The argument between Rep. Forbes and Obama official Zients shows the Obama Administration’s firm committment to higher taxes on the American people.  Clearly, the drafters of the debt limit deal wanted defense cuts to put pressure on Republicans to hike taxes through the threat of across the board cuts to defense spending. 

Some Republicans have gone wobbly on the idea of cutting other programs to pay for the suspension of the defense sequester.  Yet most conservatives in the House and Senate are prepared to hold the line against tax increases to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the Obama Administration and liberals in Congress to increase the size of the federal government.

Congressional Democrats are pushing hard for a combination of promised future spending cuts and immediate tax hikes to avert about $600 billion in defense cuts over the next ten years.  The plan is to use the defense cuts to force Republicans to compromise themselves on tax policy by violating the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  This pledge is the Americans for Tax Reform pledge that many House and Senate members have signed to promise not to impose tax hikes on the American people.

The Washington Post describes the hearing as “at times highly partisan.”  The Post describes the automatic cuts as follows:

The automatic cuts were designed to be painful. They were embedded in last year’s deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling as a sword to hold over a special congressional deficit reduction supercommittee. If the committee failed to come up with a bipartisan deal to cut deficits by $1.2 trillion, the budget would face an automatic whack of that amount over 10 years, split evenly between defense and domestic programs.

Now liberals are using that sword to threaten Republicans with a false choice — accept deep across the board defense cuts or raise taxes.  There are other options like Senator Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) Sequestration Prevention Act.  The legislation would repeal ObamaCare and block grant Medicare for a savings of $1.1 trillion over ten years.  Furthermore, Inhofe’s plan would reduce some non-defense discretionary programs, block grant food stamps, reduce the federal workforce, enact some tort reform and repeal global warming related activities.  All without a tax hike.

Rep. Forbes asked Zients during the House Armed Services Committee hearing ”do you believe it was reasonable to use a draconian method such as sequestration to force Congress to do anything.”  After some back and forth Zients responded “there are five months remaining for Congress to act. What is holding us up right now is the Republican refusal to have the top 2 percent pay their fair share.”  In other words, Republicans need to hike taxes or the Obama Administration will slash defense spending.  Zients also refused to say where the Obama Administration was planning to cut defense.

Conservatives need to stand strong with Rep. Forbes and Sen. Inhofe to undo the defense sequester, cut waste in the federal budget, and not hike taxes to feed the growing federal government.

Thanks to the announced opposition of these two senators, there are now 34 publicly pledged votes against LOST. To pass a treaty in the Senate, the treaty needs a 2/3rds vote or 67 senators if all vote. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has circulated a letter with 31 senators pledged to vote no on the treaty. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) has a statement on his website saying that he will also vote no bringing the number to 32. Add in Portman and Ayotte, and then you have 34 votes against the treaty.

Three more cheers for Senators DeMint and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) for working so hard to defeat LOST.  The Law of the Sea Treaty is dead for the year.

Portman and Ayotte write in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.):

Recently, there has been renewed interest in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty completed in 1982 and modified in 1994. After careful consideration, we have concluded that on balance this treaty is not in the national interest of the United States. As a result, we would oppose the treaty if it were called up for a vote.

The senators argue that it is an “admirable” goal to codify “the U.S. Navy’s navigational rights and defining American economic interests in valuable offshore resources.” The LOST goes way beyond this specific outcome.

But the treaty’s terms reach well beyond those good intentions. This agreement is striking in both the breadth of activities it regulates and the ambiguity of obligations it creates. Its 320 articles and over 200 pages establish a complex regulatory regime that applies to virtually any commercial or governmental activity related to the oceans — from seaborne shipping, to drug and weapon interdiction, to operating a manufacturing plant near a coastal waterway.

The senators also worry that “the terms of the treaty are not only expansive, but often ill-defined,” potentially binding the U.S. to unwritten and unknown requirements:

Article 194, for example, broadly requires nations to “take … all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source, using for this purpose the best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities.” Article 207 decrees that “[s]tates shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources … taking into account internationally agreed rules.” Article 293 empowers tribunals to enforce not only the treaty provisions but also “other rules of international law not incompatible with [the treaty].”

The LOST was a bad idea from the start. The treaty is bad for American energy policy and unnecessary for the U.S. Navy. It creates more problems than it solves. Thank goodness Portman and Ayotte have stepped up to the plate to protect American sovereignty and pledged to opposed this wrong-headed idea.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal piece by 2021, health care spending will be almost one fifth of the whole U.S. economy.  In nine years, the government share will be about half.

By 2021, health-care spending is likely to be nearly a fifth of the U.S. economy, at 19.6% of gross domestic product, up from 17.9%, or roughly a sixth, in 2010. The government share of the spending also would be greater, at nearly 50%, up from 46%, mostly because of the anticipated growth in Medicare enrollment.

The government is projected to spend more on health care than the private sector.  That is a degree of socialism that is accelerating under ObamaCare and will cause the health care providers to be less responsive to consumers. 

HSAs are a force for good in health care markets and have been a positive element of the market since their creation in 2003.  An HSA is an account that individuals can set up to earn tax free health care funds on an annual basis.  They have been increasing in use since the day they were created. 

The idea behind these private accounts is to empower the consumer to make decisions on how to spend tax exempt dollars. Clearly, the last bastion of free market forces with the existence of HSAs is a threat to government run health care.  As a result, government bureaucrats are targeting HSAs for death.

HSAs provide quality medical coverage at the direction of the policyholder — not the government or insurance company bureaucrats.  That is why liberals hate them. 

HSAs provide power to the consumer to make health care choices.  People who have them, love them, because it empowers the consumer to make their own choices. 

It should not come as a surprise that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is promulgating regulations that could rip 5 million policies out of the hands of small business plans and individuals.  Known as “Medical Loss Ratio,” these new regulations will make it nearly impossible for individuals or small businesses to use HSAs in the ObamaCare health exchanges.   

Many states will resist setting up ObamaCare exchanges for fear that the federal government will use these exchanges to control state based health care policy.  The battle over full repeal of ObamaCare will be fought into the fall elections, yet the bureaucrats in the Obama Administration will be working overtime to implement a law they hope will not be repealed by the voters this fall.

This crushing of free market HSAs is consistent with the liberal idea of creeping socialism.  They will not exterminate the free market in one day, or even one year, but over a long drawn out period of time.  The slow creep to socialism is difficult to stop, because it is incremental and done in small steps and by quiet bureaucrats who you will never hear about.

We all known that ObamaCare was built on a foundation of deceit but one promise made by the president was perfectly clear — he said that if you liked your plan and wanted to keep it — you could.  Add this to the long list of broken Obama promises.  Apparently Obama’s promise to allow you to keep your plan will not extend to HSAs should this new “Medical Loss Ratio” rule be implemented by Obama’s HHS Department.

Now that the Supreme Court has tossed another roadblock in the way of full repeal of ObamaCare, conservatives need to dig in and defend HSAs as one of the few remaining free market ideas left that provides consumers with the power over health care decisions. 

Many conservatives understand that ObamaCare was drafted in such a way as to deftly move people out of the private health market and into a government-run system.  Individuals and small business HSAs policyholders appear to be the first guinea pig in this experiment.

Congress needs to make sure to play defense on the free market and make sure that HSAs are not the next casualty of government centered health care.

Eric Fehrnstrom, Spokesman for Mitt Romney, said on MSNBC earlier this week that Romney “believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty, and he disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”  There is nothing inherently non-conservative about this statement.  Believing that the individual mandate is not a tax is consistent with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito’s opinion that the individual mandate is not a proper exercise of the federal government’s taxing power.

Today, Mitt Romney walked back Fehrnstrom’s statement with his own declaration that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is a tax.  Conservatives should not be so hung up on the declaration of the individual mandate being called a tax or a penalty.  The goal is complete and total repeal of ObamaCare. 

Romney can call the individual mandate a tax or a penalty as long as he stays committed to full repeal.

Some conservatives can’t accept Chief Justice John Robert’s declaration that the individual mandate is a tax, therefore constitutional.  If you accept that the ObamaCare individual mandate is a tax, then you have accepted Robert’s twisted interpretation of the plain language of ObamaCare calling the individual mandate a “penalty.” You also have to accept that this new sweeping mandate forcing citizens to purchase private sector health insurance as a proper exercise of the federal government’s taxing power.  

Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute wrote on Scotusblog that Robert’s put a new spin on the word “tax.”

Well, as even Fox News and CNN now know, Chief Justice John Roberts put a new gloss on Congress’s taxing power just as he rediscovered the meaning of the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clauses.  In 13 cryptic pages, Roberts fashioned a not-quite-silk purse out of a sow’s ear, salvaging—to continue the porcine metaphor—Obamacare’s bacon from the constitutional flames.  That is, the Chief Justice recharacterized a provision explicitly stating that people “shall” obtain health insurance or pay a “penalty” into a “choice,” a “tax citi­zens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.”

Furthermore, it makes little sense for the individual mandate not to be a tax for purposes of application of the Anti-Injunction Act, an act that strips the Courts of jurisdiction to hear tax cases until a tax is levied, yet a constitutional use of Congress’ taxing power.  It is understandable for some conservatives, this one included, to hold to the belief that the individual mandate is not a constitutional exercises of the taxing authority of the federal government.  Four right thinking justices on the U.S. Supreme Court agree.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) put out a press statement after that he believes ObamaCare to still be unconstitutional.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right. Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.

If the Supreme Court replaced a conservative with a liberal and repealed the holdings in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is an individual right applied to the States, the Second Amendment would not  be abolished.  The natural right of people to protect themselves would still be constitutional.  The Court would not recognize the right, but it would still exist.  There are freedoms that are not subject to the whims of nine justices on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court does not have the last word on this subject.  The opinion of the Court may stand for generations, yet the people can send a new slate of federally elected officials to repeal the law.  The people can repeal ObamaCare, even after the Supreme Court has declared it constitutional.  Members of Congress and the President take an oath to the Constitution and they may have a different interpretation of the Constitution’s authorized taxing power than four Supreme liberals and Chief Justice Roberts.

That is why many conservatives are reluctant to embrace the idea that the mandate is a tax.  It feels like an embrace of the Robert’s opinion in the ObamaCare case.  It feels wrong to embrace an idea that many would have laughed at a week ago.  Calling the ObamaCare individual mandate a tax is a political ploy to attack ObamaCare.  I am ok with that, but don’t believe that conservatives need to embrace the idea for fear of this embrace being used in the future to justify a further expansion of the taxing power of the federal government.

Some conservatives want a wholesale tactical pivot to concede that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is a tax for the purposes of attacking it politically, and to make it easier to repeal.  It is much easier to attack the ObamaCare individual mandate politically if you can call it a tax.  

Today, they got their wish.  Mitt Romney said that the individual mandate is a tax.  Romney then used this as an opportunity to hammer Obama for breaking his promise not to hike taxes on the middle class.

Romney, as quoted in the L.A. Times said that the individual mandate is a tax hike on the middle class.

While I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it was a tax and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There’s no way around that. You can try and say you wish they’d decided it a different way, but they didn’t. They concluded it was a tax, that’s what it is, and the American people know that. There’s no way around that. You can try and say you wish they’d decided it a different way, but they didn’t. They concluded it was a tax, that’s what it is, and the American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans.”

The President’s Solicitor General argued that the individual mandate was a tax.  By virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court accepted Obama’s arguments, this is evidence that President Obama has broken his promise to the American people not to hike taxes on the middle class. 

It also makes it easier to repeal ObamaCare if you can use the budget reconciliation procedures in Congress to repeal the mandate under the preferential treatment used for tax measures under the expedited procedures of reconciliation.  Most important being the end run around the filibuster in the Senate.

Keith Hennessey writes in the Wall Street Journal that reconciliation procedures in the Senate can be used to repeal the bulk of ObamaCare as a way to avoid a filibuster in the Senate and pass the bill with a simple majority. 

If a President Romney has cohesive and coordinated majorities in the House and Senate, a reconciliation bill could repeal the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, insurance premium and drug subsidies, tax increases (all 21 or them), Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts, its long-term care insurance program known as the Class Act, and its Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member central committee with vast powers to control health-care and health markets. Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the financial penalty enforcing the individual mandate is within Congress’s constitutional power to “lay and collect Taxes,” and that the mandate and penalty are inextricably linked. This should suffice to enable repeal, through reconciliation, of both the individual and employer mandates, and their respective penalty taxes.

Conservatives can disagree with Chief Justice John Robert’s declaration that the individual mandate in ObamaCare is a tax for constitutional purposes, yet can still attack it as a tax for the sole purpose of repealing it using reconciliation’s expedited procedures.  There is no need to pretend consistency on this point when the end goal is for a complete repeal of ObamaCare through any means necessary. This law needs to be repealed no matter how much crying comes from the left of using reconciliation for the purposes of full repeal of ObamaCare.

The bottom line is that conservatives need to not get hung up on the terminology used by Romney.  The individual mandate and every single word of ObamaCare needs to be repealed.  Call it a tax — call it a penalty — call it whatever you want.  Call it whatever gets you to full repeal.

Holder said this in response to a question about Axelrod, “there’s a political dimension to the job I have as Attorney General.”

This line of questioning is the result of information disclosed in the book Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency by Daniel Klaidman.  In 2009, Holder confronted Obama senior advisor David Alexrod because he was trying to improperly influence the Justice Department.  

According to Fox News:

Holder needs to be more forthcoming about the nature of this discussion with Axelrod.

Mike Brownfield of The Heritage Foundation (my employer) wrote a short history of LOST the day before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last Wednesday.

Back in 1982, President Ronald Reagan decided not to sign a treaty known as “Law of the Sea” (LOST), a United Nations convention that would raid America’s treasury for billions of dollars, then redistribute that wealth to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica. But today, the Obama Administration has revived that treaty, and tomorrow Senator John Kerry (D-MA) will hold hearings designed to illustrate its supposed benefits and generate support for its ratification. Without a doubt, Reagan’s decision should stand, and LOST should remain relegated to the trash bin of history.

Carroll opines that the treaty may not be necessary.  It may prove to be a back door means by which supporters of Global Warming regulations can have a United Nations sanctioned body impose binding regulations on the United States.

Asked Wednesday if LOST was “a backdoor Kyoto protocol,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replied: “It contains no obligations to implement any particular climate change policies. It doesn’t require adherence to any specific emission policies, and we would be glad to present for the record a legal analysis to that effect.” This is classic Clinton dissembling. While her statement is technically true, it is also completely non-responsive to the binding arbitration threat LOST poses to the U.S. economy.

If one needs another reason to distrust any organ of the United Nations, one need to look no further than the recent story from the New York Post titled “U.N. endorses Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe as tourism leader.”  Who is Robert Mugabe?

It is interesting to note that these short sighted leftists may be laying the table for an easy repeal of ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and extending the Bush tax cuts.  Clearly, Republicans control of the Senate is within reach (see RCP analysis of Senate polls).  There is also a 50-50 chance that Republicans win the presidency.  Liberals are trying to get rid of the one tool they would have to stop Republicans from dismantling the Obama legacy of higher taxes and more regulation.

I have to imagine that some Republicans will want to take liberals up on the offer of ridding the Senate of the filibuster in January of 2013. 

First of all, many of the voices on the left are hypocrites.  Many of the same groups calling for filibuster reform, were defending the filibuster in 2005.  When it served the purpose of obstructing President Bush’s agenda in 2005, they were 100% for the filibuster (see here).

It is ironic that Common Cause is fighting for filibuster reform.  In 2005 they were singing a different tune.

Jonathan H. Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy writes in a post titled, Common Cause’s Filibuster Flip:

In 2005, Common Cause vigorously defended the filibuster when some Republicans proposed invoking the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster of judicial nominees.  From a 2005 press release: Common Cause strongly opposes any effort by Senate leaders to outlaw filibusters of judicial nominees to silence a vigorous debate about the qualifications of these nominees, short-circuiting the Senate’s historic role in the nomination approval process. “The filibuster shouldn’t be jettisoned simply because it’s inconvenient to the majority party’s goals,” said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “That’s abuse of power.” (Hat tip: Don Surber)

Now it seems that Common Cause supports the “abuse of power.”   I did a Google search to find the text of a Common Cause press release titled “Filibuster shouldn’t be tossed aside to convenience Senate majority” and it has been taken off the web site.

Also, it is a convenient myth for Klein and opponents of the filibuster to argue that “the filibuster was a mistake.” History does not prove this assertion to be true.

John Quincy Adams wrote in his memoir that the early Senate rejected a rules change that would have limited debate, because in 1806 Vice President Aaron Burr argued that a rules change was not necessary to end debate on a question.  According to the late Senator Robert C. Byrd’s in The Senate, 1789–1989, “Henry Clay, in 1841, proposed the introduction of the ‘previous question’ but abandoned the idea in the face of opposition.”  Byrd also noted that “when Senator Stephen Douglas proposed permitting the use of the ‘previous question’ in 1850, the idea encountered substantial opposition and was dropped.” According to Byrd, “An effort to reinstitute the ‘previous question,’ on March 19, 1873, failed by a vote of 25–30.” Byrd cited the following: “Between 1884 and 1890, fifteen different resolutions were offered to amend the rules regarding limitations of debate, all of which failed of adoption.” This is evidence that the filibuster was not an accident of history, yet it was an accepted practice that was validated by Senate votes.

James Madison wrote in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 that one of the purposes of the Senate was to protect the people against the temporary feelings Members of Congress may posses.

In order to judge of the form to be given to [the Senate], it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were first to protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.

Finally, the Constitution specifically delegates rule making authority to the House and Senate in Article I, Section 5, “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.”  The filibuster is constitutional and the federal courts have no jurisdiction to litigate this political question.

To argue that supermajority votes are unconstitutional, is to ignore the many supermajority rules  as part of the statutory budget process, explicit rules of the Senate and tradition.  Today, the Senate will hold a series of votes on legislation to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank, and amendments to the legislation, with a 60 supermajority required to pass as agreed to by both parties.  This practice is commonplace in today’s Senate.

The Senate and House frequently have votes on matters that are subject to supermajority votes.  In the House, a suspension of the rule vote is a supermajority vote.  In the Senate there are 60 vote points of order, suspension of the rules and a supermajority to shut off debate are a weekly occurrence.

The big question is whether this full court press by the left is merely setting up a liberal talking point that Republicans are obstructionists or if this is a serious effort to set the table for changing the filibuster rule.

The Export-Import Bank was created in 1934 by FDR to facilitate trade between the United States and other nations.  It has become an institution where foreign entities receive loans to buy goods from government favored U.S. companies.  The Ex-Im Bank is corporate welfare plain and simple.

House Republicans and Democrats held hands to pass this legislation on a 330-93 vote yesterday. The legislation extends the life of the Ex-Im Bank and adds $40 billion in loan authority.  The bill came over to the Senate today and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) immediately tried to pass the bill.

The Hill reports that Reid wanted to sneak the bill through the Senate without a recorded vote.

Senate Democrats are hoping to follow their counterparts in the House and quickly pass legislation renewing the Export-Import Bank on Thursday. Senate Democrats hope to pass H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act, by unanimous consent, according to a Senate Democratic aide.

It looks like many Republicans have embraced the Ex-Im Bank.  Tim Carney writes in the Washington Examiner today that Republicans are joining President Obama and Democrats to embrace crony capitalism.

On Wednesday, a large majority of Republican congressmen voted to reauthorize Ex-Im (whose current charter expires later this month) and increase to $140 billion the legal limit on taxpayer exposure from Ex-Im financing. Currently, taxpayers are exposed to nearly $100 billion in Ex-Im loans and loan guarantees. By supporting Ex-Im, instead of trying to kill it, Republicans aren’t merely calling into question the concept of free enterprise, they are passing up the chance to make President Obama’s corporate welfare a central theme of the 2012 election. The stage had been set, economically and politically, for the GOP to wage a free-market populist campaign against Obama.

Daniel Horowitz argues that  opposing crony capitalism and corporate welfare should be low hanging fruit for Republicans.

Headed into this election, we have a golden opportunity to draw a sharp contrast with Obama on the issue of government involvement on behalf of corporations, otherwise known as crony capitalism.  While we have a long way to go in educating people about the vices of personal entitlement programs, we have already won the political battle against corporate entitlements.  So why won’t Republicans pocket the victory and oppose all corporate welfare?

Good question.  I can give you my top 10 reasons to end the Export-Import Bank, yet these examples of Ex-Im incompetence have been ignored by too many right-leaning Members of Congress.

There is still a slim chance that the bill authorizing the Export-Import Bank fails in the Senate when they vote next week.  If conservatives can convince Republicans to abandon the idea that taxpayer backed loans should be used as a means to reward large corporate interest to the detriment of non-government favored corporate interests.

Conservative cheers to Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) for making a speech on the House floor discussing the reasons why it is a terrible idea to reauthorize the crony capitalist Ex-Im Bank.

A bill to reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank through 2014 with $40 billion in expanded loan authority passed on a 330-93 vote.  I penned a piece here explaining 10 good reasons why reuthorization of the Export-Import Bank is unwise and not conservative.

From The Hill

Republicans and Democrats in the House offered a rare glimpse of bipartisan cooperation on Wednesday by overwhelmingly approving legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. But 93 Republicans voted against the legislation in the 330-93 vote, highlighting conservative angst about the issue. Opponents included Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the author of the House GOP budget and a conservative seen as a leading contender to be the party’s vice presidential candidate.

One interesting political development with the passage of this bill is that now the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats can declare victory because this bill was part of the “Make It in America” agenda. 

Democrats in particular praised the bill as an element of their “Make It in America” agenda, most of which House Republicans have ignored, and welcomed the bipartisan agreement to move it ahead.

This looks like a classic lose-lose proposition for conservatives.  They lost a vote and they provided a big signing ceremony victory to the Obama Administration.  Congrats!

The only speed bump slowing the bill down before President Obama signs the bill is the United States Senate.  We shall see who in the Senate stands up against the federal government picking winners and losers through the government sanctioned Export-Import Bank.

A draft deal negotiated by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank extends the life of the bank by three years and raises its overall lending capacity to $140 billion from $100 billion, sources said. These major components are closer to the goals of the White House, the Senate Banking Committee and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than to those of opponents of the Bank such as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth.

There is nothing free market about the idea of the United States government providing loans to private companies for the purposes of competing against other private companies.  Especially when these large corporations are gaming the system with teams of lobbyists pushing Members of Congress to reauthorize this taxpayer funded slush fund for big business.  If the loans don’t pay off, taxpayers have to pick up the tab. 

The Export Import Bank was an FDR creation and reauthorizing the so called “bank” is unwise.

Below are the top ten reasons why the Crony Capitalism/Corporate Welfare bank is bad for America:

1. Export Import Bank is Corporate Welfare – Barack Obama stated publicly that the Export Import bank is ”little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”  Senator Obama was giving a speech about ceasing government programs that “don’t work” and he specifically referenced the Export Import Bank in September of 2008.  Senator Obama was correct.
2. The Export-Import Bank Provides Politically Appointed Bureucrats the power to Subsidize Politically Popular, and Sometimes not Credit Worthy, Causes – According to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) in a Washington Examiner Op Ed dated March 20, 2012, “Ex-Im, as it is known, is a federal program that gives politically appointed executives power to lend mainly to foreign companies that buy American products and services. Started decades ago with a lending cap of $5 million, like all federal programs its grown over time and now has a taxpayer subsidized $100 billion cap. Senate Democrats want to further expand it by 40% to $140 billion. Ex-Im also has specific mandates to subsidize politically-popular causes like green energy. What’s wrong with this?  In principle, it’s wrong because all companies – foreign and domestic – should compete on a level playing field, so that success goes to those companies who offer the best products and services at the lowest prices. In free market finance, we all benefit as businesses compete for investment that follows those with the best innovations, highest quality, at a price buyers are willing to pay.”
3. Conservatives Oppose Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank – According to the Conservative Action Project, “with the Federal government saddled with trillion dollars in deficits and debt the Export-Import Bank should be neither expanded nor reauthorized. We urge all organizations and individuals concerned about the size of the federal government to issue op-eds, alerts, blog posts, releases, and other communications warning about the implications of reauthorizing of the Export-Import Bank.  Time is short, therefore please do not delay.” 
4. The Export-Import Bank has Engaged in Politicized Credit – The Wall Street Journal argued on March 3, 2012 that “if  you thought Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Solyndra would teach Congress a lesson about politicized credit, think again. The federal Export-Import Bank is up for reauthorization, and the only question seems to be how much more taxpayer money Washington wants to put at risk. If the GOP wants to have a principled battle about fiscal waste and market distortions, this is a good one. The ExIm Bank—founded in 1934 to support trade with the Soviet Union, but never mind—provides taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and other services to U.S. business, especially big exporters.”
5. The Export-Import Bank Helps Foreign Companies to Compete Against US Companies - Former Congressman Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth writes in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that “the most egregious example of how dysfunctional and misguided the Ex-Im Bank’s actions really are is present in the airline industry. The bank provides financing to foreign airlines that in turn purchase American aircraft, allowing them to compete against U.S.-based carriers. These foreign companies use our subsidy to offer lower prices since American companies cannot qualify for this corporate welfare, and they, in turn, lose business.”
6. Ex-Im Funded A Bankrupt Company – The Ex-Im bank tossed $10.3 million to the now bankrupt solar panel firm Solyndra in 2011.  According to PV Tech “for the first time, Solyndra used the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) to facilitate the sale of its modules. Ex-Im Bank is guaranteeing an 18-year €7.7 million loan (U.S. $10.3 million) under its Renewable Express process that was provided by KBC Bank NV in Belgium, which meant the project financing approval was arranged in only 41 days from the receipt of the completed application to approval.”
7. Export-Import Bank Sought $3 billion bailout in 1987 – According to an LA Times story from 1987, “the Export-Import Bank will seek a $3-billion bailout from Congress next month to counter the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, the federal agency’s president said in a report published today. John A. Bohn Jr. told the New York Times that he will report to Congress next month that the bank’s capital has fallen below $1.4 billion, half its 1983 level, and will be wiped out within nine months.”
8. Export-Import Bank Staffers Engaged in Conflicts of Interest – Bloomberg reported on March 25, 2010 that “in the past two years, the (Ex-Im) bank accepted $366,865 for employee trips, according to information provided under a Freedom of Information Act request. Workers visited projects sponsored by companies including Newmont Mining Corp., ConocoPhillips, Saudi Aramco and Barrick Gold Corp. Such travel should be banned because the money may influence the bank’s decisions on billions of dollars in financing, said Craig Holman, a legislative representative at Public Citizen, an advocacy group based in Washington.”
9. The Export-Import Bank Loaned Money to Hollywood Secured by Foreign Contracts – The Club for Growth in a press release dated March 29, 2012 wrote” the Club for Growth today issued the following statement criticizing the Export-Import Bank for guaranteeing loans for the film industry.  According to a 2002 press release from the Export-Import Bank, the bank agreed to back “up to 90%” of the loans secured by foreign contracts for four independent films including:
   ·        “The United States of Leland,” a drama about a troubled youth learning about good and evil
   ·        “Lost Treasure,” an action film about a reality-based TV game show
   ·        “Global Effect,” an action film about a lethal virus
   ·        “High Voltage,” an action film about a military solar energy project gone awry. 
10. Export Import Bank May Have Loaned Money to Mexican Drug Cartels – According to WFAA in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas reported that an investigation “uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent loans that American taxpayers will have to pay for. The Export Import Bank of the United States backed the transactions, leading some to question whether the bank should exist.”  WFAA further found that “the man who lives in this posh mansion in Juarez took U.S. taxpayers for $8 million years ago and he’s still living high inside. And despite $213 million of bad loans to Mexican borrowers on the Texas border, the Export Import Bank of the United States is opening a branch in McKinney.”  The investigation found “found dozens of loans made to companies with nonexistent identities and addresses and to some people with connections to Mexican drug cartels which leads Congressman Jeb Hensarling to ask: why expand?”

It will be interesting to see how this plays out on the House floor next week.  Conservatives should keep a close eye on the progress of the reauthorization and expanded loan authority for the crony capitalist Export-Import Bank.

The FOX gas price solution show was titled “Paying at the Pump.”  Gov. Palin and Bolling rolled out some excellent ideas to combat skyrocketing gas prices.  When President Obama was sworn into office, gas was priced at $1.85 cents a gallon.  Clearly, the President’s energy policy has been an abject failure with gas prices hovering close to $4.00 a gallon. 

This show contains a comprehensive conservative means to lower gas prices.  Conservatives need to make a strong case to the American people that the solution to high prices at the pump is a conservative solution.  Get the government out of the business of hiking gas prices through wrong headed government policies.  As usual, government has caused many of the problems leading to a massive hike in gas prices and President Obama has exacerbated the problem.

It is important to note that high gas prices causes price inflation in consumer goods.  Having gas prices so high is a drag on the economy in the transportation of goods and in the production of many products.  The impact of gas prices doubling since President Obama was sworn into office is currently harming the economic future of the United States.  High gas prices hammer the middle class and low income Americans harder than the well to do.  High gas prices are a problem that needs to be addressed in the very near future or our economy shall stagnate.

The first point Palin and Bolling made in the show was that gas prices cause inflation on many other products used by Americans.  Anybody who has made a recent trip to the grocery store has felt the pinch of increasing prices.  One of the reasons why these prices are hiking is because of high fuel prices, yet another important, and lesser known factor, is the impact of environmental regulations forcing truckers to use vehicles at increased cost.  The experts on the show argued that environmentalist extremists and anti-energy policies are one of the factors hiking grocery prices.

We can all thank the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for some of the gas price inflation.  Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute wrote a blog post titled EPA-Induced refinery closures linked to high gas prices. Green cited an article in Investor’s Business Daily that put responsibility on the EPA for higher gas prices.

The untold story behind soaring pump prices is that major U.S. refineries are going out of business and creating at least regional shortages thanks in no small part to costly EPA rules. Over just the past six months, three refineries supplying about half the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel to the East Coast have closed, including two owned by Sunoco Inc. They say they simply cannot make money anymore. Philadelphia-based Sunoco’s refinery business in the Northeast has lost almost $1 billion over the past three years as U.S. demand for gas fell and the cost of foreign crude soared. But over the same period, it had to shell out “significant expenditures for environmental projects and compliance activities” to satisfy onerous EPA mandates, according to the company’s latest 10-K report. In fact, it’s spent more than $1.3 billion just to comply with stricter EPA rules, which carry stiff fines or penalties for violations. Sunoco fretted that these regulatory costs would grow exponentially under the Obama administration, which has hit some of its refineries with fines.

The federal government has passed on a $1.3 billion tax on the American consumer in the form of EPA regulations.  Regulations are a hidden tax on the American people and they limit choices.  The fact that three refineries have closed is evidence that this burdensome regulatory structure is increasing gas prices. 

One simple solution would be to suspend these regulations to see if gas prices come down and more refineries come on line.  Strip the EPA of any authority to implement the rules that are causing higher gas prices.

Of the many laughable and wrong headed ideas of the Obama Administration is the President Obama’s suggestion of getting regular tune ups and inflating tires.  This will have no impact on gas prices and is not a realistic means to solve our energy problems.  Obama has also embraced the miracle fuel of converting Algae to gas.  Yet another unproven miracle fuel idea that is not at a stage where Algae is being considered a realistic solution to our nations’ energy problems.  These Obama ideas can go in the silly category and should be treated as non-serious solutions.

One serious proposal that will increase gas prices is to impose higher taxes on the Oil and Gas industry.  The President’s idea to raise taxes on the Oil and Gas industry was rejected by the United States Senate, because it would raise prices at the pump. 

The President’s idea is to single out the manufacturing tax credit extended to the Oil and Gas industry.  A tax credit that applies to all manufacturers.  The President acts as if the federal government is subsidizing Oil and Gas, yet fails to point out that every manufacturer is allowed a 9% deduction from revenues as part of our corporate tax code.  Already, the federal government has singled out the Oil and Gas industry for a manufacturing tax credit.  An increased tax on the Oil and Gas industry will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher gas prices.; therefore the President’s removal of what he calls a tax subsidy would effectively increase gas cost at the pump for all Americans.  

Another problem identified by Gov. Palin’s segment on the Fox broadcast is that there are large swaths of the United States off limits to drilling.  Production is up on private and state properties, yet on federally controlled lands, production is not where it needs to be.  Gov. Palin made the point that in Alaska is loaded with resources that are untapped. 

Palin said on the show the following:

In the 50s oil was discovered and the Navy set aside a petroleum reserve, the NPRA, was set aside for the development of oil and gas.  That was in the 1950s, yet that unit, that land, still has never been touched.  And then in the 1960s more oil was discovered and ANWR was created.  It is a huge unit, 20 million acres, was set aside for wilderness for refuge and in mid-1980 it was expanded for oil and gas development in the coastal plain, the tipy top of ANWR.  So we have these huge swaths of land, 20 million acres in one unit and 19 million acres in another unit, reservoirs that have proven to hold oil and gas that have not been tapped yet.

If President Obama was serious about domestic oil production he would urge Congress to open up drilling in ANWR today.  Yet again the environmental extremists have won the day.  They have thwarted the Keystone pipeline and drilling in ANWR, as well as off the coast of Florida, the East Coast, the West Coast and many on land areas that could help reduce America’s dependence on oil.  According to Rayola Dougher of the American Petroleum Institute, 87% of the acreage offshore is off limits to drilling and development.

The President’s solution seems to be merely a political one.  Obama has targeted individuals who trade in futures as if they are the individuals responsible for a massive spike in gas prices.  This is consistent with his Class Warfare campaign, because he can blame Wall Street for high gas prices.  Yet again, President Obama is trying to shift blame away from his own anti-energy policies as a means to blame somebody else for the problems he has failed to solve.

President Obama needs a straw man to draw fire from his incompetent energy policy.  The President has seen fit to demonize “speculators” as if they are evil people driving up the price of gas at the pump.  The fact of the matter is that speculators are trading on the knowledge that the President’s energy policy is not going to produce more domestic sources of energy.  As good traders they are operating on the smart bet that as President Obama thwarts more domestic oil production, gas prices will go higher.

The President said earlier this week, “we can’t afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions while millions of American families get the short end of the stick.”  According to the AP, the President’s proposal to bring down gas prices contains three elements, federal supervision of oil markets, increase penalties for market manipulation and empower regulators to increase the amount of money energy graders are required to put behind their transactions.  

According to AP the following elements are included in the President’s plan:

• Increase six-fold the surveillance and enforcement staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to better deter oil market manipulation.
• Increase spending on technology to provide better oversight and surveillance of energy markets.
• Increase civil and criminal penalties against firms that engage in market manipulation from $1 million to $10 million.
• Give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission authority to increase the amount of money that a trader must put up to back a trading position. The administration officials said such authority could help limit disruptions in energy markets.

Eric Bolling stated on his show that one element of the Obama proposal may make some sense – raising the energy trading margins.  

Bolling is a guy who has some experience on the issue of futures trading.  He was on the Board of Directors (2000-2005) of the New York Mercantile Exchange (Now Chicago Mercantile Exchange) and an oil trader (1990-2007).  Bolling argued that merely using existing authorities to force Wall Street banks and other institutions trading in derrivatives to put some skin in the game would insure against reckless trading.

Maybe one of the problems we have today is the idea that the big Wall Street traders are considered “Too Big To Fail,” therefore they act as if they have an implicit insurance policy from the federal government to bail them out if the oil futures market collapses.  One solution to the problem would be for the bailout supporting Obama Administration to pledge not to bail out big Wall Street banks and trading firms if they go belly up as a result of bad energy futures trades.  That seems like a good free market solution to the problem.

Although the Dodd-Frank legislation already says that financial institutions will no longer be bailed out, and will be allowed to fail, this is not necessarily true.  The standard interpretation of this language on Wall Street is that no one needs to worry about failing any more, because a Federal bailout is assured.  It’ll just be called by some different name.

As usual, President Obama has takes the wrong tact.  He refuses to drill more on federal lands, his addiction to green energy is well known and he is not expected to renounce bailouts as a legitimate policy of the federal government.  Remember how much money Wall Street funnelled to his campaign after the 2008 Wall Street bailout.  One should not expect him, in an election year, to stick a finger in the eye of one of the sectors of the economy expected to give him $1 billion to fund his re-election campaign.

Obama is engaging in more class warfare by demonizing “Speculators” as a class of people robbing the American people.  Bolling pointed out on the show out that a simple change to the margin requirements may solve the problem.  That solution may preclude the over-broad response by the Obama Administration to the gas price problem. 

Bolling pointed out on the show that the whole world uses 83 million barrels a day.  The markets move over 4 billion barrels a day in the form of derrivatives on the market.  Bolling further pointed out that these futures are not being traded by the Saudi Arabians nor other middle eastern members of OPEC.  Also, not Shell or Gulf or any other oil company making these future trades.  The traders are the bailed out (i.e. failed) Wall Street entities that have already done lasting harm to the idea of free market capitalism with the bailouts.

Bolling pointed out that these Wall Street firms don’t have to have any skin in the game if they buy and sell an oil future in the same day.  He further pointed out that if they hold a future overnight, they only have to prove they have posted approximately a 5% against the margin of the position.  Conservatives need to understand that this is not in the form of a new regulation.  The regulations authorizing this new margin requirement already exists in the law. It is not a new additional regulation nor is it a fee.  It is merely a margin account to show the companies still own the collateral used to make these trades. 

Now some will point to the fact that exchanges already have the ability to increase margin requirements for trading positions.  They absolutely do this in volatile conditions, when they fear that traders may be taking on too much leverage, increasing their risk of failure.  Additionally, futures markets have strict daily trading limits and positions are marked to market every night.  This means people who bet wrong can generally get forced out of the market before they can bankrupt their counter-parties. 

Some will argue that if the Obama Administration comes to Congress to demand that legislation enabling regulators to impose position limits or margin requirements is pointless.  The exchanges already have a self-preservation interest in enforcing these at times of stress.  It is important to note that the Palin-Bolling plan did not call for more legislation, yet the Obama Administration is trying to get Congress to pass legislation to force regulators to make this decision. 

The President’s plan does not define “manipulation” and gives regulators the power to make subjective decisions.  How will market participants prepare for regulators curtailing otherwise-legal activities.  Having Congress implement all the aspects of the Obama proposal may make the markets all the more unstable.

Now creating a margin requirement that is too high will stifle the market and move these trades to other markets.  That would hurt the financial sector of the American economy and also do lasting harm to free market capitalism.  Bolling’s idea has merit and a reasonable margin requirement may be one element of a comprehensive plan to get gas prices under control.

The fact that the Obama Administration already has the authority that this Administration is not serious about gas prices.  They punt all the difficult decisions to Congress, yet they refuse to do anything to “Drill Baby Drill” domestically.  This Administration is firmly in support of demonizing “Speculators” and “Big Oil” by increasing taxes and comparing “Speculators” to the guys that cause the Enron scandal.

Another idea that needs an airing that didn’t make the Palin-Bolling show was devolving highway programs back to the states.  Right now the federal government collects $18.3 cents on every gallon of gas pumped in the United States.  The feds collect the taxes then dole these revenues back to the states to pay for highway programs, bike paths and miscellaneous earmarks.  The best solution would be to devolve the programs back to the states where they belong and eliminate the federal gas tax.  States already collect hefty gas taxes and they could increase the state based gas taxes to cover the shortfall.  Without the federal government bureaucrats wasting these tax dollars there would be measurable savings at the pump.

At a minimum, conservatives need to roll out a comprehensive plan and force Congress to consider these plans over and over again.  Gas prices are a big issue and if conservatives in Congress are not forcing vote after vote on good ideas, then they will lose the messaging war to the Class Warrior in Chief who is seeking to use scare tactics and class warfare to secure another term in the White House. 

There is a conservative solution.  Governor Sarah Palin and Fox’s Eric Bolling have rolled out a conservative plan that deserves a national debate.

Sen. Obama talked about duplication in government programs and advocated cutting those programs.  The Senator hammered the Export-Import Bank “that’s become little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”  He promised as president to “go through the entire federal budget, page by page,  line by line, and I will eliminate the programs that do not work and are not needed.”  And Americans were dumb enough to believe this bunk.  It did sound good at the time.

What ever happened to that guy?  I kind of liked him. (h/t to Club for Growth for finding video)

This week in Washington is going to be dominated by a national discussion the constitutionality of ObamaCare, yet Congress plods on.  The House of Representatives is expected to take up a short term extension of a highway bill and the Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan for Fiscal Year 2013.  The Senate is expected to take votes on an energy tax bill and legislation dealing with the U.S. Postal Service.

This is a very important week for American freedom in the federal courts.  The Supremes will be engaging a debate on whether there is any limit to federal power residing in the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.  Will Americans be allowed to make very personal decisions about health care or will that power be handed to the federal government in perpetuity?  We shall engage in the national debate this week and the Supreme Court will hand down a decision later this year.

The House has five relatively non-controversial votes on the Suspension Calendar today.  The last Suspension vote scheduled is on H.R. 4239, a short term extension of a highway bill.  If this were to pass the Senate, then the House and Senate would engage in a fight on competing highway bills over the next few months.

The House and the Senate are intent on passing different versions of a highway bill.  The House leadership wants to pass a five-year $260 billion bill and the Senate has already passed a two-year $109 billion bill that was opposed by 22 Senate Republicans.  Conservatives don’t like either the House or Senate approach because they don’t give enough power to the states and they spend too much.  The generational theft of spending today and passing the bill on to America’s kids is immoral and should cease immediately.

On Tuesday the House will debate the “JOBS Act,” H.R. 3606, a bill to make it easier for small businesses to raise money and make stock offerings.  The House will also take up an Federal Communications Commission reform bill.  Then the House will spend two days on the Rep. Ryan budget.

The Ryan budget will commence a national debate on entitlement reform, spending and taxes.  Ryan’s spending plan for next year will slow the growth of government.  He calls it the “Pathway to Prosperity.”  Ryan’s approach includes entitlement reforms, pro-growth tax reform and some spending cuts.  The Ryan plan is in start contrast to the Obama budget that will tax, spend and borrow us into the poor house.  If President Obama’s budget were to be adopted by the Congress, America would creep toward the European style welfare state that has sucked the life out of so many European entrepreneurs.  Some conservatives worry that the Ryan plan is incremental change at a time when America needs a radical approach to cutting the size and scope of the federal government. 

The Senate will spend a week on Class Warfare and another bailout.  The Senate will consider S.2204, the so called “Repeal Big Oil Subsidy Act.”  This bill extends preferential tax treatment for electric cars, car plug in stations, biofuel plant property and other green lobbyist special interest tax provisions.  Taxes are hiked on oil, natural gas, drilling and wells in the name of class warfare against evil “Big Oil.”  Lefties in Congress want to hike taxes on oil and gas production so that they can force Americans into tiny expensive fuel efficient cars.  The Senate will also have a vote on a so called “Postal Reform” bill that is expected to be a magnet for another massive federal bailout.

The Supreme Court will start down the road of determining if a law shall stand that allows the federal government to force Catholic institutions to fund sin.  Furthermore, the Court will determine if the feds have the power to coerce states, by threatening to withhold Medicaid monies, in order to force them to comply with mandates coming from Uncle Sam.

This week freedom will be debated in the Supreme Court and conservatives hope that at least five justices take the side of freedom over the side of big government with no limits. No matter what nine justices say, the federal government would violate the natural rights of all Americans to be free from intrusive government, if the Supreme Court rubber stamps an intolerable act that forces Americans to buy government approved products.

The above video was taken of a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inspection of an injured three year old boy from Spring of 2010.  This video makes me want to cry for this child and for a nation that allows this to happen on a daily basis.

You can read the full story at the Daily Mail.  The inspection of the three year old child, in addition to TSA searches of other toddlers, the elderly, and a Senator is strong evidence that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, and subsequent allies who attempted similar attacks, have provided the federal government with an excuse for invasive screening.

Treating every breathing human being as you would a potential terrorist is not an effective and efficient means to prevent aviation terrorism. Yet this same TSA wants to terminate the armed pilot program. 

Dan Mitchell at International Liberty has hosted an interesting graphic that is the ultimate TSA take down.

Common sense has been tossed out the door. 

What has happened to us?

Republicans are not obstructing Obama judges nor are they even filibustering any of these 17 judges today.  If you turn on CSPAN to view this Senate filibuster of 17 judges, you will be disappointed.  You will not see an extended debate of these 17 Obama nominations, yet will instead see a debate of the Senate highway bill or an extended quorum call. 

Reid is trying to trick the American people into thinking that Republicans are a bunch of obstructionists who are on the Senate floor filibustering judges and legislation.  I bet if you cornered all 100 Senators, including Reid, and asked them to recite the names of these 17 judges who are being “debated” this week, not one could get through even five of the names.  American politics is entering silly season and this fake filibuster is yet another example of the lengths some politicians will go to make a political point.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee (Senate RPC) put out a blog post today comparing the pace of Obama confirmations to President George W. Bush’s nominations.  Obama’s nominees are being confirmed at a similar pace to Bush’s.

President Obama already has more lower court confirmations (129) in three years of his presidency than President Bush had in his final four years (120). Supreme Court nominations require far more time and effort both by the Judiciary Committee and the rest of the Senate, and leave less time for consideration of other judges. That is why the fairest comparison is how each President fared during the presidential term in which he had Supreme Court nominations.

The Senate RPC  argues that even if you compare Bush’s first term to Obama’s current term in office, they both had about the same ratio of lower court confirmations — the same lower courts that Reid is trying to install 17 new justices.

In other words, although President Obama has fewer lower court confirmations than President Bush did in his first term, President Obama made far fewer judicial nominations in the first three years of his presidency than President Bush did in his first three years (173 versus 215). Considering the smaller number of nominations made by President Obama, as well as the considerable time spent processing his two Supreme Court nominees, it’s hard to see where President Obama is being treated unfairly. President Obama has had about the same number of lower court confirmations relative to the number of nominations he has made.

Here are the nominations by the numbers using the Senate RPC data.  

• Average number of days from nomination to confirmation Bush 211 days — Obama 218 days;
• For 83 judicial vacancies, the Obama Administration has made only 39 nominations;
• There are 44 judicial vacancies without any nomination from the President;
• 17 of 39 nominations are stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee; and,
• 61 out of 83 current vacancies are either in the Obama White House (44) or Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee (17).

As I wrote yesterday in my post Fake Filibuster Outrage From Left, there is no filibuster going on right now. 

These nominees were never blocked by any obstructionism.  They were never debated.  There has not been one word of debate on the Senate floor.  Furthermore, if many Republicans voted for the bulk of these nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is likely that they will pass pretty easily.  Reid is trying to break the back of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for objecting to President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointment.

This fake battle over the filibuster this week will test the strength of Republicans in the face of a Senate Majority Leader Reid’s bullying tactics.  Conservatives will be looking to see if Republicans join Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) who has already stood up to the bully or back down.

Republicans, nor Democrats, have uttered one word of debate on any of these nominations.  There is no filibuster going on right now and there never was.  This is a fake filibuster created by Reid.

A filibuster is when a Senator takes to the floor to speak without allowing a final vote on a nominee or legislation. After a period of debate, the leader files a motion to shut off debate and then there is a vote on ending a filibuster.  That is not happening in this circumstance.  What is happening is that Senator Reid is invoking the Senate rules to shut down a non-existent filibuster for purely political purposes.

Think Progress argues that Reid needs to file cloture on seventeen nominees to “break a filibuster.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced this afternoon that he will file cloture — the Senate procedure to break a filibuster — on seventeen judicial nominees currently being blocked by Republican obstructionism. Nearly all of these nominees were either unanimously approved in the Senate Judiciary Committee or were approved with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) as the only objection. Lee, of course, promised to block all of President Obama’s nominees and he also believes that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.

First of all, these nominees were never blocked by any obstructionism.  They were never debated.  There has not been one word of debate on the Senate floor.  Furthermore, if many Republicans voted for the bulk of these nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is likely that they will pass pretty easily.  Reid is trying to break the back of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for objecting to President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments.

Reid today filed cloture on the following nominees to the federal courts:

1. Gina M. Groh to be U.S. District Judge for the N. District of West Virginia;
2. David Nuffer to be U.S. District Judge for Utah;
3. Michael W. Fitzgerald to be U.S. District Judge for the Cent. District of California;
4. Ronnie Abrams to be U.S. District Judge for the S. District of New York;
5. Rudolph Contreras to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia;
6. Miranda Du to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada;
7. Susie Morgan to be U.S. District Judge for the E. District of Louisiana;
8. Gregg J. Costa to be U.S. District Judge for the S. District of Texas;
9. David C. Guaderrama to be U.S. District Judge for the W. District of Texas;
10. Brian C. Wimes to be U.S. District Judge for the E. and W. Districts of Missouri;
11. Kristine G. Baker to be U.S. District Judge for the E. District of Arkansas;
12. John Z. Lee to be U.S. District Judge for the N. District of Illinois;
13. George L. Russell to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland;
14. John J. Tharp to be U.S. District Judge for the N. District of Illinois;
15. Jeffrey J. Helmick to be U.S. District Judge for the N. District of Ohio;
16. Mary G. Lewis to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Carolina; and,
17. Timothy S. Hillman to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts.

This is a bold attempt to circumvent the constitutional requirement that the Senate “consent” to nominees pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.  The executive branch, in alliance with members of the same party in the Senate, can’t merely ignore the requirement in the constitution allowing the Senate to make its own rules (Article I, Sec. 5), then follow Rule 22 of the Senate’s rules that establishes a procedure to vote on nominees.

What Reid wants to do is to toss out the Senate’s rules and steamroll the above referenced seventeen nominees through the Senate to prove a point and to create a talking point that Republicans are obstructionists.  Thankfully, the American people will see through the rhetoric.  There is no filibuster going on, yet Reid may have caused one by virtue of the fact that he is trying to bully Republicans into rubber stamping these nominees.

It is important to note that the filibuster is essential for democracy and protected Americans from an even more intrusive and unpopular version of ObamaCare.

The filibuster is essential for democracy, because it protects Americans from a tyranny of the majority, whether that majority be Democrats or Republicans.  Right now, liberals are angry at Congress because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was not allowed to steamroll the minority party, and moderates within his own caucus, to pass a version of ObamaCare with a public option.  The left wants to exterminate the only remaining tool for individual members of the Senate to slow down legislation.

Now Reid is trying to steamroll Mike Lee, who is merely using his right as one Senator to force the Senate to follow it’s own rules.  There is no filibuster going on yet, but the Democrats are assuming a filibuster by pre-emptively filing for cloture on a swath of nominees that may require some debate and some study before Senators “consent” to them all getting lifetime appointments to the federal courts.

It should not be forgotten that the Center for American Progress (CAP) supported the filibuster when it served their purposes.  In a post tiled ”The Nuclear Option” CAP wrote “the filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues that come before the Senate.”

CAP hosted a conference titled, Going Nuclear – The Threat to our System of Checks and Balances on April 25, 2005.  John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, argued that the filibuster protected “deliberation and mutual respect.”

By removing the safeguard offered by the filibuster, the nuclear option would seriously and perhaps irreparably damage an institution that has functioned since the its inception under customs and traditions that ensure an atmosphere of careful deliberation and mutual respect.  Ultimately, this is not a dispute between the left and the right.  It is a matter of right and wrong.  It’s a choice between safeguarding our system of checks and balances or destabilizing it; between upholding the Senate’s coequal role in the confirmation progress or diminishing it.

Hopefully Senator Reid and CAP are not setting the table for the same “Nuclear Option” they opposed back in 2005.

Big fight this week on judicial nominations with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) expected to file cloture on about seventeen nominees today.

Also, expect a fight when the Senate tries to use a House passed Small-Business bill to pass the big business Export-Import Bank reauthorization bill.

The Senate will spend most of the week on a highway bill, but will commence a fight over the filibuster later in the week.  The Surface Transportation Act, S, 1813, has become an opportunity for for Senators to load up this bill with pet projects over the past week and a half.  Expect this bill to be burdened with items unrelated to transportation before the Senate passes the bill mid week.  

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today announced his intention on filing cloture on seventeen judicial nominees.  This will be an attempt by Senate Democrats to paint Senate Republicans as “obstructionists.”  Ironically, this comes in the wake of President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments of  Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Richard Griffin, Sharon Block and Terence Flynn to be on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  Republicans probably should be obstructionists in the face of the President’s unconstitutional actions, yet they have rolled over and allowed Reid to confirm nominees at a rapid pace over the past few weeks. 

Cloture is a mechanism to stop a filibuster.  A filibuster is when a Senator, or a couple of Senators, take to the floor to talk long enough to prevent a vote on an nominee.  On these seventeen nominees, there has been no debate and no filibuster.  The seventeen nominees expected to be the subject of Reid’s cloture petitions will be the subject of a Republicans filibuster in the Democrats eyes, even thought there are no Senators on the Senate floor blocking a final vote on any of these nominees.  Don’t believe the false claim that Republicans are filibustering these nominations.

It is also important to note that Democrats engaged in whole scale filibusters in 2005 to block Bush Administration nominees.  There was nothing wrong with that then and there is nothing wrong with conservatives in the Senate slowing the process of approving nominees now.  The President does not have the right to appoint nominees without the “consent” of Senators, unless if the Senate is an an extended recess.  There is nothing wrong with a filibuster and conservatives should not be afraid to use it and it.  Abolishing the filibuster would be unwise for Democrats and some conservatives worry that Reid may be setting the table for a procedural strong arm tactic to abolish the filibuster.

The Export-Import bank may come up in the Senate later this week.  Many conservatives lament the unfair lending processes used by the federally chartered Export-Import Bank.  Erick Erickson wrote on March 5 that this Export-Import Bank is the functional equivalent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Export-Import Bank is a federal agency whose sole reason for existence is to use your tax dollars to subsidize sales of American manufactured goods to foreign buyers. It is nothing short of corporate welfare, and its business model (providing loans and loan guarantees at below market rates) is virtually identical to that of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In Human Events today, I wrote that “Conservatives Stalk Congress.”  Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio of the House Republican Study Committee and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina of the Steering Committee are fighting for limited government, free markets, traditional values and a strong national defense.

Today, the RSC is lead by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). The Senate also has a similar group of conservatives who fight the big-government ideas of both parties: the Senate Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was also founded in the early 1970s as a non-partisan place for conservatives to network. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has led the Steering Committee since January 2007.

We need more Jordan’s and DeMint’s in the House and Senate.

Secretary Napolitano said recently at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing that she is proposing a 50% cut in funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer’s program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program, because “the program is not risk based.”  Yet her Transportation Security Administration failed to detect a box cutter that ended up on a flight in Houston, Texas this past Monday.  This is further evidence that President Obama’s and Secretary Napolitano’s plan to terminate the FFDO program is an aviation security mistake.

The Houston Chronicle reports that a passenger found a box cutter in the overhead luggage bin of a commercial aircraft while a plane was preparing for departure.  Note that a passenger was the one that found a box cutter, not an official of the TSA.  This is a TSA that subjects travellers to unprecedented levels of screening, yet they still could not stop a box cutter from ending up on a commercial aircraft. This is further evidence that the “risk based” system used by the TSA is more of a “trust us” system with no margin for error.

The Houston Chronicle reported:

A flight was canceled after a box cutter was discovered on board a Southwest Airlines flight at Hobby Airport Monday morning, authorities said. Flight 1636, scheduled to fly out at 6:15 a.m. from Hobby to Dallas Love Field, was canceled after a passenger found the box cutter in an overhead luggage compartment as the plane prepared for departure. The box cutter was handed over to crew members.

A passenger, not a TSA employee, found this one box cutter.  Napolitano explained at a House Homeland Security hearing a few weeks ago that the TSA’s “risk based” system starts when a passenger purchases a ticket.

There are many layers of defense beginning before anyone gets their ticket.

This screening happens when people go online or in person to purchase a ticket.  If they are on a no fly list or purchase the ticket in an unusual manner (one way with cash) they are flagged for increased screening when they try to board a plane.  This aspect of Napolitano’s risk based system failed and did not identify the individual who smuggled the box cutter onto the plane. 

Napolitano during her testimony referred to metal detectors and other machines that are in place to detect knives as another aspect of the “risk based” system.

The checkpoint at the gate which has caused some concern is only one of many layers.

Making people go through a metal detector, other screening machine, emptying of pockets and visual observation is another aspect of the “risk based” system, as is failed the screening of carry on luggage.  Neither the screening of the passengers nor the passenger’s carry on luggage prevented the box cutter from ending up in the aircraft.  This aspect of Napolitano’s “risk based” system also failed. 

The last check the TSA has is when you enter the plane and that is a visual check of the person.  That last check by the TSA failed to detect any problems.  So at every level of screening the TSA failed to protect the aircraft from a potential hijacking.

Only when a passenger spoke up and pointed out to the flight attendants that a box cutter was in the overhead compartment did the TSA engage in classic cover your behind activity and empty the plane.  This was an epic screening failure by the TSA, yet they are expected to continue with a system that is very reliant on the army of TSA agents screening passengers when they enter the concourse of an airport. 

Houston Airport System spokeswoman Darian Ward said after the incident all 97 passengers were re-screened through security. Another plane took the passengers to Dallas, she said. She declined to comment further on the incident.

This is an epic failure on so many levels.  Most importantly, the TSA never seemed to figure out what happened.  They screened all the same passengers to see if they had any other banned materials and then sent them on their way to Dallas on another aircraft.  The TSA’s post failure screening, according to this story, did not result in any explanation of what aspect of Napotiano’s “risk based” system failed.

This incident proves two things.  The TSA needs to keep in place a layered system of security so that armed pilots can provide that important last layer of defense if all other layers fail (as they did in this instance).  It also proves that President Obama is wrong to propose a cut in the FFDO program in anticipation of eliminating FFDOs in favor of a failed “risk based” system.

What did the TSA have to say about this incident?

A Transportation Security Administration spokesman says the airline made the decision to cancel the flight and that operations at Hobby are normal. “Anything that is not permitted on the TSA list should be of concern,” Romero said. “We dealt with the issue, and our customers went on their way to Dallas. It’s over.”

Was this an incident where terrorists were testing the system.  The TSA probably does not know, because they seem to have no clue who smuggled the box cutter onto the plane.  Thanks to a good Samaritan passenger (and no thanks to the incompetent TSA), the other passengers on that plane were made much safer.

It is not over, because this is likely to happen again and again.  President Barack Obama, Secretary Janet Napolitano and the TSA failed us this week.  Let us hope they don’t have their way in their efforts to disarm pilots and destroy a program that has provided a last line of defense to the very items snuck on that Southwest flight on Monday.

The House is working on a bill that will partially repeal ObamaCare.  The Senate is continuing work on a highway bill that spends too much, borrows too much and taxes too much.  The Senate is voting on another judge today and this will be another test for Senate Republicans to see if they will be willing to stand up to President Obama’s recess appointment from early January.

The House has three suspension votes scheduled for today.  The House will vote this evening on three bills to rename buildings: H.R. 3637, a post office naming bill; H.R. 3413, a post office naming bill; and, S. 1710, a courthouse naming bill.

Tuesday and the remainder of the week the House will vote on a few bills.  H.R. 4105, a bill to impose tariffs on non-free market economies.  The Club for Growth believes that this will escalate a trade war with China that will result in higher prices for American importers and consumers.  The House is also expected to vote on H.R. 2842, Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act.  The House is also expected to vote on H.R. 3606, a small business bill.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will be marking up a bill to repeal a provision of Obamacare.  The bill, H.R. 452, repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board.  With news last week that the Senate is not expected to schedule votes on full repeal this year, some are concerned that the piecemeal repeal of ObamaCare strategy may doom efforts for a full repeal of ObamaCare in 2013.  Although, the Senate failed to pass Sen. Roy Blunt’s amendment to the highway bill that would have stopped President Obama’s attack on religious institutions through ObamaCare, the IPAB repeal bill is expected to have a better shot of passing both the House and Senate.  Some conservatives firmly believe that partial repeal efforts may doom the long term fight for full repeal of ObamaCare.

 The Senate will have a cloture vote on an amendment by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) on his version of a 2 year $109 billion authorization for highway funding.  The current highway authorization will end at the end of March.  If this amendment fails, expect Congress to pass a short term extension of the bill.  The House five year $260 billion authorization did not have sufficient spending cuts for conservatives.  If the Reid Amendment fails, expect a short term extension to pass so congress can have a few more months to work through a bill.

On Friday, two votes were scheduled on two federal district court judges:  Mary E. Phillips of Missouri; and Thomas O. Rice of Washington.  This will be another test of Republicans to see if they are going to join Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) to fight President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointments from January.

The defense industry and labor unions have joined together to fight for a strong national defense that will aid national security.  Cuts to defense programs will harm long term efforts to protect America.  The Obama Administration wants to gut our national defense and conservatives in Congress are putting up a strong fight to retain the idea of “Peace through Strength.”

Labor unions and the defense industry are fighting to fully fund national defense.  This is necessary because the deal Republicans and Democrats struck to pass the debt limit increase imposed an automatic across the board cut to defense spending (the Sequester).  The group Second to None will be having a press conference this Wednesday to discuss the harm the defense sequester will impose on our national defense. 

The Aerospace Industries Association and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers will release a report on the threat to defense as a result of cuts to defense.  It is important to understand how cuts to troop levels and proposed cuts to projects that make our nation safer are the wrong place to find money to balance the budget.