All 47 Senate Republicans Introduce Balanced Budget Amendment

This afternoon, all 47 Senate Republicans co-sponsored a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would require the government to have a balanced budget. It’s expected to be designated as S. J. Res. 10. Human Events has a good story on how this amendment came together.

Key highlights of the proposal:
Presidential Requirement to Submit a Balanced Budget
Prior to each fiscal year, the President must transmit to Congress a balanced budget that limits outlays to 18 percent of GDP.

Requirement to Pass a Balanced Budget
With the following limited exceptions, Congress must pass a balanced budget:

• Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific deficit for a fiscal year.
• Requires a majority of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a declared war.
• Requires 3/5 of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” and the deficit must be limited to “outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict.”

18 Percent Spending Cap
With the following limited exceptions, Congress must limit outlays to 18 percent of GDP:

• Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year.
• Requires a majority of Congress for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year during a declared war.
• Requires 3/5 of Congress for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” and the excess be limited to “outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict.”

Supermajority for Tax Increases
Establishes new supermajority requirement for net tax and rate increases:

• Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year.
• Excludes increases in revenue resulting from tax cuts.

Supermajority to Raise the Debt Limit
Establishes new supermajority requirement for an increase in the debt limit:

• Requires 3/5 of both Houses to increase the debt limit.
• Requires a majority of Congress for a fiscal year during a declared war.

Congressional Enforcement and Use of Estimates

• Provides for congressional enforcement and the use of estimates.

Limits on Courts

• Prohibits courts from ordering revenue increases to enforce.

Effective Date

• Becomes effective the fifth fiscal year after ratification.

Proposed Amendment:

JEN11494 S.L.C.
112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. J. RES. ll
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative
to balancing the budget.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
llllllllll
Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KYL, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. TOOMEY, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. PAUL, Mr. VITTER, Mr. ENZI, Mr. KIRK, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BURR, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COBURN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. LUGAR, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. JOHANNS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. PORTMAN, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following joint resolution which was referred to

---

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.
1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled
3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol
4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con
5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all
6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
============
2 JEN11494 S.L.C.
1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2 States:
3 ‘‘ARTICLE—
4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall
5 not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two
6 thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each
7 House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific ex
8 cess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.
9 ‘‘SECTION 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall
10 not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of
11 the United States for the calendar year ending before the
12 beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly
13 chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress
14 shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such
15 18 percent by a roll call vote.
16 ‘‘SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President
17 shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the
18 United States Government for that fiscal year in which—
19 ‘‘(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts;
20 and
21 ‘‘(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of
22 the gross domestic product of the United States for
23 the calendar year ending before the beginning of
24 such fiscal year.
============
3 JEN11494 S.L.C.
1 ‘‘SECTION 4. Any bill that imposes a new tax or in
2 creases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate
3 amount of revenue may pass only by a two-thirds majority
4 of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of
5 Congress by a roll call vote. For the purpose of deter
6 mining any increase in revenue under this section, there
7 shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering
8 of the statutory rate of any tax.
9 ‘‘SECTION 5. The limit on the debt of the United
10 States shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the
11 duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Con
12 gress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.
13 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress may waive the provisions
14 of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article for any fiscal year
15 in which a declaration of war against a nation-state is in
16 effect and in which a majority of the duly chosen and
17 sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide
18 for a specific excess by a roll call vote.
19 ‘‘SECTION 7. The Congress may waive the provisions
20 of sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of this article in any fiscal year
21 in which the United States is engaged in a military conflict
22 that causes an imminent and serious military threat to
23 national security and is so declared by three-fifths of the
24 duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Con
25 gress by a roll call vote. Such suspension must identify
============
4 JEN11494 S.L.C.
1 and be limited to the specific excess of outlays for that
2 fiscal year made necessary by the identified military con
3 flict.
4 ‘‘SECTION 8. No court of the United States or of any
5 State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this
6 article.
7 ‘‘SECTION 9. Total receipts shall include all receipts
8 of the United States Government except those derived
9 from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of
10 the United States Government except those for repayment
11 of debt principal.
12 ‘‘SECTION 10. The Congress shall have power to en
13 force and implement this article by appropriate legislation,
14 which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross
15 domestic product.
16 ‘‘SECTION 11. This article shall take effect beginning
17 with the fifth fisca

---

Tags: US Senate, Republicans, Balanced Budget Amendment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

State Democrats Give Arkansans the Cold-Shoulder to Protect Party Power

Partisan Pig Trail Gerrymander Shoved through House

Republican Party of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas – Today, House Democrats shoved House Bill 1836, the “Pig Trail Gerrymander” or “Fayetteville Finger”, through the Arkansas House despite overwhelming opposition from concerned citizens, Democrats and Republicans alike.

“The State Democratic Party’s unprincipled gerrymandering of our state’s congressional districts demonstrates their unwillingness to responsibly represent the people of Arkansas,” Republican Party of Arkansas Chairman Doyle Webb said. “The Pig Trail Gerrymander does not respect our state’s regional communities of interest and will devastate the continuity of Northwest Arkansas.”

An independent poll commissioned by The Tolbert Report on Monday revealed that nearly 82 percent of Fayetteville voters oppose the State Democratic Party’s gerrymandering of Fayetteville into the Fourth Congressional District. On Wednesday, Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce President Steve Clark called on city lawmakers, Sen. Madison and Rep. Leding, to resign if they support the so-called “Fayetteville Finger” map.

Today, Democrat Rep. Lindsey of Fayetteville told members that including his hometown in the Fourth Congressional District “tears our community apart, it divides us, potentially rendering us unable to speak together with a common voice.”

“Arkansas Democrats will stop at nothing in their attempt to exercise an iron grip on the people of this state,” Webb said. “We hope our Senators will stand up for the people of Arkansas and reject the Democratic Party’s partisan power grab.”

---

Tags: Pig Trail, Congressional redistricting, Democrats, gerrymandering, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

McConnell To Dems On Their Tea Party Attacks: Reducing Spending and Debt Isn't 'Extreme'

Today in Washington, D.C. - March 31, 2010:
The Senate may resume consideration of S. 493, the bill reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. Still pending to S. 493 is the McConnell-Inhofe amendment, which would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a move that would amount to a backdoor national energy tax. Democrats have repeatedly pushed back a vote.

If an agreement on amendment votes is reached, there could be votes on the McConnell-Inhofe amendment, as many as 3 Democrat alternative amendments that would not adequately block the EPA’s regulations, and an amendment from Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) to properly repeal the onerous 1099 reporting requirement imposed on small businesses by the Democrats’ health care law.

Yesterday, Reid declared on the Senate floor, “The country doesn't care much about the tea party.” And today he said, “We can’t have what's going on here with the tea party demonstrating, all these very harsh cuts with unrealistic riders, punishing innocent folks just for political ideology.”

In his speech this morning, Leader McConnell pushed back against Democrats' political attacks on tea partiers saying, “Anybody who follows national politics knows that when it comes to a lot of the issues Americans care about most, Democrat leaders in Washington are pretty far outside the mainstream. That’s why we’ve got one Democrat leader coaching his colleagues to describe any Republican idea as ‘extreme.’ And that’s why other Democrats are attempting to marginalize an entire group of people in this country whose concerns about the growth of the nation’s debt, the overreach of the federal government, and last year’s health care bill are about as mainstream as it gets. . . . I’m referring of course to the Tea Party . . . Despite the Democrat leadership’s talking points, these folks are not radicals. They’re our next-door neighbors and our friends. . . .These are everyday men and women who love their country and who don’t want to see it collapse as a result of irresponsible attitudes and policies that somehow persist around here despite the warning signs we see all around us about the consequences of fiscal recklessness. And they’re being vilified because, in an effort to preserve what’s good about our country, they’re politely asking lawmakers here in Washington to change the way things are done around here.”

Indeed, both Politico and MSNBC’s First Read featured headlines this week, “Dems budget strategy: Blame the tea party,” and “Dems say Tea Party is tying Boehner’s hands,” respectively. And Fox News reported, “Democrats have put out the message that ‘extreme’ Tea Party-aligned lawmakers are preventing Republican leaders from making any headway. Though Tea Party groups indeed clamor for significant spending cuts, GOP leaders called it ridiculous to blame the Tea Party for the stalemate.”

Reducing Washington Spending and Debt Isn't 'Extreme'

As seen in the above video, Leader McConnell took Democrats to task for these attacks: “At a time when the national debt has reached crisis levels, members of the Tea Party are asking that we stop spending more than we take in. In other words, they’re asking that lawmakers in Washington do what any household in America already does: they want us to balance our budget. And they do this because they know their history, and that the road to decline is paved with debt. Is that extreme?

“They want us to be able to explain how any law that we pass is consistent with the Constitution. This means that as we write new laws they want us to be guided by the document that every single senator in this chamber has sworn to uphold. Is that extreme?

“They want us to cut down on the amount of money the government spends. Well, this year the federal government in Washington is projected to spend about $1.6 trillion dollars more than it has. That means we’ll have to borrow it from somewhere else, driving the national debt even higher than it already is. What’s more, the Obama Administration plans to continue spending like this for years. So that within five years, the debt will exceed $20 trillion. Given these facts, you tell me: is it extreme to propose that we cut spending?”

“In fact, if you ask me, the goals of the Tea Party sound pretty reasonable. These folks recognize the gravity of the problems we face as a nation, and they’re doing something about it for the sake of our future. They’re engaged in the debate about spending and debt — which is a lot more than we can say about the President and many Democrats in Congress.”

“So what’s extreme is the thought that government can just continue on this reckless path without consequence. What’s extreme is thinking we can just blithely watch the nation’s debt get bigger and pretend it doesn’t matter. What’s extreme is spending more than a trillion and a half dollars than we have in a single year. This is the Democrats’ approach. This is what’s extreme.”

---

Tags: Washington, D.C, US Senate, Mitch McConnell, TEA Party, reduce spending, Harry Reid, extreme To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

The Bribery and Blackmail of the States

Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: By bribery or blackmail, whether ruled to be unconstitutional, defunded or repealed, Obamacare is coming to your State. A current intense debate in Arkansas serves as a perfect example.

On Monday of this week, the Arkansas legislature’s House Committee on Insurance and Commerce voted to recommend passage of House Bill 2138, a bill “to implement federal healthcare reform; and to create the Arkansas health benefits exchange.” The vote was straight party-line: 11 Democrats for, seven Republicans against. HB2138 is expected to be voted on in the full Arkansas House on Wednesday. A similar scenario has been or is currently being played out in virtually every State in the Union.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or “Obamacare”) mandates health care exchanges in each State and allows each State to set up “its own” exchange, strictly along federal guidelines of course.

Here’s the deal: If a State elects to set up its own exchange, by January 1, 2014 it must have “(1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a); Or (2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.” If a State fails to establish an exchange that is acceptable to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, then “the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.”

States are being told that they must be showing “adequate progress” by January of 2013 to avoid having the federal government begin its takeover of their exchanges.

The bribe: If a State will immediately begin the process of implementing an Obamacare exchange, then the federal government will also immediately start giving the State “federal grants” to cover the State’s implementation expenses.

The blackmail: If a State does not implement an Obamacare exchange or acceptable alternative, the federal government will initiate its usurpation of the State’s health insurance regulation.

One can almost be sympathetic to the plight of State legislators in this situation. The federal government is bribing the State with federal grants to expedite a program the majority of Americans inarguably oppose and, at the same time, is blackmailing them with a usurpation of the State’s health insurance regulation if they don’t accept the bride.

Average Americans like myself hear something different than State legislators when we hear “federal grants.” They must be attractive to State legislators since that’s money they don’t have to try to find in a crowded State budget. But when you and I hear “federal grant,” we understand the federal government doesn’t have any money unless it gets it from us. It makes little difference if the money taken from our personal incomes goes through Washington, D.C. or (as in my case) through Little Rock, it all feels the same coming out of our pockets. So we’re not impressed that something will be paid for by a federal grant instead of State funds.

We appreciate the fact that the issue of PPACA and its mandated health insurance exchanges is one that ultimately will be resolved in Washington by the Congress and the Supreme Court. What we don’t appreciate is the enormous waste of our monies (either federal or state) until this issue is resolved.

Why the Rush? Individual States can obviously implement these Obamacare exchanges by using their individual resources in their individual states much more rapidly than Health and Human Services (HHS) can do so in all of the States. So the federal government is doling out “federal grants” to the States to get their implementation processes underway. But why the rush when the constitutionality of the PPACA has not settled and while there is an intense battle raging in Congress to completely repeal and replace Obamacare?

Ronald Reagan answered that question for us when he said, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Here’s the strategy: If Obamacare can be implemented in the States before it’s ruled to be unconstitutional or defunded or repealed by the Congress, Ronald Reagan will once again have been proved to be right. In the rancorous debate over HB2138 in Arkansas, legislators were passionately promised that if the PPACA is found to be unconstitutional or is repealed, HB2138 will “go completely away.” I doubt that even one of them believed it.

What Can Be Done? State legislators can be pressed and encouraged to be men and women of principle and courage and to refuse both the bribe and blackmail of the federal government.

But the real battle is in Congress, where bribes (the federal grants) must be stopped, and the blackmail (usurpation of each State’s sovereign right to regulate its own health insurance industry) must be halted until the Supreme Court can determine the constitutionality of PPACA.

Congress must take immediate steps to eliminate the $105 billion slush fund in advance appropriations tucked inside Obamacare. See the full story about this $105 billion slush fund here.
__________________________________
PPACA Section 1321: (b) STATE ACTION.—Each State that elects, at such time and
in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, to apply the requirements described in subsection (a) shall, not later than January 1, 2014, adopt and have in effect—
(1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a);
or
(2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.
(c) FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary deter- mines necessary to implement—
(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such sub- titles; the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not- for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
---------------
Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service.

---

Tags: Curtis Coleman, Institute for Constitutional Policy, Arkansas, exchanges, HB2138, Obamacare, Patient Protection, Affordable Care Act, PPACA, Constitutional Crisis, Health Care Reform, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

American Civic Ignorance

Kerby Anderson, Point of View: Apparently we are a nation that knows very little about politics and history. That is about the only conclusion you can draw from an experiment done by Newsweek magazine. Newsweek gave 1,000 Americans the U.S. Citizenship Test and found that 38 percent failed.

Civic ignorance is nothing new. Americans have always had ignorance about or misunderstandings about our political structure and our nation’s history. But at a time when so much information is available at our fingertips on the Internet, you would hope we might do a little better. If anything, we seem to be doing worse.

Nearly three fourths (73%) didn’t know why we fought the Cold War. A stunning 70 percent didn’t know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nearly two thirds (65%) couldn’t figure out that the Constitution was written at the Constitutional Convention. And even more interesting was the fact that 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar. These last two questions should be about as obvious as the question: Who is buried in Grant’s tomb?

Oh, there is more. Nearly two thirds (63%) got the number of Supreme Court justices wrong. By the way, in case you are wondering, that number is nine. Forty-three percent didn’t know that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are the Bill of Rights. It’s hard to imagine that these citizens could grasp the idea of checks and balances if they didn’t have some basic understanding of the structure of our government.

They didn’t know historical figures. Fifty-nine percent had no idea that Susan B. Anthony fought for women’s rights, and 23 percent didn’t know that Martin Luther King fought for civil rights. They also couldn’t name current leaders. Fifty-nine percent did not know the speaker of the House, and 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president.

While it may be easy to roll your eyes at a nation of know-nothings, we need to stop and consider that the people who couldn’t answer these questions nevertheless vote and express their opinions to elected officials. They are making decisions about candidates and issues based upon a woeful lack of knowledge of civics. Obviously we need to do a better job of educating the public through the schools and the media. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

---

Tags: Kerby Anderson, Point of View, Civic Ignorance, civics, US Constitution, American history, Citizen testTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Trump Card vs Race Card

A.F.Branco: Trump shows his card - Obama shows his. There can only be one valid "trump card."

---

Tags: A.F. Branco, political cartoon, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, birth certificate, race card To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Who’s more responsible: Charlie Sheen or Washington?

Who is more fiscally responsible: Charlie Sheen or Washington? Duh! Charlie the Warlock. Washington spends $30 million, the same as Charlie’s salary, in less than five minutes. Now that’s a fastball… At least Charlie knew not to spend more than Two and a Half Men was paying him.

---

Bankrupting America: At first thought, Charlie Sheen hardly seems like a model for fiscal responsibility. But, somehow, Washington has managed to be far worse.

Washington's habit of spending far more than it takes in has driven the country into debt. And our economic situation is projected to only get worse.

The solution is clear, but not easy: spending cuts. History shows that reducing government spending leads to sustained economic growth. And that's something (even Charlie Sheen) can get behind.

With the help of Charlie (sort of), our latest video explains that after years of spending far more than we take in, Washington has driven us deep into the red. And there’s only one viable solution. Check out the video below and then sign up to be one of the first to receive our latest products!

Excerpt:
Charlie Sheen (impersonator): “Yeah, well, being a ‘rockstar from Mars’ is expensive. Duh. But I still brought in more than I spent. WINNING. You can’t say the same for Washington. LOSING.”

Here are a few facts:

Last year, Washington brought in 2.3 trillion in taxes, and spent it all, plus a lot more. One and a half times to be exact. Losing!

It took over 200 years, and every president from George Washington through Bill Clinton, to rack up a $ 6-trillion debt. But Washington politicians have more than doubled that in just 10 years. Losing!

Our current debt of more than 14 trillion means every American household is on the hook for $130,000. Losing!

We pay almost $1 trillion, every year, on interest payments alone. Losing!

After World War II, the U.S. government cut spending from 44 percent of the economy to 11 percent.

We need solutions NOW and Public Notice’s latest video shows what we already know to do. Cut Spending!

If Charlie Sheen can figure out how to turn a dire situation around, there just might be hope for Washington.

---

Tags: Bankrupting America, Charlie Sheen, data visualization, debt, deficit, Government Overspending, Government Spending, new video, video, who is more responsible, Who's more responsible: Charlie Sheen or Washington?, winning To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Obama Sets Goal Of Importing Less Oil And Promotes "Use It Or Lose It" Domestic Oil Drilling Policy

Recommend The Brains In
The Obama Administration
"Use It or Lose It"!

Today in Washington, D.C. - March 30, 2011:
Today, Political reveals that "President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll. Half of the registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41 percent say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45 percent said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47 percent said he did."

The Senate resumed consideration of S. 493, the bill reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. Votes on amendments are possible this afternoon. Democrats have repeatedly pushed back a vote a vote on the McConnell-Inhofe amendment to S. 493  which would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a move that would amount to a backdoor national energy tax.

 Oil in the News as Americans Pay More For Gas:
The Washington Post reports, “President Obama on Wednesday called Wednesday for a one-third cut in oil imports by 2020, part of a plan he says will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum. . . . Most facets of his proposals are familiar. . . . Obama also urged oil companies to make greater use of the federal leases both onshore and offshore to prop up domestic oil output.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told the Senate that he was wary of rhetoric from Democrats about energy while they stymie domestic energy production. He said, “Tell a Democrat in Washington that gas prices are too high, and, as if on cue, they’ll throw together a speech or a press conference to suggest that we open an underground oil reserve that was created to deal with calamities, not market pressures; they’ll take you on a tour of some alternative car plant that promises to have one of its $100,000 prototypes to market 25 years down the road; or they’ll quietly release some report to the media about how energy companies aren’t working hard enough to extract oil — while schizophrenically claiming American reserves are minuscule and that more production isn’t the solution. This last item is a perennial favorite of our friends on the other side. The idea here is to somehow blame energy companies for not producing enough energy on their own. What Democrats don’t mention, however, is that a drilling lease is nothing more than an agreement with the government that a company has a right to explore for oil or gas in a certain area, not a guarantee that they’ll find it. And they never see fit to mention that most of the area that could be leased is effectively off limits — thanks to the red tape factory Democrats operate here in Washington.”

“Over the past two years, the administration has undertaken what can only be described as a war on American energy. It’s canceled dozens of drilling leases. It’s declared a moratorium on drilling off the Gulf Coast. It’s increased permit fees. It has prolonged public comment periods. In short, it’s done just about everything it can to keep our own energy sector from growing. As a result, thousands of U.S. workers have lost their jobs, as companies have been forced to look elsewhere for a better business climate.”

In his speech, the President Obama said, “I’m setting a new goal: . . .  When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day.  By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third.” But Leader McConnell pointed out, “[J]ust last week he told Brazilians that he hopes America becomes a major customer of Brazilian oil. Well, which is it?”

In fact, President Obama’s stated desire for America to become one of Brazil’s “best customers” garnered plenty of bipartisan criticism. Democrat Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska said, “President Obama didn’t have to go all the way to Brazil to find a ‘new, safe, and stable’ source of oil … Energy opportunities for the U.S. are right here in Alaska. We have to stop talking about increasing domestic production and actually invest in home-grown jobs.” And The Washington Post editorialized, “As for offshore drilling, Mr. Obama’s enthusiasm for punching holes in the ocean floor off Brazil is hard to reconcile with his decision, announced Dec. 1, to keep the waters off the East and West coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico off-limits to exploration indefinitely.”

And this whole time the Obama administration has been canceling drilling leases, imposing a moratorium on Gulf Coast drilling, and encouraging imports from Brazil, it’s preventing job creation here in America. Indeed, CNN Money pointed out in February, “In Louisiana alone, 320,000 depend on the oil and gas industry for work.” And former President Bill Clinton said recently there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it.”

As Leader McConnell said, “The guy who’s trying to make ends meet wants to know what you’re going to do for him today, not 24 years from now. But, of course, the administration doesn’t have anything to say to that guy, because the administration’s energy policy isn’t really aimed at him. If it were, then the administration wouldn’t be locking down domestic energy sources. It wouldn’t be looking to pass new regulations through the EPA that will impose a national energy tax on every business large and small. It wouldn’t be telling our allies in Brazil that while it’s great that they’ve found oil off their coast, those who want to search for oil off our coasts and on our mainland can’t. And it wouldn’t be telling job creators in the energy industry to go look elsewhere.”

In an effort at appeasement, the Obama administration today approved a new permit for the Shell Company to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Times-Picayun is reporting that, "A permit for a deepwater well in a new area of the Gulf of Mexico located about 137 miles off the Louisiana coast. . . . The approved permit gives Shell the green light to drill a new well in Garden Banks Block No. 427, about 2,721 feet below the seabed."

 The Hill also addressed Obama plans to call for cut of oil imports by a third over the next decade. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been forcing his green agenda and has been placing the American public and businesses at interest. His interests continued to advocate reducing consumption verses tapping the enormous oil resources that we have. An interesting play on words "use or lose" is being used to identify the Obama Administration policy with regard to oil drilling permits.

In fact, while the companies have paid for the right for leases on which they then file for drilling permits, the Obama Agencies then block the drilling permit requests and attacks the drilling plans. The Hill, provided the House Republican response to this "use it or lose it" policy,  "Republicans and the oil industry have blasted “use it or lose it” proposals as a distraction from GOP plans to dramatically expand oil and gas drilling." Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement earlier this month."We won’t reduce our dependence on foreign oil if politicians in Washington remain dependent on hollow talking points like ‘use it or lose it.’”

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., US Senate, US House, Barack Obama, EPA, oil drilling, use it, lose it To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Sniff Alert: George Soros Assault on U.S. Constitution

George Soros

by Aaron Klein (research by Brenda J. Elliott), World Net Daily: At least three White House advisers and officials, including President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, "progressive" U.S. Constitution.

WND first reported last week that Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, has been a champion of a Soros-funded doctrine, entitled "responsibility to protect," which was used by Obama to justify engaging in an international military alliance to bomb Libya. As the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, Power reportedly influenced Obama in his decision.

Now it has emerged that Sunstein has maintained extensive ties to Soros' funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. Also, Attorney General Eric Holder sat on the board of a Soros-funded group pushing the same "progressive" constitution.

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled, "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year. That event was sponsored by Soros' Open Society Institute as well as by the Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team. Podesta's Center is said to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the American Constitution Society, or ACS, which has been described as a group meant to counter the work of the Federalist Society, which has been at the forefront of the push for a more conservative judiciary since its launch in 1982. The ACS is the main organization behind the movement to ensure a more "progressive" constitution, having received more that $2,201,500 from Soros' Open Society since 2002.

Attorney General Holder served on the ACS board of directors. Sunstein has spoken at numerous ACS events. For example, he was a speaker at a November 3, 2003 symposium by the American Constitution Society of the University of Chicago School of Law, where Sunstein was a professor.

But it was the 2005 Yale event led in part by Sunstein that has been described as jumpstarting the movement for a "progressive" constitution. Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote at the New York Times Magazine in a 2009 piece about so-called liberal justice: "If this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called 'The Constitution in 2020.'"

New 'Bill of Rights'
The Constitution 2020 movement has plotted a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.  Just before his appearance at the Yale conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

Sunstein has also been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation. According to Sunstein's new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return while the government is granted power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.

All this and more is contained in Sunstein's 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever." In the work, Sunstein advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. His inspiration for a new bill of rights came from President Roosevelt's 1944 proposal of a different, new set of rights.

In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Right; His mandates include the following:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself." Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."

---

Tags: sniff alert, George Soros, Soros' funding, assault, U.S. Constitution, President Obama, regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, progressive U.S. Constitution, Eric Holder, American Constitution Society To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Liberal Group Plans Guerrilla War Against Fox News - Sniff Alert: George Soros

Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA

By Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA: So much for cooling down the rhetoric. At a time when liberals are blaming the "vitriol" of the conservative movement for violence in America, Media Matters (a liberal group which targets conservative media) is planning what it calls a campaign of "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" against Fox News. It just goes to show that if liberals can't win on message, they will seek to destroy the messenger.

In a story running on Politico.com, Media Matters founder David Brock described the old strategy against Fox News as one of "containment." The new strategy is simple: "War on Fox."

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters -- which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget -- is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox's top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck's show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes.

Amazing, isn't it? Rather than focusing on doing a better job of getting out the liberal message and promoting left wing policies, this group seeks to bring down the most popular cable news outlet in America. Instead of putting out a better product, they seek to destroy the other product using "under-the-radar tactics" and attacks on those who work at Fox. This is nothing short of pathetic.

Taking a casual look at the Media Matters web site, one will find a plethora of headlines aimed at Fox News:

• Who Is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert On The Federal Reserve?
• Fox News Astoundingly Claims The Press Was Tough On Bush In Lead-Up To Iraq
• Fox Hypes Trump's Birtherism
• Brit Hume Resurrects Myths About Health Care Reform's Passage
• Fox Mocks DOJ For Bringing Lawsuit To Defend Religious Practices Of Muslim
• Hemmer Cherry Picks "Unscientific Poll" To Distort Public Support For Collective Bargaining

The list goes on and on and on.

Here's an example of their "reporting:

Media Matters purportedly received $1 million last year from left wing billionaire George Soros, and Politico.com reports that the organization has around 90 people on staff with a $10 million (or higher) budget -- all aimed at bringing down Fox News.

It all goes back to the fact that Americans don't buy the left wing agenda. It was soundly rejected in the last election. Americans don't want big government; they don't want more spending; they don't want more debt; and they don't want higher taxes. Yet that is exactly what the left wing is selling. Their only hope is to be the only product. Then Americans would have no choice. So they seek out and attack, embarrass, sue, threaten, and otherwise harass members of the conservative movement. Some message, eh?

---

Tags: Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA, liberals, liberal group, sniff alert, George Soros, funding, Guerilla War, Fox News To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Will Dems Block EPA And Protect American Jobs?

EPA Focus: Killing Jobs

Today in Washington, D.C. - March 29, 2010: 
The Senate resumes consideration of S. 493, the bill reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. Votes on amendments are possible this afternoon.  Still pending to S. 493 is the McConnell amendment, which would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a move that would amount to a backdoor national energy tax. Democrats have repeatedly pushed back a vote.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 88-0 to confirm Mae D’Agostino as a district judge for the Northern District of New York.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell reminded the Senate that even with the crises around the world that demand attention, “Now is not the time to lose focus on the paramount issue on the minds of most Americans today — and that’s the very real crisis that we face when it comes to jobs.  Americans look around them and they see neighbors and friends struggling to find work. And yet all they seem to get from the White House are policies that handcuff small businesses with burdensome new regulations and red tape; and that create even more uncertainty about the future, including the administration’s inexplicable and inexcusable inaction on trade deals that would level the playing field with our competitors overseas. And they’re tired of it. Americans are tired of the White House paying lip service to their struggles while quietly promoting effort after effort, either through legislation or through some back-door regulation, that make it harder, not easier, for businesses to create new jobs.”

And this week, the Senate is likely to have the opportunity to prevent one significant back-door regulation that would severely harm job creation if it were to be implemented – the EPA’s attempt to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In an op-ed for Politico today, Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen explains what the EPA did: “To get away with using a law designed for a problem — local and regional toxic air pollution — that couldn’t be more unlike global warming, the EPA rewrote the law to suit its purpose. . . . The EPA did this because applying the law as written would create, it correctly noted, ‘absurd results.’”

Allowing the EPA to proceed with this regulation “would raise energy costs for every business in America — and lead to untold lost jobs for more American workers. In other words, in the midst of average gas prices approaching four dollars a gallon and a chronic jobs crisis, the White House plans to make the climate for job growth worse. And that’s why Republicans, led here in the Senate by Senator Inhofe, have proposed legislation to prevent this new energy tax from ever taking effect without congressional approval. [McConnell]”

Kerpen points to the stark choice before senators on this issue, writing, “Now, the Senate has a chance to stop the EPA’s global warming power grab. They can stand up for the Constitution and the principle that the people’s elected representatives make the laws. Or they can rubber stamp what the EPA is doing, allowing a barrage of regulations that could send energy prices skyrocketing, cripple U.S. industry and help our international competitors, including India and China.”

“The real solution for businesses of all sizes and for U.S. taxpayers,” Kerpen writes, “is the McConnell amendment, sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), which blocks the EPA from twisting the Clean Air Act into a global warming law. That sensible approach would leave the question of any future global warming regulations as a question for Congress and U.S. voters. In the meantime, it would spare the economy from a devastating regulatory assault.”

Certainly, a number of Democrats recognize the problems these EPA regulations would pose. Strangely, that’s part of the reason there still has not been a vote, since Senate Democrat leaders still don’t know how to handle the potential for some moderate Democrats to vote for an amendment to block the EPA’s regulations. According to Politico’s Morning Energy today, “Democrats appear to be recalculating their approach to a series of floor votes on efforts to curtail EPA climate rules. Robin Bravender told Pros last night that senior lawmakers didn’t seem to have a clear road map when they returned from the weeklong recess. ‘We’re still talking about it. Unresolved,’ Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told POLITICO late last night.”

The Wall Street Journal has called the McConnell amendment, ‘One of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years.’ Our amendment would assure small businesses across the country that they won’t be hit with yet another costly new job-stifling burden by Democrats in Washington. It will give voters the assurance that a regulation of this kind, which would have a dramatic impact on so many, could not be approved without their elected representatives standing up and voting for it. . . . At a time when Americans are looking for answers on the economy, this amendment is as good as it gets from Washington. By voting for it, we’d be saying no to more regulations and red tape. And we’d be saying yes to American job creators, and to the jobs they want to create.”

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., Senate, EPA, carbon dioxide, Clean Air Act, cap-and-trade, taxes, Phil Kerpen, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

ICYMI: Chinese Professor Explains Fall of America

Citizens Against Government Waste

Bill Smith, Editor: On October 22, 2010, the ARRA News Service joined in support of the efforts Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) to pre-release via the Internet the follow ad. The non-partisan ad addressed the threat to America's future created by turning our backs on the principles that made America great and our economy strong. It also portrays the "potential consequences" of failing to get the national debt under control and having our debt owned by foreign governments.

You may have noted the CAGA ad has run several times recently on the FoxNews Network and has caught the attention of people concerned about government waste and spending and our country borrowing from foreign governments. As expected, not everyone is happy about the ad as noted in Chinese Professor Elicits Strong Response. A couple days ago, The Hill published an op-ed by CAGW President Tom Schatz in which he points out that:

China owns $1.2 trillion – or 26 percent – of the $4.45 billion in U.S. debt held by foreign nations.” The op-ed continues, “There are real consequences to foreign-owned U.S. debt, especially when it is being held by non-democratic countries like China, and oil exporting countries like Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Nigeria, which combined are the fourth largest foreign holders of U.S. debt. Look no further than the nightly news for a taste of how dangerous it is for the United States to be at the mercy of dictatorial regimes. Underscoring this point, in August 2010, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen called the national debt, ‘the most significant threat to our national security.’ What’s more, the terrible earthquake and tsunami in Japan – the second largest foreign holder of U.S. debt – means that nation will be rightly using more of its resources to address its own needs rather than sending billions of dollars overseas.

Schatz further identifies, "The ads in his remarks The ad is not about China or its economy or its political system; or any nation other than the United States. If France held the largest portion of foreign-owned U.S. debt, the ad would have been in French. . . . A few facts to consider for those who are screaming (online) about the ad: Foreign holdings make up nearly half – 47 percent – of the country’s obligations, and more than doubled from approximately $2 trillion in 2005 to the current level of $4.45 trillion. For those who believe that CAGW has “taken sides” or is being “partisan” in the ad or elsewhere, note the facts on the “Why China?” media page.

---

Original Post: Chinese Professor Explains Fall of America

[Video] This new ad is part of an ongoing communications program in CAGW's decades-long fight against wasteful government spending, increased taxes, out-of-control deficit spending, and a crippling national debt that threatens the future and survival of our country.

---

Tags: CAGW, Citizens Against Government Waste, ad, Chinese, professor, China, United States, national debt, America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Why the Rush?

BeebeCare is ObamaCare

Note: Today, Arkansas Democrats voted to allow the federal government to pull the strings on healthcare in Arkansas. With a party-line vote of 11-7, Democrats on the House Insurance and Commerce Committee passed House Bill 2138, which uses federal dollars to establish insurance exchanges necessary to the implementation of Obamacare. The bill now goes to the full house for vote. Republican Party of Arkansas Communications Director Katherine Vasilos said today, “Until the Supreme Court rules on the law’s constitutionality, our state should not spend time and money implementing Obamacare in Arkansas. There is no harm in delaying addressing the federal healthcare law until the upcoming fiscal session or 2013 general session. State Democrats need to get their heads out of the oval office and stand up for the vast majority of Arkansans who oppose health insurance being mandated and run by the federal government.”

---

by Arkansas Lt. Governor Mark A. Darr: While campaigning for office, I expressed my disagreement with the federal health care reform legislation passed by Congress a year ago. I stated my opposition to the mandate that individuals buy health insurance and I believe the costs of this legislation and the burdensome regulations it will impose are unacceptable in light of our nation’s debt, the state of our economy and its obvious limitations on individual and economic freedom.

Efforts have been underway in the State Capitol during this legislative session to implement various components of the federal health care plan. I have been opposed to these efforts as the constitutionality of the federal plan is still being challenged in courts around the country. I don’t believe that we should spend time and money rushing to create an infrastructure for something that may be ruled unconstitutional. In fact, in January, a federal judge ruled the individual mandate portion of the law unconstitutional in a suit filed against the federal plan by 26 other states.

One bill that is before the Arkansas legislature this week is House Bill 2138. This bill is designed to “enforce and implement” provisions of the federal plan. It would also create a state-level health benefits exchange to “supplement the current insurance marketplace”. Under this proposed plan, the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner would essentially become the state’s health insurance czar.

This 41-page bill is being rushed through the legislature in the last week of the session. Why? The federal health care law states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will determine by January 1, 2013 whether a state will be able to have a health exchange by January 1, 2014. Health care represents approximately one-sixth of our economy. The legislature should take its time in determining if this is the right move forward.

These types of measures should be part of a more thoughtful and deliberative process. However, we’ve seen this sort of rush tactic before. Last year, when she was trying to push the federal plan through Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Well, I’d say there is a lot of fog being generated and people should know what is in the bill before it is voted on.

Throughout our history, state governments have had both a complementary and an adversarial relationship with the federal government. When it comes to health care, local and individual control is the best option. That is why I believe the State of Arkansas should not be dictated to on this issue by the federal government. That said, I also do not think that as a state, we should rush into setting up expensive bureaucracies that expand government without a careful and substantive debate from both sides. On January 25th, the Surgeon General of Arkansas, in testimony on another piece of health care legislation, advised that the legislature wait until the United States Supreme Court had made a decision with regard to the federal health care law. I would agree.

Where do the people of Arkansas stand on this issue? Polls have consistently shown that a strong majority of Arkansans do not support federally-mandated health care reform. I would urge the citizens of Arkansas to contact their state legislators on this issue and tell them not to pass rushed legislation. It is my pledge to speak out on the issue of health care reform. We all know that there are needed reforms, but we do not need them if they restrict individual and economic freedom and send us into more debt.

---

Tags: Arkansas, Lt. Governor, Mark Darr, federal health care, ObamaCare, BeebeCare, US Constitution To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Arkansas House Commentary: March 28, 2011 - Navigating the "Pig Trail"

By Rep. Justin Harris: Christopher Columbus would have found it difficult to navigate a proposed congressional redistricting map that forcefully sailed its way through the House State Agencies Committee this week. Dubbed the “Pig Trail Gerrymander” for its suspicious meandering, creative carvings and raw partisanship, the redistricting proposal ruffled plenty of feathers during week eleven of the 88th General Assembly.

Entering the fourth quarter of the session meant two-a-days for lawmakers, with the House convening twice a day and legislative committees holding multiple daily meetings. Monday the House passed a bill to decrease voter fraud and ensure fair elections. The measure requires Arkansans to present a voter ID card when casting a ballot at the polls, and would allow county clerks to issue identification cards to individuals without driver’s licenses.

Arkansas owes $330 million in unemployment benefits to the federal government. In order to responsibly address this debt, we passed a bill to place a cap on unemployment benefits and cut the benefit period by a week. The measure could potentially save our state $50 to $75 million annually, thus shoring up money to begin balancing our unemployment trust fund.

Midweek, the marble halls of Capitol Hill echoed with concerns of over four-hundred Arkansans who gathered to protest several bills threatening the livelihood of our state’s natural gas industry. The five measures would have imposed burdensome regulations on an industry that provides jobs for Arkansans and revenue for our state. After mounting opposition from conservative lawmakers and hundreds of citizens, one bill failed to pass the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee, while the remaining four were successfully removed from consideration and sent to interim study.

This week, the State Democratic Party endorsed a proposed congressional redistricting map that unfairly gerrymanders Arkansas’ four congressional districts.  Conservative legislators believe the proposed "Fayetteville Finger" map ignores the traditional communities of interest in Arkansas and only exists for raw partisan purposes. Most notably it puts the northwest city of Fayetteville into the fourth congressional district, which currently encompasses the southern region of our state. IT PUTS YOU IN THE 4TH DISTRICT, I SPOKE HARSHLEY AGAINST THIS MAP. The full House is expected to vote on this matter, but there is not enough votes. So it’s a wait and see vote, and I intend to fight this partisan power grab to protect the people of Arkansas. You can view the map at www.arkansasgop.org.

A bill to implement OBAMACARE in Arkansas passed in the House Insurance and Commerce Committee. House Bill 2138 establishes insurance exchanges necessary to the implementation of OBAMACARE. More than half the states, 28 and counting, are challenging the law in court on the grounds it violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. Until we know how the Supreme Court will rule on the federal healthcare law, we do not need to spend more money implementing the law in Arkansas.

House members also approved a bill that would allow public schools to adopt curriculum standards to teach the Bible for academic significance. The measure, which passed our chamber with a vote of 71-16, now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Two pro-life Senate bills are headed to the Arkansas House for consideration. As a pro-life conservative, I intend to support these vital pieces of legislation.

A battle is brewing over congressional redistricting. Stay tuned for the finishing results.

The final significant piece of legislation lawmakers will approve before the session’s end is the budget bill, also known as the Revenue Stabilization Act. Because we held the line on spending to reduce taxes for Arkansans, the final balanced budget will be much smaller than originally proposed.

As your Representative, I am honored to serve you in the Arkansas House of Representatives.
-----------------
Justin Harris is Arkansas State Representative (R-District 87). Although he directly represents Crawford and Southern Washington Counties, he also represents all Arkansans with his public stands for limited, transparent and responsible government. He is both a fiscal and social conservative and is the owner of Growing God's Kingdom preschool in West Fork, Arkansas.

---

Tags: Justin Harris, Arkansas, legislature, State Representative, Arkansas House, Congressional Redistricting, gerrymandering, pig trail, voter ID, unemployment, Obamacare, Beebecare, budget To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

Benko: The Rise And Fall And Rise Again of Supply-Side Economics?

by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the American dream was going to hell in a handbasket. I speak, of course, of 1980, a time that seems as remote to the elite imagination as those of the days of America's founding. The news then was dominated by "the misery index" measuring high unemployment and double-digit inflation.

Our economic predicament was worse than today and the mood was famously, as associated with the feckless President Carter, one of “malaise.” All of the conventional policy prescriptions were proving ineffectual at turning it around. Nobody in power seemed to know where to turn.

Until … Rep. Jack Kemp, a fairly junior member of the House of Representatives, gathered around himself a group of “econoclasts,” to use the witty neologism of economic historian (and fellow Forbes columnist) Brian Domitrovic, who came to call themselves the “supply side.” Their core insight was simple. Rather than rely on a policy of high tax rates and a weak dollar, move toward a policy of low tax rates and a strong dollar. The late Jude Wanniski called it “the Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis.” And it was derided by the policy elites as “Voodoo Economics.”

Ronald Reagan, campaigning for the presidential nomination, took up this prescription and defended it against continuous ridicule by President Carter. And he won and implemented a major portion of the supply side agenda. This led to the creation of 19.4 million new jobs and put America, and then the world, on the road to creating prosperity unprecedented in history. As it happens, 20 million jobs again is just about exactly what America is now short.

This job creation did not occur by accident, or without great effort and courage and planning. Last week, the Manhattan Institute, the Wall Street Journal and the Reagan Library, with the generous underwriting of the Donald and Paula Smith Foundation, gathered together, for the first time since the Reagan years, almost all of the key surviving architects of Reaganomics as part of the Reagan Centennial celebration.

It was more, far more, than a retrospective. The gathering was entitled “Supply-Side Economics: From the Reagan Era to Today.” The architects of Reaganomics reviewed what their work achieved and addressed “Supply Side Today: The Agenda for Growth.”

The theme of the gatherings and panels was to review the key principles of economic growth initiated by President Reagan: low tax rates on a broad economic base, sound monetary policy, free trade and sensible regulatory policy.

It was these principles that unleashed a wave of economic growth in the United States, and, adopted by much of the rest of the world, initiated an era of unprecedented world prosperity. The Great Recession and Punk Recovery we are undergoing result from the erosion of the policy pillars of Reaganomics.

Among those presenting at the two conference panels were Jeffrey Bell, policy director of the American Principles Project and former Reagan aide, and Lewis E. Lehrman, American Principles Project advisory board member, chairman of the Lehrman Institute, Gold Commissioner and financier/philanthropist. (This writer, himself a cadet member of the early Supply Side team and a junior Reagan White House official, has professional associations with both.)

Panelists also included former Reagan official and TV commentator Larry Kudlow; and former Federal Reserve Gov. Larry Lindsey in a panel with Lehrman moderated by CNBC’s Maria Bartiroma; and Brian Domitrovic (the definitive economic historian of that era) and Art Laffer, with Jeffrey Bell, in a panel moderated by Fox Business Network’s David Asman. Add in Steve Forbes and Paul Gigot and gathered together were most of the blossom of Supply Side economics.

The opening speaker, Steve Forbes, through the bulk of the panelists, Bell, Domitrovic, Lehrman, and Kudlow, advocated the completion of Reagan’s agenda by adopting a modern gold standard, a point endorsed by participants Arthur Laffer and Lawrence Lindsey. Prof. Mundell alone, in a colloquy with Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, focused on the foreign exchange rate of the dollar rather than advocating a restoration of the gold standard.

The ingathering of the chieftains of the Supply Side tribes at this historic moment was not valedictory. Perhaps it will prove Providential. Republican presidential hopefuls are beginning to formulate their policy agendas. The House GOP Majority needs a growth agenda. This gathering provides a vivid reminder and revival of the way the world works.

The legacy of Reaganomics is not a dead letter. It is the vital recipe. And the Manhattan Institute, the Wall Street Journal and, of course, Reagan himself, whose legacy the Library stewards, were at the heart of the original Reagan Revolution. Thanks to the conveners of this gathering, the principles of how to create 20 million good new jobs — and the principal architects of Reaganomics — are clearly visible again.

Click here, here and here, and then, Ms. and Mr. Candidate (or you, Mr. President!), and GOP House leaders, call Manhattan Institute president Lawrence Mone and ask for introductions to those who will guide you on how to get the job done.

Let those who aspire to lead America again out of the wilderness take note. Herein lies the formula — proven in what Lehrman calls “the laboratory of history” — needed to restore American and world prosperity and bring us all to heights of new greatness.
------------
Ralph Benko is a senior economics advisor to The American Principles Project and author of The Websters’ Dictionary: How to Use the Web to Transform the World. He is working on a new book, called "A Golden Age: the political consequences of the peace."This article which first appeared in the Forbes was submitted to the ARRA News Service editor for reprint by contributing author Ralph Benko

---

Tags: Ralph Benko, Supply-Side, Economics, Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan, Manhattan Institute, the Wall Street Journal, Reagan Library, Brian Domitrovic, Jeffrey Bell, Lewis E. Lehrman, Art Laffer To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!

EPA, POTUS and White House Agree: America Be Damned

H/T Politifake.org

Today in Washington, D.C. - March 28, 2011:
Congress reconvenes today. President Obama today (maybe) will attempt to explain to the American people why his approval by the UN to use US military to bomb Libya overrode the need for him to seek Congressional approval under the US Constitution. POTUS is using up valuable military resources and spending the the DOD Budget dry!

The Senate will resume consideration of S. 493, the bill reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs.Still pending to S. 493 is the McConnell amendment, which would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, a move that would amount to a backdoor national energy tax. Democrats have repeatedly pushed back a vote.

Late today the Senate will quickly avoid too much debating but and will vote on the nomination of Mae D’Agostino to be a district judge for the Northern District of New York.

Discussing the McConnell amendment to prevent the EPA from instituting a backdoor national energy tax through regulation of greenhouse gases as pollutants, The Wall Street Journal writes in a must-read editorial today, “The Environmental Protection Agency debate lands in the Senate this week, amid the makings of a left-right coalition to mitigate the agency’s abuses. Few other votes this year could do more to help the private economy—but only if enough Democrats are willing to buck the White House.”

The WSJ editors go on to explain what the Obama administration is attempting to do through EPA regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases: “The Obama Administration moved to exploit this power [granted by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in 2006] by threatening that the EPA would make a carbon ‘endangerment finding’ if Congress didn’t pass a climate bill. This threat was potent for the simple reason that the Clean Air Act’s intrusive command-and-control systems were never written or meant to address an emission as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide. It’s like trying to perform surgery with a butter knife, and Mr. Obama hoped that the pain would force industry to beg for cap and tax. The EPA went ahead with its endangerment ruling, but cap and trade failed in the Senate last year anyway. The EPA now claims its carbon regulation is compelled by the Supreme Court, as if Congress can’t change the law, as well as by ‘science,’ as if Congress is a potted plant.”

“But,” the editors write, “a vote for the McConnell amendment, which would permanently bar the EPA from regulating carbon unless Congress passed new legislation, is justified on democratic prerogatives alone. Whatever one’s views of Massachusetts v. EPA or climate science, no elected representative has ever voted on an EPA plan that has often involved the unilateral redrafting of plain-letter law. A vote to overrule the EPA is also needed to remove the regulatory uncertainty hanging over the economy. This harm is already apparent in energy, where the EPA is trying to drive coal-fired power out of existence. The core electricity generation that the country needs to meet future demand is not being built, and it won’t be until the EPA is bridled. This same dynamic is also chilling the natural gas boom in the Northeast, and it is making U.S. energy-intensive industries less competitive world-wide. As the EPA screws tighten, the costs will be passed along to consumers, with the same damage as a tax increase but none of the revenues. Eventually, the EPA plan will appreciably lower the U.S. standard of living.”

 A number of Democrat senators have been openly critical of the EPA’s plans for regulating carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. Some Democrats have been outright critical of the EPA using the Clean Air Act in the way the Obama Administration is proposing. For instance, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said last year, “The fact remains that allowing the EPA to make an end run around Congress and twist the Clean Air Act for this purpose would result in ever-changing regulations and uncertainty in the private investment market that would damage Louisiana’s already fragile economy and fail to address the risks of climate change.” Others have expressed their concerns about the EPA making an end run around Congress, as groups of Democrats have done over the last 2 years.

In addition to the well-documented concerns about the EPA’s attempts to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants Democrats have identified, also interesting is a new Gallup poll on environmental issues out today. Among a list of environmental concerns Gallup asked Americans if they were worried about, global warming came in dead last. Further, the percentage of respondents saying that they worry “a great deal” or “a fair amount” about the issue has dropped 12 points over the last decade, a greater drop in concern over all the other environmental issues Gallup identified save one.

Clearly, Senate Democrats have myriad reasons to vote for the McConnell amendment. As The Wall Street Journal editors conclude, “The McConnell amendment is one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years. If Mr. Obama is intent on defending the EPA’s regulatory assault, then the least Senate Democrats can do is force him to defend his choices himself.”

Last Friday, House Speaker John Boehner issued a statementregarding Washington Democrats’ continued failure to offer a credible, long-term plan to cut spending and keep the government running: “It has now been 34 days since the House passed H.R. 1 to keep the government running through September and make the spending cuts economists say are needed to end the uncertainty facing job creators.  At no point in the 34 days since the House acted have the Democrats who run the Senate and the White House put forward a credible, long-term plan to resolve their budget mess.  Instead, Washington Democrats continue to downplay the severity of their budget mess, and the uncertainty it’s causing job creators in America.  We have been ready to do the people’s work, but we weren’t sent here to negotiate with ourselves.  Many questions remain, starting with: when it comes to cutting spending and keeping the government running, where are Washington Democrats?  If they have a plan, what is it?  If Democrats don’t have a plan, do they intend to shut down the government because they can't agree among themselves?  The status quo is unacceptable, and right now that is all Washington Democrats are offering.”

Based on ongoing and recent events, the headline today should be "EPA, POTUS and White House Agree: America Be Damned". What is your opinion?

---

Tags: Washington, D.C., Barack Obama, military operations, Libya, Federal Spending, Waste, small business, EPA, Energy tax, costs To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!