That was November 14, 2011.

Now, with news that the Office of Congressional Ethics has launched an insider trading investigation of Rep. Bachus, among possible others, I once again call on the Alabama Republican to do the right thing and leave Congress for good.

At the historic moment when the American people were looking to their elected leaders to protect them and their families’ portfolios, Rep. Bachus was busy using nonpublic information to enrich his own portfolio. In the summer and fall of 2008, Spencer Bachus’s position as the ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee gave him access to high-level private meetings and conversations with the then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other senior officials. The meetings Bachus was privy to were so secretive that those in attendance were not even allowed to bring cell phones into the meetings so as to prevent sensitive information that could threaten our nation’s financial system from leaking out.

And what did Congressman Bachus do with such trust and responsibility?

From July to November 2008, Bachus executed at least 40 well-timed, highly risky options trades throughout the turbulent period that netted him as much as $50,000 in capital gains. As Americans were losing their life savings, Bachus was padding his.

What Congressman Spencer Bachus did was wrong, vile, and an affront to the decency of the American people and the principles of honesty and fairness upon which our system rests.

I have received criticism from some Republican quarters who think I should never have spoken out against such an influential Republican member of Congress. But the conservative movement has a long tradition of ousting forces that stand to threaten the principles we fight for, regardless of party. We must do so again now—especially now.

I seldom call for resignations. Even at the height of the Anthony Weiner scandal, I remained silent on whether Rep. Weiner should leave office. But what Spencer Bachus did was egregious and fundamentally unethical.

On November 17, 2011, the Tea Party’s commitment to principle, not party, compelled them to organize a protest at Rep. Bachus’s Alabama office and call for his ouster. They were right then, and they are right now.

Our Founding Fathers believed political leadership was a call to stewardship, not self-enrichment. We must protect the principles that made America great. And that starts with throwing out those who smirk at fair play and shrug at the laws of our land.

Spencer Bachus: it’s time for you to go.

“It’s a coalition of different organizations including Occupy DC,” said James, an occupy protestor who joined the movement in late September from Orlando, Florida and emigrated to Occupy DC. “I think lots of organizations will be there too.”

James said the following of the Occupy CPAC plan:

The plan is for non-violent civil disobedience. We want to disrupt the conference and have our voices heard, have our message of the 99% against the 1% and have that voice take precedence. Things like CPAC have dog and pony shows, media circuses and it’s embarrassing. We’re supposed to be the most advanced democracy in the world and it’s embarrassing to have our political process look like a reality TV show.

It’s hard to say how many people will show up, but I think there will be a couple of hundred occupiers at least, and I heard at least three hundred people representing some unions, so my guess will be three to five hundred people. I hope it happens.

James also said that he hopes that Republicans will join their cause and said that during his time in Occupy Orlando there were “a couple” of Tea Party members and Republicans who occupied with them in Florida.

He added of the CPAC attendees:

I hope they realize we don’t take them seriously. They’re time is up–they just don’t know it yet. They are paper tigers and we are a scorching world fires, and by saying we, I mean the American people.

I would love it if people from CPAC came out and spoke to us as long as they were prepared to talk about the things we agree on and not the things we disagree on. We can agree to disagree on a lot of common issues, but when it comes to simple, common issues such as six banks running the country. I think we can find a whole lot of things to agree on with Republicans and libertarians. I’d like to see a non-violent, incremental revolution happen in this country. Something well thought out and move slowly.

Whether you’re on the right or the left, there’s so much posturing now. The Republicans know they’re not going to overturn Roe v. Wade in my lifetime so let’s get together and talk about reducing unwanted and teen pregnancies.

People ask what are you going to for the occupation? So, I ask well what are YOU going to do to change things because sitting at home and watching Dancing at the Stars and buying things online from IKEA? That’s not going to lead to a better future for your children.

Occupy DC protestors invited Big Government into their library at McPherson Square which includes a collection of historical and political biographies and texts. Under the American flag a piece of Occupy artwork hangs with Lady Justice's scales of justice - a dollar sign outweighs an infinity sign suggesting in America money outweighs everything else.

In it’s exclusive interview with James, Big Government tried to get a sense of what some of the general feelings were about the various CPAC speakers as well as President Obama. James said that he can only speak for himself on these issues, but explained he “could almost stomach” former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney when he was in office, but was now disappointed, and felt even greater disappointment with the other candidates:

ON RICK SANTORUM: “That’s just an embarrassment to our country that this guy is leading the Republican primary. He’s an intellectual lightweight. I’m not an elitist but even if you aspire to public service you should have a level of service and passion and be deeply informed on the issues.”

ON MITT ROMNEY: “On Mitt, it’s hard to say. I spent some time in Boston when he was governor there and that Mitt Romney I could almost stomach him. He was more of a centrist, he was balanced and reasonable, and now… why do we believe these things that politicians say? He was once reasonably pro-choice and believed in at least in some compromise on universal health care and led of the most liberal state in the country and now he’s indistinguishable from Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum.

WHY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT COMMITTING TO ROMNEY: “The right-wing Christian base is looking for a reason, any reason to demonize him because he’s a Mormon. They’re showing their true colors, they’re wholly owned by radical, fundamentalist Christians and that cannot be good for the United States of America.”

ON NEWT GINGRICH: “Gingrich. Smart guy, really, really smart guy but I don’t agree with almost any of his political positions, and there was a time when he showed intellectual prowess, but his personal foibles are such that he shows he’s not suited for political office. Three wives? Come on. I’m the most open minded person in the world when it comes to social issues, but you want someone with strength and convictions, and he doesn’t. He’s lived his life like a drunken frat-boy.”

ON RON PAUL: “Ron Paul is the crazy uncle at both CPAC and Occupy DC. He has supporters on all sides of the spectrum. He’s personally good for the process because he does have very few common sense ideas but when you look at his intellectual underpinnings, he’s a little crazy. He’s unforgiving on certain social issues and it’s amazing how many people support him. You can’t be an Objectivist and a Christian at the same time.”

ON PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Obama sickens me, he’s the biggest disappointment of my life. I’m an anarchist but I vote because I still have to live in this system. On election-day, I felt sick, but I voted for him because he did seem like a different kind of politician. He gained his Senate seat just as a launching pad, but I believed him. I believed he was going to be a new politician, a new type of president, but he’s now just a big war criminal as George W. Bush as far as I’m concerned. When he appointed Geithner I was like, really? You’re going to get former Goldman Saks people? Obama had the opportunity with his force and personality as the first black president and really riding into office on a wave of hope and goodwill, there were a lot of slightly left Republicans even, but he’s never taken advantage of the bully pulpit he was given.”

ON THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT: “I think the most important thing about the occupation is that we are horizontal. We truly don’t have leadership. We represent such a broad sect of society we only agree on a few things and those things will come up to our general assembly process and sometimes they become part of the official position of Occupy. If you’re an occupier you’re not just encouraged but required to do the best thing for the occupation. As long as you’re not talking about violently hurting another human being, I may not join you, but I’ll stand in solidarity with what you do. I think what the occupation will achieve is not change but rather space for a chance. By hitting the 1 percent from every angle we are going to disrupt it and create that space for chance.”

James concluded the one hour interview by saying that he actually “pine(s) for the days of William F. Buckley, when there were intelligent people who would debate the issues with convictions.” He concluded, “There was a generation of conservatives. Many of them were well spoken, their arguments were well reasoned and they came from personal conviction and by and large you could, the American public could carry on a conversation that mattered without it devolving Jersey Shore.”

If one hops into the Way-Back Machine and plops down in late 18^th century France, one is apt to re-discover that fixture of high school European history known as The French Revolution.  Few would argue that French monarchy was a system worth endorsing.  But how quickly we forget what replaced it – a radical left-wing action that resulted in a secular Democratic republic that was a wee bit authoritarian.  Actually, if memory serves, there was this thing called The Committee of Public Safety – a virtual dictatorship run by crazy Robespierre that resulted in the Reign of Terror.

There’s a great quote from Robespierre to justify the use of violent repression, “Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible”.   Hmmmm.  Terror = Justice.  Now just slip the word “Social” in there before “Justice” and you can see where I’m headed.  But just so I can complete this parallel, Robespierre arranged to have even his allies executed so he could run the show himself, with his power assisted throughout the countryside by the Jacobin Club aka Popular Societies aka ACORN.

While the MSM spins about the “non-violent, non-Anti-Semitic non-racist #Occupy Movement”, your intrepid journalists here at The Bigs have uncovered tons of evidence that demonstrate just the opposite. Indeed, plans are in the works to….what’s the word?….terrorize the opponents of the People’s Revolution aka Obama’s #Occupy Movement. The result of all this violence was The Thermidorian Reaction – a swing back to the Right following the revolution.   I repeat, to the Right.

Let’s jump forward into modern day: 1968.  The country was being torn apart by protests.  Lyndon Johnson decided not to seek another term.  A power vacuum was created in the Democratic Party, and once again the Left ate its own at the Democratic National Convention.  Richard Nixon ran on a platform of restoring order.  He won.  Thermidorian Reaction.

The Reign of Terror, it is noted, actually executed far more workers and peasants – about 70% of those murdered by most accounts.  As we’ve seen, the Leftist-driven revolutions often go down in self-consuming flames, and are even being egged-on to their doom by their organizers.

Flashforward to present day.  Here’s the thing about Americans: most of us just want to be left alone to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  We want a job, a family, friends, neighbors, entertainment, a vacation if we can afford it, to save a little for retirement, and to enjoy ourselves.  Most Americans reject extremism on either side of the political spectrum.  Most Americans are much, much smarter than they are ever given credit for, have a very strong sense of right and wrong, know when the country truly is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction, know excess when they see it, and are fair-minded.

In other words, Americans get it.

And one thing they cannot, and will not, abide – the thing that trumps all else — is social unrest.  But rather than blame it on the intended target, they will look at the protestors and they will know that they are of the same ideology and party as the one in the White House.

They will shake their heads.  “You idiots.  You guys are the ones in power and you’re complaining?”

And they will blame it on the guy in charge – Barack Obama.

Whomever the GOP candidate will be just needs to point this out, and the 21^st Century Thermidorian Reaction will sweep him into power, probably by a larger margin than anyone currently expects.

And when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same reaction.

This is why it’s important that a growing number of establishment outfits are slowly but surely coming around to the same point of view.

• The European Central Bank published a study showing “…a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth.”
• A study by two Harvard economists found that “large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions.”
• The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted in recent research that welfare programs are economically destructive because they lure people into dependency because “net disposable income would increase despite putting in fewer hours.”
• A study from the International Monetary Fund concluded that “Cuts to pension and health entitlements had the most beneficial effect on economic growth.”

This is remarkable. It’s beginning to look like the entire world has figured out that there’s an inverse relationship between big government and economic performance.

That’s an exaggeration, of course. There are still holdouts pushing for more statism in Pyongyang, Paris, Havana, and parts of Washington, DC.

But maybe they’ll be convinced by new research from the World Bank, which just produced a major report on the outlook for Europe. In chapter 7, the authors explain some of the ways that big government can undermine prosperity.

There are good reasons to suspect that big government is bad for growth. Taxation is perhaps the most obvious (Bergh and Henrekson 2010). Governments have to tax the private sector in order to spend, but taxes distort the allocation of resources in the economy. Producers and consumers change their behavior to reduce their tax payments. Hence certain activities that would have taken place without taxes, do not. Workers may work fewer hours, moderate their career plans, or show less interest in acquiring new skills. Enterprises may scale down production, reduce investments, or turn down opportunities to innovate. …Over time, big governments can also create sclerotic bureaucracies that crowd out private sector employment and lead to a dependency on public transfers and public wages. The larger the group of people reliant on public wages or benefits, the stronger the political demand for public programs and the higher the excess burden of taxes. Slowing the economy, such a trend could increase the share of the population relying on government transfers, leading to a vicious cycle (Alesina and Wacziarg 1998). Large public administrations can also give rise to organized interest groups keener on exploiting their powers for their own benefit rather than facilitating a prosperous private sector (Olson 1982).

In other words, government spending undermines growth, and the damage is magnified by poorly designed tax policies.

The authors then put forth a theoretical hypothesis.

…economic models argue that the excess burden of tax increases disproportionately with the tax rate—in fact, roughly proportional to its tax rate squared (Auerbach 1985). Likewise, the scope for self-interested bureaucracies becomes larger as the government channels more resources. At the same time, the core functions of government, such as enforcing property rights, rule of law and economic openness, can be accomplished by small governments. All this suggests that as government gets bigger, it becomes more likely that the negative impact of government might dominate its positive impact. Ultimately, this issue has to be settled empirically. So what do the data say?

These are important insights, showing that class-warfare tax increases are especially destructive and that government spending undermines growth unless the public sector is limited to core functions.

Then the authors report their results.

Figure 7.9 groups annual observations in four categories according to the share of government spending in GDP during that year. Both samples show a negative relationship between government size and growth, though the reduction in growth as government becomes bigger is far more pronounced in Europe, particularly when government size exceeds 40 percent of GDP. …we provide new econometric evidence on the impact of government size on growth using a panel of advanced and emerging economies since 1995. As estimates can be biased due to problems of omitted variables, endogeneity, or measurement errors, it is necessary to rely on a broad range of estimators. …They suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in initial government spending as a share of GDP in Europe is associated with a reduction in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.6–0.9 percentage points a year (table A7.2). The estimates are roughly in line with those from panel regressions on advanced economies in the EU15 and OECD countries for periods from 1960 or 1970 to 1995 or 2005 (Bergh and Henrekson 2010 and 2011).

These results aren’t good news for Europe, but they also are a warning sign for the United States. The burden of government spending has jumped by about eight percentage points of GDP since Bill Clinton left office, so this could be the explanation for why growth in America is so sluggish.

Last but not least, they report that social welfare spending does the most damage.

Governments are big in Europe mainly due to high social transfers, and big governments are a drag on growth. The question is whether this is because of high social transfers? The answer seems to be that it is. The regression results for Europe, using the same approach as outlined earlier, show a consistently negative effect of social transfers on growth, even though the coefficients vary in size and significance (table A7.4). The result is confirmed through BACE regressions. High social transfers might well be the negative link from government size to growth in Europe.

The last point in this passage needs to be emphasized. It is redistribution spending that does the greatest damage. In other words, it’s almost as if Obama (and his counterparts in places such as France and Greece) are trying to do the greatest possible damage to the economy.

In reality, of course, these politicians are simply trying to buy votes. But they need to understand that this shallow behavior imposes very high costs in terms of foregone growth.

To elaborate, this video discusses the Rahn Curve, which augments the data in the World Bank study.

As I argue in the video, even though most of the research shows that economic growth is maximized when government spending is about 20 percent of GDP, I think the real answer is that prosperity is maximized when the public sector consumes less than 10 percent of GDP.

But since government in the United States is now consuming more than 40 percent of GDP (about as much as Spain!), the first priority is to figure out some way of moving back in the right direction by restraining government so it grows slower than the private sector.

Sources told Channel 4 Action News that, as the driver left the crash scene Tuesday afternoon, he told someone that he was with Occupy Pittsburgh and said there might be an explosive device inside the vehicle. But police said they’ve determined none of that to be true. They said McGee suffered a medical problem that gave him a coughing fit which caused him to lose control of the vehicle.

“There was speculation. We certainly wanted to check into that, in the current climate of what’s going on at the camp in downtown Pittsburgh, but we have no information — no evidence whatsoever — to relate this to Occupy Pittsburgh,” Lt. Kevin Kraus said.

More details here and here. The original post continues below:

A middle-aged man claiming to be with Occupy Pittsburgh has turned himself in to authorities after allegedly driving a stolen sport utility vehicle up the front steps and crashing it into the front entrance of a downtown PNC Firstside Center building yesterday afternoon. Richard McGee, 67, called Allegheny County Sheriff William P. Mullen today after hearing police wanted to speak with him about the incident, then showed up at the sheriff`s office in the Allegheny County Courthouse to turn himself in.

More images from WTAE

From WTAE in Pittsburgh:

Pittsburgh police are questioning a man who they think drove an SUV up the front steps of the downtown PNC Firstside Center on purpose and hit the entrance of the building during work hours.  [...]

Sources told Channel 4 Action News that, as the driver of the Hyundai Santa Fe fled the crash scene Tuesday afternoon, he claimed to be with Occupy Pittsburgh and said there might be an explosive device inside the vehicle.

View Video at WTAE.com.

The incident prompted police to call a bomb squad unit to investigate. WTAE reports that no explosives were found.

Employees in the building indicated that there is also a child care facility on the premises. A PNC spokeswoman said that the facility has since been moved to the other side of the building.

Only a handful of Occupy protesters remained at their camp nearby at the BNY Mellon Green lawn after an Allegheny County Judge ordered the protesters to be out of the park by Monday. Most left voluntarily, but just under a dozen remained on Monday, prompting the judge to issue an emergency order instructing police to remove lingering Occupy campers from the property. They told Channel 4 Action News that “they had no knowledge of the PNC crash and were not involved with it.”

Ironically, the PNC Firstside Center building is hailed by labor unions and environmentalists in the Blue Green Alliance coalition as a model for collaborative environmentally friendly development. The PNC Firstside Center building is Leed Silver Certified and is one of over 40 certified green buildings PNC owns. WTAE reported in 2008 that this number was more than any other corporation in the world.

There are no further details available at this time as to whether or not McGee’s claim to be with Occupy Pittsburgh is true. Police indicate that charges against him will include recklessly endangering another person and driving without a license.

The Post says the revelation was uncovered by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster bestseller, Throw Them All Out:

Over the past decade, the House minority leader helped secure $50 million in earmarks toward a light-rail project that provides direct access to San Francisco’s Union Square and Chinatown for neighborhoods south of Market Street. Pelosi’s husband owns a four-story commercial building blocks from Union Square. These earmarks were reported in the book “Throw Them All Out.” A Pelosi spokesman said the project was requested by community leaders and that the new stations on the line will be farther away from the building than those on the existing line.

In response, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s spokesperson, Drew Hammill, had this to say:

The entire city of San Francisco is 47 square miles and is one of the most densely populated cities in the country. The property in question is located right off of the Market Street rail line
and the closest new station will be considerably further away.

As many community groups have noted this rail line connects heavily populated areas in San Francisco, which have been underserved in the past and this project will help
alleviate serious congestion problems. The idea for this project originated in the community, specifically Chinatown and South of Market, and these community leaders came to their elected
officials in Washington for help.

According to the Washington Post, Hammill also claimed that two existing stations are presently located closer to Pelosi’s property than where the new stations will be located.

After analyzing the holdings of all 535 members of Congress and comparing them to their earmarks for pet projects since 2008, the Washington Post found numerous eye-opening instances of potential self-enrichment at taxpayers’ expense, including:

• Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): obtained a $900,000 earmark to resurface roads where he and his daughter own two homes.  “I didn’t say, ‘Do the street that I live on,” Rep. Thompson protested when the Washington Post confronted him.  “The earmark went to the county.  It had no designation on it whatsoever, and that was it.”
• Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD): secured approximately $4.5 million for an interstate interchange that leads to Rep. Bartlett’s home, his 104-acre farm, and rental properties that earn him $150,000 annually.  “He was being an advocate for what was presented to him as the highest priority,” the congressman’s press secretary Lisa Wright said.  “Coincidentally, this was around two miles from his farm.”
• Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX): bagged $665,000 in taxpayer funds to expand a road 600 feet away from his family’s food processing plant, H&H Foods.  “It helps everybody,” Rep. Hinojosa told the Washington Post.  “The only way it made sense to handle this tremendous population growth and avoid problems for the school buses that go through that intersection was to widen it.”
• Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): scored $750,000 for a new bridge three blocks away from a 7,000-square-foot building he and his wife own as well as Columbia Basin Paper & Supply, a janitorial supply company he previously owned that is now run by his brother.  “It never crossed my mind,” Rep. Hastings told the Washington Post.  “Every business in Pasco will benefit by that.”
• Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MA): landed a $187,000 earmark to replenish a shoreline 90 miles away from his home district near a beach that, coincidentally, he and his wife own two condominiums by that generate $15,000 in rental income.  Rep. Ruppersberger said questioning the proximity of his properties to the project was “ridiculous.”  “That’s a stretch to say that thing’s going to benefit me.”
• Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): secured $6.3 million to replenish a beach 900 feet away from a $142,900 cottage he owns.  “It’s absurd to suggest that this benefits me,” Kingston protested to the reporters.  “The beach doesn’t improve the real estate of a house, unless it’s on the beach.  The only thing that changes in value is the beachfront property.”
• Rep. John W. Olver (D-MA): obtained $5.1 million in earmarks to restructure a road 209 feet from Rep. Olver’s 15-acre home and several adjoining properties he and his wife own.  “I had no monetary interest whatsoever in this project,” Rep. Olver said.  “I had nothing to with the design.  I was never notified of any of the hearings.  I had no involvement whatsoever.”
• Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-MI): obtained a $486,000 earmark that helped add a 14-foot bike lane within walking distance of her house.  “People earmark for all kinds of things,” Rep. Miller said when asked about the project.  “I’m pretty proud of this; I think I did what my people wanted.  Should I have told them, ‘We can never have this bike path complete because I happen to live by one section of it’?  They would have thrown me out of office.”
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY): secured $7 million in earmarks, a portion of which went to overhaul streets around the corner from a bank where he is director emeritus and owns a $1-$5 million stake in the bank’s holding company and also narrowed the street he lives on to slow traffic.  “Congressman Rogers sees no conflict of interest in helping local community leaders achieve their goals for growth,” the congressman’s chief of staff Michael R. Higdon told the Washington Post.

The Washington Post report also concluded that 16 members of Congress directed taxpayer dollars to “companies, colleges, or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards.”

The practice of earmarks continues to be a source of angst for conservatives and citizens concerned with out-of-control federal spending.  In 2010, a record high 11,230 earmarks accounted for $32 billion in federal spending.