Washington Times: Opinion: Tom Schatz And Ron Lazof: "The Bloated Federal Government": How to Reform The Federal Government

SCHATZ AND LAZOF: Raising taxes won't fix bloated government - Washington Times

One of the problems that America has when it comes to fiscal policy and what the role of government should be. Is that Americans tend to want more government then they are willing to pay for, high taxes are unpopular in this country. Unlike in Europe but high government spending isn't especially if Americans don't have to pay for it in higher taxes. And the Federal Government unlike State Governments can just borrow money from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc. To pay for their government spending that Americans don't want to pay for themselves and if politicians. Force them to pay for the government spending in either higher taxes or in spending cuts, politicians risk. Losing what in too many cases they cherish most which is their jobs either in Congress or in the White House. Unlike one of the advantages that state governments have is that they don't control the Federal currency. So they can't take out a loan from another country and are forced to pay their bills with either new revenue. Or by cutting spending which forces the states to set priorities and actually have a budget and not decide to. Spend more just because some new crisis arises.

So if we really want to get our fiscal house and order so to speak where at the very least our debt and deficit. Is not growing faster then our economy and they are actually coming down and shrinking, we need to restore. Limited government in this country which is going to require politicians to actually lead and tell voters I can't. Do everything that you want me to do for you with either current revenue or spending levels, which means I. Need you to layout what you want me to do and I'll do what I can to do that for you or I'll tell you what I expect. Government to do based on the resources that we have based on what I believe the Federal Government should be doing. And it might not be as much government that you want from me but it will be based on what I believe the. Federal Government should be doing based on the resources that we have and if we are going to go further then. That I'm going to have to cut in areas where the Federal Government shouldn't have as big of a role and where. The people should be doing more for themselves.

Limited government is especially important especially in an era of limited resources with rising debt and deficits. And with sluggish economic growth which means politicians need to figure out exactly what the Federal Government. Should be doing and cut in areas where we shouldn't be spending as much money and reform in areas where. We need the government to play a role but need it to do a better job and that means cutting budgets, making government. Work better and requiring that all Americans are paying their fair share in taxes.

George F. Will: 'Modern Progressivism See Constitution’s Limits As, Well, Unconstitutional'

Source:East Bay Times- U.S Senate Democratic Leadership. From Left to Right (not necessarily ideologically) Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Patty Murray.

"Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them, but when evaluating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ideas for making the Senate more like the House of Representatives, consider the source. Reid is just a legislative mechanic trying to make Congress’ machinery efficiently responsive to his party’s progressivism. And proper progressives think the Constitution, understood as a charter of limited government, is unconstitutional.

They think the “living” Constitution gives government powers sufficient for whatever its ambitions are, enabling it to respond quickly to clamorous majorities. Hence the progressive campaign to substantially weaken the ability of senators to use filibusters to delay action.

Until 1917, it was generally impossible to stop extended Senate debates. Then — during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats’ first progressive president — the Senate adopted the cloture rule whereby debate could be ended by a two-thirds majority vote. In 1975, the requirement was lowered to three-fifths. If there is now another weakening of minority rights, particularly by a change brought about by breaking Senate rules, the Senate will resemble the House. There the majority controls the process and the disregarded minority can only hope to one day become the majority and repay disregard in kind.

Wilson was the first president to criticize the American founding, which he did because the Constitution bristles with delaying and blocking mechanisms, especially the separation of powers. The point of progressivism, say its adherents, is to progress up from the Founders’ fetish with limiting government and restraining majorities. Hence progressives’ animus against the filibuster, which protects minority rights by allowing for the measurement of intensity as well as mere numbers." 

You can read the rest of George Will's column at the East Bay Times 

George Will's column is about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Democrat, Nevada) attempt to reform the Senate to make it harder for the minority party (in this case the Republican Party) to block legislation by simply voting against cloture, instead of actually just filibustering legislation by holding the floor and speaking about whatever the bill on the floor is. Or blocking legislation by simply voting against the motion to proceed resolution, that also requires 60 votes for the Senate to just begin debate on any bill that needs 60 votes to break a filibuster. 

I agree with George Will that the Senate should not become like the House of Representatives and it should remain the upper chamber of Congress where minority rights are protected and where the Senate Minority Leader should remain a major player in as far as how legislation is written and passed. But right now the Senate is the Congressional graveyard where legislation goes to die. Where Senate Republicans led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, blocks any legislation that wasn't already passed by the Republican House, generally with just 43-47 votes out of a hundred. 

When the two parties and leaders in the Senate can't come together on any legislation, the Senate Majority Leader should be able to act on his own to bring legislation and executive nominees up for consideration. And the Senate minority party, led by the Minority Leader should be able to offer and indefinite amount of relevant amendments to the current legislation that's being offered, within a certain period of time. And after every amendment is offered and every member who wants to be heard on any bill and nominee that's being considered is given that opportunity, the Senate would then vote up or down. 

If the minority party, led by the Minority Leader, actually wants to hold the floor and filibuster the legislation, they could do that to block the legislation, until they give up the floor or are cut off with 60 votes or more for cloture. Instead of just voting against cloture, just to block legislation. If Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, they would want this same authority as well.  

Washington Times: Opinion: Ted Nugent: "Connecticut Killings a Result of Moral Decay": Why Its Not That Simple

NUGENT: Connecticut killings a result of moral decay - Washington Times

Every time I hear a so called Conservative and if you read this blog on a regular basis you know that I've questioned. And proudly and accurately so the Conservatism of these so called Conservatives especially in a party that had. The opportunity to nominate for President the most Conservative person running for President in Ron Paul. And he only won two Republican primaries, so when I hear so called Conservatives talk about how Conservative. They are because they believe in freedom and fiscal responsibility and that these are the things that will bring. America back to its greatness as if we are no longer great, even though more people still immigrate to this country. Every year more then any other country in the World and then on the other hand I hear some of these so called. Conservatives talk about our moral decay that we have too  much freedom in this country and we need to restrict. Our freedom to again restore America to its greatness, I get a little dizzy because what's the first rule in debating. And making an argument, don't contradict yourself, you argue for freedom on one hand and you argue. Against it on the other hand.

Do we have a problem when it comes to moral values in the country and too many families being broken due. To poverty and people making wrong choices about when to have kids and so fourth, of course we do just look. At the amount of people we have in prison in this country the largest prison population in the World but to. Say thats the only problem would be to ignore all of the other problems as well. We have too many Americans that have access to firearms in this country that have no legitimate business. To firearms in this country, the second amendment is for responsible adults in this country, not for mentally handicapped people and criminals. Who don't understand the consequences of what shootings like this can bring to society or don't have a big enough. Conscience to care enough to not shoot innocent children who just happen to be going to school that day. And until we address these issues of guns getting into the wrong hands and how inadequate our mental healthcare. Is in this country we are going to continue to have shootings like this.

We could have the best families and moral values possible but we'll never have a country that doesn't have mental disease. And criminal minds, so unless we can work on all of these issues in a comprehensive approach and get guns. Away from people who have no business possessing them and prevent irresponsible people from possessing. Guns and do a better job of treating our mentally disabled population, we are going to continue to have tragedies like this.

The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012: The Legacy of Robert Bork

Source: The Weekly Standard Robert H. Bork-

Source: The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012

I'm sure there were tough Supreme Court nomination debates pre-1987 before Robert Bork, but perhaps not before. Not only the TV age, but the TV cable age where there was twenty-four-hour coverage of Congress everyday with C-SPAN. Which is probably a reason why the Bork nomination was so controversial I guess and divisive. Where you had Democrats who couldn't stand the idea of a Robert Bork on the U.S. Supreme Court and you had Republicans who were in love with Bob Bork and represented exactly what they wanted on the Supreme Court. Especially Neoconservative traditionalist Republicans who question whether or not the United States has a right to privacy and how they believe our freedom of speech shouldn't be as strong as it is and don't see things like indefinite detention and the Patriot Act and censorship of certain media as unconstitutional. And how he would've been the exact choice in who Neoconservatives in and outside of the Bush Administration and exactly who they would've wanted on the Supreme Court. Instead of who they got instead which was Anthony Kennedy who has more of a libertarian streak in him.

Another thing that separated Bob Bork from judicial nominations that came after him, was the fact that Judge Bork would almost go out-of-his-way to let the Senate know where he stands on the issues. And said things like the right to privacy doesn't exist and that Roe V. Wade that made abortion legal in the United States was unconstitutional. And decided improperly to use as examples and post-Bork judicial nominations have gone out-of-their-way not to let the Senate know where they stand on the issues. And what they would do instead is tell Senators what they know about cases that they are talking about, but would refuse to tell them what they think about them, just what they know about them. So we would see judicial nominees like John Roberts and Elena Kagan who are very familiar with the cases in front of them, but wouldn't give much of even a hint on where they stand on those cases for fear of being seen as too ideological.

I'm sure Bob Bork was a very fine man certainly a very honest man and you knew where he stood on the issues. But I'm sure as hell glad as a Liberal Democrat that he was rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate on a bipartisan vote because of where he stood on civil liberties and things like are Federal civil rights laws constitutional or not. Which I believe they clearly are and i'ts almost silly to debate I believe. And believe Judge Bork would've been dangerous to have up on the Supreme Court as we are now debating civil liberties and individual freedom in this country. The other thing I don't get about the Bork Supreme Court nomination is the President who appointed him. President Ronald Reagan a man that described his own politics as libertarian in 1975 and really never ran from that. Didn't give the Christian-Right and other big government Republicans much to admire him as far as policy when he became President. And maybe that is why he nominates Bob Bork, because he saw that as is way to pay back the Far-Right for their support.
Traditionalism-C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Slouching Towards Gomorrah With Robert Bork

Washington Times: Editorial: Democracy's Egyptian Peril: The Future of Democracy in Egypt

EDITORIAL: Democracy's Egyptian peril - Washington Times

For anyone who has this vision that Egypt will go from a military dictatorial authoritarian republic to a Liberal Democracy. Like we see in lets say in America overnight, is seeing things and is perhaps suffering from paranoia right now. Thats just not the type of country that Egypt is and has been, the best model for Egypt at least for anyone. Who believes in Democracy, is probably Turkey in the Middle East which is a Democracy that has very deep. Conservative religious beliefs where Turks combine their religious with their political beliefs but what Egypt. Does has its what's known as Liberal Democrats in America Egyptians who believe in ethnic and racial. As well as religious and gender tolerance that all Egyptians should be treated equally under law and people. Who believe in individual freedom, civil liberties and human rights which is progress in a country where these. Beliefs weren't very common in this country just two years ago and if they were made public, these people would. Risk being jailed by the Hosni Mubarak Regime.

Egypt right now is split between Liberal Democrats, I guess Islamist Democrats the Muslim Brotherhood. And the old Mubarak Regime what's called the Democratic Party over there but they aren't very Democratic. At best they would people who would be described as Neoconservatives in America that the state is paramount over the individual. And that freedom has to be limited in order to protect the state that individual freedom can be dangerous. Which basically sums up the current Republican Party in America, a large faction of it anyway. I'm of course as a Liberal Democrat myself in America, are with the Liberal Democrats in Egypt and I hope they'll. Emerge as the governing party over there and hopefully at least in the short term serve as the opposition party to the Islamist Democrats. But for Egyptian Liberals to do well in Egypt they, they have to convince Egyptians why Liberalism is way forward. For Egypt, what individual freedom means and so fourth.

Its not enough for Liberals to say that the Islamists don't go far enough to push Democracy in Egypt and that. They are wrong here and wrong there but they need an agenda of their own to counter what the Islamists are doing. And have an agenda thats built around individual freedom, equal treatment under law for all Egyptians. Why economic freedom should go along with social freedom and religious freedom, why combining religion. With state is dangerous and so fourth they need to communicate what Liberalism would mean for Egypt and why its the way forward. Which is what they haven't done yet.

FRSFreeStatePlus: AEI: Political Report: Is America Still a Center-Right Country?: Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy's America

Is America still a center-right country? AEI Political Report, December 2012 - Politics and Public Opinion - AEI

Before I layout where I believe America is politically I just want to give a quote from Barry Goldwater, whose. Probably my favorite Conservative-Libertarian even though I'm more of a classical Liberal but Senator Goldwater. Once said I believe in the 1960s that he wanted Big Government out of his wallet and bedroom and it might of taken. The rest of the country forty years or so to get there themselves but thats basically where I believe America is. Bill Clinton to quote from the left once said that he believed in what's called an opportunity society where all Americans. Would have the opportunity to chart their own course in life and have the freedom to live their own lives, the second part. I'm paraphrasing but thats what an opportunity society is, Americans tend to believe in what's called the safety net. That should be there for people who can't take care of themselves but that all Americans who are physically and mentally. Capable should be expected to and should be working and taking care of themselves, that as then presidential. Candidate Bill Clinton said in 1992, that Welfare shouldn't be free that it should be an investment in people to. Empower them to be able to take care of themselves.

Whether America is center right or center left we are certainly a mainstream country politically, not Centrist exactly. But we don't go very far left or right and what may seem mainstream in other countries lets says Social Democracies. On the left or more Authoritarian States on the right, seems more like fringes to the majority of Americans in this country. And people who would like to see America move in those directions , tend to have a hard time winning statewide. Or nationally in America, Americans like their economic freedom, we don't like high taxes and regulations. We also like our social freedom and not be told by government or people further to us on the right or left. How we should live our own lives and what it means to be an American, Americans tend to not like to be told. How to live and told what to do by government and what it means to be an American, we like Big Government out. Of our wallets and bedrooms.

This is why I believe had President Kennedy not of been assassinated in 1963, 1964 might of had been the. Best Presidential election in American history because we would've had a real Liberal in Jack Kennedy. Versus a real Conservative in Barry Goldwater both people who believed that Big Government shouldn't be. In our bedrooms or wallets and that Americans should be free to live our own lives and would've represented. Where America has become and two people who also respected each other as well.

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Editorial: "End of the American Superpower": America's New Role In The World

EDITORIAL: End of the American superpower - Washington Times

The days that the United States can police the World are over or coming to an end, we simply don't have the. Resources to do that anymore, especially with the condition of our economy and fiscal situation, where we now own. Debt to countries that we are paying them to defend and thats a good thing, as well as the days that Europe. Can sit on the sidelines and expect America to take care of its national defense are also over as well, which is also a good thing. America has been declining over the last ten years or so but that has to do with our economic situation, we are simply. Not growing now the way we did in the 1980s and 90s but the good news is this has given us an opportunity. As a country to rethink what we should be doing economically and what our foreign and national security policy. Should look like in the future, what role should America have in the World and has also given Europe as well. As I believe Japan the same opportunity, the economic giants of the developed World, to rethink where they should be.

America has been declining economically and perhaps even militarily over the last ten years or so but a lot of. That has to do with policies here at home that have weaken our economic picture, as well as our foreign policy picture. Europe has been declining as well with weaker economic growth, higher unemployment and an aging and dying. Population that they haven't been replacing, as well as government that have promised to do more for their people. Then the economy has been able to produce the resources to pay for, so now they are being forced to rethink. What they want their Federal Governments to do and hopefully as America hopefully soon pulls out of Europe. Europe will then also rethink their military posture and take the lead role in securing their own defense. Which would also boost their economies, because of new industries that would be created.

The American decline doesn't have to be indefinite, China will probably pass us as having the largest economy. In the World within twenty years, even if they are still a developing country but that doesn't mean they'll. Have the most important economy or the strongest militarily in the World as well, America will still have a say. In that depending on how our debt, deficit and economy looks in the future, what we are doing as a country. To develop our economy even further, do we rebuild this country that needs all sorts of new infrastructure investment. And be able to keep pace or even past China and Brazil or do we continue to lag in this critical area. Do we develop a national energy policy that moves us towards energy independence and are at least moving. Off of foreign oil by 2030, or are we still importing oil from countries that don't have our best interest at heart.

These are questions we have to answer as a country and start rebuilding our economy and get past this 1-2%. Economic growth rate that we've been stuck at the last couple of years and move to finally get our debt and deficit. Under control which would mean countries would have less leverage over us and we develop a new foreign policy. That built around being Leader for Liberal Democracy in the World, not trying to force it on anyone but working. With others who want it and don't currently have it and working with our allies when crisis's pop up in the World. Rather then trying to police the World ourselves.

FRSFreeStatePlus: Commentary: Seth Mandel: "George McGovern’s Futile Warning on Labor Unions": George McGovern's Diverse Ideology

McGovern’s Futile Warning on Unions: pThe extent to which George McGovern, who died in late October, was identified with American liberalism itself can be seen in headlines of his various obituaries. CNN’s headline called him an “unabashed liberal voice”; PBS went with “Liberal Icon”; the New York Times chose “Prairie Liberal” (though the online edition dropped the word “prairie”); and [...]/p

FRSFreeStatePlus
George McGovern throughout his career and since has been identified with American Liberalism, as if he's the. Hero for Americans Liberals or champion of Liberal causes and Liberal philosophy but he's not my Liberal champion. I identify more with Jack Kennedy or Wendell Willkie and today with John Kerry and Dick Durbin, both Democratic Leaders. In the US Senate, then I do with Senator McGovern or more with Bill Clinton then I do with Senator McGovern. Its not as if George McGovern didn't have Liberal tendencies, because he clearly did especially on social issues. Where granted Senator McGovern was clearly a social Liberal and I'm proud he was as a Liberal myself and he even had. Some Liberal positions on some economic issues, like the right to organize and organize labor and so fourth. And Senator McGovern was a Liberal internationalist on foreign policy and did believe in things like a strong. National defense, he wasn't pacifist or an isolationist and perhaps not even a dove, he was World War II veteran. And served his country very well.

But to say that George McGovern was the champion or hero or God of American Liberalism, is a very big stretch. He would be described today as a Progressive or Social Democrat, if he was still in Congress today, a place. Where he served for twenty two years, both in the House and Senate all together, I bet you he would've been a member. Of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but he would've been one of their most responsible members. And also someone who would've been able to work with the Democratic leadership, including the President. And someone who would've been able to work with Republicans as well, like he was able to work so well. Bob Dole in the Senate but ideologically he was more of a Social then Liberal Democrat, someone who put. A lot of faith in government to solve the peoples problems, rather then people being able to solve their own problems.

So George McGoevrn was really diverse when it came to his politics, on social issues clearly a Liberal, Liberal-Libertarian. Even, a Liberal internationalist on foreign policy but more of a Progressive-Social Democrat on economic policy. As they are called in Europe, rather then the Barry Goldwater or Ron Reagan for American Liberals. Wendell Willkie, Jack Kennedy are the real Liberal heros in America, people who put their faith in the people. To be able to solve their own problems, if they are just empowered to do so, rather then a big central government doing it for them.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Barry Goldwater- The Role of Conservatism in (1966)

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- former U.S. Senator (Republican, Arizona) and 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1966.

“A clip from William F. Buckley’s 1966 interview with Barry Goldwater on “Firing Line.” 

From Moog Rogue 

What Barry Goldwater was doing in this clip was arguing for the two-party system and saying that Republicans don’t have to be Progressive Democrats or Democratic-light in order to win elections and gain power in America.

In early 1966 after the Republican Party took back-to-back-to-back political beatings in Washington from 1960-64, what Senator Goldwater was saying her sounds rather foolish:

But in 1965, House Republicans elect Representative Gerald Ford to be their leader in the House

1966 House Republicans win 45 seats in the House, with a whole lot of Conservative Republicans in Congress, especially in the House getting elected

Thanks to Richard Nixon, Republicans win The White House back in 1968. not because they sound and talked like Democrats, but because they were Republicans, with even Progressive Republicans sounding and thinking different politically then Progressive Democrats.

So I believe Senator Goldwater was onto something in 1966, even if he was the only Republican who knew what Republicans needed to do to get back into power. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

The White House: 'President Obama Speaks on the Economy and Middle-Class Tax Cuts'

Source:The White House- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking in Detroit, Michigan.

"President Obama delivers remarks at the Daimler Detroit Diesel Plant. December 10, 2012."

From The White House 

FRSFreeStatePlus: Washington Times: Opinion: Emily Miller: Conservatives Next Step

MILLER: Conservatives' next step - Washington Times

The next step for Republicans especially in the US Senate, is to recruit real Conservatives, people like Mike Lee. Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, people like Marco Rubio, real limited government Conservatives who were all elected. To the US Senate in 2010 and move away from the religious right, people like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle. Republican Senate Candidates who cost Senate Republicans four safe winnable Senate seats in 2010 and 2012. And frankly represent why Mitch McConnell will once again be the Senate Minority Leader in the next Congress. Because Senate Republicans not only lost Democratic seats they should've won but they also lost Republican seats. They should've won like in Indiana in 2012 with Richard Mourdock, these Tea Party. Religious/Neoconservatives are costing the Republican Party right now and represent exactly why the GOP Are losing elections that they should be winning

Whatever you think of Senator Jim Demit, he's responsible for recruiting Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee. All of these people being real fiscal Conservatives and believers in civil liberties and social freedom, Senator Johnson. I believe from Wisconsin is even pro choice on abortion, now Republicans don't have to be pro choice on abortion. But they also can't be preaching for limited government as it relates to the economy but Big Government. As it relates to peoples civil lives and they need to move away from the religious right and get back to Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism. And truly be a party of limited government, rather then a party of Big Government, when it comes to how. Americans live their own lives and they'll do well in the future.

Commentary: Peter Wehner: 'The Recalibration of Conservatism'

Source:Trinity Forum- writer Peter Wehner.

"Heard from a couple of prominent conservatives yesterday who mentioned to me the pessimism, and even depression, they sense among conservatives throughout the land. That’s understandable, given the results of the 2012 election. Because unlike 2008, this is an election Barack Obama should have lost and that the right fully expected him to lose.

Still, there have been worse wilderness years than what we’re experiencing now. (Retaining control of the House will prove to be an important check on Mr. Obama’s second-term ambitions.) In addition, the loss Republicans experienced can be leveraged to conservatives’ advantage, if we take away the right lessons from the 2012 defeat.

Two individuals who are doing just that are Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Marco Rubio. They spoke earlier this week at the annual dinner of the Jack Kemp Foundation. Both speeches (which can be found here and here) are well worth reading.

The speeches focused on the plight of the poor, the challenges facing the middle class, upward mobility and opportunity, and (especially in the case of Senator Rubio) education. Messrs. Ryan and Rubio offered intelligent defenses of limited government while also acknowledging the important role of government. And they used terms like “compassion,” “the common good,” “civil society,” and “social infrastructure.” Their tone was inclusive, humane, aspirational, and captured the true, and full, spirit of conservatism.

Listen and Subscribe to the Commentary Podcast

What Ryan and Rubio are doing is widening the aperture of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, which in recent years either ignored (in the case of civil society and education) or took aim at (in the case of compassion) issues and concepts that are morally important and politically potent. It isn’t so much that what was being said was wrong, though in some cases (like on immigration) it was; it’s that the vision being offered was constricted. 

The task facing conservatives today is somewhat akin to what Ronald Reagan faced in 1977 with the GOP, Bill Clinton faced in 1992 with the Democratic Party, and Tony Blair faced in 1994 with the Labour Party. In this instance, the Republican Party and conservatism have to remain powerful defenders of liberty and limited government. But they also have to establish themselves in the public imagination as advocates for reform and modernization, of the middle class and social mobility, and of a generous, inclusive vision. There is much more work to be done, and the speeches by Ryan and Rubio were encouraging first steps.

The necessary recalibration of conservatism is under way, and that is something that ought to lift the spirits of conservatives." 

From Commentary Magazine

American Enterprise Institute: 'Conservatism in the 113th Congress: Views from the Republican Study Committee Chairman & Chairman-Elect'

"Post-Event Summary

AEI President Arthur Brooks was joined by Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Steve Scalise, chairman and chairman-elect of the Republican Study Committee, respectively, for an event on Tuesday to discuss the challenges and successes of the 112th Congress. Representatives Jordan and Scalise also looked ahead to the potential policy issues of 113th Congress, examining the role that the leading conservative caucus in the House of Representatives will play.

Rep. Jordan began by reflecting on the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) engagement in the policy battles of the 112th Congress, particularly the super-committee negotiations during summer 2011. Rep. Scalise contended that the House must embrace a “visionary agenda” in the 113th Congress that prioritizes tax reform and curbs entitlement growth as a means of achieving a balanced budget. The representatives agreed that the greatest threat to future generations of Americans is government-led redistributive spending, which, according to Rep. Scalise, stifles individual opportunity.

Among the many other topics discussed by Representatives Jordan and Scalise were the fiscal cliff, sequestration, and immigration reform. Rep. Jordan concluded by emphasizing that the RSC must continue to advocate for the policy proposals that reflect the committee’s fundamental values, because “if we stick with our principles, we will arrive at the right policy.”

–John VerWey

Event Description

Since 1973, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) has been the key membership organization for conservatives in the US House of Representatives. Today, after an election cycle that failed to drastically alter the political landscape, the RSC will continue to influence key policy areas that will define conservatism for years to come.

At this AEI event, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the current chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and the incoming chairman, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), will share their thoughts on the future of the conservative movement.

If you are unable to attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page. Full video will be posted within 24 hours." 

From AEI

C-SPAN: 'BookTV In Depth: Senator Tom Coburn'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma) on C-SPAN's BookTV.

"Senator Coburn is the author of "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders" (2003); and "The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America" (2012).

The Senator has also authored many reports that can be read on his website, including "Back in Black" (2011); "Oklahoma Waste Report: Exposing Washington's Wasteful Spending Habits in our Own Backyard" (2011); "Subsidies of the Rich and Famous" (2011); and "Money for Nothing" (2012)." 

From BookTV

The Washington Times: Kyle Scott: 'No New Taxes Without Spending Limits'

Source:The Washington Times- cover photo.

"Between servicing the debt and funding entitlement programs, our government is overburdened by its financial obligations. In the current negotiations over how we can avoid falling off the fiscal cliff, some Republicans have indicated willingness to give in to the Democrats’ demands that taxes be raised in order to meet these obligations. Unless limits are placed on spending levels, however, increasing government revenue will not solve the problem in the long term. Any increase in revenue must be accompanied by a limit on spending.

The growth in government is reflected in its spending, which has steadily increased as a percentage of the nation’s GDP. Whenever the government increases its spending obligations, the taxpayers are asked to give “just a little bit more.” Over time, this “little bit more” ends up being quite a bit more. Unless we put a limit on how much the government can spend, it will keep spending, and taxpayers will continually be asked to give more.

Placing a cap on government spending as a percentage of GDP would accomplish several important goals. First, it would ensure that the growth of government is directly tied to the growth of the private sector. It makes little sense for government services and spending to grow at a time when the private sector is struggling to find its economic footing. When the government seeks to help the economy by spending taxpayer money, the spending guarantees the growth of government and nothing else. Taking money from some and giving it to others in hopes of spurring economic growth is like taking water from one end of the bathtub and dumping it in the other in an effort to raise the overall water level in the tub." 

From The Washington Times

Washington Times: 'EDITORIAL: Obamacare’s Medicaid Time Bomb'

Source:The Washington Times- cartoon about ObamaCare.

"States already struggling to get by will face even tighter fiscal constraints thanks to yet another costly Obamacare mandate. A study last week from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured revealed President Obama’s health care takeover would dump $1 trillion in new costs on federal and state taxpayers over the next decade.

By Kaiser’s calculation, following Obamacare’s loosened eligibility conditions for Medicaid could add an additional 10 million people to the rolls of the insured. The tab for this will exceed $1 trillion by 2022 with Uncle Sam picking up $952 billion, leaving states on the hook for $76 billion. That represents a 26 percent increase in federal outlays, but the state share represents modest 3 percent increase — for now. The real crunch will come after 2022, when Uncle Sam is no longer required to foot the bill for the Medicaid expansion.

States have a way out of this budget-busting dilemma. The Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling earlier this year left it up to the states to decide whether to expand Medicaid under the Obamacare guidelines or not — in return for the federal cash. Governors would be wise to decline Uncle Sam’s white elephant, as they will hard pressed to find enough money in their coffers to cover costs once the federal largesse begins to taper off in 2022. 

From The Washington Times