President Barack Obama will deliver his fourth State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 24th–the very day that marks the 1,000th day since the Democrat-controlled United States Senate last bothered to pass a budget.

On Monday, the Ranking Republican of the Senate Budget Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and the Chairman of the House Budget Committee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a joint statement blasting Democrats for their budgetary inaction and contrasting it with Republican efforts:

Senate Democrats abandoned their official duty to prioritize Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and tackle our nation’s most pressing economic challenges—dealing a painful blow to fiscal progress that may be felt for some time.  This contrasts sharply with the record of the House Republicans. Last spring, the new House Majority publicly produced a budget plan before the nation, brought it forward in committee, and passed it on the floor. The budget’s principled solutions honestly confront our nation’s most difficult challenges, putting the budget on a path to balance and the country on a path to prosperity.

To mark the inauspicious 1,000-day anniversary, the Heritage Foundation released a series of budget facts and urged the Senate to meet its Constitution requirements for fiscal stewardship:

(more…)

Call it life imitating art. Call it a cynical election year ploy for campaign cash. Call it a desperate Hollywood remake. But don’t call it over. Sources on Capitol Hill claim that, although last week saw the timely and bloody death of two bills whose interference with individual liberty was unparalleled in the digital age – SOPA and PIPA – the fight may not be over.

Many key journalists in the tech industry have already pointed out that SOPA and PIPA were, until the industry and American consumers got a hold of the bills, a “sure thing” set to pass without much, if any opposition from members of Congress. The indefinite delay, prompted by massive outrage and widespread protests last week, prompted a total reconsideration of the bill, with Marco Rubio and Congressional Republicans leading a firestorm of criticism and a mass exodus from the bill. Its worth noting, however, that one of the bill’s key sponsors, Democratic Senator Harry Reid, was quick to note that we haven’t seen the last of the bills.

“We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio,” he said in a statement posted by Games Industry (requires free account sign up.)

He went on to encourage other key senators to look into the proposed amendments to the bills, rehashing SOPA to make it more likely to pass if pushed through again.

Its worth noting that the bill’s backers – the MPAA, RIAA and a host of union thugs – are known for their persistence, whether its prosecuting unwitting grandmothers for Internet music “theft” or protesting Wisconsin governors who are trying to rescue their state’s financial well-being, and Americans should not expect them to back down any time soon. And with the amount of money and the future of Democratic party rule at stake in this next election, the MPAA’s, RIAA’s and unions’ deep pockets and ability to write huge campaign checks probably won’t be put at risk for something as silly as the rights of the American people.

(more…)

In an appearance on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) claimed that the Tea Party is “dying out” heading into the 2012 elections.

Here’s Sen. Reid’s exchange with reporter David Gregory:

SEN. REID: Well, I think the tea party’s dying out as the economy’s getting better slowly.

MR. GREGORY: You do think that?

SEN. REID: Oh, sure, no question about it. And, and, and you–and, and you…

MR. GREGORY: Well, we just talked about their, their muscular impact on the process.

SEN. REID: Well, but that’s during the past year. I would hope that the two Republican leaders have learned what took place in the previous year. And, you know, what we have to focus on this year is rebuilding the economy. We have to, and the only way to do that is to create jobs and that’s why the agenda that I’m moving forward on, I hope with some cooperation from the Republicans this time, is to do something about creating jobs. Our surface transportation bill, it’ll save a million jobs, create a lot more jobs, Federal Aviation Administration, that’s more than 200,000 jobs. We’re having a very important piece of legislation, important to this network right here, IP, and that’s of course dealing with informational–with, with making sure that we have intellectual property that’s protected and we need to do that. And that–that’s also job saving. So that’s what we need to work on, things that create jobs and protect the American economy.

(more…)

According to a new study conducted by the Washington Times newspaper, the 2011 112th Congress was the “most futile” and least productive since records began being kept in 1947.

For many conservatives, fewer laws passing–and the spending that often comes with them– may seem like a reason to cheer. But as the Washington Times points out, because so many entitlement programs operate on autopilot spending increases, government spending grows automatically even when bills aren’t passed.

The new report appears to have sparked a new round of the Washington blame game:

Spokesmen for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, did not respond to questions about the lack of action.

McConnell spokesman Don Stewart did offer a brief statement that Democrats’ 2012 agenda appears to be the same as in 2011.

“Legislation that will be pushed will be what polls well, rather than what could feasibly be passed into law,” he said.

(more…)

In the wake of Peter Schweizer’s explosive revelation that 80 percent of the Department of Energy’s $20.5 billion in green energy loans went to President Barack Obama’s fundraisers and donors, CBS News is now reporting that the Obama Administration spent billions of taxpayer dollars on 11 more Solyndra-style loans to so-called green energy companies that have since gone bankrupt or are facing serious financial difficulty.

CBS News’s Sharyl Attkisson, the reporter who originally broke the Solyndra story, notes that 11 other failed clean energy companies besides Solyndra received approval for $6.5 billion in taxpayer monies.  Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Eastern Energy, and Solyndra have all gone bankrupt.   Others, such as Nevada Geothermal Power, a company that was personally touted by Sen. Harry Reid, is facing serious financial problems and warned of “multiple potential defaults” in its new SEC filings.  Still, despite the fact that the company had already been struggling to “pay the bills,” Ms. Attkinson reports that Nevada Geothermal Power received $98.5 million in Department of Energy loan guarantees.

The CBS report also cites First Solar, a company that Breitbart News editor Peter Schweizer reported on extensively in his bestselling book, Throw Them All Out, as having been approved for billions in government loans.  In 2011, First Solar won the inauspicious title as having been the biggest S&P loser in 2011.  Moreover, First Solar has strong ties to Mr. Obama’s top fundraisers.  As Mr. Schweizer reported for Breitbart News, Obama bundler Bruce Heyman was with Goldman Sachs which, along with billionaire Ted Turner, are among the largest investors in First Solar.  So far, Mr. Heyman has already raised $366,884 for Mr. Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.  And Schweizer’s says in 2008, Mr. Turner’s companies donated more than $1 million in campaign contributions to Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign.  Whether these political contributions helped First Solar land its whopping $4.7 billion in loan guarantees, the appearance at least of cronyism is certainly strong.

(more…)

You may recall when Hillary Clinton said the presidency is no place for on-the-job training. Three years into his term, Barack Obama seems to still be struggling to get up to speed, now having to replace his Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, to the surprise of most. Daley is deemed to have been the wrong man for the job. Also, Daley was not a first year choice, he replaced Rahm Emanuel only a year ago, suggesting that Obama was still making bad staff decision two years in.

The Washington Post’s Jena McGregor brings the bad news.

The revolving door at the White House is swinging again, and this time, Chief of Staff William Daley is on his way out. Many seemed to be taken off guard: Obama says it wasn’t easy news to hear. Others said official Washington was surprised by the news.

They shouldn’t have been. It seems painfully obvious that Daley was wrong in the role….

His departure calls into question Obama’s judgment when picking one of the key posts for his administration. While addressing the relationship with the business community and Republicans may have been an important task in late 2010, it wasn’t necessarily the right one for the president’s chief of staff. That post is, in effect, the White House’s chief operating officer—the person responsible for being the president’s most senior adviser and the person in charge of all West Wing administrative and operational matters.

Daley, considered of the moderate, Clinton-wing of the Democrat Party, was heralded as the right man for the job by Obama and the Democrats when he brought him in. Or, perhaps he felt he needed him to curry favor with Wall Street to raise cash for his coming re-election campaign. Whatever the reason, Daley never caught on and, for his job of governing America, Obama simply picked the wrong man. He couldn’t even get along with Harry Reid, let alone Republicans.

(more…)

We were so full of “hope” for “change.” No, I am not talking about the election of Barack Obama, one of the most effective Progressive presidents in American history. I am speaking of the excitement felt within the Conservative, Libertarian and Center Right and Left political communities after the 2010 election delivered the House and a non-filibuster proof Senate to the American people. Finally, most of us thought, some balance in the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, the Progressives and Liberal Democrats in federal government would be forced to the table of true and honest compromise; compromise fitting of a truly free people. But, as we look back over the year, what did we really get for all that so-called “compromise?”

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – almost three years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

(more…)

In the year since the Tea Party arrived in Congress, the movement has managed to change the debate on Capitol Hill, but not the way Washington works.

The Tea Party has stopped President Barack Obama and the Democrats from bailing out profligate state governments, from passing new so-called “stimulus” spending, and from raising tax rates. It has even begun to win bipartisan support for major entitlement reform.

However, the Tea Party has failed thus far to stop the overall growth in the size and cost of government. It passed over a dozen bills that would accelerate economic growth and create new jobs, only to see those bills languish in Harry Reid’s Senate.

In both the debt ceiling and the payroll tax debates, the Tea Party saw its sensible bills rejected in favor of absurd compromises–then found itself being blamed for congressional gridlock.

The key to the Tea Party’s fortunes has been its relationship with the very establishment it dislikes. Where it has found common ground–for example, with House budget chair Paul Ryan–it has been able to promote its agenda of limited government. But when the Tea Party has clashed with Republican leaders–starting with key Senate races in 2010–Democrats have won by dividing conservatives from moderates, House from Senate. (more…)

The honorable member of the Senate delivered this intellectual commentary from the floor yesterday. We’re not sure which is more ludicrous; stating that millionaire job creators don’t exist or that unicorns are impossible to find.

From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested on Monday that millionaires who create jobs are a mere figment of Republicans’ imaginations.

“Millionaire job creators are like unicorns,” said Reid from the Senate floor.  “They are impossible to find and don’t exist.”

Reid’s frustration has grown in past weeks as Republicans have repeatedly and overwhelmingly blocked almost every fragment of President Obama’s jobs package brought to the floor because Democrats have attempted to pay for them by raising taxes on millionaires. Republicans say they oppose that tax because it would hamper job creation.

But Reid said Monday morning that there was no evidence of a correlation between taxes on the wealthy and jobs.

“Republicans say the richest of the rich in our country … shouldn’t contribute more to put our economy back on track,” said Reid. “They call our plan time after time a ‘tax on job creators,’ and I say so-called job creators because … every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring.”

(more…)

From The Hill:

For the third time in four weeks, Senate Republicans on Thursday voted in unison to block a piece of President Obama’s jobs package.

The GOP senators were joined by one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) in rejecting a procedural motion on legislation that would spend $60 billion on transportation infrastructure programs. The vote was 51-49.

The spending was offset with a new tax on income earned above $1 million that Republicans oppose.

(more…)

Despite the support from mainstream political and pop culture figures, the ‘Occupy’ movement is quite nutty and, actually, quite dangerous.

Free love. No private property. Self identifying one’s gender. More socialist than Marx.

The ideological and philosophical underpinnings of the “Occupy” movement are quite bizarre. Before either embracing the movement or blowing it off as typical left wing lunacy, it’s important to understand where these people are coming from and the kind of society for which they are clamoring.

(more…)

From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) on Tuesday further distanced his Democratic Conference from President Obama by nixing a major component of the White House’s jobs plan.

Reid said he would revise parts of the proposal that some Senate Democrats have found unpalatable. The Nevada Democrat announced his new strategy on the same day he blocked a Republican effort to force a vote on Obama’s jobs bill.

The GOP-led maneuver, and Reid’s counterattack, shows that Republicans are more united against Obama’s plan than Democrats are for it.

(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 Lachlan Markay, investigative reporter for the Heritage Foundation to discuss the ever evolving Solyndra scandal, the President’s insistence that is was a good investment of taxpayer money, and which green-energy company may be the next Solyndra.

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:

White House Knew Solyndra Was In Trouble, Emails Indicate
Obama: No regrets over Solyndra
Emails Show White House Officials Said “Oblivious” Department of Energy Meant “Bad Days Are Coming”
Is Harry Reid-Backed Nevada Geothermal the Next Solyndra?
Lachlan Markay at Heritage Foundation

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Lachlan Markay on Twitter

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

JAY CARNEY:  Sir, word from the Senate on your American Jobs Act.  Majority Leader Reid is complaining of constipation.  Says he’s been pushing since yesterday, but he can’t pass the bill.

OBAMA:  Merde!  After I did all the heavy lifting.  Damn do-nothing Congress.

VALERIE JARRETT:  Good thing you’re leaving the country next week, sir.  No one can blame you if the measure tanks when you’re abroad on official business.

OBAMA: Where am I off to?

BILL DALEY:  You’ll begin your working tour of Scotland’s golf courses on Monday, sir.  Meanwhile, the First Lady and several dozen close friends and family members are already aboard the presidential yacht, Alinsky, en route to the Galapagos for a holiday.

OBAMA:  Message her confirmation that we’ll rendezvous a week from Friday on the Côte d’Azur.  When do I return home?

DALEY:  Um, we want to be flexible, sir.  Tell him, Poll Boy.

CHUCK TODD:  Recent surveys indicate hiring spikes and an uptick in consumer confidence when you’re away, sir.  It’s as if some great weight was lifted from. . . . .

OBAMA:  I get it, Chuck.  All right.  Add Ireland to my itinerary.  Inform Michelle I’ll join her on the Riviera October 1^st.  Eric, do you have this “Gunwalker” thing under control? (more…)

The American left and its handmaidens in the Old Media spent 24 hours desperately trying to spin Obama’s attempt to schedule a joint session of Congress on the same day as the GOP debate as an example of how the GOP is refusing to work with him. These leftists categorically deny that Obama was simply engaging in political brinkmanship, using his selection of Sept. 7 as a political ploy. But the very night that Obama was shot down by Speaker Boehner on the date he chose for his jobs address, Obama’s campaign sent out a fundraising letter that pretty much proves that Obama intended the whole episode to be the very political ploy his pals in the Old Media tried to deny was happening.

On Aug 31, President Obama announced as if it were set the date of Sept. 7 for his jobs speech to a joint session of Congress. Of course, he and his staff knew that Sept. 7 was the date scheduled months ago for the next GOP presidential debate. It was clearly an attempt by Obama to overshadow the debate, the first one that Texas Gov. Rick Perry would be a part.

One problem here is that the protocol of scheduling a joint session of Congress was not observed by this White House. The fact is a president cannot schedule a joint session of Congress on his own hook. He simply does not have that power Constitutionally. He must ask the Senate majority leader and the speaker of the House of Representatives if the date he is requesting will work. Such a date has to be agreed upon by Congress before announcements are made. Obama did not do this. He simply tried to decree on what date the speech would be held and announced that date as if it were settled.

This was an unprecedented move.

(more…)

Many have wondered why Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a former Obama administration official as Ambassador to China, climate-change believer, ally of Harry Reid and all-around anti-Tea Party candidate is running for the Republican presidential nomination.  Were the 2012 Republican primaries your typical RINO race (not that there aren’t abundant RINOs in the current field, at least in this author’s view), it would be clear that Huntsman would be setting himself up as the establishment, “civil,” “grown up” candidate, in the mold of a more liberal Mitt Romney.

However, primaries are determined by the most ardent partisans, which for the Republican party today certainly means Tea Partiers, and conservatives and libertarians who hold similar views to those of the Tea Party.  Given that it is abundantly clear that those who will determine the Republican nominee will never accept a person with Huntsman’s political views, one must wonder why he is in the race.

I believe I have found a plausible answer.  Jon Huntsman Jr. is potentially the key to four more years of Barack Obama, not by running as a Republican but by running as an Independent.  Allow me to explain.

By running to the left of the rest of the Republican field, Huntsman likely has no intention of competing in the Republican primary.  Instead, he may use the Republican primary and his substantial personal wealth to set up for a run in the general election as an Independent — as the “reasonable” candidate in a field characterized by the mainstream media as consisting of terrorist Tea Partiers practicing radical brinksmanship and wanting to take us back to the Antebellum era, and President Obama who has proven ineffective, weak and ever-willing to compromise.

Independents who buy this line thus may look to spend their vote on a more moderate and palatable candidate.  Jon Huntsman would be their man.

(more…)

I believe in girl power. I’ve been a proponent of it long before the ridiculous Power Puff Girls and those sassy Spice Girls made the term part of our vernacular.

I’m of the mind a woman can do anything she puts her mind to – and isn’t limited by the fact that she is a woman.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe some things are meant to be done by men only – err taking out the trash or mowing the lawn to name a few, but hell- if I wanna do them I’m perfectly capable of it and don’t you doubt it (I really despise taking out the trash. Don’t know why … I just do).

Women can fight in wars. They can die for their country. They can fly planes, build bridges, perform brain surgery and even help build the space shuttle (Sing it with me now: ‘bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never ever let you forget you’re a man …’). But apparently, they’re not equipped to be significantly represented on the ‘Super Committee.’

We represent 50.7 percent of the population in the United States. The Democrats, claiming to be progressive, placed only one woman on the 12-person Debt Reduction committee. If the committee, appointed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, didn’t want to be representative of the American population, it could’ve at least been sensitive to the 93 women serving in Congress. This would’ve required the placement of at least 2 women on the panel. But no.

Reid and Pelosi were too concerned with making sure all minority groups were represented. One African-American Congressman was chosen (According to the Census, 12.6 percent of the population is African American. 44 are in the 112th Congress — or 8.1 percent of the total membership) and one Latino is on the committee (There are 31 Hispanic or Latino members of the 112th Congress, which is 5.7 percent of the total congressional membership. Hispanics and Latinos make up 16.3 percent of the U.S. population.)

What is the significance of this? To me, it’s clear. The democrats care more about the minority vote than they do about the gender vote because they feel they’ve already got it in the bag! (more…)

This WaPo article — “Obama tries to change subject back to green jobs” — is an instant classic of a new, Obama-era genre: cheerleading for expensive schemes which exist solely due to political whimsy and consideration, and are therefore little more than make-work.

The item begins, “After spending weeks talking about topics he probably would have preferred to avoid — debt limits, deficits, a plunging stock market — President Obama will hit the road Thursday to talk about jobs. Specifically, about how his administration is trying to create more of them.”

The green ones. Which schemes failed where the president used to tell us to look but no longer does because the failures were exposed. As his spokesman admits “the White House doesn’t create jobs”.

And his critics say he’s out of ideas! But, hmm. Yes. I suppose that ‘green jobs’ thing went over well last time he led with it. Still, if ending up as a punch-line is victory, what does defeat look like?

(more…)

BILL DALEY:  The delegation is here, sir.

OBAMA:  All right.  Bring them in.  Let’s get this over with.

[enter Clintons, DNC Chair, Reid, Pelosi, Pollster John Zogby, Jesse Jackson, George Soros]

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ:  John, tell the President what you told us.

ZOGBY:  The debt-ceiling deal hasn’t helped you, sir.  We’ve just completed a telephone survey of 1000 people.  10% said they would hold their noses and vote to reelect you; 10% complained the aides were mean, the kids never visited, and the home smelled like disinfectant; and 80% vowed to vote for your opponent, whoever he is.

OBAMA:  Bad, yes, but there’s still time to  . . . .

NANCY PELOSI:  Tell him the rest, John.

ZOGBY:  The survey was limited to Democrats in Ms. Pelosi’s district, sir.  Of those who swear you won’t get their vote, 40% say they plan to register and cast ballots in neighboring districts as well.

PELOSI:  Obviously, they’re good Democrats, sir.  They’ve simply had it with you.

OBAMA:  So, you want me to stand down in 2012 for . . . Hillary?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ:  God no, sir.  It’d look like we pushed you out.  Poof goes the black vote.  We want you to run but . . . welcome her primary challenge.

VALERIE JARRETT:  Ah, I get it.  He’s supposed to lose gracefully, then stump for Hillary next fall in places like Harlem, Watts, and Liberty City, where his approval rating is holding steady at 97%.  I’d pass, sir.

HILLARY:  Way I look at it, Mr. President, Billy Jeff here broke trail for you in the 90s.  “First Black President,” and all.  You owe us.

(more…)

It appears the Boehner/Reid debt fix, which was really no fix at all, did what most legislation does nowadays: it extended the power of the government while doing very little to solve the problems for which it was designed. Thus, while Obama was doing “victory laps” around the White House following the bill’s passage in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of his comrades were trying to figure out how to load the new “Super Congress” in their favor.

What is the “Super Congress” you ask? It’s a creation of the Boehner/Reid plan: a Congress-within-a-Congress which the Senate cannot filibuster nor the Speaker of the House control.

In other words, by design it is superior to either legislative body set forth in the Constitution (which means it is but one loony Democrat away from being a rogue congress, bent on usurping every right Americans have enjoyed since our Founding).

If you think I’m engaging in hyperbole here, consider this – once the debt bill had passed and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was trying to calm conservative nerves about the limited scope of the newly created congress, Reid was standing at a microphone saying: “[On the ‘Super Congress’] there are no constraints….They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.”

Did you catch that folks? The “Super Congress” can look at any program and “at everything.”

(more…)