Conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-S. Carolina) is not hoping that libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) drops out of the GOP race for the presidential nomination…at least not for the time being. In fact, he’s hoping that the other GOP candidates will learn something from him.

Sen. DeMint told The Daily Caller, “I really don’t want Ron Paul to drop out until whoever our front-runner is is collecting some of the ideas that he’s talking about.”

Though the senator has predicted that Mitt Romney will win the South Carolina primary, he himself has not endorsed any of the “not-Romney” candidates. Yet, Mr. DeMint has a suggestion for his party:

The debate in the Republican Party needs to be between libertarians and conservatives. … There’s no longer room for moderates and liberals because we don’t have any money to spend, so I don’t want to be debating with anyone who wants to grow government.

Sen. DeMint, who has spent much of his political career fighting against big government, went on to say, ““I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

(more…)

Next week, Senate Republicans will vote to elect a new Conference Vice Chairman, a position that is considered to be the Number 5 GOP leadership post. As was the case at the start of the new Congress, when committee chairmanships often pitted establishment Republicans against the more conservative among them, the choice will be between one senator with strong tea party support, and another who has been a Washington “insider” for 15 years.

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) were both elected to the Senate in 2010. Sen. Johnson was elected with the strong backing of the tea party and conservative Senate recruiter, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S. Carolina). Sen. Blunt spent 14 years in the House of Representatives prior to his election to the Senate.

Now, both Senators have dismissed the idea that their contest is about the old guard GOP versus true conservatives. Sen. Johnson, in particular, notes that he believes his years of business experience, prior to his election to the Senate, are what cause him to stand out as a candidate for the vice chairman’s position. “I also bring the perspective of somebody from the outside — somebody totally foreign to Washington, and that’s a very valuable perspective,” he said.

The Heritage Action for America (HAFA) scorecard, which provides a rating that measures legislators on conservative policies and values, gives Sen. Johnson a 91% rating, and Sen. Blunt a 64% score.

Nevertheless, it is the way in which the contest between the two senators came about that has perhaps created a bit more tension. According to RedState, up until this week, Sen. Johnson was the only candidate for the vice chairman’s position, and the election was scheduled for January. However, Sen. Blunt announced his candidacy on Tuesday of this week, an action which was followed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Kentucky) decisions to move up the election to next week, rather than January, and to begin a supportive campaign for Sen. Blunt.

(more…)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is no stranger to fights with party leadership. And he’s not holding back in his criticism of the so-called “Plan B” that’s being developed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). In an exclusive interview with The Heritage Foundation this afternoon, DeMint didn’t hold back:

It seems to be a cover-up to me. It’s like I’ve said, it’s like leaving the door to the federal vault open, looking the other way, and saying we had nothing to do with the robbery. The debt limit is set up to keep us from increasing our debt without Congressional action—hopefully to reform the spending process.

He blamed President Obama for politicizing the debt-limit debate rather than seeking a consensus.

“I’m convinced the president has not been negotiating in good faith. He’s got a bad economy. His policies have made it worse. And he’s hoping this debt-limit debate will allow him to blame Republicans.”

The interview runs about 4 minutes. Hosted by Rob Bluey and produced by Brandon Stewart, with help from Hannah Sternberg.

Seniors who are on Medicare are finding that more of their doctors are opting out of this government health insurance program. But, currently, if they choose to purchase another health insurance plan, or pay out of pocket to see a doctor, seniors must forfeit not only their present Social Security benefits, but also all prior Social Security benefits they have received as well. While we have been understandably focused on the intrusion of Obamacare in our lives, a lesser known federal health mandate, which has linked together Medicare and Social Security, is intruding upon the privacy and healthcare freedom of seniors.

Fortunately, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and some other Republican senators have introduced a new bill entitled the Retirement Freedom Act (RFA), which hopes to allow individuals to opt out of Medicare Part A without forfeiting Social Security benefits. In addition, the RFA  is expected to bring an estimated immediate savings of $1.5 billion of taxpayer funds, even if only 1 percent of eligible seniors opt out of Medicare Part A in favor of private health care insurance.

Medicare and Social Security first became linked together in 1993, when a Clinton administration program rule, i.e. government bureaucrats, unnecessarily tied these two government programs together without review by the elected representatives of the American people. However, in 2008, a lawsuit, entitled Hall v. Sebelius, filed by several seniors, challenged the Clinton-era rule. The seniors, who had all contributed to Medicare and Social Security throughout their employment histories, argued that the applications for Medicare and Social Security benefits are voluntary and not dependent on each other, and that forced participation in Medicare violates the right to privacy. They concluded that they should be able to opt out of Medicare, as their health insurance plan, without forfeiting their Social Security benefits.

(more…)

The conservative House Republican Study Committee today will unveil a rescission bill that will save $2.5 trillion over 10 years. It’s a bold proposal that returns federal spending to pre-Obama levels, eliminates remaining stimulus money and ends more than 100 specific programs.

Conservatives want their proposal to set the stage for upcoming spending fights over the 2011 continuing resolution, debt ceiling and fiscal 2012 budget. It’s as much a signal to Republican leadership as it is to President Obama that conservatives are committed to courageous ideas.

The proposal comes amid new fears among conservatives that GOP leaders are hedging on their “Pledge to America” campaign promise to cut $100 billion in federal spending by returning to fiscal 2008 levels.

Because the 2011 continuing resolution expires in March — five months into the current fiscal year — there is concern Republicans might reduce the $100 billion figure by prorating it.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, is circulating a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to ensure the GOP keeps its $100 billion promise.

(more…)

Senate Republicans think you are stupid.  Leaders in the Senate Republican Caucus are opposing a measure by Tea Party Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina to ban earmarks for two years.  The elites are angry.

Senate Republican Leaders have led an effort to beat back DeMint’s proposal in an effort to save earmarking.  An Earmark is a special project, usually secured by a lobbyist friend of the politician, for a project in a Senator’s home state.  See Bridge to Nowhere is an excellent example of an earmark.  An earmark is a means for Members of Congress to send federal money to projects favored by the member.  These members are elitists who think the Tea Party movement will tolerate Republicans going back to the free spending ways of the Bush years.

On Tuesday, Senator DeMint is forcing a vote on a proposal to change the rules of the Senate Republican Caucus to ban earmarks for two years.  Seems like a proposal that makes sense, yet the elites and lobbyists are angry.  Leaders of the party are fighting against DeMint to make sure that they can preserve earmarking.  They just don’t get it and believe that the Tea Party movement is here to serve selfish politics.

(more…)

No matter what happens on November 2^nd, 2010 will be the year that conservatives won.  Patriotic conservatives of all flavors, have risen up in extraordinary ways, in every corner of the country.  It appears all but certain that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be dethroned. Dick Morris even predicts as many as 100 new Republican Congressmen giving many people really high expectations for the new Congress.

Others fear that for all their trouble from organizing, holding rallies and knocking on doors, they will only replace the leftist Democrats with RINO Republicans who will squander the victory.  Will we get Speaker Boehner, or a fresh new conservative leader who will truly take a big stick to big government.   A closer look at the numbers should give conservatives reason to be really excited and also a cause for continued resolve.

If you want a conservative Congress, you have to ask yourself just what kind of conservative are you after.  Drew Kurlowski, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Missouri who studies voting behavior and partisanship, referred me to a dataset popular with political science academics called DW-Nominate.  It is a tremendous resource that meticulously compiles the voting records of the Congress going back to the 1st Congress.  If you want to know who George Washington’s favorite conservative was, this is your site.  Moreover, they settled on a definition of “conservative” that is tremendously useful.  Move over “fiscal conservative” and “social conservative” and make room for (limited) “government intervention in the economy”.  Let’s call it L’GIE.  So who are the liggies?

(more…)

Riding the wave of the GOP’s successful push to have Congress defund Acorn, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) tried to push through another prudential budget matter: killing the John Murtha-Johnstown Cambria County Airport. His effort was not as successful.

On Thursday afternoon, the GOP brought a measure to the Senate floor to end federal subsidies for the airport Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) had built in Johnstown, PA, right in his home district. Over the past few years, the airport has received roughly $150 million in funds from the defense budget, and it got $800,000 in stimulus money.

But it just so happens the airport only sees about 6,700 passengers… a year. Luckily, Murtha is the chairman of that wonderful little defense committee, dutifully guiding money towards the airport build largely so he could get from Dulles back to his home easier.

Tyler Grimm wrote in The Wall Street Journal earlier this month:

The usually barren airport—there were several times during the day I paced the building for 15 minutes and did not see another human being—has a lot of unused advertising space. But you can’t miss the large picture of John Murtha among a collage of Lockheed Martin workers at the airport’s center. It’s a monument to earmarks: “Partnerships Make a World of Difference,” the ad reads.

(more…)

If there were a Death Panel empowered by legislative fiat to determine the political viability of legislative agendas in Washington, D.C., it would declare ObamaCare all but dead, not worth any further time and expense incurred by the American people.  “Do Not Resuscitate,” the tribunal would vote, citing the best comparative effectiveness research in its non-negotiable determination.

Unfortunately, that merciful committee does not exist, so we have been subjected to yet another clarifying speech from President Obama on his proposed hostile government takeover of our health care.  In just a few weeks, we have gone from “health care reform” to “insurance reform,” and now “health security.”  Is it just me, or does this White House simply repackage the very same bad ideas with more carefully chosen new words, confusing rhetorical elegance for good policy?  Ok, maybe less rhetorically elegant than once believed.

Regardless, the timing of last night’s hastily arranged speech before a joint session of Congress was weird.  Such special sessions are themselves weird, exceedingly rare forums usually reserved for dramatic effect, like when Presidents declare war.  The glaring exception, it seems, was Bill Clinton’s ill-fated, pen-wagging veto threat to Congress if they failed to pass his (Hillary’s) health care plan.  So why did Obama do it?  Why now?  According to USA Today before his speech, “the ever more noisy opposition to his health care objectives has had one result: It prompted Obama’s decision to address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday in an effort to regain momentum on the issue.”

So the President wants to have another argument with the voters. He already has ridiculed publicly citizens who have the audacity to disagree, like the lady who asked him to keep government out of her Medicare. (Maybe she was referring to his proposed $500 billion in cuts from a system that is already $46 trillion in the red, to fund another government-run health care system for new populations?)

(more…)