I so look forward to voting for Marco Rubio, someday

July 8, 2011

Whether 2016, 2020, 2024 or beyond, Senator Rubio has “president” written all over him. The following is from remarks he gave in the Senate a couple of days ago in conjunction with Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Rubio rightfully focuses on creating the conditions necessary to job creation as the best and only wise way to raise the revenue the government needs, along with the need to restore sanity to spending. And he righteously calls out the Democrats for offering “ideas” that are obviously bad, just to please their base in a game of cheap politics.

Twenty minutes long, and well worth your time:

Here’s a transcript of the key passage, courtesy of The Weekly Standard:

We don’t need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. That’s what we should be focused on, and that’s what we’re not focused on.

You look at all these taxes being proposed, and here’s what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they’re proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax I heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?

Emphasis added. Yeah, baby! 

RELATED: Previous posts on Marco Rubio.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

But… But… But, Obama said we had to spend to create jobs!

May 22, 2011

Oh, yeah? One graph measuring federal spending vs. the number of jobs shows us what a farce that is:

How's that spending binge working out for ya?

Via Power Line. Click through for more.


Congresswoman to Congress: “Go to Hell!”

April 7, 2011

Eleanor Holmes Norton is the non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia. Even though she cannot vote, she serves as Washington’s representative. She is also a dyed-in-the-wool progressive Democrat and a fan of spending. So, when the Republicans propose to eliminate the use of all government funds for abortion in the District, she gets a wee bit upset:

The Democratic non-voting representative for the District of Columbia told MyFoxDC.com that Congress should go “straight to hell” for trying to meddle in D.C. affairs.

Norton was referring to a provision in the stopgap budget bill House Republicans are pushing that would ban federal and local taxpayer dollars in the District of Columbia from being used to pay for abortions.

“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said, according to MyFoxDC.com. “It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell.”

Gotta love that “new tone,” eh?

Let’s set aside the laughable and fatuous hyperbole required to compare a budgetary decision to what Qaddafi has been doing in Libya. That’s par for the Democrats’ course. When it comes to “meddling in D.C. affairs,” however, Holmes needs to review the history of the district she represents. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution reads, in part:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Said district was created by the Residence Act of 1790, based on the cession of lands by Maryland and Virginia. The Government of the district was established by the Organic Act of 1801 and amended in the Organic Act of 1871. Both these acts (the latter of which is still in force, I believe) were enacted by Congress in pursuance of their powers under the Constitution. Far from meddling where they don’t belong, they have a specific charge under our most basic law to involve themselves in D.C. affairs, including the manner in which local money is spent.

Before she next decides to blow off steam, perhaps Delegate Norton should take the time to review the proper role of the chamber in which she serves — which includes supervising D.C., not funding abortion — and the law regarding the district she supposedly represents.

Unless, of course, she likes making herself look foolish and ignorant.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Presented in Evidence of our Eventual Doom: $600 grand for a gurgling toad

April 5, 2011

I’m all for odd and amusing public art, but not for $600,000 of federal taxpayer money:

Decried as wasteful spending that will be seen by just a couple thousand of daily workers who arrive on bus shuttles, foes have tried to delay the decision, expected tomorrow, April 1. But in an E-mail, an Army Corps of Engineers official said that the decision can’t be held up because it would impact completion of the huge project.

The City of Alexandria just announced that there are four works of art being considered and that a final decision needs to be made fast. The artwork was put on display for public comment from March 24 to today. The Alexandria News first reported the hasty announcement to decide a winner.

The schedule surprised some who thought that the costly artwork project was on the “back burner,” according to critic Donald Buch, a member of the mayor’s advisory committee overseeing the Mark Center project. “What’s the rush?” he asked.

What’s the rush?? Well, I tell you, mister: What red-blooded federal worker wouldn’t want to see a giant statue of a fairy riding a toad on their morning commute — with sound effects!

Your tax dollars at work:

via The Jawa Report

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


How to live on $10 billion a day

April 1, 2011

A couple of weeks ago, the infamous Iowahawk penned an essay about how Americans should stop whining about our $3.7 trillion nation budget and showed how we could live on just $10 billion a day. Like everything the Sage of Ottumwa writes, it was hilarious satire.

Not to be left out of the fun, Bill Whittle has provided us this video version. Enjoy:

Happy Friday!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Restraining Leviathan II: spending limits

December 22, 2010

A few weeks ago I wrote about the proposed Repeal Amendment, a change to the Constitution that would allow the states to repeal any federal law or regulation on approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The idea would be to allow another avenue of pushback against bad legislation, such as ObamaCare, and regulations that threaten our individual liberties, such as the recently announced assumption of regulatory power over the Internet by the FCC.

In an article at The Weekly Standard, Jeffrey H. Anderson uses the example of ObamaCare to argue that the Repeal Amendment isn’t enough, for several reasons: first is the difficulty of getting enough legislatures to agree on repeal. Even after the sweeping Republican victories in state elections last November, enough state legislatures remain in Democratic hands to block repeal, even if just in theory. To be honest, I consider this a feature, not a bug, since the pwoer to overturn federal law should require an overwhelming consensus. And, I suspect, that consensus exists in this case.

The other problem he mentions is more serious: that, to prevent a repeal, Congress and the administration could, in essence, bribe state legislatures with federal money in return for voting the right way. We saw examples of this during the debates over the health care law, as Senators Nelson and Landrieu, were (and let’s be blunt here) bought off with the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase. If it can be done to a US senator, it can happen with a state senator.

Anderson’s proposed solution is a amendment that caps spending at the federal level. He explains it thusly:

While we do have a federalism problem (as in too little of it), what we mostly have is a spending problem — and, thus, what we really need is a spending amendment. Such an amendment should limit spending based on 2008 figures and then prevent Congress from increasing real (inflation-adjusted) spending by more than 2 percentage points annually. Exceptions should be made for defense spending or if three-quarters of the state legislatures grant an exception requested by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. Over time, such a Limited Government Amendment would dramatically reduce federal spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product.

In the process, it would also greatly reduce the federal government’s ability to buy off the states. Thus, a spending amendment would not only do a great deal to check federal spending, it would also increase the effectiveness of a repeal/federalism amendment. In combination, these two amendments would profoundly limit federal spending and control, while helping to reestablish the federalist system that’s so essential to securing our rights.

It’s an interesting idea; Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has argued that simply limiting spending growth to two-percent would balance the budget by 2020. (Presumably surpluses beyond that could be used to pay down our debt.) And one could reasonably argue that a constitutional amendment is required, given Congress’ natural propensity to spend more of our money (or borrow it) regardless of need.

Perhaps it’s odd, but I’m more wary of this proposed amendment than I am of the Repeal Amendment, since I’m wary of tying the government’s hands in a time of emergency. While military spending would be exempted, what about a natural disaster that devastates a whole region? Time would be of the essence for any response, yet the two-thirds/three-fourths provision for an exception to the limit strikes me as too cumbersome.

Still, there’s no doubting the federal government has grown too powerful and needs to be restrained and pared back. Anderson’s proposal is at least worthy of serious debate.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


When all else fails, do it again

September 6, 2010

So, let’s see. In 2009 President Obama asked for and got a pork fiesta $787 billion stimulus package from Congress, saying we needed it to keep unemployment from rising above 8% and to put America back to work.

It failed miserably. And that’s not even mentioning the pork-barrel spending and nonexistent zip codes.

So, when faced with the utter failure of Keynesian stimulus spending to stimulate anything other than the national debt, what’s a Lightworker President to do? Cut taxes? Cut spending? Ease the burden of regulation on small businesses? Allow a free market economy to do what it does best?

Dudes, don’t be silly.

The answer is obviously to spend more:

President Obama, looking for ways to jump-start the sagging economy and create new jobs, called on Congress on Monday to approve a far-reaching plan to rebuild and modernize the nation’s transportation networks — roads, rail and airport runways — over the next six years.

With Democrats facing increasingly bleak re-election prospects, Mr. Obama used a Labor Day visit to a union festival here to lay out the plan, which the White House says could begin creating jobs as early as 2011 if Congress moves quickly. But prospects for a hasty passage seem unlikely, given that lawmakers have only a few weeks before they go home to campaign and Republicans have little interest in giving Democrats any pre-election legislative victories.

“Over the next six years,” Mr. Obama promised “we are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads — that’s enough to circle the world six times; that’s a lot of road. We’re going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways — enough to stretch coast-to-coast. We’re going to restore 150 miles of runways and advance a next-generation air-traffic control system to reduce travel time and delays for American travelers — I think everybody can agree on that.”

Mr. Obama vowed that the plan, which would include work on high-speed rail lines, would be “fully paid for” and not add to the deficit.

Gee, where have we heard that last one before?

Setting aside my complete lack of faith that this Congress and administration could spend the requested money wisely (based on their performance so far) and ignoring the consequences of adding to our staggering debt (Oh, heck. What’s another $50 billion among friends?), the proposal for a smaller, more tightly focused and controlled stimulus package is about 18 months too late:

While President Barack Obama goes on the road to shore up slipping popular support for the $1 trillion stimulus porkfest that he ordered up from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Walt Minnick, a freshman Democrat from Idaho, is pushing a better idea: The Strategic Targeted American Recovery and Transition Act (START).

Minnick is a member of the Blue Dog caucus of occasionally conservative Democcrats. His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.

While I’m opposed to Keynesian stimulus in general, and I think the record of history bears out its ineffectiveness, I could have supported the Minnick proposal as a reasonable compromise. To hear Obama come out with something similar only after all the damage his first stimulus has done calls for one response:

D’oh!  Doh

LINKS: More at MSNBC, International Liberty, and Hot Air.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)