Nameless Spending Bill Punishes States, Rewards Democrats

Like every piece of legislation coming out of Congress these days, the more you know about the Democrats "stimulus" bill with no name, the worse it gets. Today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal brings to light the worst parts of this bad bill.

Specifically, the bill stipulates that federal funds must supplement, not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year's spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year's level.

Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi did the math and figured out his state will be worse off. Mr. Barbour says the bill will force his state "to rewrite its current year [fiscal 2011] budget. Preliminary estimates of the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration show that we will now have to spend between $50-100 million of state funds—funds that must be taken away from public safety, human services, mental health and other state priorities and given to education—in order for an additional $98 million of federal funds to be granted to education. There is no justification for the federal government hijacking state budgets, but that is exactly what Congress has done."

That's not all. The legislation would actually force Texas legislators to violate their own constitution.

For Texas, and only Texas, this funding rule will be in place through 2013. This is a form of punishment because the Beltway crowd believes the Lone Star State didn't spend enough of its 2009 stimulus money. Apparently Texas politicians have been clinging to the quaint notion that the government should try to live within its means.

Texans also seem to have an old-fashioned appreciation for the rule of law. On Friday, 22 GOP Members of the state's Congressional delegation sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "This provision would have Texas violate her own State Constitution," they wrote. "The Texas Legislature has sole authority to determine State appropriations. Moreover, one Legislature cannot bind a future Legislature. Requiring the State to assure that a future Texas Legislature would commit to spend funds in accordance with these provisions would violate the Texas Constitution."

Texas Governor Rick Perry is also opposed to this new "assistance" from the federal government. He understands that one-time payments that force permanently higher state obligations are a windfall for government employees. But if given the choice, taxpayers would just say no.

Of course, we keep hearing that it's all about "the children" and saving the jobs of teachers. But the Journal also goes on to note that a Michigan teachers union refused to concede to changes in its members' health plan. The concession would have reduced the cost of family coverage from $23,000 per year to $17,000. It's like going from a Mercedes to a Cadillac, but they would have none of that. Why would they, when Congress and President Obama were waiting in the wings, ready to send them taxpayer funds they can use to fund their exorbitant benefit packages, all the while sending money back to the Democrats to help finance their campaigns.

No wonder Obama can't get his approval ratings out of the gutter. He and his fellow Democrats are legislating from the gutter. No matter how much they spend, the economy keeps getting worse. The Fed announced more plans to "stimulate" the economy and the stock market responded with its worst day in over a month. So much for confidence. The trade deficit is getting worse and millions of unemployed Americans can't find jobs.

This graph shows that none of the so called stimulus has stimulated anything but poverty and dependence in America.



No wonder the Democrats don't want to run on their record. Who would?

Cross posted from The Lonely Conservative

Scott Brown: Why Do I Always Have to Vote with Democrats?

Senator Scott Brown asks "Why is it that I'm always the one that has to vote with the Democrats?" If he isn't regretting that question now, he should be.  How revealing is that? Why would Senator Brown want to reach across the aisle to Democrats when they never reach back, and the bigger question, why would he extend a hand to unconstitutional legislation?

Scott Brown

This Boston.com article says Republicans haven't supported Brown's alternative to the Democrat's extended unemployment benefits bill. Can it be that Republicans have offered the same over and over and always been ignored? Republicans want the extended benefits paid for with available unused stimulus funds.

“Why is it that I’m always the one that has to vote with the Democrats?’’ Brown lamented. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street, you know? Why can’t they also work together to pay for these things within the budget, within the monies that we already have? Why is it that we always have to add to the deficit?’’

 To that question in the bold type above, we don't have "to add to the deficit" unless RINOs vote with Democrats. Brown apparently doesn't watch the news, and apparently doesn't have an historical clue. Democrats have made it clear they will not pay for extended benefits. Brown says the $35 billion unspent stimulus is a D.C. slush fund, but he appears shocked that Democrats will not capitulate and actually take a portion of a Republican idea. I'm guessing some of the unused stimulus money will somehow make it to some needy Liberal's campaign war chest.

We've been watching this sideshow for years. Democrats never reach across the aisle. Perhaps that's why he is "always the one that has to vote with Democrats." Shameful! Maybe he was misquoted? What do you think? Thanks to Fox Nation and Weasel Zippers who had a very nice link there today.

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Thanks Karen!

John Cornyn Health Care: Cornyn No Conviction for Constitution: Sallie Mae: Health Care Lays Off 2500

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has signaled that he does not have the conviction to believe the new health care law is unconstitutional. He is leaning more and more to reworking health care, and focusing on jobs. What is it that our legislators do understand about "unconstitutional," thus "illegal?" He is buying the Democrat load of poo, and while the government adds to its payroll, the private sector will struggle to stay alive - everything will come at the behest of the government. To make the point right of the gate: Sallie Mae has announced the government takeover of student loans is forcing them to layoff  2,500. Friends, the government creates absolutely no wealth. What happens to a government with no wealth producers? Take a look at 90% of the world's countries living with no private sector wealth. This is unthinkable for America, yet with this president, it is a possibility.

John Cornyn

Democrats are doing what they do best. Selling. Cornyn is buying. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) publicly said that the issue of "repeal" is a sticky one for Republicans, because it is telling people something will be taken away from them. Menendez is not talking about the money out of our pockets, the loss of privacy between us and our doctors, the loss of control of our medical records, the loss of quality health care, the loss of employment as physicians retire and go elsewhere, and the loss of the relevance of the Constitution.

Cornyn has clearly relegated the U.S. Constitution to his "I'll get to it later" pile, or worse, to the trash heap of inconvenient rules and regs. 

Cornyn wants to focus on the "misplaced priorities of the administration." He wants to focus on jobs.

Can't we focus on more than one attack on our citizens at a time? Pound them on both, and "up" the talk on immigration, please. The Democrats do it. We can too. Repeal the bill, and then put the portions you want to keep back into the new legislation. The American people trust nothing in this bill. Start over and get some conviction! If you don't believe the legislation is unconstitutional, we do. What if we are right?

Think about it, Cornyn. ObamaKare is a job killer AND it is unconstitutional. Sallie Mae is sounding a warning bell. Come out and tell the American people minorities will be the beneficiary of our tax money by funding government loans, minorities schools will be the beneficiary of our tax money, and once graduated, all loans will be forgiven if you go to work for the government for a certain period of time. Read about the government education bloat in the health care bill here.

Here is a frightening thought: Cornyn is the head of the committee that choses which Republican candidates to support with GOP monies, and which will be not be supported. We need to watch this man like a hawk. He supported Charlie Crist and DeDe Scozzafava.

Bart Stupak: Pelosi 16 Votes Short - at least: House GOP to Force vote on Slaughter Rule

Here's a jumble of thoughts regarding passing health care. In Rep. Bart Stupak's interview with Greta Van Susteren, said he "would be surprised if Pelosi has "200 votes." If he's right, she is 16 votes short. The Weekly Standard says Obama took his talking points from them when he told Democrats "We need courage," since he is not on the ballot in November, and further, he voted "present" nearly 130 times as a state legislator and... See the Greta video below.

...never, as a U.S. senator, took on any powerful interest group in his own party.

Pullout Quote from The Weekly Standard:

It takes courage for a polity to say no to the temptations of welfare state politics. It takes courage to turn away from the public trough and refuse to think of ourselves as victims and entitlees. It takes courage to become, once again, self-governing citizens. And it takes courage to rally ourselves to fight against—and to preempt—the forces of terror and the nations that harbor and sponsor them.

If you haven't seen Rep. Michele Bachmann's video, calling to fight illegitimate health care and illegitimate taxes, it will make your day.

Larwyn, an extraordinary newshound, who has brilliant mindbursts to share with us, gathers and posts some of the best blogging around. One of her mindbursts suggested in an email that all the Democrat "no" voters on health care tell Pelosi they will vote "yes," spurring her to call for the vote. Then they vote "no." Ding Dong the Bill is Dead! This is real courage and Democrats, by showing that courage and following the President's call for it, can claim it as their own in November, and probably have a chance at keeping their seat. Without that courage, they'll have no chance. Sounds like a plan to me, Larwyn.

Staci at Bliss talks about Oklahoma Congressman Dan Boren - a Democrat - who "gets it," and says something about breaking his arms and walking over his "dead body." Read it at Bliss and see what Boren, a real Democrat, has to say about health care.

Mary Katherine Ham at The Weekly Standard says the following is a resolution they will introduce today to force a vote on the legality of the Slaughter Rule. Snippet:

Resolved, That the Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that provides for disposition of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590, an Act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unless such rule or order provides for—

(1) at least one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, or their designees; and

(2) a requirement that the Speaker put the question on disposition of the Senate amendments and that the yeas and nays be considered as ordered thereon.

And, we all know how fond the Democratic caucus is of an up-or-down vote.

I heard Rep. Jim Clyburn this morning on FOXNews talking about the Slaughter Rule. He said 60 people had already voted on the Senate bill, so there was no reason for the House to do so. They could legally 'deem' that the House had done so, and he saw no problem with it. See the Clyburn video here. Here's the Van Susteren and Stupak video. The comment about Pelosi having only 200 votes comes at the end.





Greta Van Susteren and Rep. Bart Stupak (video)



Others Talking about the GOP Forcing a Vote:
Memorandum - lots more discussion - look for topic Slaughter House Rules
Michelle Malkin
Hot Air

McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Struck Down? Supreme Court Strikes Blow at McCain Feingold

It appears that the Supreme Court has struck down the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, at least to some degree. See update below.

The Washington Post now has the story.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states....

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

 The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Update 1-21-10:
From NRO: The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, and joined by Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The decision overturns Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell vs. FEC, which separated individual and collective campaign contributions into two legal classes and restricted the latter. But it upholds restrictions on direct contributions by corporate bodies to candidates, as well as requirements that the funding sources of political advertisements be disclosed to the public.

The case does not affect political action committees (PACs), which pool voluntary donations from individuals for direct contributions to candidates.

The case was originally heard in March 2009 and examined the laws that cap corporate spending on political activities. But then, the case was given "an unusual" rehearing focusing on "whether corporate spending limits were themselves consitutional."

The courts ruling essential was an issue of free speech, saying that that it is unconsitutional to place a restriction on political donations.

Linked by Chicago Ray - thanks!