Archive for June, 2010

DailyKos has announced they will be suing Research2000 the firm they contracted with to do their polling. I very badly want to take a cheap shot. To kick them while their down. After all, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos, is the king of cheap shots.

This is a guy who derided John McCain’s teeth color: “It’s pretty bad when your hair is whiter than your teeth.” Who, based on Research2000 poll results, asked whether we can “cram them all into the Texas Panhandle, create the state of Dumbf**kistan, and build a wall around them to keep them from coming into America illegally?” Who consistently uses the sexually derogatory term “tea-baggers” to describe a legitimate political movement. And the guy who, after four civilian contractors were killed in Fallujah, said “I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries…Screw them.”

But Moulitsas went and took all the fun out of attacking him for his biased polls, saying,

“Sure, our friends on the Right will get to take some cheap shots, and they should take advantage of the opportunity.”

So rather than tear him down for over one-and-a-half years of faulty polling numbers, I’ll praise his ability to fall on the sword and make his mistake public.

“I have just published a report by three statistics wizards showing, quite convincingly, that the weekly Research 2000 State of the Nation poll we ran the past year and a half was likely bunk. We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don’t know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can’t trust it.”

Moulitsas also made the point that,

“But ultimately, this episode validates the reason why we released the internal numbers from Research 2000 — and why every media outlet should do the same from their pollster; without full transparency of results, this fraud would not have been uncovered.”

My problem doesn’t lie in Moulitsas’ response to the false poll results. He acted quickly, decisively, and openly when confronted with the problem. My problem lies with his websites’ never-cede-an-inch, see-no-evil-when-liberals-are-involved philosophy. This is a website that is notoriously far-left in its viewpoint. I mean, when Keith Olbermann severs ties with your site because you’re too liberal…you’re really too liberal.

Olbermann wrote a blog post titled “Check, Please” because of criticism he received from DailyKos contributors for calling lamenting Obama’s weak Oval Office speech on the oil spill.

Outraged at the accusation, he responded:

“You don’t agree with me, fine…But to accuse me, after five years of risking what I have to present the truth as I see it, of staging something for effect, is deeply offensive to me and is an indication of what has happened here.

You want Chearleaders? Hire the Buffalo Jills…You want diaries with conspiracy theories, go nuts. If you want this site the way it was even a year ago let me know and I’ll be back.”

The sites’ liberal philosophy seemed to carry over to its poll results.

Daily Kos is notoriously left wing, and their poll results have been alarmingly consistent with their liberal ideology.  Sad that pollsters are falling into the same trap as news organizations – becoming ideological in a medium meant to be unbiased. We don’t need a Fox News or an MSNBC when it comes to polling, we need accuracy.

Not so surprisingly, Research 2000 was behind the “Republicans are crazy wing nuts” poll that surfaced not too long ago.  Information, I might add, that is to be included in Markos’ new book.

Prior to the Research 2000 allegations of fraud, Markos explained:

“As I’ve mentioned before, I’m putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn’t know if they could be backed up. So I thought, “why don’t we ask them directly?” And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.”

Fortunately, and to his credit, Moulitsas distanced himself from his earlier polls and disavowed the results,

“While the investigation didn’t look at all of Research 2000 polling conducted for us, fact is I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else. I ask that all poll tracking sites remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases. I hereby renounce any post we’ve written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling.”

Hopefully, this is the beginning of less partisan and more accurate polls, but with election fever running high, I’d be mighty surprised if it was.

by Brandon Greife

When Scott Brown first announced his long-shot Senate bid, I, like most Americans, was skeptical that this state legislator who came out of nowhere could win Teddy Kennedy’s seat for Republicans.  The day of reckoning came, and Scott Brown showed America that the seat wasn’t Teddy Kennedy’s seat or the Democrat’s seat—it was the People’s seat.  And the people chose Scott Brown.

Now Brown is doing his part to stick up for the people of his state and country by opposing a $19 billion bank tax that was tacked on to the Democrats’ financial reform bill in conference committee.  After Dems lost the votes they needed for cloture with the passing of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and the opposition of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), they sent it back to conference committee to eliminate the bank tax and win over Sen. Brown.

As CNBC reports, the Bank tax:

[is] officially known as the “Financial Crisis Special Assessment.  It [w]ould be charged to financial firms in order to pay for many of the costs to the government from other provisions of the bill. Exactly how it is assessed is left to regulatory discretion—a move some critics believe would be disastrous.

Under the new provisions added to the bill, regulators—specifically the newly created Council for Financial Stability—will be empowered to apply the tax according to a “risk matrix” that contains no fewer than 13 factors.

In other words, in order to pay for the increase in government spending included in the bill, Democrats wanted to new, unelected government bureaucracy to levy onerous taxes on America’s banks in accordance with a complicated and vague risk-calculating formula.

Taxes, regulation, and bureaucracy: Democrat “reform” in a nut shell.

Let’s pretend for a minute that the bank tax is assessed in a simple manner that doesn’t require creating a whole new government energy.  It’s still a terrible policy.

As Sen. Brown noted in the letter he sent to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the chief architects of the bill:

I have always strongly opposed a bank tax because, as the non-partisan CBO has said, costs would be passed onto the millions of American consumers and small businesses who rely on major U.S. financial institutions for their checking, ATM, loans or other services.  This tax will be paid by consumers who will have to pay higher fees and the small businesses that won’t get the funding they need to invest and create jobs.

The fundamental flaw with the bank tax, like with so many other Democrat tax-proposals, is that Wall Street fat cats and corporate CEOs aren’t the ones who suffer most from onerous taxes.  The middle class suffers.  Small businesses suffer.  You and I suffer.  Our families suffer.

Thank you, Senator Brown.  Thank you for protecting the American people from this tax hike.  It’s good to have a Republican in your Senate seat.  When Fall rolls around, we’ll be sure to send you and your 40 Republican colleagues some more company.

By Avi Snyder

The endangered tag on the rare species of Northeastern Republicans may be due for a recall this November, and the Grand Old Party can thank New Jersey’s Chris Christie.

The rising star may disappoint those in his party as his political ambitions fail to extend beyond a gubernatorial seat, but the “Christie-effect” may change the coloring of the Northeast in a way bigger than one man.

With the stroke of a pen in the early hours of Tuesday morning, Christie took the first step towards rebranding Republicanism in the Northeast. By passing a budget that closes an $11 billion deficit in New Jersey, Christie put forth a fiscal model suitable for the economies of the Northeast—a model that propels the GOP into the midterm election season backed by common sense solutions. Christie set the model by issuing:

A series of common-sense proposals like a constitutional amendment capping the growth of local property taxes at 2.5 percent annually, forcing teachers to pay a portion of their health insurance premiums (previously fully funded by taxpayers) and a moratorium on tax increases.

In another selling point for Republican candidates, the Christie model came in the wake of five consecutive gubernatorial administrations that rose state spending on net.

Americans for Tax Reform noted this week that state spending in the Christie budget proposal was nearly 5 percent less than under predecessor Jon Corzine’s final budget. Taking federal stimulus dollars into account, the budget was more than 8 percent smaller, as Mr. Christie’s budget is 55 percent less reliant on a federal bailout than Mr. Corzine’s. He refused to extend the income-tax increase on high earners, vetoing a “millionaires’ tax” less than two minutes after it passed the legislature.

Thanks to Christie, Republicans have substance to run with the message that we offer real solutions to the nation’s budget crisis, and in a region where fiscal responsibility of districts is misrepresented by members in congress, the “Christie-effect” could send a chilling wave for the Democrats over the Northeast this fall.

Christie has his own ideas for rebranding the party.  In a breakfast interview with Politico he said:

Republicans have to rebrand themselves credibly with the candidates they run, and what they espouse, as the person who will keep an eye on the cash register, who will rein in the spending and the debt.

This season Republicans are overwhelming the Democrats, ushering in candidates that are business-minded and experienced. With Christie’s success as a model, fiscal responsibility is proving to pose as the issue likely to completely tank Democrats this cycle.

The success of New Jersey’s budget does more than simply test the political waters in the Northeast.  It also serves as a trial run for a solution to the nation’s spending problem, highlighting the need for a reform track for the nation’s finances.

Christie combated teachers unions, unsuitable public employee wages, benefits and pensions with refreshing straight talk. Although his budget did levy some taxes, including increases on hospitals and an ambulatory care providers that represent a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, he did everything possible to put money back in his citizen’s pockets. Hard decisions were made, but overall Christie, in passing 99.88 percent of his proposed budget, strived to spread the budget pain evenly across the Garden State.

Of course, some may quibble with the way the $29.4 billion was prioritized, but to achieve $2.6 billion in savings year after year in a deep-blue state with such a strong culture of unionization deserves the support of the conservative movement. Most importantly, Chris Christie took the political bullets and proved solving a budget crisis can be done, giving hope for Republicans across the nation.

By Sinead Casey

There’s a saying that encompasses everything democracy stands for: “for the people, by the people”. While simplistic, the saying has taken on a personality in the past few months, as those serving in Congress are doing anything but comply with the will of the people.

Democrats have a long and time-honored history of attempting to impose their will on the nation through undemocratic means. Whether they are using the federal court system to push their social agenda or engaging in back door bribing of senators to foist Obamacare on America, liberals are skilled at turning their unpopular policies into law despite their inability to win over the hearts and minds of the American people.

This liberal’s fear of Americans actually going to the polls and expressing their will has been especially exacerbated in the run-up to the November elections, and it is in full display this week in West Virginia. After the unfortunate passing of long-time Democratic Senator Robert Byrd this past Tuesday, the Democrat governor of West Virginia is set to appoint a temporary successor to fill Byrd’s seat. But just how “temporary” will this appointment be?

West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant has stated that:

Section 3-10-3 states that for terms with more than two years and six months remaining, such as this one with Senator Byrd, the Governor will appoint a replacement who serves the unexpired term until a successor has been elected.

Well that seems simple enough. The governor’s appointment will last until a special election can be help to pick Sen. Byrd’s successor.

But there’s more to the story. Ms. Tennant went on to say:

But that election will not be the 2010 General election. Part of this same section of code, requires the candidate to have filed during the filing period. That filing period has already passed…That means the election for the unexpired term would be the next election cycle which would take place in 2012.

Yes, you read that correctly. The “special election” to replace Senator Byrd will be held in 2012, when the Senator would have been up for election anyway–meaning that the Democrat governor’s “temporary” appointment won’t be so temporary after all.

As The Washington Post described the profoundly silly process:

West Virginia, somewhat ludicrously, then will hold a “special election” to pick someone who will serve for a matter of weeks — until the next Congress is seated — as well as a regular election to choose a senator for the following six years. The same person can run for both.

The Constitution doesn’t mandate that any special elections be held to fill Senate vacancies, as it does regarding the House. So the ridiculous statute preventing a special election until 2012 isn’t unconstitutional. But the law’s constitutionality aside, waiting for two and half years to democratically elect Sen. Byrd’s replacement is still a shocking denial of West Virginian’s democratic rights.

It isn’t as if this situation is unavoidable. As The Washington Post’s editorial page opined, “Ideally, West Virginia’s legislature would change the law to allow for a special election within a reasonable amount of time, say 60 days.” But it is highly unlikely the state’s Democratic power brokers will allow the citizens of West Virginia to have a say in who represents them.

Democrats have been losing election after election since their victory in 2008. Republicans Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie captured governorships in Virginia and New Jersey. In a jaw-dropping upset, Republican Scott Brown took liberal lion Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in a special election after the Senator passed away.
West Virginia Democrats know that if special elections are held this election season, they will face an uphill battle, and risk losing a seat that has been held by their party for over 50 years.

Democrats may be using a poorly written law to hold onto their power, fearing the votes of an angry electorate. But postponing their day of reckoning until 2012 won’t do them any good. The American people have woken up, and their anger won’t abate until there is real change in Washington. Come 2012, West Virginia’s Democrats won’t be able to hide behind the law any longer.

By Avi Snyder

It is well known that unionized workers in the United States are covered by more extensive employee benefits compared to nonunion workers.

Democratic politicians at the city and state level have been in bed with public-sector unions for a long time. Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner explains it as “collusive unionism” in which,

“Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits — and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.”

Public sectors provide the campaign cash that help politicians get elected. In return labor friendly politicians happily vote for cushy pensions and other benefits for union workers. The you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours approach falls flat as governments struggle to close budget gaps.

One state in particular is facing insurmountable levels of debt.  Currently New Jersey owes roughly $46 billion in pension contributions, and $58 billion in liabilities to finance retiree health coverage for government employees.

Labor unions are selfishly looking for more and more benefits exclusively for themselves, rather than weighing in on the bigger picture. Republican lawmakers have railed against public employees’ pay and benefits for years.  Now a surprising breed of elected official is demanding labor concessions: current and former labor leaders.

Why would union leaders betray their former constituency? The New York Times examples a few possible explanations.

First, it is good politics. With debt and deficit fears sweeping across the electoral landscape it pays to look like you’re doing something about the state of our finances. In a hunt for savings, unions, and their often-lavish pay are easy quarry. In Washington, where looking out for #1, is the golden rule, former union leaders are quick to forget their past constituency.

Second, the Times argues that many elected union leaders see it as a “badge of honor” to take on unions. Color me unimpressed by this explanation. This would mean foregoing millions in potential labor campaign contributions for the sole purpose of appearing “independent.” If it doesn’t win elections, it doesn’t fly in politics.

Third, it is the right thing to do. Stephen Sweeney, the president of the New Jersey State Senate and former top official for the ironworkers union, symbolized this view. “At some point, you reach the limit of your ability to pay. . . I’m a labor leader, but I’m also elected to do right by all the people in the state of New Jersey, and not just union members.”

I hope this is the reason for the change of heart. I hope that the myopic, union-centric, damn-the-world, view of many unions gave way to an epiphany about the larger social impacts of their wage demands. Government at all levels are being forced to come to terms with the fact that their economic situation is untenable. With billions of dollars in debt and a tax-base that is stretched to the limit, government officials are quickly discovering that we cannot afford lavish pensions, uncompetitive wages, and early retirements for our public workers.

Even if a conversion to fiscal sanity is part of the reason for the change of heart, I tend to think that the New York Times forgot one important rationale: the move actually helps unions in the long run.

Private sector unions were a victim of their own success. Their collective bargaining practices allowed them to receive wage far in excess of their non-unionized counterparts. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that in 2009, union workers were paid $47.46 per hour while non-union employees made $33.33. Quite the discrepancy. But the increased pay led many private sector companies to become uncompetitive in a dynamic, profit-driven market. Just ask how the heavily-unionized car companies of Detroit about the dangers of providing unions too much sway at the bargaining table.

The number of private sector union workers has been decreasing steadily for years as a result of their unsustainable wage demands. In the end, the ones who were hurt most were union workers who priced themselves out of the labor market.

Public sector labor leaders turned-politicians are loathe to make the same mistake. They seem to understand while Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” mantra works wonders for the short term, it may not be good for long-term survival. From that perspective, it makes sense to demand more competitive wages and more sustainable benefit packages in down times. Demanding more, in a time of less, would only lead to backlash and public sector contraction. A willingness to bend on salary helps keep your members employed.

Hopefully, the forward thinking approach of these prior union leaders are the start of a trend amongst unionized rank-and-file. But with a history of self-destruction, I’m not going to bet on it.

by Brandon Greife

Obama has been sitting in the pocket, surveying the defense. Republicans have been playing lock down D, stuffing every Democratic spending push, with a unified anti-deficit response. Sensing no weakness, Obama tossed up a Hail Mary play to attempt to slip one past the GOP.

At a press conference following the conclusion of the G-20 Summit in Toronto yesterday President Obama hiked the ball with strong words:

“I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it. And I think it’s the right thing to do. And people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I’m calling their bluff. And we’ll see how much of that – how much of the political arguments they’re making right now are real, and how much of it was just politics.”

The rest of the play is easy to predict.

First, he’ll fake a proposition to cut spending, since he knows that tax hikes aren’t going to be popular. They’ll be small, inconsequential cuts that the public will forget about in a week, but nevertheless provide him with a talking point.

After the pump fake, his fellow Democrats will criticize the GOP’s unwillingness to support what Obama proposed, leaving him free to launch the ball towards massive tax hikes. After all, if Republicans don’t want to cut spending, then we have to raise taxes right?

Steven Spruiell with National Review calls the play as he sees it.

“To me, the indirect reference to the Republican party signals that the “difficult choices” Obama plans to present to the country will mostly involve broad-based tax increases, and that he plans to lob accusations of hypocrisy at any Republican who criticizes him for breaking his pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.”

Devious as it may be, this political gambit is filled with flaws that not only highlight Obama’s tendency to talk the talk and not walk the walk, but also that will prove detrimental to the fiscal health of our nation for years to come.

Flaw #1: “I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it.”

Earlier on in the same evening, Obama said that “one of the interesting things that’s happened over the last 18 months as President is for some reason people keep on being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do.” It will be surprising indeed when Obama starts to accomplish what he said he would. There is a reason that more people disapprove of his job in office than approve today, and that reason is his long time record of unfulfilled promises.

Flaw#2: “I think it’s the right thing to do.”

He immediately follows this statement by a warning of tough decisions (a.k.a. tax raises) coming in the future. How are tax raises “the right thing to do”? John H. Malkin, a visiting scholar at AEI, doesn’t think so.

“Cuts in government spending are still preferable to tax increases as a way to cut the primary deficit because they produce less negative impact on sustainable growth–the best route out of a debt trap–than do tax increases, especially tax-rate increases.”

The only solution to our debt and deficit is to shrink government down to something we can afford. We can’t afford all the government we have. Obama’s policies grow the size of government. We cannot, without destroying our economy entirely, raise taxes enough to cover the trillions Obama has added to the national debt during his time in office and also reduce the standing debt and the interest we’re being charged to finance it.

Flaw #3: “I’m calling their bluff.”

What bluff? Apparently you don’t play poker Mr. Obama because we’re holding pocket aces while the deck is stacked against you. Republicans have stood unified in their opposition to your programs that would add to our long-term debt and deficits. Republicans have begun YouCut and America Speaking Out – two programs designed to identify and make budget cuts…NOW. Republican candidates across the nation are campaigning on a platform of small government and fiscal responsibility. This is not an act, this is a serious concern with the financial direction of our country. We are not doing this because it will get us elected in November (though that is a beneficial side-effect); we are doing this because it is the right thing to do.

The Obama administration’s careful maneuvering, attempting to preemptively paint Republicans’ disdain for tax increases as an argument against their ability to advocate against debt and deficits, won’t work. Like most of his promises, Obama’s Hail Mary pass will fall flat. In the meantime, Republicans will be attempting to truly tackle the problem.

by Brandon Greife (hat tip Adam Welsh)

This weekend, with unsustainable deficits and out of control spending heavy on the mind, members of the G20 convened in Toronto.  As markets around the world continue to be shaky and unstable, there was hope that the meeting would unite the world behind a course of action focused on paying down deficits and debt.

Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel was the leader of the charge arguing that “[n]obody can seriously dispute that excessive public debts, not only in Europe, are one of the main causes of this crisis.” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, argued that leaders should aim for a target of halving their deficits by 2013. The European Union announced they were “wary” that this goal did not go far enough. These are people that President Obama should be listening to. Canada largely avoided the financial crisis because of their commitment to a balanced budget and paying down their national debt. Germany, relative to its European counterparts, also weathered the financial downturn by enacting only a modest stimulus and maintaining its suspicion of Keynesian style deficit spending.

Naturally President Obama ignored these outcomes and disagreed wholeheartedly.

This weekend, as leaders hashed out their plans to somehow intertwine the interests that best suited their own economies with that of the global markets, it became apparent that the U.S. was at odds with the rest of the world.  Namely because Obama hasn’t strayed from his position: he maintains that spending is vital to clawing our way out of the “Great Recession”, while the other leaders disagree.  Why?  Because the majority of the other countries that attended the summit have a
“been there, done that” attitude–and most of their dismal economic figures are testaments to the failures of spending their way out of recessions.

Interestingly enough, the meetings this weekend showed that not only do we have a president out of touch with American reality, but one who is also out of step in with other global leaders; while President Obama continued to push for global stimulus, the other leaders pushed back—and hard.

Summit participants devised an ambitious plan to halve deficits by 2013.  The solution represented a compromise “between the Obama administration, which emphasizes the need to continue stimulating growth and job creation, and some of its principal allies which have grown alarmed over soaring debt levels.” Canadian Prime Minister Harper, the summit host, summed up the rationale behind the cuts, saying leaders must “send a clear message that as our stimulus expires, we will focus on getting our fiscal houses in order.”

As the world prepares to cut back, Washington shows no signs of slowing down. Last year the United States ran a record deficit of $1.42 trillion. We are not on pace to do much better this year with deficits likely to be around $1.3 trillion. Moreover, President Obama has recently pushed for hundreds of billions in new “emergency” relief that have left members of his own party upset. Today Louise Slaughter (D-NY) told Roll Call that,

“I have no idea why he is trying to do this now. I seriously don’t. . . Lord, I want to tell you right now, if this House tries to take up another major bill, I don’t know what we’re going to do.”

The truth is that Obama’s “stimulus spending” has been remarkably fruitless thus far.  With unemployment still hovering above 9 percent, a steadily increasing deficit, and the threat of inflation looming, Americans, like the rest of the world,  have become highly alert to what such a deficit means for our future–effectively putting the brakes on a lot of Obama’s initiatives.

So while the American people become increasingly aware of what the deficit numbers mean for them, Congress can’t pass a budget.  And while our deficit projections for the next five to 10 years become even more consuming, President Obama’s pledge seems half-hearted and unenthusiastic as his agenda is chock-full of initiatives that are riddled with more spending.  One would be very hard pressed to find a bill in the last 18 months that makes even the slightest attempt at cutting the deficit.

When European leaders jump off the stimulus spending bandwagon and you’re still on it, there’s something wrong.  America has often prided itself for going alone, for being the leader when others didn’t want to take the chance. But on the issue of debt and deficits we will end up on the wrong side of history. President Obama, in order to avoid the situation many other G20 countries find themselves in, would be wise to take note of Merkel’s gumption in reducing deficit.  Not only would he be doing the right thing, but he’d also be saving our economy from a certain downfall—and potentially revamping his own presidency in the process.

by Leah Dow and Brandon Greife

Early this morning Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the longest-serving senator in U.S. history and the oldest member of the 111^th Congress, passed away.  Byrd’s tenure in the Senate broke the record previously held by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.  He was a legacy in the Senate, and will be remembered as an esteemed expert on constitutional law and legislative procedures.

Byrd was elected to Congress in 1952 as the representative of West Virginia’s 6th Congressional District. Six years later, he was elected to the U.S. Senate.  Over the years Byrd held nearly every major leadership post in the Senate–although he is best known for running the Appropriations Committee, whereby he channeled federal money towards projects in his economically distressed home state of West Virginia.  Byrd has the distinction of having never lost an election; additionally, in nine Senate elections, he never received less than 65 % of the vote.

Senator Byrd’s death will significantly decrease the chances of the Senate voting on the financial-regulatory bill this week. Senate Democrats have a narrow margin for passing the bill to begin with, and it is even less likely now that they will have the 60 votes needed to pass it through.

Currently, there are 59 Democrats and independents that caucus with the Democratic Party in the Senate.  Two Democrats (Maria Cantwell of Washington and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin) broke the mold in May when the bill was on the Senate floor and voted no–and are likely to do the same once again.  Without these two, and with the passing of Byrd, the Democrats only have 56 of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on this bill.

Compounded by the fact that of the four Republican senators that voted for the bill in May (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Charles Grassley, and Scott Brown), Brown has made it evident the Democrats won’t get his support this second time around.  On Friday, Brown expressed his concern over the $19 billion in bank fees added to the bill last week—the same fees that put his support in jeopardy.

Brown said of the $19 billion:

I was surprised and extremely disappointed to hear that… new assessments and fees were added in the wee hours of the morning by the conference committee,” Brown said in a statement to the Globe Friday. “I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.

In case the bank fees and assessments weren’t bad enough, another cause for concern within this financial reform bill is that it does absolutely nothing to address the problems or the sustainability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If you recall, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the two government entities that were major causes of the housing bubble and bust that lead to the economic meltdown we are still reeling from.

Instead of working to fix the problems within these organizations, it intentionally masks them and redirects the blame to everyone else—especially Democrats’ favorite culprit, Wall Street.  And, not surprisingly, this bill permits politicians to duck out of coming clean and taking ownership of their role in creating the economic crisis.  In the process, they continue to push more and more red tape onto American businesses, restricting the recovery of our economy even more.

At this point in time it is very unlikely that Democrats will get the bill through to the POTUS’s desk before their July 4 recess, as they had originally planned for.  While it might be viewed as a loss for Democrats, this is a bill that obviously needs tweaking.  And while this is not a Congress known for rational decisions, with this bill, maybe they should take a cue from the late Byrd: listen to the voice of reason and act on principle.

By Samantha Cohen and Leah Dow

I try to read all of Princeton economist and New York Times’ contributor Paul Krugman’s columns. Call it a nerdy form of masochism. By the end of each article I’m often left ripping at my hair and gouging at my eyes, screaming madly, “how did this guy win a Nobel?!?” Then I’m reminded that Yasser Arafat and Al Gore are also Nobel laureates and that maybe I shouldn’t make such a big deal out of the award.

Regardless of my disdain for his ideology I simply cannot stop reading. His seemingly religious belief that spending for the sake of spending is the solution to any economic crisis is admirable in its consistency.

Then again, it’s also fun to watch him run in rhetorical circles when he’s wrong. Remember this gem?

“[Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issues to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.”

Oops, got that one wrong. Must’ve missed the $4.3 trillion in subprime mortgages.

Well in his latest column he gets it wrong again. But in all his economic vanity he can’t admit it. Quite the contrary, he predicts the future for us, the conservative fools, who seek to deter the government from spending us into bankruptcy. In true doom and gloom fashion he argues “[F]uture historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression.”

Fortunately, we, the conservative fools, have good company. The G-20 Summit, composed of leaders from the world’s largest economies, have decided that trimming deficits is the best way to achieve long term stability in the world economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been one of the most vocal advocates of putting government spending on a sustainable path. In a response to President Obama’s call for more stimulus, her government said,

“Nobody can seriously dispute that excessive public debts, not only in Europe, are one of the main causes of this crisis. That’s why they have to be reduced.”

Nobody? Is that a challenge? Apparently Paul Krugman took it as one. In his latest column Krguman explains why the silly know-nothings at the G-20 summit, with their commitment to fiscal sanity rather than spiraling deficits, will inevitably lead to the “Third Depression.” He writes:

And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.

In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.

Gasp! Inadequate spending. Only in the wonderland that exists inside Krugman’s head could trillions of dollars in new government debt be considered “inadequate spending.” If the United States escaped the Great Depression by building tanks for World War II, Krugman wants us to escape this recession by building presses to print all the money we’ll need for his “stimulus.”

The problem is that Paul Krugman thinks myopically. We must spend, spend, spend and do it now, now, now. Forget the fact that we have no plan to solve these deficits in the long term, beyond inflating our currency to the point where deficits won’t matter. The rest of us have a more nuanced understanding. We actually possess the ability to assess the long-term. Moreover, the ability to think in future terms necessarily colors the way we act in the present.

As Shawn Tully of Forbes explains,

“[I]f investors are convinced that Washington has a plan to restore fiscal balance, they’ll be content with lower returns on their stocks, bonds and buildings for a simple reason: those returns will prove more stable and predictable. That comfort level, in turn, lowers risk premiums and raises the prices of equities, corporate bonds, houses, and office towers.

Right now, many investors and managers are simply terrified by the absence of a roadmap to avoid ruinous debt. “We need to know that Washington can make tough choices, that our leaders are willing to do things that are unpopular,” says Paul Willen, an economics professor at MIT. “More than anything, people need to feel that this is not out of control.”

Frankly we’re scared, not just of today’s economic downturn, but because of a future made cloudy by insurmountable government deficits. In the face of a frightening future, Americans are saving rather than spending, companies are shunning risk and entrepreneurialism, and foreign lenders may soon ask for higher interest rates to hedge against inflation.

Keynes once said, “in the end we are all dead.” Krugman seems to base his entire economic philosophy on this one sentence. There is little other explanation for why he puts so much emphasis on spending now regardless of whether we can pay for it later. Our generation deserves better than that. Solving today’s crisis should not come with the caveat that we have doomed ourselves to another one.

by Brandon Greife

Despite President Obama’s push for increased global spending, G-20 leaders pledged to lowering government deficits. The world’s deficit worries have their parallels at home. Congress now appears less and less likely to pass any major spending legislation, and the record levels of debt and deficits are proving to be a key election issue.

In the G-20 Summit that took place over the weekend, world leaders, in an attempt to stabilize the global economy, made a commitment to cutting deficits in half by 2013.