Over the past few weeks, we’ve observed the Republican form of bipartisanship on display, particularly, with regard to Cantor’s deal to extend the Export-Import Bank.  Democrats wanted the extension with a 40% increase in the lending cap, GOP leadership wanted a 13% increase, while conservatives wanted to wind it down.  The grand bipartisan deal was finally forged, and the House voted to increase the lending cap last week by…40% over three years.  Interestingly enough, this “bipartisan” deal was so palatable for Democrats that it passed without a single Democrat nay vote, even as 93 Republicans opposed it.

This is not an isolated jog across the aisle.  We are witnessing the same thing with the student loan bill, the postal bailout, the highway bill, appropriations, and the Violence Against Women Act.

Over the weekend, Molly Hooper wrote an article in the Hill noting that Cantor’s bipartisan goals have raised the ire of conservative organizations such as Redstate.com, Heritage Foundation and Club For Growth.  The Hill also solicited responses from GOP leaders.  Here is a response from a Cantor aide:

“I get that people might be upset about the Export bank, but you can’t just end it — that’s not an option. And we are at a huge disadvantage with our local partners and competitors so you have to take a reasonable approach where you put in some of these reforms and put in place a process to wind down the bank and work in a multilateral fashion with your partners so that you are on the same page with all your foreign counterparts. If we were just to pull the plug today, our exporters would be at a huge disadvantage to our competitors and that costs jobs,” the aide explained to The Hill.

There’s one problem: the bill, passed by the House (HR 2072) and now pending before the Senate, gradually expands the scope of the bank over the next few years.  It will not wind down the bank.

Then, there is this gem from Rep. Greg Waldon:

Read More →

Over the past few weeks, we’ve observed the Republican form of bipartisanship on display, particularly, with regard to Cantor’s deal to extend the Export-Import Bank.  Democrats wanted the extension with a 40% increase in the lending cap, GOP leadership wanted a 13% increase, while conservatives wanted to wind it down.  The grand bipartisan deal was finally forged, and the House voted to increase the lending cap last week by…40% over three years.  Interestingly enough, this “bipartisan” deal was so palatable for Democrats that it passed without a single Democrat nay vote, even as 93 Republicans opposed it.

This is not an isolated jog across the aisle.  We are witnessing the same thing with the student loan bill, the postal bailout, the highway bill, appropriations, and the Violence Against Women Act.

Over the weekend, Molly Hooper wrote an article in the Hill noting that Cantor’s bipartisan goals have raised the ire of conservative organizations such as Redstate.com, Heritage Foundation and Club For Growth.  The Hill also solicited responses from GOP leaders.  Here is a response from a Cantor aide:

“I get that people might be upset about the Export bank, but you can’t just end it — that’s not an option. And we are at a huge disadvantage with our local partners and competitors so you have to take a reasonable approach where you put in some of these reforms and put in place a process to wind down the bank and work in a multilateral fashion with your partners so that you are on the same page with all your foreign counterparts. If we were just to pull the plug today, our exporters would be at a huge disadvantage to our competitors and that costs jobs,” the aide explained to The Hill.

There’s one problem: the bill, passed by the House (HR 2072) and now pending before the Senate, gradually expands the scope of the bank over the next few years.  It will not wind down the bank.

Then, there is this gem from Rep. Greg Waldon:

Read More →

Update: Only 93 Republicans voted against Ex-Im.

Here is a video illustration from Heritage Action of what is wrong with the Ex-Im Bank.  The House will be voting on the bill under suspension at 2 PM.  Call your members now

Watching the House debate on CSpan, you’ll see that the problem in Washington is that there is not enough partisanship, not too much.

Update: Only 93 Republicans voted against Ex-Im.

Here is a video illustration from Heritage Action of what is wrong with the Ex-Im Bank.  The House will be voting on the bill under suspension at 2 PM.  Call your members now

Watching the House debate on CSpan, you’ll see that the problem in Washington is that there is not enough partisanship, not too much.

We had an opportunity to draw a sharp contrast with Democrats over the all important issues of crony capitalism and market distortions simply by doing nothing.  How so?  Well, the Export-Import Bank reauthorization deadline is May 31.  By simply abstaining from the reauthorization – something that can be done with control of just one-half of one-third of government – this bastion of corporate welfare would be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Unfortunately, Eric Cantor decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and agree to reauthorize the bank.  Worse, the bank’s lending cap will be expanded.  The funny thing is that they are calling it a compromise.  The compromise went something like this: Originally, Democrats wanted the loan cap raised from $100 billion to $140 billion.  Cantor, instead of opposing the underlying reauthorization, agreed to raise the cap to $113 billion.  So they came to an agreement to gradually raise the loan cap to $140 billion by 2014!

In a preposterous effort aimed at improving transparency, the bill contains a provision that would require the bank to solicit public comment on any transaction more than $100 million.  This will ostensibly give companies an opportunity to voice opposition to loans granted to their competitors, while supporting those that benefit their needs.  This is what happens when government is used as a tool to manipulate private enterprise.

GOP proponents of the bank claim that the interest on the loans could bring in profits to taxpayers.  But the problem is that they are using the same illusory accounting methods that have been employed to ameliorate the costs of the bailouts to Freddie/Fannie and TARP.  In fact, just three months ago House Republicans passed a law to subject all Freddie/Fannie loan guarantees to the “fair value” accounting method that is used in the private sector.  Under current law, Congress only factors in the cost of the loan itself when formulating the annual budget.  Perforce, if the money is paid back with interest, there is no cost to the government.  However, as we have learned so painfully, the loans are, all too often, never paid back.  Taxpayers have been called on to bailout a modicum of failed loan guarantees.  In the private sector, they use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of credit programs.  Fair value accounts for the costs of the market risk the lender incurs by issuing a loan, in addition to the actual borrowing costs.

So why are these same people supporting deceptive accounting methods for the Export-Import Bank?

Read More →

We had an opportunity to draw a sharp contrast with Democrats over the all important issues of crony capitalism and market distortions simply by doing nothing.  How so?  Well, the Export-Import Bank reauthorization deadline is May 31.  By simply abstaining from the reauthorization – something that can be done with control of just one-half of one-third of government – this bastion of corporate welfare would be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Unfortunately, Eric Cantor decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and agree to reauthorize the bank.  Worse, the bank’s lending cap will be expanded.  The funny thing is that they are calling it a compromise.  The compromise went something like this: Originally, Democrats wanted the loan cap raised from $100 billion to $140 billion.  Cantor, instead of opposing the underlying reauthorization, agreed to raise the cap to $113 billion.  So they came to an agreement to gradually raise the loan cap to $140 billion by 2014!

In a preposterous effort aimed at improving transparency, the bill contains a provision that would require the bank to solicit public comment on any transaction more than $100 million.  This will ostensibly give companies an opportunity to voice opposition to loans granted to their competitors, while supporting those that benefit their needs.  This is what happens when government is used as a tool to manipulate private enterprise.

GOP proponents of the bank claim that the interest on the loans could bring in profits to taxpayers.  But the problem is that they are using the same illusory accounting methods that have been employed to ameliorate the costs of the bailouts to Freddie/Fannie and TARP.  In fact, just three months ago House Republicans passed a law to subject all Freddie/Fannie loan guarantees to the “fair value” accounting method that is used in the private sector.  Under current law, Congress only factors in the cost of the loan itself when formulating the annual budget.  Perforce, if the money is paid back with interest, there is no cost to the government.  However, as we have learned so painfully, the loans are, all too often, never paid back.  Taxpayers have been called on to bailout a modicum of failed loan guarantees.  In the private sector, they use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of credit programs.  Fair value accounts for the costs of the market risk the lender incurs by issuing a loan, in addition to the actual borrowing costs.

So why are these same people supporting deceptive accounting methods for the Export-Import Bank?

Read More →

The big news of the night is that Richard Mourdock absolutely eviscerated John Kerry and Vladimir Putin’s favorite Republican 60-40%, an unprecedented feat going up against a 35-year incumbent.  On the other hand, it’s not surprising, and yet, it serves as a potent lesson for the Tea Party going forward.

Richard Mourdock wasn’t always this inexorable juggernaut.  He was way behind in the polls for most of the year.  It wasn’t until he began to show a little promise that the Club for Growth jumped in and dropped $1.5 million into the race (Erick endorsed him a long time ago).  Then, in a self-fulfilling cycle of winners and losers, Mourdock began to evince the image of a winner.  It became cool to support Mourdock.  At that point, the entire movement united behind him, as even some usual suspects who aren’t with us in other races jumped aboard the Mourdock ship.  The more Mourdock looked like a winner the more people supported him.  Thus, the margin of victory is not that surprising.

We must learn a lesson from here.  Yes, it takes a good candidate and a lot of money to win against establishment incumbents, and even challengers.  But we won’t always have the luxury of waiting until the candidate is surging to jump in.  In some races we must coalesce behind the conservative before he/she takes off, or else he will never take off.  To that end, we have unfinished business to do.

In North Carolina CD-8, the Cantor/establishment candidate, Richard Hudson, only won 32% against Scott Keadle’s 22%.  There will be a runoff.  Keep in mind that the other lesser candidates in the race, who garnered 45% of the vote in total, enjoyed a lot of Tea Party support.  Many of their supporters should go to Keadle.  However, he needs our help.  Keadle will stand with the most conservative members of Congress and lead a coalition to challenge leadership when necessary.  This is a guy who is worth as much support as a Senate candidate.

Read More →

The big news of the night is that Richard Mourdock absolutely eviscerated John Kerry and Vladimir Putin’s favorite Republican 60-40%, an unprecedented feat going up against a 35-year incumbent.  On the other hand, it’s not surprising, and yet, it serves as a potent lesson for the Tea Party going forward.

Richard Mourdock wasn’t always this inexorable juggernaut.  He was way behind in the polls for most of the year.  It wasn’t until he began to show a little promise that the Club for Growth jumped in and dropped $1.5 million into the race (Erick endorsed him a long time ago).  Then, in a self-fulfilling cycle of winners and losers, Mourdock began to evince the image of a winner.  It became cool to support Mourdock.  At that point, the entire movement united behind him, as even some usual suspects who aren’t with us in other races jumped aboard the Mourdock ship.  The more Mourdock looked like a winner the more people supported him.  Thus, the margin of victory is not that surprising.

We must learn a lesson from here.  Yes, it takes a good candidate and a lot of money to win against establishment incumbents, and even challengers.  But we won’t always have the luxury of waiting until the candidate is surging to jump in.  In some races we must coalesce behind the conservative before he/she takes off, or else he will never take off.  To that end, we have unfinished business to do.

In North Carolina CD-8, the Cantor/establishment candidate, Richard Hudson, only won 32% against Scott Keadle’s 22%.  There will be a runoff.  Keep in mind that the other lesser candidates in the race, who garnered 45% of the vote in total, enjoyed a lot of Tea Party support.  Many of their supporters should go to Keadle.  However, he needs our help.  Keadle will stand with the most conservative members of Congress and lead a coalition to challenge leadership when necessary.  This is a guy who is worth as much support as a Senate candidate.

Read More →

Today, the House began debate on the first of the 12 annual appropriations bills; the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill (H.R. 5326).  So far, Republican leaders have agreed to abide by their pledge to bring these bills to the floor under an open rule.  This allows conservative members to offer amendments to cut more spending and eliminate wasteful and unconstitutional programs.  It’s the votes on these amendments that often separate the conservatives from the statists.

The underlying bill appropriates $52.94 billion for the Justice and Commerce Departments, NASA, and some other related agencies.  This is a $1.6 billion cut from last year’s spending, and is in line with the individual spending allocations established in the Ryan budget.  This is a good start, but as is that case with all these spending bills, there’s a lot more to cut.  After all, with the exception of the Census Bureau, we should be eliminating the Commerce Department altogether.

The most important amendment that has been proposed so far is Mike Pompeo’s amendment #37 to abolish the Economic Development Administration (EDA).  The EDA is a failed Great Society program that serves as a stimulus/pork slush fund for special interest communities under the guise of assistance to economically distressed areas of the country.  It’s nothing more than a fund for corporate welfare and a way of picking winners and losers in the market.  It has been as successful in creating jobs as Obama’s stimulus.  Senator DeMint wrote a great piece on the EDA last year.

Anyone who claims to oppose earmarks and stimulus must oppose the EDA.  While the underlying bill cuts funding to the EDA, it still appropriates $219 million for FY2012.  Call your members and ask them to support the Pompeo amendment to end the EDA.  If we can’t close down this failed agency, we will certainly never eliminate any major agency or full department.

Read More →

Today, the House began debate on the first of the 12 annual appropriations bills; the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill (H.R. 5326).  So far, Republican leaders have agreed to abide by their pledge to bring these bills to the floor under an open rule.  This allows conservative members to offer amendments to cut more spending and eliminate wasteful and unconstitutional programs.  It’s the votes on these amendments that often separate the conservatives from the statists.

The underlying bill appropriates $52.94 billion for the Justice and Commerce Departments, NASA, and some other related agencies.  This is a $1.6 billion cut from last year’s spending, and is in line with the individual spending allocations established in the Ryan budget.  This is a good start, but as is that case with all these spending bills, there’s a lot more to cut.  After all, with the exception of the Census Bureau, we should be eliminating the Commerce Department altogether.

The most important amendment that has been proposed so far is Mike Pompeo’s amendment #37 to abolish the Economic Development Administration (EDA).  The EDA is a failed Great Society program that serves as a stimulus/pork slush fund for special interest communities under the guise of assistance to economically distressed areas of the country.  It’s nothing more than a fund for corporate welfare and a way of picking winners and losers in the market.  It has been as successful in creating jobs as Obama’s stimulus.  Senator DeMint wrote a great piece on the EDA last year.

Anyone who claims to oppose earmarks and stimulus must oppose the EDA.  While the underlying bill cuts funding to the EDA, it still appropriates $219 million for FY2012.  Call your members and ask them to support the Pompeo amendment to end the EDA.  If we can’t close down this failed agency, we will certainly never eliminate any major agency or full department.

Read More →