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.

For Immediate Release: May 17th, 2011
Contact: Dave Nalle, National Chair: (512) 656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS CALLS ON CONGRESS TO HOLD THE LINE ON DEBT
Congress Should Cut Spending Now, Balance the Budget and Not Raise the Debt Ceiling

AUSTIN, TX – Ironically, on Friday the 13th, the government ran out of money.  Some numbers were juggled to buy a few months of time, but this means that this week the House of Representatives has to decide what to do about the chronic problem of spending which exceeds government income.  The easy “solution” promoted by government bureaucrats and many special interests is to raise the debt ceiling yet again, despite the fact that it already stands at $14.3 trillion. The Republican Liberty Caucus believes that the fear mongering about the debt ceiling is not justified and that we should not be bullied into taking on more debt when there are other responsible solutions that don’t merely kick the can further down the road.

Last week, the Republican Liberty Caucus board unanimously passed a resolution opposing any increase in the debt ceiling, and endorsing immediate spending reductions as a sensible solution to this crisis.  The resolution demands that Congress “shut down non-essential government programs and limit operational expenses to incoming revenue until a balanced budget can be passed.”

The resolution is accompanied by explanations of the situation for our members, and clear proposals explaining how to implement immediate spending reductions without causing a default or major crisis.  By paying debt service first and then prioritizing other spending, essential government services can be maintained.  Cutting funding to some low priority programs will buy time to implement the reductions necessary to balance spending with incoming revenue on a month to month basis until the Congress can put together a balanced budget.

“Congress hasn’t been doing its job to produce a balanced budget.   Hitting the debt ceiling ought to be a wake-up call for them,” said RLC board member Bill Westmiller.  “This may be a crisis, but it’s also an opportunity to apply immediate solutions that will bring spending under control right now and stop putting it off and making the situation worse. It’s like they’re waiting for some magical pixie to fix our budget crisis and plan to just keep spending at an ever increasing level until that magic moment comes.”

“We’re putting on a full-press to make Congress aware of our concerns. The RLC is tirelessly promoting a message of fiscal responsibility and encouraging supporters to contact their representatives. It’s time we demand that they stop mortgaging the prosperity of future generations to pay for past political deals,” said RLC Executive Secretary Corie Whalen.

“We may not win this battle, but the war to restore liberty and fiscal responsibility will go on,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “The entire House is up for reelection next year  and how they perform in this situation and what they do about balancing the budget in the next year will tell us who to support and who to oppose.  A lot of seats changed hands in 2010.  Based on the lack of fiscal responsibility shown by  congressional leaders in this situation, 2010 may have just been a preview of 2012.”

– 30 –

See the full text of the resolution at http://www.rlc.org/2011/05/17/resolution-in-opposition-to-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

Further information on this campaign can be found at http://www.rlc.org/2011/05/15/tell-congress-to-hold-the-line-on-debt/

To contact a local or national spokesperson call 512-656-8011

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a 527 political organization founded in 1991, committed to protecting the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise that once defined the Republican Party. The Caucus recruits and endorses candidates who support our agenda, works to elect limited-government Republicans to political office, and seeks to change the direction of the Republican Party to reflect members’ vision of liberty, peace and prosperity.  The RLC currently has local affiliates in more than 40 states and hundreds of endorsed office holders nationwide, including in the US House and Senate.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 31, 2011
CONTACT: Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

Grassroots Republican Caucus Calls for Government Shut Down
Americans Are Tired of Paying for Irresponsible Leadership

WASHINGTON, DC — Speaking for thousands of grassroots activists nationwide, Dave Nalle, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, advised lawmakers not to compromise on the budget or to expect to be held accountable.

“Republicans who were elected to significantly cut the size of government should listen to the will of the people — or expect to be held accountable in the next election,” said Nalle.  “The proposed cuts are too little and too late and further compromise with Democrat politicians who are not serious about downsizing government will betray the results of last November’s elections.  If standing up for fiscal responsibility means the government must be shut down, then it is on the heads of the big spenders and let them pay the political price for it.  Shut it down!”

Nalle’s statement came in response to the revelation that Republican House Speaker John Boehner is trying to make a back-room deal with moderate Democrats to pass a budget with only $33 billion in cuts for the fiscal year.  Chairman Nalle’s outrage was echoed by grassroots leaders of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who conferred to discuss a response to the failure of party leaders and determined to remind their representatives that the Republican grassroots elected them to end the era of out of control spending and dramatically downsize government.

Florida RLC Chairman Matt Nye observed that “spending at every level of government is out of control, but nothing compares to the fiscal insanity we are witnessing in Washington, D.C. This new batch of Republicans was elected to get America’s financial house in order, but to date they have failed utterly and completely. It is hard to understand how such a simple fact of reality – that you cannot consume more than you produce – is so hard for our elected officials to understand and act on when regular Americans do it every day in their own households.”

At-Large RLC Board member William Westmiller of California asked, “Why shouldn’t Republicans support the shutdown all non-essential government services?  If the Democrats refuse to cut those marginal services, GOP leaders should be promoting creative solutions like privatization. For example, if the government can’t afford to run national parks, they should be sold to the highest bidder and the receipts applied to reduce the national debt.”

David Williams, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of North Carolina, said, “Last year North Carolina voters made it clear that they want sweeping budget cuts and a government that lives within its means. The new Republican majority Congressional delegation, the state’s first in over 100 years, will earn the respect and continued support of North Carolina voters if they follow through on their pledge to restore fiscal discipline without tax increases.”

And Michael S. Murphy, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, observed that, “The message sent by the American voter was not heard clearly enough by the Republican Congressional leadership. With the exception of a few Liberty Republicans that emerged from the Tea Party Movement, the Republican establishment has proven yet again that they can’t be trusted with responsible budgetary governance. The only way to halt runaway deficit spending is to shut down the government to save our Republic from the irreversible financial abyss it’s about to dive into.”

Concluded Dave Nalle, “Today the National Republican Congressional Committee sent me a fundraising email signed by Speaker Boehner. Why would grassroots GOP donors take a donation request seriously from the ‘leader’ who is about to compromise with the Democrats on a totally unacceptable budget? The House GOP Leadership is making a mockery of the peoples’ call to cut spending.”

“Shut the government down. Come home to your districts for a week or two and hold some town hall meetings.  Give us a chance to remind you face to face why we’re so fed up with the way you’re spending our money and ignoring the debt problem,” said Nalle

–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.

On Saturday afternoon, Governor Gary Johnson was in Austin for a barbecue at Bartholomew Park sponsored by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Central Texas. RLC Chairman Dave Nalle captured the Governor’s remarks on video (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4). He touched upon his background in business, his run for governor, and his positions on various political issues. You can watch and listen below:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Earlier this week, Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) was on The Daily Show promoting a new book about how the younger generation of Republicans wants to reform their party and Congress.

Stewart asked the right questions and pushed Cantor enough to provide an excellent illustration of how far the New Radicalism has taken us and also of what still needs to be done to complete the transformation of our government from the monstrosity which it has become to what it was intended to be and what the people want it to be.

After this interview I’m calling this the “The Eric Cantor Effect,” because the degree to which we can influence this misguided but still malleable Republican moderate and bring him around to see what the people want, is a bellweather for the success of the efforts of groups like the tea parties and the Republican Liberty Caucus to use the Republican Party to institute substantive government reforms leading to a return to Constitutionally limited government and real respect for individual liberty.

Cantor has not yet been fully converted, but he seems to be starting to grasp the substance behind the anger of the people and is clearly trying to respond to it. His discussion with Stewart is an interesting illustration of the struggle he is going through. He’s part way there. When we manage to fully inform and transform Congressmen like Cantor who can be influenced, then we will have succeeded.

Stewart: You voted for No Child Left Behind. You voted for REAL ID. You voted for the Medicare bill which is a trillion dollars unfunded. You voted for the PATRIOT Act. In what way are you a limited government…in what way do you want to shrink government. Because your record is clearly not…doesn’t speak to that.

Cantor: John, first of all, I’m here to say we understand we got fired and there was a reason.

Stewart: So you would take all those votes back.

Cantor: I would take all those votes back, but what I can tell you on…

Stewart: You would take most of those votes back.

Cantor: On the REAL ID issue you better believe government’s got a role in making the airways safe.

Stewart: But that’s my point. You pick and choose. When you people say ‘I want smaller government,’ they want smaller government for where they want it to be small. Each political party makes choices for where they want government to be more powerful.

Cantor: They want a Constitutionally limited government and the Constitution is very explicit when it comes to national defense…

Stewart: They would make the case that it’s very explicit about the commerce clause. You can always make that case.

Cantor: I mean, national defense is fairly straightforward. I mean I think the commerce clause is where things have gotten a little vague.  There’s been abuse. I mean we were responsible..

Stewart: But in’t there abuse in also the defense industry, in the military industrial complex.

Cantor: Absolutely. Nobody is going to defend every expense going on in the Pentagon for sure. What we’re about in the book is saying ‘accountablity’ You know, that we can’t afford to keep spending money we don’t have and people are fed up.

The highlighting here is mine, and it illustrates the points which Cantor is beginning to understand, a transformation which we hope is also happening in the minds of other Republicans who have not been in office too long and become too corrupt to listen to the people.

Cantor does seem to understand that it’s about limiting government, about restoring adherence to the Constitution, and about reducing spending. He even seems to half understand that cutting defense is a big part of it, but clearly he has some reluctance to accept the full implications of that. He also seems not to get what Stewart clearly does get, which is that intrusions on individual liberty like REAL ID are also a major part of the problem. But he’s come part way. He knows the people are angry and he’s at least accepted some of the reasons. And perhaps most importantly he has admitted fault, repudiated his past behavior and shown a willingness to change. Cantor also seems to realize that there will be accountability in the future. He may not fully understand what that means, but he knows enough to be scared.

With legislators like Cantor starting to see the light, we’ve already made remarkable progress towards reclaiming our government. But despite his 11th hour conversion, relying on him and his “Young Guns” (the title of his book) to make the changes we want is unlikely to be sufficient. They are too tainted already and too prone to backsliding and repeating their past mistakes. They need to be further educated and to be have their feet held to the fire every day until they truly abandon their old ways and become real representatives of the people.

They will play an important role in reclaiming our government, but more important will be the small but determined group of newly elected Congressmen and Senators who will join them after the November election. With no history of corruption and a much more intimate understanding of the demands and anger of the people, they will form a new power block and a new cadre of leaders who may not lead by seniority but will lead with a moral authority which will cause weak reeds like Cantor to bend to their wind.

It’s very good news that Cantor and others like them are seeing and admitting their past errors. They still have miles to go before the people will truly forgive them, and it is essential that in the future they and all elected officials be held accountable and be reminded that they serve the people of this nation and not just the special interests and insider power cliques which have led them astray in the past.

Governor Gary E. Johnson has been called the next Ron Paul.  He has not yet announced his candidacy for president, but has been widely mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate who reflects the Tea Party’s and liberty Republicans’ perspectives.

I recently blogged about Governor Johnson’s background.  He received good grades from the Cato Institute when he was governor and has a taste for honesty that is rare in politics and business today.

Besides serving as governor of New Mexico for two terms, he had built a significant corporation from scratch, which he sold in 1999.  Readers who would like to contribute or help Governor Johnson can find contact information on http://ouramericainitiative.com/. He also has a Facebook group page with 2,000 members.

Langbert: Governor Johnson, it is a privilege to interview you.  I teach business administration at Brooklyn College.  What are three things that you learned from your business career that could be applied to the federal government or that you did apply as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: I started my company in 1974 and I was the only employee.  In 1994 we had 1,000 employees.  Things that I learned and applied as governor include the importance of hiring good people; cutting mistakes short; and sticking to basic principles.

I’m good at hiring people and have a great track record.  But mistakes are inevitable. When you make a mistake in hiring, you need to cut it short.   As governor, I avoided political appointments as much as possible.  There was one instance where I was forced to make one, and I closely monitored the individual’s performance.

The obvious things are most important. The basic principles:  being on time, sticking to principles, telling people to tell the truth.  As governor, I sat down in cabinet meetings and I told people to tell the truth.

L: One of the realities of large organizations is the use of information to manage conflict and improve social compatibility and coordination.  Managers call these patterns interpersonal skills.  Might not 100% truth telling interfere with interpersonal skills? Of course, if everyone in industry tells the truth, costs and performance will be improved.

J: On the contrary, being honest 100% of the time makes it easy.  If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.  What you’re talking about is managing conflict.  Someone once said that honesty is where what you say and what you think are the same as what you do.  But of course you can say things that minimize conflict.

L:  To what degree is it possible to cut the federal budget? How would you go about cutting?

J: I faced the same situation in New Mexico as the president faces.  I could have cut big government in New Mexico drastically and no one would have noticed.  (That is, these government employees produce no value for the economy.) The spending train is out of control.  But the Democratic legislature fought me and the courts handed down adverse rulings.  The legislature was 2 to 1 Democratic.  Common sense has gone out the window.  First you have to stop the spending.  The time is ripe for doing so in Washington, and it’s accomplishable.

We are a bankrupt nation.  We’re not taking care of our own house. Unlike the generation before us, interest and principle payments are due now. The enormous budget deficits will lead to inflation and an ever weaker dollar.

L:  What is your position on the bailout and TARP?

J: I would have opposed both.  Government should not have been involved in this. The Paulson connection amounts to this being an inside job.  Why should Goldman and AIG be saved but not Lehman?

L: What is your position on health reform?  How would you recommend the system control health costs?

J:  I would recommend a free market approach to health care reform.  Increase supply through the free market.  Gall Bladders R Us. We ended up with an insurance entitlement rather than health care.  Extending the current approach will lead to shortages and rationing health care.

The same principle applies to education.  We should blow the lid off publicly controlled education.

L: What is your position on the Fed and the gold standard?

J: The Federal Reserve deserves full responsibility for the housing bubble and as well deserves credit for mitigating the bust.  Overriding that, the dollar is now worth a nickel.  I understand the arguments for a free market in money and I support them.  I shy away from the phrase “regulate the Fed” because I do not want Barney Frank deciding monetary policy.  I wouldn’t say the Fed needs to be abolished.  I understand the argument for a gold standard, though.  The US government should be pursuing a strong dollar policy, which the Fed hasn’t done.

L: What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

J: I’ve been to Israel and the Golan Heights and I understand the threats Israel faces from outside and within. I can’t summarize my position as the issues are too complex. I do believe in a strong national defense.  But our security is not threatened by Iraq and Afghanistan.

L: Where do you stand on Iraq and Afghanistan?

J: I believe we should pull out of both and return our focus to fighting terrorism. The focus needs to be protecting America. I’m not sure if that is still the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised that Obama increased US presence in Afghanistan.

L: What about Social Security reform?

J:  Social Security is flawed.  When it was brought into existence the life expectancy was  55. Benefits started at 65.  Now, life expectancy is 75, and benefits start at about the same age. It’s a Ponzi scheme.  A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary.  At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate.

L: What do you think of making Social Security voluntary and converting it into a defined contribution plan?

J: That would make it viable.

L: What is your position on states’ rights and state sovereignty?

J: The states are 50 laboratories of democracy.  The burden that the federal government places on the states is outrageous.  The same is true of health care.  A return to federalism is needed.

L: Thank you, Governor.  I am certain that liberty Republicans will be interested in learning more about your ideas.

House Democrat leaders are pushing for a Saturday vote on their sweeping health-care bill.

There are certain Democrats who MUST be called every day from now until the vote, which may be as early as Saturday now. Here’s the Target 92 list on the House side to all vulnerable and Blue Dog Democrats.  Blue Dogs are in blue. Here’s the .xls and .pdf versions.  Of note, the first 40 on the list are the Blue Dogs that signed the “deficit-neutral” letter mentioned above.  Everything you need to email their staff, write letters, make phone calls and send faxes, both to their district and Capitol Hill offices.

Keep calling out to the House and to the Senate in general. Of course, you can also reach them via the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. And of course, here is the CapWiz alert so you can contact your own members directly.

Top Ten Tax Increases Included in ObamaCare House Bill H.R. 3962

1. Small Business SURTAX (Sec.551, p. 336) – $460.5 Billion
2. Employment Mandate TAX* (Secs 511-512, p.308) – $135 Billion
3. Individual Mandate TAX* (Sec. 501, p.296) – $33 Billion
4. Medical Device TAX* (Sec.552, p. 339) – $20 Billion
5. $2,500 Annual Cap on FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325) – $13.3 Billion
6 Prohibition on Pre-Tax Purchases of Over-the-Counter Drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs* (Sec. 531, p.324) – $5 Billion
7. Tax on Health Insurance Policies to fund Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Sec. 1802, p.1162) – $2 Billion
8. 20% Penalty on certain HSA Distributions* (Sec. 533, p.326) – $1.3 Billion
9. Other Tax Hikes and Increase Compliance on U.S. Job Creators – $56.4 Billion
………> IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553, p.344) – $17.1 Billion
………> Delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules (Sec. 554, p. 345) – $26.1 Billion
………> Override U.S. treaties on certain payments by “insourcing” business (Sec. 561. p. 346) – $7.50 Billion
………> Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties (Sec.562, p.349) – $5.7 Billion
10. Other Revenue-Raising Provisions – $3 Billion

TOTAL TAX INCREASE . . . . . . . . . . $729.5 Billion

*[Violates President Obama's pledge to avoid tax increases on Americas earning less than $250,000]

The Minnesota chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus has been hard at work, reaching out to prospects as we approach the 2010 elections.

This weekend, the Minnesota RLC will be operating a table at the state GOP Convention. This is the first time the Minnesota RLC has ever appeared a statewide party event. Says Secretary Norann Dillon, “With all of the talk and ttention on LIBERTY in this party, it will be an important outreach event for us.”

The Minnesota RLC is looking for volunteers to maintain the booth, so please contact us if you’re interested. The Minnesota RLC will be using the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, asking folks to drop off business cards for a book raffle, and handing out RLCMN cards to prospects.

Additionally, in September, members of the Minnesota RLC drove to Fargo, North Dakota to attend the first-ever Economic Reality Summit. The RLC and the campaign for Liberty sponsored the summit, which offered a “wake up call” to residents on fiscal issues like the national debt and government spending.

The Minnesota affiliate tabled and reached out to prospective members at the event. Many of the interested parties were North Dakota residents, so the Minnesota RLC helped lay the groundwork for the possibility of a North Dakota Republican Liberty Caucus in the near future.

Thank you to the members of the fabulous Minnesota chapter for their continued hard work!

The below guest opinion was published in The Montana Standard newspaper on May 7, 2009.
______________________________________________________________________________

Why I voted ‘no’ on the stimulus

by Senator Joe Balyeat

“Big government can’t solve our problem; big government is our problem.” — Ronald Reagan The budget recently passed by Montana’s Legislature was hailed as a bipartisan feat, including total spending of almost $11 billion and so-called federal stimulus spending of $1 billion. I voted against both spending bills. Why?

One senator characterized the federal stimulus as free money “… that doesn’t cost Montana taxpayers one dime.” Commenting near April 15, the irony was self-evident; any naïve notion that Montanans don’t pay federal taxes must come from someone who’s never completed a federal Form 1040.

More importantly, the “free money” is non-existent; it’s deficit spending, which is putting an insurmountable debt load on the backs of our children’s children.

Presently, the national debt is $11,246,599,828,489 — roughly $11 and a quarter trillion dollars. According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Obama’s spending spree will leave us with a $20.3 trillion debt 10 years from now. This is real debt which someday needs to be repaid by our heirs — debt owed increasingly to foreign nations, especially China.

America’s been living beyond its means on our children’s money. Now that this lavish lifestyle is coming home to roost, Obama’s answer is more of the same thing which initially created this mess — bailing us out by spending more money we don’t have. Twenty trillion dollars translates into $266,667 of debt on the backs of every family of four in the entire United States.

Even if you’re completely debt free personally, you’ll still owe over a quarter-million dollars as your family’s share of the federal debt. Our parents handed us the greatest nation on the face of the earth; we’re handing our children the greatest debt ever imaginable.

Is Montana’s state government any less irresponsible? While Montana’s governor and politicians talked of an austere budget, Montana’s total spending increases 19 percent over last session’s budget, which itself repre-sented a nearly 40 percent increase in government spending during the previous four years.

Montana’s current budget spends $10,787,000,000 — $10.8 billion for two years. This translates into $44,254 in spending for every average Montana family of four. In a state where the average wages are only $32,000 annually, how can our struggling private sector possibly support this much government?

Considering Montana’s high number of government employees per capita, the total government spending per private sector family balloons to $48,000. And much of this expanded spending is debt-financed. While Montana’s average wages languish near the bottom, Montana’s state government debt per capita ranks in the top 10 nationally. Moreover, that per-capita debt has increased almost 50 percent in just the last three years alone.

Much of this increased government is nothing but micro-meddling regulation of our lives and businesses. The Legislature needlessly “licensed” several more occupations this year, with further regulations making it that much harder for young people to better themselves by entering certain careers.

During one licensing debate, I announced that next session I’d sponsor a bill to license politicians, and the education requirement would be at least one course in economics. The wisdom of this ed requirement was proven during debate on the stimulus bill, when one senator (who’s lived off a government paycheck his entire adult life) made the absurdly false statement that “every economist knows that the government should spend more money during recession.” I refrained from providing names of at least a dozen economists in Bozeman alone who disagree profoundly with that notion, especially when speaking about deficit spending — squandering our grandchildren’s well-being under a mountain of inflationary government debt.

I also refrained from pointing out that expanding government’s regulatory meddling actually stymies economic growth, rather than fostering it. Will Rogers once said, “Thank God we don’t get all the government we pay for.” Update that quote n Thank God we don’t get all the government our grandchildren will be paying for.

My “no” vote was a vote against America’s self-inflicted destruction of history’s greatest economy, a vote against burdening the backs of each family with a quarter-million-dollar bad debt, a vote for my children and children’s children, a vote for giving them the same life of economic opportunity which my parents handed to me. Unfortunately, too few politicians just said “no.”

Sen. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman and a CPA, is chairman of the Legislative Audit Committee and Business, Labor, & Economic Affairs Committee.