.  Those may have been improvident, but they are real.

(more…)

President Obama could learn a lesson from this fable about a great ship.

Having received ample warning of icebergs ahead, some of the crew of the HMS Titanic proposed changing course to avoid them.

But the captain objected.

“Making that maneuver would end this cruise as we know it.  It would disrupt the passengers’ peace of mind, discomfiting them as we turn and swerve, especially those below decks in steerage,” the captain told them.  “There is no immediate jeopardy and I am appointing a commission to consider other options.”

The captain then activated the ship-wide public address system and announced, “This is the captain speaking.  We are happy to have you aboard the greatest and most unsinkable ship ever built.

“I am told there are icebergs ahead, but as you can tell we have not hit any and we are still afloat.  To avoid them will require sacrifice, but not at the expense of our passengers in steerage, who include seniors, poor children, and the disabled.

(more…)

The U.S. House took another whack this week at defunding Obamacare—although the Senate and White House are poised to protect the funding.  They took a good swing, but didn’t get a hit.

This week the House by 238-183 passed HR 1213, which would repeal the automatic funding that Obamacare provides for federally-dictated insurance exchanges, the mechanisms to sell the re-fashioned and federally-approved insurance policies.  That’s what it would do IF it became law—which the Senate and White House will make sure it does not.

The bill does not, however, seek to repeal the requirement that each state either establish such an exchange or have the feds do it for them.

Billions of taxpayer dollars could be saved if the House bill had a chance to become law, however.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates savings of $14.6-billion over ten years, but the amount is inexact because Obamacare placed no limit on how much would be spent.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services was given a blank check for that purpose.  It’s just one part of the overall $105-billion slush fund in automatic spending under Obamacare.

(more…)

Untouchable.  That’s the treatment being given to the $23.6 billion being spent right now to implement Obamacare.

This $23.6 billion is part of the $105.5 billion appropriated by the last Congress to fund Obamacare.  The remainder (Think of it as post-dated checks for the other $81.9 billion.) automatically becomes available between now and FY2019.

None of this is to be confused with an additional $115 billion authorized for additional appropriation to Obamacare—but which the current Congress is unlikely to provide.

The most pressing question, however, is whether any of the current $23.6 billion will be rescinded as part of the spending reductions being pursued in Congress.

Despite campaign promises to defund Obamacare, it isn’t being done.  Why not?

(more…)

The potential government shutdown is not just history repeating itself between a Democrat President and a Republican House.  It’s also a repeat of a key role played by government employee unions.

What’s different now is that the public has awakened to how they’ve been duped with false promises about big government.

In the 1995-96 shutdowns, the public worker unions reportedly played a huge role behind the scenes; today their role has been brought into the open, becoming common knowledge even before the mass union protests at the Wisconsin state capitol.

President Obama’s allegiance toward government unions is well-known.  The failed $800-billion stimulus was mostly about protecting government jobs.  His minions in Organizing for America have orchestrated the Wisconsin protests, which Obama labeled “an assault on unions.”  And it’s well-known how the unions spent $400-million for the 2008 election.

That’s the backdrop as House Republicans insist on billions in spending cuts before they will approve funds for the rest of government.  The House spent long days and nights in session to create their plan; the Senate Democrats sit inactive instead, criticizing lots but doing nothing.

So the action comes from the public workers, as their demonstrations provide visual proof of who wants big government to continue unchecked.  Their key role was behind-the-scenes in the 1995-96 shutdowns, but every bit as vital.

(more…)

Several members of Congress, like Rep. Denny Rehberg (R, MT) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R.-Wash.) are offering amendments that would prevent any new spending from being used to implement Obamacare.

Good for them.  Those are important additions to the big spending bill pending in Congress.

But here’s the dirty little secret:  Much of Obamacare is being implemented with money that was already appropriated last year.  These billions are already available for bureaucrats to put Obamacare into force.

Denying additional funding for Obamacare does not de-fund the huge amounts it already is using for implementation.  That requires additional action.

Even though the last Congress failed to pass other appropriations bills (creating the need for the currently-pending spending measure), that former Congress DID provide billions to get Obamacare launched.  The money was directly appropriated as part of the health care legislation, rather than included in a separate appropriations bill as is the normal practice.

The details are in a Congressional Research Service report issued last October, “Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).”  CRS devotes seven pages to describing the billions of dollars already appropriated and which the Obama Administration even now is spending to promote that law.

(more…)

President Obama’s proposed $53-billion more for “high-speed rail” (on top of a previous $10-billion) is a testimony to the power of adjectives.

If it were labeled “plain old rail travel” it would lack the pizzazz but would be far more accurate.  Understating costs, overstating benefits, and lots of supersonic rhetoric are the selling points for high-speed rail.

The “high speed” adjective invokes thoughts of bullet trains speeding at 150 mph, 200 mph or more.  The reality of Obama’s plan is—at best—the 85 mph that is the average speed of America’s fastest train, the Amtrak-run Acela.

When Obama claims his trains would reach 100 mph and more, he’s talking about peak speed reached only for short stretches, not the average.

How about pollution savings?  The supposed rail advantage depends on comparing apples to oranges.  If you compare auto emissions on highways, they’re no worse than rail emissions.  Rail has an advantage only if you compare long-distance train trips with car emissions from stop-and-go driving in the city.

An exhaustive Department of Energy analysis by Oak Ridge National Laboratory concludes, “intercity auto trips tend to be relatively efficient highway trips with higher-than-average vehicle occupancy rates — on average, they are as energy-efficient as rail intercity trips. Additionally, if passenger rail competes for modal share by moving to high speed service, its energy efficiency should be reduced somewhat12 — making overall energy savings even more problematic.”

The lack of energy or pollution savings leaves us with the key problem:  Huge expense with little benefit.

(more…)

To rephrase President Obama’s State of the Union theme:  “This is our generation’s apparatchik moment.”

Yes, he said “Sputnik” instead, but his actual agenda is about the apparatchik—government by party leaders, bureaucrats and the well-connected.

His agenda is symbolized by his push for “green jobs” as the path to a better future.

Simply put, the green jobs agenda spends billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy existing jobs and replace them with jobs in politically-favored businesses, raising the costs of energy along the way.

The politically-connected win.  Existing job-holders and companies lose.  Home electric bills go up.  Power also costs more for companies, making it more expensive to go into business or to stay in business.

It’s cronyism that is building a political power structure based on false claims about clean green jobs.

It’s economic cannibalism because creating the green jobs requires killing off existing jobs.

As Bloomberg News reported, “Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.”

(more…)

Changing the majority party in Congress won’t change how Congress works. The American people consider both parties out-of-touch, and they demand a change in the very culture of Congress.

Unless citizens demand that newly-elected Congressmen act immediately during November, they cannot expect to fix the broken system in Washington come January.  Key decisions will already be made before new members take office.

How can the system be fixed?  The first step is stop yielding excessive power to party leaders, who then control legislation by dominating chokepoints like the House Rules Committee.  Party leaders have been given too much control over the committee process.

The four years under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) demonstrates how consolidating too much power has led to ignoring the voice of the American people.   The Constitution intends that individual members of Congress would retain their autonomy from party leaders; they designed the House to be the body closest and most responsive to the people.

(more…)

Would you vote to cut taxes only for the middle-class, if that were your only choice?  Who says it’s your only choice?  It’s time to place the blame on those who try to box people in.

The furor over the tax cut answer given by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R, OH) obscures the fact that it’s a tough question–one for which all politicians should have a response ready before it’s asked.

Reporters want to push them onto the horns of a supposed dilemma:  either disavow across-the-board tax cuts or be labeled a toady for the rich.  Or dodge the question and get depicted as a weasel.

The better approach is to challenge the very premise of the question.  Who is trying to force a decision between bad alternatives?  It’s known as a “Sophie’s Choice”–from the Meryl Streep portrayal of a mother cruelly forced by Nazi’s to choose only one of her children to save from a death camp.

America’s economy is hurting, but must President Obama and his team of class warriors insist that some can be saved from January’s automatic tax hikes but others must not be?

Examples abound that Obama’s selective approach hurts the very group that creates the jobs we need; the entrepreneurs who are holding back from expanding and creating jobs due to Obama’s impending higher taxes and heavier regulations; the 5 per cent who are credited with 37 per cent of consumer spending.  As The Wall Street Journal reports, “According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays.”

(more…)