WASHINGTON (AP) – Weary after a year of partisan bickering, lawmakers tried Monday to wrap up a sprawling $1 trillion-plus spending bill that chips away at military and environmental spending but denies conservatives many of the policy changes they wanted on social issues, government regulations and health care.

The measure implements this summer’s hard-fought budget pact between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders. That deal essentially freezes agency budgets, on average, at levels for the recently-completed budget year that were approved back in April.

Drafted behind closed doors, the proposed bill would pay for the war in Afghanistan but give the Pentagon just a 1 percent boost in annual spending, while the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget would be cut by 3.5 percent.

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The most pressing question, however, is whether any of the current $23.6 billion will be rescinded as part of the spending reductions being pursued in Congress.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

From Heritage’s The Foundry:

Today former Congressman Ernest Istook testified before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee about the $105 billion slush fund in advance appropriations liberals tucked inside Obamacare. The $105 billion bypasses the traditional yearly budgeting process and is spread throughout the 2,700 page legislation. It took the Congressional Research Service (CRS) seven months to identify all the disparate funds and it was not until February (11 months after the bill passed) that all of the funds could be totaled up.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has been beating the drum to raise awareness of this unprecedented level of advance spending. But the liberal media has been attacking her for calling it “hidden” funding. In reality, Rep. Bachmann said that “practically no Member of Congress even knew that $105 billion of funding was” in the bill.FactCheck says that this funding was know to “those who read the bill … including members of Congress.” But does FactCheck really believe that any member of Congress read all 2,700 pages of the bill? Do they have any evidence at all that any member of Congress knew about the $105 billion figure before CRS published their report this February?

(more…)

Grousing about the GOP’s timidity in the battle against big government will probably become an ongoing theme over the next few months, and  let’s start with two items that don’t bode well for fiscal discipline.

First, it appears that Republicans didn’t really mean it when they promised to cut $100 billion of so-called discretionary spending as part of their pledge. According to the New York Times,

As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law.

This is hardly good news, particularly since the discretionary portion of the budget contains entire departments, such as Housing and Urban Development, that should be immediately abolished.

That being said, I don’t think this necessarily means the GOP has thrown in the towel. The real key is to reverse the Bush-Obama spending binge and put the government on some sort of diet so that the federal budget grows slower than the private economy. I explain in this video, for instance, that it is simple to balance the budget and maintain tax cuts so long as government spending grows by only 2 percent each year.

It is a good idea to get as many savings as possible for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, to be sure, but the real key is the long-run trajectory of federal spending.

(more…)

For those keeping score at home, the Democrats have pulled the tax-cut extension and still have no idea how to complete a budget. They’ve punted on a number of issues that they claimed were big priorities for them. So…what to do?

Oh yeah, throw a big party!!

(more…)

Too many elected officials are far too comfortable spending taxpayer dollars without knowing where that money will actually end up. This was proven once again by the Senate’s vote to fund the Pigford Settlements, even though serious claims of fraud exist.

In September, I joined my colleagues Congressmen Steve King (IA-05) and Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) to call for a full investigation into the Pigford Settlement Case. As a constant advocate for careful use of taxpayer dollars, I was concerned when I learned that this Settlement has 94,000 claims of discrimination, even though only approximately 33,000 black farmers exist in the United States.

(more…)

Much has been written about the House GOP Leadership’s plan to ban earmarks for two years. The praise they have received from conservatives is justified, because it seems, at least for the time being, that their proposed moratorium doesn’t have the weaselly wiggle-room sometimes employed by politicians. It is also likely that their stance pushed former earmarker-extraordinaire Sen. Mitch McConnell into supporting a similar ban in the Senate. Who knew the ‘road to Damascus’ veered past the Potomac?

So far, so good. The ban on earmarks may be largely symbolic as it won’t, on its own, lower federal spending, but symbols are important. They only take you so far, however. While House GOP Leadership have tipped their hats to the tea party movement with the earmark ban, other actions they are taking this week behind the scenes will neuter the movement and consign the incoming freshman to the back of the Congressional bus.

This week, the GOP caucus will finalize committee assignments. Committees are the workshops of Congress, where legislation is debated, tweaked and finalized. Legislation emerging from committees is the legislation that comes to the House floor for a vote. (The Democrats by-passed this process, but the GOP is expected to return to committees to their traditional legislative function.)

But, not all committees are created equal. The House has a group of committees called the “A” committees, through which all significant legislation must pass. These committees are so powerful, there is even a limit on how many of these committees a member may serve.

Big Government has learned that the House GOP Leadership has made it clear; no freshmen need apply for these committees. They are reserving them for the existing members, thank you very much.

(more…)

Last Tuesday I sent a letter to Rep. Boehner regarding corruption in general and a specific call to reject Rep. Jerry Lewis’s (R-CA) reported bid to head once again the House Appropriations Committee.

You may recall that Rep. Jerry Lewis has the dubious distinction of appearing on Judicial Watch’s “Washington’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” list for 2008.

Here is the letter in its entirety:

Dear Congressman Boehner:

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational foundation that advocates for the rule of law and against government corruption. We are supported nationwide by hundreds of thousands of Americans and have a sixteen-year record of holding members of both major political parties accountable to the law. You have our congratulations as you take on the high constitutional office of Speaker of the House.

The American people are tired of corruption in Congress, and I urge you to take serious steps to address these concerns.

Accordingly, Judicial Watch urges you and your leadership team to reject Rep. Jerry Lewis’s reported bid to head once again the House Appropriations Committee.

(more…)

The indiscreet voicemail, left by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) for a lobbyist, sounded a bit like a “shakedown”, which is no big surprise.

I know from first-hand experience that Ms. Norton can use veiled threats and thuggish behavior when she wants to have her way.

During my time as the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), I was the recipient of late night phone calls at my home, during which Holmes wanted to “discuss” why GSA wasn’t doing more to house government agencies in certain parts of the District of Columbia, in particular, in areas where gentrification was occurring slowly.

Norton’s voracious appetite for “more” often led her to raise her voice and make veiled threats.  Once, she even trumped up a meeting where she advocated for more business on behalf of a real estate organization that I later learned had donated to her campaign.  When I protested these tactics and refused to attend further such meetings, the political pressure was cranked up and political unpleasantness became the norm.  Norton always claimed she was just doing her job.

Many Americans may be shocked to hear Holmes’ indiscreet voicemail, but, from my experiences in Washington, it seems that Holmes may have learned these tactics from the top leadership of her party.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Majority Whip, has been especially thuggish in the past, screaming and issuing threats at the homes of federal agency leaders, should one of his pork projects be questioned.

The “gimme”, as practiced by some Democrat legislators, can range from subtle and respectful, as is probably appropriate for any request, to disrespectful and threatening.  It seems as if there are some legislators who want to make sure there is no doubt in your mind that if you don’t cough up the goods during the shakedown, then negative consequences will occur.

(more…)

The Obama Administration has some explaining to do.  Politico reports in a Friday story that 2011 could be a tough year for an Administration facing numerous oversight hearings on issues ranging from the controversy over the Justice Department’s handling of the New Black Panther Party investigation to the numerous bailouts administered by Obama Administration officials.  Specific allegations from Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) regarding the use of government sponsored propaganda should raise ethical flags, if not legal ones, for Americans who don’t want tax dollars used to promote the big government ideas of President Barack Obama.

From Politico:

If President Barack Obama needed any more incentive to go all out for Democrats this fall, here it is: Republicans are planning a wave of committee investigations targeting the White House and Democratic allies if they win back the majority.

An investigation of the Obama Administrations use of government sponsored propaganda to promote the left wing agenda of the President is one of the areas planned for investigation.  A report from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released August 16, 2010 indicates that members of the Obama Administration may have broken the law implementing the President’s public relations and propaganda efforts.  Congressman Darrell Issa, Ranking Member of the Committee, has been a critic of the Obama Administrations misuse of federal monies and he has put out this staff report, “Analysis of the First Year of the Obama Administration:  Pubic Relations and Propaganda Initiatives.”

The  Report summarizes:

Since the beginning of the Obama Administration on January 20, 2009, ordinary Americans have financed and been exposed to an unprecedented number of public relations and propaganda efforts. Federal spending for public relations contracts rose to historically-high levels during the Bush Administration. Under one-party rule in 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives. Congress buoyed the Administration’s propaganda efforts by increasing federal spending on public relations for the first time since 2005.

(more…)

The Senate is currently working on the Defense Department Appropriations. The legislation provides the framework for spending $625 billion for the nation’s defense. Yes, even today, in Obamamerica, that is a lot money. No surprise, then, that this enormous pot-o-money attracts a load of earmarks.

Now, an earmark itself doesn’t necessarily increase the total amount of money being spent. It simply allows a Congressman or Senator to slice off a small chunk of money and REQUIRE that it be spent in the way they think best.  Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this (see Murtha, John).

The least bad is that the money isn’t spent effeciently. A slightly worse problem is that the earmark consumes money that isn’t then available for what may be more pressing needs.  Which makes earmarks in the Defense spending bill, um, troublesome. Are politicians really the best choice for deciding how to allocate specific resources to defend our nation and protect our uniformed men and women?

Let’s take a current example:

(more…)