And Away We Go

Last night, the House of Representatives passed the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act" that would require $1.5 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years, a gradual phase-in of a spending cap to 18% of GDP, and an amendment to the Constitution requiring annual balanced budgets. It will now proceed to the Senate, where Harry Reid will make sure it meets an untimely death.

This is the second profoundly meaningful piece of legislation proposed and passed by Republicans to deal with the staggering debt crisis. The first was their 2012 budget, which they passed with guts and gusto in the spring. That budget proposes real, concrete, and immediate spending cuts: $6.2 trillion of them over ten years. It also proposes authentic entitlement reform, particularly to two of the biggest budget monsters: Medicare and Medicaid.

The thanks they got for passing such a responsible, forward-looking document was to face an immediate and direct full-frontal assault from the White House and the Democrats. This would be the same White House that has offered no plan of its own because it prefers only to attack. These would also be the same Senate Democrats who are in clear violation of the law by failing to propose a budget in over 810 days.

We went through the same passion play with the remainder of the 2011 budget in April. Republicans proposed real cuts. Democrats killed them.

And once again, here we are, watching the same fire drill. If it weren't so destructive, it would be laughably tiresome. Republicans as obstructionists? They're the only ones with any cojones, proactively passing legislation to actually fix our grave economic problems. Democrats are hiding in the corner. Profiles in courage, eh?

The truth is there is only one solution to our imminent economic catastrophe: deep and real spending cuts, a cap on spending to 18% of GDP, a balanced budget requirement, real, structural entitlement reform, and true tax reform, which would lower all marginal rates---including the corporate tax rate---in exchange for closing loopholes and deductions. It may be draconian, but it's the only way. It combines the austerity needed to reduce the debt and control spending at last, while getting growth going to expand the economy (as opposed to expanding government).

It really is the only way, and yet Democrats will not agree to even one aspect of it. Soon enough, though, they'll have to----because the party is truly over.

Cut, Cap and Balance

Today Republicans in the House of Representatives will take a small step for their institution and a giant leap for the country. They will bring the "Cut, Cap and Balance Act" to the floor for a vote. The bill will cut spending by $1.5 trillion over ten years (not nearly enough but a start), over that same ten year period cap federal spending at 18%, and add a Balanced Budget Amendment, all linked to what Obama wants: a major increase in the national debt ceiling. The BBA has its problems: if passed alone, it could severely restrict GOP spending priorities and put increased pressure on to raise taxes to meet the new Constitutional obligation. That's why it MUST be paired with the serious spending cuts and the spending cap. If the BBA is passed without the other two, if the government took in, say, $12 trillion, it could spend all $12 trillion and still call the budget balanced. Any real deficit-cutting strategy must have all three elements.

The House has been the engine of real change, led by the newly elected Tea Party Republicans, who understand their mandate: cut spending, cap it, and Constitutionally enforce a balanced federal budget. CCB will not clear the Senate, even though there are 25 Democrat Senators up for re-election next year who do not want to be caught dead voting against real spending cuts and fiscal responsibility. But Harry Reid will crack the whip and most will fall in line, assuming Reid brings it to a vote at all. If by some miracle it clears the Senate, Obama will certainly veto it.

As he said last week, "We don't need a Constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs -- and to make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices."

That's rich, coming from a guy who has added $4 trillion to the national debt in two and a half years---even BEFORE his new MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR ObamaCare entitlement kicks in---and has steered us straight into economic catastrophe. He's right: the Constitution certainly tells him to do his job. And he's cavalierly blown it off.

So: do we need a Constitutional amendment to force Obama and his ilk (and Republicans too) to live within our national means? Clearly, yes. I can think of 14 trillion reasons why.

Let the Democrats kill it. Let Obama veto it. But GOP: go forward today with Cut, Cap and Balance. Be on record---again---as the Serious Party willing to make the Serious Choices to stave off disaster and get us back on our traditional rocket path of growth.

A word of warning to the GOP too: don't think that a strong "yea" vote today means you can check that box, then turn around and vote for some sell-out bill like the McConnell Plan. If you do that, we will blister you every which way 'til Tuesday.

We didn't send you to Washington to cut, run, and hide. We sent you to Cut, Cap, and Balance.

The O'Reilly Factor---TONIGHT!

I'll be on with Bill O'Reilly TONIGHT at 8pm and 11pm ET on the Fox News Channel. Please tune in.

Debt Crisis? What Debt Crisis?

As the debt drama has unfolded over the past few weeks, we've seen President Obama try on different personae as if he were in a costume shop before Halloween.

In just two and a half years in office, he has taken a $450 billion annual deficit and turned it into annual $1.6 trillion deficits. He has added nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. He has engaged in unprecedented spending as he grows the size and scope of government in ways that makes the Greek socialists blush.

But now that he's got a debt crisis crashing down on the country and his presidency, and now that he sees the polls showing that the vast majority of Americans do not want a raising of the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling and certainly do not want it without real and deep spending cuts and no tax hikes...well, then he tried pretending to see the light of fiscal responsibility.

He put on the mask of fiscal discipline as he faked support for true entitlement reform and meaningful spending cuts. But as soon as the Republicans became encouraged that he might actually mean it, Obama backed away from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security reform faster than Bill Clinton from an angry husband.

Obama has never intended to take on those budget monsters, nor has he ever intended to cut spending. Federal spending has historically been between 18% and 20% of GDP. Obama has bloated it to a staggering 24%, with spending levels climbing to an eye-popping and bankrupcy-tempting 25%.

Obama has been arguing for tax increases as a fig leaf for his refusal to cut spending. He also needs those tax increases for another reason: to make his huge welfare state and 25% of GDP spending levels permanent.

Don't believe me?

Here is the beginning of a piece from the Associated Press on June 9, 2009:

"Obama: It's OK To Borrow To Pay For Health Care

"Obama-proposed budget rules allow deficits to swell to pay for health care plan.

"President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul....

"It would carve out about $2.5 trillion worth of exemptions for Obama's priorities over the next decade. His health care reform plan also would get a green light to run big deficits in its early years."

For years, in words and in actions, Obama has told us exactly who he is and what he intends to do. Anybody who is surprised by it now is a fool. Republicans must stop him from achieving the final phases of his dream to transform America into a European socialist economy. They must not facilitate it out of political fear. Because if they do, not only are they the fools, but the rest of us will lose the country we love.

Two Years, Two Obamas

Somebody's got to point out the ironies, hypocrisy, madness, and lies of President Obama, so here goes:

July 13, 2009: Obama speaks at a rally for ObamaCare, and in response to a question, claims that his plan won't "pull the plug on Grandma." Hear it here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/08/obama_defends_health_insurance.html

Two years later, almost to the day:

July 12, 2011: Obama threatens to withhold Social Security checks if a debt deal isn't done by the Treasury's artificial deadline of August 2. He told CBS News' Scott Pelley: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," he said. Hear it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544.html

In two short years, he's gone from being unwilling to "pull the plug on Grandma" to being willing to starve her to death.

He moves fast. Next, he'll be coming for you.

Desperado

Here we go again. An impending fiscal deadline. Cries of imminent doom. And everyone in Washington---from the president to the Congressional leadership---is running around with their hair on fire.

We have seen this fire drill many times, most recently over the 2011 budget, which ended up in a short-term Continuing Resolution and a pathetically paltry amount of actual spending reductions.

Now the greatest nation on earth hangs by a thread because Democrats want to tax the citizenry even more in order to finance their exploding welfare state---and make it permanent. Republicans are responsibly saying "no" to tax increases because 1) we're taxed enough already, 2) even if you taxed the wealthiest at 100%---just totally confiscated all of their assets---you would not even come close to closing the deficit, 3) Washington's problem is spending, not revenue, 4) when tax rates have been lowered over the past half-century, revenues have RISEN as jobs have been created and the economy has expanded, and 5) if you raise taxes now, you will kill off this economy for good.

Republicans are also demanding real spending cuts---not future promises of cuts, or illusory reductions in the GROWTH of spending. Real spending cuts. NOW. They'd also like to see authentic entitlement reform that will bring programs like Medicare under some fiscal control, and they'd like to cap spending at the historical level of 18% of GDP. Currently, it's at a whopping 24% of GDP and growing. ObamaCare and the Democrats' demand for tax increases are all part of their move to make that level of spending permanent.

They are losing this debate, and they know it, which is why President Obama desperately trotted out the shopworn threat of throwing Grandma in the snow.

When the question of Social Security's long-term solvency first arose in the 1980s, the Democrats demogogued Republicans' ideas to reform it by claiming that they wanted to throw Grandma into a snowbank. It worked then: Republicans backed down in the face of the withering attacks. They knew that Grandma votes.

When President George W. Bush attempted to broach the subject of Social Security reform 20 years later, the Democrats resorted to their tried-and-true method of demogoguing it to death, and once again, the GOP backed off, scared of the attacks that they wanted to throw Grandma in the snow.

Today, the numbers are so much bigger: the debt, the deficit, the spending levels, the number of people retiring or about to retire. Something MUST be done or these programs are going to go belly up for good.

Obama knows the ground has shifted, but he's desperately reaching back to the old-school liberal playbook (which in itself is interesting, given that he ran as the man of the future.) Yesterday he told CBS's Scott Pelley: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

In other words, if Republicans don't give in to my strong-arm tactics to raise taxes, I'm going to tell America that they hate Grandma and want to shove her into an icy pond.

There is plenty of revenue coming into Washington to cover debt service, paying our foreign creditors (hello, Beijing!), and covering essential services like, yes, Social Security. So the Bama once again got it wrong----on purpose. He's trying to scare the bejesus out of the American people based on pure lies in order to keep his massive welfare state rolling.

It's disgraceful. It's beneath the presidency. But apparently, it's not beneath this president.

Who Has Lost Legitimacy?

As most Americans have been focused on the debt drama, the world has been turning, and not in a good way.

The so-called Arab "spring" has quickly transformed into the Arab winter, as the rapid rise of the Islamists and continued slaughter by the dictatorships demonstrate. As I've been saying since the turmoil in Egypt began, the Muslim Brotherhood is now essentially running the show, forging a partnership with the military and positioning itself well to dominate parliamentary elections in a few weeks as well as to control many if not most ministries. When deposed president Hosni Mubarak warned, "it's either me or the Muslim Brotherhood," he wasn't kidding. Of course, Mubarak himself had cleaned out the political space between himself and the Brotherhood so there was no legal opposition, but once he was deposed, there truly was no alternative.

Two weeks ago, the Obama administration, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, announced that they were opening formal contacts with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Part of their "olive branch diplomacy," you see. After all, it's worked so well with the Iranians, Chinese, Venezuelans, Russians, and Syrians.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the world's most important and dangerous Islamist organization. It is openly committed to the destruction of the United States, the West, and Israel. Its motto is: "Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our Leader; the Koran is our Law; Jihad is our way; Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Swell bunch of democratic, free market, human rights-oriented guys, no?

More: According the the Brotherhood's Explanatory Memorandum of 1991, translated from the Arabic, the group seeks "Grand Jihad...in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within...and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of their believers so that it is eliminated..."

Their own words. Their objectives have never been a mystery: they seek to Islamicize societies, ultimately establish a global caliphate, destroy Israel, and expand sharia in the West----and they have---and are---infiltrating the United States in order to do it. The Ground Zero mosque is a Muslim Brotherhood operation.

And yet, Team Obama thinks this is a group we can do business with. To quote Hillary in another context: Whose side are they on?

More: the administration is now seriously considering engaging in talks with the Taliban, the same dark, violent Taliban that harbored and supported al Qaeda (and still does) and that just murdered Afghan president Hamid Karzai's brother.

Isn't the Taliban the enemy? And shouldn't the ONLY talks be happening in order to get an unconditional surrender from them?

More: the U.S.-led war in Libya continues, while Moammar Qaddafi hangs on---in defiance of the full force of NATO---while many of our allies now head for the hills.

More: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced last month that Iran had enriched uranium to 20%, perhaps the most difficult technological step toward an operational nuclear weapon. The regime is also testing medium-range ballistic missiles that can deliver a nuclear payload.

More: the Syrian regime under Bashar al-Assad continues to slaughter its people in the streets. Over the past few days, government thugs stormed the U.S. embassy and residence of our Ambassador (whom Obama absurdly re-posted in an ill-conceived attempt at extending the "olive branch.) Team Obama's response: to request compensation from Damascus for the damage. LOL! They give "wimpy" a whole new meaning.

Hillary decided to go a wee bit further and proclaimed this week that the Assad regime had "lost legitimacy." At the risk of repeating myself: LOL! The brutal dictatorship of Assad never had any legitimacy. It has been killing its people for WEEKS. And only NOW does our Secretary of State say that it's "lost legitimacy?" She said the same thing recently about Qaddafi's regime. This is what happens when you put liberals in charge of national security.

When you add up all of these most recent Obama foreign policy disasters, it is not Assad or Qaddafi who have lost legitimacy. It is the President and the United States of America. And as history shows, when that happens, bad things follow.

The O'Reilly Factor---TONIGHT!

I'll be a guest with Bill O'Reilly TONIGHT at 8pm and 11pm ET on the Fox News Channel. Please tune in.

You're Fired

A thought after watching President Obama's class warfare extravaganza rehash today:

The president is supposed to be America's CEO. He is supposed to lead, set the agenda, persuade, and manage. Obama has done none of this. In his two and a half years as CEO, he has pushed everything of note on Congress: writing the "stimulus," writing ObamaCare, writing Dodd-Frank financial regulation, offering budget proposals and deficit reduction ideas. He's never led. He has let Congress run wild and do all of the heavy lifting, and then he steps in at the midnight hour to scold everyone over the lack of progress.

Think of his failure to lead this way: Under the Constitution, Congress holds the purse strings. So Congress is more like a bank, setting laws and conditions for authorizing credit and money. Sometimes, when a borrower has little or no revenue coming in, he is able to bully the bank with the threat of bankruptcy in which the bank loses much or all of the underlying source of repayment. But in this case, the government is an overleveraged borrower who still has plenty of revenue coming in to support the debt...and the CEO of the business is saying it's the bank's problem.

Making congress responsible for what should be the execution of the economy is ridiculous. Congress sets laws and approves money for budgets and rules around that money. It is the president as CEO who is responsible for then "managing." His own budget, which proposed trillions in new spending, was laughed out of the Senate, voted down 97-0. Meanwhile, instead of fixing that situation with a budget Congress would approve, he punted onto them again. That's like telling a bank "well, if you won't lend to me then it's your problem, and I'm going to keep spending all your money until you freak out."

No CEO could or would do this. And the fact that some of the bankers support him and some don't is nothing unusual either. Most companies borrow from syndicates and CEOs must do something that gets all (or a significant number) of the syndicate banks to approve. You can cry all you want that there are opposing banks, but it doesn't get you the loan.

This is no different. Obama is a CEO dealing with his banks and is not doing what a prudent CEO would do. He would be fired elsewhere.

If you run a business and are overleveraged and the bank says "no more," you go into "fix it" mode and set plans for how to adjust. Obama sends out Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to play the "threat of bankruptcy" card in a situation in which it doesn't apply.

So not only is he playing games with our country, but he now seems primarily preoccupied with setting up the post-mortem crisis-management PR, in which he will try to switch the blame for all that is wrong with the economy on to the Republicans who wouldn't raise the debt ceiling.

It is a game to manipulate the unaware younger voters and the ignorant to create a new bogeyman now that evoking President Bush no longer works. In the meantime, Obama is truly mismanaging our economy and ought to be fired

Heading Out

I'll be away at a conference this week (sadly, not on vacation), so I won't be posting blogs for a few days. I will be Tweeting, however, so please check my Twitter feed regularly: @MonicaCrowley.

I'll leave you with these wise, prescient words from Thomas Jefferson:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."