In the midst of the most important budget negotiations of our lifetimes, House Speaker John Boehner has removed the four most fiscally conservative house members from two key committees because he is afraid that they will lead resistance to his plans to sacrifice cuts and compromise on tax increases in the budget negotiations with the Obama administration.

Justin Amash (R-MI) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) were removed without notice from the Budget Committee on Tuesday and Walter Jones (R-NC) and David Schweikert (R-AZ) were removed from the Financial Services Committee. All four had records of opposing past budget compromises and were reportedly ranked below other Republican representatives on a loyalty index put together by the house leadership, because they were more likely to vote based on principle and constituent requests rather than in lockstep with the leadership. These removals were made over the objections of the chairmen of the committees.

We believe that these four representatives have been outstanding advocates for the concerns of grassroots Republicans and all Americans who are worried about this nation’s dire financial condition. They should be looked to as leaders in determining fiscal policy, not cut out of the process. We hope that you will join us in a three-phase campaign to pressure House leaders to reinstate the “Fiscal Four” and stand firm for a budget which is fiscally responsible.

First: Use the form below to email your representative and request that they contact the party leaders in the House to ask that the Schweikert, Jones, Amash and Huelskamp be given back their committee assignments.

Second: Call Speaker Boehner’s office at (202) 225-0600 and tell them you want the Speaker to speaker to listen to grassroots Republicans and listen to strong fiscally conservative voices in the budget process and give the four Congressmen back their committee assignments.

Third: Get on twitter and send a comment to @SpeakerBoehner asking that Huelskamp, Amash, Shweikert and Jones be given back their assignments. Tag it #FiscalFour. Something like “@speakerboehner Please give the #FiscalFour back their committee assignments and stand firm for spending cuts” works great.

When you use the email form below to email your representative, take a few minutes to customize the message with your own words.

Audit the Fed is now in the Senate and it’s the lame duck session and the Democrats are doing everything they can to stop it. We need to get all the sponsors on board that we can, particularly Democrats and the few remaining reluctant Republicans.

Right now Audit the Fed (S. 202) is still being held in the Senate Banking Committee after 2 months, and Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) is under orders from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) not to let it out of committee. If it doesn’t get out of the committee it never even gets a chance for a vote from the Senate as a whole. Some progress is being made. The bill now has 37 co-sponsors, even including one Democrat. That puts some pressure on the House leadership, but not enough.

Experts are declaring Audit the Fed to be “dead on arrival” in the Senate, but if our government works at all, if there is enough grassroots outcry for the Senate to take action on the bill, we ought to be able to pressure Reid and Johnson to release the bill for a fair vote on the floor.

Making this happen requires a two phase plan of action.

First, you have to call Reid and Johnson directly yourself. They’re Democrats and they may not represent your state, but they should still take your call because of their leadership positions. Don’t necessarily tell them you’re not a Democrat. Just make very clear to their staff member who answers the phone that you’re concerned about Audit the Fed (S.202) and would like the Senate to have a chance to vote on it. Point out the strong bipartisan support in the House and the wide popular support in polls. That might help.

Call Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) at 202-224-5842
Call Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) at 202-224-3542

Second, use the form below to write your Senators and urge them to join as sponsors of the bill and to contact Reid and Johnson and ask that they bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote. If enough people contact them about it they will reach out to these two powerful Democrats and if enough Senators take action it might wear them down. Use the text entered in the email form or it might be even better if you customize it to express your concern in your own words.

Here is the current list of sponsoring Senators. If yours are not on the list, you absolutely must email them and urge them to sponsor it.

Sen Ayotte, Kelly [NH] – 9/10/2012
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 10/6/2011
Sen Begich, Mark [AK] – 9/12/2012
Sen Blunt, Roy [MO] – 10/6/2011
Sen Boozman, John [AR] – 5/24/2011
Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] – 9/19/2012
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] – 10/6/2011
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] – 7/25/2011
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – 10/6/2011
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] – 7/25/2012
Sen Collins, Susan M. [ME] – 11/13/2012
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 3/28/2012
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] – 9/6/2011
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] – 1/26/2011
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] – 8/2/2012
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 7/17/2012
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 10/31/2011
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] – 5/24/2011
Sen Heller, Dean [NV] – 6/22/2011
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] – 9/12/2012
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 10/6/2011
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] – 9/10/2012
Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [IL] – 7/31/2012
Sen Lee, Mike [UT] – 3/1/2011
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 10/31/2011
Sen Moran, Jerry [KS] – 9/10/2012
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] – 7/23/2012
Sen Portman, Rob [OH] – 11/13/2012
Sen Risch, James E. [ID] – 10/6/2011
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] – 11/13/2012
Sen Rubio, Marco [FL] – 10/6/2011
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] – 9/19/2012
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] – 8/2/2012
Sen Thune, John [SD] – 10/6/2011
Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] – 8/1/2012
Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 1/26/2011
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 10/6/2011

With the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate in the 2012 election, Romney is hoping to strengthen his credentials as a budget cutting “deficit hawk” through association with Ryan’s famous budget plan. Given the other choices which Romney was considering this is probably a good overall choice. As Republican Liberty Caucus Chairman Dave Nalle said in response to the announcement:

“While Paul Ryan is by no means the most exciting or creative choice for a running mate, his selection does suggest that there would be an emphasis on budget cutting in a Romney/Ryan administration. Using the Ryan plan as a starting point and with the addition of deeper cuts and more significant reforms to entitlements, Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency might be able to pull the country back from the brink of the fiscal abyss.”

The problem is that Ryan’s reputation as a fiscal conservative may not have much substance to it and his positions on other key issues are at the very least worrisome. He has received a great deal of press for a budget plan which does include some cuts and restructuring of medicare, but despite fearmongering from the left, the cuts are far too small and the reforms too limited to really pull us back from the edge of the abyss of debt which faces the nation.

The Ryan plan might be a good starting point if it was augmented with more substantial spending reductions and more comprehensive entitlement reform, but that would require a very proactive and fiscally conservative Congress. By itself it is just not sufficient. It takes a decade to balance the budget and potentially 40 years to deal with the debt, by which time there may be no economy left to save.

In addition, Ryan’s record on spending and other budgetary issues gives little hope that he is terribly serious about promoting limited government. In 2010 the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin published an analysis of his record and the report is not encouraging. I am reprinting it here in its entirety for those who are concerned about Ryan’s real credentials as a fiscal conservative.

Ryan’s record of fiscal irresponsibility has continued beyond 2010 when this article was written.  He has since voted to raise the debt ceiling multiple times and approved ongoing extensions of military spending on unnecessary foreign wars.  To be fair his record on fiscal issues has become increasingly mixed.  He has voted against foreign aid, farm subsidies and some other specific spending increases as well.

Possibly of even greater concern is Ryan’s ongoing record of absolute irresponsibility in the area of civil liberties.  Since 2010 Ryan has been on the wrong side of almost every important vote involving basic Constitutionally protected rights.  He voted to extend the PATRIOT Act, for CISPA, for DOMA, for the NDAA (three times), to expand the Department of Homeland Security, to extend troop commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and to give the President the power to appoint department heads without Senatorial approval.  At a time when more and more Republicans are waking up to the threat of expanded government power to operate without observing traditional limits on their police power these votes are a major concern.

TARP, bailouts, entitlement expansion, endless military spending and bigger, more intrusive and less constitutional government. Is the Ryan record an example of the kind of policies a financially imperiled nation needs and which grassroots Republicans are demanding? Ryan is probably a gesture in the right direction, but Liberty Republicans should be concerned that the gesture is more symbol than substance and demand a clear and aggressive fiscal plan from the Romney campaign.

With GOP contenders battling it out for the chance to face President Barack Obama in 2012, the once “cult-following” of Texas Congressman Ron Paul has turned into a base large enough to consider him one of the frontrunners. Having a massive Facebook following, the second highest 2nd quarter funds raised after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and recent poll victories such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Paul’s more than 30 year old message of individual liberty, sound money and free markets is resonating with an ever larger audience.

Of course with this popularity comes criticism. Too many Republican voters and self-described “Constitutional conservatives”—at least those I’ve come across—have been quick to describe the libertarian-minded congressman as “kooky” and a “crazy old man”. Their primary focus is on foreign policy but some on economics as well. Despite Paul’s fervent belief in Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of avoiding “entangling alliances”, these conservatives often paint him as a “liberal”. Perhaps liberal in the classical sense like John Stuart Mill, but certainly not in the modern-day so-called liberalism of persons like President Obama, Ed Schultz, and Alan Colmes.

Many rumors are spread by the anti-Paul conservatives. Paul supporters are often referred to as “PaulBots”—ironically similar to author Jason Materra’s term “Obama Zombies” used in the book of the same name—although save for a few kooky and loud conspiracy theorists, Paul supporters tend to be better at justifying their support for the jolly old man than do the Obama Zombies. Paul is often mischaracterized as a bigot, even though there is no evidence to support this ad hominem attack.

But what the anti-Paul conservatives—usually of the interventionist line of foreign policy thinking that is commonly referred to as neoconservatism, though having its roots in Woodrow Wilson—fail to do is actually look at what Paul’s foreign policy positions are and have been and see if they have any connection to reality.  Paul’s years of studying the Austrian School of Economics have had a surprising effect on his analytical skills when it comes to foreign policy.

Recently, Ron Paul supporters posted a video to Youtube entitled “Ron Paul the Master”. It shows a collection of speeches and interviews in which Ron Paul makes some stunning predictions about our current economic woes and even international conflicts of the present. And he does this as far back as 2002. Of course no one gave him the time of day.

Let’s analyze one of these speeches, which begins at 3 minutes into the video and was presented before congress on April 24, 2002.

“Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.”

This is absolutely true. The chaos gave us many unexpected problems. Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grew after the invasion. And the country is now under Shiite control, moving it dangerously close to Iran. In 2002, Iran’s president was the more philosophically minded Mohammed Khatami…but now we have an anti-Semitic loudmoth, Ahmedinejad. Russia has moved into Iran to build an energy alliance. Vladimir Putin, and his cronies in Gazprom and Lukoil would love to gain control of the natural resources in Iran and Russia has been helping the Islamic Republic develop nuclear technology which US intelligence believes is being developed for destructive purposes. Let’s hope and pray they are wrong.

China and Pakistan have certainly taken advantage of the chaos. Not only is their alliance stronger, but the oil contracts in Iraq are going to—guess who—China! Kind of debunks the whole left-wing moonbattery that Iraq was “blood for oil”.

You can find more detail in these articles:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802200.html

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/China-Benefits-from-Oil-Deals-with-Iraq/

“Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations, this will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”

What exactly do you think the “Arab Spring” is? Peaceful democratic people overthrowing dictators? Not quite. The Muslim Brotherhood, a precursor to Hamas, has founded its own political party in Egypt; it is possible these theocrats will gain significant power in the new government. Let’s not forget that Libyan and Yemeni rebels have been linked to Al Qaeda. Just the other day the new Al Qaeda cheif Ayman Al-Zawahiri was lauding the rioters in Syria.

And certainly the dictators—such as Gaddafi and Mubarak—aren’t moderate in the eyes of their own people, but often American politicians have viewed them as such. Useful when we need them, disposable when we don’t as Mobutu Sese Seko and Saddam Hussein once were.

“Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court”

This wasn’t entirely true, Saddam was tried by his own people. But did we really “win” the war. We turned the country over to the Shiite theocrats instead of secularists and now those people are getting close to Iran.

“An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.”

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.”

Ah yes, remember when that Burger King value meal was around $3.

“Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.”

Though Bernanke has kept interest rates low, there is the prospect of T-Bill interest rates going up with the forthcoming debt crisis. There has been a dollar devaluation of 40% against the Euro since this 2002 speech, nearly 14% since June 2010 alone according to an article in The Washington Post.

Quantitative easing most definitely contributed to the high gas prices we see today. If you think it was all the fault of this “Arab Spring”, take a look at the Commodity Price Index some time. This freshly “recycled” dough being put in the hands of speculators causes them to artificially drive up the price of oil and other commodities, some of which are being bought as a hedge against the falling dollar; quite the vicious cycle.

As for gold, when Congressman Paul gave this speech gold was roughly $300 per ounce and today it stands at more than $1615 per ounce; you can check out the historical data on gold prices here.

That’s a whopping 438% increase.

“Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.”

The president today has the power to order the assassination American citizens, as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki—traitorous as he may be, this is wrong. The Constitution has rules for punishing those who commit treason. But President Obama has ignored this and has ordered him to be killed if possible with drone strikes in Yemen.

The welfare state has expanded significantly. A new, unaffordable addition to Medicare under Bush 43 was passed. We saw more than a trillion dollars of so called economic stimulus under Nancy Pelosi and the combined presidencies of Bush and Obama, and that’s not even including Obama’s wasteful and unpopular health care overhaul. Not to mention billions of foreign aid to countries, some of which—such as Pakistan—are less than trustworthy.

“This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.”

The middle east is on fire right now. The Israelis are more concerned for their security than ever before. Meanwhile the Saudi lobby pushes us to deal with Iran, with the hopes that they can beat the Islamic Republic in terms of spheres of influence in this theocratic mess of a region.

“Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.”

This one is self evident. Class warfare is a weapon of distraction used by those who wish to expand the size of government while fat cats at firms such as General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and BP fatten their wallets thanks to government’s policy of picking winners and losers via loopholes and subsidies. The administration may talk the talk, but just take a look at Obama’s campaign contributions and how cozy he is with Jeffrey Immelt; how GE almost got away with paying no taxes, and how a former Goldman Sachs legal adviser with no judicial experience now sits on the Supreme Court.

In addition, a piece was posted two days later, here, containing more words than in the video, which appears as if it may have been cropped to save time. Some of the predictions in that post, such as a reinstatement of the draft did not come true (thank God), but there is one of note that have somewhat come to fruition

“Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.”

If you go on YouTube and read the comments sections on almost any video relating to middle eastern politics, you will find that it is a cesspool of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, and many of the people making these comments are living in Europe. You can take my word for it as a person of Middle Eastern descent who keeps up with these things, or you can check it out yourself. The barbaric theocrats of Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt by many YouTube in the UK, France, Germany and Greece, while the Israelis are fallaciously smeared as “genocidal” and heartless.

Ron Paul’s predictions show a deep understanding of not just economics, but human emotions in the geopolitical world. Those who dismiss him as a “nut” and on the fringe would be wise to thoroughly read this article before making such a judgment. The facts are on his side, and he truly does seem to know what he is talking about.

Dr. Paul concludes with:

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Well, 2012 will be ten years in. You weren’t wrong on all accounts Ron, in fact, you were right on a great many of them. We should all be most displeased that these predictions came true.

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Photo of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R, TX) by: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)”]

Published 7/29/11 on Examiner

Trading Massive New Debt for Unenforcable Promises of Future Cuts is Grossly Irresponsible

AUSTIN, TX -  The plan to raise the debt ceiling agreed on by the House this weekend is a total fraud, a vessel of broken promises, and a gross evasion of congressional responsibility to spend within its means, according to the Republican Liberty Caucus, a national organization of activists with official affiliates in 42 states. The Caucus Board of Directors blasted the latest deal as an insult to the basic American principles of individual liberty, limited government and private enterprise.

“The details will probably be secret until after the law is signed by the President,” says RLC Director Bill Westmiller of California, “but it is certain that it will authorize enough additional debt  to pay the costs of last year’s bailout, the Democrat’s stimulus, all the expenses of ObamaCare, and the continuation of extravagant federal programs implemented by both Republicans and Democrats over the past decade.”

The nearly three trillion dollar increase in the Debt Ceiling will take away all pressure on Congress to implement responsible spending policies for the next eighteen months, ensuring that spending and debt issues will not be prominent during the 2012 campaigns.

“This deal is a blatant violation of the promise from House Speaker John Boehner that every dollar of new debt would be matched by a dollar of cuts,” noted RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle. “All of the cuts are stretched over ten years, while the deficit spending will occur in less than eighteen months,” explains Nalle, “which means that we’re actually getting less than ten cents of current cuts for every dollar of perpetual debt. That’s not a deal, it’s a blank check for bigger government.”

The final plan includes unspecified spending cuts, which would be spread over ten years. For the coming fiscal year, there will be real cuts of less than $100 billion dollars. Since the bill assumes that the same level of reduced spending will continue for ten years, the “savings” are simply added together, for the supposed $1 trillion  of cuts.  There’s no real plan for specific long term cuts.

“Whether it’s one trillion or three trillion, it’s meaningless,” explains RLC Northeast Regional Director Vic Berardelli of Maine. “The Supreme Court has already ruled and all legislators acknowledge, that one Congress cannot impose any obligations on a future Congress,” says Berardelli. “That means that all of the promised cuts are not binding on the federal government after the next election.  They might as well not even exist”

The Supreme Court threw out the Gramm-Rudman Balanced Budget Act in July 1986, as a violation of the Constitution, by a 7-2 vote. Every prior budget authorization must be renewed by the new Congress, or it simply expires.

“There are no real cuts in the debt ceiling compromise,” says California RLC Director David Johnson. “Instead there are just promises of cuts to ‘projected spending,” which is another way of saying they’ve eased up slightly on the accelerator of the car heading for the cliff. These guys aren’t even trying.  I fully understand that the big cuts needed from defense and entitlement are controversial. But where are the smaller uncontroversial cuts? Why are there no cuts in corporate welfare? Why no cuts in foreign aid?”

The main source of added revenue is more than a trillion dollars obtained by auctioning off cell phone frequencies. All of those costs will be passed on to clients of the cell-phone companies with increased prices. Although technically not a “tax increase”, it will produce additional federal revenue that can be applied to new programs or expansions of old programs.

“This authorization, applauded by leaders of both parties, does absolutely nothing to reduce the debt,” says RLC Director Aleq Boyle of Georgia. “The deal actually allows a 50% increase over ten years, from $14.3 trillion to at least $21 trillion by 2021. Even if annual budget deficits were reduced by 100% over the coming decade, the actual public debt and annual interest due will increase more than it has in any prior decade. The pretense that the debt problem is solved is a perverse charade.”

“The fear-mongering about this issue is truly craven,” says RLC Vice Chairman Aaron Biterman.  “Telling people that failure to adopt this huge debt increase will result in U.S. bond rating downgrades, higher consumer interest rates, and possibly cutting entitlement payments. That’s all pure fantasy. The reason that the monopoly federal agencies cut bond ratings is because the interest demanded by the consumers of government bonds has increased, not because an agency lowers their rating.”

Currently, U.S. Federal Debt is nearly 100% of GDP, comparable with Italy (120%) and Ireland (114%). Those countries have had their debt ratings downgraded simply because of the level of their debt in comparison to their GDPs.  Two of the major U.S. ratings agencies say that adding more debt will not prevent a ratings downgrade: the Congress must show an earnest effort to reduce the outstanding debt, not merely the deficit.  This bill does not include enough cuts to offset the massive increase in debt.

“In any case, there is no reason to default on bond debt or interest,” adds Westmiller, “since the government has more than enough incoming revenue to pay all public debt, all pension checks, and everything else enumerated in the Constitution as a federal power. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the U.S. Treasury honor all debt instruments and pensions ‘without question’,” says Wesmiller.  “Contrary to the claims of some Democrats, nothing in the 14th Amendment gives the President any power to borrow money at his sole discretion.”

“The most grievous flim-flam in this deal was trashing the requirement that Congress send a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states,” notes RLC Secretary Corie Whalen, “which simply won’t happen. The deal was modified to simply require one vote on the issue, which Democrats will easily defeat in the Senate. That ends any hope that Congress might actually allow the states to make a decision on balancing the federal budget.”

“The entire budget deal is a shameful fraud,” says RLC Chairman Dave Nalle. “It doesn’t do what our leaders say it will do; it allows increased revenues demanded by the President; it only pretends to cut spending, and it gives Democrats the power to force tax increases and other revenue raising measures through a Super Committee before the end of the year.”

“Although this agreement was a failure and a fraud,” concluded Nalle, “some praise goes to the small cadre of newly elected fiscal conservatives in the House, most of whom were endorsed by the RLC.  They at least spoke up for fiscal respnsibiity and forced a change in the terms of the debate. They stuck to their principles in the face of hysteria and doomsday threats. The RLC will be looking for more responsible candidates to join them in the House and the Senate in 2012.”

-30-

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a nationwide grassroots organization which promotes individual liberty and limited government within the Republican Party.   You can find more information about the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.rlc.org

Speaker John Boehner is engaged in an epic struggle to pass some sort of compromise plan to raise the debt ceiling while cutting spending, moving forward with desperation and a certain amount of bullying to push through a plan which has now been modified and reduced to the point where it can only be described as absurd. Feeling the pressure from the endless fearmongering of President Obama and Timothy Geithner, Boehner seems to have gone off the rails with a plan which actually offers fewer cuts than the Democrats and no spending cap at all.

It’s a very heated issue in which some of the facts are being lost, so let me straighten them out.

Boehner’s Plan

Boehner’s current proposal is being described in some quarters as an increase in cuts from his earlier proposals, but in fact the cuts included are bizarrely inadequate. The plan currently includes $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years with another $1.8 trillion in unspecified cuts to be implemented by a special committee at some point in the future, in exchange for a $2.7 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

The first phase of cuts only comes out of discretionary spending and all cuts to entitlements are left to the bipartisan committee at some future date. Whether this committee or its cuts will ever happen is highly debatable when the balance in Congress shifts next year and plans get rewritten.

The cuts are spaced out over a 10 year period, amounting to only $300 billion a year, and with more than half the cuts still in abeyance, the real cuts in the first year are only $120 bilion or likely even less. In fact, the way the cuts are structured the cuts in the next year may be as low as $6 billion. And because the cuts are not enough to offset increases in debt just from interest, spreading them out over 10 years means that they will be outpaced by debt increase and never come close to catching up. Ten years of small cuts to offset an immediate debt limit increase only works if there are not more debt limit increases down the road, and with cuts so small further increases are unavoidable.

The total cuts over a 10 year period, assuming even the entitlement cuts happen is less than the proposed budget deficit for the next two years, leaving 8 years worth of further debt increase in the next 10 years adding up to an increase of almost $10 trillion in the national debt. So the net result of the plan is a massive increase of the debt, not any real reduction.

The current Boehner plan also includes no provision to pass a strong Balanced Budget Amendment as a prerequisite to any debt limit increase. Every Republican in the House and Senate signed on to the Cap, Cut and Balance pledge and Boehner’s plan fails to meet its requirements. It also puts no caps on federal spending except for discretionary spending which makes up about a third of the budget.

Boehner’s plan is so bad that Sen. Harry Reid can actually make an argument that his proposed plan has more real cuts than Boehner’s does, because Reid’s plan includes substantial cuts to military spending and more overall cuts per year. It still results in a huge net increase in spending, and it raises taxes on those who already shoulder most of the tax burden, but in total it’s just a different bad plan, not really any worse than Boehner’s.

The Fearmongering

Perhaps the biggest lie in this whole melodrama is the claim coming from the White House and from Tim Geithner that the US will default and have our credit rating downgraded next Tuesday if we don’t raise the debt ceiling. These claims are nothing but an irresponsible intimidation tactic.

As Senator Rand Paul eloquently points out, and as I explained in detail in a previous article, there is absolutely no need to default on our debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. By prioritizing spending we can easily meet the requirements to servie the debt and provide for entitlements out of incoming revenue and we could probably keep doing that for 6 or 8 more months before it became a real problem.

Of course, this would put a lot of pressure on the administration because Obama and Geithner would be the ones who would have to make those spending decisions and they would get the blame for cutting subsidy programs, furloughing federal workers, closing down national parks and the other small short-term austerity measures necessary to meet obligations. They’d rather scare us with empty threats than admit the truth that we’re broke and need to tighten our belts – even in the federal government.

The other big lie here is that raising taxes on the “wealthiest among us” will actually solve the problem. If we were to raise taxes substantially on the top 1% of earners that would not be enough to balance the budget. Even raising taxes to the 70% rate of the Reagan era – almost double the current rate – would only raise about $300 billion more a year at a huge cost to the economy. So when Obama talks about raising taxes on the rich, he’s mostly making an argument for a symbolic act of class warfare.

What they also don’t point out is that we’re just as likely to have our credit rating downgraded if either of the current proposals passes. Because both Boehner’s and Reid’s plans are so inadequate they don’t represent the kind of real solution to the long term debt problem which international credit agencies are looking for, so they’re really worth nothing at all.

Real Solutions

The reality is that we need to put all this bickering aside and pass a real plan which actually addresses this problem in a substantive way. We’re not getting out of this mess without major cuts and a real cap on spending along with some policy changes which will spur economic growth.

• Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and cap spending at a level tied to a percentage of GDP like the 18% proposed in the Cap, Cut and Balance pledge. Only by capping future spending can you make long-term cuts offset short term debt increases.

• Make cuts equal to or greater than any increase in the debt limit and make them take effect more quickly so that they reduce debt faster than interest increases it. A minimum of $600 bilion a year for 5 years would be a responsible proposal. And to do this you would need to go beyond the Boehner proposal to go after both military spending and entitlements. Just ending our current foreign deployments would take care of most of these cuts.

• If a tax increase is what it takes to get President Obama on board for real cuts, then let him have an increase of 10% on those earning in the top 1% (over $380 million a year), but offset that increase with a 10% cut in capital gains, which would have a great stimulative effect on the economy.

• Do the only thing which will really spur the economic growth which will get us out of a recession relatively painlessly. Cut corporate taxes. They don’t bring in that much money and that revenue is going down as companies offshore to avoid what is now the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Cut the rate substantially or eliminate all corporate taxes so that they will come to the US as a tax haven instead of fleeing and taking jobs and money out of the country with them. Short of lowering wages – which is not at all popular – cutting taxes on businesses is the easiest way to create jobs and grow the economy.

At this point the melodrama surrounding this issue is becoming embarrassing. Real problems need real solutions, not pandering, fearmongering and passive-aggressive walkouts on negotiations. Boehner, Reid, Geithner and Obama need to start acting like grown-ups, make serious proposals and work out compromises which give up more than either side wants for the good of the people and the nation.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine.

When a virtual army of RLC endorsees including Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey and Mike Lee plus Congressmen like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul are all backing something you know it has to be a good idea and an important statement for smaller and more responsible government. While some congressional leaders like Sen. Mitch McConnell seem ready to sell out to the Obama administration’s demands for more taxes and spending, responsible leaders with principle are promoting the “Cap, Cut and Balance” pledge.

With the US facing an unavoidable debt crisis, we’re not going to be able to balance the budget and revitalize our economy on the backs of taxpayers or with superficial cuts in a few programs or cuts put off over long periods of time. We need real and substantial cuts now, including an end to our unnecessary wars, restructuring of entitlement programs and a program by program audit of every aspect of the federal government.

Faced with demands to raise the debt limit without implementing needed cuts, fiscal conservatives in Congress are signing the new “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge which follows the guidelines of the Republican Study Committee and demands real and immediate cuts, enforceable spending caps, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

As proposed by the Republican Study Committee, Cut, Cap, and Balance entails:

* Cut – Immediate spending cuts to reduce the deficit by half next year. According to March projections from the Congressional Budget Office, this would require spending cuts of approximately $380 billion in the 2012 fiscal year.
* Cap – Statutory, enforceable caps that bring spending into line with average revenues at 18% of GDP. Reps. Kingston and Mack have each introduced legislation that would ratchet total federal spending down to 18% of GDP over the course of 5-6 years.
* Balance – House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap at 18% of GDP and a supermajority requirement for tax increases. The House Judiciary Committee and all 47 GOP Senators have endorsed Balanced Budget Amendments along these lines.

You can show your support by signing the pledge too at www.cutcapbalancepledge.com.

And please help support our efforts to promote liberty issues and reform the Republican Party by joining the RLC today or by making a donation.

Questioning the modern welfare state’s wisdom or solvency is the most effective way to irritate those of a liberal political orientation. Raising doubts about its constitutionality at the federal level is something no Democratic candidate or loyal rank and file voter would ever be caught engaging in. The identity of the modern American left is distinctly defined by a no-questions-asked embrace of federal money for allegedly charitable purposes.

Most conservatives are excellent at outlining the ways our system for helping the needy is gamed and taken advantage of. They are also accurate when stressing the role of churches and individuals in helping the downtrodden; generosity is more honorable when done voluntarily and not due to an implicit threat from the IRS. But what frequently goes unasked is whether conservatives have become equally uncritical when it comes to the parts of government they hold no aversion toward.

Newly elected Tea Party Senator Rand Paul recently stated that “Many Republicans treat war like Democrats treat welfare,” shedding light on a glaring deficiency in conservative critique of the states’ growth. While they are spot on in analyzing federal welfare’s potential to erode social mores, this suspicion is absent when it comes to the claims government makes about war and foreign policy.

Conservatives once prided themselves on jealously guarding America’s sovereignty and stressing only judicious overseas intervention. When Ronald Reagan was faced with the 1983 killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, he decided to pull the troops out instead of further enmeshing his nation in difficult to comprehend Arab internal politics. No fear-tinged lectures were given about “Surrender” or “Cowardice”; Republican stalwarts like Reagan instinctively understood the distinction between protecting America and wasting taxpayer dollars in a part of the world we share little in common with.

But many of those who embrace the neoconservative philosophy heap outright scorn on Republicans who would exhibit these characteristics today. When John McCain derided as “isolationist” anyone who opposes the Libyan bombing campaign, he was using logic that flew in the face of the Republican tradition of foreign policy realism alive as recently as the George H. W. Bush years. But fortunately the Arizona senator is becoming a minority in his own party.

Most Republicans readily acknowledge domestic government intervention causes unintended consequences such as unemployment and inflation. But frequently overlooked is that American overseas intervention, no matter how noble it sounds in the abstract, often holds the same potential for unforeseeable outcomes. Conservatives like Robert Taft and Reagan understood this, backing use of the military that was reserved for constitutionally prescribed national defense purposes only.

This traditional Republican foreign policy is slowly coming back into style. Nation building and democracy spreading experiments no longer elicit enthusiasm among conservatives; trillion dollar deficits and an ultra-hawkish left wing president have helped reignite a desire to see a small government footprint at home and abroad. Any conservative hoping to establish their debt-shrinking prowess must now put Pentagon spending on the table next to the litany of federal handouts.

Any Republican who questioned overseas expenditures was sure to be banished to the conservative ghetto during the all war, all the time Rumsfeld/McCain era of GOP dominance. Today, with a debt-concerned and war weary public, asking these same questions might just mean a seat in the Oval Office.

New Hampshire Democrat Governor John Lynch announced that he will let a $10.2 billion, Republican-crafted budget for the state become law without his signature.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire sent out a press release congratulating House Speaker William O’Brien and House Republicans for passing a responsible budget that completely reverses the course of previous legislatures and historically cuts spending in New Hampshire by 11.7 percent, setting state government on a new course to fiscal sanity.

The RLC endorsed over 80 of the current elected House members. That coalition, no doubt, has given the Republican House the backbone needed to tackle the budget, Right to Work, and a favorable business climate.

“There is no doubt that this budget is historically positive for the people of New Hampshire,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. “Speaker O’Brien and the House members we elected in November [did] exactly what they promised voters they would do by cutting taxes and spending without any budget gimmickry.”

The balanced $10.2 billion New Hampshire budget for Fiscal Years 2012-2013 relied heavily on House leadership’s position that budget writers could not exceed revenue projections. The Senate was only able to shift revenue projections by 0.4 percent from the House projections in January. At the same time, House leadership was also able to convince Senators not to raise new taxes, fees or add additional downshifting to the counties, cities or towns of the state. In fact, the House was even able to secure additional tax cuts to increase business traffic from out-of-state shoppers.

In general and education trust fund spending, the House was able to secure a $4.42 billion budget, a 12.8 percent decline from the previous cycle. The budget cut is the largest in modern history—maybe longer.

“As an organization that understands the principles that lead to the most prosperity for the most people involve less government spending, lower taxes and fewer bureaucrats enforcing senseless regulations, we are looking at this budget as the first gleam of light from a new dawn of common sense governing,” Hemingway said. “I expect the voters of New Hampshire to respond quite favorably to the principled stand taken by House Republicans, and against the scare tactics and deception of those who would prefer politics as usual.”

Not only did this budget historically reduce appropriations by about $1 billion in all funds and $467 million in general funds, it also eliminated 1,500 unneeded government positions (most of them unfilled, anyway), and it reduced some of the more onerous taxes and fees instituted by the Democrats when they were in power, such as the surcharge on auto registrations. The budget also included comprehensive reforms to the State Retirement system—the first step toward eliminating an unrealistic system that taxpayers can no longer afford.

At the same time, the House compromise budget fully funds education by sending $4 million more than the governor’s budget and 9.5 percent more than the current budget to the local cities and towns. As recognition that restorative change takes time, the budget also funds Health and Human Services programs for the developmentally disabled, children in need of services, children with special needs, domestic violence programs and adoption subsidies, while also prohibiting the use of taxpayers’ money for abortions.

Evidence against June 13 GOP debate sponsors CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader continues to mount as they persist in excluding former two-term Republican Governor Gary Johnson from the Manchester, New Hampshire debate.

WMUR and the Union-Leader have been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned Americans, many complaining that they are embarrassing the state of New Hampshire and jeopardizing its status as a first in the nation primary state.

And now Johnson supporters recently released a video targeting CNN:

HOPE AND CHANGE

Johnson’s supporters are hosting a MoneyBomb for his campaign in conjunction with the debate, and cries for inclusion have come from different corners of the political spectrum — ranging from Willy Nelson to the gay conservative group GOProud.

Additionally, there is hope for Johnson supporters:

CNN tried to keep former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel out of the June 3, 2007 Democratic presidential debate, but his supporters flooded CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader with requests and their decision was eventually reversed. Mike Gravel was able to debate.

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA

The specific criteria CNN and the other outlets are using to justify the exclusion of Governor Johnson also doesn’t add up. The first requirement for inclusion in CNN’s debate is that the individual be “a candidate,” but some of the invitees not only are not candidates (Michele Bachmann), but haven’t even taken a single official step toward becoming one (Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin). CNN’s own definition of a potential invitee is “a candidate”.

CNN selectively used versions of polls that included the names of spoiler non-candidates (such as Palin and Giuliani) in its listed criteria. Despite excluding other polls, Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13 debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” category.

In the May 27 CNN poll, three different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidates Giuliani and Palin, one including spoiler non-candidate Palin (but not Giuliani), and one including neither Giuliani nor Palin. In the survey that did not include the two spoiler non-candidates (who, as non-candidates, were not eligible for invitations anyway, under CNN’s objective criteria), Gary Johnson earned 2%.

In the May 26 Gallup poll, two different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidate Palin, and one not including spoiler non-candidate Palin. In the survey that did not include the spoiler non-candidate, Johnson earned 3%.

Finally, in the May 4 Quinnipiac poll, only one survey was taken, and Johnson earned 1%.

So the May Johnson poll results using CNN’s poll sources are: 2 + 3 + 1 divided by 3, which equals 2%. View the poll data compiled here.

A Johnson supporter explains the math for all you visual learners:

Finally, in a just-released PPP poll, Gary Johnson leads GOP contenders in favorability ratings in their home states. Johnson is supported by 44 percent of New Mexico voters.

SKETCHY FROM THE START

GOP Presidential candidate Fred Karger explains how the CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader debate has been problematic from the very beginning. Says Karger, “The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is very clear on the rules governing debates stating that, ‘The organization staging the debate must select the candidates based on pre-established objective criteria.’ CNN’s criteria is objective, but was the criteria pre-established?” The following evidence was collected by Mr. Karger:

1) Invitations were sent to Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. When were the invitations sent?

2) Were the invitations sent out on a rolling basis, rather than after the criteria period closed? Donald Trump was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 16, 2011. Mike Huckabee was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 14, 2011. Haley Barbour was not invited. Barbour met the criteria after the April 22, 2011 release of a Gallup poll. Haley Barbour announced he would not run on April 25, 2011.

3) Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman did not meet the polling criteria until he received 4% in the UNH poll, which was released on May 23, 2011 at 5pm (pdf). Jon Huntsman announced he would not participate in the debate on May 27, 2011. In the three full days between 5pm May 23, 2011 and May 27, 2011, Jon Huntsman would have needed to receive an invitation from the debate sponsors and have decided to decline that invitation.

4) Herman Cain: Herman Cain announced on or before May 24, 2011 that he would attend the NH debate. When was he invited? Herman Cain met the criteria on April 28, 2011.

5) Rudy Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani qualified on May 4, 2011, when the UNH Survey Center released its Granite State Poll. When was he invited?

6) Polling firms excluded: Why did the criteria exclude the following polling firms: Rasmussen, Zogby, Public Policy Polling and Suffolk — all of whom conducted national polls on the Republican 2012 primary during April and May 2011?

7) Debate Date Moved: The Debate was originally set for June 7th, but was rescheduled to June 13th. The decision to change the debate date was announced on April 27, 2011. Why was the date moved?

8.) UNH Survey Center Polls: When were the UNH Survey Center’s two polls about the 2012 Republican primary (which came out in May 2011) commissioned? Were they commissioned prior to April 1, 2011 (the beginning of the criteria period)? It is important to note that in May 2007, the UNH Survey Center did not conduct any polls about the Republican primary.

The 2007 debate was also hosted by CNN, WMUR TV and the New Hampshire Union Leader. In this debate there were 10 participants: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson. The pre-established objective criteria for this debate was never released; however, by 2011 standards, it would have been a 6-man debate. During April and May of 2007, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson did not average 2% on three national polls.

If the same criteria was applied 4 years ago, UNH Survey Center polling would have excluded Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore and Ron Paul, all of whom would not have met (.pdf) a 2% polling criteria.

TAKE ACTION

Please take five minutes to contact CNN, WMUR, and the NH Union-Leader and demand that Gary Johnson is included in their June 13 GOP debate.

A former Republican Governor should automatically gain inclusion in a GOP debate. It’s really that simple.

For WMUR, call 603-669-9999 or email them; for the NH Union-Leader, call 603-668-4321 (redirect to the Newsroom) or email them; for CNN, call 404-827-1500 or text CNN (space) and your news tip.

Also, please sign this petition for inclusion.

CALLING FOR INCLUSION

A variety of individuals and groups are calling for Johnson’s inclusion in the June 13 debate. A sampling of comments is found below.

“The decision to exclude Gary Johnson is completely out of step with the spirit of the New Hampshire primary. We endorse an open political process that keeps New Hampshire special. We respectfully request that the debate partners — CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader — reconsider this decision and welcome Gov. Johnson to the June 13th debate.”
– David Hurst
Chairman, New Hampshire Young Republicans

“When any media outlet decides they are the judge of a “viable” candidate, such as the denial of Governor Gary Johnson (in a GOP debate at St. Anselm’s College Monday), at that point they are usurping the voter’s right to choose a candidate. I say shame on any news agency putting itself in a position to decide which candidate is worthy for America to hear. Just on the face of this issue it seems un-American.”
– Jerry DeLemus
Chairman, Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC

“Man, Gary Johnson’s supporters are dedicated, and unrelenting.”
– Jeff Winkler
Columnist, The DailyCaller

“GOProud has significant policy differences with Governor Johnson, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. However, we believe strongly that Governor Johnson deserves to be included and that Republican primary voters’ best interest would be served by having his voice in this important debate.”
– Jimmy LaSalvia
Executive Director, GOProud

“CNN appears to be aiding and abetting the attempted overturning of gay marriage in one of the five states where it is legal. CNN should lead the way and open up its debate to all serious Presidential candidates, not just some.”
– Fred Karger (who also wants to be included in the debate)
GOP Presidential candidate

“Sign the change.org petition to get Gary Johnson into the debate!”
– Willy Nelson’s TeaPot Party

Let us not accept NO as the answer. Doing so would allow CNN too much power over the GOP primary.