Republicans From Both Sides of Congress Planning to Introduce Balanced-Budget Amendments Soon

There has been a big push in the country looking for government to get their fiscal house in order. This push is being lead by the TEA Party, which had a huge impact in last year’s election and doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. The Republicans are seeking to take advantage of this and is looking to make spending cuts and balance the budget. In response, Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Cornyn (R-TX) have announced their intent to introduce a balanced-budget amendment that would force the federal government to make the changes necessary to stop borrowing money, start acting like adults, and keep their promise to the American people to curb the deficit spending:

Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) penned a letter to their Senate colleagues Tuesday pitching a constitutional balanced-budget amendment.

"The American people are demanding action from Washington to get our fiscal house in order once and for all," part of the letter read. "They don't want any more empty rhetoric or excuses."

Six Senate Republicans have already signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation — Sens. Saxby Chabliss (Ga.), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), John Ensign (Nev.), Michael Enzi (Wy.) and David Vitter (La.) — with more expected.

Along with Hatch, Snowe and Ensign are up for reelection in 2012. Hatch and Snowe are rumored Tea Party targets and Ensign could also face a Republican primary if he opts to seek another term.

Hatch and Cornyn are looking to roll out the balanced budget amendment effort the week the Senate returns.

Republicans in the House, meanwhile, are hopeful there is renewed momentum for a balanced-budget amendment introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

One of the measure's co-sponsors in the House is Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a rumored primary challenger to Hatch in 2012.

The House Republicans are preparing to introduce their own balanced budget amendment, too:

Some House Republicans are expressing renewed confidence that the push for a balanced-budget constitutional amendment will gain real steam in the 112th Congress — aided by the newly elected crop of budget-slashing GOP freshmen.

"We're very optimistic that we'll be able to get a vote on this at some point," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who has introduced two separate balanced-budget amendment measures...

"Right now I'm just in the process of signing up as many co-sponsors as I can," said Goodlatte, who noted that he hasn't yet spoken to the Republican leadership about moving the measure to the floor. "There's such great support for this both outside and within the Congress, that I anticipate we can move it."

Goodlatte has already signed on 137 co-sponsors, including one House Democrat — Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah) — and he said both Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have supported his push for a balanced-budget amendment in the past.

Ready to aid Goodlatte's effort is the new class of Republican freshmen, many of whom have Tea Party activists looking over their shoulder ahead of 2012 as they cast their first votes and set priorities for the new Congress.

"You have a host of new Republican freshmen who were sent here with a mandate for a balanced budget," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), one of the co-sponsors of Goodlatte's bill.

"When I was sent here, it was with a mandate for a balanced budget. So I think it's time we act on that."

This should be a no-brainer for the House. The Senate may be a bit trickier, but I highly doubt that it would fail there, either, especially since most of the Democrats that are up in 2012 are from historically red states. I don’t see the vulnerable Democrats risking their political futures voting against something that has such huge support from their constituents. Yeah, I know. Many of them did vote for ObamaCare, despite hearing from people in their town hall that they didn’t want it, but after the tsunami last election, I think (or hope) that they have learned their lesson. Obama should sign it, too, now that he is trying to triangulate into a repeat of what Bill Clinton did in the 90s.

This should be a rare kumbiya moment for DC, when they all come together in spirit of bipartisanship to vote for something that will actually benefit the country. However, that will all come to a quick end, when the debate starts on HOW they will balance the budget.

Quid Pro Quo: Did Senate Republicans Trade Food Bill For Uncontested Continuing Budget Resolution?

The Republicans shocked everyone last night by completely folding their advantage over the Democrats regarding their flawed Food Safety Bill:

The Senate unexpectedly approved food safety legislation by unanimous consent Sunday evening, rescuing a bill that floated in limbo for weeks because of a clerical error.

The Senate passed the Food Safety and Modernization Act on Nov. 30 by a vote of 73-25. But the bill was later invalidated by a technical objection because it was a revenue-raising measure that did not originate in the House — Senate staff had failed to substitute the food safety language into a House-originated bill. …

Reid announced he would send the legislation — this time properly attached to a House-originated measure — back to the lower chamber for final approval.

So, the GOP went 60-to-0 in 10 seconds flat on this debate. Why did the Republicans go from having this bill all but blocked to acquiescing to Harry Reid and the Democrats and voting unanimously with them on this? Ed Morrissey explains that they may have done this in order to get the Democrats to agree to a clean, simple continuing budget resolution that'll last until next session of Congress:

From that sequence, it appears the GOP may have given up the food-safety bill for a clean CR.  They didn’t want the CR to become a “minibus,” a concern that had arisen when Congress passed a three-day CR on Friday night to fund the government through Tuesday.  Rumor had it that the Democrats wanted a blend of CR and omnibus that would set funding for the rest of the year on some key agencies, and the GOP want to go through a normal budget process instead.    It shouldn’t take three days to write a CR anyway, and the fact that they gave themselves that kind of breathing space indicated that Democrats intended to treat the CR like a Christmas tree.

If that’s the deal, then at least the unanimous consent on the food-safety bill would be explicable.  If the Senate produces a minibus anyway, then this gift to Reid is a strange collapse by the Senate GOP.

If this is the case, then, this would be a good compromise. I just hope that Senator Reid and the rest of the Democrats hold up their end of the deal. If not, they just tapped out for nothing.

Video: McConnell: I'm Not Going to Support Any Multi-Trillion Omnibus That's "Thrown Together Behind Closed Doors"

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican Leader, stood up in front of the Senate, yesterday, and said that he will not support any spending bill that the Democrats might try to ram through in the lame duck session that has been "thrown together behind closed doors".

“One thing we’ll need to do before we leave this year is fund the government. Because Democrats didn’t pass a single appropriations bill this year.

“So now they’ll try to mop up in the 11th hour with an Omnibus spending bill that covers all of it. This is one more sign they aren’t learning many lessons from the election.

“If this election showed us anything, it’s that Americans don’t want Congress passing massive trillion dollars bills that have been thrown together behind closed doors.

“They want us to do business differently.

“So I won’t be supporting an Omnibus spending bill.

“We’ve seen what happens when Democrats rush legislation and try to jam it through at the last minute with no time for review or for the American people to learn what’s actually in the bill. The Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase are fresh on their minds.

“Americans want us to take our time and get things right. And they want us to spend less.

“The voters have spoken.

“We need to show we heard them.”

This is an obvious reference to the times that Pelosi had literally locked out Republicans over the past two years, when there were negotiations involving important legislation.

If he follows through, this would be a sharp contrast to the all-too-obvious contempt and hyper-partisanship that Pelosi has shown Republicans over the years.

Obama Sets Another Record: Highest Federal May Deficit Ever Recorded

For the second time in three months, Obama goes in the record books but not in the good way:

The federal budget deficit soared to a record for May of $189.7 billion, pushing the tide of red ink close to $1 trillion with four months left in the budget year.

The rising deficit reflects increased government spending due to the recession, and billions of dollars spent on bailouts for banks and other troubled companies.

The Treasury Department reported Wednesday that the red ink so far this year totals $991.9 billion. The administration is projecting the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1, will total an all-time record of $1.84 trillion. That would be more than four times the amount of last year's record deficit.

Not only has he set a record in March and May, he had, also, managed to be in the red in April for the first time in 26 years.

This is an ominous start to his presidency. For a man who ran on a platform of financial responsibility and going "line by line" taking out waste, he isn't off to a good start.

Captain Obvious Declare Costs Are Biggest Problem For Obama's Healthcare Plan

The AP states that Obama's ambitious plan to insure everyone has hit a slight snag:

Costs are emerging as the biggest obstacle to President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to provide health insurance for everybody.

The upfront tab could reach $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, while expected savings from wringing waste and inefficiency from the health care system may take longer to show.

Isn't this what we've been saying for months even during the campaign? Has the light bulb finally clicked on over the AP's headquarters?
When will liberals learn that the fantasy land that they live in never works when it meets reality?

Sure, universal healthcare sounds great until it's actually implemented. Just ask the Canadians.

The cost will be more than our government and economy can take. We need to find ways to lower health costs that will in turn lower insurance.

The first thing that they should do is limit frivolous lawsuits as much as they can, but trial lawyers are a big constituency of the Democrats. So, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Two senators have apparently seen the writing on the wall and are getting wary of the added financial burden of a universal healthcare plan:

"You go to a town meeting and people are talking about bailout fatigue," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. "They like the president. They think he's a straight shooter. But they are concerned about the amount of money that is heading out the door, and the debts their kids are going to have to absorb."

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said cost control has to come ahead of getting more people covered. "Unless we halt skyrocketing health care costs, any attempt to expand coverage will be financially unsustainable," he said.

Will Pelosi, Reid, and Obama be able to see the same writing and put a freeze their massive spending spree?

The AP had another interesting little nugget in the article:

The U.S. spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country. Experts estimate that at least one-third of that spending goes for services that provide little or no benefit to patients. So theoretically, there's enough money in the system to cover everybody, including an estimated 50 million uninsured.

But one person's wasteful spending is someone else's bread and butter.

So, why is Obama and Co. wanting to spend more money? Maybe if they take out what doesn't work, they'll have enough to try to do some of what he proposes.

Unfortunately, I think those whose "bread and butter" is those wasteful programs have lobbyists in the goverments ears convincing them not to cut them out.

Isn't that what Obama promised to do, though? He promised to use a scalpel on government programs and take out what is useless and wasteful. Maybe he should focus on that instead of thinking of raising taxes especially in this bad economy.

Congress Celebrated Obama's 100th Day With Spending Spree, Pelosi Uses New Fuzzy Math

Both the House and Senate passed this boondoggle of a spending bill to pave the way for universal healthcare:

Congress has wrapped up work on a compromise $3.4 trillion budget outline aimed at helping advance President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda despite staggering government deficits.

The Senate's 53-43 vote to pass the measure followed House action earlier Wednesday.

The votes to adopt the nonbinding budget blueprint are only a first step toward Obama's goal of providing health care coverage for all Americans.

Nancy Pelosi had a very confusing comment on the passage of this enormous spending frenzy:

"It's a budget that reduces taxes, lowers the deficit and creates jobs."

Um..Whatever Pelosi is on, give me some.

If the government spends more money than any other administration in history, the money has to come from somewhere. They will have to raise taxes in order to pay for their agenda. There no way around that unless they want to borrow more from China. If they borrow money from China, the deficit will increase not decrease. More than like they will have to raise taxes and create a higher deficit.

The spending might create a few jobs, but a significant enough amount to make a difference in the economy.

Gibbs Scoffs at Loven's Criticism, Obama's $100 Million Budget Cutback Is A Lot Where I Come From

The AP's Jennifer Loven, usually liberally biased, actually asked a tough question to Obama press secretary, Robert Gibbs. She asked why is the amount of cuts Obama is proposing, $100 million, so small in comparison to the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Gibbs couldn't hold his amusement in while giving a ludicrous response. Although, to give Gibbs a little understanding, what else could he say:

GIBBS:  (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...

LOVEN:  The deficit's very large.  It's not a joke.

GIBBS:  No, I'm...

LOVEN:  The deficit's giant.  $100 million really is only a step.

GIBBS:  But no joke.

LOVEN:  You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.

GIBBS:  I'm not making jokes about it.  I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money.  It is where I'm from.  It is where I grew up.  And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

It's quite a bit of money to me, too. However, we aren't talking about $100 million in Gibbs' hometown or mine. We are talking about Washington DC. They work on trillion dollar budgets. We work on thousand dollar budgets. There is a huge difference in between anytown, USA and DC. Can't Gibbs see that, or is he just trying to blow smoke?

Jack Tapper asked Gibbs a follow-up question. He basically asked how can $100 million be a lot and $8 billion small? What was Gibbs' response this time?

His answer was that it is a step in the right direction, and cutting $100 million here and $100 million there will add up to cancel out the $1.3 trillion deficit. By my calculations, it take about 1,300 of those small steps to cancel out the budget deficit.

The timetable that Obama gave the various departments to take this "step" was 90 days. If he continues on this timetable of cutting $100 million every 90 days, it would take Obama about 325 years to wipe out the deficit. Last time I checked, he only has 4 years, or 8 at most, to cut the budget deficit in half as he promised. At this pace, even cutting it in half will take well over 100 years. He doesn't have that long. He has to come up with a bigger number as Jennifer Loven suggested.

Obama's Response to TEA Parties: I'll Cut $100 M Out of $3.5 Trillion Budget, AKA: DC Pocket Change

In response to the TEA parties last week, Obama must have realized that he was in a little trouble. His extravagant policies are beginning to get under the skin of the American people that he represents. He tries to answer them with this pathetic excuse for being more "fiscally responsible":

President Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time today and instructed department heads to trim their budgets by a combined $100 million over the next 90 days, cuts he said would help overcome a "confidence gap" among the American people about the use of their tax dollars.

While in any town, USA, $100 million is a lot of money. However, in DC, it's pocket change especially when you consider that they will spend $3.5 trillion in this year alone. That is largest federal budget ever by far.

To put it in perspective to the everyday Joe and Jane, let's say one has a $30,000 per year salary and budget. It would be the equivalent of that person cutting almost $900 yearly, or $75 monthly, out of the budget. It is not really that much.

"In the next few weeks, we expect to cut at least 100 current programs in the federal budget so that we can free up those dollars in order to put them to use for critical areas like health care, education, energy, our foreign policy apparatus," Obama said.

So, what this says to me is that he isn't "freeing up those dollars" so we can pay back our debt. No, he is going to respend the money. Contrary to CNN's belief, that doesn't make him fiscally responsible. He still the big spender. He's just going to spend his money elsewhere. This isn't going to get us out of debt any faster.

"I'm very pleased about the work that we've done, but we've got more to do," he said. "And one of the things that everybody here is mindful of is that as we move forward, dealing with this extraordinary economic crisis, we also have a deficit, a confidence gap, when it comes to the American people. And we've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."

This will not satisfy those who were protesting the spending orgy in Washington. They will see it for what it is. It's just a ploy to soften his opposition's stance to him. He doesn't want the TEA party movement to gain any more momentum. He wants to get any protests that are against his policies out of the news. If he doesn't, the truth about his policies will be brought into the light, and his approval ratings will continue to fall.

This token gesture is just that a token gesture. In the big scheme of things, $100 million means nothing especially since the money he "saves" will be respent on other equally inadequate in decreasing the deficit.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air explained that the $100 million is equal to "a whopping 0.0029% of the budget". Ed broke it down for us:

• $100 million from a $3.5 trillion budget for FY2010: 0.0029%

• $100 million from the $1.2 trillion White House deficit projection for their FY2010 budget: 0.008%

• $100 million from the $700 billion Porkulus stimulus bill Obama demanded: 0.013%

• $100 million from the $634 billion “down payment” on nationalized health care: 0.016%
• $100 million from the $555 billion omnibus spending plan completing the 2009 budget: 0.018%

• $100 million from the $13 billion in pork from the omnibus spending plan: 0.77%

The cuts that Obama proposes don’t even amount to 1% of the pork Obama signed into law last month in the omnibus spending bill.