CPAC should have been a triumphal moment for Rick Santorum. His sweep of election contests this week put a gale-force wind in his campaign’s sails. At this week’s “Wednesday Meeting” of center-right organizations and activists, hosted by Grover Norquist, there was palpable excitement about the results and Santorum’s prospects. CPAC attendees are a natural base for Santorum, who overall the other nominees has the more consistent, traditional conservative record. Talking to attendees, it was clear they wanted to believe in Santorum. Their hearts were with him, even if their minds were nagged by questions of his electability. Today’s speech was a tailor-made opportunity to put these fears to rest. He whiffed.

(more…)

From BusinessInsider:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Senate Democrats will put forward a plan to extend the payroll tax cut into 2012 this week paid for by a surtax on those with incomes greater than $1 million.

The tax cut provides the average American family with an extra $1000 in their pocket each year — and President Barack Obama has said failing to extend the tax cut and unemployment benefits would cost the economy 1 million jobs and 0.5% off GDP.

Schumer described the revenue increase on Meet the Press as a “small surtax on incomes over $1 million,” a measure certain to draw opposition from deficit-hawk Republicans opposed to any tax increases.

Schumer added that Democrats would keep introducing the payroll tax cut if it fails this week — but indicated his party is willing to negotiate other “pay-fors” with Republicans if necessary.

Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist said on the same program that he is not opposed to extending the tax cut, but he indicated he would be opposed to a new tax on millionaires to pay for it.

Read more here.

In 2007, the deficit was $160 billion. In 2008 it was $454 billion. Then Obama took office and for two years under a Democratic-led Senate and Congress, he got everything on his wish-list passed.

The result:

• 2009 deficit: $1.4 trillion — with a “t”
• 2010: deficit: $1.3 trillion
• 2011 deficit: 1.3 trillion

So what was the all-important goal of this fabled and fabulously stupid Super Committee? To lower the deficit by … $1.2 trillion.

Yep, that’s it. A measly $1.2 trillion — to which I say, why even bother? If that’s all you’re going to lower the deficit by, you’ve already accepted the premise that most of what Obama’s done to explode the size of government is acceptable.

To the bigger point.

One of the only hopes this failed president has to win re-election is to convince enough voters his failed economy isn’t his fault. So what better way to pin the blame on a “do nothing” Congress (meaning: Republicans) than with this Super Committee nonsense? What the Democrats effectively did with this committee was to put Republicans in a no-win situation. Either they could betray the message of 2010 and raise taxes, or they would be blamed for the committee’s failure.

And as we are seeing today, the corrupt MSM was in on the scheme.

Ladies and gentleman, Exhibit A: an absolutely giddy Carol Costello…

—–

Everything Costello’s asking and pushing in that segment is based on the immoral and ignorant premise that raising taxes will somehow — and for the first time in history! — help the economy grow. Because, you know, taking money out of the private sector and throwing it into the black hole of that same genius public sector that found green energy so worthwhile and wasted $900 billion on the failed stimulus will create jobs.

Except…

(more…)

I’m baffled by stupid Republicans (sorry to be redundant). Some GOPers have agreed to put taxes on the table. Not surprisingly, Democrats are praising them for this preemptive surrender, patting these Republicans on the head for being good little lapdogs. The Democrats are also high-fiving each other since they openly admit that tricking Republicans into a tax hike has been their top political goal, but that’s an issue for another day.

And what are Republicans getting in exchange for violating their no-tax promises? As you might suspect, they’re getting nothing. For all intents and purposes, the left is saying “that’s a good start” and waiting for GOPers to make further concessions. Needless to say, this is very irritating. And I’m not the only person who is upset. Here is a column that I co-authored along with Grover Norquist, Mike Needham, Phil Kerpen, Al Cardenas, and Duane Parde. We explain why higher taxes are a bad idea:

(more…)

So we got ourselves a Super Congress…hopefully, Boehner will put himself, Paul Ryan, and Joe Walsh on it.  I want the imperfect Tea Party freshman who allegedly owes child support to have a voice.   They are all likely imperfect; I prefer one who has already been sullied, and argues well on MSNBC.    But if not Joe Walsh, then tap Ron Paul.

Job #1 of the Super-Congress is Tax Reform.  This is our best chance to simplify American tax policy so a second grader can explain it.

Grover must pledge: Cutting the Tea Party's taxes matters most!

Crucial point: Grover Norquist is a good guy, but my main concern is not do taxes go up overall?

What I care about is: Do the Tea Party’s taxes go down a lot?

If we see overall tax revenues increase because GE is not getting green dollars, while all the small business owners are paying MUCH MUCH less – we have a winner.   You hear that Pelosi?  I just gave you some solace; render unto the patriots their due, and at least you can show your team some Fortune 1000 scalps.  Of course they won’t donate to your team any longer, but you should only get donations from the lower classes anyway.

Let’s be straight forward about what we want to see in a new tax policy:

1. The bottom half of America must pay at least as much as they pay now.
2. The Wall Street investor class and the Fortune 1000 management can pay more.
3. The owners of small businesses across the US, the savers, the scrimpers, the Tea Party faithful pay MUCH LESS.

Because when we say “broaden the base, end the loopholes, and lower the tax rates” – the above is exactly what we really mean.    And we can’t let Grover Norquist’s Tax Pledge screw us up.

(more…)

I’m blogging from the 102nd annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) at the JW Marriott in Los Angeles, CA.

At last year’s convention, the NAACP passed a resolution condemning racism in the Tea Party after claiming (falsely) for months that Tea Party members had used the “N-word” against members of the Congressional Black Caucus at an anti-ObamaCare rally on Capitol Hill in March 2010.

A year later, after the Tea Party helped lead Republicans to sweeping electoral victories in November 2010, the political landscape has changed nationwide–and so, apparently, has the NAACP’s rhetoric.

Today, at an introductory press conference, NAACP President and CEO Ben Jealous appeared to strike a conciliatory tone, highlighting areas of cooperation with the Tea Party and prominent conservatives, even amidst broad policy disagreements.

One place of agreement we have found with the Tea Party this year, in places like Texas, has been the urgent need to reform our nation’s criminal justice system. Even as we battle on 99% of the issues, we have found one place to work together.

Grover Norquist, and the California state prison guards’ union, the CCPOA, joined us and the U.S. students’ association and the ACLU. Newt Gingrich sent a statement to say it is time that this state and this country get back to investing in education, and away from investing so much in incarceration.

In the brief question-and-answer session that followed, a local reporter asked Jealous to respond to plans by a Tea Party group in predominantly black South Central Los Angeles to protest against the NAACP on Sunday.

(more…)

As I have explained elsewhere, tax increases are a bad idea – unless you favor bigger government.

And I’ve already added my two cents to the tax debate between Senator Coburn and Grover Norquist regarding the desirability of higher taxes.

So it won’t surprise anyone to know that I fully agree with this new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which offers seven reasons why higher taxes are a bad idea.

The video is narrated by Piyali Bhattacharya of Young Americans for Liberty, and here are her seven reasons.

1. Tax increases are not needed
2. Tax increases encourage more spending
3. Tax increases harm economic performance
4. Tax increases foment social discord
5. Tax increases almost never raise as much revenue as projected
6. Tax increases encourage more loopholes
7. Tax increases undermine competitiveness

I think reasons #1, #2, #3, and #5 are the most powerful.

(more…)

Since the beginning of government, the ambition of those who spend money has rarely been matched by the ability of citizens to pay for government.  Modern day America, California or Greece are not exceptions to the rule, just examples of yesterday on a more grand scale today.  As perpetual as that problem is  - so too is the argument over the best way to raise tax revenue.  In simple terms, lower tax rates produce a more vibrant economy and higher revenues over time.  Higher tax rates do the exact opposite.  Heading into 2012, the Country cannot afford for Republicans to lose that economic argument.

The issue of taxes produces perhaps the greatest display between real politics and false economics.  Politicians throughout time have passed laws claiming to raise taxes.  In truth, politicians pass laws that raise tax rates.  That is a political process.  From there, the laws of economics take over.

In general, throughout all time, people adjust their behavior in reaction to political laws by acting in accordance with economic laws which are driven by human nature.  So if the penalty for speeding went up to $5000 per ticket – the number of people who speed would be reduced.  If the penalty for making income increases, i.e. taxes, rises – the amount of income actually made or reported will be reduced over time as well.

Today we are faced with astronomical deficits nationally and in many states.   The debt repayment obligation for California next year alone is larger than the budgets of 21 states.  What should governments do?  Should they politically raise tax rates? Or should they economically lower rates?  The answer is the latter and if Republicans (1) fail to make the argument why in 2011 and 2012, as this article implies they will, Grover Norquist, Tom Coburn duel over tax hikes , and (2) don’t stop simply saying NO to so-called tax increases, then Barack Obama will be reelected.

Consider this argument for cutting tax rates to raise revenue:

(more…)

There’s a significant debate now taking place in Washington – largely behind closed doors, but sometimes covered by the media – on whether fiscal conservatives should maintain a rigid no-tax-increase position. One side of the debate features Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, which is the organization that maintains the no-tax increase pledge. The other side features Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, who is part of a small group of GOP Senators who might be willing to increase the tax burden as part of a deal that supposedly reduces deficits.

I’m a huge fan of Senator Coburn, who was in favor of cutting wasteful spending before it became fashionable. His office, for instance, releases a “Pork Report” every couple of days. But you shouldn’t read it if you have high blood pressure, because it will confirm (and reconfirm, and reconfirm, ad nauseum) your worst fears about tax dollars getting wasted.

Nonetheless, I’m on Grover’s side on this tax debate for two reasons.

First, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem or a deficit/debt problem. Red ink is undesirable, to be sure, but it is a symptom of the underlying problem of a government that is too big and spending too much.

But don’t believe me. Here is a chart from the House Budget Committee showing long-run projections for spending and revenues over the next 70 years. As you can see, the long-run fiscal shortfall is completely caused by higher spending. In other words, 100 percent of red ink is due to government spending. So why put taxes on the table?

But this chart actually understates the case against tax increases. It uses revenue numbers from the Congressional Budget Office’s “alternative” forecast, which shows taxes steady at 19.3 percent of GDP. That’s more than the historical average of about 18 percent of GDP, which surely indicates that revenues are not the problem.

However, that 19.3 percent estimate is completely artificial. As CBO states in its long-run forecast, “the alternative fiscal scenario also incorporates unspecified changes in tax law that would keep revenues constant as a share of GDP after 2020.”

I’ll actually be delighted if we can permanently keep federal revenues below 20 percent of GDP, but I’m not overly optimistic because the tax burden is projected to automatically increase over time. And I’m not talking about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts or the alternative minimum tax. Yes, those factors would push up tax revenues (at least based on static revenue estimates), but the tax burden also is expected to climb because even modest economic growth slowly but surely pushes more and more people into higher tax brackets.

(more…)

Conservative luminaries led by anti-abortion rights activist Phyllis Schlafly and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist last Thursday penned a decidedly anti-Net Neutrality open letter to Members of Congress, in which they warned that the new regulations proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would curb innovation and severely limit the ability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to prioritize valuable content over otherwise objectionable and obscene material.

“There is no evidence of a market failure to justify the burdensome government regulations some are proposing,” the letter read. “Unfortunately, it appears that a few FCC commissioners lack an understanding of how regulations affect investment.”

Proponents of the FCC’s proposed broadband rules note that the issue of Net Neutrality is one in which conservatives are purportedly split. The Christian Coalition of America, a social conservative advocacy group, endorsed the Left’s overtures at re-regulating the Internet.  Likewise, Gun Owners of America have also voiced support for the controversial policy.

But last week’s letter–whose signatories include the likes of American Family Association President Tim Wildmon, Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council, prominent Catholic Deal Hudson and Mrs. Schlafly–suggest the Right, as a virtually unified whole, has turned a page in the debate over a dynamic Internet, and now is staunchly and almost uniformly opposed to what some critics call “a government takeover of the Internet.”

(more…)

The Poker Players Alliance — a million-member strong grassroots organization that defends poker rights — cosponsored the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second consecutive year.  Poker players, still reeling over past efforts to ban online and other forms of poker, have been actively reaching out to conservatives for support for their right to play, and cosponsorship of CPAC is part of this outreach effort.  They were pleased at their reception at this year’s event and feel support for their position within the broader conservative movement will continue to increase.

Displaying the confidence that a year of solid wins on Capitol Hill has earned them, the PPA went to CPAC ready to take on the dwindling minority who would ban poker as well as those who believe poker rights ought not be a conservative concern.  They came armed with handouts on why principled conservatives ought to oppose a big government prohibition on online poker, copies of pro-poker articles by George Will, Walter Williams, and Jacob Sullum, free t-shirts, and 2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer, who was on hand to sign autographs.

2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer at CPAC

They also showed off the alliances they have with many within the conservative movement, including FreedomWorks, CPAC straw poll winner Rep. Ron Paul (video of Rep. Paul backing PPA’s position), and Americans for Tax Reform.

(more…)

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2010, Robert Spencer and I are launching a new organization, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), by presenting a conference entitled “Jihad: The Political Third Rail — What They Are Not Telling You.” The conference is designed to speak the truths that others will not speak – and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is enraged.

The conference is designed to educate Americans about the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration at the highest levels of the U.S. government, as well as its war on free speech: its attempt to silence and discredit those who speak up against the jihad and Sharia encroachment in the West. Emphasis will be on the international character of the jihad against the West and on how the Islamic war on free speech (and the media’s self-imposed blackout on this issue, as in the Fort Hood massacre) is part and parcel of the same jihad against the West that terrorists are pursuing by violent means.

And that’s too much for CAIR. Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for the unindicted co-conspirator and front for the Muslim Brotherhood CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), said, “They’re free to be anti-Muslim bigots if they like, but it’s really up to the organizers of CPAC to determine if they’re going to allow their conference to be associated with the hate-filled views of those who will be speaking.”

(more…)

Since a dialogue is a conversation between two or more people, Washington Democrats’ refusal to acknowledge the voice of the American people betrays their one-party, monologue approach to governance. Tonight, the National Republican Congressional Committee is working to stop the monologue and create a meaningful dialogue between House Republicans and the American people.

Between now and the beginning of the State of the Union address at 9 PM EST, you can either text “UNION” to 777218 or visit our Web site (www.nrcc.org) to sign up to participate in our first-ever mobile text chat room. The NRCC is providing a forum for all concerned Americans to discuss issues that are important to them, framed in the context of the President’s speech. Additionally, national figures such as Dana Perino, Grover Norquist of ATR, Former Senator Fred and Jeri Thompson, Former Congressman Tom Davis and Erick Erickson from Red State will be part of the discussion, providing their personal thoughts on the speech.

Following the speech, we invite you to join us on our Web site for a live streaming video Question and Answer session with me and several of my House colleagues, including Republican Leader John Boehner and NRCC Vice Chairman Greg Walden. This is a unique opportunity to directly engage with House Republican Leadership and Members of Congress and to receive our immediate observations on the President’s speech.

(more…)

Successfully demonizing Washington insiders on the campaign trail, President Obama needed to find a way to meet with lobbyists without appearing hypocritical. The administration’s advice to lobbyists? De-register.

For an administration that promised to renounce interest groups, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) certainly has the president’s ear and is sure to be a major player in the December jobs summit. In 2008, SEIU donated nearly $28 million to the Obama campaign setting the stage for SEIU President Andy Stern to become the White House’s most frequent visitor in 2009, according to White House visitor logs. Anna Burger, Treasure of the SEIU and Chairwoman of their Change to Win campaign was even appointed to Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board earlier this year and will represent SEIU at the December jobs summit held by the White House.

To the objective observer, it is clear that Andy Stern and Anna Burger are meeting with members of the White House to advance goals of the SEIU, they are lobbying. However, in 2008 both Stern and Burger de-registered as lobbyists providing the Obama administration cover to meet with them while avoiding cries of duplicity. Yet, neither Stern nor Burger changed positions or job responsibilities, they just stopped registering as lobbyists.

So who has to register?

(more…)