Why The Supercommittee Was Doomed

It's confession time. The eventual outcome of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as "the Supercommittee", was so obvious that I wrote most of this blog two weeks ago. There was no reason why there would be an outcome other than failure.

The Supercommittee was composed of twelve members, evenly divided among the bicameral Congress and evenly subdivided among the two major political parties. It was supposed to be a tool for getting around the stalemate between the Democrat-controlled US Senate and the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives.

Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Image via Wikipedia

There is a non-profit, non-partisan, conservative organization called The Club for Growth. It measures the economic policy votes cast by members of Congress. Members favor low tax rates, free trade, limited spending, repeal of the inheritance tax and regulatory reform among other things. You may or may not agree with their positions, but they issue a scorecard that is a convenient measuring stick for the comparison of the Supercommittee members' approach to taxes and spending.

In the following paragraph is a list of members, their home state and their party affiliation. In parenthesis are their lifetime Club for Growth ratings. I've included this as a way for readers to see where members stand relative to each other. Two members have not been in office long enough to have a rating. You may wish to know that Senator Toomey, one of those two members, is a former head of Club for Growth. So though Toomey does not have a rating, if you pencil in 100%, you would likely be very close.

Shared Sacrifice - Really? Let's Do It!

The calls from the Democrats such as President Barack Obama is for "shared sacrifice" and Harry Reid (D-Fantasyland) has introduced a resolution on the "Sense of the Senate" regarding Shared Sacrifice. In Harry's resolution he cherry picks some facts contrasting the middle class with the wealthiest one percent of Americans. It's typical class warfare and why I feel absolutely entitled to refer to Democrats as "socialists."

Sadly for poor Harry, he just doesn't understand that he's calling for what the TEA Party and other small-government conservatives want: Shared Sacrifice. The difference is that conservatives want shared sacrifice from the real fat cat in this country - the federal government.

A Tiny Victory in a Long War

Now is not the time for back-slapping. This weekend, conservatives merely won a small, though significant, concession from Democrats. While $38 billion is only two percent of the projected 2011 deficit, it did change the focus of the American people. The emphasis is now on deficit reduction, not shifting funds from program to program.

As for the real budget debate, we are just beginning. Remember that the most recent conflict was because Democrats failed to pass – or to attempt to pass – a budget for 2011. The 2011 budget was due by October of 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Rather than use their huge majorities to pass an overgrown budget that would outrage the American public, they simply passed a huge increase in the federal debt ceiling. There was no budget or responsibility but the spending binge continued.

The debate for 2012 will be even more contentious, partly because the Presidential election is in 2012. The 2012 budget is due by October of this year and the debt limit will have to be addressed even before then.

President Obama has already asked for “a clean bill” to authorize an increase in federal debt without any restrictions. This asks Congress to surrender its responsibility for oversight. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has already stated that any increase in the federal debt would only be passed with significant changes that address the source of our debt. This illuminates two views of government.

The difference is that Democrats want to find a way to be more efficient while keeping – or even growing – the size of government. There have been no suggestions from Democrat leadership to reduce the size of the federal government. That’s not hyperbole; they have made zero proposals to reduce the size of government. This Republican-led House, while more timid than many would like, is striving to reduce the size of the federal government.

So, why are Democrats still seeking to spend more of our resources on government programs that we obviously cannot afford? I believe that some still have the mindset that the economy requires federal programs to prop up the economy. While this is neither logical nor reasonable, there are leftists who have no faith in individuals.

My concern is those who cynically grow the government to increase their own power and influence. You can usually tell them because they know they are wrong and can’t rely on facts to support their positions. They tell lies continually to denigrate their opponents instead of addressing issues. If you are thinking of President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi then we’re on the same page. I won’t begin listing the falsehoods knowingly told by this trio regarding the economy. That would fill a book and I don’t have the inclination or the space.

This budget debate will be a fight for our future, so do not let numbers frighten you away. Either continued government growth or rising debt will destroy our nation; our path has been to increase both. If we fail to stop this trend, our nation will sink into mediocrity weighed down by chains of debt while our children will grow into adulthood in a second-class country, ignorant of American exceptionalism. I see no alternative other than to win this fight.

You will be needed. The battle lines are drawn. Paul Ryan has authored the battle plan for conservatives and it is a good, bold plan. It’s not perfect, but adjustments should be made by applying additional cuts, not increased taxes.

An important note to conservatives in Congress: Please do not fall into the false concept that the government is the country. Shutting down the government is not shutting down the country. It’s better to rebel and crash the government than to fatally harm our country. If it’s necessary, you won’t be the first to make that courageous decision.

It’s time. Let’s roll.

14 Hours, 29 Minutes, 49 Seconds Of Democrat Sacrifice

Want to see a pale, frightened Democrat run screaming from a room? Forget about Dracula, tsunamis and rabid divorce attorneys. Just mention tax cuts or spending cuts or program cuts. That’s all you have to do. Honest.

In February alone, the US had a deficit of $222.5 billion. To put things in perspective, the Democrats could only suggest $4.8 billion in tax cuts for the entire year. If you do the math, these cuts would have balanced federal spending in February for just 14 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds. Let’s be clear, this is only the difference it would take to make up for the deficit, not actually pay for anything.

Even this miniscule spending reduction sent Democrats such as John Kerry (People’s Republic of Massachusetts) into a frenzy. If Kerry was a Southerner (perish the thought), then we would have said that he’d had a “hissy fit”.

Meanwhile other Democrats are saying that the only way to begin balancing the budget is to immediately attack entitlement spending. This is the same tactic the Left uses at the local level when it always suggests the most popular programs be reduced first: police, fire protection, garbage collection, etc. At the national level, the reductions that frighten the most people are entitlements. Same old Democrats, same old masculine bovine fecal material, different government level.

The time has come when it is no longer sufficient to laugh at the left’s demagoguery and wonder why anyone would elect these intellectually weak, pandering politicos. We must make the federal government more responsive and responsible. The longer we wait to take action, then the more severe the action and the consequences will be when we have no choice but to act. It’s our government and it must be brought to heel.

In the meantime, I suppose we should thank the liberals in the Congress for taking our debt crisis seriously enough to find those 14 hours, 29 minutes and 49 seconds of savings. What a laudatory sacrifice! Perhaps if the Democrat majority had actually passed a budget last year then more spending reductions could have been found. By the way, I hope you don’t believe that, because I certainly don’t.

The Economy Strikes Back

When it comes to running the country, left wing politicos have more morally corrupt ideas than an imaginative college freshman stranded on a desert island with nothing but Angelina Jolie, Katy Perry and an industrial-size barrel of Wesson Oil. There are two differences though. First, the three castaways won’t spend your retirement funds and your kids’ college tuition money while telling you to “go along or go to jail.” Second, the college freshman won’t spend his spare time trying to run an economy he doesn’t understand while taking some citizens’ money and giving it to other citizens.

I’m not the first to say it, but Congress has a spending problem. I’ve seen cats in a field of catnip who display more self-control. It’s time to free the economy: reduce regulations, reduce spending and get out of the way.

The ugly truth is that no matter how ridiculous or specialized a Congressional spending item is, there is someone who will scream bloody murder if that item is cut from the budget. Understand that someone was influential enough to get that silly item put in the budget to begin with, so chances are someone in Congress will listen when the wailing begins. There is no such thing as a painless reduction in federal spending and that’s what Congress is hoping for. Guess what, Washington? The Great Pumpkin ain’t comin’ this year, either.

To reduce the federal budget is going to be painful, but it must be done. Freezing our spending levels, as President Obama suggested, will not work and neither will timid reductions of spending. Put down the paring knife and pick up the cleaver.

The argument is going to be that it took years to raise federal spending to this level so it will take years to reduce it. That is wrong and a non-starter. The more quickly we reduce spending, the less painful the overall result will be.

It’s not a matter of trimming programs. It’s a matter of cutting entire programs. Programs which are outside the scope of the federal budget need to be completely scrapped. Hello and goodbye to the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, a whole bunch of subsidies and regulatory restrictions that benefit some special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers. And that is the beginning of the beginning.

One thing that can be done that will have an effect within 18 months: “Drill here, Drill now, Pay less.” Directional drilling from existing oil platforms can be used and we can see a domestic oil production increase that soon. In the meantime, drop ethanol subsidies.

Subsidies for ethanol can be immediately scrapped and I’m sure Archer-Daniels-Midland will recover nicely. Less expensive cereals, milk and beef will be the result of canning that failed experiment and American families can use that reduction in food prices. Corn was never, ever the best source of ethanol, but even if we used better sources, such as sugar cane, the government would still have to subsidize ethanol and that’s an expense we can drop. As Thomas Jefferson said, “If we were directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should all want bread.”

This is no time for sacred cows. Fire up the grill and let the slaughter begin – with absolutely no apologies to the PC Police. It’s time to be honest. This is a real crisis. Not the namby-pamby “crises” that liberals evoke every few years. The economy is now our enemy. We abused it in such dire fashion, that I can’t blame it. Debt is about to lay waste to our country and the federal government has been encouraging it to do so for over 70 years.

There are many other federal programs and subsidies that can be terminated immediately. While Congress is at it, they should also look at regulations which are unnecessary and negatively impact businesses. I wonder if the country is ready for “Free the Economy” bumper stickers. I think it’s about time.

When You Wish Upon a Star

President Barack Obama is about to define himself with his first state of the union address. I don't mean politically. We know that President Obama likes big government. In fact, we know that he prefers the machinations of the government over the deliberations of the citizens. By anyone's reasonable definition, Barack Obama is a Progressive.

Barack Obama is about to define himself in a fundamentally more important way, in terms of his ability to be honest with the American people. Will he address real issues in a meaningful way, offering solutions that are most likely to work? Or will he cherry pick issues, and frame those in ways that fit his philosophy of government intervention, more spending and less individual freedom?

Will Obama take responsibility for his own mistakes or will he continue to blame predecessor George W. Bush? Tellingly, within the last few days, Obama has referred to “the last eight years” negatively; conveniently forgetting that the last of those years was the first year of the Obama Administration. President Obama continues to blame the now-retired George W. Bush, who is probably not simply retired but would be best described as “happily retired.”

I would like to see Obama meaningfully address unemployment, the housing market, homeland security, government bailouts of private industries, health care reform and the lack of promised transparency surrounding health care reform. I'd like to see him do so with candor and honesty, parceling out blame and credit fairly and honestly. I fully expect to be disappointed.