A House In Denial

While House Democrats deny the proven concepts of supply-side economics and that Washington has a spending problem, a panel of House Republicans today denied that the world's temperature has risen over the past 150 years. While one cannot prove that climate change is the result of human action (or inaction), the fact is that if take a graph and plot temperatures and years, as we move towards today the points on the graph move higher and higher. Below is such a graph (click it for a full size / clear view):

The blue dots are the data points, the x-axis year, the y-axis is annual mean temperature (degrees Celsius), the solid red line is a trend line, and the bold black line is the 25-year moving average. When the trend line and the moving average both show upward motion, that is a clear indication that the temperature has been rising.

The far-left, scientists, environmentalists, fellow conservatives, and even fourth-graders who have learned how to make scatter plots / trend lines have made a mockery of the Republicans for their inability to understand simple mathematical concepts. While it can be argued that the government should not be concerned with climate change, you can't really argue against the laws of mathematics. How can Representatives be taken seriously when they push for deficit reduction when they screw up like this?

Dear John, Where Are The Jobs in H. R. 3?

When the American people elected a majority Republican House of Representatives last November, they did so because they wanted representatives in Congress who would listen to the mandate of the people that long-term job creation was the most important thing to the American people. Additionally, the people mandated that they wanted the deficit to be reduced without hikes in taxes. The new Speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he would make job creation a priority. Even President Obama, in The Wall Street Journal and in his State of the Union address, championed supply-side economic principles with a strength not seen since the administration of Ronald Reagan in order to to reduce the deficit and create jobs.

The Republicans started out pretty well. They read the Constitution aloud to start the 112th Congress and implemented new rules to ensure bills have to be Constitutional to be brought before the House. H. R. 2 was a measure to repeal an act passed by the previous Congress that would kill jobs and was not wanted by a majority of the country.

H. R. 3 is the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," and while it sounds like it would save tax dollars by preventing taxpayer funds from going to pay for abortions, it actually will cost the taxpayers more.

When a woman becomes pregnant, there are a few basic outcomes that can happen. The first possible outcome is that a woman carries the child for a period (usually around 9 months) and gives birth to a baby. The second possible outcome is a natural or unwanted failure of the pregnancy, such as a miscarriage. The third outcome is that the pregnancy is intentionally ended, which is known as an abortion.

While H. R. 3 would prohibit taxpayer funding for an abortion, it would still allow taxpayer funding for the labor and delivery of a baby. As illustrated below, using a low-range figure for the cost of labor and delivery, it is far cheaper for the taxpayers to fund a woman having an abortion, or even a dozen abortions, than to fund having a child:

From a pure economic sense, and for lowering the deficit, it seems that the government ought to actually encourage abortion instead of having children for people on government healthcare. It also is the case that many children who are born will have much of their costs not paid for by their parents, but paid for via government welfare programs, creating greater burden on the American taxpayer.

Worse, H. R. 3 does not create a single job. There is no mention of the word "job" or "jobs" in the bill. If anything, it kills jobs because a reduction in demand for abortions will put abortion doctors, nurses, and counselors out of business. Jobless, they'll also seek unemployment benefits that are funded by taxpayers.

At this point, with unemployment still over 9 percent, H. R. 3 just is not the type of bill that Congress needs to pass. The American people need Congress to focus on passing job-creating bills, not job-killing bills.

Pathetic

The single word that can best describe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) this week is "pathetic." Pathetic because Senator Reid doesn't care about ensuring that the Senate adheres to the will of the American people.

In the House of Representatives, the House and held a straight yea/nea vote on the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." The House passed the bill with a vote of 245 YEA to 189 NEA. A majority of the American people supported the repeal of healthcare reform (also known as Obamacare), so it made sense that the House would take up the issue, hold a direct vote on it, and voted with the will of the people.

In the Senate, however, Senator Reid says that he won't allow a straight yea/nea vote on the bill, effectively killing it. Given that the Democrats have majority control of the Senate (51 votes) and the two independents in the Senate to lean left, many would wonder why Senator Reid is afraid to allow a straight yea/nea vote. It's because Senator Reid is a weak leader, and many moderate Democrats will follow the will of their constituents instead of that of Senator Reid and President Obama. If all Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of repealing Obamacare, only four Democrats or independents would need to join them to pass the repeal. With some Democrats having campaigned on promises to support the elimination of some parts of Obamacare, and other looking at 2012 races in districts with a large number of independents and/or conservatives, it is very likely that Obamacare repeal could actually pass in the Senate.  Senator Reid doesn't want that to happen, so he simply will use procedural tactics to stop a legitimate vote on the issue and prevent the will of the American people from being followed in the Senate.

Senator Reid is even more pathetic because he is playing a role as President Obama's protector. If the American people, the House, and the Senate all supported Obamacare repeal, President Obama would be forced to either sign the bill or veto it. If he vetoed the bill, which is the most likely outcome, then the President would be in a very bad position going into the next election, having blatantly and directly ignored the will of the American people and disregarded the votes of both houses of Congress. By preventing a bill from reaching President Obama's desk, Senator Reid is protecting the President at the expense of the American people who deserve the opportunity to have the Senators they sent to Washington actually vote on legislation that matters to them.

Democrat Accuses GOP of Blood Libel

When Sarah Palin referred to attacks against her as "blood libel," it set off a firestorm of criticism. While criticism was primarily from the left, it also came from the center and even some on the right. Oddly, the same level of criticism isn't happening following Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) using the term "blood libel" to refer to the Republican efforts to pass House Resolution #2, a bill aimed at repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Here's what Rep. Cohen said:

They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing, blood libel. That's the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it -- believed it and you have the Holocaust.

It appears that accusing your opposition of blood libel isn't allowed when you're a conservative under attack, but that when you're a Democrat trying to defend legislation that has been ruled partially unconstitutional and is has its repeal supported by a majority of the country, then it's fine. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

Obama Must Be Listening

After reading President Obama's opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Towards a 21st-Century Regulatory System, we're convinced that President Obama must be reading and listening to at least some of what we've said.

President Obama opens by praising free market capitalism:

For two centuries, America's free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. That vibrant entrepreneurialism is the key to our continued global leadership and the success of our people.

The President further went on to criticize excessive government intervention and regulation, calling them "unreasonable burdens on business -- burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs." Previously, we wrote about President Obama looking towards the concept of supply-side economics to help reduce the national debt. In reading his Wall Street Journal piece, it appears that he is embracing the supply-side economic concept of removing government hinderances to the production of goods and services, which can help lead the country to greater prosperity. President Obama then mentions his new executive order:

This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.Where necessary, we won't shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals; efforts to target chronic violators of workplace safety laws. But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.

The executive order from the President makes it clear that he is interested in reducing government involvement in the free market and eliminating rules and regulations that are bad for business and bad for the economy. President Obama cites removing regulations that stifle job creation, making it clear that he somewhat understands the American people believe job creation should be a top priority for the country.

President Obama seems to also be taking a hint from Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in indicating that the American people must be listened to when developing rules and regulations. President Obama wrote that moving towards a better regulatory system for the country requires "writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens." Additionally, the President suggests "using disclosure as a tool to inform consumers of their choices, rather than restricting those choices," indicating that he understands that the American people should be free to make their own decisions instead of having the government make decisions for them.

President Obama, who is the first United States President to be on Twitter and the first to utilize a smartphone (reportedly, a BlackBerry), also called for "means making sure the government does more of its work online, just like companies are doing." The President further noted that the federal government would focus on "getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money." In the private sector, using technology to eliminate paper has resulted in a savings of time and money, and also created new jobs. It is good for the American people that President Obama understands the need to utilize ideas proven in the private sector in the federal government.

As an example of fixing government regulation, President Obama pointed to the EPA and saccharin:

...the FDA has long considered saccharin, the artificial sweetener, safe for people to consume. Yet for years, the EPA made companies treat saccharin like other dangerous chemicals. Well, if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste. The EPA wisely eliminated this rule last month.

While many who make up President Obama's base on the left may balk at the idea of reducing government regulation and intervention in order to grow the economy, President Obama is wise to embrace supply-side economic principles. After all, they worked during the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was President.  As written about yesterday, former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that President Obama will be a one-term President. However, if President Obama continues to listen to the American people, adopts more moderate positions, and successfully turns the economy around, he could win the votes of some "Obama Republicans" back and retain "Reagan Democrats." Indeed, if the President acts properly, American people might just vote in 2012 to give him four more years.

Barack Hussein Obama - Not Approved

A majority of Americans do not approve of Barack Hussein Obama's performance as President of the United States. Recently, four different polls confirm that President Obama has an approval rating below 50%:

• Gallup - 48%
  
• Rasmussen Reports - 46%
  
• Quinnipiac University - 48%
  
• Marist College - 48%
  

Interestingly, the American people support repealing the job killing, tax hiking health care reform legislation more than they do President Obama. 55% of Americans support Obamacare repeal. President Obama, however, defies the American people and has insisted that he will veto a repeal if it ever reaches his desk. Additionally, Senate Democrats have vowed to disallow a straight yea/nea vote on the matter in the Senate should it pass the House of Representatives, which is taking up the issue tomorrow and will vote on Wednesday. Several Democrats are expected to back the Republican-led Obamacare repeal effort, coming from districts where their constituents oppose the bill and put them in office under the impression that they would not support Obamacare.

If President Obama does not want former Vice President Cheney's prediction that he will be a one-term President to be true, then he must learn how to listen to the will of the American people. President Obama would be wise to follow the model of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and the White House should also be "the People's House." 

John Boehner Keeps His Promise

Last year at CPAC, the man who will become Speaker of the House of Representatives tomorrow, Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), pledged that if the Republicans took back control of the House, all bills would be posted online for the American people to read and provide their feedback to members of Congress. Mr. Boehner even promised to provide the bills 72 hours in advance, to eliminate the potential for shenanigans such as posting a bill at 2:00 PM EST only to have the vote take place at 2:01 PM EST.

Mr. Boehner has kept his promise. The first bill the House is set to vote on is a rules package. The vote will take place on Wednesday, and the bill was made available last week. On Thursday, the House will consider a bill that will cut the budget of Congress. In fact, Mr. Boehner has gone above and beyond his promise to the American people. On January 12, the House will vote on a bill "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law," that has become known as Obamacare -- an act that has been challenged by several states and even ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge as The Report previously discussed. While this bill will likely not make it past the Senate, and would almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama were it to pass Congress, the bill is posted online for the American people to read over seven days before a vote will take place! That is double the time promised by Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Boehner has the opportunity ahead of him to be one of the greatest Speakers in the history of the House of Representatives. Tomorrow, the American people will be able to watch the start of a era in the House of Representatives... literally, as for the first time, Congress will broadcast a live stream on Facebook in addition to normal broadcasts on C-SPAN and other outlets. By adhering to the will of the American people and committing to transparency, Mr. Boehner is the type of leader leader that can help make the United States an even greater country than it is today. It is a shame that during the last four years soon-to-be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not embrace the principles that Mr. Boehner does.

Note: The website that bills are currently being posted on is http://rules-republicans.house.gov/