Tag: Congress

It looks like Maryland CAN

Following up on a story that was so last year…love those New Year’s jokes I can make for a few days!

Today I received good news from my blogging friend (Potomac TEA Party Report) Ann Corcoran. She’s helping to organize the first Maryland CAN (Conservative Action Network) conference in Annapolis next Saturday. Alas, I cannot be there due to a previous commitment but she tells me that they’ll break the 100 mark in registrations this week. When we discussed the event, I surmised that “50 is a success and 100 would be huge” – so color it huge!

Among the speakers will be a galaxy of conservative activists from Maryland and beyond, with perhaps the most nationally famous being ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief. She now heads up an organization called Emerging Corruption. Bios on many of the remaining speakers can be found here.

Considering we had about 250 for the GOP convention (held in the same building) and they were supposed to be there as elected officials, drawing triple-digits for this conference is a good first step. The idea is to work and plan our moves for the next two to four years in the wilderness (as far as state politics is concerned) and manuever ourselves into position for success in 2012 and 2014. For example, it may be a great stop for those who are considering running against Senator Ben Cardin and for Congress against a slew of Maryland incumbents.

Certainly I’m sure Ann and other Maryland conservative bloggers will be taking up my slack in covering this event. I’ll keep my ear to the ground and see what develops.

Working them harder

While the running gag among TEA Parties is the fond wish that Congress would just pack up and stay away from Washington most of the time, a newly elected Congressman who TEA Partiers revere thinks differently.

Lt. Col. Allen West believes the schedule set up by Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia isn’t strenuous enough to address our national problems:

“As we know, Congress needs to work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, strengthen our economy, limit the size of government and contend with a plethora of national security issues,” West said.  “How are we to do that when, among other things, we start off being in session only ten days the entire month of January?”

Congressman-Elect West is concerned with the fact that Congress is only in session 123 days, only one-third of the entire year. He points out that Congress will not even meet the mark of 90 days in session until September of 2011, just a matter of days before the end of the Fiscal Year.

“I am sure we both agree that the issues before us today require the members of Congress to go beyond what has been the accepted practice in the past to meet the challenges of the future,” West writes to Cantor.

West is also concerned with the “retreats” in the month following the swearing in – some of them taxpayer funded- for members of Congress. Congressman-Elect West has already decided he will not attend at least two of the retreats.

“We have to show the American people we are going to be different than years past,” West said.  “We are there for one reason and one reason only, to work for the constituents of the districts we are so privileged to represent.  I hope that if it becomes clear that we are not meeting the promise we made to the American people, leadership will modify the schedule in order for us to accomplish the important task we have before us.”

Obviously being a Congressman requires a little time back home in the district – for West, that would require trips back to southern Florida. But most working folks put in around 250 days a year, so a schedule which essentially shakes out to that of a part-time job may not sit well with them – remember, it’s not the time they put into being in Washington which fazes the average citizen but what they do with it. If they are working to “limiting the size of government” as Lt. Col. West writes, well, that can and should probably be a 24/7 job for the foreseeable future. If expanding government is on the Congressional table then let Congress stay in its districts where they can’t do us any harm.

Perhaps the key criticism by West is that there will be a significant amount of time where the House will be out of session but the Senate will be in session. Since it’s presumed that much of the best legislation passed out of the GOP-controlled House will be swatted down by Harry Reid in the Senate, the House needs to keep the pressure on and perhaps wear out the Democrats in the Senate (many of whom will be up for re-election in 2012) through attrition. (And yes, we will likely see our fair share of vetoes even if the House wears down the Senate’s resistance. But it’s a fight worth having.)

In putting We the People back in charge of the House, it’s time for them to put their nose to the grindstone. When special interests take over again (as they invariably will) only then it will be time for the shorter session.

A question for those in the know

Obviously over the last few days we’ve heard the discussion about whether Obamacare can or should be repealed or at least defunded. You know which camp I sit with, but this is a question for my readers who may have a little more awareness about the budgetary process and how Washington works. However, the question doesn’t involve Obamacare but instead involves something I presume is on the budget someplace.

Over the last two years, our less-than-illustrious President has hired a number of “czars” who didn’t need to be confirmed by Congress. Since they seem to be useless appendages on the federal payroll is it possible to defund them? And what happens to those people if they are?

I would think that their salaries and benefits (along with whatever administrative help they receive) comes out of the allocation for the Executive Branch; probably the same pot of money that is paying for Obama’s Asian trip to the tune of $200 million a day (or whatever the true figure is since there’s some dispute regarding these expenses.) Obviously there’s serious sums of money where the public hasn’t the foggiest idea where it goes, and to an outsider like me it just seems to disappear into the ether. I guess transparency and accountability were the buzzwords in vogue two short years ago but they seem to have faded into obscurity of late.

Perhaps this is a shortcoming of me as a citizen that I don’t have a great understanding of the process, but it occurs to me that we’re playing with sums unthinkable just a couple decades ago. (That “trillion” wasn’t needed until the late Reagan years.)

I also realize that getting rid of the “czars” would rank with eliminating earmarks in terms of budgetary impact. The reforms we truly need won’t come until 2013 at the earliest since it’s going to take a President and Congress with both foresight and cajones to tackle the REAL problem in the budget: entitlements.

But it would feel good to eliminate the “czars” and whether that takes a smaller allocation to the Executive Branch or actual line-item budgeting is beyond my pay grade and scope of knowledge. But that’s why I have readers to help me figure out such matters.

Friday night videos episode 47

I’m going to warn you now – this may be controversial.

The first video I’m going to feature is in “honor” of the 10-10-10 celebration being promoted by the world’s greenies. It’s been called an “environmental snuff film” and I don’t disagree. But you need to know the mindset of these people.

“No pressure” indeed. These people are mentally ill to think this way. I know that 90% of environmentalists just want clean air and water, and so do I. But I want a balance between our economic interests and way of life too. These people just want their way and don’t care.

Speaking of economic interests – well, where are the jobs, Frank?

Certainly I make no assertion that Frank thinks like those people who did the first video, but he agreed with them when he voted for cap-and-trade. I’m sure he’s just in the 90 percent.

On the other hand, it’s sort of unfortunate that we don’t have our own version of a strong conservative woman in this race. But Frank McCaffrey of Americans for Limited Government takes a look at Maryland LG hopeful Mary Kane in this piece.

But some still don’t get it. I’m not a big fan of ‘gotcha’ journalism, but this guy parrots the line that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share, when in fact they overpay.

And yes, as I’ve explained over the last week in the Daily Times, I support the Fair Tax.

Anyway, as I promised last week, I’m doing two music videos. This week has some heavy subject matter and I need a break, too.

The first one I’ve featured before but I was in the mood for Southern rock, and this is among my most-viewed music videos I’ve done.

The second one comes from the exact same venue (WinterPlace Park) but several months later. Not My Own won the Unicity Festival and hopefully it will take them to bigger and better things.

Usually I feature something heavier from the boys, but as I recall this is one of the first songs I heard out of them and it has a nice sound with the acoustic guitar.

Until next week, that’s a wrap on another edition of FNV. I’m hoping to have more music from this weekend’s Good Beer Festival and its solid lineup.

Friday night videos – episode 38

Since I missed last week due to personal reasons, it means I have a lot more video to choose from this time.

A little over five years ago, the Supreme Court revealed its Kelo v. New London decision. The Institute for Justice took a look at the impact since in this video.

 

Hey, it was nice of YouTube to add custom sizing for websites like mine. Saves me some HTML work!

The saving of the work doesn’t just extend to me. Beltway Democrats don’t want to work on a budget.

Maybe they just want to enjoy their summer. In this edition of the Freedom Minute, Renee Giachino talks about Obama’s ‘Recovery Summer.’

Someone who can’t take the summer off is Gen. David Petraeus. But it appears Obama’s advisors blew him off when they promised a July 2011 Afghan withdrawal.

But that’s all right, because Obama staffers are blowing off transparency laws, as Americans for Limited Government reveals.

This one has a wry sense of humor to it, and in good time for Independence Day.

Musically, I think it’s time to dust off Ava Aston once again. Just as a reminder who’s in charge on Independence Day.

Have a great Fourth of July, and Happy 234th Birthday to America!

Number crunching by the NTU

It’s a long report, but according to the National Taxpayers Union this Congress (or at least the Republican side) is beginning to listen to the clamor for less government.

The “BillTally” study done annually by the group shows this Congress may have slowed down a trend insofar as budget cutting bills are concerned, but we’re still nowhere near the small government prowess shown by the 104th Congress. (That was the Newt Gingrich/Contract With America class of 1994.)

Two of their findings were most intriguing given the rise of “Blue Dog” Democrats like Frank Kratovil and the schism between RINO’s and conservatives in the GOP.

  • Members of the Republican Study Committee and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, two of the self-identified “fiscally conservative” caucuses in the House, compiled lower net spending agendas than other Members of Congress in their respective parties.
  • Although the average House Republican was a net cutter, the typical member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which claims to be composed of “fiscally conservative deficit hawks,” compiled an average net agenda to increase spending by $40.6 billion.

While the first bullet point is reflected in the study, this is all relative: an average Blue Dog is still much more free with other people’s money than the most moderate of Republicans. Just to give readers an idea of the mindset of the Republican Main Street Partnership: Wayne Gilchrest was a member of that group, which is the home of most of the more centrist members of the party. Frank Kratovil and Wayne Gilchrest are fairly similar ideological clones with the exception of who they’d vote for as Speaker of the House (and Gilchrest said recently he would have voted for Obamacare.)

Unfortunately, the study doesn’t specifically break down particular legislators to see just who would cut the most  (yes it does – see the comment by the study author in the comments section;) then again, legislation is a complex process anyway and sponsoring a bill may or may not lead to the desired result – many a bill which began as one idea had a number of other unrelated things piggybacked onto it (such as Obamacare dealing with student loans.) But as a whole we can get some better idea of which party is the fiscally conservative one at the moment while reminding ourselves we need to keep a better eye on them should they regain power.

Congress vs. the oil industry

It’s beyond question that the oil industry is down on its luck right now, and the black eye received from the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico is a shiner which will stay on its public face for quite awhile. And while radio host Stephanie Miller claimed the Gulf oil spill as proof that “God is a Democrat,” the Democrats who sit among us mere mortals in Congress are taking direct aim at what they sneeringly call “Big Oil” with two particularly punitive measures.

With Democrats’ first try at cap-and-trade (better known as Waxman-Markey) stalling in the Senate after a contentious House vote, last week Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman brought forth their version of energy legislation. Originally sponsorship crossed party lines when Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, agreed to back the bill, but Graham withdrew his support when Senate leader Harry Reid decided to press for passage of immigration reform rather than this measure.

That’s not to say Graham would be staunchly against the proposal. But the sticking point he sees is that, “problems created by the historic oil spill in the Gulf…have made it extremely difficult for transformational legislation in the area of energy and climate to garner bipartisan support at this time.” Predictably, Democrats representing waterfront states like Florida, New Jersey, and Maryland are already coming out dead set against the additional oil exploration included in Kerry-Lieberman, a tradeoff intended to get Republicans to support a bill which would levy taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and, as studies have concluded, be a net job loser.

Moreover, Kerry-Lieberman gives a rare nod to states’ rights from the liberal side, allowing affected states more liberty to curtail or cease oil exploration off their shores. It’s a complete turnaround in one month’s time – only a few weeks ago the oil industry was cautiously optimistic about the Obama Administration allowing exploration in certain leaseholds to go ahead beginning in 2012. Needless to say, those ambitious plans are on hold after White House adviser David Axelrod warned, “no additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what has happened (with the Deepwater Horizon).”

A second Congressional attack on the energy industry in the accident’s aftermath comes from their bid to bolster a little-known federal fund called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF). Created by Congress in 1986, the OSTLF lay dormant until 1990, when in the wake of the Exxon Valdez tanker accident a per barrel tax was levied on petroleum produced or imported into the United States. Currently oil companies pay eight cents per barrel toward this fund. In addition, there is a limitation on liability of $75 million per incident for economic damages – companies already have to shoulder the actual cleanup costs.

But a new proposal would devastate small- and mid-size oil companies, forcing them out of business by increasing the prospective liability to $10 billion. Naturally, the OSTLF would be increased as well through the possible fourfold increase of the per-barrel tax to 32 cents, but the additional revenue may not necessarily go to the OSTLF – proceeds could be spent on other projects Congress deems worthy of funding.

These are just two of the more egregious examples of how Congress wants to punish Big Oil for the sin of having a tragic accident occur on an offshore platform. The federal government has done its part to assist British Petroleum in coping with the accident and its aftermath, so there’s no need for Congress to exert another pound of flesh from an apologetic industry.

Michael Swartz used to practice architecture but now is a Maryland-based freelance writer and blogger whose work can be found in a number of outlets, including Liberty Features Syndicate. This piece was made available to LFS clients on May 20.

Will Mikulski vote to keep sex offenders on Viagra?

To those who thought the debate over Obamacare ended when the President signed the bill yesterday, think again. The Senate now takes up “fixes” to the plan demanded by House Democrats, and in the meantime the process was opened up to amendments from Senate Republicans.

Since the bill as a whole will only require a majority vote (as opposed to the sixty votes to maintain a filibuster), the GOP is pinning its hopes on enacting amendments which, if nothing else, would force Democrats to make embarrassing votes against them – if the amendments pass, the House would have to again approve changes to the bill through a conference.

(Continued on my Examiner.com page…)

Ambition or safety for Congress?

While we can never assume the contentious issue of health care reform will be completely solved by this edition of Congress, indications are that it will be off the table by the time they go on spring break later this month. President Obama even held up departure on his Asian trip in expectation of having a health care bill on his desk by then.

Yet when Congress moved with lightning speed in the early months of 2009 it looked like the Democrats’ ambitious agenda would be wrapped up, tied with a bow, and presented to the President as a gift to the American people in time for last Christmas. Truth is, the agonizingly slow debate over Obamacare threw a wrench into the plans Democrats in Congress had for cap-and-trade, which in turn halted progress on the immigration fix promised by President Obama during his campaign.

Last year Democrats had their hopes up for a quick resolution to these issues as the second session of Congress traditionally is a time for members, particularly in the House, to play it a little more safe and avoid controversial issues which could spell trouble for their re-election chances. Instead, the question then becomes whether Congress will try and take the safe route when they return in mid-April.

Because Democratic leadership in Congress is already wildly unpopular thanks to their aggressive tactics of dubious legality in trying to get Obamacare passed, they likely will put the pedal to the metal and attempt to ramrod their agenda through before November. We could even get a Christmas surprise from the lame duck Democrats when they come back to wrap up their affairs after the fall recess, especially if the elections spell the end of their majority in the House.

House Democrats are already frustrated because they’ve done the hard work on some of President Obama’s pet projects like cap-and-trade only to see their efforts fizzle in the Senate. Senators now face a backlog of over 300 bills passed by the House which haven’t cleared the Senate, and the process is always fraught with the potential of requiring a conference committee to hammer out differences between legislation passed by the separate bodies. We already see what damage has been done to Congress’s reputation by not going to a conference on health care reform.

In having large majorities in both the House and Senate allied by party with the President, the last thing one would have expected would be a tag of a “do-nothing Congress.” But perhaps the most memorable thing about the Pelosi-Reid led 111th Congress was just how quickly it lost support among the people because it focused on the wrong things – in an economic situation which cried out for common-sense measures to create more private-sector jobs and stabilize the financial situation, Congress instead focused on changing a health care delivery system looked on favorably by a large percentage of the people.

This antagonistic attitude has spawned the largest protest movement in forty years, with millions taking to the streets demanding a smaller, more fiscally responsible government. But in a time where the best option would be doing more than just providing temporary fixes to the economic situation – such as the one-month unemployment extension which got Senator Jim Bunning up in arms because it wasn’t being paid for – it appears Congress is going to continue with an agenda the American people have soured on.

It’s an agenda which could spell doom for vulnerable Democrats in November, and April may be the last chance to change course.

Earmarks: the gauntlet has been thrown down

With the 2010 elections looming and the lack of fiscal responsibility by Washington becoming a larger issue, both parties are taking steps to curb the use of earmarks, which are loosely defined as appropriations added to spending bills to benefit a particular interest, usually within the sponsor’s state or district.

Democrats Wednesday proposed an end to earmarks designated to for-profit entities, which will mainly affect defense spending. This ban was passed by the House Appropriations committee.

But in the game of “can you top this” they were trumped by the Republicans’ decision Thursday morning to enact an immediate, unilateral moratorium on all earmarks. House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence was excited about the move, calling it, “very uncomfortable for business as usual.”

In truth, earmarks are but a small portion of the federal budget, accounting for only about 1% of total spending. Yet crusaders in both the House and Senate (most notably Senator John McCain) have attempted with little success over the years to curtail the earmarking practice. Even President Obama was on the anti-earmark bandwagon originally but had to capitulate early on by failing to veto a pork-laden omnibus spending bill.

Obviously, the impact of these efforts will only be felt if House Republicans have the stomach to carry out that which they’ve proposed after winning back the majority. Meanwhile the Senate is cool to such restrictions on their own spending. As we’ve seen with Senator Jim Bunning’s stance against a blatant violation of the PAYGO regulations passed weeks earlier, that which is passed into law has no effect on Congress if they interpret the rules in ways that make sense only to them.

And the temptation to bend these new rules is great – according to a study by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a politician’s share of the vote increases anywhere from 4.1 to 5.7 percent for every 100 percent increase in earmarks obtained by a legislator. Before too much faith is placed into Congress, though, we have to remember this is an election year and job one for a sitting member is to be re-elected.

Staying and fighting

Running for governor of your state is a task which takes a full-time effort, particularly if you’re not well-known around your state. That’s the situation Rep. Nathan Deal finds himself in as he strives to become the next governor of Georgia.

To that end, Deal had planned on resigning his House seat next week in order to concentrate on his run for statewide office. Instead, GOP leaders persuaded him to stay and made the hurdle for passing Obamacare that much higher. With a death and two earlier resignations (all Democrats who had voted for the bill previously), the nominally 435 member body was down to 432, requiring 217 votes for passage. Had Deal left as planned Nancy Pelosi’s job would have been made easier by cutting the majority number down to 216 and eliminating a sure “no” vote.

While the conventional wisdom is that the Senate and their reconciliation process is where the bill’s fate will be decided, they conveniently ignore the fact that President Obama and Democratic leaders could double-cross the House by promising them fixes to the Senate bill they’d pass – but as soon as the House passes the Senate bill (with the pro-abortion language, “Cornhusker Kickback” and “Louisiana Purchase” included) you better believe President Obama is going to find the pens to sign it.*

This is why many observers feel the whole battle over reconciliation is a red herring, a feint to distract anti-Obamacare supporters from the real important vote in the House. No wonder Frank Kratovil is making the news a lot more these days.

If the House somehow gets the Senate bill through, the game is over and we are stuck with Obamacare. Well, more precisely we are stuck with the taxes and regulations included therein – the so-called benefits don’t kick in for several years. And what entitlement have we overturned in the last seventy-five years since Social Security?

The ballgame is in the top of the ninth, and the American people need to be the ace closer who gets the save. Let’s get out and win this one!

* I’ve read past practice is that, on ceremonial bill-signings like Obamacare would surely be, the President signs his name one letter at a time with a different pen so that each of those who helped get the legislation through have a memento of the significant event. Talk about your poison pens.

The Spending Limit Amendment

Earlier this morning I participated in a conference call with Rep. Jeb Hansarling (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). They are two of the three initial sponsors of a possible Constitutional amendment called the Spending Limit Amendment (H.J. Res. 79), a proposal to limit federal spending to 20% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This number was arrived at because that’s a rough average of federal spending vs. GDP over an extended period.

Their argument falls in a number of categories ranging from dire economic straits to lost productivity to a national security threat. In the call, Hensarling noted “we believe we have to act now” and that he’s “not naive about the fact 5,000 amendments to the Constitution have been offered but only 27 ratified.” Instead, “what we hope to do is start a national debate on the size of government.”

Added Pence, “we have come to the conclusion that we need to introduce a new force,” that force being one of changing our “charter.” He also made the oft-noted point that “as government expands, freedom contracts.”

A number of different bloggers asked questions; I happened to be one of them. My question related to the fact that this seemed to me a weaker version of the balanced budget amendments proposed in the early 1990’s. Congressman Pence argued that this was “not a weaker version” but “a focused effort” on reining in the “runaway spending on steroids” going on today. In their estimate, running a small deficit but only spending 20% of GDP was preferable to having a balanced budget consuming 40% of GDP.

On an earlier question, the pair agreed that the BBA debate “had an impact” on spending immediately after it was considered.

There’s a lot more to the roughly 40-minute call, but since I’ve been promised the recording later today I can let you be the judge. Suffice to say that this should be a great issue to use in the 2010 campaign and they hope the TEA Party movement embraces the proposal, but they agreed this will be “a multiyear effort” and warned that, left unchecked, in 20 years our spending will place us in the similar position Greece faces now.

It reinforced my belief that Pence and Hensarling are “keepers” when it comes to a “throw the bums out” mentality. You’ll enjoy hearing what they have to say.