Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who weighed in on amicus briefs as far back as the district court in Florida, issued this statement on the Senate Floor a few minutes ago:
Two and a half years ago, a Democrat president teamed up with a Democrat-led Congress to force a piece of legislation on the American people that they never asked for, and that has turned out to be just as disastrous as many of us predicted.
“Amid economic recession, a spiraling federal debt, and accelerating increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that has made these problems worse.
“Americans were promised lower health care costs. They’re going up.
“Americans were promised lower premiums. They’re going up.
“Most Americans were promised their taxes wouldn’t change. They’re going up.
“Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected. It was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead.
“Americans were promised it would create jobs. The CBO predicts it will lead to nearly 1 million fewer jobs.
“Americans were promised they could keep their plan if they liked it, yet millions have learned they can’t.
“And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.
“This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never
Showing posts with label McConnell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McConnell. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
McConnell Schools the Con Law Prof
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell expressed the shock many of us felt at President Obama's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare. The president comported himself more like a thuggish Chicago pol than a former professor of Constitutional Law.
Most bewildering was Obama's rejection of judisicial review, which has been unquestioned since Chief Justice Marshall wrote Marbury v. Madison, two centuries ago.
Obama's warning that the Court ought to defer to Congress because it is an elected branch was particularly rich given that Democrats had to literally bribe their own to secure enough votes for Obamacare. Recall the "Gatorade", the "Cornhusker Kickback", and the "Louisiana Purchase."
This, on top of the fact that few of the members who voted for the bill read the 2,700 pages before voting. Speaker Pelosi boasted they needed to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.". The Supreme Court can and should see if this monstrosity violated the Constitution and strike it down if exceeds the enumerated powers of article I.
To hear Obama, one would think that the Court was the product of a junta. To the contrary, these justices, all of them, were appointed by democratically-elected presidents and confirmed by democratically-elected members of the Senate. Thenk God they serve for life, to protect them from the political pressure we saw in the Rose Garden yesterday.
Here is McConnell's statement on the issue.
"Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare’s unprecedented mandate on the American people, elected leaders have an obligation to protect our system of checks and balances. The President, more than anyone else, has an obligation to uphold the legitimacy of our judicial system. But his remarks on the Court reflect not only an attempt to influence the outcome, but a preview of Democrat attacks to come if they don’t get their way.
“Only someone who would browbeat the Court during the State of the Union, and whose administration stifled speech during the health care debate, would try to intimidate the Court while it's deliberating one of the most consequential cases of our time. This president's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court falls well beyond distasteful politics; it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for our system of checks and balances.”
Most bewildering was Obama's rejection of judisicial review, which has been unquestioned since Chief Justice Marshall wrote Marbury v. Madison, two centuries ago.
Obama's warning that the Court ought to defer to Congress because it is an elected branch was particularly rich given that Democrats had to literally bribe their own to secure enough votes for Obamacare. Recall the "Gatorade", the "Cornhusker Kickback", and the "Louisiana Purchase."
This, on top of the fact that few of the members who voted for the bill read the 2,700 pages before voting. Speaker Pelosi boasted they needed to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.". The Supreme Court can and should see if this monstrosity violated the Constitution and strike it down if exceeds the enumerated powers of article I.
To hear Obama, one would think that the Court was the product of a junta. To the contrary, these justices, all of them, were appointed by democratically-elected presidents and confirmed by democratically-elected members of the Senate. Thenk God they serve for life, to protect them from the political pressure we saw in the Rose Garden yesterday.
Here is McConnell's statement on the issue.
"Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare’s unprecedented mandate on the American people, elected leaders have an obligation to protect our system of checks and balances. The President, more than anyone else, has an obligation to uphold the legitimacy of our judicial system. But his remarks on the Court reflect not only an attempt to influence the outcome, but a preview of Democrat attacks to come if they don’t get their way.
“Only someone who would browbeat the Court during the State of the Union, and whose administration stifled speech during the health care debate, would try to intimidate the Court while it's deliberating one of the most consequential cases of our time. This president's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court falls well beyond distasteful politics; it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for our system of checks and balances.”
Saturday, March 24, 2012
McConnell Gives GOP Weekly Address on Obamacare Anniversary
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell gives this week's Republican address on a theme he has been relentless about the last several days: the second anniversary of Obamacare. Click here for video.
McConnell's address is similar to op-eds he wrote for the C-J and NRO, and similar to speeches and news conferences he's given recently. What is distinctive, however, is his determination to see Obamacare either struck down as unconstitutional -- or repealed. McConnell is on a mission, plain and simple. Make no mistake: if McConnell becomes majority leader, he will see this thing repealed (if the Supreme Court hasn't disposed of it in the mean time.).
Note that while McConnell has been all over the news in recent days regarding the anniversary of Obamacare, the Obama administration itself has been strangely silent. As McConnell asked yesterday, where's the birthday cake, Mr. President?
Friday, March 23, 2012
The Terrible Twos: McConnell on Obamacare Anniversary
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is marking the two year anniversary with Obamacare with a full-court press, including a news conference (rare for a Friday, when the Leader travels home to Louisville) and and op-ed in National Review Online. The NRO piece is worth reading in its entirety, but in case you don't have time, here are a few highlights.
McConnell's op-ed makes the point that Obamacare is even worse than most of us had feared. Therefore, Republicans are even more committed to repealing it -- if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down.
On Team Obama's political strategy regarding Obamacare, McConnell notes, "Time and again, the president and his allies have arrogantly presumed that a public that has largely opposed Obamacare from the start would either come to like it or forget about it over time. Their hopes never materialized." Instead, public opposition to Obamacare remains high; three-fourths of Americans believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Republicans acknowledge that health care requires common-sense, market-based reform and are therefore prepared to replace Obamacare with a conservative alternative:
Among other problems were the rising cost of health care to private and public payers, the exposure of too many families to potentially catastrophic health-care costs, and the lack of coverage for millions of Americans
Yet rather than solving the most pressing problems in the old system, Obamacare has made many of these problems far worse. Costs and premiums are rising, Medicare has been weakened, states now struggle to keep pace with even costlier federal mandates, and the economy is being sapped as new mandates dissuade employers from creating new jobs.
Obamacare has screwed up Medicare, saddling states with unfunded (and unconstitutional mandates) that states cannot afford and that will jeopardize the quality of care our seniors receive:
States face their own challenges. Many couldn’t afford federal health-care mandates before Obamacare mandated dramatic increases in Medicaid rolls — and the costs to pay for it. Needless to say, even if states are able to meet the costs of covering as many as 25 million more Medicaid patients, the quality of the care for those who rely on Medicaid would almost certainly suffer.
The president may be able to boast that more people have coverage. But states, which will have to shoulder the costs, won’t be applauding.
Nor will America’s seniors, millions of whom now know from bitter experience that the president wasn’t speaking to them when he vowed that, under Obamacare, “if you like the plan you have you can keep it.” Since then, millions who have and like Medicare Advantage have learned it won’t necessarily be there for them anymore.
McConnell also hits upon the key distinction between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives trust in the innate wisdom of the citizenry; they believe that individuals have the common sense and responsibility to take care of themselves; the little people are not stupid, and don't need the government to run their lives or spend their money for them. Democrats, in contrast, think that the poor fools in the flyover states need to be saved from themselves by the enlightened progressives:
most Americans understood from the start that the president’s claims about this plan simply weren’t credible. Chief among them was his insistence that it wouldn’t add a dime to the deficit. Americans aren’t stupid. They know that a government entitlement is about as likely to pay for itself as, well, a government entitlement.
McConnell clearly lays out the differences between the the two parties on this critical issue of health care. It is imperative that Republicans elect enough senators to give McConnell a majority so that if the Supreme Court fails in its task, the Senate can repeal this monstrosity.
McConnell's op-ed makes the point that Obamacare is even worse than most of us had feared. Therefore, Republicans are even more committed to repealing it -- if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down.
On Team Obama's political strategy regarding Obamacare, McConnell notes, "Time and again, the president and his allies have arrogantly presumed that a public that has largely opposed Obamacare from the start would either come to like it or forget about it over time. Their hopes never materialized." Instead, public opposition to Obamacare remains high; three-fourths of Americans believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Republicans acknowledge that health care requires common-sense, market-based reform and are therefore prepared to replace Obamacare with a conservative alternative:
Among other problems were the rising cost of health care to private and public payers, the exposure of too many families to potentially catastrophic health-care costs, and the lack of coverage for millions of Americans
Yet rather than solving the most pressing problems in the old system, Obamacare has made many of these problems far worse. Costs and premiums are rising, Medicare has been weakened, states now struggle to keep pace with even costlier federal mandates, and the economy is being sapped as new mandates dissuade employers from creating new jobs.
Obamacare has screwed up Medicare, saddling states with unfunded (and unconstitutional mandates) that states cannot afford and that will jeopardize the quality of care our seniors receive:
States face their own challenges. Many couldn’t afford federal health-care mandates before Obamacare mandated dramatic increases in Medicaid rolls — and the costs to pay for it. Needless to say, even if states are able to meet the costs of covering as many as 25 million more Medicaid patients, the quality of the care for those who rely on Medicaid would almost certainly suffer.
The president may be able to boast that more people have coverage. But states, which will have to shoulder the costs, won’t be applauding.
Nor will America’s seniors, millions of whom now know from bitter experience that the president wasn’t speaking to them when he vowed that, under Obamacare, “if you like the plan you have you can keep it.” Since then, millions who have and like Medicare Advantage have learned it won’t necessarily be there for them anymore.
McConnell also hits upon the key distinction between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives trust in the innate wisdom of the citizenry; they believe that individuals have the common sense and responsibility to take care of themselves; the little people are not stupid, and don't need the government to run their lives or spend their money for them. Democrats, in contrast, think that the poor fools in the flyover states need to be saved from themselves by the enlightened progressives:
most Americans understood from the start that the president’s claims about this plan simply weren’t credible. Chief among them was his insistence that it wouldn’t add a dime to the deficit. Americans aren’t stupid. They know that a government entitlement is about as likely to pay for itself as, well, a government entitlement.
McConnell clearly lays out the differences between the the two parties on this critical issue of health care. It is imperative that Republicans elect enough senators to give McConnell a majority so that if the Supreme Court fails in its task, the Senate can repeal this monstrosity.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
CPAC Coverage: McConnell
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell just spoke at CPAC. (If you don't know what CPAC is, you have landed on the wrong site. Welcome anyhow!) Here are excerpts from McConnell's speech:
- Under the Obama administration, government spending has increased by more than 20 percent.
- We need a federal pay freeze, because the wage gap between government and private sector employees has doubled the past ten years. Worse, government benefits are 60 percent higher than those of the taxpayers who pay for them.
- President Obama, right after he signed the stimulus bill, promised to cut the defict in half. We know how that turned out.
- The Obama administration promised that its spending spree would keep unemployment below eight percent. Another broken promise.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
McConnell, Paul Condemn HHS Mandate
The Obama administration's efforts to force Catholic employers to pay for sterilization, contraceptions and the Morning After abortion pill has even liberal Catholics outraged. Non-Catholics, too, recognize that this is an assault against freedom to worship, not just an assault on Catholocism. Republicans need to hit this issue hard. Indeed, this is so bad for the administration that we can expect a faster reversal than one can say "Susan G. Komen."
Here are responses from Kentucky's U.S. Senators. In order of seniority, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had this to say in The Hill:
"Make no mistake, the Obama' administration's decision to force religious hospitals, charities and schools to comply with a mandate that violates their religions views is abhorrent to the foundational principles of our nation," said McConnell, making an unusual afternoon appearance on the Senate floor on Tuesday. "No one in the United States should ever be compelled by the government to choose between violating their religions beliefs and being penalized for refusing, yet that is precisely what this mandate would do.
"This ruling should send a chill up the spine of people of all faiths and even those with no faith at all," continued the minority leader. "If the state is allowed to violate the religious rights of one religion it can violate those of others."
Sen. Rand Paul has an op-ed on NRO today, below. Both of Kentucky's senators stand ready to repeal this terrible regulation. The interesting twist on Sen. Paul's piece is that he puts the Obama administration's regulation in the broader historical context of socialism:
In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II delivered a scathing critique of socialism, declaring that “the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated. . . . Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil.”
Pope John Paul II’s indictment of socialism is illustrated in the Obama administration’s recent edict requiring nearly all employers — including Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities — to cover sterilizations and contraception in their employees’ health-care plans. Because “contraception” includes abortifacients, this decision — made under the powers granted to the executive branch under Obamacare — also threatens many Protestant employers.
The decision is the latest and most outrageous example of why Obamacare — socialized medicine — must be repealed in its entirety. It is also a shocking example of the administration’s choosing to ignore the opinions and beliefs of millions of Americans.
And while the Obama administration has never been a protector of pro-life Americans’ conscience rights — for example, it supports the federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives — this latest decision attempts to crush the freedom of the Catholic Church in this country. The president has declared a “war on religion,” as Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post last week.
Considering Obama’s comments about rural Pennsylvanians who “cling” to their religion, however, this is perhaps not entirely surprising.
The president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, correctly described the administration’s actions as “simply un-American,” and declared:
What other constitutionally protected freedoms might an increasingly powerful federal government revoke? What other [government]-mandated violations of conscience lie ahead for other groups of American citizens, in pursuit of what their government declares is in the common interest?
Archbishop Dolan also points out that the administration’s decision threatens the religious freedoms of all Americans. It must not stand.
The president’s contempt for the freedoms of Catholic Americans was also demonstrated in the way he personally betrayed Archbishop Dolan. Last November, the president met with the archbishop at the White House. During that meeting, President Obama reassured Archbishop Dolan that he respected the Church’s beliefs. Archbishop Dolan left that meeting convinced that the president would keep his word.
But on January 20, the president called the archbishop and instructed him that the only “concession” he would give to the Catholic Church’s beliefs was one extra year — until August 2013 — to comply with the contraception mandate. As Archbishop Dolan puts it, the president is “saying [the Catholic Church] has a year to figure out how to violate [its] conscience.”
Here are responses from Kentucky's U.S. Senators. In order of seniority, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had this to say in The Hill:
"Make no mistake, the Obama' administration's decision to force religious hospitals, charities and schools to comply with a mandate that violates their religions views is abhorrent to the foundational principles of our nation," said McConnell, making an unusual afternoon appearance on the Senate floor on Tuesday. "No one in the United States should ever be compelled by the government to choose between violating their religions beliefs and being penalized for refusing, yet that is precisely what this mandate would do.
"This ruling should send a chill up the spine of people of all faiths and even those with no faith at all," continued the minority leader. "If the state is allowed to violate the religious rights of one religion it can violate those of others."
Sen. Rand Paul has an op-ed on NRO today, below. Both of Kentucky's senators stand ready to repeal this terrible regulation. The interesting twist on Sen. Paul's piece is that he puts the Obama administration's regulation in the broader historical context of socialism:
In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II delivered a scathing critique of socialism, declaring that “the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated. . . . Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil.”
Pope John Paul II’s indictment of socialism is illustrated in the Obama administration’s recent edict requiring nearly all employers — including Catholic hospitals, schools, and charities — to cover sterilizations and contraception in their employees’ health-care plans. Because “contraception” includes abortifacients, this decision — made under the powers granted to the executive branch under Obamacare — also threatens many Protestant employers.
The decision is the latest and most outrageous example of why Obamacare — socialized medicine — must be repealed in its entirety. It is also a shocking example of the administration’s choosing to ignore the opinions and beliefs of millions of Americans.
And while the Obama administration has never been a protector of pro-life Americans’ conscience rights — for example, it supports the federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives — this latest decision attempts to crush the freedom of the Catholic Church in this country. The president has declared a “war on religion,” as Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post last week.
Considering Obama’s comments about rural Pennsylvanians who “cling” to their religion, however, this is perhaps not entirely surprising.
The president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, correctly described the administration’s actions as “simply un-American,” and declared:
What other constitutionally protected freedoms might an increasingly powerful federal government revoke? What other [government]-mandated violations of conscience lie ahead for other groups of American citizens, in pursuit of what their government declares is in the common interest?
Archbishop Dolan also points out that the administration’s decision threatens the religious freedoms of all Americans. It must not stand.
The president’s contempt for the freedoms of Catholic Americans was also demonstrated in the way he personally betrayed Archbishop Dolan. Last November, the president met with the archbishop at the White House. During that meeting, President Obama reassured Archbishop Dolan that he respected the Church’s beliefs. Archbishop Dolan left that meeting convinced that the president would keep his word.
But on January 20, the president called the archbishop and instructed him that the only “concession” he would give to the Catholic Church’s beliefs was one extra year — until August 2013 — to comply with the contraception mandate. As Archbishop Dolan puts it, the president is “saying [the Catholic Church] has a year to figure out how to violate [its] conscience.”
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
McConnell Slams Obama Recess Appointment of "Czar"
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell quickly criticized President Barack Obama's recess appointment of yet another Czar. Obama appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. All the Czars are unelected and unaccountable, and for this one, Obama by-passed Congressional approval by making the appointment while the Congress is in recess.
Here is McConnell's statement:
Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by 'recess' appointing Richard Cordray as director of the new CFPB. This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.
The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions. Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people—and more transparent. Our request was met with silence from the administration. As a result just last month the Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But once again, the President has chosen to circumvent the confirmation process.
Here is McConnell's statement:
Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people by 'recess' appointing Richard Cordray as director of the new CFPB. This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch.
The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington. Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions. Earlier this year, 44 of my Senate Republican colleagues and I served notice that we will not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes are made to make the bureau accountable to the American people—and more transparent. Our request was met with silence from the administration. As a result just last month the Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But once again, the President has chosen to circumvent the confirmation process.
Monday, November 14, 2011
McConnell Reacts to SCOTUS Accepting Obamacare Challenge
Here's the statement of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on the U.S. Supreme Court granting cert to hear the constitutionality of Obamacare. Recall that early on in the initial challenges, McConnell filed an amicus brief in opposition to law's constitutionality. According to McConnell,
Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree. In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same.
We now know that the Supremes have asked for five and a half hours of argument, to take place in March. The mandate to purchase insurance will get two hours of argument, and 90 minutes will go to the severability issue of whether the law survives if a portion, such as the mandate, is struck down. The Democratic Congress that rushed this monstrosity through on Christmas Eve, neglected in all its arrogance to include a severability provision. Apparently that was one of the little niceties to which Nancy Pelosi was referring when she said they needed to pass the bill first, so we can find out what's in it.
I cannot wait to get Mitt Romney's reaction.
Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree. In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same.
We now know that the Supremes have asked for five and a half hours of argument, to take place in March. The mandate to purchase insurance will get two hours of argument, and 90 minutes will go to the severability issue of whether the law survives if a portion, such as the mandate, is struck down. The Democratic Congress that rushed this monstrosity through on Christmas Eve, neglected in all its arrogance to include a severability provision. Apparently that was one of the little niceties to which Nancy Pelosi was referring when she said they needed to pass the bill first, so we can find out what's in it.
I cannot wait to get Mitt Romney's reaction.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
McConnell Contrasts Jobs and Infrastrucure Bills
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the floor of the Senate today in which he contrasted the starkly different approaches of the two parties regarding creating jobs to fix our crumbling infrastructures.
Louisville readers will be particularly interested in McConnell''s comments about bridge construction and repair: the Republican bill takes unspent money and allows the states to use it to, for example, fix the Sherman-Minton Bridge rather than build bike paths. The Republican bill allows for immediate repairs; the Democrats, in contrast, take longer to do less and yet spend more money.
The Republican bill strips away the red tape that delays such projects; that's what it takes to make a bill "shovel ready."
Here's the video of McConnell's statement, and here's the text:
“We’re going to see two very different approaches to infrastructure and job creation today. The American people can decide for themselves which one makes more sense.
“The Republican proposal extends the current highway bill for another two years, giving states and contractors the certainty they need to start new infrastructure projects and create jobs.
“The legislation Senator Hatch is proposing today puts an end to that uncertainty for the next two years.
“This proposal also gives states the authority to decide how this money is spent. If folks in Ohio or Kentucky want to build a bridge, Washington can’t force them to build a bike path.
“The Republican proposal accelerates the review period and clears away the bureaucratic red tape. The President admitted a few months ago that the shovel-ready projects in his first stimulus bill didn’t turn out to be as shovel-ready as he thought. Our proposal helps make sure they are.
“Our bill prohibits the EPA from imposing burdensome and unnecessary new regulations on American cement producers and domestic boilers, so the cost of American-made materials for the projects paid for through this highway bill don’t skyrocket just as they’re set to begin. This bill keeps those costs down.
“Best of all, it’s fully paid for through funds that were originally appropriated for another purpose but not spent. Whatever’s left over after these projects are funded goes to pay down the deficit.
“The Democrats are taking a different approach.
“First, according to the CBO, the Democrats’ proposal will do little for the economy and putting people back to work in the short-term because the money will be spent gradually.
“According to the CBO, less than one tenth of the funds in the Democrat proposal will be spent next year. And roughly 40 percent won’t be spent until after 2015. This hardly matches the President’s calls for doing something ‘right away.’
“Second, it costs another $57 billion we don’t have.
“Third, they want to pay for this temporary spending bill with a permanent tax hike on job creators.
“And fourth, they already know that Republicans and yes, some Democrats, don’t think we should be taxing job creators, particularly at a time when 14 million Americans are looking for a job — and that we’ll vote against any proposal that does so.
“In other words, the Democrats have deliberately designed this bill to fail.
“So the truth is, Democrats are more interested in building a campaign message than in rebuilding roads and bridges. And frankly, the American people deserve a lot better than that. The people of Kentucky deserve better than that.
“The people in my state have serious, time-sensitive bridge projects– Brent Spence, the I-69, the Louisville bridges, Sherman Minton.
“They deserve better than this.
“The Associated General Contractors of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have already spoken out against the Democrat proposal.
“The rest of the American people can decide which approach they prefer: our proposal, which doesn’t add to the deficit, doesn’t raise taxes, empowers the states to make decisions on the local level, and is designed to gain bipartisan support.
“Or the Democrat’s top-down approach, which perpetuates uncertainty, raises taxes on businesses at a time when we should be giving them more reasons to hire not less, and which was designed in coordination with the White House political team to fail.
“These are the two approaches on display in the Senate today.
“The choice should be obvious.”
Louisville readers will be particularly interested in McConnell''s comments about bridge construction and repair: the Republican bill takes unspent money and allows the states to use it to, for example, fix the Sherman-Minton Bridge rather than build bike paths. The Republican bill allows for immediate repairs; the Democrats, in contrast, take longer to do less and yet spend more money.
The Republican bill strips away the red tape that delays such projects; that's what it takes to make a bill "shovel ready."
Here's the video of McConnell's statement, and here's the text:
“We’re going to see two very different approaches to infrastructure and job creation today. The American people can decide for themselves which one makes more sense.
“The Republican proposal extends the current highway bill for another two years, giving states and contractors the certainty they need to start new infrastructure projects and create jobs.
“The legislation Senator Hatch is proposing today puts an end to that uncertainty for the next two years.
“This proposal also gives states the authority to decide how this money is spent. If folks in Ohio or Kentucky want to build a bridge, Washington can’t force them to build a bike path.
“The Republican proposal accelerates the review period and clears away the bureaucratic red tape. The President admitted a few months ago that the shovel-ready projects in his first stimulus bill didn’t turn out to be as shovel-ready as he thought. Our proposal helps make sure they are.
“Our bill prohibits the EPA from imposing burdensome and unnecessary new regulations on American cement producers and domestic boilers, so the cost of American-made materials for the projects paid for through this highway bill don’t skyrocket just as they’re set to begin. This bill keeps those costs down.
“Best of all, it’s fully paid for through funds that were originally appropriated for another purpose but not spent. Whatever’s left over after these projects are funded goes to pay down the deficit.
“The Democrats are taking a different approach.
“First, according to the CBO, the Democrats’ proposal will do little for the economy and putting people back to work in the short-term because the money will be spent gradually.
“According to the CBO, less than one tenth of the funds in the Democrat proposal will be spent next year. And roughly 40 percent won’t be spent until after 2015. This hardly matches the President’s calls for doing something ‘right away.’
“Second, it costs another $57 billion we don’t have.
“Third, they want to pay for this temporary spending bill with a permanent tax hike on job creators.
“And fourth, they already know that Republicans and yes, some Democrats, don’t think we should be taxing job creators, particularly at a time when 14 million Americans are looking for a job — and that we’ll vote against any proposal that does so.
“In other words, the Democrats have deliberately designed this bill to fail.
“So the truth is, Democrats are more interested in building a campaign message than in rebuilding roads and bridges. And frankly, the American people deserve a lot better than that. The people of Kentucky deserve better than that.
“The people in my state have serious, time-sensitive bridge projects– Brent Spence, the I-69, the Louisville bridges, Sherman Minton.
“They deserve better than this.
“The Associated General Contractors of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have already spoken out against the Democrat proposal.
“The rest of the American people can decide which approach they prefer: our proposal, which doesn’t add to the deficit, doesn’t raise taxes, empowers the states to make decisions on the local level, and is designed to gain bipartisan support.
“Or the Democrat’s top-down approach, which perpetuates uncertainty, raises taxes on businesses at a time when we should be giving them more reasons to hire not less, and which was designed in coordination with the White House political team to fail.
“These are the two approaches on display in the Senate today.
“The choice should be obvious.”
Thursday, September 8, 2011
McConnell's Prequel to Obama's Jobs Speech
Former Majority Leader (still love the sound of that) Nancy Pelosi takes umbrage that Republicans will not give a response to President Barack Obama's job speech tonight. And why should they. The speech comes nearly three years too late and include retreads of previous Obama solutions, in particular, more billions of government spending.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has written a piece for Politico today, sort of an advance response to Obama's inevitable "solutions." McConnell proposes specific steps to allow the private sector to increase jobs:
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has written a piece for Politico today, sort of an advance response to Obama's inevitable "solutions." McConnell proposes specific steps to allow the private sector to increase jobs:
- cut government regulations
- simplify the tax code
- reform the budgetary process so that every line item is reviewed annually
- pass free trade agreements with Central America.
Here's McConnell's piece in full:
President Barack Obama will reportedly do two things in his speech to a joint session of Congress tonight: ask us to believe that a second stimulus will be more effective than his first; and pin the blame on others for a jobs crisis that his own economic policies have done more than anything else to perpetuate.
Such a speech would, no doubt, cheer the most ardent Democratic partisans. But it would do nothing to create jobs.
That’s why many of us believe the president should instead begin by candidly acknowledging the failures of an economic agenda that centers on massive government spending and debt. He should then reach across the aisle for a plan that puts people and business at the forefront of any effort to lift the economy.
The plan we’re suggesting is built on the simple premise that if the American people are going to have control over their destiny, they need to have more control of their economy. The only way we can bring about a stable, long-term recovery is by shifting the center of gravity away from Washington and toward those who actually create jobs.
Above all, this means putting an end to the regulatory overreach that’s holding job creators back. The president took a positive step last week by reversing himself on a proposed ozone regulation. But he’ll need to do more if he’s intent on sparking serious and sustained job creation.
The administration has 4,000 regulations in the pipeline, according to one estimate. Every one should be reviewed. If the president really wants to create jobs, he needs to be as bold about liberating job creators as he has been about shackling them.
Putting the American people back in charge of our economy also means reforming an outdated tax code. Washington should get out of the business of picking winners and losers and lower the U.S. corporate tax rate — the second highest in the world, behind Japan.
We should also level the playing field with overseas competitors by approving the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that have been languishing on the president’s desk. These pacts would help create tens of thousands of jobs here by vastly expanding the market for U.S. goods.
Another thing we need to do is reform the budget process. There is no good reason that nearly three-fourths of government spending is on autopilot. Or that last year’s spending levels should automatically carry over into the next — regardless of whether they’re effective or affordable. Reforming the budget process is an essential part of getting Washington to live within its means and thus removing the specter of default.
Contrary to the president’s claims, the economic approach outlined here is not aimed at pleasing any one party or constituency. It’s aimed instead at giving back to the American people the tools they need to do the work that Washington has not been able to do, despite its best efforts over the past few years.
Equally important: All these ideas are rooted in a respect for the independence, the wisdom and the power, as President John F. Kennedy once put it, “of a free people and the efficiency of free institutions.”
The president is free to blame his political adversaries, his predecessor or even natural disasters for America’s economic challenges. Tonight, he may blame any future such challenges on those who choose not to rubber-stamp his latest proposals.
It should be noted, however, that this is precisely what Democratic majorities did during the president’s first two years in office. Where did that get us? The national debt exploded, America’s once-pristine credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history, the average length of unemployment recently surpassed 40 weeks for the first time ever. Just last week, we learned that in August not a single new job was created in this country — not one.
Here’s the bottom line: There are now 1.7 million fewer jobs in America, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, than there were before the president signed the economic stimulus into law. By the president’s own standards, in other words, the centerpiece of his jobs agenda has been a failure.
At this point, most Americans have concluded that the problem with our economy isn’t that Washington is doing too little — but that it’s doing too much.
Whether you believe this or not, however, there is a simpler reason for opposing the president’s economic agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics: It hasn’t worked as advertised.
Such a speech would, no doubt, cheer the most ardent Democratic partisans. But it would do nothing to create jobs.
That’s why many of us believe the president should instead begin by candidly acknowledging the failures of an economic agenda that centers on massive government spending and debt. He should then reach across the aisle for a plan that puts people and business at the forefront of any effort to lift the economy.
The plan we’re suggesting is built on the simple premise that if the American people are going to have control over their destiny, they need to have more control of their economy. The only way we can bring about a stable, long-term recovery is by shifting the center of gravity away from Washington and toward those who actually create jobs.
Above all, this means putting an end to the regulatory overreach that’s holding job creators back. The president took a positive step last week by reversing himself on a proposed ozone regulation. But he’ll need to do more if he’s intent on sparking serious and sustained job creation.
The administration has 4,000 regulations in the pipeline, according to one estimate. Every one should be reviewed. If the president really wants to create jobs, he needs to be as bold about liberating job creators as he has been about shackling them.
Putting the American people back in charge of our economy also means reforming an outdated tax code. Washington should get out of the business of picking winners and losers and lower the U.S. corporate tax rate — the second highest in the world, behind Japan.
We should also level the playing field with overseas competitors by approving the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that have been languishing on the president’s desk. These pacts would help create tens of thousands of jobs here by vastly expanding the market for U.S. goods.
Another thing we need to do is reform the budget process. There is no good reason that nearly three-fourths of government spending is on autopilot. Or that last year’s spending levels should automatically carry over into the next — regardless of whether they’re effective or affordable. Reforming the budget process is an essential part of getting Washington to live within its means and thus removing the specter of default.
Contrary to the president’s claims, the economic approach outlined here is not aimed at pleasing any one party or constituency. It’s aimed instead at giving back to the American people the tools they need to do the work that Washington has not been able to do, despite its best efforts over the past few years.
Equally important: All these ideas are rooted in a respect for the independence, the wisdom and the power, as President John F. Kennedy once put it, “of a free people and the efficiency of free institutions.”
The president is free to blame his political adversaries, his predecessor or even natural disasters for America’s economic challenges. Tonight, he may blame any future such challenges on those who choose not to rubber-stamp his latest proposals.
It should be noted, however, that this is precisely what Democratic majorities did during the president’s first two years in office. Where did that get us? The national debt exploded, America’s once-pristine credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history, the average length of unemployment recently surpassed 40 weeks for the first time ever. Just last week, we learned that in August not a single new job was created in this country — not one.
Here’s the bottom line: There are now 1.7 million fewer jobs in America, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, than there were before the president signed the economic stimulus into law. By the president’s own standards, in other words, the centerpiece of his jobs agenda has been a failure.
At this point, most Americans have concluded that the problem with our economy isn’t that Washington is doing too little — but that it’s doing too much.
Whether you believe this or not, however, there is a simpler reason for opposing the president’s economic agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics: It hasn’t worked as advertised.
Friday, August 12, 2011
McConnell on 11th Cir. Ruling Striking Obamacare
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is praising the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for its decision striking down the Obamacare individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
McConnell and many of his Republican colleagues had filed an amicus brief with the court. Here's McConnell's statement:
Like countless other Americans, I welcome the 11th Circuit's ruling against the individual mandate. Forcing Americans to buy health insurance approved by the government was an unprecedented, unwelcome, and unconstitutional expansion of federal power, and today's decision only strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who are working to repeal it. Congress should repeal this costly and burdensome law and replace it with the kind of commonsense reforms Americans really want.
McConnell and many of his Republican colleagues had filed an amicus brief with the court. Here's McConnell's statement:
Like countless other Americans, I welcome the 11th Circuit's ruling against the individual mandate. Forcing Americans to buy health insurance approved by the government was an unprecedented, unwelcome, and unconstitutional expansion of federal power, and today's decision only strengthens and adds more momentum to the efforts of those of us who are working to repeal it. Congress should repeal this costly and burdensome law and replace it with the kind of commonsense reforms Americans really want.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Fineman: This is McConnell's Moment
Howard Fineman has a piece on the Huffington Post regarding McConnell's pivotal role in the recent debt ceiling compromise. Fineman, who wrote for the Courier-Journal before he left to make a name for himself at Newsweek, has been observing McConnell since the '70's.
Fineman is grudgingly complimentary of McConnell's intellect and mastery of the legislative process. He attempts a tortured analogy between the populist demand to cut spending as compared to the the debate over school busing. Add some references to the canny McConnell and the angry white people, and Fineman's take fits so nicely into the Mainstream Media portrait of the tea party as mean-spirited racists:
If you haven't noticed, this is Mitch McConnell's moment. And if you haven't realized it, this won't be the last. In fact, there will be many more, especially if -- as is quite possible -- he becomes Republican majority leader of the Senate after next year's elections.
In what amounted to a victory speech as the final vote approached on the debt ceiling he brokered, the senior senator from Kentucky reached what has been a career-long goal: to be this century's Henry Clay.
Only instead of being Kentucky's "Great Compromiser," McConnell is and wants to be the Bluegrass's "Great Dismantler."
A handsome portrait of Clay hangs in McConnell's spacious Capitol suite. But the two men represent diametrically opposing traditions. Sen. Clay wanted to be president, and used his eloquence and shrewdness in the service of constructing and protecting the power of the federal government. He championed the "American System" of national roads and public works, and spent decades trying to keep the Union from flying apart under the centrifugal stress of slavery, economics and ideology. He inspired another Kentucky-born politician named Abe Lincoln, and infuriated yet another named Jefferson Davis.
McConnell, equally as shrewd if not as eloquent, has a fundamentally different view. He sees his job, as he said on the floor as the vote began, to "rein in Washington" and "slow down the Big Government freight train." He mesaures success in terms of how much he can reduce the power, purse and reach of a federal government he has been a part of since he was elected at the height of the Reagan Era in 1984.
McConnell is a past master of channelling middle-class resentment at the power of government to gain power for himself in government. And he is one of the most patient and canny legislators and negotiators in modern politics: always superbly prepared, never given to rash actions or statements and a potent mix of brains and chip-on-the shoulder disdain for people with fancier pedigrees but fuzzier minds.
With the debt ceiling negotiations, he basically took the president to the cleaners. He used the energy of the Tea Party as a threat, and the weakness and division in the House GOP leadership to make himself the indispensable player in the final days. He proposed a fail-safe route to avoid default that played to the president's vanity (the idea of giving the president the power to decide debt-ceiling raises on his own) and then used the sense of trust to drive a hard bargain that took takes off the table. McConnnell also used his 26-year relationship with Vice President Joe Biden to smooth the pathway to a deal. As Rep. Charlie Rangel said, the GOP "mugged the president but let him keep his wedding ring.
"The president thinks that the "super committee" that now will be appointed will be able to -- and will -- recommend revenue increases and even tax cuts when it has to report Nov. 23. There may indeed be some loophole closings, but don't count on it.
Was the president listening today when McConnell discussed the "super committee" group of 12, which will include six Republicans and six Democrats? McConnell called it the "cost-cutting committee."
Game on.
McConnell's whole career has been about skillfully tapping anti-government resentment and turning it into deals and power. That is how he began his rise in Louisville and Kentucky.
In 1974, Louisville -- a border city on the Ohio River in the Border State of Kentucky -- was sullen and divided in a way it had not been since the Union Army occupied it during the Civil War. The issues in many ways were the same: race and the power of the federal government. In the summer of 1974, a federal judge had ordered the widespread use of busing to integrate -- in fact not just in law -- the public schools in Louisville and surrounding Jefferson County. Well over 100,000 students were involved, but so were decades of de facto segregation.
In the working class neighborhoods of the city and its suburbs, anger at the order -- even occasional street protests -- was widespread. McConnell, originally born in Alabama, hailed from one of those neighborhoods. He wasn't a protestor or anti-busing leader by any means. He had worked for moderate GOP Sens. John Sherman Cooper and Marlow Cook, and had been an attorney in the Ford administration.
But he knew the neighborhood folks, as well as their fears and resentments. When he ran successfully for County Judge (the chief administrative job) in 1978, he ran strongly in places where he could make the case that government had too much say in local lives, and that services needed to be decided by families and neighbors, not by distant powers downtown or inside the Beltway.
That was the Reaganesque message he took statewide when he ran for Senate and won with the Gipper atop the ticket in 1984.
It is a straight line from there to the floor today.
And we may not have seen anything yet. As patient as he is remorseless, as deeply political as he is lawyerly, McConnell built a machine in Kentucky. It is crumbling now -- the incumbent Democratic governor is up by 25 points in new polls, and Sen. Rand Paul of the Tea Party is hardly a faithful ally -- but Mitch is moving on to do the same thing in the Senate that he did in the state years ago.
Meticulous, tactically focused, he runs a tight ship in the Senate and keeps a very close eye on the GOP's Senate election process. Here's the key statistic for 2012: of the 11 seats considered to be in play by handicapper Charlie Cook, nine are held by Democrats. The Democrats currently hold a 51-47 majority, with two others caucusing with them. Do the math. The GOP is within reach.
The Great Dismantler is on the march.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.Monday, August 1, 2011
WaPo: McConnell is Winning
The Washington Post lists winners and losers in the recent negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. McConnell is a winner, according to the Post:
WINNERS
Mitch McConnell: The Kentucky Republican was like the Mariano Rivera of the debt deal. He waited until the game was in its final moments, came onto the field and helped close things down (in a good way). McConnell was also a voice of reason and frankness for Republicans, making clear that default would be a huge political loser for the party. In the end, he got a deal the way he wanted one — with him at the center of negotiations.
WINNERS
Mitch McConnell: The Kentucky Republican was like the Mariano Rivera of the debt deal. He waited until the game was in its final moments, came onto the field and helped close things down (in a good way). McConnell was also a voice of reason and frankness for Republicans, making clear that default would be a huge political loser for the party. In the end, he got a deal the way he wanted one — with him at the center of negotiations.
Friday, July 15, 2011
WSJ: McConnell Plan Forces Obama to Own the Debt, Economy
The Wall Street Journal has a great piece today that lays out the choice for Republicans and concludes that the McConnell plan will force the Obama administration to own the consequences for its profligate spending and borrowing. The Boehner approach, in contrast, has not worked and cannot work so long as Republicans only control the House.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking heat from some in his caucus for "caving" on debt-limit talks. They might instead be thanking him for finally laying out the real choice Republicans face in this debate: 2012 or 2010.
Put another way: With President Obama now committed only to bad options, does the GOP allow him to unilaterally take ownership of his spending mess going into the 2012 election? Or does the party remain so rigidly committed to its own 2010 promises of spending cuts that it joins the president in irresponsibility?
Republicans took a flyer on the debt debate, betting that the high stakes gave them enough leverage to force Mr. Obama to accede to spending cuts. It was bold. It was a potential shot at serious spending reform. It hasn't worked.. . .
Option No. 1 is for the GOP to do a $4 trillion "big deal," in which it gets some cuts, including to Medicare, though only in return for agreeing to significant tax hikes. The president forces Republicans to make a mockery of their own tax promises, and he gets cover for what's been his goal all along. He also gets to brag to his base about that victory, even as he demoralizes conservative voters.
Option No. 2 is the smaller, $2 trillion Biden deal. Even here the White House is demanding some tax increases, while Democrats insist a significant chunk of the cuts take place in future Congresses (which can ignore them). The conservative base will deride this as budget gimmickry, and the GOP will get little credit. The president, however, will boast to the rest of America that he has clocked "significant" spending reductions, and he'll run as a deficit-cutter.
Option No. 3 is for the GOP to go to the brink and share the turmoil or shutdown that follows default. Ask Newt Gingrich how that worked out for him in 1995. Mr. Obama today owns a failing economy. Republicans are begging for joint custody. Come turmoil in August, the president will lay every unemployment uptick, every poor economic statistic, at the foot of whatever panic or pain came out of the debt-ceiling mess—and the Republicans who helped push it to that point.
All this is why Mr. McConnell earlier this week proposed to step back and give the president authority to raise the debt ceiling. If he's so committed to his positions, let him swim in them. Let him own a deficit that's on track to hit $1 trillion for his third presidential year running. Let him tell America why he's cut nothing. Let him explain a credit downgrade caused by his failure to get serious about American debt.
Let him explain the slowing economy, the high unemployment and his proposals for new taxes—next summer. Let the Democrats up for re-election have to vote (as Mr. McConnell's proposal requires) to back up Mr. Obama's profligacy. Let Americans understand, clearly, that this is what they will continue to get if they re-elect him.
Resisting this position are dozens of House Republicans who were elected in 2010 on the promise that they would get America's spending problem under control immediately. This promise has been the animating principle behind all of Speaker John Boehner's and Mr. Cantor's negotiations with the White House. This crowd is aching for a giant spending-cut number to flaunt to the base, proving they are as good as their 2010 campaign word.
Yet despite campaigning on the Constitution, most appear to have missed the whole "separation of powers" bit. You know, the part that provides a presidential veto. Republicans cannot run government from the House alone, yet many have bought into their own debt-limit rhetoric. Rather than see this as the failed gamble it is, they truly believe they have the leverage to make this president give them all they want. "Call his bluff," goes the cry.
These are the same Republicans who have spent years rightly describing Mr. Obama as ideologically committed to giant government—the architect of stimulus, ObamaCare, blowout budgets. The same Republicans who believe Mr. Obama is pursuing a deliberate strategy to turn America into a European entitlement state. Yet now they believe he'll just roll over and give up all he's attained?
If the GOP is so eager to call an Obama bluff, how about this: Call him on his argument that he is acting like a leader, working to fix the debt problem, offering the GOP the opportunity to go big. That's the story line Americans are being fed right now, and the GOP shores it up every time it agrees to another White House summit. A shame, since in fact the only Obama offers are for mediocre cuts, higher taxes, and the opportunity for Republicans to help permanently enshrine big government. That, or for joint ownership of a failing economy and/or shutdown turmoil.
Let him own it.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Ann Coulter's Take on McConnell, Debt Talks
I don't recall Ann Coulter ever discussing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in a column, so this caught my eye. Coulter's take is that McConnell has "schooled" President Barack Obama:
In general, the trend seems to be in the direction of higher spending and endless debt.
In general, the trend seems to be in the direction of higher spending and endless debt.
The government will just keep spending and spending until we're all on bread lines. But there won't be any bread because within 10 years, nearly the entire federal budget will go to pay Social Security and Medicare recipients. (On the plus side, a lot of us will be speaking Greek by then.)
But now, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has checkmated the Democrats. He has proposed a bill that will allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling three times, up to $2.4 trillion, over the next 18 months, but only provided Obama proposes equivalent cuts in spending each time.
Finally, the Democrats will be forced to pony up spending cuts -- or default on the debt and crash the economy.
Contrary to some hysterical Republicans, McConnell's bill does not forfeit any of Congress' authority: The House and Senate will still have to decide whether to accept Obama's proposed cuts when they write their appropriations bills.
But we will finally get some proposed cuts to federal programs from Obama, and not more nonsense about theoretical savings from "investing" in our children's future with additional spending on Pell grants and prenatal counseling.
McConnell's deal cleanly takes the debt ceiling issue off the Republicans' back and puts it on the president's back. Either the Democrats tell us what they'll cut or they'll have to admit: "We will never cut anything. Everything Ann Coulter says about us is true!"
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
McConnell: Debt Solution "Unattainable" With Obama in Office
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has never been one to sugar-coat it.
In a Senate floor speech this morning. McConnell said, in part:
“It was their commitment to big government that stood in the way of a grand bargain,” McConnell said of Democrats and the White House, “The American people don’t want that, and Republicans won’t be seduced into enabling it.”. . .
I truly believed we could get this done,” he said. “In the end, it appears that the perceived electoral success of demagogueing a solution proved its undoing. Or perhaps it was just the ideological commitment to preserving the size of government by the most stridently liberal members of the other side. “. . .
“Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people — which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn’t default on its obligations. And to continue to press the administration to rein in Washington. Not to freeze it in place. That’s why I will continue to urge the President to rein in our deficits and debt in a way that puts the short and long-term health of our economy ahead of his personal vision of government. “
Flat out, McConnell stated that he believes now that as long as President Obama is in the Oval Office, “a real solution is unattainable.”
“In my view the President has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I hoped to do good; but I refuse to do harm.”. . .
At a moment when we needed leadership the most, we got the least. The financial security of the nation was being gambled on the President's wager that he could convince people our problems would be solved if we just all agreed to take it out on the guy in the fancy house down the street. And I’m proud of the fact that Republicans refused to play along.”
“They asked us to join them in another Washington effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. They offered us the opportunity to participate in the kind of deliberate deception of the public that has given public service such a bad name in recent years. We all saw how it worked. The Administration carefully leaked to the media, without any details, the idea that it was willing to go along with trillions of dollars in spending cuts. “. . .
The hope here was that the budget gimmicks and deferred decision-making they actually supported would have the appearance of serious belt-tightening. But the practical effect would have been at most about a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow. We've seen this kind of thing before. It’s just this kind of sleight of hand governing that’s put our nation more than $14 trillion in debt. And I will not associate myself with it. I refuse to join in an effort to fool the American people.”
“We will not pretend that a bad deal is a good one,” McConnell said, “The truth is, the Democrats saw this debate as a unique opportunity to impose the type of tax hikes they want so badly but couldn’t pass even in a Democrat-controlled Senate last year.”
McConnell goes to the White House for his third straight day of meetings at 4:45 p.m.
In a Senate floor speech this morning. McConnell said, in part:
“It was their commitment to big government that stood in the way of a grand bargain,” McConnell said of Democrats and the White House, “The American people don’t want that, and Republicans won’t be seduced into enabling it.”. . .
I truly believed we could get this done,” he said. “In the end, it appears that the perceived electoral success of demagogueing a solution proved its undoing. Or perhaps it was just the ideological commitment to preserving the size of government by the most stridently liberal members of the other side. “. . .
“Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people — which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn’t default on its obligations. And to continue to press the administration to rein in Washington. Not to freeze it in place. That’s why I will continue to urge the President to rein in our deficits and debt in a way that puts the short and long-term health of our economy ahead of his personal vision of government. “
Flat out, McConnell stated that he believes now that as long as President Obama is in the Oval Office, “a real solution is unattainable.”
“In my view the President has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I hoped to do good; but I refuse to do harm.”. . .
At a moment when we needed leadership the most, we got the least. The financial security of the nation was being gambled on the President's wager that he could convince people our problems would be solved if we just all agreed to take it out on the guy in the fancy house down the street. And I’m proud of the fact that Republicans refused to play along.”
“They asked us to join them in another Washington effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. They offered us the opportunity to participate in the kind of deliberate deception of the public that has given public service such a bad name in recent years. We all saw how it worked. The Administration carefully leaked to the media, without any details, the idea that it was willing to go along with trillions of dollars in spending cuts. “. . .
The hope here was that the budget gimmicks and deferred decision-making they actually supported would have the appearance of serious belt-tightening. But the practical effect would have been at most about a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow. We've seen this kind of thing before. It’s just this kind of sleight of hand governing that’s put our nation more than $14 trillion in debt. And I will not associate myself with it. I refuse to join in an effort to fool the American people.”
“We will not pretend that a bad deal is a good one,” McConnell said, “The truth is, the Democrats saw this debate as a unique opportunity to impose the type of tax hikes they want so badly but couldn’t pass even in a Democrat-controlled Senate last year.”
McConnell goes to the White House for his third straight day of meetings at 4:45 p.m.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Almost Time for the McConnell - Obama Debt Chat
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will meet with President Barack Obama at 5:00 today to discuss raising the nation's debt ceiling. We won't have to wonder what McConnell's position is: he spells it for CNN. My favorite line: "The obvious solution is for Washington to make the kind of tough choices in its own budget that millions of Americans have been forced to impose on themselves over the past two years."
Later today, I will sit down with President Barack Obama to discuss his request to increase the nation's debt ceiling, and I will make a request of my own: What, Mr. President, are you prepared to do about the massive deficits and debt that have grown dramatically on your watch?
Later today, I will sit down with President Barack Obama to discuss his request to increase the nation's debt ceiling, and I will make a request of my own: What, Mr. President, are you prepared to do about the massive deficits and debt that have grown dramatically on your watch?
What Republicans want is simple: We want to cut spending now, we want to cap runaway spending in the future and we want to save our entitlements and our country from bankruptcy by requiring the nation to balance its budget. We want to finally get our economy growing again at a pace that will lead to significant job growth.
The Democrats' response has been a mystifying call for more stimulus spending and huge tax hikes on American job creators. That's not serious, and it is my hope that the president will take those off the table today so that we can have a serious discussion about our country's economic future.
The president claimed last week at a New York fundraiser that he is prepared to bring down the nation's staggeringly high deficit and debt by trillions of dollars, but rather than provide any details, he only listed the things he refuses to cut. This is a problem I hope to raise with him today.
At some point, Democrats need to realize that the reason our nation's debt has skyrocketed 35% over the past two years is that government spending is out of control.
America does not face a debt crisis because we tax too little, but because Washington spends too much. And tax hikes can't pass the Congress. Not only is there bipartisan opposition, the consequences of massive new tax hikes would be fewer jobs.
The president spoke in his weekly address Saturday about wanting to help manufacturers create jobs. But we know that raising taxes on these same manufacturers, particularly in this economy, will have the opposite effect.
The obvious solution is for Washington to make the kind of tough choices in its own budget that millions of Americans have been forced to impose on themselves over the past two years. Yet President Obama and his allies in Congress remain unwilling to concede the point. Once they get their hands on taxpayer dollars, they seem incapable of letting go.
The $830 billion stimulus bill is just one example. When Democrats passed it, they made two predictions: first, that it would keep unemployment below 8%, and second, that it was a one-time cash infusion meant to prevent a wider crisis. Two years later, unemployment hovers above 9%, and Democrats now demand that we add new stimulus funding. Their commitment to spending and tax hikes is so deeply held, it seems, that they don't even recognize what terrible shape our economy is in and the fact that tax and spend policies of the past two years have made it worse.
Nor do they seem to recognize that the voters are asking for a different approach. Americans didn't elect dozens of additional Republicans to the House of Representatives last November because they wanted their taxes raised. They sent them here to reverse the runaway spending policies that failed.
Since the day the stimulus was signed, Washington has added $3.5 trillion to the national debt and roughly 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. More recently, a slew of troubling economic indicators and dire warnings from credit agencies about the dangers of our debt show that the time for serious action is now.
We have seen the consequences of giving Washington a blank check -- and we think it's time Washington make some of the hard choices that the average American has made over the past two and a half years.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
McConnell Demands Gitmo Trial for Bowling Green Terrorists
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell presses his demand that the Bowling Green terrorists be tried at Gitmo. Here is his op-ed in this morning's Washington Post:
Speaking to a crowd of lawyers in Washington last week, Attorney General Eric Holder made an audacious claim about the war on terrorism. Overlooking the all-volunteer military force that has heroically battled terrorists and insurgents for nearly a decade, our outstanding intelligence and counterterrorism experts, and many others, Holder asserted that America’s “most effective terror-fighting weapon” is its civilian court system.
These comments insult those who have served on the front lines, but Holder’s clear intent was to justify the Obama administration’s two-year misadventure in treating captured terrorists like common criminals. This is evident most recently in Bowling Green, Ky., where two Iraqi nationals who have admitted to targeting American troops in Iraq were arrested last month.
Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi made their way to the United States from Iraq in 2009 through what appears to be a bureaucratic mistake. Expert intelligence and police work led to the discovery of their violent past and their plans to support their terrorist comrades from the safety of their new home. When they were arrested, they were plotting to equip foreign fighters in Iraq with missile launchers, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, sniper rifles, machine guns and cases of C4 explosives.
The Justice Department says Alwan and Hammadi should be tried in a civilian setting because they were caught here. This is ludicrous. The fact that bureaucrats mistakenly allowed two foreign fighters into the United States does not entitle them to all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens. If it did, we’d have to grant the same rights and privileges to any foreign fighters who had escaped from the battlefield and illegally entered the United States. Once we knew who they were, our top priority should have been to capture, detain and interrogate them to ensure they could no longer harm Americans.
Outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta recently estimated that there are 1,000 members of al-Qaeda in Iraq operating in that country. Kentuckians, including the state’s Democratic governor, want to know why two of them are sitting in a Kentucky jail cell instead of the military facility we built for such men at Guantanamo. I called on the Obama administration last week to transfer them. I have not yet received an answer, nor have I heard a good argument as to why Guantanamo is not a superior alternative.
Aside from the propriety of housing and, if necessary, trying enemy combatants such as Alwan and Hammadi in a military setting, the costs and burdens of trying them in a civilian setting are significant. My constituents do not think that civilian judges and jurors in their community should be subjected to the risk of reprisal for participating in a terrorist trial. Nor should the broader community have to shoulder the security costs or inconvenience of such trials.
Consider the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in Alexandria, before the military commissions legislation was passed. Alexandria’s Democratic mayor summed up residents’ reaction: “We’ve had this experience and it was unpleasant,” he said. “Let someone else have it.” Last year, New Yorkers rejected Holder’s plan to try Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court in Manhattan, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) calling the proposal to hold terror trials in New York a “wrongheaded idea.” In April, Holder reversed course and said the trial would be held at Guantanamo.
Like Bowling Green residents, New Yorkers knew that while it may be possible to try terrorists in civilian courtrooms, our overriding goal in such cases should be to prevail in the war against terrorism, not to make a point about the flexibility of our justice system.
Early on, the administration signaled its intent to use conventional law enforcement and courts to deal with unconventional enemies. The problem with this is that the civilian system was never intended to deal with foreign fighters or to gather intelligence in the pursuit of additional terrorists. The confusion surrounding the interrogation of the would-be Christmas Day bomber underscores this. Moreover, the criminal justice system is oriented toward prosecution, while our top priority in battling terrorism should be to find, capture and detain or kill those who would do us harm.
The administration has shown admirable flexibility in making decisions concerning national security and has shown that it is willing, on occasion, to put safety over ideology. President Obama launched a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, ignored calls to hastily withdraw from Iraq and recently agreed to extend the Patriot Act without weakening its provisions or making them harder to use. He should make the right decision about the treatment of captured enemy combatants.
Guantanamo is uniquely suited to the unconventional threat posed by foreign terrorists. By sending Alwan and Hammadi to Guantanamo, the president could again show his flexibility, make us safer and let Holder know that our civilian courts are off-limits to foreign fighters captured in the war on terrorism.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
McConnell on the National Debt
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has written an op-ed for tomorrow's Baltimore Sun on the need to cut spending as the president requests yet another raising of of the debt limit. As Rep. Herman Cain and Sen. Rand Paul have both noted, that search for wasteful spending needs to extend to military spending. Here's McConnell's op-ed:
Over the next several weeks, Republicans in Washington will be engaged in a critical mission: to persuadeDemocrats of the need to develop a plan that reins in our debt without raising taxes, which we know would kill jobs. This effort is taking place in the context of President Barack Obama's request to raise the nation's debt limit, and early indications suggest that many Democrats still need some convincing.
The key to success, in my view, is for everyone involved to view the debt limit vote as an opportunity — an opportunity to reduce Washington spending now and to save taxpayers trillions of dollars over the long term. It is also an opportunity to prevent the fiscal crisis that we all see coming, a crisis that would devastate jobs, trigger a massive foreclosure crisis and delay the economic recovery even more.
In other words, reluctant Democrats need to realize very soon that this is no mere academic or ideological debate. A failure to rein in our nation's debt would have painful and far-reaching consequences for every single American. This is why I have insisted that failing to make tough choices now poses a far greater threat to our nation's long-term prosperity than failing to raise the debt limit.
In the short term, we know that continued reluctance to lower the debt without raising taxes is hindering job creation. One study suggests that any nation carrying a debt at or above 90 percent of its economy loses one point of economic growth, which some argue is equivalent to 1 million jobs.
Washington-driven uncertainty is also inhibiting job creation. Right now, U.S. businesses are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash. Most would love to invest it in new products and ventures, and yet they're holding back. Why? New and proposed regulations, the unknown costs of last year's health care bill, and the widespread expectation of tax hikes tomorrow to pay for spending binges today are a big part of it. Investment follows certainty, and that's one thing thisWhite House refuses to provide.
But another reason job creators are holding back is the uncertainty surrounding our fiscal future. Right now, Washington is borrowing roughly $4 billion every day above what it collects in taxes, more than $600 million of which goes to the interest on our debt. This troubling addiction to credit has created a situation in which nearly half our debt is held by foreign countries. If just one of them doubts our ability to repay — and the greater the debt, the likelier this is — economic calamity could swiftly ensue.
Scenarios like these seemed far-fetched just a few years ago, but the fiscal landscape has changed rapidly under Democratic control. True, both parties have contributed to a culture of overspending. Yet in just two years under President Obama, the nation's debt has skyrocketed 35 percent, from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion; the annual deficit is more than three times the largest annual deficit ever recorded before his presidency, and the nation's debt is expected to keep rising year after year, as far as the eye can see.
Democratic refusal to get these deficits under control through spending cuts and entitlement reform is one reason the rating agency Standard and Poor's recently threatened to downgrade U.S. debt, and why Moody's Investor Services, which threatened a downgrade of U.S. debt earlier this month, also sees the ongoing debt limit talks as an opportunity for the parties to come together and avert a looming crisis.
Given the impact that our nation's debt has on jobs in the short term and on our nation's prosperity and success in the long term, it should not be difficult to convince lawmakers of the need for immediate action. Yet as recently as a few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was still calling for a so-called "clean" vote on the debt limit that would leave the status quo on spending and debt intact. Too many Democrats still seem to think they can just wait this crisis out, in the hopes it will go away.
Still, a consensus appears to be emerging around the Republican call to action. The president, who several months ago supported raising the debt limit without any corresponding cuts, recently directed Vice PresidentJoe Biden to come up with a bipartisan plan to cut the deficits that he helped create. President Obama has also acknowledged in recent weeks the connection between getting our fiscal house in order and economic recovery. As he recently put it, "If we don't have a serious plan to tackle the debt and the deficit, that could actually end up being a bigger drag on the economy than anything else."
We shall see how serious the administration is about doing something truly significant. During past crises, President Obama has often seemed less interested in solving the problem than he was in giving a speech about it. But this is different. Unless we get our fiscal house in order soon, the consequences could be far more painful than some are willing to admit. The upcoming debt limit vote represents the best opportunity we have to keep that crisis at bay, foster the kind of job growth Americans desperately want, and put America back on a solid ground. Hopefully others will soon realize the time to act is now.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
McConnell on Today's Votes
Even Democrats won't vote for President Obama's budget: not one. It failed today in the Senate 0-97.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement on today's Senate votes regarding four budget proposals:
The President identified the problem more than a year ago when he said that ‘almost all of the long-term deficit and debt we face relates to the costs of Medicare and Medicaid.’ But Democrats in the Senate showed today that don't even want to talk about it. They rejected every single proposal to deal with it. They've chosen to ignore this crisis just like they ignored the last crisis. They're so focused on an election that's nearly two years away that they can't see the crisis in front of us.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement on today's Senate votes regarding four budget proposals:
The President identified the problem more than a year ago when he said that ‘almost all of the long-term deficit and debt we face relates to the costs of Medicare and Medicaid.’ But Democrats in the Senate showed today that don't even want to talk about it. They rejected every single proposal to deal with it. They've chosen to ignore this crisis just like they ignored the last crisis. They're so focused on an election that's nearly two years away that they can't see the crisis in front of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)