Archive for May, 2010

It was to be a new era of fiscal responsibility. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised that “the first thing” Democrats would do when they were in control was to reimpose Paygo rules that “Republicans had let lapse.” That didn’t quite happen. By 2008 those rules had “lapsed” twelve times for a total of $400 billion in new deficit spending. Ok, well that didn’t stick, but on the campaign trail Barack Obama promised to “reinstate pay-as-you-go budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or revenue elsewhere.” He subsequently engaged in a trillion dollar spending binge that painted the nation’s ledger red with deficit spending. Well, that was a slip up, but now he’s super serious. In a recent interview address President Obama said:

“Now, Congress will have to pay for what it spends, just like everybody else. . . After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility. It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do.”

On paper the pay-as-you-go law follows the mantra of good budgeting – spend only what you have. The theory of the law is that before Washington could spend a dollar one would have to be saved somewhere else in the budget. Unfortunately, none of the savings have come to pass. Instead, Democrats however seem to be basing their policy solely on the abbreviated version known as “Pay! Go!”

Republicans have long predicted that the much-touted Paygo law was nothing but a farce. Of course Democrats too the opportunity to label Republicans as obstructionists, even going so far as to refer to those who opposed the law as “inhumane.”

The main issue comes from the so-called “emergency” exception which allows Congress to exempt itself from Paygo if a situation arises that needs to be handled immediately without finding cuts elsewhere in the budget. This exception, as Republicans predicted, has swallowed the rule.

When writing the Paygo legislation, Democrats wrote that the emergency exception

“Ensure[s] that Congress can provide an appropriate response in the event of a national crisis, such as war, response to an act of terrorism, natural disaster or recession.”

Broad in description. Broader in practice. Spending bill after spending bill Democrats have found Paygo exceptions that allow them to add to our deficit without the trouble of finding cuts elsewhere. The latest “exception” is a grab bag of spending with the Orwellian title: “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.” Gimme a break. Here’s a brief glimpse into just where that $200 billion of taxpayer dollars is going:

• $24 billion to help states pay the exploding tab for Medicaid, the same program that ObamaCare expands by some 16 million new recipients
• $65 billion to prevent a 21% cut in Medicare physician reimbursements – a sum which was taken out of the health care bill to make it look less expensive
• $47 billion to extend unemployment insurance – bringing the total to $137 billion – five times more than in either of the previous two recessions
• Billions in subsidies to cotton farmers, yarn producers, sheep growers, motor sports businesses, the steel lobby, municipal bond traders, and many more

Only a quarter of this total (which is still increasing, estimates say) will be paid for. As for the rest, well, contrary to their claims when passing the PayGo law, they decided to tack it on to the national debt. After all, what’s a few hundred billion among friends?

But Americans should be asking, how can we justify any of this as worthy of an exemption to paygo? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) puts on his best poker face as he tries to justify the exemption.

“[Reid] believes that providing assistance to families who have suffered a job loss is critical to getting the economy back on track,” said Reid spokeswoman Regan LaChapelle. “Extending unemployment compensation and COBRA health insurance premium assistance are important for these families and certainly meet the definition of ‘emergency spending’ contemplated in the pay-go legislation.”

To disagree would seem heartless. Many people are suffering through extended periods of unemployment and wondering where they are going to get the money to survive. But, and this is a huge but, it does not follow that this spending cannot be matched with cuts elsewhere. If we are going to make extending benefits a priority, then we must necessarily make sacrifices in some of our lesser concerns. There are plenty of places to cut. As Olsson Frank Weeda of the Pew Commission on Budget Reform makes clear,

“You can find there are so many places in discretionary spending that have been increased tremendously over the last two, three, four years that can be cut.”

Covering up the new spending with a bunch of pretty, feel-good words helps them to keep a good face on in the PR department, but this is a clear example of the Uncle Sam addiction-to-spending culture Republicans are trying to change. Addicts make excuses and try to find an exception to every rule. It’s time to put this nation on the path to fiscal recovery – it begins with becoming fiscally accountable.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Commitee

The National Conservative Student Conference
http://www.yaf.org/eventdetails.aspx?id=3265

August 2 to 7, 2010
The George Washington University

Early Bird Deadline June 1
https://www.yaf.org/ncsc-conferenceregistration.aspx

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don’t Miss the Benefits of the National Conservative Student Conference

“I found this to be the most rewarding experience of my college career.” -Amanda Sharp, East Carolina University

Early Bird Deadline June 1
https://www.yaf.org/ncsc-conferenceregistration.aspx

————
The Details:
————

Young America’s Foundation offers an intensive six-day conference where you will learn the principles and ideas that define conservatism from the Conservative Movement’s best speakers. In addition, you will spend the week networking with like-minded college students from around the country.

Join us to receive valuable activism resources and find out why your peers have called this conference a “once-in-a-lifetime experience!”

————
Benefits for You:
————

* Meet and ask questions of your conservative heroes
* Become a more effective advocate for your beliefs
* Network with other like-minded students
* Hear about a wide range of topics from the Conservative Movement’s best known speakers
* Receive valuable resource materials that you can use throughout your college career and beyond
* Improve your critical thinking and debate skills
* Hear the conservative side of pressing issues
* Learn how to bring great speakers to your school

————
Speakers will include:
————
Confirmed speakers are Dr. Walter Williams, Congressman Dan Lungren, Kate Obenshain, Dr. Robert George, David Horowitz, Marji Ross, John Miller, Samuel Thernstrom, Michelle Easton, David French, Herman Cain, Bay Buchanan, Kirby Wilbur, Dr. Burt Folsom, and Jim Bopp. More will be announced soon.

————
The FAQ
————
http://www.yaf.org/ncscfaq10.aspx

————
The Cost
————

Thanks to the assistance of Young America’s Foundation’s generous supporters, you get an incredible deal! For only $350 (early-bird fee until June 1), you receive all meals, lodging, materials, and tuition for the week. The actual cost per student is more than $2,000.

————
The Registration
————

Young America’s Foundation accepts applications from full-time college students and high school seniors who will begin their
freshman year in the fall of 2010.

Act now and apply today because space is limited, and this is an incredible opportunity you don’t want to miss! The last day to apply is July 2.
https://www.yaf.org/ncsc-conferenceregistration.aspx

All odds were against Democratic Representative Joe Sestak in the May 2010 Senate Primary race in Pennsylvania.  Sestak faced off against incumbent Senator Arlen Specter, who, if you recall, made an opportunistic jump to the Democratic Party. The party switch turned out to be a band-aid over a gaping wound, namely, the fact that he was just so darned unlikeable.

Despite Specter’s heavy handed support from President Obama and the Democratic Party, he could not be saved.  So long, Specter, you will not be missed.  His long winded career in the Senate came to a screeching halt when Democratic congressman Sestak stole the show just last week.  However, the controversy surrounding Sestak in the months leading up to his victory has opened up a whole new can of worms that Democrats must deal with.

In an interview last Friday, Sestak confirmed that an undisclosed White House official offered him a job in exchange for withdrawing from the race.  While Sestak acknowledges that this did in fact occur, he will not provide any information on what job he was offered, and which White House official offered it. When asked what job it was, he responded,

“[Aswering that question] just gets into politics. And actually that’s what I think is failing Washington, D.C. Principle doesn’t seem to triumph over politics where people come here and be willing to lose their job over doing what they said they would do.”

This is an issue that cannot be brushed aside by the left wing, mainstream media who will stop at nothing to preserve a squeaky clean image of President Obama.  Heck, don’t be surprised if they find a way to blame this on George W. Bush.  While Obama continues to masquerade as a symbol of change, the corrupt ‘politics as usual’ in the current administration are deliberately being kept out of the public eye.  Well Washington, the show is over.  No matter which way you look at it, or where you point your finger, this is politics as usual for an administration trying to sell “change.”

It may even be worse than that. Darrel Issa of the House Oversight Committee says that the Obama administration may have broken federal law. Issa wrote that,

“While the White House may think this is politics as usual, what is spectacularly unusual is when a candidate — a U.S. congressman no less — freely acknowledges such a proposal. Almost always candidates keep quiet about such deals, and for good reason — they are against the law.”

As Politico reported, the law he is referring to is a federal statute which makes it a crime for a government employee to use his authority “for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for certain offices.

The White House continues to skirt the issue saying “nothing inappropriate happened.” However, we should expect more out of the most “open and honest” administration in history. Sestak said it best himself, “principle doesn’t seem to triumph over politics” in Washington. Attempting to influence elections with job offers has dated back to the “spoils system” of the early 1800s. As a nation I thought we had grown beyond that. Then again I forget that President Obama cut his teeth in anything-goes Chicago.

Principle must triumph. Voters clearly voted for change in 2008. They’ve gotten more of the worst practices of the previous administrations. The swamp is Washington hasn’t been drained – it has only gotten dirtier. If political favors are “politics as usual” in the Obama White House then something needs to change. Moreover, their reluctance to assume accountability, or at the very least address the situation, sends a message that taking ownership of such actions is not a priority. But it is easy to understand that owning up to wrongdoing is bad politics. Truth, especially in this case, won’t help you win the election. In this town and in this administration politics always wins out over principle.

by Brandon Greife (hat tip Samantha Cohen)

Home comes with natural advantages. It is why we say “home field advantage,” “home turf,” and “there’s no place like home.” Those advantages didn’t seem to matter in Barack Obama’s hometown over the weekend.

In the district that hasn’t been represented by a Republican since the 1980s, in the state that has only elected three Republicans since establishing statehood, and in the home-district of the President himself, Republican Charles Djou has claimed victory.

Honolulu City Councilman Djou won in a three-way race against state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and former congressman Ed Case, both Democrats.

While the Democrats may point to the split vote as a concession to Djou’s victory, they cannot ignore the enormous momentum this victory gives Republicans going into the election season. After all, Djou won despite more than $300,000 in targeted television ads courtesy of the DCCC. He won despite hometown hero Barack Obama capturing 70% of the vote in 2008. He won despite replacing a Democrat who captured an incredible 77% of the vote in his last election.

The voter’s wanted change, change they are not seeing from their native Commander in Chief. Djou offered alternatives for the economically stressed tourism state with a solid message that, taxes are too high, the federal government has grown too large, and wasteful government spending hinders economic prosperity.

Djou will no doubt face a tough reelection in November, but his margin of victory suggests he has more than just a fighting chance. Tom Dollar crunched the numbers for FiveThirtyEight using a system (and some assumptions) that ranks voters first and second preferences. He found that in a head to head contest between Djou and Hanabusa – Djou would barely capture the seat 50.3% to 49.7%. The numbers show that Djou would need to capture about 30% of those who voted for Case to succeed in the upcoming election. A tough, but hardly impossible task, considering he was the more moderate of the two Democratic candidates.

Djou even admitted that he would face a test in November. “The voters gave us a short-term lease with an option to buy in November,” Djou said. With Americans stuck under a four-year sub-prime Obama mortgage, they could be looking for change. If Hawaii gives us any indication, it could come in the most surprising of places.

Republicans have taken Ted Kennedy’s seat, Obama’s native district, and are looking to take Obama’s old Illinois senate seat in November. Across America, in every place President Obama has called home, voters are sending a message – keep the change, we just want our America back.

by Brandon Greife and Sinead Casey

Obama runs this town now, so spinning this election cycle as “anti-incumbent” or “anti-Washington” to escape the “anti-Obama” reality simply won’t work. Washington is Obama and the town has been painted blue.

Jay Cost rebuts Obama minion Richard Wolffe, in arguing that this “anti-incumbent” meme is just a smokescreen designed to get the White House through some tough news cycles.”

But Cost’s argument can be taken further. The successful candidates this election season are more than just Republican and more then just anti-incumbent: they’re anti-establishment and the direct opposite of Obama. Charlie Christ’s can thank his friend Obama for his epic fail at securing the Republican nomination. While Christ was busy selling Obama’s agenda, everything from stimulus to education, Conservative Marco Rubio gained momentum in the polls, now holding an 8% lead, since Crist found his independence. Voters in Florida aren’t looking for a moderate, bi-partisan. They’re looking for a fiscal conservatives who are willing to get out the shovel to dig us out from this mountain of debt.

Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky primary Tuesday is going to be spun as anti-incumbent. The left will say that because the candidate backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell the people were indicating their dissatisfaction with everything tied to Washington. This is not true. Rand Paul is the candidate backed by the Tea Party movement. He is a strong fiscal conservative, pro guns, and pro life. He is everything Obama is not. Americans clearly showed that they wanted change in 2008. But as Glenn Thrush wrote for Politico,

“For the first time since he emerged as a national political figure six years ago, Obama finds himself on the wrong side of the change equation – the status quo side – with challengers in both parties running against him, his policies, or his handpicked candidates.”

As it turns out Obama did not really bring change. He brought the same tired big government, big spending agenda that voters so clearly repudiated following George Bush.

Now voters are not just heading right – they’re flat out running. Candidates must follow to survive, as we see in the Arizona Senate race. John McCain is an incumbent and holding a 12-point lead over his primary challenger J.D. Hayworth. Despite his lead, McCain’s challenging primary stemmed not from his incumbency but from his maverick past. McCain leaving his presidential campaign strategy in the dust in order to cater to this pro-conservative trend. Hayworth is running under the banner “constant conservative” and targeting McCain on issues he moved to the center on, such as immigration and the bank bailout bill.

What we’re seeing in these three key races and in races at all levels across the nation is something no one expected in 2008. After Obama, Pelosi and Reid took power the Republican Party was deemed dead. But the party has quickly resurrected itself as an out of touch Washington swung misunderstood their mandate.

This election is a referendum on the trajectory of our nation. The Obama Administration and liberal friends in the media can spin it anyway they’d like but the truth of the matter is, this is a center-right country. There is no anti-incumbent it’s anti Obama.

by Sinead Casey

This Week’s Theme: Ignoring Our Debt

The Promise: While in the minority Democrats understood the importance of passing a budget. In 2006, then-Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer said passing a budget is “the most basic responsibility of governing. Rep. John Spratt, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, put it more succinctly when he said, “if you can’t pass a budget, you can’t govern.”

The Reality: Steny Hoyer has announced that for the first time since 1974 Democrats will not pass a budget resolution this year. Why? As Roll Call writes,

“[W]ithout much else on the House agenda, they simply don’t have any good excuses not to do a budget beyond cowardice.”

Fact 1: The Budget Resolution is a Necessary Process

As the House Rules Committee website explains,

“The budget resolution provides Congress with the opportunity to lay out its spending,  revenue, borrowing and economic goals and serves as the vehicle for imposing internal budget discipline through established enforcement mechanisms. . . In recent years, the budget resolution has become a blueprint for achieving a balanced budget.”

As we have seen this Congress is not exactly keen on “budget discipline.” Whether it be the $862 billion stimulus, the $1.2 trillion health care reform, or now the $134 billion grab-bag spending bill – this is a Congress seemingly committed to digging our generation a fiscal hole.

The exorbitant spending is not the only history Democrats are making. The Hill reported,

“The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolutions since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974, according to a Congressional Research Service report.”

Though not Constitutionally required, the budgeting is a very important process. Without goals and a commitment to lowering spending in the upcoming year there is very little incentive to keep the government’s budget in check. As Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) explains, “you’re flying blind without a budget.” With our nation facing record debt and deficits as far as our generation can see, flying blind, is not what we should expect of our federal government.

Fact 2: Democrats are Ignoring Their Duty Because of Pure Politics

Democrats are facing tough elections in November. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 23% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States – the lowest percentage in a midterm year since Gallup began asking the question. Moreover, as Gallup explains, “low satisfaction ratings have been associated with greater net seat change between parties in Congress in midterm election years.”

Democrats are looking to buoy this satisfaction rating however they can – even if it means concealing the depth of our fiscal troubles. The House Rules Committee says that the

“The budget resolution must include a projection of annual budget deficits, as well as a statement of the aggregate federal debt.”

Given the Democrats spending spree, the idea of giving Americans a chance to see the $13 trillion debt and $1.35 2010 deficit, is not exactly attractive. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admitted as much,

“It’s difficult to pass budgets in election years, because they reflect what the fiscal status is.”

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) echoed the sentiment saying:

“You have the problem, always, of people not wanting to cast difficult votes in an election year.”

Putting politics above principle should not be acceptable for Americans. The “difficult votes” should have been the ones that got us into the fiscal crisis in the first place. Democrats unwillingness to pass a budget is simply a desire to take credit for the benefits of the legislation without also taking credit for the costs. In the words of Roll Call this is mere “cowardice.”

Fact 3: Failing to Pass a Budget has Consequences for Americans

If Democrats fail to pass a budget many middle class families could see drastic tax increases in the next year. As The Hill explains,

“Eschewing a budget resolution could complicate efforts to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000 annually.”

The reason is that the budget draft contains reconciliation instructions that would allow the Bush tax cuts to pass with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes.

Not passing a budget may also have dire long term consequences for investors. Bob Bixby, head of the Washington-based Concord Coalition says that

“Failure to adopt a budget resolution when the fiscal resolution is needed most would send the worst possible signal. It would say to investors in Treasury securities, foreign and domestic, that the federal government is still in denial about its fiscal problems and has no plan to address the situation anytime soon.”

Our nation is already teetering on the edge of fiscal disaster. The only thing keeping our heads above water is our AAA credit rating with financial analysis companies that allows us to borrow at low interest rates. Of course with $10 trillion in new deficit spending over the next 10 years, if we want to keep our interest rates low, the government had better start showing a commitment to paying it off. Instead, failing to pass a budget shows a commitment to more spending.

Bottom Line: In the words of Paul Ryan, “Rather than cut government spending, [Democrats] chose instead to cut and run – and to simply avoid the hard choices American families and small businesses must make every day.” We need to make the tough choices to get our debt under control and we need to make them now.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

Republicans are running against him and Democrats are running away from him. The anti-Washington, turned anti-Obama, syndrome has swept the nation, and many of this year’s primary incumbents are seeing the nasty side effects. Unfortunately for them, it seems that what used to be seen as a boost to their campaign’s immune system may now be the source of some of the symptoms: incumbents who sought or accepted help from President Obama are dropping like flies.

Senator Arlen Specter was the last of four Democrat incumbents who fell victim to the collateral damage of the Obama’s bad reputation. Preceding him was Attorney General Martha Coakley, who lost the special election to fill the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat to newcomer Scott Brown in Massachusetts; New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine; and Virginia’s gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds who lost last year to Republican Bob McDonnell. In each of these events, Obama’s involvement is seen as being partly causal of the surge of support for their opponents.

“I think that Washington has been put on notice. And I also think that when you look at the midterm elections, though, it’s going to be about Barack Obama. It’s going to be about his policies. It’s going to be nationalized. And that should scare every single incumbent in Washington in a sense, because they’re going to be held accountable,” CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger said.

The Associated Press has also voiced the opinion that Obama’s coattails may be tripping up running incumbents:

“Obama’s track record also raises the question of whether he may be hurting candidates he supports by motivating his foes — such as tea party supporters — to vote. Though this month’s AP-GfK Poll shows Americans split about evenly over how he’s handling his job, those strongly disapproving outnumber people who strongly back him by 33 percent to 22 percent — not an enviable position for the president’s party.”

People are responding negatively to the “change” Obama promised, taking to political rebellion against his endorsement of irresponsible spending in order to voice their distrust in his agenda. If Democratic lawmakers are deciding to distance themselves from him in order to avoid losing the race, Republican lawmakers are getting pumped at the prospect.

“We’re licking our chops at running against President Obama,” said Rand Paul, tea party candidate and victor in Kentucky’s Republican primary for retiring GOP Sen. Jim Bunning’s seat. Paul told CNN on Wednesday he’d relish Obama’s campaigning on behalf of Democrat Jack Conway. Obama’s agenda, Paul said, is “so far to the left, he’s not popular in Kentucky.”

Democratic pollster Peter Hart says “anyone searching for meaning from Tuesday’s races need only look to grievances that have been building for months.”  It is clear that as Obama’s administration continues to struggle, the nation’s confidence in him and those he supports is quickly waning.

In a year with a fervent anti-incumbent groundswell Democrats cannot afford this lack of support. Republican strategist Terry Nelson says “being a GOP incumbent this fall is a much better proposition than it is for a Democrat.” One Washington Post writer went a step further saying that the Pennsylvania election results confirm, “the lesson for Democrats was clear last night: Obama offers to endorse you, run the other way.” A significant fall from grace for a top of the ticket name that spearheaded substantial gains in both houses of Congress just two years ago.

The American political system is in a state of reform: U.S. citizens are sick of the way things are going, and have decided to put out with the old and in with the new. Hart says it all: “How many times do we need to tell the same story, which is that voters are looking for something that is not in Washington right now.”

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

For the past week or so, I’ve been holed up at a camp in Brookston, Indiana with 50 undergraduate men and women. I’m facilitating a leadership development program called LeaderShape (www.leadershape.org). The purpose of which is to teach men and women how to become better leaders, to lead with integrity, and to use what they know and the resources around them to fix problems they see. The main idea of the week is for these collegiate men and women to come up with their own ‘vision’- an idea they have that would make the community they choose (city, state, federal, school, Greek, etc.) better on the whole.

So now I bet you think this is either a piece extolling the virtues of this program….aka selling out….or a rant on the degeneration of the youth of America. I promise it’s neither. This is all about you, as a conservative, as a Republican, or just as a young adult, finding your vision.

My last piece focused on pushing you to get out and do something. That’s the charge we need to take in 2010- get out and do something. If you care passionately about politics, about your community, about your nation – you HAVE to get out and do something about it. We’re in too dangerous a situation right now to have you wait to get involved. As you’ve read on this website, Washington is putting way too much on our generations ‘tab’ and we’ll all be paying dearly for it unless something is done.

If we have learned anything from the Greek crisis, it the need for a concerted effort to close our generational ‘tab.’ But we must act before we get too far in debt.

So, Republican youth of America, I challenge you now to find your vision.

It’s really simple.

Just ask yourself three questions: What do you want to change? What do you think you can change? How can you make those changes?

This is bigger than just going out to vote or having debates with other people on campus – this is doing work. This is taking your stand and yelling out with the rest of us “Don’t put it on our tab!”

I’ll use my new vision as an example and break the process down for you.

Mickey’s Vision: Republicans will win the 18-30 voting bloc in the 2010 election, thus being the major push that brings conservatism back into Washington.

Look at that sentence again. You want to know the biggest part about that? In that sentence, I say nothing about myself. It’s not me doing anything.

Your vision is bigger than you.

I’ve spent the past 8 months traveling across the United States for my job and have been on numerous campuses and met numerous young college kids. I’ve never felt so small before. Until you travel outside your safe zones, you just have no idea how large the nation really is, which also shows how big an impact one person making a concerted effort to cause a great change can be.

Your vision must be bigger than you because what’s at stake affects way more than just you.

Now, here’s where I throw you for a loop…ready? You’re currently the most important piece to your vision.

Why?

Because your vision is unique to you. It’s an idea you have created. Ultimately, you are nothing more than the ignition. You find your vision and you begin to enact it. If you do it correctly, your vision mushrooms and becomes so much bigger than you. Your contribution in the beginning is so important to the process, but the end result is what you’re looking for.

Confused yet? I think I might have confused myself.

Let me attempt to simplify.

I’m challenging you to do something great. It doesn’t have to be massive, just make it something. Sit down and just think.

What is the one thing that you care about so much in the world currently that you would stand in front of a tank to protect?

For me, that is protecting the United States and saving the US from the ruin our current politicians are leading us into.

I would gladly go out into the middle of Times Square and stare down a tank if it meant that at least one person would take notice and stand up and make a difference. If one person stands up, they could lead another ten to do so…and then those ten lead another ten each…and that starts the chain reaction of change. In that circumstance, there’s a chance nobody ever knows that I sparked that change.

But would it be necessary? No. The end result was reached.

This is where our current president, Barack Obama, led his people astray. All the “change” you may or may not have seen since his inauguration, you’ve KNOWN he was a part of it, because it was shoved down your throat. Anything that had nothing to do with his change? He publicly distanced himself and put it down.

That’s where you make the real change. It’s not about the credit, the glory, the glamour, the press. As a Republican, you have to stand up and fight for a change to the world now, not because you want to line your pockets, but because you want to create a world that you can live in. A world you can thrive in and eventually raise a family in.

It can’t even be about politics anymore. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Communist…well, maybe not Communist. It is about us as a group standing up and screaming that we refuse to let the people in charge burden our backs with any heavier a load than they already have with this massive debt that continues to grow exponentially.

This isn’t about us anymore, kids, it’s about the entire United States. It’s about the entire world.

So, find your vision. Find the one thing that would make you play a game of chicken with a tank, the one thing that lights an unending fire inside of you.

Go make that change. America is waiting.

By: Mickey Hart

Mickey is a 2008 graduate from Marietta College (Marietta, OH). You can read his other works at americannewbreed.blogspot.com or borderwarsports.com. You can reach him at michael86hart@gmail.com

by Jim Boswell, first published in Business Insider

No institution or group of institutions should be held more accountable for the current financial crisis in America than the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) with the endearing names of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And it is long past time that we put these culprits out of our misery.

Management of long term mortgage debt is too important to the U.S. economy (and thus the world’s economy) to leave in the hands of two entities that make up less than one percent of the Fortune 500 companies in America.  Although supposedly sponsored by the Government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac never worked for the Government, nor did they ever serve the general welfare of the American public.

As private companies, whose stock is still being bought and sold on the New York Stock Exchange, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were out to make money for themselves and their stockholders.  By manipulating mortgage rates to their advantage, lowering credit standards, holding their own securities funded by ultra-cheap treasury debt, and trading on inside information, the two GSEs intentionally strategized on ways to increase mortgage debt beyond reasonable means.

Because of the oligopoly-like control over mortgage lending given to the GSEs by Congress (and conceded by the Federal Reserve), mortgage debt in the U.S. grew nearly three fold from $2.8 Trillion to $10.2 Trillion in the fifteen-years between 1992 and 2007 (See Exhibit).  This growth in mortgage debt grew larger and faster than the better known National Debt which grew from $4.1 Trillion to $9.0 Trillion during the same time period.

In truth, without the housing bubble collapse, there would have been no bank bailouts, no Lehman bankruptcy, no Countrywide failure, no Fed lending, no AIG (the list could go on and on).  And if you are looking for the people most responsible for the housing bubble, then that leads you right to the front doors of Fannie and Freddie.

If it had not been for the self-serving business strategies of the GSEs’ to increase debt and keep housing prices escalating for their own company gains, the housing bubble that caused the recession would never had occurred in the first place.  And even though GSE Executive Management may not have intended to create a global financial crisis with criminal intent in mind, that same management must still be held accountable for the global financial crisis none-the-less.

Either through ignorance or a need to satisfy their own personal greed, the GSEs mismanaged their power over mortgage rates and their underwriting systems for nearly a thirty-year period going back as far as the early 1980s.  And no one should overlook the fact that the GSEs regularly used inside information to purchase their own securities prior to selling the remainder to unsuspecting global investors, thus enhancing their bets on how their securities would pay down over the counter bets of those unsuspecting investors.

Now here is the solution to our current dilemma about what to do with the GSEs.
Abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Replace them with a much smaller and more conservative government agency modeled after that of Ginnie Mae.  Ginnie Mae (with less than eighty government employees) managed the risk of its MBS programs better than the GSEs.  In fact, this little guy, unlike the GSEs who have now accrued more than $200 billion in losses since 2007, managed to make money during the same time period.

Put some respected financial person in charge of the new Federal entity, not some “political hack”.  Treat this position like you would when choosing a Federal Reserve Chairman or Secretary of Treasury.  Mortgage debt in the United States has grown to be one of the most important factors that we need to manage for a growing economy.

Keep this new entity simple and operate it like Ginnie Mae operates.  In fact, merge Ginnie Mae into this new agency.  Ginnie Mae doesn’t purchase its own product, but instead, sells it all to investors.  Compare annual reports.  You’ll find it fifty times easier to understand the business model behind that of Ginnie Mae compared to the business models of the GSEs.

End the government’s involvement in subprime and outright purchase subsidies.  These activities just put houses in the hands of people who ultimately cannot afford them.  Instead, the government should encourage and reward financial responsibility.  And here’s how to do that.

Have the new agency establish a 30-year 4.0% fixed rate mortgage program for highly qualified purchasers and refinancers with a minimum of 10-15% equity and good credit for “primary” residences under $500,000.  This approach offers two major advantages: (1) it will reduce our long term debt obligations; and (2) it is a way to stimulate the economy better than we have been able to in the last eighteen months through increased government spending.

Back these loans and securitize them with the Full Faith and Credit Guaranty of the United States Government.  Think of these new securities like long term U.S. Treasury Notes.  Marginal borrowers that don’t meet new strict underwriting standards used by the new agency must go to the private sector banks for their mortgages which “will not” carry the same Government Guaranty.

One thing we should learn from this latest financial crisis.  Not everything has been all bad.  During this latest recession, heroes have stepped forward, and I would like to tip my hat to two of the most important: (1) the FDIC, which despite the TARP bailouts, has continued doing its essential job like it has in the past—shutting down the riskiest and most dysfunctional banks in America; and (2) maybe the most important of all, those American homeowners who month after month continued making their monthly principal and interest payments despite their deteriorating financial circumstances during the crisis.  It is because of heroes like these that we are continuing to recover from the Greatest Recession since the Great Depression.

As a Director for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Jim led the risk analysis activities that overlooked the risk associated with Ginnie Mae’s $600 billion of MBS for over twelve years (1988-2000), including the time period of the S&L Crisis.  In 1995 he received a Vice Presidential Hammer award issued by the Secretary of the Treasury.  Jim has been published in Mortgage Banking Magazine and Jess Lederman’s Handbook of Mortgage Banking.  He spent much of the last nine years trying to warn the powers to be about the dangers that Fannie and Freddie presented to the country.

In both the hard sciences and the social sciences, verifiable patterns and trends permit us to recognize areas that we can and cannot change. Unfortunately, political wishful thinking often impedes economical progress, which is the situation that we find ourselves in today’s economic dilemma with the current disorder of Washington’s fiscal house.

As the Democrats continue to paint a masterpiece of our fiscal situation, the Hoover Institution’s W. Kurt Hauser has found a trend that shows some sloppy brush strokes on the part of the Democrats.

Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, has been accredited the creation of what some have called “Hauser’s Law”, which basically stated means that no matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America, tax revenues have never climbed above the 20% threshold. (see chart).

Today’s fiscal policy makers consistently ignore this well-established fact, with two disturbing effects for American taxpayers.

First, it will necessarily mean that future deficits are higher than current government predictions. The prevailing view in Washington, and amongst the Democratic members of President Obama’s deficit commission, is that increases in the tax rate will create more tax revenue with which we can pay off our deficit. Hauser’s law suggests this is not true. In fact, regardless of the numerous fluctuations in the marginal tax rates over the years – the federal government has been unable to increase revenue as a percentage of GDP.

Second, ignoring Hauser’s law may actually reduce overall tax income. It is accepted by economists of all political stripes that increasing taxes decreases Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Hauser’s law tells us that tax receipts remain at about 19.5% of GDP. In other words, increasing taxes will create no additional income, but it will lower GDP and thus actually lower tax revenue.

The reason is, as the Wall Street Journal explains, “the tax base is not something that the government can kick around at will. It represents a living economic system that makes its own collective choices.” Raising taxes above a certain point simply provides an incentive to use the numerous loopholes or credits in the tax code to shift or hide income. Lowering tax rates, increases the incentive to work and produce, thereby maintaining the amount of revenue despite lower rates.

Washington would be wise to listen to Mr. Hauser. As his law teaches us – we should quit quibbling over how much we should raise taxes to pay off our ballooning deficits and instead think of ways to increase GDP. Don’t look for the Obama administration to act anytime soon. After all, it would be the end of Democrats’ dreams of wealth redistribution and put Obama’s deficit commission out of a job.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director  (hat tip Adam Welsh)