News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Follow @arra Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: The stunning repudiation of Senator Richard Lugar’s (R-IN) bid for a seventh term has sent shock waves through Washington’s internationalist lobby. A former Rhodes Scholar, Lugar has spent his career promoting a globalist agenda since he succeeded the late Jesse Helms as the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
One day after Indiana Republicans handed Lugar his walking papers, an outfit called the Atlantic Council held a forum to promote the discredited Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). As former Republican U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel and John Warner beamed their approval, Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared that “the time has come” for the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Hagel, Warner, and Lugar share an internationalist mindset: all three Senators supported “comprehensive immigration reform” (a.k.a. amnesty) bills that failed to pass Congress in 2006 and 2007. In support of LOST, they are joined by former Republican Senator Trent Lott, now a high-priced lobbyist who no longer answers to his former Mississippi constituents.
Americans today are in no mood for subordinating U.S. sovereignty, plus seven-tenths of the world’s surface area, to another entangling global bureaucracy, so advocates are using Orwellian talking points to pretend that LOST would do the opposite. Panetta’s statement is over the top: “Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty.”
The coalition for ratification includes three groups whose interests are rarely on the same side: the U.S. Navy, the big multinational oil companies led by Shell, and the radical environmentalist lawyers. That peculiar alliance should make you suspicious.
The Navy says we need LOST to preserve our freedom of transit in dangerous waters such as the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block, and the South China Sea, where China wants to be the dominant naval power. Panetta said, “How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven’t officially accepted those rules?”
In fact, freedom of navigation is recognized by centuries of international law, effectively policed by the British Navy for 400 years, and by our U.S. Navy since 1775. The United Nations has no navy of its own, so American sailors will still be expected to protect the world’s sea lanes and punish piracy.
Big Oil supports LOST because of its provision to extend jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200-mile limit. But LOST would require a royalty of 1 to 7 percent on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters to be paid to the International Seabed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica.
There’s no need for a 181-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.
Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member International Tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The Tribunal’s judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.
This tribunal, known as ITLOS (International Tribunal of LOST), has jurisdiction over “maritime disputes,” which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.
A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: “With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.” Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its “Exclusive Economic Zone” extending 200 miles out into international waters.
The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated.
Further Reading:Law of the Sea Action:Tell your U.S. Senators to sign Jim DeMint’s letter opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty.
-------------------- Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer and has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972. She founded and is president of Eagle Forum. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues. Mrs. Schlafly is graduate of Washington University, received her J.D. from Washington University Law School, Master's in Political Science from Harvard University and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from Washington University/St. Louis. She is an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Illinois, Missouri, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court. She has filed amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. Schlafly was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal. Tags:Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, LOST, Law of Sea Treaty,To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The conservative lawmakers want to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the steward of the federal government’s “investment” in public radio and TV. Congress created CPB in 1967, and DeMint and Lamborn think it’s time to cut it off from the federal trough. Their move comes as the agency prepares to report to Congress how it could operate without a federal subsidy.
“While so many Americans are making sacrifices around the country to make ends meet, CPB appears unwilling to do the same,” DeMint and Lamborn wrote in a letter to Senate and House appropriators. “Now is the appropriate and necessary time for the government to end taxpayer subsidies for CPB.”
Liberals are fighting back to keep the money flowing. The special-interest group Free Press, which advocates for greater government control over media and the Internet, claims the federal subsidy is necessary to save public-broadcasting jobs.
This tiny federal investment is vital to helping support programming that commercial media won’t showcase and provides an important foundation for stations around the country to build on.
DeMint and Lamborn don’t consider it such a “tiny federal investment,” particularly given the rapid growth of public broadcasting’s federal subsidy in the past decade. Writing on DeMint’s new Pickpocket blog, Amanda Carpenter noted:
Even though media has become more accessible than ever, funding for CPB has exploded. Between 2001 and 2012, the CPB’s appropriated funding escalated by nearly 31 percent, from $340 million to $444.1 million.
The O’Keefe exposé also revealed that NRP’s own senior vice president for fundraising admitted that NPR “would be better off in the long run without federal funding.” More than a year later, the American people are still on the hook.
----------- Also, visit and Like Facebook Page:End Taxpayer Funding of NPR Tags:Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Eric Cantor, federal funding, free press, Juan Williams, National Public Radio, NPR, YouCut, Rob Bluey, Heritage InvestigatesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: The left-wing media and the Obama campaign were on the attack yesterday after a front page New York Times story alleging that a conservative billionaire was planning to reintroduce America to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. By mid-morning Mitt Romney himself had repudiated the plan. There is just one problem -- the story is wrong.
Joe Ricketts, the founder and former CEO of TD Ameritrade, currently leads an economically conservative group called "Ending Spending," which had contracted with a political consulting firm to develop an ad campaign. The Jeremiah Wright plan was one of several submitted, but it clearly did not fit the group's economic focus. Even though the Times acknowledged in its report that the plan was "one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts," it nevertheless chose to concentrate more than 1,100 words on just this one plan.
Predictably, the Obama campaign and its media allies screamed "racism." CNN's Roland Martin said that bringing up Wright puts "Mormonism on the table." But this isn't about theology.
It's about the racially obsessed, anti-American world-view of Wright's church -- a world-view that attracted Barack Obama and held his attention for 20 years. He had his children baptized there. It just isn't believable for Obama to suggest, and for the media to accept, that he had no idea what Wright espoused.
Why did Obama's friends allegedly try to bribe Wright to keep him quiet in 2008? Because they knew his views were radioactive and dangerous to Obama's chances. That's why Obama left the church -- but only AFTER Wright was partially exposed. And that supposedly ended the issue. Case-closed, nothing to see here. Sorry, I don't think so.
Would it be news if Mitt Romney attended a church for 20 years that was led by a pastor who espoused views similar to those of David Duke? Of course it would. Commenting on the media's outrageous double standard, Charles Krauthammer noted that the left doesn't want to talk about the adult Obama's 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, but the Washington Post thinks Mitt Romney's teen-age pranks are "need-to-know" information.
I'd like to get your feedback. Are conservatives right to bring up Jeremiah Wright? Or do you think it amounts to "character assassination?" Click here to take part in our online poll. ------------- Gary Bauer is is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families where his articles are also shared. Tags:Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Mit Romney Campaign: This election is about more than electing a president. We are choosing the kind of America we will live in today -- and the kind of America we will leave our children tomorrow.
Mitt Romney has a vision for America. It is an America driven by a growing middle class. An America that lets free enterprise work. An America where education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded.
And that's exactly what we can expect America to be under President Romney. As a trusted supporter, you deserve to be the first to see our latest TV ad outlining President Romney's agenda on day one.
Mitt Romney has outlined a bold agenda to spur economic growth and create jobs. On his first day in office, he will approve the Keystone pipeline, introduce pro-growth tax reforms, and repeal Obamacare.
Tags: Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, 2012 Election, TV Ad, Keystone Pipeline, Campaign, Taxes, ObamacareTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
House Wraps Up Votes & Democrats' Fiscal Irresponsibility Highlighted
If You Like Incompetence, Vote Democrat!
Today in Washington. D.C. - May 18, 2012:
The Democrat led Senate ended another week without a budget. The Senate is in recess until Monday. When the Senate reconvenes, it will NOT return to a budget but it will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3187, a bill concerning FDA user fees. Also Monday, the Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture on the nomination of Paul Watford to be a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Yesterday, the House passed: H Res 568 (401-11) — Iran nuclear weapons - "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability." Two people considered to represent the extreme left and extreme right found something to agree on with this resolution. Lame-duck congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX), who is retiring and is presently running for the Republican presidential nomination, and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has lost his 2012 primary re-election bid, both voted NO on the importance of preventing the Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. Begs the question: do they support the opposite from occurring or do they believe ignoring these issues makes them go away. Kucinich does have a record advocating for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. Kucinich and Paul have agreed before on issues. For example, they were the only two congressional representatives who voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution which called on the United Nations to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the genocide convention of the United Nations Charter based on statements that he has made. Both obviously for different reasons. Paul wisely opposes the United Nations. H.R. 5740 (402-18) — "To Extend the National Flood Insurance Program"
Today, the House concluded the following business and has recessed until 10 AM, Tuesday May 22, 2012. Before adjourning they passed: H.R. 4310 (299-120) — Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Dept of Defense. To prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes. H.R. 4348 Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II. House passed motion to instruct conferees: Rahall motion (245-169) and Barrow motion (261-152). H.R. 4849 Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Backcountry Access Act - Unanimously passed Senate amended version of the bill.
More Comments On Democrats' Fiscal Irresponsibility:
Discussing Democrats’ ducking of responsibility after refusing to vote for any budget offered on Wednesday, including President Obama’s, Commentary’s Alana Goodman writes, “The Senate unanimously rejected President Obama’s budget yesterday, two months after the president’s budget was voted down unanimously in the House. It’s an embarrassing testimony to both Obama’s leadership and the Senate majority leadership’s willingness to take the long-term deficit problems seriously, particularly during an election year, and Democrats are furiously swinging into spin control mode.”
At Townhall.com, Guy Benson argues Democrats’ excuses all fall short: “Harry Reid’s hand-picked Senate Parliamentarian has confirmed Republicans’ contention that the Senate has not fulfilled its basic budgetary obligations. This is the 1,113th day in a row that this has been the case. . . . Budgets explicitly cannot be filibustered. If Democrats introduced a budget, whipped their members, and called a vote, it would pass. . . . But that would require Democrats to put their long-term plans on paper, which they’ve been avoiding like the plague for entirely political reasons. . . . If Democrats want to label an up-or-down vote on a Democratic president’s budget a ‘gimmick,’ they’re welcome to do so. In some ways, it’s an appropriate description, given the pitiful gimmicks upon which Obama’s budget relies -- even to achieve the fraudulent ‘savings’ it claims. . . . It would literally never balance.”
Goodman says, “The excuses are pretty flimsy, and Democrats are no doubt bracing for a public backlash. But clearly the party thinks they’re safer dealing with the fallout from rejecting Obama’s budget than being forced to defend his budget in the fall.”
The Washington Examiner editorializes today that of all the budgets offered on Wednesday “President Obama’s plan suffered the worst defeat -- a unanimous 99 to 0. It was not the first such vote. Not only have Senate Democrats failed to pass a budget in over three years, but not a single Democratic senator has voted for any budget brought to the floor over that time period. In a meeting with The Washington Examiner’s editorial board on Thursday, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., offered a theory as to why this is so. ‘They don’t want to show you what their vision of government costs [is],’ he said.” Tags:Washington, D.C. US House, bills, Democrat, fiscal irresponsibilityTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
After looking at the list of honorees, I see no fossil fuel exporters on the list. That’s odd because in 2011, petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc.) were the top American export at $88 billion.
Coal exports have also shot up. The Associated Press found that they “topped 107 million tons of fuel worth $16 billion in 2011,” and they’ve doubled since 2006.
Surely there has to be at least one fossil fuel-exporting company that deserves to be honored.
In 2008, both Barack Obama and Joe Biden were saying great things about coal. Why not now?
Inexplicably, some in Congress have proposed to actually prohibit the export of natural gas or oil that might be eventually imported through the Keystone XL pipeline (when and if it’s built).
This is madness. As the U.S. Chamber argued in a recent letter to Congress, doing so “would violate commitments the United States has undertaken as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO)…. In fact, the United States recently challenged China’s export restraints on certain raw materials at the WTO, and the United States won a clear victory in the case. Restricting the re-export of crude or refined product from Keystone XL would violate the same WTO rules.”
American energy exports are a success story, it’d be nice if the administration would tell it. Tags:White House, coal, fossil fuel exporters, WTOTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington, D.C. - May 17, 2012:
Today, the House is expected to consider and possible vote on the following bills:
H Res 568 — Iran nuclear weapons
H.R. 4310 — Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Dept of Defense
H.R. 5740 — National Flood Insurance Program
Yesterday, the House passed:
HR 4119 (416-4) — Border tunnel prevention: "Reduce the trafficking of drugs and to prevent human smuggling across the Southwest Border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels."
HR 2745 (by voice vote) — "Amend the Mesquite Lands Act of 1986 to facilitate implementation of a multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River in Clark County, Nevada."
HR 2621 (by voice vote) — "Establish the Chimney Rock National Monument in the State of Colorado"
H.R. 4970 (222-205) — "Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994."
Today, the Senate reconvened and has already considered and voted to confirm the nominations of Jeremy Stein (70-24) and Jerome Powell (74-21) to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The Senate then resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3187 , a bill concerning FDA user fees.
Yesterday, the ARRA News Serviceaddressed Zero Senators Vote To Support The President’s Budget. President Obama unanimously remains the "Zero President! Additional comments by sources not cited follow:
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jamie Dupree wrote last night, “For a second straight year, Republicans engineered a vote in the Senate on President Obama's budget in a bid to embarrass Democrats politically, as Senators voted 99-0 against Mr. Obama's spending plans. Democrats labeled it a stunt, while GOP lawmakers said it was evidence that the White House isn't serious about tackling the budget deficit. ‘Once again, the Senate spoke unanimously against the President’s unserious budget,’ said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement after the vote. ‘The President should put forward a budget that earns at least one vote in Congress,’ said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).”
The New York Times noted, “Senate Republicans engineered the green-eyeshade activities, using an obscure provision in the 1974 Budget Act that gives any senator the right to bring a budget to a vote if none reaches the Senate floor by April 1. The aim was to highlight the Democratic majority’s failure for the third straight year to produce a budget blueprint — and to embarrass President Obama by bringing his budget to a vote.”
And CNN added, “In this case, Republicans called up five budgets: one that closely mirrored President Obama's budget proposal submitted earlier this year; another, authored by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, which the House approved; and three from very conservative senators aimed at making drastic reductions to entitlements costs, government spending and taxes.”
Meanwhile, The Washington Free Beacon makes some important points: “The Senate last year voted down the president’s budget 97-0. Not a single federal lawmaker has voted in favor of Obama’s budget proposals over the past two years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that the president’s budget, if enacted, would have a negative impact on long-term economic growth. . . . The House also considered Obama’s most recent budget, rejecting it 414-0. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have not proposed a budget in more than three years.”
Having surveyed this frustrating spectacle, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said this morning, “Yesterday in the Senate, we got a vivid look at why the challenges we face in this country are so difficult to address. With a looming fiscal crisis some have called the most predictable in history. With a national debt at a level none of us ever imagined. With millions unemployed and millions more underemployed. With the biggest tax hike in history looming at the end of the year. And with entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security drawing closer every day to insolvency.
“Here’s what Senate Democrats did yesterday: they ducked. They were presented with five different options for dealing with these problems, and they voted against every single one. . . . [E]very American should be surprised that Democrats didn’t offer a single plan of their own, and that they didn’t even support the plan offered by a president of their own party.
“But, sadly, that’s what passes for leadership in the Democrat-led Senate these days: oppose everybody else — including a President of your own party — and hope nobody notices you’re not doing anything yourself. Most people would say it’s the responsibility of the party in power to propose solutions. And they’d be right. . . . And yet Democrats continue to duck any responsibility for addressing them.” Tags:Washington, US House, US Senate, bills, no budgetTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Phony Student Loan Issue Obscures Real Fight Over Spending
Phil Kerpen, Contributing Author: The interest rate on federal Stafford Loans is a phony political issue. The 6.8 percent interest rate was slashed — at taxpayer expense — to 3.4 percent last year. Now Obama and Democrats in Congress are acting as if the rate returning to its usual level is an economic catastrophe for students. It isn’t. We’re talking about a difference of $6 per month on new loans. Existing loans are unaffected. The student debt problem is real, but the Stafford Loan interest rate issue is not.
Yet the legislation proposed in Congress to address this non-issue is still hugely consequential, because the Republican version would end a particularly destructive big government spending program and the Democratic alternative would raise taxes on small businesses. It’s a fight that epitomizes the choice voters will face when they head to the polls this fall.
The House has already passed legislation, H R 4628, that extends the current Stafford Loan interest rate for another year, averting that $6 per month disaster that Obama has been focusing on out on the stump. The bill also does something much more significant: it repeals the so-called Prevention Fund, a multi-billion-dollar slush fund created by Obama’s stimulus bill and then expanded and funded even more lavishly — and automatically, without annual appropriations—by the president’s health care law.
The Prevention Fund is the most egregious type of federal spending because it uses our federal tax dollars to raise our taxes and limit our freedoms at the state and local levels. Specifically, it provides taxpayer-funded grants for television advertising, lobbying campaigns, and other activities aimed at raising taxes on soft drinks, imposing zoning restrictions on fast food restaurants, imposing smoking bans, and other such nanny-state favorites.
In Philadelphia, the city spent millions of federal taxpayer dollars on advertising to promote a tax hike on soft drinks. The tax was defeated by a remarkable coalition of tea party and union activists, but Mayor Nutter has vowed to continue to pursue it. And why not, with federal taxpayers picking up the tab?
In California, federal taxpayers paid for an effort that resulted in a ban on fast food restaurants in West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Lemert, South Los Angeles, and Southeast Los Angeles. That’s right; a state with 11 percent unemployment is using taxpayer dollars to intentionally prevent restaurants from opening that could employ thousands.
In New York, Mayor Bloomberg — enemy of trans fats, sugar, salt, and pretty much anything else that tastes good — is now tapping into federal Prevention Fund tax dollars for flashy advertising attacking the soft drink industry and urging customers to “drink water, fat-free milk, seltzer, or unsweetened tea instead.”
There’s also outright waste, like in Nashville, where Prevention Fund dollars are going to spay and neuter pets. That improves public health because, the reasoning goes, people will exercise more if they are no longer cowering in their homes, afraid of stray dogs and cats.
Contrast ending this outrageous use of taxpayer dollars with what’s in Harry Reid’s version of the Stafford Loan legislation: a tax hike on small businesses.
Harry Reid’s bill, S. 2343, contains language identical to the House-passed bill extending the 3.4 percent rate on Stafford Loans for one more year. But it leaves the Prevention Fund intact, while attaching a $9 billion tax hike on the business income of S-corporations and partnerships by applying a self-employment tax if the owners of those businesses are also employees. This is despite the fact that there are already IRS rules to ensure those individuals are already paying themselves fair market wages, which are subject to payroll taxes. It’s bad tax policy and it would set a terrible precedent. Meanwhile Reid, intent on protecting the Prevention Fund and keeping the phony interest rate issue alive, is refusing to vote on the House bill — even though the Senate rejected his own version last week.
“Once again, the Senate spoke unanimously against the President’s unserious budget. For three years, Senate Democrats have refused to produce a budget, as required by law. And today, they soundly rejected the President’s budget proposal which spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. But that’s not surprising when you consider just how bad the President’s budget is. It’s bad for jobs because it includes the biggest tax hike in history, it’s bad for seniors because it lets Medicare and Social Security become insolvent and it’s bad for our economy because it fails to address the nation’s $15 trillion debt.” ~ U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
Another Goose Egg No Budget Has Ever Received Fewer Votes Than President Obama’s
Zero Senators Vote To Support The President’s Budget
“Obama budget? Anyone? Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) plans to offer a version of Obama’s budget itself — a move that has drawn groans from Democrats…” (“A Cheat Sheet For The Senate Budget Votes,” Politico, 5/16/12)
TODAY:Senate Dems Unanimously Rejected (99-0) President Obama’s FY’2013 Budget.(S.Con.Res.41, Roll Call Vote #97, Motion To Proceed Rejected 0-99, 5/16/12)
THE DETROIT NEWS: “President Barack Obama's 2013 budget proposal should be dismissed as a blueprint for his re-election campaign. But it's worse than that. If passed as presented — and there's little likelihood of that — the spending plan would lock America on an auto-pilot course for Greece.”(Editorial, “Obama Budget Shirks Off Any Pretense To Fiscal Responsibility,” The Detroit News, 2/14/12)
LOS ANGELES TIMES: “…President Obama released a budget proposal for the coming fiscal year that offers no real solution to the United States’ long-term fiscal problems.”(Editorial, “What About The U.S. Debt?,” Los Angeles Times, 2/14/12)
Mallory Quigley, Susan B. Anthony List: If it feels like 1984 in real life, it should. The threats to our religious liberty and conscience rights are very real. The question that needs to be asked of this president is "who decides"? Time and time again, President Obama has affirmed that it is the government who decides -- government who decides what women want and think.
President Obama and his allies in Congress and the abortion lobby must stop the "War on Women" who don't agree with them!
It's President Obama's job to protect the freedom of all women and men to practice their beliefs. Yet, an all-out assault has been launched by this administration on people of faith and conscience. Our rights are at stake and we must do something to stop it now. We must expose him!
Learn more at RespectMyVoice.com. Below is SBA List's latest web video entitled "Womanhood." It was just released today and calls on President Obama and his allies in Congress and the abortion lobby to stop the "War on Women" who don't agree with them.
Tags:War on women, Barack Obama, feminism, abortion, women, Susan B. Anthony List, SBA List, pro-life, Planned Parenthood, pro-choice, videoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: Would you happily sign an IOU for $126,000 to allow Barack Obama to keep his Big Spender status going? In some ways, that’s the bottom line on how people are going to vote on November 6th. That’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates Obama’s proposed deficits, from 2011 through 2020, will add to a family of four’s share of America’s liabilities.
What do you get in return for a tab of that size? According to Grover Norquist and John Lott, Jr.’s new book, Debacle, you get higher unemployment, reduced economic growth and depressed housing prices.
Norquist is widely — even, in a backhanded way, by Mr. Obama — considered one of Washington’s most effective advocates for limited government. Lott is an influential scholar who repeatedly has shown more interest in determining what effect policies really have than in doctrine and dogma. His statistical analyses tend to the rigorous, elegant and counter-intuitive.
Lott and Norquist recently trained their sights on the claims of the Big Spenders of Washington. The Big Spenders, like any addicts, are always ready to provide facile rationalizations for their maladaptive behavior. In the case of the U.S. economy, of course, the Big Spender claim is that matters would be much worse but for Obama’s spending frenzy. Extremist commentators such as Paul Krugman insist that the spending was not frenzied enough. This is, of course, a nonfalsifiable, unverifiable, brazen claim!
Is there any evidence for their claims? Norquist and Lott drill down into the data from the real world rather than consulting an Oracle composed of the bon mots of Lord Keynes (or even Milton Friedman). The evidence they found shows we are experiencing the worst recovery ever recorded. “Astoundingly, the unemployment rate during the 29 months of recovery averages three full percentage points higher than the average unemployment rate during the recession.”
Previous U.S. recessions ended faster … and the economic growth of the ensuing recoveries were much higher … in eras without a spending frenzy. If history is any guide Obama’s claims for Big Spending are unfounded — and destructive.
Maybe … that was then and this is now? But our geographically, culturally and politically closest neighbor Canada did not engage in a comparable spending frenzy during this very recession and, in fact, cut corporate tax rates. “By October 2011 … Sixty-three percent of Canadians were then viewing their economy as ‘in good or very good shape.’ For Americans, only 9 percent viewed theirs as ‘good or excellent.’” Similar conclusions about the toxicity of the spending frenzy on job creation can be drawn from the experiences of France and Germany in and after the Great Recession.
Maybe … that was there and this is here? So … how did the states that got the most stimulus money fare compared to the states that received the least? “The Stimulus didn’t create more jobs in the states that got more money. This is a very important result.”
Norquist and Lott meticulously document the lack of evidence for Obama’s claims that hyperspending programs helped, then or now, here or there, or even simply here. They adduce massive evidence that Obama’s spending frenzy retarded the recovery.
They are not the only ones. As my colleague Charles Kadlec wrote in Forbes.com , “Remember … how the President last fall demanded House Republicans pass ‘now’ $400 billion in new stimulus spending, relabeled a ‘jobs bill,’ or be held accountable for the coming slow-down in economic growth?
“Well, here is what putting a stop to Obamanomics has produced: The strongest six months of employment growth since the President took office.”
Debacle is no ordinary indictment. It even might be rattling Obama himself. Rolling Stone recently ran a very (speaking as a regular reader and admirer, perhaps excessively) affectionate Oval Office interview which asked “Is there any way to break through that obstructionism by Republicans?”
Obama responds: “My hope is that if … they suffer some losses in this next election, that … [t]hey might say to themselves, ‘You know what, we’ve lost our way here. We need to refocus on trying to get things done for the American people. Frankly, I know that there are good, decent Republicans on Capitol Hill who, in a different environment, would welcome the capacity to work with me. But right now, in an atmosphere which folks like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist are defining what it means to be a true conservative, they are lying low.”
So… Norquist is defining what it means to be a true conservative? Has Obama read Debacle? Unlikely … but not impossible. As for defining what it means to be a true conservative, all conservatives oppose Big Government. Using Obama’s favorite rhetorical flourish “everybody knows” — the government will spend every penny it can get its hands on to get bigger.
Big Spending increases the power of officials and makes them feel like bigshots. They will spend all they can, always with facile rationalizations. Hence it is an imperative — for prosperity and liberty — to keep avaricious and sanctimonious officials from getting their hands on our money. Norquist is a first line of defense and they find our resistance to handing over our wallets galling.
There are three main ways the government can get its hands on money hard-earned by us mere workers and savers: taxing, borrowing, and printing. Norquist is the prime mover in getting candidates and elected officials to solemnly swear not to raise tax rates or to close loopholes except to lower tax rates. The ATR Pledge is ironclad and Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter observed, “It has transformed American politics.” The Pledge has proved so effective at fighting government avarice that in a recent personal conversation with Norquist this columnist urged him to convert it into a federal Constitutional Amendment.
Obama’s self-righteousness, irrespective of the painful consequences of his mistakes on the lives of working people and the unemployed, is reminiscent of that of Herbert Hoover. Hoover fought the Great Depression with public works projects, raising taxes on the affluent (bringing the top rate up from 25% to 63%), raising corporate taxes, and, of course, badly neglecting monetary reform. Hoover’s crazed policies made matters worse. Because Obama worships at Hoover’s Big Government altar, Hoover’s failures are not getting through to Obama.
Debacle’s most compelling momentmay not be in the rigorously analyzed data but rather a telling personal incident. Lott: “When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’
“I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’
“’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.
“I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.
“He simply grimaced and turned away. …
“Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”
The evidence is becoming irrefutable. Obama does not govern based on results. He is curiously, disdainfully, incurious as to what works in practice. He shows disdain, which is nothing but a refined form of dogmatism and arrogance. Obama governs not for hope and change, but from disdain. And that’s a recipe for … a Debacle.
------------ Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, and a contributor to he ARRA News Service. The article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted for reprint by the author. Tags:Ralph Benko, President Obama, Obama Administration, frenzied spending, feeble recovery, the economy, Grover Norquist, ATR, DebacleTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington, D.C., D.C. - May 16, 2012:
The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today and began up to six (6) hours of debate on motions to proceed to 5 different budget resolutions, none of which have been offered by Senate Democrats.
Because Democrats have refused to offer a budget, Senate Republicans are forcing votes on budget resolutions. These are votes on the motion to proceed to each budget. If any motion receives a majority of votes, the Senate would then take up and debate that budget resolution.
Around 4 PM, the Senate will vote on motions to proceed to these 5 budget resolutions: S. Con. Res. 41, President Obama’s budget; H. Con. Res. 112, the House-passed Paul Ryan Budget Resolution; S. Con. Res. 37, Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) budget; S. Con. Res. 42, Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) budget; and S. Con. Res. 44, Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) budget.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 78-20 to pass H.R. 2072, the bill reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. Prior to final passage, the Senate rejected 5 Republican amendments to reform the bank. Senate Democrats initially tried to block all amendments to the bill, but Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell insisted on allowing Republican amendments before the Senate could proceed. As many know being pro-business, I often support positions advanced by the US Chamber of Commerce. This time, I was on the opposite side of the issue opposing the re-authorization and expansion of the Ex-Im Bank( the Corporate Welfare Bill). The AP reported that US Chamber of Commerce stated in a letter yesterday to U.S. Senators, "Failure to reauthorize the Ex-Im would amount to unilateral disarmament and cost tens of thousands of American jobs . . . last year Chinese export credit agencies provided almost 10 times more financial backing than the Ex-Im Bank did."
Yesterday, the House passed:
HR 1864 (by voice vote) — Mobile workforce state income tax: "To limit the authority of States to tax certain income of employees for employment duties performed in other States."
HR 205 (400-0) — Homeless emergency assistance: "To amend the Act titled "An Act to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases", approved August 9, 1955, to provide for Indian tribes to enter into certain leases without prior express approval from the Secretary of the Interior."
HR 3534 (by voice vote) — Federal construction contractors: "To amend title 31, United States Code, to revise requirements related to assets pledged by a surety, and for other purposes."
HR 365 (394-1) — Blue alerts to reduce violence against law enforcement: "To encourage, enhance, and integrate Blue Alert plans throughout the United States in order to disseminate information when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty."
HR 3874 (400-1) — Black Hills Cemetery: "To provide for the conveyance of eight cemeteries that are located on National Forest System land in Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota."
HR 4045 (by voice vote) — Post-deployment administrative absence days: "To modify the Department of Defense Program Guidance relating to the award of Post-Deployment / Mobilization Respite Absence administrative absence days to members of the reserve components to exempt any member whose qualified mobilization commenced before October 1, 2011, and continued on or after that date, from the changes to the program guidance that took effect on that date."
HR 4240 (by voice vote) — North Korea human rights: "To reauthorize the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, and for other purposes."
The following bills had action / discussions / debate but no final votes taken:
HR 4119 — Border tunnel prevention
HR 2745 — Multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River
HR 2621 — Chimney Rock Monument
H Res 568 — Iran nuclear weapons
Continuing yesterday points, today marks 1,113 days since majority Senate Democrats last passed a budget, over three years of fiscal irresponsibility. So today, Senate Republicans will force votes on a number of budget alternatives for them, even President Obama’s budget that would raise taxes, increase spending, and continue expanding the debt. Will Democrats vote for any budget today, even the one offered by the president of their own party?
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “We’ve got a nearly $16 trillion debt; we’re borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend; entitlements are going broke; millions are out of work, and Democrats can’t even put a plan on paper for a vote? What are they doing over there? Isn’t anybody over there embarrassed by the fact that they haven’t offered a budget in three years? . . . As far as I can tell, their only plan is to take shots at our plans and hope nobody notices they not only don’t have one of their own. They’re so unserious they won’t even vote for a budget that was written by a President of their own party. It doesn’t get more irresponsible than that. . . . [I]t’s the responsibility of any majority party to put [a budget] together, to stand up and be counted. But since Democrats refuse to do their duty by the nation, Republicans will attempt to do it for them.”
What do Democrats have to say for themselves? Not much, as The Washington Times’ Emily Millerwrites today: “[Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s] go-to excuse this year has been that the Budget Control Act, which set lower spending levels in exchange for raising the debt ceiling last summer, was good enough to replace an actual budget. The Senate parliamentarian disagreed, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, insisted that the ruling by the Senate’s procedural referee meant Democrats couldn’t keep the five proposed budgets from being discussed on the floor.”
Politico reports that rank-and-file Senate Democrats aren’t particularly enamored with this excuse. “Senate Democrats are ripping into Republican budget plans but still refusing to offer one themselves — a move that’s frustrating a handful of centrists in their own party. . . . Democratic leaders have defiantly refused to lay out their own vision for how to deal with federal debt and spending, arguing that last summer’s debt-ceiling deal essentially serves as an actual budget. While a budget resolution is non-binding, they say, the Budget Control Act was signed into law. But a few centrists in the 53-member Democratic conference expressed frustration with their party’s budget inaction. ‘Anything we can do to force the Senate to deal with the debt is important to do, and the sooner the better,’ Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CN), who caucuses with Democrats, told POLITICO. ‘I don’t think [Democrats] will offer their own budget and I’m disappointed in that.’ Freshman Sen. Joe Manchin has often said he would have been “impeached” if he failed to produce a budget as West Virginia governor, though he conceded there are differences between the state and Senate budget processes. ‘Sure I have a problem with [failing to offer a budget]. As a former governor, my responsibility was to put a budget forward and balance it, so anyone who comes from the executive mindset has a problem with that. I don’t care if you’re Democrat or Republican,’ Manchin said in an interview. . . . Another Democrat . . . lamented that the budget process has broken down and is in need of a major overhaul. ‘The budget process is just not working around here. We’ve had three years with President Obama where we’re not able to get a budget resolution passed,’ Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) told POLITICO.”
And yet, as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough put it this morning, “The Democrats have decided in the midst of a financial meltdown they're going to do absolutely nothing…” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) previously said, “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage,” and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said last year, “To put other budgets out there is not the point.”
As Leader McConnell said, “I think the Treasury Secretary summed it up pretty well when he was asked a few months ago what the administration planned to do to address entitlements — the single-biggest driver of the national debt. ‘We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem,’ he said. ‘What we do know is, we don’t like yours.’ What breathtaking disregard for the problems we face. . . . Later today, we’ll vote on five different budget proposals: the President’s, Congressman Paul Ryan’s, Senator Pat Toomey’s, Senator Paul’s, and Senator Mike Lee’s. We’ll give Democrats a choice, and see if they’ll have the courage to get behind any of these proposals, or none of them. And we’ll learn a lot. By the end of the day, we’ll know whether there’s a budget that Washington Democrats support. And the American people will know without a doubt who’s voting for solutions in this town — and who isn’t.” Tags:Washington, D.C., US Senate, Budget, no budget, Ex-Im bank, US HouseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Arkansas: It's About Good or Bad Policy Carried Out In Little Rock
One of AFP-Arkansas' main missions is to provides taxpayers with the information they need to help ensure a brighter and more prosperous future for their families. Educating citizens on votes and policy that is decided upon in our state capitol is imperative to this mission.
Unfortunately, people like Representative Tim Summers attacks these efforts. He also, supports higher fuel taxes on Arkansans. Facts matter: in 2009, Rep. Tim Summers was the deciding vote on a $87,000,000 Tax increase when Arkansas has a $300,000,000 surplus!
Tags:Little Rock, Arkansas, Government, Policy, Taxes, Spending, Representative, Tim Summers, Americans for Prosperity, AFP-ArkansasTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
We posted this report retroactive to the appropriate time and date. Unfortunately the story was placed in draft and not posted. On May 15, 2012, the primaries passed in Oregon and Nebraska without much fan fare. Mitt Romney was the designated winner of both primaries and picked up delegated moving him closer to his goal of winning enough total delegated to secure the Republican presidential nomination.
Nebraska (35 Delegates - advisory primary): Mitt Romney 70.9%; Rick Santorum 14%; Ron Paul 10%; Newt Gingrich 5.2%. Delegated To be Determined.
Oregon (28 Delegates - proportional primary): Mitt Romney 71.2%; Ron Paul 12.6%; Rick Santorum 9.4%; Newt Gingrich 5.4%; Write-in 1.4%. Romney received 18 delegates; Paul 3 delegates; Santorum 3 delegates; Gingrich 1 delegate and 3 delegates not assigned.
Romney now has 989 convention delegates. It takes 1,144 delegates to win the GOP nomination. Tags:election 2012, Republican, primary, primaries, May 15, Nebraska, OregonTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Editor Comment: I know -- I know. Tony Branco's below cartoon might be slightly tasteless for some, but it is well depicted and so true. It's satire! But truth often flows from satire. Cartoonist like Tony have a way of visually bushing liberals' buttons and pricking our conscious.
Tags:AF Branco, political cartoon, satire. Barack Obama, pandering to his base, at the breast, Karl Marx, gay marriage, enoughTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Austerity: What does this mean for the United States?
Untangling Our Economy
The following key points address address the definition and key aspects related to the term and the impact on the United States. The following talking points were prepared by our allies at Public Notice.
What is Austerity?
Austerity is typically understood as an attempt to reduce a government’s debt relative to the economy or to reduce deficits. Though most people associate austerity with spending cuts, it can encompass spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of both.
Top Line on Austerity
Contrary to what many think, spending cuts have largely been lacking from austerity in Europe. Instead, austerity has mostly taken the form of raising taxes. And the evidence shows this simply isn’t the solution. When you raise taxes in a weak economy, bad things happen so we shouldn’t be surprised that Europe is struggling.
In fact, most European countries are spending more today than they did in 2008 before the crash.
While some countries like Greece and Italy have cut some spending they’ve undermined this effort by raising taxes at the same time. Meanwhile, countries like France and the U.K. have made no effort to cut spending, seeing spending increase most every year over the last decade.
We’ve seen that countries that pursue the so-called “balanced approach” – a combination of tax increases and spending cuts—tend to fail while countries that pursue spending cuts alone, succeed.
Real world examples show the “spending cuts only” approach is more likely to be followed by a period of economic growth – while the tax increase approach is more likely to lead to economic contractions.
Over the last few years, the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia have significantly cut government spending without raising taxes. These countries have subsequently experienced economic growth, with Estonia seeing economy swing from shrinking 13% in 2009 to growing 3.1% in 2010.
Similarly, Sweden reduced welfare spending and cut taxes and has seen its economy become one of the fastest growing economies in Europe.
What Do the Elections in Europe Mean for the U.S.?
Earlier this month, citizens in Greece and France voted to rebuke to politicians of all parties.
In Greece, politicians tried to solve their country’s problems through both tax increases and spending cuts. In France, they tried to solve their problems with new taxes.
The election results in Europe should send a message to politicians in Washington. Voters showed their frustration over, among other things, stagnant economies and high unemployment.
The fact remains that most Americans (54 percent) say the national debt is extremely important to them, and 79 percent say the level of overall government spending is extremely or very important to them.
What happened in Europe?
In most of the cases in Europe, austerity took the form of large tax increases and small, if any, spending cuts.
In the UK, politicians have made a lot of promises to cut spending. But in reality, spending has continued to grow and fundamental structural reforms (pension reform, health care reform, etc) have been put on hold. A scenario simultaneously being played out in the U.S.
They also increased taxes, including the Value Added Tax, tax on capital, the top marginal personal income tax rate, and raised other duties.
In France, politicians haven’t even really talked about spending cuts. They merely increased the retirement age from 60 to 62, while also increasing the Value Added Tax, and are even talking about increasing personal income taxes and business taxes.
What does this mean for the United States?
Government spending in the United States is unsustainable, but we still have time to avoid a similar fate as Europe. We should pay attention to the lessons in Greece and reduce government spending now before we reach that point.
Greece’s debt relative to the size of their economy is 160%. The United States’ debt relative to the size of our economy surpassed 100% this year. How high does it have to go before Washington takes action?
There is a lot of talk about the so-called “balanced approach” to deal with our financial problems. But as research shows, and as many European countries now demonstrate, raising taxes to pay for out-of-control, unsustainable spending fails to reduce debt and threatens to harm economic growth.
So what we can we do? The bulk of the evidence in Europe clearly shows we must focus spending cuts now. Delaying spending cuts now will only make it harder in the future.
Tags:Austerity, Europe, United States, Greece, attempt to reduce, government debt, the economy, reduce deficits, spending cuts, tax increases, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
BankRupting America: The protests in Greece have shown that Greeks are unsatisfied with the economy. Americans too are in desperate need of jobs and demand deficit reduction from Washington. Check out our latest inforgraphic below on the statistics of the two countries and their three main parallels.
Click image for larger display
Tags:deficit reduction, fiscal crisis, Government Spending, Greece, United StatesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Democrat Leaders May Allow US Senate To Vote On Budget Proposals
Today in Washington, D.C. - May 15, 2012
The House is back in session. Expected House votes this week beginning today around 6:30 PM "under suspension" of rules:
HR 205 — Homeless emergency assistance
HR 365 — Blue alerts to reduce violence against law enforcement
H Res 568 — Iran nuclear weapons
HR 1864 — Mobile workforce state income tax
HR 2621 — Chimney Rock Monument
HR 2745 — Multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River
HR 3534 — Federal construction contractors
HR 3874 — Black Hills Cemetery
HR 4045 — Post-deployment administrative absence days
HR 4119 — Border tunnel prevention
HR 4240 — North Korea human rights
On Wednesday, the House is expected to take under normal procedure consideration of
HR 4310 — Defense authorization and HR 4970 — Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Potential vote on HR.4970. Debate and potential amendments on HR 4310 expected to run through Thursday and Friday before a final vote on the bill.
The Senate today resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2072, the bill reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank and began debate on 5 amendments to the bill. The Senate will hold up to 6 roll call votes. The first 5 votes will be on amendments to the Export-Import Bank bill from Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bob Corker (R-TN), David Vitter (R-LA), and Pat Toomey (R-PA), respectively. The Senate will then vote on final passage of H.R. 2072. All amendments will require 60 votes to pass, as will the bill itself.
Senate Democrats initially tried to block all amendments to the bill, but Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell insisted on allowing Republican amendments before the Senate could proceed.
It’s now been over 3 years since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget and during that time Democrats blocked or defeated any budget proposals. To pass a budget requires a simple majority (51 votes out of 100). Not only has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion. . . . It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage,” Democrats have prevented their own Budget Committee Chairman, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), from even taking one up in committee.
In stark contrast, Senate Republicans will offer several different budget plans this week for senators to vote on. The Hill writes, “Republican senators are expected to force a vote this week on President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget plan, while Democrats are relishing a roll call on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget blueprint.” In addition, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) will all offer budgets for the Senate to consider.
But, as The Hill notes, it’s worth pointing out that Democrats don’t want to support their own president’s budget. “The GOP initiative is intended to embarrass the White House by painting the president’s budget as so weak on fiscal issues that his own party cannot support it, and to highlight the inability of the Senate Democratic majority to produce a budget. It has been more than 1,100 days since the Senate cleared a budget resolution. GOP aides say that if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to rally support for Obama’s budget, he could get a dozen yes votes at best. That estimate may be low, though there is a clear contrast in how congressional Democrats dealt with Obama’s budget in 2009 and this year. Three years ago, the Democratic-led Senate passed Obama’s budget 55-43. Obama’s approval ratings were much higher at the time, which fostered strong Democratic unity on Capitol Hill. Some centrist Democrats, including Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), have said they prefer a budget with deeper deficit cuts than Obama presented. Vulnerable Democratic senators are seen as unwilling to vote for the tax increases detailed in the White House budget. Aides to several Democratic centrists were noncommittal Monday on how their bosses would vote if the Obama budget comes up.”
Last year, of course, Obama’s budget received zero votes in the Senate, and his budget this year received zero votes in the House. Will any Democrat senator vote for it this year? Based on The Hill report, it sounds like Democrats may be getting their excuses ready: “This year, Obama is sticking by his budget, so Democrats are embracing another reason to vote it down. The White House moved Monday to free Democrats to vote no by saying the legislation embodying Obama’s budget is ‘different’ because it doesn’t contain identical policy language.”
This week, no thanks to Democrats, the Senate will finally have the opportunity to vote on at least five different budgets. Will Democrats support any of them, or continue their record of astonishing fiscal irresponsibility?
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said last month, “[T]he Chairman of the Budget Committee made it official: for the third year in a row, Senate Democrats will refuse to do the basic work of governance: by refusing to offer a budget blueprint for government spending as required by law. After pledging both to me and his Republican counterpart on the committee that he would, in fact, mark up a budget this year, the chairman of the Budget Committee bowed, once again, to the political pressure and said he won’t put his Democratic colleagues at any political risk by asking them to vote on a plan their constituents might not like. Not until after the election that is. . . .”
“I’m having a hard time thinking of a word to describe the level of leadership we’re getting from Democrats in Washington these days — whether it’s the President or the Democrat Senate. It’s a disgrace. There isn’t a single issue I can think of that they’re willing to do anything about. Under this President’s watch, Washington has been spending more than a trillion dollars a year more than it takes in. And Senate Democrats don’t even have the courage to put it all in black and white. They don’t have any problem spending it. They just don’t want to be on record voting for it. That’s what passes for leadership in Washington these days.”
Tags:Washington, D.C., US Senate, budget, export-Import Bank, US House, Defense authorization, Violence Against Women ActTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru
Married 48yr #Conservative #Constitution #NRALife #GunRights #USAF 22yr #military #veteran #Christian #CCOT #ProLife #TEAParty #GOP #TCOT #SGP #schoolchoice
Comments by contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of ARRA, its Officers, memberships or the Editors.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.