Interesting, since Big Labor pulled out all the stops to get the president’s signature on health care reform passed in March 2010. But as the waivers came, it’s clear they never had any expectation of paying for it.

From the very start they carved out special exemptions for themselves, showing all the earmarks of political favors in exchange for campaign contributions. The actual skyrocketing costs, reduced choices and lousy service were shoved on the rest of us.

by OutloudOpinion.com For more Podcasts visit www.outloudopinion.com

You knew this was coming.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman – might he finally be realizing that our budget deficits can't possibly be solved by just eliminating the Bush tax cuts? – is now calling for marginal rates even higher than when Bill Clinton was in office:

Why should 1990s taxes be considered the outer limit of revenue collection? Think about it: The long-run budget outlook has darkened, which means that some hard choices must be made. Why should those choices only involve spending cuts? Why not also push some taxes above their levels in the 1990s?

Let me suggest two areas in which it would make a lot of sense to raise taxes in earnest, not just return them to pre-Bush levels: taxes on very high incomes and taxes on financial transactions.

But has the "long-run budget outlook…darkened" because of tax receipts or spending?

NewsBusters readers know full-well the answer is the latter.

As I've noted many times in the past, if we had only grown our total expenditures at the rate of inflation since 2007, we would have had a $413 billion deficit in the just-ended fiscal year 2011. This would be even lower in the current year given projections of $2.9 trillion in unified tax receipts.

When you consider that total unified outlays in 2007 – before the Democrats took over Congress! – were $2.7 trillion, and that they rose to a staggering $3.8 trillion in just four years or 41 percent, it's just absurd to blame our fiscal woes on revenues.

But we've grown accustomed to this in the past couple of years, especially from arithmetically-challenged Nobel laureates like Krugman.

Yet readers shouldn't take this proposal by the New York Times economist lightly.

As serious spending cuts continue to be taken, well, unseriously by our lawmakers, and our debt continues to expand at levels threatening additional credit rating cuts, you should be prepared for more calls like this.

This may not happen in an election year when even a leftist like Barack Obama is aware of what happened to Walter Mondale in 1984.

But if the Republicans don't at least take back the Senate while retaining the House next November, 2013 could be the year America experiences the largest tax hikes in its history.

Happy Holidays.

 On Friday’s Political Capital show, Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson lavished praise on President Obama has having "negotiating skills" like the recently deceased diplomat Richard Holbrooke – known for facilitating a ceasefire in Bosnia in the mid-1990s – as host Al Hunt asked Carlson and the National Review’s Kate O’Beirne to describe what Christmas gifts they would figuratively give to various public figures. Carlson: "I’m going to give him an inscribed copy of the late, great Richard Holbrooke’s memoir, in honor of Obama’s negotiating skills in this lame duck session. All he had to do was give up tax cuts – for which the Republican Party stands – to the wealthy who don’t need it in exchange for everything else he got."

She went on to trash Tea Party Republicans recently elected to Congress as "blowing off steam." Carlson: "I’m afraid that they might succumb to earmarks and lobbyists. They give every sign of that. So I’m going to give them a tea kettle because all they’ve done so far is blow off steam."

read more

That's just over 400 people a day. In the whole state. Spread over seven station stops in multiple cities. You've got to be kidding me.

Context, people.

read more

The bombings that killed 74 soccer fans watching the World Cup championship between Spain and the Netherlands on Sunday night had all the earmarks of a classic al-Qaida operation: They targeted large crowds of bystanders; the victims were multinational, with Irish, Indian, American, Ethiopian, Eritrean and Ugandan nationals among the dead; the blasts occurred almost simultaneously in two places; and it happened on a date ending in 11.

Brought to you by GoToAssist.com/techpodcast

by OutloudOpinion.com For more Podcasts visit www.outloudopinion.com

Email


]]> http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/12/with-ban-gop-calls-duel-on-earmarks/feed/ 0 http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/11/house-gop-bans-earmarks-for-members/ http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/11/house-gop-bans-earmarks-for-members/#comments Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:12:36 +0000 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/11/house-gop-bans-earmarks-members/ In a move to break with Republicans’ big-spending past, House Republicans voted Thursday to ban their members this year from requesting earmarks, or pork-barrel spending projects. House Republicans, who passed the moratorium by voice vote in a closed-door meeting, said they have now put pressure on the rest of Congress — Republicans in the Senate, and Democrats in both chambers — to follow their lead. “Today, House Republicans took an important step toward showing the American people were serious about reform by adopting an immediate, unilateral ban on all earmarks,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. “But …

Email


]]> http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/11/house-gop-bans-earmarks-for-members/feed/ 0 http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/04/wsj-editorial-calls-out-bunning-episode-as-example-of-paygo-hypocrisy/ http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/04/wsj-editorial-calls-out-bunning-episode-as-example-of-paygo-hypocrisy/#comments Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:22:09 +0000 Tom Blumer 36927 at http://newsbusters.org roughly 10 print and broadcast media items ripping into Jim Bunning for daring to stop a spending bill in the Senate. Beyond that, it appears that no establishment media outlet has…]]> In the past 72 hours, NewsBusters has called attention to roughly 10 print and broadcast media items ripping into Jim Bunning for daring to stop a spending bill in the Senate.

Beyond that, it appears that no establishment media outlet has raised a few self-evident points made in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal editorial, proving yet again that the paper’s editorials are as much a real news source as they are a rundown of the editorialists’ particular take on things.

The critical points of the editorial (link may require subscription, and will probably not be available in a few weeks) are these:

• Bunning was trying to do in practice what Nancy and Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama are fond of only talking about (Clay Waters also made this point in one of those NewsBusters posts).
• The outrage is the result of substance-free political gamesmanship.
• (Tea Partiers take note) Many of Bunning’s fellow party members headed for the tall grass when the media heat commenced.

What follows are the Journal excerpts that make those points (bolds are mine):

Mr. Bunning has dared to put a hold on a $10 billion spending bill to extend jobless insurance and fund transportation projects. Mr. Bunning says he won’t yield until the Senate finds a way to pay for the new spending with cuts somewhere else in the $3.5 trillion budget. For this perfectly reasonable stance, Mr. Bunning has become the Beltway and media villain of the hour. We’d call it his finest hour.

Every time Washington wants to spend money, the Senate Majority Leader asks for "unanimous consent" to authorize the funding, and in the collegial Senate everyone falls in line. But when Harry Reid wanted consent last week for that $10 billion, Mr. Bunning broke the old-boy rules by shouting: "I object."

The faux indignation has been something to behold.

… By the way, Democrats could end Mr. Bunning’s stand by invoking cloture and getting the 60 votes they need to proceed. Mr. Reid won’t do that because he thinks he’s scoring points using Mr. Bunning to define Republicans as "obstructionists." So who’s playing politics here?

Mr. Bunning is merely asking the Senate to live by the rules that President Obama said it should when he signed an executive order requiring "pay-as-you-go" budgeting. "Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else," he said, only three weeks ago. But instead of backing Mr. Bunning’s stand that new spending must be "paid for," the White House is attacking him.

The real story here is that Mr. Bunning is exposing pay-go as a fraud. When Mr. Obama and Democrats want to spend money on their priorities, they waive the rule by declaring an emergency. They only enforce pay-go to block tax cuts.

… Another truth is that Mr. Bunning is making most Republicans as uncomfortable as he is Democrats. … Susan Collins of Maine asked him Tuesday to stand down and told reporters that his "views do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus."

If any establishment media outlets have made the first two points raised by the Journal, I haven’t seen it. Of course, they love to make the third.

Senator Bunning is already in one Hall of Fame recognizing his outstanding baseball pitching career. For this move and for his long record of fiscal conservatism, evidenced by a consistently strong Club for Growth record (the latest available being 93% in 2008, 82% in 2007, 94% in 2006, and 82% in 2005), the former Philadelphia and Detroit star he may deserve consideration for induction into a Taxpayers’ Hall of Fame.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

But after reviewing the video and transcript of this morning’s "Reliable Sources" on CNN, it’s become apparent that Howard Kurtz really did ask two of his guests if the press is currently going soft on the Republican Party.

"Every day, every week the media — and that includes this program — focus on President Obama," Kurtz said.

"But what about the Republicans? Do they largely get a pass because they’re in the minority?" (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript and commentary, h/t Story Balloon):

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Every day, every week the media — and that includes this program — focus on President Obama. How is he doing? Is he tough enough? Is he too cerebral? Is he overexposed?

Is he down in the polls? Why hasn’t he accomplished what he said he would?

Fair enough. But what about the Republicans? Do they largely get a pass because they’re in the minority?

Take as Exhibit A the White House stimulus bill that was opposed by almost every GOP member of Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R), ALABAMA: We’re going down a road to disaster. There’s got to be some other way better than what we’re doing, not the socialist way.

KURTZ (voice-over): But some of those Republican lawmakers have turned around and asked for stimulus money, or taken credit for it in their home states. A few news organizations have focused on this. "The Wall Street Journal," for instance, reporting that Senator Shelby joined the rest of the Alabama delegation in asking the Forest Service for $15 million in stimulus funds.

For the most part, though, it’s liberal commentators who have pounced on the GOP.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Just this week, you were at a community college touting a $350,000 green technology education program, talking about how great that was going to be for your district. You voted against the bill that created that grant.

I mean, you seem like a very nice person, but that’s a very hypocritical stance to take.

REP. AARON SCHOCK (R), ILLINOIS: Well, Rachel, with all do respect, I can assure you Republicans were not consulted on the stimulus bill.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Stop the tape.

That Kurtz would use this clip of Maddow from last week’s "Meet the Press" is quite telling. First off, the money Schock’s district received WAS NOT from the stimulus bill.

As such, Kurtz employed a false premise.

But his negligence went deeper as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote Tuesday:

The spending to which Maddow referred was a grant to Lincoln Land Community College in Springfield, Ill. It was to buy equipment for training students to install cutting-edge environmental technologies required in new home construction.

The original $350,000 request was placed in the Education Department’s appropriations bill last year by none other than Schock. (He was working with another GOP congressman, John Shimkus, who represents the district next to Schock’s.) It turns out Lincoln Land asked Schock for help in getting the money. Schock thought it was a worthy project and wrote a request for inclusion in the education bill.

But the bill never passed. As it often does, Congress put off approving major spending measures until the end of the year. As December approached, Democratic leaders wrapped the education appropriation into a giant $447 billion omnibus spending bill that also included funding for the Transportation, Housing, Justice, State, Labor, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services departments, among others. The bill contained, in the words of a Washington Post report, "thousands of earmarks and double-digit increases for several cabinet agencies." It also included, deep inside its 2,500 pages, Schock’s request for Lincoln Land Community College.

The bill was an affront to anyone concerned about controlling federal spending. It barely passed the House, 221 to 202. All 174 House Republicans, joined by 28 Democrats, voted against it.

"There was a lot of bad stuff in that bill," Schock says. "They lumped it all together and said, ‘Take it or leave it, up or down.’ "

So Schock voted no. But what about the request for Lincoln Land? How did Schock reconcile voting against the omnibus bill when it contained money for his own district?

"I have two responsibilities," Schock explains. "The first is to advocate for responsible federal spending, and the second is to advocate for my district’s fair share of that federal spending. I don’t see those responsibilities as mutually exclusive."

So, last year, Schock requested $350 THOUSAND from an education bill that didn’t pass. It ended up being included in a $447 BILLION spending bill that Schock voted against because of the other garbage in it.

The latter bill passed, and Schock ended up participating in a ceremony at the college that received the $350 THOUSAND he had previously requested leading Maddow to shamelessly scolded him on "Meet the Press" as a result.

Unfortunately, host David Gregory didn’t step in and point out to Maddow that what Schock did by voting against a bill that included something he wanted for his district actually demonstrated character, something that was sorely lacking when Senators Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sold their healthcare votes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last year in exchange for moneys for their respective states.

With this in mind, Kurtz using this an example of hypocrisy a week later — when he had the time to research what really happened with Schock — was nothing less than pathetic:

KURTZ: So, are the mainstream media failing to hold Republicans to the same standard as the president?

Joining us now, John Aravosis, the founder and editor of AmericaBlog.com, and Amy Holmes, guest co-host of the syndicated radio show "America’s Morning News."

John Aravosis, you’re a liberal, so I’m sure you love it. But should the mainstream press have jumped on this question earlier about Republicans who opposed the stimulus and helped take credit for some of the money in their districts?

JOHN ARAVOSIS, FOUNDER & EDITOR, AMERICABLOG.COM: I think so. I think the problem the media has — and it’s Democrat and Republican — is, in interest in being fair, they often don’t want to jump on a story unless the other party alleges it first. So, in this case, if the media knows the stimulus created jobs because CBO and all the major studies said it did, they don’t want to call a Republican on it and say, well, no, it didn’t create no jobs, we know it did. They want to wait for a Democrat to allege it first.

KURTZ: And the Democrat — I’ll come to you in a second, Amy — the Democrat who alleged it and gave the story momentum was President Obama. Let’s roll some of the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are those, let’s face it, across the aisle who have tried to score political points by attacking what we did, even as many of them show up at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects in their districts.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Exactly. So, Maddow was taking the lead from Obama. Is that the press’s role? For some reason, Kurtz wasn’t concerned with THAT hypocrisy:

KURTZ: Now, Amy Holmes, you can say the stimulus was dumb, it was wasteful, it was big government run amuck. But –

AMY HOLMES, GUEST CO-HOST, "AMERICA’S MORNING NEWS": I say all of those things.

KURTZ: OK. But if you were a lawmaker — you worked on the Hill — as you did, John — aren’t you fair game for the press if you vote against a bill and denounce it and then take credit for or try to get money for your district?

HOLMES: Certainly. And I think opponents to Republicans, particularly in primaries up against conservatives, that they will hear this criticism.

But, Howie, I really think this is sort of dog bites man story. I mean, there aren’t a lot of headlines out of this.

Republicans voted against it, but I think they fairly say to their constituents, look, the pie was baked, you’re federal taxpayers, you deserve a slice of it. However, they wouldn’t have voted for it in the first place.

In terms of the media, if you’re trying to convince me that they’re hypocritical, you had me at "Good morning."

(LAUGHTER)

KURTZ: But why does it take Rachel Maddow to bring this up on "Meet the Press?" And there have been some good stories, and now some local papers are looking at their local members of Congress.

Why aren’t we all over this? You seem to think that we need permission of partisan attack so that we can cover it –

Actually, the better question is whether it was right for Maddow to bring this up given the facts presented by York two days later. Unfortunately, Kurtz didn’t go there:

ARAVOSIS: I don’t think you need it. I do think the media tries too hard to be fair, so they feel if they do their own reporting and say, well, I’m Howie Kurtz, and I know that this study said it’s a lie, Congressman, what do you say to that, they feel like you have to quote the White House saying it.

Even the White House — the clip you showed of Obama, he didn’t call out individual members. He didn’t say, Congressman Cantor, you said this, that’s a lie. Come to the White House tomorrow at noon and tell the American people in front of the camera why you’re right. That would shut them up.

HOLMES: But it’s also not news for a congressman to release press releases and tout the projects that they bring home to their districts.

ARAVOSIS: Oh, I think it is.

KURTZ: Even when the same congressman who voted against the bill, called it socialism and some of the rhetoric we’ve heard, it’s not news? I think it’s news.

HOLMES: I don’t think it’s necessarily news to the press who see this every day.

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: So we’re jaded?

HOLMES: I think that’s part of it. They’re jaded. But, again, I make the argument that the Republican congressmen can fairly say, I did not vote to spend this money, but since it’s been spent, and you’re a federal taxpayer, you certainly should get your fair share, as compared to, say, Democratic constituents of Democratic congressmen and senators who (INAUDIBLE) to get this money.

KURTZ: Well, OK.

As I’ve said before, although I think Kurtz does a pretty good job in his role as a media analyst, sometimes he’s WAY off base.

This was one of those times.

Based on the president’s record, most people would be surprised to learn the Post put most of the promises in the "In Progress" category — and didn’t even include a "Broken Promises" category. Many recent promises made as president would belong in that category. 

"In Progress" according to the Post includes "reversing" the Bush tax cuts, while the "To Do" list includes "enact a windfall profits tax" on oil companies. 

James Valvo, government affairs manager for Americans for Prosperity, offers the following additions to the Post’s analysis:

• Promise: Not to raise taxes "one dime" on families making less than $250,000 a year.
• Reality: Obama signed a bill that increased the federal cigarette tax to $1.01 per pack. Smokers are disproportionately low-income earners and will bear the brunt of this new tax. 
• Promise: Eliminate earmarks "line-by-line" in the federal budget process.
• Reality: Obama signed a $410-billion omnibus bill full of earmarks in March 2009.Promise: Provide transparency to the health care debate by allowing C-SPAN cameras to broadcast the negotiations.
• Reality: The president himself admitted it was a mistake not to allow cameras into the backrooms where Democratic leaders were hashing out the difference between the House and Senate versions of the health care bill.

The Post falsely claims Obama has "Completed":

• Promise: Banning registered lobbyists from working in the administration.
• Reality: Numerous registered lobbyists work in high-profile positions in the Obama administration, including the recent addition of Mark Patterson, a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.
• Promise: Implement permanent tax cut of $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families.
• Reality: The tax cuts were part of the stimulus package passed early in the administration and the cuts were temporary, expiring after 2010. Additionally, the tax credits were for $400 and $800 respectively, less than was promised.

Follow AFP’s continuing analysis of free-market issues.