Tags: Attack Watch, Bill Clinton, Democratic Attack machine, Herman Cain, Sexual Harrassment, A.F. Branco, political cartoon To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Monday, October 31, 2011
Clinton’s Advice to Cain
A.F."Tony" Branco:
Tags: Attack Watch, Bill Clinton, Democratic Attack machine, Herman Cain, Sexual Harrassment, A.F. Branco, political cartoon To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tags: Attack Watch, Bill Clinton, Democratic Attack machine, Herman Cain, Sexual Harrassment, A.F. Branco, political cartoon To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Poll: Majority of Voters Oppose Govt Choosing and Funding Energy Companies
Key Findings of Energy Subsidy Poll
- Voters throughout the country express strong opposition to the federal government choosing specific energy companies and industries within this sector to provide financial subsidies. Nearly three quarters of voters (72%) oppose the federal government choosing which companies within a certain industry will receive financial subsidies, with a majority (54%) strongly opposing. This strong opposition is bipartisan, reaching 70% among Independents, 66% among Democrats, and 82% among Republicans. Voters are also negative toward energy subsidies in general, as only 39% favor the federal government providing some energy companies with financial help in the form of subsidies (50% oppose).
- This strong opinion against energy subsidies for some private companies is driven by negativity to the government picking winners and losers, as 71% agree that “allowing the federal government to provide financial help to some companies and not others means the government is playing favorites by picking winners and losers in an industry.”
- There is a significant cost concern to voters, along with a concern over the corruption that could result from the government investing in specific companies:
- Nearly two thirds (65%) are more concerned that the federal government will spend too much helping energy companies, while only 26% are more concerned that some energy companies might fail without government help.
- Nearly two thirds (65%) are extremely or very concerned with the possibility that government providing financial support to certain industries could lead to “crony capitalism and corruption.”
- Seven in ten (69%) agree that “giving taxpayer dollars to corporations that are not succeeding is the same as corporate welfare.”
- Six in ten (60%) agree that “when private investors don’t want to risk losing their money in a business or industry, then that’s proof that the government should not invest in a company.”
- Concern over the cost of subsidies is understandable. A majority (60%) agree more that the size of the U.S. debt and deficit from too much government spending is preventing economic growth, while only 31% agree more that the U.S. debt, deficit and government spending is not preventing economic growth.
- Opposition to the government picking “winners and losers” is evidenced by voters’ negative feelings toward Solyndra, an energy company that recently filed for bankruptcy only after receiving a $535 million loan from the federal government and a public endorsement by President Obama. Nearly two thirds (65%) agree that Solyndra going bankrupt is a “perfect example of why the federal government should not be in the role of picking winners and losers, no matter what industry or company it is.”
The Tarrance Group survey of N=803 registered “likely” voters across the country. Interviews were conducted October 23-25, 2011. In 95 out of 100 cases, the margin of error on a sample of this type is +/- 3.5%.
Tags: energy, polling, federal subsidies, energy companies, Tarrance Group, poll, Heritage Action for America To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
When Will The Senate Vote On House Tax Relief Bill?
WHITE HOUSE: ‘Would Reduce A Burden… Create Jobs’
HOUSE DEM: ‘It Should Have Happened Earlier’
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 405 Congressmen, Including 170 Democrats voted for H.R.674: “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities” (H.R.674, Roll Call Vote #815, Bill Passed 405-16: R 235-0, D 170-16, 10/27/11)
REP. SANDER LEVIN (D-MI): “It should have happened earlier. I think most of us, if not all of us, agree that this provision should be repealed… I urge its support.” (Rep. Levin, Congressional Record, H.7139, 10/27/11)
REP. EARL BLUMENAUER (D-OR): “…a strong bipartisan vote, reaffirming the bipartisan cooperation that got us to this point. I think that this is an example of what potentially we could do…” (Rep. Blumenauer, Congressional Record, H.7141, 10/27/11)
REP. BILL PASCRELL (D-NJ): “The repeal of this requirement will free up small businesses' cash flow, increasing their ability to add jobs and bid on new projects.” (Rep. Pascrell, Congressional Record, H.7142, 10/27/11)
WHITE HOUSE: “The Administration supports passage of H.R. 674, which would repeal a three percent withholding on certain payments made to private contractors by Federal, State, and local government entities. (“Statement Of Administration Policy: H.R. 674 – Repeal Of The Three Percent Withholding On Government Vendors,” Executive Office Of The President, 10/25/11)
“…would reduce a burden on government contractors who otherwise comply with their tax obligations, particularly small businesses.” Ibid
“The effect of the repeal of the withholding requirement would be to avoid a decrease in cash flow to these contractors, which would allow them to retain these funds and use them to create jobs and pay suppliers.” Ibid
Tags: US Senate, US House, tax relief, news, politics To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Senate Dems' Choices . . .
. . . a Partisan Bill or a Bipartisan Bill backed by House GOP and the White House?
Today in Washington, D.C. - Oct 31, 2010:
The Senate reconvene at 3 PM today and took up the nomination of Stephen A. Higginson to be a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and are scheduled to vote in the evening on the nomination.
Tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2112, the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill, which combines the FY 2012 Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bills (also referred to as an Ag-CJS-THUD minibus). There may be votes on as many as 7 amendments, followed by a vote on final passage.
A new report from the World Bank shows it’s getting tougher and tougher to start a business and navigate the tax code in this country. This is a major problem for our economy, but it’s a problem we know how to solve. Later this week, members of the Republican Study Committee will roll out a jobs package that helps people start and grow their businesses by cutting through red tape, simplifies the tax code, and tears down barriers to American energy production. We’re looking to keep America open for business – and that means growing the economy, not the government.
Rep. Jim Jordan commented, "House Republicans have spent all year voting for legislation to help the economy as part of our Plan for American Job Creators. Right now, Senate Democrats are sitting on all sorts of House-passed jobs bills. It’s time they work with us to get the economy back on track."
On Wednesday, the House Republican Study Committee is expected to roll out its jobs package.
On Thursday, the House is expected to consider two bills to help job creators and entrepreneurs get access to capital (H.R. 2930 and H.R. 2940).
Roll Call writes today, “House Republicans are honing their jobs message — crafting hard-to-oppose, small-bore bills, shipping them to the Senate and daring Democrats and the White House to take up the mantle of obstructionism. The strategy paid off last week, with the White House signing on to a Republican bill eliminating a 3 percent tax withholding requirement for government contractors — a rare bill that appears likely to zoom to the president’s desk. The quick White House acquiescence came as a bit of a surprise to House and Senate Democrats, some of whom fear the president’s $447 billion jobs package will be sliced and diced to the GOP’s liking with Democratic priorities left on the cutting-room floor. But unlike many past efforts by both parties this year, the withholding bill appeared devised to become law, marrying a piece of President Barack Obama’s jobs package with a piece of his deficit reduction plan.”
Further, Roll Call notes, “Republican leaders have ramped up calls on the Senate to take up the ‘Forgotten 15’ bills they have already passed that they say would create jobs . . . they used the list and the success on the withholding bill — it passed 405-16 — to parry the White House rollout of its ‘We Can’t Wait’ message that blasts the GOP for blocking the larger jobs package and offers up a host of administrative actions aimed at producing jobs without Congress.”
On CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, David Axelrod, a former senior adviser in the Obama White House, accused Republicans, “They don't want to cooperate. They don't want to help. Even on measures to help the economy that they traditionally have supported before, like a payroll tax cut, like infrastructure, rebuilding our roads and bridges and surface transport. These -- so you have to ask you a question, are they willing to tear down the economy in order to tear down the president or are they going to cooperate?”
Yet the withholding repeal bill is something both parties can agree on to help job creators. It’s a proposal from the president’s plan and it attracted bipartisan support and over 400 votes in the House last week. If Axelrod is upset, he should really be upset at Senate Democrats, who actually filibustered an opportunity Republicans presented to take up the withholding repeal bill two weeks ago.
This week, Democrat Senate leaders have indicated they want to take up another political bill that has bipartisan opposition. Instead, they should move to the withholding repeal bill so Congress can accomplish something to help create jobs. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said last week, “The Senate should take this up next week, without any poison pills, and send it to the president for his signature. . . . Let’s vote on it and prove the skeptics wrong by acting in a bipartisan fashion.”
Majority Senate Democrats have a choice: They can move to another partisan bill they know can’t pass, or they can take up a bill to help job creators that has bipartisan support and can become law.
Tags: US Senate, US House, bills, judicial nominee, appropriation bills, jobs bill, democrat choices To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington, D.C. - Oct 31, 2010:
The Senate reconvene at 3 PM today and took up the nomination of Stephen A. Higginson to be a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and are scheduled to vote in the evening on the nomination.
Tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2112, the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill, which combines the FY 2012 Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bills (also referred to as an Ag-CJS-THUD minibus). There may be votes on as many as 7 amendments, followed by a vote on final passage.
A new report from the World Bank shows it’s getting tougher and tougher to start a business and navigate the tax code in this country. This is a major problem for our economy, but it’s a problem we know how to solve. Later this week, members of the Republican Study Committee will roll out a jobs package that helps people start and grow their businesses by cutting through red tape, simplifies the tax code, and tears down barriers to American energy production. We’re looking to keep America open for business – and that means growing the economy, not the government.
Rep. Jim Jordan commented, "House Republicans have spent all year voting for legislation to help the economy as part of our Plan for American Job Creators. Right now, Senate Democrats are sitting on all sorts of House-passed jobs bills. It’s time they work with us to get the economy back on track."
On Wednesday, the House Republican Study Committee is expected to roll out its jobs package.
On Thursday, the House is expected to consider two bills to help job creators and entrepreneurs get access to capital (H.R. 2930 and H.R. 2940).
Roll Call writes today, “House Republicans are honing their jobs message — crafting hard-to-oppose, small-bore bills, shipping them to the Senate and daring Democrats and the White House to take up the mantle of obstructionism. The strategy paid off last week, with the White House signing on to a Republican bill eliminating a 3 percent tax withholding requirement for government contractors — a rare bill that appears likely to zoom to the president’s desk. The quick White House acquiescence came as a bit of a surprise to House and Senate Democrats, some of whom fear the president’s $447 billion jobs package will be sliced and diced to the GOP’s liking with Democratic priorities left on the cutting-room floor. But unlike many past efforts by both parties this year, the withholding bill appeared devised to become law, marrying a piece of President Barack Obama’s jobs package with a piece of his deficit reduction plan.”
Further, Roll Call notes, “Republican leaders have ramped up calls on the Senate to take up the ‘Forgotten 15’ bills they have already passed that they say would create jobs . . . they used the list and the success on the withholding bill — it passed 405-16 — to parry the White House rollout of its ‘We Can’t Wait’ message that blasts the GOP for blocking the larger jobs package and offers up a host of administrative actions aimed at producing jobs without Congress.”
On CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, David Axelrod, a former senior adviser in the Obama White House, accused Republicans, “They don't want to cooperate. They don't want to help. Even on measures to help the economy that they traditionally have supported before, like a payroll tax cut, like infrastructure, rebuilding our roads and bridges and surface transport. These -- so you have to ask you a question, are they willing to tear down the economy in order to tear down the president or are they going to cooperate?”
Yet the withholding repeal bill is something both parties can agree on to help job creators. It’s a proposal from the president’s plan and it attracted bipartisan support and over 400 votes in the House last week. If Axelrod is upset, he should really be upset at Senate Democrats, who actually filibustered an opportunity Republicans presented to take up the withholding repeal bill two weeks ago.
This week, Democrat Senate leaders have indicated they want to take up another political bill that has bipartisan opposition. Instead, they should move to the withholding repeal bill so Congress can accomplish something to help create jobs. As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said last week, “The Senate should take this up next week, without any poison pills, and send it to the president for his signature. . . . Let’s vote on it and prove the skeptics wrong by acting in a bipartisan fashion.”
Majority Senate Democrats have a choice: They can move to another partisan bill they know can’t pass, or they can take up a bill to help job creators that has bipartisan support and can become law.
Tags: US Senate, US House, bills, judicial nominee, appropriation bills, jobs bill, democrat choices To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
SPOOKY: Ghouls, Goblins and Government Regulation
Halloween is here, and soon our doorsteps will be filled with ghosts and goblins looking for treats.
by Eileen Goulding, U.S. Chamber: Happy Halloween from Friends of the U.S. Chamber. An article out last week shows that as of today, the average American's share of government debt is more than the average American makes in a year. Talk about scary.
As the Daily Caller says: As children across America costume themselves as ghouls, ghosts, goblins and former North African dictators Monday night, they may have missed the most spine-chilling scare of the day. According to calculations based on the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook, on All Hallows’ Eve the United States’ total debt will surpass its Gross Domestic Product for the first time since World War II.
That means the average American’s share of government debt is more than an average American makes in a year. Spooky!
On October 19 Bloomberg released a chart showing that per capita gross government debt would to exceed per capita GDP in the very near future.
As Bloomberg put it, “America’s bills are about to exceed its paycheck.
The Bloomberg calculations, based on IMF data from the September World Economic Outlook, showed that by 2016, debt will exceed per capita production by $8,000.
Read more online.
Rob Engstrom, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: But for many small businesses, the ghoulishness won't end tonight. Each day they deal with taxes, regulations and rulings coming from our federal government that are downright scary. And, as our recent survey showed, the only thing they really want is for government to get out of the way.
This Halloween, there’s perhaps nothing more frightening than the deluge of rules coming from the government – who have taken to mandating through regulation what they can’t pass legislatively. However, with your continued support, we can put an end to the federal fright show, and prevent any future nightmares for American small businesses. To learn more about our efforts to remove uncertainty and fight burdensome regulations, visit online.
Tags: Halloween, U.S Chamber of Commerce, Taxes, Small Business, Regulatory Reform, Labor, Jobs, Health care, Energy, Economy, 112th Congress To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Eileen Goulding, U.S. Chamber: Happy Halloween from Friends of the U.S. Chamber. An article out last week shows that as of today, the average American's share of government debt is more than the average American makes in a year. Talk about scary.
As the Daily Caller says: As children across America costume themselves as ghouls, ghosts, goblins and former North African dictators Monday night, they may have missed the most spine-chilling scare of the day. According to calculations based on the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook, on All Hallows’ Eve the United States’ total debt will surpass its Gross Domestic Product for the first time since World War II.
That means the average American’s share of government debt is more than an average American makes in a year. Spooky!
On October 19 Bloomberg released a chart showing that per capita gross government debt would to exceed per capita GDP in the very near future.
As Bloomberg put it, “America’s bills are about to exceed its paycheck.
The Bloomberg calculations, based on IMF data from the September World Economic Outlook, showed that by 2016, debt will exceed per capita production by $8,000.
Read more online.
Rob Engstrom, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: But for many small businesses, the ghoulishness won't end tonight. Each day they deal with taxes, regulations and rulings coming from our federal government that are downright scary. And, as our recent survey showed, the only thing they really want is for government to get out of the way.
Tags: Halloween, U.S Chamber of Commerce, Taxes, Small Business, Regulatory Reform, Labor, Jobs, Health care, Energy, Economy, 112th Congress To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Is Obamacare Constitutional?
How will the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
by Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: "5-4." That's how I predict the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of PPACA or "Obamacare." "Yes, but 5-4 which way?" is the consistent reply. That may very well be up to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here are my predictions for each justice. The central question of course is the constitutionality of a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
The Justices, (the President who appointed them, the year of their appointment), and my prediction:
Chief Justice John Roberts (Bush, 2005): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Samuel Alito (Bush, 2006): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (Reagan, 1986): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (Bush, 1990): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Elena Kagan (Obama, 2010): Constitutional
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Clinton, 1994): Constitutional
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Clinton, 1993): Constitutional
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Obama, 2009): Constitutional
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (Reagan, 1988): Unpredictable, the "swing" vote?
The Christian Science Monitor recently published an outstanding article, Obamacare and the Constitution: What would Jefferson and Madison think?” Written by Nathan W. Tucker, an attorney in Davenport, Iowa, and the author of “We The People: The Only Cure to Judicial Activism,” the original version of this excellent essay appeared first in The Iowa Republican.
Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Christian Science Monitor, Clarence Thomas, Commerce Clause, Constitution, Elena Kagan, enumerated powers, federalism, general welfare, healthcare exchanges, healthcare insurance, healthcare reform, John Roberts, limited government, mandates, Nathan Tucker, Obamacare, PPACA, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court, The Iowa Republican, American Culture, American Exceptionalism, Constitution, Constitutional Crisis, Federalism, Government and Business, Health Care Reform, Over Regulation, Socialism, Curtis Coleman, The New South Conservative To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Curtis Coleman, Contributing Author: "5-4." That's how I predict the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of PPACA or "Obamacare." "Yes, but 5-4 which way?" is the consistent reply. That may very well be up to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here are my predictions for each justice. The central question of course is the constitutionality of a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
 |
Anthony Kennedy |
Chief Justice John Roberts (Bush, 2005): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Samuel Alito (Bush, 2006): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (Reagan, 1986): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (Bush, 1990): Unconstitutional
Associate Justice Elena Kagan (Obama, 2010): Constitutional
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Clinton, 1994): Constitutional
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Clinton, 1993): Constitutional
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Obama, 2009): Constitutional
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (Reagan, 1988): Unpredictable, the "swing" vote?
The Christian Science Monitor recently published an outstanding article, Obamacare and the Constitution: What would Jefferson and Madison think?” Written by Nathan W. Tucker, an attorney in Davenport, Iowa, and the author of “We The People: The Only Cure to Judicial Activism,” the original version of this excellent essay appeared first in The Iowa Republican.
When asked last fall where the Constitution authorizes Congress to require citizens to buy health insurance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was temporarily caught off guard, finally sputtering, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” She then quickly turned to another reporter without further comment.
While the thought that the Constitution actually limits the power of Congress to enact legislation may be foreign to some Democrats, the framers of the Constitution intended for the federal government to be limited to the powers that are specifically enumerated, or listed, in the text of the document.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote: “[T]he proposed Government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”
In part to protect that sovereignty, more than 20 states have challenged the constitutionality of the new federal health-care law. Several have even moved to pass amendments to their constitutions that would forbid any law that forces citizens to participate in a health-care system.
The outcome of these radical efforts to affirm the guaranteed rights of states and individuals will have huge consequences for the very character of America.
Key constraint: enumerated powers
Because the federal government is composed of – and constrained by – enumerated powers, then the power to regulate health care would have to be one of the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution.
Out of the 17 named powers given to Congress in Section 8 of Article 1, however, none mentions anything about heath care, insurance, doctors, medical treatment, or anything approaching an enumerated power that would allow Congress to legislate our health.
Then how is it that Democrats can claim the Constitution permits the new health-care law? They point to two constitutional provisions as their grant of authority to enact health-care legislation.
The first enumerated power claimed by Democrats is the “general welfare” clause. House majority leader Steny Hoyer, for instance, said that Congress has “broad authority” to provide for the general welfare. The term “general welfare” appears twice in the Constitution, once in the Preamble and another time in the “tax and spend” clause.
The Preamble to the Constitution, however, has never been considered a grant of power to the federal government. As the Supreme Court has put it, “[a]lthough th[e] preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States.”
The tax and spend clause, however, is an enumerated power given to Congress in the Constitution. It reads in part, “[T]he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”
To read the term “general welfare” in the clause to be a broad grant of authority to Congress to tax for whatever purposes it deems are in the general welfare of the country would be to make a mockery of the Constitution. Such a broad grant of authority would eclipse a written constitution of enumerated specific, limited powers given to the federal government.
As Thomas Jefferson explained, “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. [Congress is] not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please.”
Madison also noted: “Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.”
The second enumerated power that Democrats claim supports their authority to regulate the health-care industry is the Commerce Clause. The Constitution does in fact specifically give Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
The clause, however, was simply meant to prevent trade wars between the states, a common occurrence under the Articles of Confederation. The inability of the Continental Congress to resolve trade disputes among the various states and with foreign nations was one of the leading reasons the states called for a new federal government.
Meaning of the Commerce Clause
As originally understood, the Commerce Clause was intended to create a “free trade zone” throughout America, only giving Congress the power to strike down state laws that discriminated against the buying, selling, and transportation of out-of-state goods.
Madison, in 1832, wrote that the clause was “a necessary control on the conduct of some of the importing States towards their non-importing neighbors.” Never once, in the Federalist Papers or the debates during the Constitution’s ratification, did anyone suggest that the Commerce Clause was anything more than the power to end trade barriers among the states.
Ever looking to expand its power, Congress, with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court, long ago seized on the Commerce Clause as its authority to regulate pretty much every detail of our lives.
The Supreme Court has gone so far as to uphold legislation that prohibited local, noneconomic activity such as growing wheat or marijuana for personal consumption under the absurd theory that, since the home-grown product is used instead of that which is transported across state lines, it has an effect on interstate commerce. Such a theory transforms the federal government into one with unlimited powers.
But the health-care legislation goes even further than the court has previously upheld by requiring an individual person to engage in economic transaction with a private company (i.e., buy health insurance) or face a fine. That is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab by Congress that, if upheld, would leave no check on Congress’s power. The concept of federalism and limited government would be dead. (Emphasis mine.)
It is time for the Supreme Court to once again hold that the Constitution imposes restrictions on Congress and to close the general welfare clause and Commerce Clause expressways by which the federal government has become one of infinite powers rather than finite authority.
Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and contributing author to the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Christian Science Monitor, Clarence Thomas, Commerce Clause, Constitution, Elena Kagan, enumerated powers, federalism, general welfare, healthcare exchanges, healthcare insurance, healthcare reform, John Roberts, limited government, mandates, Nathan Tucker, Obamacare, PPACA, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court, The Iowa Republican, American Culture, American Exceptionalism, Constitution, Constitutional Crisis, Federalism, Government and Business, Health Care Reform, Over Regulation, Socialism, Curtis Coleman, The New South Conservative To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Perry’s Game-Changing Plan for Jobs and Growth
Dr. Bill Smith, Editor: This weekend, I joined Ken Blackwell and other fellow Republican Assemblies members at the NFRA Presidential Preference Convention. I went as media but was also invited to participate as a delegate. Ambassador Ken Blackwell is a highly respected conservative speaker and writer. But more than that, even though we do not have the same parents, we are indeed brothers. If you are confused by this, view the move FireProof.
Ken is the Vice President of the NFRA, National Federation of Republican Assemblies, and gave an exceptional dinner speech at yesterday evening's Awards' Banquet which I am pleased to still be thinking about. Ken and I discussed why I had not published any of his recent articles. I identified that I had not received any from him in several months. As with computers, new staff members often have initial glitches. Within an few hour, Ken advised me to check my email; he had forwarded two articles for consideration. Below is one of the articles - a professional analysis of Gov. Rick Perry's proposed tax reform plan. It is a review and not an endorsement of Rick Perry as a candidate.
Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author and Ken Klukowski: Governor Rick Perry unveiled his plan for fundamental tax reform with an optional flat tax. This bold proposal for economic growth is a fiscal game-changer, and demonstrably superior to the proposals of rivals Herman Cain and Mitt Romney.
In the 1990s, the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform (the Kemp Commission) chaired by the late Jack Kemp created the framework for a flat tax. This research was later refined and advanced by Steve Forbes, and the flat tax became central to his presidential campaign.
Since then the flat tax has caught on worldwide, especially in Eastern Europe. Fair and predictable, it has led to extraordinary growth. It removes government from the business of picking winners and losers, bringing everyone together to decide on a common tax rate.
Perry has made the flat tax a major proposal in his presidential campaign. It accomplishes the dual primary purposes of tax policy: raising revenue while optimizing economic growth.
The record of nations and states that adopt a flat tax proves its success in fueling prosperity. It does not punish success through progressive escalation of rates, and is stable and neutral in allowing private entities to freely make choices without government incentives or coercing decisions.
It is based on Ronald Reagan’s supply-side economic philosophy. By spurring economic growth, it increases government revenues. Coupled with cutting spending and a balanced budget constitutional amendment, the flat tax is a vehicle for ending our ruinous debt.
The flat tax also serves the secondary goal of helping the less fortunate. It allows a generous standard deduction and child tax credits to ensure that low-income Americans do not pay and working-income families would only pay modestly. It also rightly focuses on the family as the basic unit of taxation, rather than individuals.
The flat tax is eminently fair. Take Perry’s rate of 20%. The well-off truly pay their “fair share” and pay more than middle-income Americans, because 20% of rich is more than 20% of middle-income.
Perry also deals with the foreseeable questions about deductions for charitable giving and mortgages. While many taxpayers don’t itemize their taxes, millions do, and care about those deductions.
There are other popular deductions and credits, however. Excluding them will cause conflict with powerful interests. Voters will need to be persuaded why a flat tax is preferable.
Perry also extends this 20% rate to corporate taxes. This will make America significantly more competitive in the global economy. Temporary incentives will also draw perhaps a trillion dollars from abroad back home.
Contrast Perry’s flat tax with Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Parts of the plan—such as requiring two-thirds congressional approval to raise taxes—are clearly unconstitutional. Other parts—such as taxing state and local governments—are likely unconstitutional.
Even if modified to make it constitutional, 9-9-9 is not conservative. It creates the risk of permanently burning the candle at both ends with an income tax and a European-style value-added tax. And it either imposes punitive taxes on the poor, or makes then forever beholden to the central government with monthly “prebate” checks.
And Cain’s selling point of “simplicity” is unraveling, as he’s now revealing that certain income groups and locales would be subject to different taxes.
A national sales tax is also a gamble. Unlike the flat tax, which has been embraced by numerous countries and produces undeniable results, the sales tax is a black box. Various studies show that 9-9-9 would significantly raise taxes on many, and reports conflict.
But at least Cain gets credit for suggesting something bold. The other major candidate in the race, Romney, is largely taking a status-quo position on taxes, as he is on many other issues.
Romney is suggesting various tax reform measures. Every candidate does. But it’s nothing on the scale of Perry and Cain. We need fundamental overhauling, not technocratic tinkering.
America’s tax code is counterproductive and a failed attempt at social engineering. It’s time for a bold plan proven to foster economic growth. It’s time for a flat tax.
J. Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law.
Kenneth Klukowski is a fellow at the Family Research Council and at Liberty University School of Law,and a columnist for the Washington Examiner. They are the coauthors of “Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America.”
Tags: Ken Blackwell, Ken Klukowski, Perry's Tax Plan, tax plan, Rick Perry, job plan To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Ken is the Vice President of the NFRA, National Federation of Republican Assemblies, and gave an exceptional dinner speech at yesterday evening's Awards' Banquet which I am pleased to still be thinking about. Ken and I discussed why I had not published any of his recent articles. I identified that I had not received any from him in several months. As with computers, new staff members often have initial glitches. Within an few hour, Ken advised me to check my email; he had forwarded two articles for consideration. Below is one of the articles - a professional analysis of Gov. Rick Perry's proposed tax reform plan. It is a review and not an endorsement of Rick Perry as a candidate.
Ken Blackwell, Contributing Author and Ken Klukowski: Governor Rick Perry unveiled his plan for fundamental tax reform with an optional flat tax. This bold proposal for economic growth is a fiscal game-changer, and demonstrably superior to the proposals of rivals Herman Cain and Mitt Romney.
In the 1990s, the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform (the Kemp Commission) chaired by the late Jack Kemp created the framework for a flat tax. This research was later refined and advanced by Steve Forbes, and the flat tax became central to his presidential campaign.
Since then the flat tax has caught on worldwide, especially in Eastern Europe. Fair and predictable, it has led to extraordinary growth. It removes government from the business of picking winners and losers, bringing everyone together to decide on a common tax rate.
Perry has made the flat tax a major proposal in his presidential campaign. It accomplishes the dual primary purposes of tax policy: raising revenue while optimizing economic growth.
The record of nations and states that adopt a flat tax proves its success in fueling prosperity. It does not punish success through progressive escalation of rates, and is stable and neutral in allowing private entities to freely make choices without government incentives or coercing decisions.
It is based on Ronald Reagan’s supply-side economic philosophy. By spurring economic growth, it increases government revenues. Coupled with cutting spending and a balanced budget constitutional amendment, the flat tax is a vehicle for ending our ruinous debt.
The flat tax also serves the secondary goal of helping the less fortunate. It allows a generous standard deduction and child tax credits to ensure that low-income Americans do not pay and working-income families would only pay modestly. It also rightly focuses on the family as the basic unit of taxation, rather than individuals.
The flat tax is eminently fair. Take Perry’s rate of 20%. The well-off truly pay their “fair share” and pay more than middle-income Americans, because 20% of rich is more than 20% of middle-income.
Perry also deals with the foreseeable questions about deductions for charitable giving and mortgages. While many taxpayers don’t itemize their taxes, millions do, and care about those deductions.
There are other popular deductions and credits, however. Excluding them will cause conflict with powerful interests. Voters will need to be persuaded why a flat tax is preferable.
Perry also extends this 20% rate to corporate taxes. This will make America significantly more competitive in the global economy. Temporary incentives will also draw perhaps a trillion dollars from abroad back home.
Contrast Perry’s flat tax with Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Parts of the plan—such as requiring two-thirds congressional approval to raise taxes—are clearly unconstitutional. Other parts—such as taxing state and local governments—are likely unconstitutional.
Even if modified to make it constitutional, 9-9-9 is not conservative. It creates the risk of permanently burning the candle at both ends with an income tax and a European-style value-added tax. And it either imposes punitive taxes on the poor, or makes then forever beholden to the central government with monthly “prebate” checks.
And Cain’s selling point of “simplicity” is unraveling, as he’s now revealing that certain income groups and locales would be subject to different taxes.
A national sales tax is also a gamble. Unlike the flat tax, which has been embraced by numerous countries and produces undeniable results, the sales tax is a black box. Various studies show that 9-9-9 would significantly raise taxes on many, and reports conflict.
But at least Cain gets credit for suggesting something bold. The other major candidate in the race, Romney, is largely taking a status-quo position on taxes, as he is on many other issues.
Romney is suggesting various tax reform measures. Every candidate does. But it’s nothing on the scale of Perry and Cain. We need fundamental overhauling, not technocratic tinkering.
America’s tax code is counterproductive and a failed attempt at social engineering. It’s time for a bold plan proven to foster economic growth. It’s time for a flat tax.
J. Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law.
Kenneth Klukowski is a fellow at the Family Research Council and at Liberty University School of Law,and a columnist for the Washington Examiner. They are the coauthors of “Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America.”
Tags: Ken Blackwell, Ken Klukowski, Perry's Tax Plan, tax plan, Rick Perry, job plan To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Obama and Carter Planning For Halloween
A.F. Branco: The former wost =ever president, Jimmy Carter, realizes that he can now dress up as the worst ever president -- Barack Obama.
Gary Bauer, Contributing Author: Obama's presidency resembles Jimmy Carter's more every day. The latest example came Tuesday at a San Francisco fundraiser when Obama chided the American people, saying, "We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge."
Every time Obama goes to "San Fran," he lets his guard down and says what he really believes about the country that elected him. What is it about San Francisco that makes Obama run down his country? It was in front of a San Francisco audience that Obama made his infamous quip about bitter middle Americans clinging to their guns and religion.
Whether it was Carter in 1979 or Obama now, America doesn't need a president whose first instinct is to blame others for his own failures.
Obama is just plain wrong. We couldn't easily build the Golden Gate Bridge today because there would be layer upon of layer of bureaucratic red tape standing in the way. Then there would be environmental impact studies that would take years.
If you got past all of that, you might face lawsuits from liberals eager to protect the polka-dotted blueberry river flea that only mates in odd numbered years in the precise location where the bridge is to be built. Other lefties would object, claiming that a bridge only continues our dependence on cars and fossil fuels. And on and on it would go. We haven't lost our ambition; we have been beaten down by the political left.
Obama has the audacity to lecture us about losing our imagination and willingness to do big things when he is the one who has slashed NASA's budget. In fact, there are reports today that he plans to zero out funding for all planetary exploration.
Ronald Reagan never ran down America as Obama routinely does. He had an infectious love for this country. He believed America was a "shining city upon a hill," a blessed nation that had a rendezvous with destiny. Yes, America has faced tough times. But we got through them -- and not because we were soft or lacked imagination. If anything, it is Big Government, which the left constantly turns to, which lacks imagination, stifles innovation and causes people to go soft.
Tags: democrats dump obama, Halloween, Jimmy Carter, Obama incompetence, Obamas jobs plan, A.F. Branco, political cartoon, Gary Bauer, article, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Every time Obama goes to "San Fran," he lets his guard down and says what he really believes about the country that elected him. What is it about San Francisco that makes Obama run down his country? It was in front of a San Francisco audience that Obama made his infamous quip about bitter middle Americans clinging to their guns and religion.
Whether it was Carter in 1979 or Obama now, America doesn't need a president whose first instinct is to blame others for his own failures.
Obama is just plain wrong. We couldn't easily build the Golden Gate Bridge today because there would be layer upon of layer of bureaucratic red tape standing in the way. Then there would be environmental impact studies that would take years.
If you got past all of that, you might face lawsuits from liberals eager to protect the polka-dotted blueberry river flea that only mates in odd numbered years in the precise location where the bridge is to be built. Other lefties would object, claiming that a bridge only continues our dependence on cars and fossil fuels. And on and on it would go. We haven't lost our ambition; we have been beaten down by the political left.
Obama has the audacity to lecture us about losing our imagination and willingness to do big things when he is the one who has slashed NASA's budget. In fact, there are reports today that he plans to zero out funding for all planetary exploration.
Ronald Reagan never ran down America as Obama routinely does. He had an infectious love for this country. He believed America was a "shining city upon a hill," a blessed nation that had a rendezvous with destiny. Yes, America has faced tough times. But we got through them -- and not because we were soft or lacked imagination. If anything, it is Big Government, which the left constantly turns to, which lacks imagination, stifles innovation and causes people to go soft.
Tags: democrats dump obama, Halloween, Jimmy Carter, Obama incompetence, Obamas jobs plan, A.F. Branco, political cartoon, Gary Bauer, article, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Proud Sponsors of Grizzly Fest 2011
Regardless, the celebration of what Palin supporters accomplished and where we're going in the next year and beyond. The event helped everyone realize the strength of the movement, our impact in the 2010 elections, the principles that unite us, and the potential to continue to influence the 2012 and other elections and policies at all levels of government.
I was attending the NFRA Preference Convention in Des Moines, IA. Thus, I could not be a part of this years call-ins. However, both the ARRA News Service and America's Best Choice blogs were a part of the efforts to keep the Sarah Palin voice before the people while she jerks the tail of wayward politicians. Both blogs are identified on the Grizzly Fest web site and are identified in the below video. The music is fantastic! It also presents the logos of all of the blogs that promote Sarah Palin as a major voice for accountability and the reform. Palin remains the Mamma Grizzly.
Other sites of Interest:
FaceBook Fan Pages
Grizzly Fest 2011
Americans For Sarah
ProLife America 4 Sarah
Veterans for Sarah Palin
Draft Sarah Palin Committee
Websites:
Grizzly Fest
Veterans for Palin
Tags: Grizzly Fest, 2011, video, Sarah Palin, Mama Grizzley, sponsors To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Comments by Candidates Attending The NFRA Preferential Convention
Two candidates, Ron Paul and Rick Santorium, attended the NFRA Preference Convention. Below are quotes from their speeches.
Ron Paul:
"Our government, instead of protecting our privacy and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights." Paul said, "they protect the secrecy of government and they invade on your privacy."
"50,000 SWAT break-ins without proper search warrants"
"We way overreacted – over my objection – right after 9/11." "I see no benefit and no purpose – it undermines liberty – the fact that Congress passed and placed on us the Patriot Act. It should be repealed."
"I fear the erosion of our liberties and our economy here at home more than I do any foreign adversary."
"If we don't want to incite radical Islamists, we need to stop these un-needed wars. It is high time we came to our senses, brought our troops home to defend our country and pursued a Constitutional, Pro-American foreign policy."
We are falling in the footsteps of what the Soviets were doing, spreading our sails too thin. It's time for us to come home and mind our own business."
Rick Santorium:
"I wrote in 2005 that the institution of marriage and the family were at risk, far before anyone thought this was going to be an issue.:
"One of the key battles we have in this country is the battle with our courts."
"Gov. Romney issued those marriage licenses, ordered people to issue marriage licenses in contravention to the constitution and the statutes of Massachusetts. Here you have a situation where you have a choice, you have a choice between the constitution and the will of the people or the rogue actions of a handful of justices, and Mitt Romney chose the rogue justices."
take back the Republican Party for the vast and disenfranchised majority of its members: Reagan conservatives, who believe in small government, lower taxes, free market capitalism, a strong defense, the right to life and a decent America."
There is no one doing more harm in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iranians," We're going to see that this withdrawal was, in more respects than not, a surrender to a growing power in the Middle East."
Tags: NFRA, convention, Ron Paul, Rick Santorium, quotes To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Ron Paul:
"Our government, instead of protecting our privacy and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights." Paul said, "they protect the secrecy of government and they invade on your privacy."
"50,000 SWAT break-ins without proper search warrants"
"We way overreacted – over my objection – right after 9/11." "I see no benefit and no purpose – it undermines liberty – the fact that Congress passed and placed on us the Patriot Act. It should be repealed."
"I fear the erosion of our liberties and our economy here at home more than I do any foreign adversary."
"If we don't want to incite radical Islamists, we need to stop these un-needed wars. It is high time we came to our senses, brought our troops home to defend our country and pursued a Constitutional, Pro-American foreign policy."
We are falling in the footsteps of what the Soviets were doing, spreading our sails too thin. It's time for us to come home and mind our own business."
Rick Santorium:
"I wrote in 2005 that the institution of marriage and the family were at risk, far before anyone thought this was going to be an issue.:
"One of the key battles we have in this country is the battle with our courts."
"Gov. Romney issued those marriage licenses, ordered people to issue marriage licenses in contravention to the constitution and the statutes of Massachusetts. Here you have a situation where you have a choice, you have a choice between the constitution and the will of the people or the rogue actions of a handful of justices, and Mitt Romney chose the rogue justices."
take back the Republican Party for the vast and disenfranchised majority of its members: Reagan conservatives, who believe in small government, lower taxes, free market capitalism, a strong defense, the right to life and a decent America."
There is no one doing more harm in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iranians," We're going to see that this withdrawal was, in more respects than not, a surrender to a growing power in the Middle East."
Tags: NFRA, convention, Ron Paul, Rick Santorium, quotes To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
NFRA Endorses Santorium in 2011 Preferential Convention
Bill Smith, Editor: At the National Federation of Republican Assemblies today, physical attendance by national presidential contenders made a difference. While some candiates sent videos and one candiadate sent his wife, two presidential contenters, Ron Paul and Rick Santorium actually attended. As a result, in the Iowa Straw Poll Ron Paul won the poll with 82.1% and Herman Cain Received 14.7%. The remaining candidates, including Rick Santorium received 1% or less. For non-Iowans who voted in the straw poll, Ron Paul and Herman Cain were statistically tied 37% each with Santorium and Perry taking the remining 26% of the non-Iowan Straw Poll votes.
Then during the afternoon NFRA Preferential Convention the attendance by Rick Santorium resulted in his winning the endorsement of the NFRA. Below is a detailed story by Drew Zahn of World Net Daily who took time to attend the the NFRA Convention events including the NFRA Preferential Endorsing Convention. Note the results of the NFRA Convention are not biding on the various state Republican Assemlies. Also, Mr. Zahn expressed aprpeciation if the ARRA News Service to run his WND reports.
By Drew Zahn: DES MOINES, Iowa – Delegates from a nationwide group of conservative Republicans determined to "take back" the GOP met today, defied an open-invitation straw poll taken earlier and endorsed former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania for president of the United States.
Their endorsement further defies many national polls, which have Santorum registering in single digits.
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies, or NFRA, held today's Presidential Preference Convention to advise "Reagan conservatives who believe in small government, lower taxes, free market capitalism, a strong defense, the right to life and a decent America" in the upcoming primaries.
"We endorse candidates in contested primaries, so rank-and-file Republicans can know who the true conservative candidates really are," the NFRA website explains. "We shuck the corn with highly competitive grassroots endorsing conventions at which candidates must secure two-thirds of our delegates' support to win. And when we're done, there's no question who is who."
Obama is definitely beatable – and this book shows how
After endorsing Santorum for president, the convention voted again to endorse Herman Cain for vice president.
The final endorsement of Santorum actually came in opposition to a straw
poll the NFRA held earlier, in which Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, won a
resounding victory.
The NFRA runs the straw poll as a fundraiser, requiring attendees to pay for the opportunity to vote. In the straw poll, Paul received over 82 percent of Iowans' votes, or 353 ballots. Herman Cain came in second with 14.7 percent of the vote, a total of 63 ballots. No other candidate received more than 10 votes.
Among voters from outside the state, Paul also prevailed, with 26 votes, to Cain's 25, Rick Perry's 16, Rick Santorum's 16, Newt Gingrich's 11, Michele Bachmann's 6 and Mitt Romney's 1.
In the endorsement convention that followed, however, only those delegates chosen by NFRA chapters from their respective states were allowed to vote in a multiple-ballot process designed to reach a two-thirds threshold for formal endorsement.
A total of 109 delegates from across the nation were eligible to vote, and 98 met today in Des Moines.
In the first ballot, Santorum, Cain and Perry were the top vote-getters.
After six ballots, however, the NFRA selected Santorum as their endorsement.
Mark Bergeron, a delegate from Massachusetts, was among those who supported Santorum on the first ballot: "Rick Santorum represents our values in right to life, fiscal conservativism, support for small business, and he understands the existential threat of radical Islam," Bergeron said.
Pat Wilcox, a delegate from Missouri argued, "We all say we believe in this solid social platform of family and marriage, and we have a man who has stood for these things over and over."
Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Then during the afternoon NFRA Preferential Convention the attendance by Rick Santorium resulted in his winning the endorsement of the NFRA. Below is a detailed story by Drew Zahn of World Net Daily who took time to attend the the NFRA Convention events including the NFRA Preferential Endorsing Convention. Note the results of the NFRA Convention are not biding on the various state Republican Assemlies. Also, Mr. Zahn expressed aprpeciation if the ARRA News Service to run his WND reports.
By Drew Zahn: DES MOINES, Iowa – Delegates from a nationwide group of conservative Republicans determined to "take back" the GOP met today, defied an open-invitation straw poll taken earlier and endorsed former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania for president of the United States.
Their endorsement further defies many national polls, which have Santorum registering in single digits.
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies, or NFRA, held today's Presidential Preference Convention to advise "Reagan conservatives who believe in small government, lower taxes, free market capitalism, a strong defense, the right to life and a decent America" in the upcoming primaries.
"We endorse candidates in contested primaries, so rank-and-file Republicans can know who the true conservative candidates really are," the NFRA website explains. "We shuck the corn with highly competitive grassroots endorsing conventions at which candidates must secure two-thirds of our delegates' support to win. And when we're done, there's no question who is who."
Obama is definitely beatable – and this book shows how
After endorsing Santorum for president, the convention voted again to endorse Herman Cain for vice president.
The final endorsement of Santorum actually came in opposition to a straw
poll the NFRA held earlier, in which Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, won a
resounding victory.
The NFRA runs the straw poll as a fundraiser, requiring attendees to pay for the opportunity to vote. In the straw poll, Paul received over 82 percent of Iowans' votes, or 353 ballots. Herman Cain came in second with 14.7 percent of the vote, a total of 63 ballots. No other candidate received more than 10 votes.
Among voters from outside the state, Paul also prevailed, with 26 votes, to Cain's 25, Rick Perry's 16, Rick Santorum's 16, Newt Gingrich's 11, Michele Bachmann's 6 and Mitt Romney's 1.
In the endorsement convention that followed, however, only those delegates chosen by NFRA chapters from their respective states were allowed to vote in a multiple-ballot process designed to reach a two-thirds threshold for formal endorsement.
A total of 109 delegates from across the nation were eligible to vote, and 98 met today in Des Moines.
In the first ballot, Santorum, Cain and Perry were the top vote-getters.
After six ballots, however, the NFRA selected Santorum as their endorsement.
Mark Bergeron, a delegate from Massachusetts, was among those who supported Santorum on the first ballot: "Rick Santorum represents our values in right to life, fiscal conservativism, support for small business, and he understands the existential threat of radical Islam," Bergeron said.
Pat Wilcox, a delegate from Missouri argued, "We all say we believe in this solid social platform of family and marriage, and we have a man who has stood for these things over and over."
Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Democracy Denied; Republic Lost
Bill Smith, Editor: Both Ralph Benko and I received advanced copies of Phil Kerpen's new book "Democracy Denied." We both commend it to you. It addresses, "How President Obama is ignoring you and by passing Congress to radically transform America and how to stop him." However, Ralph beat me to finishing and reviewing Kerpen's book. Ralph send me his article presented below and now I owe him a beverage of his choice next time we meet and discuss this book.
I admire the leadership and tactical applications by Tim Phillips, President of Americans For Prosperity (AFP). His enthusiasm and energy has helped motivate the lethargic to action. However, as a military officer, I also admire his Vice President for Policy at AFP, Phil Kerpen. I have seen many leaders and tacticians in my years but few strategic thinkers. I consider Kerpen a talented strategic thinker. I have observed him detail critical issues and then provide solid reasoning on ways and or actions to confront them.
While we need and appreciate grassroots activism, we also need those rare minded individuals that can marshal their minds and reason to sift through the trivial and to make sense out of the chaos and then detail their insights and plan for the varied alternatives to assure a strategic victory while we have tactical defeats. I am thankful that we have people like Phil Kerpen and Ralph Benko who "work their gray cells" and think strategically for the good of the Republic. They may not be appreciated by the masses, but without them we could not win. While the patriot masses (the mob) helped our nation gain its independence, it was the patriot thinkers who helped fashion for us a Republic.
by Ralph Benko, Contributing Author: Does this government represent you? 78% of us say that America is on the wrong track. Only 15%, near an historic low, feel America is headed in the right direction. This implies that a supermajority says that their intention, their well being, and their very dignity are being violated.
The “ruling junta” governing the U.S. seems to have forgotten an axiom critical to its legitimacy: “the consent of the governed.” Americans of all parties and ideologies bitterly cling to a fundamental American principle, stated in the Declaration of Independence, that we “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” … and “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Emphasis added)
Complaints about the unresponsiveness to popular will have been emerging with greater and greater clarity and force from the populace. They were called “uprisings” by progressive journalist David Sirota, and the “Middle America Rebellion” by conservative journalist Mark Tapscott. Citizen actions by disaffected people are crescendoing from their first (and still most effective) manifestation, MoveOn.org, to the Tea Parties, to — worldwide — the still nascent Occupy movement. These outpourings might not agree on the solution, but all agree on the problem. The permanent government isn’t listening to the citizens.
Major figures on both the left and right are beginning to offer thoughtful approaches. Lawrence Lessig, of Harvard Law School, offers a populist “social democratic” position in his recently released Republic, Lost. Lessig’s book lays out some horrible distortions produced by the current campaign financing system and offers to introduce a non-coercive citizen voucher-based financing as an alternative option.
Thematically paired with Lessig is a new book by populist conservative Phil Kerpen, Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity, Democracy Denied. (Note: Democracy Denied, with excessive generosity, acknowledges this writer as one of its author’s “professional mentors.”) Which one is right, Republic, Lost or Democracy Denied? It is reminiscent of the famous fable of the “blind men and the elephant,” with sages rightly discerning aspects of a much larger problem — the rogue elephant, as it were, in the capital.
Lessig focuses on the breakdown in the national legislature, the problems (both political and social), and offers a dignified solution. Kerpen focuses on the breakdown in the national executive branch, the problems this is causing (both political and moral), and offers a dignified solution. Each writer implicitly echoes one of the enumerated complaints in the Bill of Particulars of the Declaration of Independence. Lessig echoes Jefferson’s complaint about “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” (Oligarchy more currently apt than Tyranny).
Kerpen too offers a Jeffersonian critique, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” And “…declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Americans, from the very beginning, have never had an especially favorable attitude toward bureaucrats…. The left tends to lean more “small d” democratic — with more direct popular control, as evidenced by Lessig’s optimistic preference for citizen financing of Congressional elections. The right tends to lean more “small r” republican — with a greater trust in elected officials, representative democracy Kerpen provides a compelling litany of unelected executive branch (and independent agencies) setting out to exercise “power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” This ethic — the people be damned — seems to have metastasized. As this columnist has noted elsewhere:
Kerpen lays out a bill of particulars on his indictment that would have done Jefferson proud. The EPA’s “extreme power abuse;” The FCC’s Internet Takeover; the secret plan to force union membership (Note: this writer is, voluntarily and with pride, a member of the AFL-CIO but believes that forced unionization is bad for us rank and file members and for unions who thereafter do not have to earn our loyalty… and dues); demonstrates chillingly how Obamacare threatens to worsen our health care crisis, thereby violating the first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath — first do no harm; and the explosion of regulations strangling our personal financial affairs, damaging our national ability to generate affordable energy; shocking land grabs. This enumerates only the highlights.
But what is most compelling about Kerpen’s book is the fact that it lays out a practical, sensible, powerful solution: The REINS Act. The REINS Act, simply put, requires the Congress to affirmatively approve any executive branch or independent agency regulations that have a material effect on the national economy. This restores accountability to our elected officials, rather than leaving the immense regulatory power in the hands of the iconic faceless bureaucrats conveniently “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
Lessig, heroically, has the rogue elephant of our runaway federal government by the tail and Kerpen, intrepidly, has it by the … um, both ears. Lessig is outside Washington, inspiring (with this columnist’s active support) a joint insurgency by humanitarian populists against careerist elitists. Insiders report that Kerpen’s behind-the-scenes effort were critical to getting the REINS Act into the recent Republican Jobs Bill.
Bravo to each of them and to dozens of less prominent heroes. But lost, denied, or otherwise, this remains a democracy, a republic. And there is only so much that these commandos, however courageous and tenacious, can accomplish. Thus, dear readers, whether you be Progressives inspired by Lessig’s prescription in Republic, Lost or conservatives engaged by Kerpen’s Democracy Denied, it is time for you to engage. Your power, your opinion, your good opinion (of your elected officials!) and your vote is far more potent than you may yet understand.
Be heard, be relentless, and if you’d like to come into league with other reformers join Lessig’s Rootstrikers.org or Kerpen’s Americans for Prosperity (to which this writer belongs). Indeed, our republic: lost! Our democracy? Denied! But you occupy the most noble office under either a democracy or a republic: the office of citizen. All depends upon your now engaging and exercising your supreme power.
------------
Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, a lead participant in the Iowa Tea Party’s upcoming Bus Tour. He co-led the gold standard breakout session at the Tea Party Patriots’ American Summit and is the editor of the Lehrman Institute’s The Gold Standard Now This article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted to the ARRA News Service editor for reprint by contributing author Ralph Benko.
Tags: Ralph Benko, Phil Kerpen, Democracy Denied, Lawrence Lessig, Republic Lost, book review, Rootstrikers, Americans For Prosperity To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
I admire the leadership and tactical applications by Tim Phillips, President of Americans For Prosperity (AFP). His enthusiasm and energy has helped motivate the lethargic to action. However, as a military officer, I also admire his Vice President for Policy at AFP, Phil Kerpen. I have seen many leaders and tacticians in my years but few strategic thinkers. I consider Kerpen a talented strategic thinker. I have observed him detail critical issues and then provide solid reasoning on ways and or actions to confront them.
While we need and appreciate grassroots activism, we also need those rare minded individuals that can marshal their minds and reason to sift through the trivial and to make sense out of the chaos and then detail their insights and plan for the varied alternatives to assure a strategic victory while we have tactical defeats. I am thankful that we have people like Phil Kerpen and Ralph Benko who "work their gray cells" and think strategically for the good of the Republic. They may not be appreciated by the masses, but without them we could not win. While the patriot masses (the mob) helped our nation gain its independence, it was the patriot thinkers who helped fashion for us a Republic.
 |
| Image by jarnocan via Flickr |
The “ruling junta” governing the U.S. seems to have forgotten an axiom critical to its legitimacy: “the consent of the governed.” Americans of all parties and ideologies bitterly cling to a fundamental American principle, stated in the Declaration of Independence, that we “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” … and “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Emphasis added)
Complaints about the unresponsiveness to popular will have been emerging with greater and greater clarity and force from the populace. They were called “uprisings” by progressive journalist David Sirota, and the “Middle America Rebellion” by conservative journalist Mark Tapscott. Citizen actions by disaffected people are crescendoing from their first (and still most effective) manifestation, MoveOn.org, to the Tea Parties, to — worldwide — the still nascent Occupy movement. These outpourings might not agree on the solution, but all agree on the problem. The permanent government isn’t listening to the citizens.
Major figures on both the left and right are beginning to offer thoughtful approaches. Lawrence Lessig, of Harvard Law School, offers a populist “social democratic” position in his recently released Republic, Lost. Lessig’s book lays out some horrible distortions produced by the current campaign financing system and offers to introduce a non-coercive citizen voucher-based financing as an alternative option.
Thematically paired with Lessig is a new book by populist conservative Phil Kerpen, Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity, Democracy Denied. (Note: Democracy Denied, with excessive generosity, acknowledges this writer as one of its author’s “professional mentors.”) Which one is right, Republic, Lost or Democracy Denied? It is reminiscent of the famous fable of the “blind men and the elephant,” with sages rightly discerning aspects of a much larger problem — the rogue elephant, as it were, in the capital.
Lessig focuses on the breakdown in the national legislature, the problems (both political and social), and offers a dignified solution. Kerpen focuses on the breakdown in the national executive branch, the problems this is causing (both political and moral), and offers a dignified solution. Each writer implicitly echoes one of the enumerated complaints in the Bill of Particulars of the Declaration of Independence. Lessig echoes Jefferson’s complaint about “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” (Oligarchy more currently apt than Tyranny).
Kerpen too offers a Jeffersonian critique, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” And “…declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Americans, from the very beginning, have never had an especially favorable attitude toward bureaucrats…. The left tends to lean more “small d” democratic — with more direct popular control, as evidenced by Lessig’s optimistic preference for citizen financing of Congressional elections. The right tends to lean more “small r” republican — with a greater trust in elected officials, representative democracy Kerpen provides a compelling litany of unelected executive branch (and independent agencies) setting out to exercise “power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” This ethic — the people be damned — seems to have metastasized. As this columnist has noted elsewhere:
An article in the March 15 [2010] New Yorker,“Obama’s Lost Year,” by George Packer, contains a telling detail about the White House decision-making process, noting that “… the surest way to win Obama over to your view is to tell him it’s the hard, unpopular, but correct decision.”Unpopular turns out to be an … understatement. And nobody has pulled together and documented both the extremity of the executive branch’s abuses more thoroughly or forcefully than Kerpen. Kerpen is a power player, possibly the most potent force inside the left’s feared adversary, Americans for Prosperity. It is quite clear that it was Kerpen who provided the evidence that generated the media frenzy that cost Van Jones his job as Green Jobs Czar and cost this president’s proposed Internet Czar Susan Crawford her appointment.
Key word? Unpopular.
Kerpen lays out a bill of particulars on his indictment that would have done Jefferson proud. The EPA’s “extreme power abuse;” The FCC’s Internet Takeover; the secret plan to force union membership (Note: this writer is, voluntarily and with pride, a member of the AFL-CIO but believes that forced unionization is bad for us rank and file members and for unions who thereafter do not have to earn our loyalty… and dues); demonstrates chillingly how Obamacare threatens to worsen our health care crisis, thereby violating the first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath — first do no harm; and the explosion of regulations strangling our personal financial affairs, damaging our national ability to generate affordable energy; shocking land grabs. This enumerates only the highlights.
But what is most compelling about Kerpen’s book is the fact that it lays out a practical, sensible, powerful solution: The REINS Act. The REINS Act, simply put, requires the Congress to affirmatively approve any executive branch or independent agency regulations that have a material effect on the national economy. This restores accountability to our elected officials, rather than leaving the immense regulatory power in the hands of the iconic faceless bureaucrats conveniently “invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
Lessig, heroically, has the rogue elephant of our runaway federal government by the tail and Kerpen, intrepidly, has it by the … um, both ears. Lessig is outside Washington, inspiring (with this columnist’s active support) a joint insurgency by humanitarian populists against careerist elitists. Insiders report that Kerpen’s behind-the-scenes effort were critical to getting the REINS Act into the recent Republican Jobs Bill.
Bravo to each of them and to dozens of less prominent heroes. But lost, denied, or otherwise, this remains a democracy, a republic. And there is only so much that these commandos, however courageous and tenacious, can accomplish. Thus, dear readers, whether you be Progressives inspired by Lessig’s prescription in Republic, Lost or conservatives engaged by Kerpen’s Democracy Denied, it is time for you to engage. Your power, your opinion, your good opinion (of your elected officials!) and your vote is far more potent than you may yet understand.
Be heard, be relentless, and if you’d like to come into league with other reformers join Lessig’s Rootstrikers.org or Kerpen’s Americans for Prosperity (to which this writer belongs). Indeed, our republic: lost! Our democracy? Denied! But you occupy the most noble office under either a democracy or a republic: the office of citizen. All depends upon your now engaging and exercising your supreme power.
------------
Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, a lead participant in the Iowa Tea Party’s upcoming Bus Tour. He co-led the gold standard breakout session at the Tea Party Patriots’ American Summit and is the editor of the Lehrman Institute’s The Gold Standard Now This article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted to the ARRA News Service editor for reprint by contributing author Ralph Benko.
Tags: Ralph Benko, Phil Kerpen, Democracy Denied, Lawrence Lessig, Republic Lost, book review, Rootstrikers, Americans For Prosperity To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Simple Truth About Washington Regulations and Jobs
Do You Know How Many Hours it Takes to Comply with the Dodd-Frank Act?
The Empire State Building took 7 million man hours to build. 225,000 Toyota Camrys (just 63% of US production last year) take 6.3 million man hours to build. Every iPhone ever sold (146 million) took only 5.5 million man hours to build.
For perspective, the 2,300 pages of new rules and regulations from the Dodd-Frank Act will require 10.2 million man hours in compliance time on American job creators.
The simple truth is over-regulation steals time from American innovation, and equally as important, it steals jobs from American workers.
Learn more about how over-regulation is holding our economy back by visiting:
financialservices.house.gov/
or https://www.facebook.com/GOPFinancialServices
Tags: Washington, D.C., regulations, jos, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Empire State Building took 7 million man hours to build. 225,000 Toyota Camrys (just 63% of US production last year) take 6.3 million man hours to build. Every iPhone ever sold (146 million) took only 5.5 million man hours to build.
For perspective, the 2,300 pages of new rules and regulations from the Dodd-Frank Act will require 10.2 million man hours in compliance time on American job creators.
The simple truth is over-regulation steals time from American innovation, and equally as important, it steals jobs from American workers.
Learn more about how over-regulation is holding our economy back by visiting:
financialservices.house.gov/
or https://www.facebook.com/GOPFinancialServices
Tags: Washington, D.C., regulations, jos, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Friday, October 28, 2011
"We Can't Wait" -- Oh, Yes We Can!
 |
| Gary Bauer |
Discussing immigration reform, Obama once said that he would like to "bypass Congress and change the laws on my own." At the time, the media thought he was joking. Maybe not. His administration seems to be making immigration policy on a whim now. And the New York Times reports that Obama may issue a new executive order "each week through the rest of the year."
Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) defended Obama's bypassing of Congress saying, "It's necessary now because it's a gridlock between the president and the United States." Sorry, Charlie, but gridlock does not make it necessary. The president is not a dictator. He is not entitled to get whatever he wants. And while Obama is blaming congressional conservatives for blocking his demands, his fundamental problem is with the Constitution.
In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances dispersing power throughout three branches of government. But Obama is increasingly usurping the powers of the other two branches. He is rewriting legislation with his executive orders, and refusing to defend established law. For example, he unilaterally declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
Writing law and determining its constitutionality are functions reserved for Congress and the courts, respectively. You would think a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School would know that! But then again, we have never seen his law school grades. Maybe he flunked -- the same way he has failed as president.
The left and the media were apoplectic about George W. Bush's use of executive authority to try to win a war and defend this nation -- precisely the area where a president has the most authority and discretion. What exactly are the national security issues that required rewriting the laws on student loans?
Of course there weren't any. It was a purely political ploy that really won't help anyone, but it gave Obama a good campaign sound bite.
Obama also seems to have a problem with the process of governance. I realize people don't like the bickering in Washington. But there has always been political division and disagreement in Washington since the days of the Federalists and the Whigs.
Yet since his first days as president, Obama has demanded that Congress pass his bills "without delay." Remember how Obama has chided members of Congress asking "What are they waiting for?" Remember the chants of "Pass this bill!"?
That is not the way Congress works. There are subcommittees and full committees in each chamber. Both chambers must vote and then there is a conference committee to work out any differences. The process of governing a nation of 300 million may be slow and ugly, but it takes time to do it right.
Instead, Obama rushed through the stimulus bill, which was full of waste, and rammed through ObamaCare, which was so poorly written he has had to issue over 1,000 waivers and repeal certain sections.
But time is not a luxury Obama has. Each day he grows more desperate to revive an economy struggling under his socialist policies. And in his desperation to produce results he seems to be saying "We can't wait -- to violate the Constitution."
"Push The Envelope!" If you need more evidence of the kind of campaign we can expect from the Obama White House, consider this Politico interview with White House Chief of Staff Bill Daly.
Daly complained, "It's been a brutal three years. It's been a very, very difficult three years." But as I recently noted, Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and the Senate for Obama's first two years. He got virtually everything he wanted. The few things he didn't get were so radical -- like closing GITMO and cap and trade -- that he couldn't even convince some of his fellow Democrats to go along. But now, Daly reveals, they have a Plan B.
"Let's figure out what we can do [without Congress] and push the envelope on some of these things. On the foreign policy-military side, you can act pretty quickly. That is why the president, based upon frustration, is doing this 'we can't wait.' … Let's re-emphasize what powers we have! What we can do on our own! Push the envelope!"
When asked if Obama would be happy being a one-term president, as he has suggested in the past, Daly said, "Nope, no, absolutely not! I think he'd be angry! Pi**ed! Unhappy! Frustrated!"
Obama and his radical allies will either rule this country or they will wreck it!
-------------
Gary Bauer is is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
Tags: Barack Obama, immigration reform, Push The Envelope, Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working FamiliesTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Jobs Bills
The U.S. Senate is not in session this week' it is Senate constituent work week. When they return will the Senate democrat leadership push the bipartisan House-Passed Jobs Bill or Stimulus Bill which has bipartisan opposition?
The House Judiciary committee approved a bipartisan bill to eliminate nation quotas for green cards and to provide more highly skilled workers for high-tech industry. The House bill would amend current law and eliminate the cap entirely for employment-based green cards, which could alleviate a backlog of qualified workers in China and India sought by U.S. companies. Current law provides that family-sponsored and employment-based green cards cannot exceed 75vof the total number of green cards made available each year. Because of the caps on green cards and some countries having more skilled workers that America wants, eligible workers must wait longer for visas from some countries. Question: With high unenployment in the United States, don't we have enough "skilled" workers looking for jobs?
Bloomberg News writes today, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will return to Washington next week under pressure to advance legislation repealing a requirement that governments withhold 3 percent of payments to contractors. The House of Representatives passed the repeal legislation yesterday, 405-16, and also passed a bill that would offset the repeal by changing provisions of the 2010 health-care law. President Barack Obama has said he would sign both measures. . . . Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said the chamber should vote on the repeal with the House offset next week. ‘The Senate should take this up next week, without any poison pills, and send it to the president for his signature,’ McConnell said in an e-mailed statement yesterday. ‘Let’s vote on it and prove the skeptics wrong by acting in a bipartisan fashion.’”
Yet despite strong bipartisan support for this bill—it was one of the few bipartisan proposals in President Obama’s new economic plan—Senate Democrat leaders filibustered a bill to implement this proposal offered by Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) that had several Democrat cosponsors last week. Politico noted, “Senate Republicans tried to push a similar repeal of the withholding rule last week but fell three votes short of overcoming a Democratic-led filibuster. The problem there was that Democrats opposed $30 billion in discretionary spending cuts that had been attached to the plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called that move by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a ‘stunt,’ although Reid said he supports the repeal.”
Next week, majority Senate Democrats will have an opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that can help job creators. But according to The Hill, “Senate Democrats will try to pass President Obama’s $60 billion infrastructure bill next week, despite the past opposition of a powerful Democratic chairwoman to a major component of the legislation. The bill includes $10 billion for a national infrastructure bank, even though Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said last year she would ‘never’ support such a proposal. . . . Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) opposed a similar infrastructure-heavy stimulus proposal last year when he was in the midst of one of the nation’s toughest Senate races.”
This begs the question" will Senate Democrat leaders push another stimulus bill that has bipartisan opposition, or will they instead join with Senate Republicans and a large bipartisan majority of the House and pass a bill to ease the regulatory burden on contactors that has bipartisan support?
Tags: Washington, D.C., US House, US Senate, jobs, job bills To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Executive Disorders
by A.F. Branco:
Tags: Executive Order, executive orders, Obama incompetence, Obama Spending, Obama's jobsspeech, Obamas Jobs tour, A.F. Branco, political cartoon To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Tags: Executive Order, executive orders, Obama incompetence, Obama Spending, Obama's jobsspeech, Obamas Jobs tour, A.F. Branco, political cartoon To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Thursday, October 27, 2011
On Obama's Student Loan Plan
Today in Washington, D.C. - Oct 27, 2010
The US Senate is not in session this week' it is Senate constituent work week.
Yesterday,the House passed (405-16), repealing a requirement that governments withhold 3% of payments to contractors in the 2010 health-care law. The tax would have created an estimated $11 billion in windfall federal tax revenue. The House intended to close this revenue gap via another bill tightening eligibility requirements for Medicaid and other health programs. The Democrat controlled Senate did not agree on an offset to repealing this 3% before adjourning for this week's recess. If the Senate next week takes up the House bill and passes it as is, it is expected that President Obam would sign the repeal bill.
The New York Times writes, “President Obama on Wednesday ended a three-day Western trip that was heavier on politics than policy, rallying thousands of college students whose enthusiasm belied the struggle he will have to win this state again in 2012. Continuing his ‘we can’t wait’ theme against Republicans’ opposition to his legislative agenda, Mr. Obama promoted the latest in what will be a series of executive actions not requiring Congress’s approval — new rules to expedite and ease repayment terms for graduates burdened with federal student loans.”
But The Atlantic’s Daniel Indiviglio took a look at President Obama’s proposals and found them underwhelming, at best. He writes that the president’s plan would “clear the way for borrowers with direct government loans and government-backed private loans to consolidate their balances. The White House estimates that this will cut the effective interest rate on student loans by up to 0.5%. . . . How much would an interest rate reduction of up to 0.5% affect payments? For the average borrower, the impact would be small. In 2011, Bachelor’s degree recipients graduating with debt had an average balance of $27,204, according to an analysis done by finaid.org, based on Department of Education data. That average has ballooned from just $17,646 over the past decade. Using these values as the high and low bounds of average student debt over the last ten years, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month. Clearly, this isn’t going to save the economy. While borrowers with bigger balances would save more, this is the average. And even someone with $100,000 in loans would only cut their monthly payments by $28.50.”
Indiviglio concludes, “By calling for these measures, President Obama seeks to respond directly to young Americans stressed about their student loans. . . . But from a practical standpoint, these executive orders won’t have much of an impact.”
On Fox News last night, Charles Krauthammer was characteristically blunter: “It’s entirely incoherent. . . . What [President Obama] spoke about today was tweaking the student loan program, which he now controls. In a way, that’s rather astonishing. The numbers were run by an economics correspondent today in The Atlantic magazine. And it turns out what he is offering these students is between $4.50 and $7.70 a month of relief. . . . If his audience had known how miniscule is the benefit, he would have been laughed out of that auditorium.”
Tags: Washington, D.C. Obama, student loan plan, news To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The US Senate is not in session this week' it is Senate constituent work week.
Yesterday,the House passed (405-16), repealing a requirement that governments withhold 3% of payments to contractors in the 2010 health-care law. The tax would have created an estimated $11 billion in windfall federal tax revenue. The House intended to close this revenue gap via another bill tightening eligibility requirements for Medicaid and other health programs. The Democrat controlled Senate did not agree on an offset to repealing this 3% before adjourning for this week's recess. If the Senate next week takes up the House bill and passes it as is, it is expected that President Obam would sign the repeal bill.
The New York Times writes, “President Obama on Wednesday ended a three-day Western trip that was heavier on politics than policy, rallying thousands of college students whose enthusiasm belied the struggle he will have to win this state again in 2012. Continuing his ‘we can’t wait’ theme against Republicans’ opposition to his legislative agenda, Mr. Obama promoted the latest in what will be a series of executive actions not requiring Congress’s approval — new rules to expedite and ease repayment terms for graduates burdened with federal student loans.”
But The Atlantic’s Daniel Indiviglio took a look at President Obama’s proposals and found them underwhelming, at best. He writes that the president’s plan would “clear the way for borrowers with direct government loans and government-backed private loans to consolidate their balances. The White House estimates that this will cut the effective interest rate on student loans by up to 0.5%. . . . How much would an interest rate reduction of up to 0.5% affect payments? For the average borrower, the impact would be small. In 2011, Bachelor’s degree recipients graduating with debt had an average balance of $27,204, according to an analysis done by finaid.org, based on Department of Education data. That average has ballooned from just $17,646 over the past decade. Using these values as the high and low bounds of average student debt over the last ten years, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month. Clearly, this isn’t going to save the economy. While borrowers with bigger balances would save more, this is the average. And even someone with $100,000 in loans would only cut their monthly payments by $28.50.”
Indiviglio concludes, “By calling for these measures, President Obama seeks to respond directly to young Americans stressed about their student loans. . . . But from a practical standpoint, these executive orders won’t have much of an impact.”
On Fox News last night, Charles Krauthammer was characteristically blunter: “It’s entirely incoherent. . . . What [President Obama] spoke about today was tweaking the student loan program, which he now controls. In a way, that’s rather astonishing. The numbers were run by an economics correspondent today in The Atlantic magazine. And it turns out what he is offering these students is between $4.50 and $7.70 a month of relief. . . . If his audience had known how miniscule is the benefit, he would have been laughed out of that auditorium.”
Tags: Washington, D.C. Obama, student loan plan, news To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Meeks: My Thoughts on the Arkansas Highway Bond Issue
At this time, I am planning on voting against this proposal and here are the reasons why:
1) Its debt. Instead of going into debt to pay for our roads, we need to transition to a pay as we go system. This will force us to make some tough decisions, but I believe it will be best for our state in the long run. At the end of this post, I have provided potential solutions that our state should look at.
2) Economic uncertainty. Because of the current and expected future state of the economy over the next several years, there is a chance that the current 4 cent sales tax and the amount that the Federal Government sends to the state will not be enough to cover the payment of the bond leaving the Arkansas taxpayers to come up with additional funds to repay the bond.
In addition, as far as I am aware there is no cap on the interest rate of the bonds. While the current rate is around 3%, there is no guarantee that they will be this low when the bonds are issued over the next several years. A higher rate will amount to the Arkansas taxpayers paying more in interest.
Please read this article: D.C. Gridlock Imperils Garvees
Garvee bond ratings are at risk from the increasingly unpredictable budget and policy process in Washington, Standard & Poor’s warned in a report released Friday.3) Timing. I believe that this is an issue that should be decided at a regularly scheduled election like the primary in May or the General in November of next year. By scheduling a special election in November of this year, there is an additional cost to hold the election.
The agency said it retained a stable outlook on all of the Garvees it rates. But in its report, it said, “We believe there are several potential risks that if realized alone or in combination, might cause us to reevaluate the ratings on some or all of our Garvee bonds.”
For those who would like to see an opposite viewpoint, please read . . .
List updated by ARRA News Service editor:
- Bell: GARVEE Renewal is the Fiscally Conservative Option on November 8th
- Coleman: Good Roads Are Essential To Good Business in Arkansas
- FACTS ABOUT THE 1999 AND 2011 BOND PROPOSALS from the AHTD 10/24/11
So how do we fix our roads? There are two recommendations I would make as a starting point:
1) Transportation 2011 Summit Report: From the summit: Commissioner Jim Simpson, New Jersey DOT, and Secretary Sean Connaughton, Virginia DOT, shared what is happening in their respective states’ transportation systems during The Voice of Our State DOT Directors Special General Session. They addressed bold initiatives their states are taking to find innovative methods of improving, maintaining, and maximizing transportation systems by doing more with less in the best interest of the state.
I was able to listen in on this conversation and will be looking at some of the innovative ways these two states are using to tackle their transportation needs.
2) Summary of Recommendations, Murphy AHTD Report:
1. Re-direct more existing resources (on a fast-track basis) to Arkansas' Interstates and restore them to first class condition.
2. Redirect a greater portion of ED funds to upgrading major arteries and interstates.
3. Encourage public policy at the Federal level to accomplish the following:
- Require states to certify that at least 90% of their existing urban and suburban highways are in good condition before allowing them to undertake new construction.
- Support a joint state/federal effort, through Congress, toward the establishment of a national goal for improving the condition of our interstate Highway system, and provide incentives to states to meet these goals.
5. Have the Director of AHTD report to the Governor and serve at the Governor's pleasure. Subject the hiring of the Director to the Highway Commission's consent, plus Senate confirmation.
6. Restructure the Highway Commission to provide for eight members, geographically chosen and serving four year terms appointed by the Governor. No more than five members may be from the same political party. (Another option worthy of discussion is providing for Commissioners to be elected. Either way--bi-partisan composition should be mandatory).
7. Concentrate highway priorities and resource allocations where the greatest needs and economic development potential occurs. To better affect this, move to a planning and resource system model aimed at greater objectivity in determination of priorities and distribution of resources. Sub-recommendations (#7)
- AHTD should develop and use a dynamic computer model to assure a wholly objective determination of construction and maintenance priorities for the state. The model should embody a uniform system for allocation of projected costs to planned construction and maintenance of highways, roads and bridges and fully integrate with a system of performance-based budgeting and activities-based-cost accounting.
- A public report on priorities should be shared regularly in periodicals and the media, as well as be made available on the internet (would include progress on construction underway).
- The design of the model should be contracted out and overseen by both a reliable independent accounting firm and the state's audit committee (should one be put in place as recommended in other Murphy Reports)
- The Governor should task an accountability and performance advisory group with conducting a nationwide search to retain the finest team of "cost conscience" transportation experts in the country to design the model planning and resource system for Arkansas. They should also design (outside of AHTD) the base inputs and outputs comprising the system. The goal should be to make this a "best practices" model that other states would want to consider using.
9. As a matter of control and oversight, the Governor, through an independent audit committee (such a body has been recommended in another Murphy study), should also contract for the periodic independent review by an independent accounting firm with the requisite expertise. It would randomly review selected highway system job cost estimates, design specs, and jobs in progress.
10. AHTD should demonstrate to the public a "good faith effort" to substantially reduce operating costs.
Cost Saving Recommendations, AHTD
1. Restore control of 5000 miles currently in the state's 16,288 mile system to county or municipal government jurisdictions for maintenance and upkeep. Possible savings or efficiencies: $13-$16 million annually.
2. Eliminate 5 of the 10 existing AHTD District Offices and 54 of 82 field offices across the state. Possible savings or efficiencies: $5 million (An additional $4 million in maintenance expenditures and about $1 million in administrative and overhead costs).
3. Integrate the existing Arkansas Highway Police organization, currently an integral division of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, into the Arkansas' State Police organization. Possible savings or efficiencies: $2.5 million.
4. Offload a number of roadside parks, and explore opportunities under TEA 21 to privatize existing interstate rest areas. Possible savings or efficiencies: (including those acted already): $1.3 million per year plus an estimated one time savings of $11.7 million in rehab costs.
*The Murphy Commission would also have recommended not spending $19 million for roadside park electronic surveillance, which becomes unnecessary in light of 12 parks to be closed, as decided by AHTD.
5. Scale back AHTD's workforce by 5%. Possible savings or efficiencies: $8.8 million.
6. Explore the efficacy of outsourcing more in-house programs at AHTD: Possible savings or efficiencies: $1.8 million.
7. Integrate AHTD's stand-alone retirement system into the existing State Public Employees Retirement system. Possible savings or efficiencies: $2.1 million.
8. Discontinue redundant AHTD auditing of motor fuel suppliers. (Department of Finance and Administration audits them). Possible savings or efficiencies: $150,000 to $200,000.
9. Exempt AHTD (and other state agencies as well) from paying state and local sales taxes. Possible savings or efficiencies: $4.3 million.
10. Miscellaneous Recommendations: Sell AHTD 'twin engine aircraft: Projected Savings:$160,000 per year and $2.6 million from the sale of the aircraft.
Reduce by 400 the number of state-owned vehicles assigned to department employees. Projected Savings: $1 million per year.
End funding to the Good Roads Council, $20,000 per year in savings.
Summary of total savings: $39,160,000 to $42,160,000
One-time Savings: $14,300,000
Total Projected Savings: $53,460,000 to $56,460,000
As always, I am open to other ideas and solutions to any of the other issues we have here in Arkansas.
--------
Arkansas State Representative David Meeks represent District 46, The Conway, Arkansas area.
Tags: Arkansas, Representative, David Meeks, Highway Bonds, vote on bonds To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!