ConservativeHome's Platform

Rep Ted Poe: This team wants a new coach

Congressman Ted Poe represents Texas's 2nd congressional district.

We are worse off now than we were in 2008. The country is suffering through an economic recession with more long term unemployment than the Great Depression.

The economy was in bad shape, but this administration made it worse. The unconstitutional government-takeover of healthcare created a cloud of uncertainty for small business owners, stalling job growth. Our healthcare system was in trouble before, but this administration made it worse. 

Our country is spiraling towards a domestic energy crisis thanks to the administration’s insistence to punish U.S. energy companies. The price of energy was high before, but this administration has made it worse. Americans are becoming used to living with the word "crisis.” Under this administration, crisis has become the new status quo.

The president admits we’re on a bumpy road. Mr. President, this road is full of potholes. The national debt is expected to equal 101 percent of the economy in 10 years. Unemployment is hovering around 9.1 percent. Home sales have declined. The number of food stamp recipients has skyrocketed. 

Over the past three years, we have witnessed an administration set on entitling people, and paying them not to work as opposed to helping businesses hire people to work.  We are worse off now than we were before the president stepped foot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We are stuck in this hole because the White House’s policies have been toxic to the country’s job creators. Businesses do not operate like the government does. They don’t function under short term budgets. They don’t plan for the next six days or six months, like our government does. Business owners want a plan. 

They want to know what will happen next. Under this cloud of uncertainty, businesses face Obamacare’s employer mandate and an onslaught of costly regulations. This leaves them with few choices: hold tight and wait it out, comply with government oppression and suffer, shutdown or move overseas.

Coming up on this bumpy road is a domestic energy shortage. The White House seeks to punish the energy of today and tomorrow in favor of the potential energy of after-our-lifetimes. An energy agenda that is synonymous with stall, obstruct, discourage and penalize will only devastate our economy further and force more businesses and jobs to leave.

We’ve seen the administration slow-walk the approval process for offshore drilling permits despite “lifting” the moratorium. The delays have been costly, so costly that three rigs have left the Gulf for foreign waters. When companies leave the U.S., jobs leave the U.S. never to return.  

The coming domestic energy shortage will be partly due to the White House’s desire to help foreign nations with their own domestic energy production instead of maximizing our own god-given natural resources. When the president told Brazil that America would help expand its offshore drilling operations and be one of its best customers, he sent a clear message: I don’t support U.S. oil, U.S. companies or U.S. workers. 

Each day that passes without a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline – a pipeline that would transport oil shales from our stable neighbor to the north right down to my congressional district – is another day that the White House pivots on U.S. energy jobs. Meanwhile, China is eager and ready to be Canada’s customer and will happily work with Canada if the president decides to turn down this golden opportunity of the Keystone Pipeline. 

The White House has a none-from-below mentality. We need an all-of-the above strategy that encourages use of our natural resources and puts Americans back to work.  The administration has mastered the art of turning a crisis into an opportunity to show unpopular policies through. Over a year after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the administration has come as close as it can to shutting down operations in the Gulf. The impact? 12,000 lost jobs. 
 
Are we better off today than we were in 2008? No. Our economy is still in a crisis of uncertainty. We’re in our third war, the latest an unconstitutional, unilateral action by the president that has cost over $700 million thus far.  Instead of blowing up Libya we should be building America.

The White House has operated in crisis management mode, but it’s made many of our problems worse. When your team is in trouble, you look to the coach for guidance, for inspiration and for leadership. Under this administration, crisis is quickly becoming the status quo. This team wants a new coach.

And that’s just the way it is. 

The media bias – circa November 2012

Stephen Kokx is a ConservativeHome College Columnist winner. He studied Business Administration at Aquinas College and received a MA in Social Justice and Community Development from Loyola University Chicago.

In an interview conducted several years ago, Barack Obama acknowledged that if the economy didn’t rebound by the time he was up for re-election he may be a one term President.

As poll numbers suggest, most American’s prefer a generic Republican to Obama in 2012. Although it’s premature to conclude that the GOP has the election in the bag, there is a record attached to Obama’s name – and it’s not pretty.

That being said, it’s safe to assume that if the President fails to get re-elected, the far left will do everything in its power to protect his legacy. Assertions of intolerance and greed will surely be cited, but the American people are smart. That’s why, when liberal leaning editorial boards write their election summary in November of 2012, they will already know what’s going to be said. I imagine it will be something similar to the following paragraphs:

The victim of possibly the most heinous smear campaign ever, our nation’s 44th President, Barack Obama, has lost his bid for re-election. Like the brave Martin Luther King Jr. before him, President Obama led us to the Promised Land, but sadly, won’t be there to see it to fruition.

We all remember the support he had when he defeated John McCain four years ago. But the vicious, racially-tinged, character assassination launched by the Republicans – who took over Congress during the mid-terms – has proved too much for the nation’s first African-American President.

Perhaps this undoing could have been predicted. Remember in 2010 when the so called Tea Party broke onto the scene? Well, it wasn’t long after that we discovered the hatred tea drinkers have for socio-economic equality.

Meant to be an uprising against big government, the Tea Party was soon hijacked by mainstream conservatives who inculcated these middle-aged, intolerant sensationalists with the belief that affordable health care, alternative energy and an enhanced public school system were bad things.

Led by the likes of Sarah “I can see Russia from my house” Palin, Newt “save our country from Socialism” Gingrich and Glenn “my mission in life is to ruin Van Jones” Beck, the Tea Partiers channeled their disgust for President Obama into a brainwashing campaign.

With ads portraying our former President as a communist and illegitimate citizen, the GOP crushed the hope that Barack Obama gave to so many underrepresented minorities. With the election of this President, their segregationist mindset has reached a tipping point.

Yes, there were some moderate Republicans in the GOP primary this year. But it is clear that the so called ‘Compassionate Conservative’ has been killed off for a more extreme view of America..

It was evident that the game plan for the GOP was to resist change the day they took over the House. By stalling and playing politics with the 2010 Gulf Coast oil spill, hampering progress on immigrant rights, and holding a gun to the head of the American electorate by refusing to raise taxes, the Republicans made it their number one mission to stonewall any type of real progress.

It should be noted that as President, Barack Obama expanded healthcare to millions of people, secured a credit card bill of rights and fought for worker’s solidarity by enhancing the status of blue-collar union members. Let us never forget his legacy.

As we move forward, we need to re-enliven the progressive movement by demanding social and economic justice. Please support those Congressmen and Senators who still want to follow down the path President Obama laid forth. For, if we live in a democracy that supports the politics of fear over the politics of hope, we will never be able to fulfill our Democratic agenda.

Now, we have to fight, not with, but against, this President, and demand our beloved leader’s message of hope once again.

If ever in doubt, just remember “yes, we can”.

Rep. Pete Olson: To infer that the Tea Party was the reason behind this rating change is beyond preposterous - it's the spending, Stupid

Congressman Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, represents Texas 22nd Congressional District

It was probably predictable, but still troubling that the Obama Administration blames the downgrade of our nation's credit rating on the Tea Party. When his party controlled both chambers of Congress, we heard the blame-Bush mantra. When conservatives regained the House following the President and Democratic-led Congress’ two-year spending spree, the blame quickly shifted to Republicans and the Tea Party. President Obama owns this economy, but none of the fault lies with him.

For years, and to be fair, under both parties’ rule, Washington increased spending beyond any reasonable limit. In 2009, with our economy crashing, a newly elected President Obama ignored this important wake-up call, and instead escalated the spending spree. And in order to preserve the status quo, President Obama and Senate Democrats insisted on tax hikes to feed their appetite.

As the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, in 2008 spending was only 20.7 percent and debt held by the public was only 40.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the calculation of everything our economy produces annually. In one year, under complete Democrat control, federal spending increased to 25 percent of GDP. The debt to GDP ratio also climbed to 53.5 percent in 2009, 62.2 percent in 2010, and is estimated to hit a record 72 percent this year.

This escalation is the reason for the downgrade to our nation's credit rating. To infer that the Tea Party was the reason behind this rating change is beyond preposterous.

Keep reading at the Fort Bend/Sugar Land Sun...

Sen. John Thune: For the president to hold trade opportunities hostage to a demand backed by his union base leaves us with nothing but missed opportunities

Sen. John Thune serves as the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee and ranking member on the Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness.

In November 2006, the United States signed a free-trade agreement with Colombia, paving the way for better access to millions of consumers there. This was a big win for our trade negotiators — and they followed it up with similar agreements with Panama and South Korea in June 2007.

And then — nothing. For the deals to go into effect, the president must officially submit them to Congress for consideration. But Democrats in Congress blocked any possibility of a debate on the agreements until President Barack Obama took office. Now he has refused to send them down Pennsylvania Avenue to Congress. Instead, the White House is insisting that the agreements must include new spending on an expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program.

At a time of budget austerity, programs with new spending should be considered separately and on their own merits — without preconditions.

Keep reading at Politico...

Rep. Tim Scott: Pivoting to jobs, Mr. President? Start by not killing them in my district

Congressman Tim Scott is a freshman Republican serving South Carolina's first congressional district.

Since the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to sue the Boeing Co. for opening a new assembly line in my hometown of North Charleston, S.C., countless people have approached me regarding the situation. I want to share three numbers that go a long way toward showing what is threatening jobs - not just in South Carolina, but across our country.

c $60.7 million: The president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) stated in May 2009, “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama - $60.7 million to be exact - and we’re proud of it.”

c 6.9 percent: The percentage of our nation’s private-sector work force that belonged to a union in 2010.

c 11,000: The number of direct and indirect jobs the presidentially appointed NLRB is threatening to kill by suing Boeing in a misguided attempt to protect Big Labor.

If you are like me, you look at the numbers above and shake your head. Despite dwindling numbers, Big Labor drives a significant portion of work-force politics and policy decisions in our nation. Labor leaders are able to do so through a well-honed system of influencing workers and requiring many workers to accept membership in a union as a condition of employment, with fees ranging up to $800 annually. This amounts to more than $8 billion in membership dues annually in the private sector alone. Yet only 10 percent of current union employees voted to unionize in their workplace.

Keep reading at the Washington Times...

Rep. Geoff Davis: We need a better solution to create jobs - more government is not the answer

Congressman Geoff Davis is the US Representative serving Kentucky's 4th congressional district.

In August 2010, Treasury Department Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled Welcome to the Recovery.  One year later, as the economy teeters on the edge of a double dip recession, Americans are still asking: where are the jobs?

New unemployment data released last week revealed that only 117,000 jobs were created during July, short of the 125,000 new jobs needed every month just to keep up with population growth.  The national unemployment rate ticked down to 9.1%, but only because of the number of people who have given up looking for work or otherwise dropped out of the labor market.

To address this problem, President Obama announced last week that he will turn the focus of his administration to jobs.  This is the seventh time that he has claimed his administration will make such a pivot to jobs, but the problem is that his policies are not working.

For example, we were told the stimulus bill would create or save 3 million jobs and keep unemployment below eight percent.  Since the stimulus bill was signed into law more than two years ago, more than 1.6 million jobs have been lost.  Furthermore, the unemployment rate has been at or above eight percent for thirty consecutive months, the longest period since the Great Depression.

The last two and a half years have reinforced that we cannot spend, tax and borrow our way to economic prosperity.  And we only need to look at the example of Greece to see where we are heading if we continue to spend money we do not have.

We need a better solution.  More government is not the answer.  In order to foster a growing and healthy economy, Congress must enact policies that will increase our competitiveness, reward entrepreneurship and ingenuity.  

House Republicans are working to reverse course by passing bills to cut spending, and get government out of the way of our economic engines.  This will promote investment, encourage entrepreneurship and allow the private sector to grow and create jobs.  For these job creating bills to take effect, the Senate must pass them and the President should then sign them into law.

House Republicans passed legislation to repeal the President’s job destroying takeover of health care which would prevent over half a trillion dollars in tax increases and cut hundreds of billions in spending, in addition to easing the burden of PPACA on employers.

The House has directed ten committees to review existing, pending and proposed regulations to identify the effect on jobs and the economy.  We also plan to pass the REINS Act, legislation I introduced to require Congressional approval of any new regulations that have a significant impact on the economy.

Affordable energy is critical to job growth.  The House has passed four bills that would increase American energy exploration in Alaska and off of our coasts to increase supply and keep prices low.  We also passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act to prohibit the EPA from instituting a backdoor cap and trade program through regulation.

We have been calling on the President repeatedly to send Congress the three pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.  To date, he has not done so.  Finalizing these three agreements would create an estimated 250,000 American jobs by opening new markets to our goods and products.

Finally, as Standard and Poor’s downgrading of our credit rating last week confirmed, we need to continue to cut spending, reduce our debt burden and make the tough choices necessary to live within our means.  While the House has taken some first steps in the right direction, and successfully changed the conversation in Washington from whether to cut to how much to cut, there is much more to be done.

If the White House and Congressional Democrats are serious about getting America back to work, they should join Republicans to pass these commonsense proposals to get our fiscal house in order and get the government out of the way of job creation.  Only then will Americans stop asking, where are the jobs?

Rep. Raúl Labrador: Why a balanced budget amendment is necessary to save our nation

Congressman Rep. Raúl Labrador is the U.S. Representative for Idaho's 1st congressional district.

As a Congressman, I witness a seemingly endless stream of special interest groups seeking funding for their pet programs and I listen to testimony from countless bureaucrats whose only goal seems to be seeking a larger budget.  Spending by the federal government is absolutely out of control, and it has been for a long time.  I have arrived at the same conclusion that the majority of Americans have: the time for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is now. 

Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot be trusted to show fiscal restraint on their own and say no to reckless spending of taxpayer dollars. A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would legally force the federal government to spend no more than the amount of money that it brings in. 

Forty-nine states abide by a balanced budget requirement – including Idaho- and many families balance their checkbooks regularly. As individuals, we understand that we have a limited ability to borrow and spend money, it's time the federal government followed suit.  While any bills this Congress passes which cut spending can be changed by this or future Congresses, a constitutional amendment is permanent.

Our country currently owes $14.3 trillion in debt and borrows roughly 40 cents of every dollar we spend.  Admiral Mike Mullen—the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—has called our debt “the single greatest threat to national security.”

Our government simply cannot control itself when it comes to spending. Members of both political parties have a history of not being able to say no. Since President Obama took office in January of 2009, the national debt has increased by $3.7 trillion. For reference, it took the United States from its founding in 1776 to 1992 to accumulate the same amount of debt that this administration has accumulated in only two and a half years. And previous Congresses and Presidents have not been much better.  Under President George W. Bush spending increased by nearly 33% - adding nearly $5 trillion in debt.

Raising taxes is not the solution -particularly at a time with such high unemployment. Higher taxes on anyone would simply damage the economy more and hurt individuals and employers and wouldn’t balance the budget at all.  In order to balance the budget, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that tax rates would have to more than double and some estimate that a 60-percent across-the-board tax increase would be necessary. I do not believe many families or business could endure a 60-percent increase. Even if you taxed the top 10-percent of income earners at 100-percent, you could not come close to balancing the budget. Spending is the problem.

This past November, voters made it clear that they were tired of business as usual in Washington and voted for a change in direction. They elected folks like me who ran on a mantle of reform and they expect us to fulfill those promises.  They wanted their voices to be heard. I came here to change the way Washington works and I won’t back down from that challenge.

I believe failing to raise the debt ceiling carries consequences, but I believe that failing to permanently change the structure of the way the government budgets and spends taxpayer money carries much more dire consequences.  Credit rating agency Moody’s has stated that even if the debt ceiling is raised, it could lower the U.S. credit rating if we do not find a way to improve our overall debt situation. 

A balanced budget amendment is neither a gimmick nor a new concept. Congress nearly passed one in the 1990s with then-Senator Joe Biden supporting it as well as Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer. In 1982 Ronald Reagan also called for one, “most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets – spend no more than we can afford.”

I understand there are concerns with both the procedural hurdles to passing a balanced budget amendment and the impact of such a move on our fiscal outlook, but I wholeheartedly reject the notion of the passage of a balanced budget amendment as a gimmick.  In fact, it may be the only way to save our Country from fiscal ruin.

 

Rep. Ed Royce: Now is the time for Washington to pass a balanced budget amendment

Congressman Ed Royce is serving his tenth term in Congress representing Southern California's 40th District, based in Orange County.

Thomas Jefferson, an influential figure in drafting the Constitution and co-founder of what is today's Republican Party once wrote: “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government to the power of borrowing.” 

Andrew Jackson, whose devoted base formed the present day Democrat Party, entered his presidency focused on debt - to him a "national curse." Determined to "pay the national debt, to prevent a monied aristocracy from growing up around our administration that must bend to its views, and ultimately destroy the liberty of our country."

Jefferson's desire for a borrowing limit amendment has failed to materialize on multiple occasions over the decades. Given Jackson’s discomfort with national debt, he would surely be troubled to learn that it now stands over $14 trillion. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act, passed last night in the House, will address both outstanding issues of Jefferson and Jackson and bring us back on a path of fiscal sanity. 

Given the current path, drastic change is needed. This year the size of our national debt will surpass the size of our economy; a profound threshold and one not lost on the markets. Just this week, a rating agency (Egan-Jones) downgraded the U.S. debt rating because of the out of hand debt to GDP ratio. Further, PIMCO – the world’s largest bond fund – announced a net short position on U.S. debt. Both are glaring warning signs that the financial market may soon lose faith in our ability to pay our creditors.
The government's spending level is now at 24 percent of our gross domestic product. Unaddressed, this number will climb to 27 percent within the next seven years. With the post-WWII average at 19 percent, history and basic math indicate these spending levels cannot be sustained.

The Cut, Cap, Balance legislation is a much needed life preserver in our sea of debt. The “Cut” consists of drastically cutting our federal spending by $111 billion in Fiscal Year 2012. The “Cap” entails scaling back total federal spending and putting it on a glide path back to sustainability. The “Balance” consists of what Jefferson had imagined, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to ensure we never again find our nation drowning in debt.

A few years ago, we came within one vote of passing a balanced budget amendment through the Senate. The year was 1995 and we had passed it through the House by a vote of 300 to 132. Back then the deficits were nowhere near as dire as they are today. Now is the time for Senators and Representatives to hear from their constituents and pass a balanced budget amendment.

Rep. Geoff Davis: We cannot continue to rob our children and grandchildren through endless borrowing

Congressman Geoff Davis represents Kentucky’s Fourth District.

Our country is facing a debt crisis.  The federal government currently borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends.  This year the government will spend $1.5 trillion more than it takes in, adding to a national debt that is already more than $14.3 trillion, two and a half times the size it was just a decade ago in 2001.

The economic uncertainty created by years of reckless spending and accumulated debt is holding back job creation and growth in the near and long term.  Unless we find ways to handle this massive debt, our children, grandchildren and future generations of Americans will be saddled with the crushing burden of paying our bills.

Out of control spending and debt at this level is not only irresponsible, it is a threat to our national security and economic well-being as a nation.  In order to get the federal government back on the path to fiscal sanity, we have to stop spending money that we do not have.

One of the best ways to do this is to force fiscal responsibility through a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.  This is not a new idea.  President Ronald Reagan stated in 1982, “We’ve tried the carrot, and it failed.  With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.”

Families, businesses, local governments and 49 State governments, including Kentucky, are forced to balance their budgets.  Why should the federal government be any different?  We cannot continue to rob our children and grandchildren through endless borrowing. 

A balanced budget amendment would force future Congresses and presidents of both parties to live within our means and prioritize the projects and programs that Americans truly need instead of the annual unchecked growth that has occurred for too long.

In 1995, Congress came within one vote of passing a balanced budget amendment.  Sixteen years later, we will have another chance to get it right when we vote this week on H.J.Res. 1, a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget.  I have co-sponsored the balanced budget amendment since my first term in Congress and look forward to voting for this important measure.

In addition to the standalone vote on a balanced budget amendment, the House will also consider the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011.  I am an original co-sponsor of this bill that would significantly cut spending immediately, cap future spending on a sliding scale that reduces over time as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and provide for the President’s request for a debt ceiling increase once a balanced budget amendment has passed Congress and been sent to the States for ratification.  

Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate and then it must be ratified by three-fourths of the States before it can take effect.

The time has come for this commonsense reform and I call on all my colleagues and all Americans to join me in supporting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  

Sen. Jim DeMint: A debt crisis is coming, and simply raising the country's legal borrowing authority isn't going to stop it

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is a co-sponsor of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.

Moody's and S&P have sent us a stark warning: They are likely to downgrade the nation's credit rating if the debt limit is increased without taking serious action to reduce the nation's long-term debt burden.

There is only one plan that can pass the House of Representatives and will avoid default by enacting real reforms to maintain our AAA credit rating. It's called Cut, Cap and Balance. This plan gives the president his debt limit increase, but only on three conditions:

• Significantly cut spending next year.
• Cap spending over the next decade at historical averages.Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.
• Send a constitutional amendment to the states to force Washington to finally balance the budget.

Cut, Cap and Balance is the only plan that reins in spending immediately and permanently, making this the last debt limit increase we may ever need.

Keep reading at USA Today...