This past week House Democrats presented their $3.6 trillion budget resolution – a budget which spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. The Democrat budget proposes a deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2010, with the national debt climbing to $17.1 trillion.  It also includes one of the largest tax increases in history.  The spending in this budget is so massive that independent estimates suggest roughly 250,000 new federal bureaucrats may be needed to spend it all. 

….

In these challenging economic times it is even more important for government to control spending. The federal government must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to it.  Families and small businesses all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford, and Congress should not be allowed to ignore these tough decisions when creating spending policies for the federal government.   

One aspect of spending that has gotten alot of attention is earmarking. Here too Congressman Goodlatte has put actions behind his words. The Daily News Record notes that he has submitted the sixth lowest number of earmarks of any member of Congress:

xGoodlatte himself has long said that cutting wasteful spending should be a priority for Congress.

Earmarks, he said, can be useful for setting aside funds that have already been budgeted for worthwhile projects, based on the needs of communities, he said in a statement on Friday.

“While I have made limited use of earmarks, there have been serious abuses and excesses by others with this process,” he said.

Not spending the money that has already been budgeted is not an option, he said, because the funds would be redirected to other projects.

Virginia’s Sixth District should be represented fairly in the earmark process, he said.

More disclosure and accountability is needed, Goodlatte said.

“The entire Congress,” he said, “should enact a moratorium on earmarks until standards are adopted for all.  But until that is done I will continue to use my own careful review process,” in weighing the legitimacy of earmark-related funding.

As Congressman Goodlatte notes, the earmark process is often misunderstood. While it is correct that these projects are often quite silly and are used to reward supporters in a quiet manner, the money is generally already set aside. Indeed, Congressman Ron Paul, while voting against all earmarks and budgets, argues that all money should be earmarked so as to know its exact use. Regardless of your views on earmarks, however, it is certainly heartening to see a member of Congress that recognizes the severity of the situation and that there is no need to risk mortgaging the next generation and endangering the income of the current one to pay for things we can’t really afford and who understands the government’s moral responsibility in spending citizen’s earnings for the common good. 

It is especially heartening knowing that he’s MY Congressman.

The president, convinced that the only thing America has to fear is an insufficiency of fear, has warned that “disaster” and “catastrophe” are the certain alternatives to swift passage of the stimulus legislation. One marvels at his certitude more than one envies his custody of this adventure.

 

 

Certitude of one flavor or another is never entirely out of fashion in Washington. Thirty years ago, some conservatives were certain that their tax cuts would be so stimulative that they would be completely self-financing. Today, some liberals are certain that the spending they favor — on green jobs, infrastructure and everything else — will completely pay for itself. For liberals, “stimulus spending” is a classification that no longer classifies: All spending is, they are certain,necessarily stimulative.

Will recounts the last time that Democrats were this certain about the healing power of massive government spending:

resident Lyndon Johnson was embarked on building the Great Society, assisted by policymakers who, wrote Time, “have used Keynesian principles” to smooth the moderate business cycles and achieve price stability: “Washington’s economic managers scaled these heights by their adherence to Keynes’ central theme” that a modern economy can operate at “top efficiency” only with government “intervention and influence.” So, “economists have descended in force from their ivory towers and now sit confidently at the elbow of almost every important leader in government and business, where they are increasingly called upon to forecast, plan and decide.” Ten years later, the “misery index” — the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate — was 19.9, heading for 22 percent in 1980.

I’m not one to wish misery upon this country or to predict economic trends. However, past history shows that Keynesian economics may be good for a short term fix but in the long run can hamper the engines of innovation in our economy. 

Will wraps it up with an apt comparison to the first “100 Days”–but not the one you’re thinking about:

John McCain probably was eager to return to the Senate as an avatar of bipartisanship, a role he has enjoyed. It is, therefore, a measure of the recklessness of House Democrats that they caused the stimulus debate to revolve around a bill that McCain dismisses as “generational theft.”

The federal government, with its separation of powers and myriad blocking mechanisms, was not made for speed but for safety. This is particularly pertinent today because if $789 billion is spent ineffectively or destructively, government does not get to say “oops” and take a mulligan. Senate Republicans have slowed and altered the course of the “disaster! catastrophe!” stampede. Still, as Anthony Trollope wrote in one of his parliamentary novels, “The best carriage horses are those which can most steadily hold back against the coach as it trundles down the hill.”

Not yet a third of the way through the president’s “first 100 days,” he and we should remember that it was not FDR’s initial burst of activity in 1933 that put the phrase “100 days” into the Western lexicon. It was Napoleon’s frenetic trajectory in 1815 that began with his escape from Elba and ended near the Belgian village of Waterloo.

The text of the Nelson-Collins “compromise” had been roughly 778 pages, but the now “agreed-to” conference report has DOUBLED to a whopping 1434 pages. With an additional 700 pages in the bill, it is no wonder that Members would like to review the single largest spending bill in this nation’s history before casting a vote.

But, in possibly the most bizarre parliamentarian argument ever made, according to National Journal’s Congress Daily; “Democratic lawmakers fired back that Republicans didn’t need to see the bill anyway, since none of them voted for the stimulus when it moved through the House the first time and would probably stand in opposition.”

So let me get this straight–simply because they didn’t vote for the bill the first time House Republicans have no right to examine the whole package? While I certainly hope that House Republicans will stand strong again against big government, as the people’s representatives that have the right AND duty to examine the final package on behalf of their constituents. 

To say otherwise is to say that government really does know best. And that’s a scary thought.

As Scott notes below, the tax cuts now included in the stimulus package are sub-optimal from an economic standpoint. But the poll data show that most Americans understand that the Democrats’ bill is essentially a power grab–a massive transfer of wealth from the private sector to government and the clients of the Democratic Party.

The President tonight was very harsh tonight in slamming Republicans for increasing spending over the last decade, and frankly it was largely deserved. However, Democrats are handing Republicans the chance to re-claim the mantle of being the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility. 

Let’s hope next time we’re in power we won’t screw it up.

• $100k for doorbells in Laurel, Mississippi
• $500k for a dog park in Chula Vista, California
• $621k for intercom and PA upgrades in Anchorage, Alaska schools
• $1.5 million to discourage prostitution in Dayton, Ohio

All worthy projects, but worth putting up to two generations of Americans another trillion dollars in debt?

The November elections were widely seen as a rebuke to Republicans, and Mr. Obama has claimed the economic crisis as a mandate for action, leaving Messrs. Boehner and McConnell groping for the right blend of cooperation and defiance.

Republicans can’t simply be “the party of ‘no,’ ” Mr. Boehner, of Ohio, said in an interview this month, but must offer solutions to voters’ problems. “We have to give the American people reasons to take a look at us,” he said. Tuesday, Mr. Boehner issued a statement congratulating Mr. Obama on his inauguration, vowing to find “common ground with the President on solutions to rebuild our economy, strengthen American families, and keep our country safe.”

Similarly positioned opposition parties have taken various paths. In 1993, Republicans fought Bill Clinton on almost everything. Eight years later, many Democrats cooperated with George W. Bush on certain items, such as tax cuts and education overhaul.

With likely minorities of 41-59 in the Senate and 178-257 in the House, Republicans — who just four years ago seemed on the cusp of long-term dominance — have less leverage than any minority in recent memory.

“I think it’s important not to be in a hurry,” Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, said in an interview in his office in the U.S. Capitol last week. “The new president has high approval ratings. Polls indicate that both Republicans and Democrats want him to be successful. We want to be a respectful, loyal opposition.”

The opening of the article best summed up the dueling faces of the party as it stands:

House Minority Leader John Boehner recently attacked the potential “wasteful spending” and “mountains of debt” in President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. A few days later, he warmly invited Mr. Obama to address House Republicans, saying, “We do not want partisan differences to stall achievement.”

Yesterday the party won a major victory (at least internally) by unanimously opposing the House Stimulus package. They also managed to offer an alternative proposal which, while imperfect and somewhat slapped together, was still an alternative. Can they keep this up?

We’re in the wilderness. Now all we need is a leader. Will it be from Congress?

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities.” 

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.  

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as “payoff” for groups’ political activities in the last election. ACORN generally supports Democratic candidates and actively backed President Obama last year. 

I’m generally against any non-profit with an ideological streak getting taxpayer dollars (or really, any non-profit), but given ACORN’s actions during the election (or at least their slipsoh excuses for “oversight” over their organizers) this one takes the cake. 

But I guess its true what they say. Payback IS A……

Pelosi took umbrage when asked about complaints by Republicans today after their meeting with President Obama LINK: that he seemed willing to work with Republicans while Pelosi and Democrats in Congress seem hollow in their efforts at bipartisanship.

She said she Democrats have met with Republicans in committee on the stimulus, before the inauguration and now the President has met with them too. She said Republicans were given 25 hours of debate in relevant committees to provide input on the stimulus and will be given a vote on their own substitute.

Really, she implied, what Republicans are complaining about is losing the election.

“They had opportunity to make their views heard and put on the table,” Pelosi said. “Now, we had an election that was about our different views and the direction our country was going in. We had a different point of view. The American people agreed with us. Bipartisanship means giving an opportunity to make their voices heard and maybe to persuade in the marketplace of ideas. It does not mean we will have a continuation of the last eight years of failed economic policies that have taken us where we are today. 

Madame Speaker seems to remember just where President Bush’s exhortation that he had “political capital he intended to spend” got him four years ago. Perhaps to put it a more poetic way, the Speaker should take heed that so 45 odd percent of this country did not sign the Democrat’s two year lease. If they keep up this sort of presumptuous behavior, they may not be interested in renewing in 2010.

This was the most laughable item in the news today:

On the eve of a key vote, President Barack Obama privately promised Republican critics he stands ready to accept changes in $825 billion economic stimulus legislation, and urged lawmakers to “put politics aside” in the interest of creating badly needed jobs.

What a joke! The Dems’ $825 billion pork-fest bill is nothing but politics. Every constituency of the Democratic Party, every crony of powerful Democratic legislators, every pet liberal project will be showered with bacon. The idea that “putting politics aside” has anything to do with this bill is an insult to your intelligence.

 

They also have perhaps the most important chart you’ll see all week:

As you can see, the vast majority of the spending in this “urgent” bill won’t even kick in until after the first of NEXT year. 

Also, they have two important links to follow the package as it lurches towards approval: Read the Stimulus and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s Majority Tracker blog.

Of course, that’s just in the House. In the Senate, it’s a different story. From RedState:  

Despite the heavy security measures, the folks at ReadTheStimulus.org managed to get a hold of a copy — and I stress the word copy — of the Senate bill. It should tell you something that the only copy we were able to obtain was a paper duplicate which was Xeroxed at least once, then scanned to a computer.

Oh, and the file we finally obtained was corrupted, meaning it can’t be put online and converted into a searchable database as was done with the House version over atReadTheStimulus.org. Well done, Senate — you’ve created a secret, corrupt bill that simply can’t be made accessible to the American people.