The GOP House of Representatives Has Offered Eleven Separate Bills to Try and End the Budget Stalemate…….

…… And eleven times, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has refused to even allow these bills to be voted on in the Senate. President Stompy Foot Obama has promised to veto them anyway. So this is the fault of the Republican House? No. The Republicans are the reasonable adults here. The Democrats typical form of “negotiation” is reaching an extreme. “Give us everything we demand (i.e., give up all your bargaining leverage and we’ll call it “compromise”) and then we will “negotiate.”“ This is not negotiation. It is dictation of terms. Meanwhile the maladministration seeks to inflict maximum pain on the American people by cutting off access to open plazas grinding hiring to a halt, needlessly preventing businesses from operating, and just generally making it very well known how unhappy the Man Who Would Be King is. From the first link:

1. Roll Call 478 on H.J. Res. 59 (September 20, 2013)

Earlier in September, House Republicans voted to fund the government at current spending levels while strengthening our economy and protecting millions of American families by defunding ObamaCare.

Senate Democrats killed the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

2. Roll Call 497/498 on H.J. Res 59 (September 28, 2013)

With hours left until the government ran out of funding, House Republicans voted to keep the government open at current spending levels while protecting our economy by delayingthe glitch-filled ObamaCare for one year and repealing the tax on medical devices like pacemakers and children’s hearing aides.

Senate Democrats killed the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it, causing the government shutdown.

3. Roll Call 504 on H.J. Res 59 (September 30, 2013)On September 30, the House GOP again voted to fund the government at current spending levels, while ensuring that Congress doesn’t receive special treatment under ObamaCare, and delaying ObamaCare’s individual mandate.

Again, Senate Democrats killed the measure in the Senate, and President Obama threatened to veto.

4. Roll Call 505 on H.J. Res 59 (September 30, 2013)

That same night, Republicans in the House voted to request a formal House-Senate conference, so Democrats and Republicans could sit down at the table and negotiate to resolve their differences.

Senate Democrats defeated that resolution, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

5. Voice Vote on Provide Local Funding for the District of Columbia Act (October 2, 2013)To help reopen parts of the government while Democrats refused to negotiate, House Republicans passed H.J. Res. 71 by voice vote, which would have restored funding for the government of the District of Columbia.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

6. Roll Call 513 on Open Our Nation’s Parks and Museums Act (October 2, 2013)

To help reopen parts of the government while Democrats refused to come to the table and work out differences, the House GOP voted to restore funding for the nation’s parks and museums – including the World War Two Memorial in Washington that has been closed to visiting veterans.

Senate Democrats killed the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

7. Roll Call 514 on Research for Lifesaving Cures Act (October 2, 2013)To help restore funding for vital cancer research and other lifesaving innovations, the House GOP voted to reopen the National Institute of Health.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill (see Harry Reid ask a reporter “why would we want to do that?” when asked if he would vote to resume funding for children’s cancer treatment), and President Obama threatened to veto it.

8. Roll Call 516 on Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act (October 3, 2013)

In order to make sure that the government shutdown doesn’t get in the way of paying our National Guard and Reserve, the House GOP voted for the Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

ise to America’s Veterans Act (October 3, 2013)The House GOP voted to provide immediate funding for vital veterans benefits and services during the government shutdown.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

10. Roll Call 522 on National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Act (October 4, 2013)The House GOP voted to provide immediate funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure Americans have access to emergency responders in the case of a disaster.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

11. Roll Call 524 on Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act (October 4, 2013) The House GOP voted to provide immediate funding for nutritional assistance for nearly 9 low-income million mothers and children.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill, and President Obama threatened to veto it.

So who are the obstructionist here, the people who make very reasonable requests, or those who say it’s my way or no other? 

An Excellent Question

Gene Healy, writing at the Washington Examiner asks, "Has Congress Become Useless?"

"The Constitution gives Congress vast powers over war and peace, and charges it with making the laws of the land. Yet our feckless legislators prefer to punt the hard questions to the president and the permanent bureaucracy, even if it leaves the rest of us mired in uncertainty and crushing debt. What do we pay these people for?"

I'm pretty sure the answer to the usefullness question is an unqualified yes. The answer to the second is: "I've got no idea." I do have a few ideas about what else they should be charged with under the Constitution though. Hint: It begins with the letter "T".

Read the whole thing.

(via Instapundit)

"Anger is a Right", According to Greg Gutfield

The Instapundit today linked to a piece by Greg Gutfield, "Anger is a Right", on how the usual suspects in the MSM are characterizing the reaction by the citizenry to the passage of Obamacare (which incidentally has already wiped out about $2 billion in shareholder equity at a mere handful of companies in less than a week since it was signed into law. My thoughts on corporations are here. But I digress.). The post is very amusing, and right on target. I just had a slightly different take-away than the Instapundit did. Here's the part that caught my eye:

"We are angry not because we lost, but that we lost to losers. I'm not talking about Obama, or the Dems. They're winners, sadly. I'm talking about progressivism. The reason why I'm angry, my friends are angry, and my imaginary unicorn Captain Sparkles is angry - is because the greatest, most winningest country in the history of the world, just embraced the loser's doctrine.

For two hundred plus years we've kicked ass, and we're now choosing the belief system of the idiots whose asses we've kicked." [my emphasis]

Read the whole thing (as the great man would say).

Does the Constitution Allow the Federal Government to Regulate Healthcare?

Judge Andrew Napolitano says no:


(h/t Bob)

Repealing the First Amendment

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed about how leftists in Congress are trying to end-run the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United vs. FEC which invalidated a major part of the McCain Feingold campaing finance law by banning certain categories of people, primarily corporations, from spending any money promoting political messages.  Congress critters Donna Edwards (D-Maryland) and John Conyers (D-Michigan) are actually proposing to amend the Constitution so it bars corporate free speech. John Kerry and Arlen Specter are also supporting this First Amendment attack. The common argument among supporters of these efforts is that corporations aren't people and therefor shouldn't enjoy the same free speech rights as real people. Of course they have no problem about other artificial entities, such as unions, having the same free speech rights as they do now. This is the comment I left after the article:

I’m getting rather tired of hearing that corporations shouldn’t have First Amendment free speech rights because they are not “real people”. While it is true a corporation is a legal and accounting construct, it is much more than that. It is run by real human beings and it is owned by real human beings, exercising their free association rights to pool their resources and conduct business. I own stock in many corporations, either directly or through mutual funds. Nearly everyone who has any kind of retirement plan, whether it is an IRA, 401K, union pension fund or what have you has an ownership interest in corporations.

The job of corporate management at the companies I own a part of is to look after the common interests of its owners, such as me. That job includes speaking out against government policies, or political officeholders/candidates that might be injurious to the company’s and therefore my interests as an owner. I believe the speech issue is actually somewhat of a red herring. Fundamentally what those who would muzzle corporations are doing is assaulting my property rights. They want carte blanche to do as they wish with my property whether it be, for example, imposing “windfall profit” taxes, i.e. seizing my legally earned money becasue they think I earned too much, imposing union labor contracts, violating my rights to associate or rather not associate with whomever I please, etc. They just want to be able to do it without my having the ability to protest their actions thorough the people who represent my interests, the management of those corporations.

 
 

Candidate for Congress Jeff Smith - A Tea Party Republican Worth Looking At

The Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds has a column in today's Wall Street Journal recounting what he saw at last week's Tea Party Convention in Nashville. The whole thing is worth your time to read but one fact he noted is that there are people stepping up all over the country to mount primary challenges to sitting Republicans, typically because the imcumbent is perceived to be too comfortable or out-of-touch or not voting the way we expect Republicans to vote or all of the above.

I recently met one such candidate for the House seat now held by Jeff Flake (R- AZ 6) at a local Tea Party meeting. His name is Jeff Smith. In the interests of full disclosure, Jeff offered me the position of Political Director for his campaign. I'm very flattered by the offer but I declined as I have a rather demanding full-time job and one of them would have to suffer. It can't be the paying job.

I've talked to Jeff at some length and I think he would make an excellent representative. He has a background in business and shares the views of most Tea Partiers that government has gotten too big, spends too much is unresponsive and as Glenn points out "has a habit of rewarding failure with handouts and punishing success with taxes and regulation."  That shouldn't strike anyone with any common sense as a good way to produce a prosperous society.

What about Jeff Flake? On balance I think Congressman Flake has been a good representative but the common complaint about him locally is the one noted above that he is falling out of touch with the district. He originally ran in 2000 promising to spend only three terms in Congress. He is now running for his sixth. He's been good on earmarks, he doesn't take them, but is not very strong on the border security/illegal immigration question. That one is a big deal in Arizona as illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of this state billions. He also comes from a public affairs/ think tank background, not a business one. People who have at least worked in the private sector, if not actually run a business, score extra points with me. It's just time for some fresh blood.

Go and visit Jeff Smith's campaign website. His positions on the issues that are important to me, stopping socialism/wealth redistribution, limited government and states rights and getting government stuffed back within its Constitutional limits, seem to align quite well with my small "L" libertarian outlook and I intend to support his candidacy. 

Walter Williams on the Rule of Law

Writing at The Freeman, Walter E. Williams talks about free societies and the importance of the rule of law. You should read the whole thing of course but this part stands out:

"Sir Henry Maine, probably the greatest legal historian, said, “The greatest movement of progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract.” In nonprogressive societies the rule of law is absent. Laws are not general. They’re applied according to a person’s status or group membership. There’s rule, not by legis, the Latin word for law, but by privilegium, the Latin term for private law. What’s lacking is the principle summarized by English jurist A. V. Dicey: “Every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.”

……………………

Just about every law that Congress enacts violates all the requirements for the rule of law. How do we determine violations of the rule of law? It’s easy. See if the law applies to particular Americans as opposed to all Americans. See if the law exempts public officials from its application. See if the law is known in advance. See if the law takes action against a person who has taken no aggressive action against another. If you conduct such a test, you will conclude that it is difficult to find many acts of Congress that adhere to the principles of the rule of law."

(h/t Frank. Thanks!)

California's Morality Play in Three Acts

California 4th District Libertarian/Republican Tom McClintock gave a speech to the Competitive Enterprise Institute on July 10. In it, he chronicles how the once great state of California came to be in its present sorry condition and what lessons we should learn from it. Instead of learning though, he is watching as the Democrat controlled US House of Representatives (led by the odious California liberal Nancy Pelosi) making all the same mistakes.

I should also warn you of the strange sense of déjà-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.

We passed a “Cash-for-Clunkers” bill the other day – we did that years ago in California.

Doubling the entire debt every five years? Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates? Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions? Got the T-Shirt.

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember the Golden State in its Golden Age.

A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. California offered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn’t bother to measure the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing – and one thing only – has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California’s government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

It's a lengthy speech, but well worth your time to read.

(Hat tip to Bob)

Jonathan Swift Weighs In With a Modest Proposal for Planetary Traitors

Paul Krugman has declared that those who oppose the Cap & Tax Trade legislation just passed by the House of Representatives are traitors to the planet. Jonathan Swift is in awe:

I must admit, as a mere scribe, I lack the wit to prove this case myself, but Professor von Krugman’s understanding transcends that of more ordinary humans, and so he must be right. It surely matters not that the matter under examination — the technique of weather control — is outside the area of study in which the professor has been accorded his prize. For if the world listens in awe to the pronouncements of beauty pageant victors upon philosophy, the affairs of nations, and other matters of general import, then why should Professor von Krugman not be granted equal credit for infallibility in all that he chooses to discourse upon? Certainly, given his celebrity otherwise, his indifferent performance in the swimsuit competition should not be held against him in this regard.

Read it all. Hilarious

Ed Driscoll Warns Us of Our Impending "Rendezvous with Scarcity"

(via Instapundit)

Why Do We Have a Budget Deficit? Look to Congress, Not the President

When it comes to budget deficits, the sitting President usually seems to get the blame for them. In fact, the President can't spend a dime of taxpayer funds that the Congress doesn't appropriate. It's true that President Bush left office with a budget deficit but the deficit President Obama has inherited is mostly the creation of a Democrat controlled Congress. At the end of fiscal 2006, when Republican control of congress ended, the budget deficit was $248 billion. That's bad enough and the Republicans lost control in large part because they forgot why they were sent there in 1994 and acted like Democrats. They spent every thin dime of tax revenue that came into the Treasury and then some. And it certainly didn't help that it took until 2006 for President Bush to find his veto stamp. Perhaps if he'd reined in the Congress, the Republicans might have held onto it.

I expressed hope after the 2006 elections that 1.) the Republicans would learn their lesson and remember that people vote for them because they profess to be in favor of small government and fiscal discipline and 2.) that the Democrats would act responsibly, now that they'd been handed the car keys. No such luck. The deficit for the end of fiscal year 2008 ballooned to $407 billion and that was before the ill-conceived and hastily passed $700 billion TARP. Now President Obama is demanding that the Congress pass an $800 billion to $900 billion "stimulus" bill that will deepen the deficit even further and leave the bill for future generations to foot. Remeber who controls the purse-strings. It's the Congress. The hole may have started under a Republican Congress, but it's the Democrats that have kept on digging. The first rule of holes states that when you find yourself in one, you stop digging.

How do we stop this hole from getting deeper? We have to stop spending more than we bring in. No matter where you set marginal tax rates, receipts to the treasury will not exceed about 19.5% of GDP. Congress is currently spending about 21.5% of GDP. Spending has to be brought into line with GDP and if we want to really increase tax revenues (not rates, revenues) we need to grow GDP and the quickest way to do that is to reduce tax rates. Leave money in the productive economy, i.e., the private sector and we will start to come back. Unfortunately the Democrats are more concerned with punishing the "evil rich" and redistributing wealth than they are with actually solving the problem. They can do a lot of damage over the next two years and the Republicans need to point this out loudly, often and stick together to resist the systematic looting of the private economy by the statist, power hungry monster that is the Democrat Congress.

"We the People" Have Lost Control of Washington

As Tom Blumer says over at Pajamas Media, "the bailout saga proves the elites don't care what we think." I certainly agree with the sentinment shared by many that it's time the entire Congress was replaced. They barely even pretend to listen to the voters anymore. Back to Tom Blumer:

"In mid-September, when it became clear to Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and George Bush that extraordinary measures were needed to address the mess that had built up in the financial markets during the past decade or so, their first instincts should have been to say:

• “We need to have a complete plan to deal with this.”
• “We need to make a case to Congress and the American people that our plan will work.”
  

They did neither of these things; nor did they even seem to consider whether what they wanted was even constitutional."

Does anybody out there know whether we can sue to block implementation of this bailout plan on Constitutional grounds before it gets any worse (and it will get worse if we don't start screaming even louder about it)?

(via Instapundit)