Wisconsin's Options

Facing a $3.6 billion deficit, Wisconsin Governor Scott K. Walker proposed budget cuts that would balance the budget as well as a process to ensure that the people of Wisconsin are empowered to decide if state employees paid by their tax dollars would be able to receive pay hike beyond the consumer price index. As a result, big unions and public employees, focused on their own agenda and not that of the people of Wisconsin, began major protests in the state capitol of Madison. The protests have become national news, with national politicians such as President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) chiming in. Pundits all over the cable news networks and columnists at national newspapers have also chimed in on the situation.

When it comes down to it, Governor Walker has three options for fixing Wisconsin's budget woes:

1. Hike Taxes: Governor Walker could propose a tax hike to raise the $3.6 billion needed to balance out the budget. However, the people of Wisconsin sent a clear message last year that they would not accept tax hikes, and Governor Walker was elected on a promise to not raise taxes. In fact, many in Wisconsin elected Governor Walker because of his promises to reduce taxes, enabling the growth of small business and the creation of jobs. 
2. Add Debt: Governor Walker could propose simply borrowing more money to finance unsustainable spending. Unfortunately, such a concept was rejected by Wisconsin voters and would lead the state into an even worse long-term deficit problem, as the debt would need to be paid back. Wisconsin would simply end up in a worse situation, such as what California is in.
3. Curb Spending: Governor Walker could propose a budget that curbs spending, as he promised to do when running for office. In doing this, taxes would remain the same or be cut, and deficit would not grow. 

Obviously, Option #3 makes the most sense, and it is what the Governor is trying to pursue. The people of Wisconsin sent a message that new debt and new taxes were unacceptable, and Governor Walker must carry out the will of the people. Less than 10% of Wisconsin workers are members of unions. The interest of the over 90% Wisconsin workers who are non-union must be prioritized over the loud voices of the big unions.

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.

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." 

Who Wants to Raise Taxes?

The answer: 18 percent of Americans. Fewer than 1 in 5 think that the way to reduce the deficit is through hiking taxes. 86 percent of Americans think that the deficit can be reduced through spending cuts. The numbers come from a new poll by CBS News, and are bad news for those on the left who advocate for increases in taxation to reduce the national debt.

As written about previously, even President Obama has been considering the use of supply-side economic principles for debt reduction. State-by-state, the trend has been for businesses (and the jobs they provide) to move out of high tax states to low tax states. As a result, people move from states without jobs to states with jobs. The tax revenue in states that hike their taxes actually ends up lower in the long-run, while states with low tax rates see greater revenues. That's supply-side economics at work, and evidence that the Laffer Curve holds true.

When fewer than 1 in 5 Americans support tax hikes, it is a clear message to Congress and to the President that the solution to America's deficit problem is not new taxation, but instead new reductions in spending. Rep. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was right when he stated that "Washington does not have a revenue problem." Speaker Boehner further added "Washington has a spending problem." Washington's spending problem, much like an alcoholic's drinking problem, will have greater negative effects the longer it is allowed to continue. Putting an end to the spending problem must be a priority for the country.

Jared Lee Loughner

A tragic act of mass-murder took place yesterday in Tucson, Arizona. As The Report tweeted, we pray for the recovery of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others who were wounded in the shooting. We also offer our condolences for those who were lost, including Federal Judge John Roll and 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green.

The person responsible for these heinous acts of mass-murder and violence is not Sarah Palin or the Tea Party, as some on the left have tried to blame. It is one man: Jared Lee Loughner. Loughner is a self-described terrorist. Loughner is a man who believes in burning the United States' flag, as well as a man who supports discrimination against of homosexuals and members of the Jewish faith. Additionally, Loughner is a supporter of socialism, which is the complete opposite end of the political spectrum from the Tea Party. Further, Jared Lee Loughner, for the overt acts of assassination of a Federal Judge and attempted assassination of a Congresswoman is a traitor. There are certainly more than two witnesses. However, since first-degree murder is a capital offense in Arizona and Loughner can be charged with no fewer than six counts of it*, he can still be executed without a treason charge.

Most importantly, the acts of Jared Lee Loughner cannot be allowed to defeat democracy. Rep. Giffords was shot while at an event designed to allow her to connect in person with members of her constituency. Ms. Green was there because she had recently been elected to her school's student council, and as a constituent representing other constituents of Rep. Giffords, she wanted to meet the Congresswoman. This is the way Congress should work. Representatives and Senators should reach out to their constituent, and hear them, and act based on their input. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, is right to say that "this inhuman act should not, and will not, deter us from our calling to represent our constituents."

President Obama said "such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society." Jared Lee Loughner has the right to a speedy trial under the United States Constitution. That right must be granted to him -- not for his sake, but because the the faster Loughner is found guilty, sentenced to death, and executed, the better off our free society will be.

* At the time of this post, there are six dead from his actions, and others could still succumb to their wounds in the hospital.

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/

Change We Can Believe In

In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama, then just a candidate for United States President put forth a "plan to renew America's promise." For $13.95, you can actually buy the book with the plan for the so-called "change we can believe in." If this was real change that America could believe in, and Mr. Obama wanted the American people to truly read and understand his agenda, it might have been a good idea to just post it to the internet where people can download and read it without paying up. After all, there was (and still is) a recession with high unemployment at the time.

The true change that the American people can believe in is the change that future Speaker of the House John Boehner wants to bring to Congress. The Ohio Republican looks to implement major changes that would provide greater transparency and accountability to Congress. Instead of selling a book about the ideas, Mr. Boehner instead tweeted about them today. Some of these amazing ideas are below:

• Constitutional Authority Statements: Every bill would require a "constitutional authority statement" which indicates what section of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact the legislation. This will ensure that Congress does not exert authority that it does not truly have. 

• Posting All Bills and Votes Online: Three days prior to a bill being voted on, it would be posted to the internet so that the American people can read the bill with ease. This would ensure that Congress acts in a transparent manner, giving the American people at a minimum, three days to express their support or outrage over a bill that Congress is considering. There would be no more last-minute bills created behind closed doors and passed without the public having a chance to review the bill. The three day rule would also apply to committees looking at bills. Additionally, committee votes would be posted online, enabling the American people to keep their representatives in check. 

• No Taxes Hikes to Fund Spending: While the two aforementioned rule changes will likely be acceptable to Democrats, those on the far-left won't be happy that raising taxes to pay for new spending and earmarks wouldn't be allowed. Mr. Boehner's proposal is that new spending should be offset by cuts elsewhere. This would ensure the American people would not be faced with a greater gap between government spending and government revenue each year. 

As Mr. Boehner said on 60 Minutes earlier this month, "Washington does not have a revenue problem; Washington has a spending problem." By following the Constitution, embracing transparency, and not simply hiking taxes to pay for new spending, Congress can come closer to solving its spending problems and Congress will better serve the American people.

Think Washington Needs More Money?

Instead of fighting for higher taxes, those on the far-left, or anyone else who feels generous and wants to give the government more money to spend should simply mail a check or money order payable to "The United States Treasury" to:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

The government made it possible to give them extra money in 1843 so that individuals could "express their patriotism to the United States," through monetary giving. With a substantial deficit, the government is more than happy to cash your check or money order. According to the Treasury Department, the money given is "for general use by the federal government," can "be available for budget needs," and is considered "an unconditional gift to the government."

Personally, I agree with the comments made on 60 Minutes by future Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, but instead has a spending problem. I'll use my money as I see fit, spending it at American businesses that create American jobs instead of wasting it away like the federal government often does. But, for those of you that think the government can do a better job spending your money than you can, put your check in the mail. In fact, if you think the government urgently needs money, send it via Express Mail.