Romney doesn’t seem to get it: the 2012 election is about the size and cost of government.

We already have a “smart” president with ambitious plans who thinks he knows better. That hasn’t worked for our economy, and has damaged trust in our democracy.

Romney says “America doesn’t need a manager,” but his plans reflect what the Journal euphemistically calls “positive technocratic thinking.”

Though Romney may be more “sober” than his rival Newt Gingrich (or, less charitably, more timid than the former Speaker), he evidently shares with Gingrich an enthusiasm for what the federal government could do, if only he were put in control.

Given that Ron Paul’s radical foreign policy is a non-starter, and that several other candidates–however well-meaning–could not manage the mundane task of qualifying for the Virginia ballot, or withstand the media scrutiny of a long campaign, Republicans are feeling new doubts about the current field.

They are all better than Obama; the question is–are they the best Republicans can offer?

As Republicans have wrestled with that question, a few have floated the idea of a “brokered convention,” at which the party’s nominee would be chosen through back-room negotiations and contested ballots instead of the pro forma roll calls of recent decades.

Given Romney’s struggle to provide the clear alternative to Obama that Americans so desperately need, the party should consider whether a brokered convention is feasible as a fallback option.

Here, then, are the top ten Republicans who could be nominated at a brokered convention. Some declined to run earlier, and should reconsider; all would provide a stronger contrast to President Obama than Romney or Gingrich is providing at the moment.

***

10. Rep. Eric Cantor

The Whip united the caucus against the disastrous stimulus in 2009. In the debt ceiling debate, he reportedly held out against new taxes in any final agreement. Moreover, he has made clear that his vision for the country’s future is plainly different from Obama’s.

***

9. Sen. Jim DeMint

The conservative stalwart has provided key support to Tea Party candidates, and has challenged the compromise politics of the Republican establishment.

***

8. Gov. Bobby Jindal

Recently elected in a landslide to a second term, he has fought political corruption and brought competence and leadership to a state long lacking both. Despite a rocky national TV debut in 2009, Jindal is a ruthless and effective campaigner.

***

7. Rep. Mike Pence

The Indiana all-star has the policy positions and the media profile that conservatives have beenseeking. He declined to run for president earlier this year, despite strong grassroots support, but could perhaps be persuaded to reconsider.

***

6. Gov. Mitch Daniels

An early favorite who also declined to run, the Indiana governor has boosted his state from deficit to surplus, and stagnation to job creation. Some conservatives are wary of his proposed “truce” on social issues, but would rally behind his fiscal leadership.

***

5. Sen. Marco Rubio

Rubio represents the best marriage of what Tea Party Republicans believe, and what traditional Republicans respect. He has declined to run for president–or even vice president–but, if he reconsidered, could help swing the Latino and Florida vote.

***

4. Gov. Chris Christie

The tough-talking New Jersey governor became a conservative hero when he stood up to public sector unions in restoring his state’s solvency–and he has taken on President Obama as well.

***

3. Rep. Paul Ryan

The House budget chair and “Conservative of the Year” famously confronted the president on Obamacare, but his main focus has been fiscal reform–including bipartisan proposals for fixing Medicare. He is also considered strong on social issues.

***

2. Gov. Sarah Palin

With a corruption-busting record, solid positions on the issues, and a big grassroots fan base, Palin would be a stronger contender than many in the field. She is a constant media target, but has found ways to speak directly to her supporters, and would excite passion in the race as no other candidate could.

***

1. Gov. Scott Walker

Targeted by the left, he has faced down a relentless public sector union onslaught. and put Wisconsin on a path to fiscal and economic recovery. He has Christie’s toughness–but with a quiet Midwestern delivery rather than a New Jersey swagger. Recently named “Governor of the Year,” Walker has the courage and experience to lead the nation.

***

There are other candidates who could do the job–former Florida governor Jeb Bush is one, for example, though his surname is still a burden in the first post-Bush presidential election.

Regardless, Republicans should consider a brokered convention unless the frontrunners improve their attack on Obama, because the mess that is the GOP primary isn’t just a disaster for the party, but also for a nation ready to hear the conservative message.

Today, even Democrats know that we can no longer afford big government and its obligations, and enough also realize that raising taxes will restrain the economic growth our country needs in order to build our future and balance the books.

Perhaps it would be easier if a Democrat–other than Obama–had the opportunity to take on the size of government, just as only a Republican like Nixon could go to China, and just as it was Democrat Bill Clinton who signed welfare reform into law in 1996.

Obama could have taken on entitlement reform, but chose not to, both because he wants to reshape government in a socialist mould, and because he is bound to allies who are busy enriching themselves. And he won’t change. Nor will he face a primary challenge, despite the fact that there are several other Democrats who would be better candidates.

So Americans–like it or not–are looking for the right Republican. Unfortunately, what the Grand Old Party has provided thus far is not particularly Grand, and Old in all the wrong ways–failing to challenge Obama’s 2008 vision of a vastly expanded government, while threatening to undo the Tea Party’s success in 2010.

There must be an alternative. And there are–several, in fact.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Ted Cruz to discuss his race for the US Senate, his ideas for entitlement reform, and how he would fix the economy.

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:

A Test for the Tea Party in Texas Senate Race
Ted Cruz: on a mission to save the country
Coffee and Markets Archive: Ted Cruz on His Race for the Senate in Texas
TedCruz.org

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Ted on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

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

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the latest consumer spending numbers, China’s push to corner the market on rare earth minerals, and Solyndra as the perfect example of Obamanomics.

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:

Prices Rising, But Spending Slows as Income Posts Drop
Employers hit by unemployment tax hikes
Rare Earths Fall as Toyota Develops Alternatives
DEMINT: Venture socialism
Venture Socialism: the Logical Endpoint of Obamanomics
Energy Department Is No Venture Capitalist
Crony Capitalism: $737 Million Green Jobs Loan Given to Nancy Pelosi’s Brother-In-Law
Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Senator Jim DeMint to discuss the fallout from the debt ceiling debate, the danger of Congress’ new super committee and his new book The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me.

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:

DeMint: Debt Deal Puts America at Risk
S.C. senators: Debt deal misses target
DeMint’s leadership PAC battles leaders’ in fight for future of Senate GOP caucus
The Great American Awakening: Two Years that Changed America, Washington, and Me
Senator Jim DeMint

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Senator DeMint on Twitter

The House is controlled by Republicans, yet the Senate is controlled by Democrats.  Divided government makes it hard to pass conservative ideas.  Hard, yet not impossible.

The debate on the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution (FY2011 CR) was a case study on how NOT to negotiate with liberals.  The House can pass solid conservative legislation and appropriations bills, yet the Senate can defeat these ideas with inaction.  And they did on the FY2011 CR fight.  Senator Harry Reid (R-Nevada) defeated Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) Continuing Resolution by not scheduling a debate on the measure. The original House passed FY2011 CR contained massive cuts to spending, yet Reid beat it back by not doing anything and awaiting the inevitable panic by House leaders who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  Instead of daring the Senate to just never pass a bill and let the government shut down, the House blinked and sent over short term spending bills, then negotiated a final bill that was bad policy.  The House negotiated against themselves and conservatives ended up with a Continuing Resolution that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, actually increased spending by $3.3 billion.  The leftists over at the Daily Kos made fun of Speaker Boehner for the spending increases in the FY2011 CR.   The resolution of the debate on the continuing resolution for conservatives was an epic failure.

Hopefully conservatives have learned a lesson and will not make the same mistake again.

The debt limit increase is considered “must pass” legislation by the Obama Administration and some pundits, therefore this is the best opportunity for conservatives to leverage cuts to spending.  If you don’t give us what we want, we will not allow the debt limit to increase.  That is the demand - the pledge – the promise for conservatives to the American people.

This pledge has three elements.  The first is “Cut.”  The pledge signers have demanded ”substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.”  To meet this demand, it is expected that Congress would have to place significant cuts on the table as part of any legislation increasing the debt limit.  The negotiations have been ongoing between Vice President Joe Biden and a bipartisan bicameral team and it is expected that they agree to some cuts to spending.  Will these cuts be “substantial” enough to please the pledge signers?

Element number two is “Cap.”  The demand is for “enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.”  The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) has enforceable spending caps, yet they will not kick in until the BBA is passed by both chambers of Congress (with a 2/3rds vote) and ratified by the States.  This demand would necessitate a budget reform that implements and immediate spending cap.  One idea would be to take the 18% of GDP cap in the BBA proposed by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and memorialize it into legislation.

Element number three is the “Balance” demand and this is a very important one because of the details.  The Hatch-Lee BBA is supported by all 47 Republican Senators and it is strong.  This version of the BBA satisfies the pledge’s condition that it ” includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.”  The demand is for Congressional passage before the debt limit is allowed to increase.

Conservatives have started buzzing about this idea.  Conservatives are talking about this idea and why it is a necessary pre-condition on raising the debt ceiling.  Mike Needham, CEO of Heritage Action for America writes that Cut, Cap, and Balance is the only concrete idea on the table right now that will protect from generational theft.

The bottom line is this: our children and grandchildren cannot afford to pay the tab for the spending that is going on in Washington right now. The cut, cap and balance approach is the only one on the table right now. President Obama and Congressional Democrats have not offered a plan to save our country. Instead, they continue to demagogue conservative attempts to restore American exceptionalism.

Chuck Warren wrote here at Big Government that the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is a necessary element to put the United States of America on a pathway to solvency.

These lawmakers shrewdly see that a balanced budget amendment as one of the few means by which we can begin to return to fiscal sanity as a nation. Year after year, leaders in Washington fail to rein in out-of-control federal spending, and now the United States is on the brink of fiscal collapse. Either our lawmakers can require a constitutionally mandated balanced federal budget, or international bankers and US debt-holders – including China, Russia, and oil-exporting countries – will do it for us, just as they’re now forcing austerity upon Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and other debt-ridden countries. These debt-ridden countries have seen their unemployment rates nearly double since their financial woes came to a head. Passage of a balanced budget amendment is a major ingredient to getting our national fiscal health back on track

Some members of Congress are asking leaders to support the idea of Cut, Cap, and Balance, because it would cut the deficit next year and prove to the American people that some right leaning politicians have specific ideas on how to balance the budget without raising taxes.  Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.)

It is imperative to the future of the country that we fight for an immediate shift toward fiscal responsibility. That is why I, along with my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee (RSC), wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner asking him to “Cut, Cap and Balance.” Specifically, we advocated for discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year; enacting statutory, enforceable total-spending caps to reduce federal spending to 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and including a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA). This proposal will put us on a path to prosperity, and I will work to see provisions like this are included in any final agreement.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) took it a step further and made support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge a precondition of his support for higher office.

I’m telling every presidential candidate, if your name isn’t on this list, don’t come see me.

Colin Hanna, President of Let Freedom Ring, argues that the detractors of the Balanced Budget Amendment portion of the Pledge, including former Senator Judd Gregg (a consultant for a Wall Street firm),  have mischaracterized the nature of the demand of Cut, Cap, and Balance.  Supporters of that pledge want the Balanced Budget Amendment to pass the House and Senate to be sent to the States for ratification.  It is not the request that the BBA be ratified by the States before a debt limit increase is allowed to pass.

What America needs is transformative reform that accounts for the inability of lawmakers’ to act like adults, and forces them to do so. Namely, the federal government needs a balanced-budget amendment. Gregg engages in the classic logical fallacy of the “straw man argument” when he dismisses the growing support for a balanced-budget amendment with teeth. He talks about how many years it takes to ratify a constitutional amendment, and suggests therefore that the connection between a BBA and the debt ceiling naively overlooks that timeline. He completely ignores what is actually being proposed: that congressional passage of the BBA, not ratification, be one of the preconditions, along with a statutory cap on spending that would apply until the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the states. And even with such a statutory cap, we still need immediate, significant, spending cuts.

Erick Erickson, Editor in Chief of Red State, has issued a threat to Republicans who rubber stamp a debt limit increase.  He has taken the pledge a step further into a concrete thret.

If any Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling without forcing (1) substantial cuts; (2) enforceable caps; and (3) sending the Lee-Cornyn-Hatch Balanced Budget Amendment to the states, the conservative movement must unite to beat the hell out of them in a primary. Period. End of Story. No more wimping out. It really is that simple — or at least it is that simple unless your brain has atrophied from being inside the Beltway. Just don’t raise the debt ceiling. Oh, I know, some of you are getting sweaty palms thinking about it and insisting that we must raise the debt ceiling. That’s what we always do. Putting it bluntly — it is time to be a hostage taker and take the debt ceiling hostage to cutting, capping, and balancing the budget.

Mike Flynn, Editor in Chief of this great web site Big Government, is sick and tired of pledges.  He agrees with Erickson that “the time for pledges is over.”  Flynn worries that politicians and groups in Washington will treat this pledge as a means for groups to build lists and politicians an opportunity to dodge the difficult decisions.  That may happen, yet the ideas contained within the four corners of the pledge are laudable.  These are ideas that Tea Partiers can print out to ask Members of Congress for support.  Flynn’s concerns are spot on and conservatives need to make sure that the elected officials in Washington do something significant to deal with the “existential crisis” of our time.  The pledge may help, but the American people need more than a Member of Congress signing up for a pledge.

This morning, Erick Erickson at RedState issued a much needed salvo against the latest wave of ‘this-time-we-really-mean-it” pledges to cut spending. He focused his ire on the many DC-based institutions and individuals who are peddling this new magic elixir, but I think the problem actually goes much deeper than that. Of course, he is already experiencing significant blowback and complaints. And, also, of course, Erickson is being urged to ‘be reasonable.’ That is always the last line of defense for those without the stomach for a fight. I stand with Erickson on this one; the time for pledges is over.For the past several decades we’ve had pledges, commitments, frameworks, understandings, ‘down-payments’ on reform and countless ‘baby-steps’ towards fiscal sanity. And, yet, here we are on the edge of an existential crisis. In addition to a looming fiscal collapse, our government has taken over auto companies, bailed out Wall Street banks, set in motion a government take-over of health care and so overburdened the economy with regulatory red tape that the private sector job engine is permanently stalled.

Brian Darling writes for The Heritage Foundation Blog The Foundry that conservatives need to oppose tax increases as a means to balance the budget.  Conservatives need to shrink government through the use of a balanced budget amendment or other means that forces cuts to spending.  Politicians need to stop the closed door secret meetings on a grand deal to pass a debt ceiling increase and have an open debate including the participation of the American people.

Conservatives want to shrink government and are dead set against raising taxes as a means to balance the budget. The opponents of big government want to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, set up a tough budgetary mechanism to control spending, and/or implement entitlement reforms. Between liberals and conservatives, there is not much common ground on a debt limit deal or on the future of government spending. The Republican Study Committee has taken a different approach to this debate: Put out a list of demands and pledge to stop any increased debt limit unless these demands are met. Instead of cutting secret deals with the Vice President behind closed doors, the RSC is opting for a transparent public negotiation on the debt limit increase that includes the participation of the American people.”

The debate over increasing the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion before August 2nd is not going to end well for conservatives if they do not put out a specific list of demands then stick to it.  The supporters of the idea of Cut, Cap, and Balance have put out a specific list of demands and it will be interesting to see if (a) they stick to the list without compromise; and, (b) if the supporters hang tough and follow through with a promise to block the debt limit increase with0ut the list of demands being met.

A pledge is meaningless if these politicians don’t take action.  If a pledge helps conservatives to sign up for a strategy to take a meat cleaver to government spending, then it is a good thing.  If the pledge becomes an end goal, then our conservative leaders in Washington will have missed a great opportunity to use the debt ceiling debate to cut spending , cap the size of government and put our government on a road to balance.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca and Senator Jim DeMint to discuss the attack on Boeing by unions and the NLRB, their threat to Right to Work states and the debt ceiling debate.

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:

Should Bond Buyers Bet on Stalling US Economy?
Another Labor Board Power Play
Boeing faces NLRB persecution
The NLRB’s Opening Of Pandora’s Box Beyond Boeing

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter
Follow Senator DeMint on Twitter

TRANSCRIPT

Senator Jim DeMint
May 27, 2011

Domenech: Well, thanks again Senator for joining us. It’s a real pleasure to have you on.

DeMint: Well Ben and Francis, it’s good to be with you. I appreciate what Red State does every day and the pulling of people together all around the country has been the main force to change things in Washington, so I’m honored to be with you.

Domenech: Well, it’s certainly a pleasure. I wanted to start off by asking you if you could just speak for a moment on what’s going in your state with the National Labor Relations Board, and Boeing, and that entire situation. It’s obviously been something that’s been a huge issue for folks on-line and I was wonder if you could walk us through what’s currently happening.

DeMint: Well, this is not just a South Carolina issue or a Boeing issue. It really is a freedom versus tyranny issue. I thought I had seen everything from this administration and I’ve really been outraged out. And people don’t know half of it because so many businesses, associations, companies, come through our office and tell us what this administration is doing to make it harder and harder to have a business, to hire people, and to produce in any kind of cost effective way.

But what’s happening with Boeing is truly extraordinary. And if folks don’t know the facts, what happened is Boeing was starting a new production line for a new plane called a Dreamliner. They are going to continue to produce more of them in Washington, but they decided to –

Cianfrocca: In Washington state.

DeMint: In Washington state –

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: – and to move, to open a new line, build a new building and everything in Charleston, South Carolina. They already had one of their suppliers there so in some ways this was an expansion of what they were already doing. And so they’ve moved this new line. They’ve spent $1 billion on the building. They’ve already hired over 1,000 people. It will ultimately, directly and indirectly, account for over 10,000 jobs. A pretty amazing story.

But now that they’ve about finished their building a year later, there is an acting general counsel on the National Labor Relations Board who was appointed by the President, a former union guy. He has not been confirmed by the Senate, hasn’t been elected, he’s completely unaccountable. But he has filed charges against Boeing for moving their plant in relation for union strikes in Washington State. And it’s kind of, clearly not the case although Boeing did inform the unions there of the high cost of these strikes, and the interruption in production in trying to work with them to come up with some long term solutions.

And now the unions are using those negotiations as saying Boeing is doing this in retaliation. But what this is is an attack on any company that moves to one of the 22 right to work states in America. America is somewhat divided between forced union states and those free states that protect a worker’s rights not to join a union. Now, people in South Carolina can join a union if they want, but they’re not forced to. Even if their workplace is unionized, they cannot be forced to join a union and pay dues unless they want to. And the right to work states have better economy, better job creation, more people are moving to them –

Cianfrocca: You’re absolutely right.

DeMint: – we’ve seen 25 congressional seats, so this is just an absurd attack on freedom and free enterprise in America. And we’re trying to do everything we can to push back, but so far the President has not even weighed in on this.

Cianfrocca: Yes. I find it really remarkable that he’s been silent about it. And you know, just even sharpen a little more what you’re talking about, this plant, of course, the 787 Dreamliner, wonderful, wonderful product and it’s one of the things that I, as a businessman, am hoping, you know, is going to be huge for the United States as a global competitor. It’s just, you know, it’s a great thing that we’re putting it out there and we need more of them. And for South Carolina to be in a position to produce three of them per month, it’s terrific. And so that improvement in the US trade position, as well as our economy, is what they’re fighting against here.

DeMint: It’s pretty incredible. And the real irony here is Obama’s Chief of Staff, Bill Daley (phonetic sp.), I think that’s his name, was on the Boeing board when this decision was made. And now he’s got these appointments of his saying that Boeing broke the law. And the President has also put the president of Boeing in charge of his export commission. And so it’s just –

Cianfrocca: Macenerny (phonetic sp.)?

DeMint: I can’t believe it. Yes.

Cianfrocca: That’s remarkable.

DeMint: And so this is so wrong, but the problem here is this, is Boeing knows they’ll eventually win the case.

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: I mean, they’ll lose the first couple of appeals because they go back to the board that the President has stocked with union thugs basically, and –

Cianfrocca: “Union thugs”, may we quote you? That’s a great word.

DeMint: Once this gets in front of a fair and impartial judge they’ll win, but it’s only after millions of dollars in legal expenses and several years of chilling effect.

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: What they’re trying to do is to tell any company in America, don’t even think about moving to a right to work state or expanding to a right to work state or you’re going to have to go through millions of dollars of legal expenses and this type of government harassment. It’s pretty amazing in America that we’re dealing with this type of third world tyranny.

Cianfrocca: Well, the acting general counsel you mentioned, his name is Lafe Solomon.

DeMint: Solomon.

Cianfrocca: And I think that our listeners ought to know that name and put it, inscribe it on the wall of infamy. But you know, I’m wondering to what degree do you think, Senator, that this whole situation is being driven by Solomon and the NLRB and the union is getting dragged in, the International Association of Machinists, are they getting dragged along? I mean, you have to figure, people who run unions realize that their employer is their golden goose, right?

DeMint: Well, you would think but they don’t. They really do think that they have a monopoly on the workforce that they can extort just about any kind of demands they want. But the insidious relationship between the Democratic party and the union bosses, and I do want to make clear, this is not about the union workers. Because they’re great Americans, they’re out there working.

Cianfrocca: Yes. Indeed.

DeMint: But it’s when you can by law force people to join unions, force them to pay dues, unions are the only organization where dues can be used without the worker’s permission for political purposes. So much of the organization and money behind the Democratic party are coming from unions right now. And so the Democrats help expand unions, you know they are pushing collective bargaining now on our airport security. All of those, stimulus required union contractors are basically forced that, to move in that direction. So much of what they’re doing is forcing unionization because that is the financial and grass roots foundation of the Democrat party. And it’s really shameless at this point, even though the membership of unions is declining now in the private sector below 7%, they are being propped up by this type of government action that’s trying to intimidate and bully companies and states to accept this type of forced unionization.

Domenech: Senator, I wanted to take the opportunity as long as we had you on, I think Francis has said a number of things about the debt ceiling that I think could form an interesting question. Francis.

Cianfrocca: Well, yes. And I think Senator, you were among the signers of a letter that just went out to the President warning him of potential consequences should a debt ceiling not, increase not be enacted by Congress. What can you tell us about that letter?

DeMint: Well, we sent out a couple of letters. One was to Guidner (phonetic sp.) to tell him to stop threatening that we were going to default, because we’re not going to default –

Cianfrocca: Yes. I had a question about him, too.

DeMint: I mean, he’s stirring up, really a lack of confidence in America when we know we’re not going to default. If we never pass a debt ceiling increase we will not default. Now, what we’re trying to tell the President to do is develop a contingency plan to operate the country in the event the debt ceiling is not increased. It’s irresponsible for him to be looking ahead and all of a sudden say oh, gosh, it’s August 3rd, what do we do now? And so he needs to be preparing for operating the country based on our revenues rather than borrowing more money while this negotiation is taking place.

Cianfrocca: I think in technical terms, you know, just looking at it from a capital markets perspective, the way to avoid a technical default is to keep, is to stay current on debt service payments for already outstanding debt. And that seems to me entirely possible. We’re talking about two to $300 billion with interest rates so low. And so what that means, I think, and I’m just asking you to confirm this, part of that operational plan would be to make sure that the debt payments continue to be made on schedule and that there are corresponding spending cuts elsewhere.

DeMint: Well, that’s what Guidner needs to say clearly because it’s the truth. The Congressional Research Service said we would never be in any danger of default. We may have to trim other government programs and expenditures, but over 70% of our revenue is going to continue to come in from taxes. The debt ceiling budget is probably a budget from about six or seven years ago, so it’s certainly not doomsday. We just have to trim things back.

But the Secretary and the President needs to make it clear, what is obvious is if it was the last dime we had we would not default on our, the interest payments on our loans. And we need to tell the world that and to work out our domestic issues, but to try to create instability in the market and to create panic so he can force through more spending is completely irresponsible.

Cianfrocca: Well, one of the things that has been completely remarkable to me over the past week and a half or so, since we hit that technical debt ceiling, is this explosion in corporate debt issuance. It’s very clear that the investors out there in the country are just hungering for low risk assets and we’ve seen an issuance of high grade corporate debt to substitute for the, you know, for the missing supply from the government. It’s just huge. You know, the appetite for these assets is undiminished. And you know, my question for you is, we’re talking about a very, very large number in terms of not increasing US debt, something like $125 billion a month.

So, when we say, I think we need to be clear. At the same time we’re making the point that you just did, the spending cuts that would be needed to operate under a firm debt ceiling, a non increased debt ceiling are enormous. And we’re talking about very, very large spending cuts in programs and possibly entitlements, yes?

DeMint: Right. Well, I don’t think we need to cut entitlements. The checks for Social Security, Medicare need to continue to go out, but there is a lot of trimming that would have to take place. What we need to do, and hopefully media outlets like Red State will help us with this, is I think as Republicans we need to take a stand, particularly in the Senate. If we could get 41 Republicans that said we will not allow a debt ceiling vote to take place until we pass a balanced budget amendment, I think we would eventually get the balanced budget amendment passed. So frankly I think it’s easier to get 67 votes in the Senate for a non-specific long term budget balance requirements than it will be to get any significant specific cuts and get 60 votes for that.

So, but if we don’t take a stand we know we won’t get it. But I would be willing, I mean, I don’t want to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling no matter what, but if we got a balanced budget amendment passed, that would mean next year the states would be debating ratifying that amendment. And in two to three years we would probably have two thirds of the state have done that, then a five year implementation schedule. So somewhere six or eight years out we would move responsibly towards a balanced budget.

In that scenario, if we needed to do some accommodation short term to make sure that all our entitlements were paid and everything, I would work with them. But unless we pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution this government will bankrupt our country. I can tell you that definitively, because when you look at the debt we’re planning over the next 10 years, right now Biden has announced they’re looking at maybe cutting $1 trillion over 10 years and –

Cianfrocca: Nowhere near enough.

DeMint: – that hasn’t included some tax increases.

Cianfrocca: Yes.

DeMint: They’re not even on the same page of reality.

Cianfrocca: They’re off by a zero. They’re off by (unintelligible) it’s got to be closer to 10 trillion.

DeMint: Well, and so the Democrats don’t even have to talk responsibly about Medicare or anything because they don’t believe we have to cut spending. They don’t believe we should balance the budget. That is something Republicans and the American people have to force on this political system here if we expect to save our country.

Domenech: Senator, I know that your time is limited and I want to thank you for taking the time to talk to us. Let’s close with this question then, do you think Republicans are going to hold the line on this issue and on the issue of Medicare reform? Or are they going to pull back away from it in sort of cowardice and miss this moment? Because this is kind of the question that everybody is really asking right now, it seems to me.

DeMint: Well, I’ll tell you, there are two ways to do this. If we announced our demands boldly now and got the American people to get behind us, how could you argue with balancing a budget six or eight years out? American people would be with us. If we put those out there, then I think we would stand through the storm and the crisis that the President tries to create and we could hold our ground until we got the real cuts, and the caps on spending, and the balance that we need. But if we do it the way we’re doing it now, and we don’t have any clear position, and we negotiate behind closed doors while Biden is actually putting the negotiations in public by throwing out these figures, it’s going to be just like the continuing resolution debate a couple of months ago where they come out with this historic deal that actually does nothing. And if we’re going to, unless we’re bold, unless we get Americans with us, we’ll cave in.

Cianfrocca: And I’d just like to sharpen one thing that you said a moment ago, Senator, which is, you kind of laid the gauntlet down for us. I mean, we’re talking to you as citizens about what our representatives in Congress need to do, but you a moment ago said it’s up to us. People at places like Red State and Coffee and Markets, it’s up to us to get the word out and start convincing people.

DeMint: Well, yeah. I would love to see all the conservative media, the conservative groups have a massive signing ceremony, you know, it’s either balance or bust here in Washington. If the movement on the outside pushes then I think we’ll hold the line here. But if we do this quietly and just wait until the last minute, it’s going to be just like the continuing resolution debate and I, I think all the conservatives will be deflated. It’s just a matter, if we believe it let’s put it out there. Let’s draw the line in the sand and let’s hold with the American people until we get done what needs to be done.

Domenech: Thank you so much, Senator. We truly appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. And it’s a pleasure. We hope you will come on again with us in the future.

Cianfrocca: And have a great Memorial Day.

DeMint: Glad to do it. Thanks a lot.

“Our nation is on the edge of bankruptcy and Congress must make some tough choices to rein in spending, but ending taxpayer subsidies of public broadcasting should be an easy decision,” said Sen. DeMint. “Americans struggling to make ends meet shouldn’t be forced to fund public broadcasting when there are already thousands of choices for educational and entertainment programming on the television, radio and web. President Obama’s own bipartisan debt commission proposed ending these unnecessary subsidies to public broadcasting. NPR boasts that it only gets 2 percent of its funding from taxpayers and PBS gets about 15 percent, so these programs should be able to find a way to stand on their own.”

“Politicians in Washington should focus their attention on eliminating the more than $200 billion in duplicative spending GAO highlighted this week and stop defending indefensible subsidies for public broadcasting,” said Dr. Coburn. “The federal government has no business picking winners and losers in today’s highly competitive media environment.  NPR and CPB will do just fine without largesse from Washington.”

CPB was incorporated as a private nonprofit corporation under the authority of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, and its first taxpayer subsidy in 1969 was $5 million. Today, CPB is slated to receive $430 million from taxpayers in the current fiscal year and President Obama recently asked for an increase to $451 million.

According to the 2009 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file (990), PBS President Paula Kerger received $632,233 in compensation that year while NPR President Emeritus, Kevin Klose, received more than $1.2 million in compensation. The PBS program Sesame Street’s Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 — nearly a million dollars — in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, “Sesame Street” made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales.

In 2010, NPR accepted a controversial $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal financier George Soros, to hire 100 reporters. Additionally, NPR has an endowment of over $200 million.

List of federal funding for CPB over the years, provided by the Congressional Research Service:

·         2001: $340 million
·         2002: $350 million
·         2003: $362.8 million
·         2004: $377.8 million
·         2005: $386.8 million
·         2006: $396 million
·         2007: $400 million
·         2008: $393 million
·         2009: $400 million
·         2010: $420 million
·         2011: $430 million