Job Killing Legislation Needs Immediate Fix

Yesterday I had reason to communicate with our New Mexico Congressional delegation, or at least try to do so.  No, I wasn't sending a note about the recently signed 2,000 page Healthcare bill. Instead, my request had to do with the actual number one concern of the vast majority of Americans - the economy and jobs.

I was asking them to fix a flaw in Section 31(b)(2)(B) of the Small Business Act to clarify and confirm contracting officers’ discretion to treat SBA’s programs equally.  The problem has to do with replacing the word "shall" with the word "may" in the referenced legislation.

Seems relatively simple, right? Well, Congress has been failing to act on this relatively simple correction for nearly a year and half despite the fact that even HUBzone advocates have long been onboard with the fix:

Even some strong HUBZone advocates agree with the proposed change of wording. In July, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), co-chairman of the HUBZone Caucus, said the small business categories should be treated equally. 

The lack of action on that one little word, or on the one line bill introduced by Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), is at the center of a recent Federal Court decision that threatens to single-handedly do the following according to a recent communication from the SBA:

• Potentially undermines program opportunities for socially and economically disadvantaged, SDVOSBs and WOSBs.

• Substantial federal contracting dollars potentially will NOT go to non-HUBZone 8(a) (socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses), SDVOSBs, or WOSBs. 

• Based on contracting data for FY2008, $29.3 BILLION went to SDBs (of which $16.2 BILLION went to 8(a) firms); $14.7 BILLION to WOSBs; and $6.5 BILLION to SDVOSBs.  

• The Court’s reading of the Act, if applied to other procurements, could re-direct to HUBZone firms tens of BILLIONS in federal procurement dollars currently spread across small businesses, including HUBZone, 8(a), SDVOSBs, and WOSBs. 

• An absolute HUBZone preference could have a devastating economic impact upon thousands of non-HUBZone 8(a), SDVOSB and WOSB firms that currently participate in government contracting, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs they provide. 

• This could cause a flood of protests in any non-HUBZone procurement, paralyzing the procurement process and making litigation-avoidance a primary contracting objective.

And, if you think this is an exaggeration on the part of the SBA, think again. Click here, and you'll see that the impact of this job crippling legislation is already having an effect with contracts worth millions being canceled or needlessly delayed. Now as a disclaimer, I have to acknowledge that I have a personal stake in this as I own a recently certified 8(a) firm that might be impacted by this lack of action by Congress.

As such, I have a reasonably in-depth knowledge of the different set-aside programs.  My company is small enough that I could just move it into a HUBzone, make sure that 35% of my employees live in a HUBzone and seemingly call it a day.  But, it's not that simple.  It took over 14 months, hundreds of hours and nearly 500 pages of paperwork to get 8(a) certified.

The HUBzone certification process is just as onerous. I have a friend who owns a one-man business which he operates from his house in a HUBzone here in New Mexico, and nearly a year into the process he has still not been certified. Worse yet, the HUBzone program was crippled because of widespread fraud uncovered by the GAO.

Now, the timing of this court decision is critical. In about a week's time, we will enter into the last two quarters of the federal fiscal year. This is the time that agencies start getting a significant number of their contracts out the door. The impact of this court decision, and the failure of Congress to act to correct the parity issue, is going to cause wide-spread confusion and delay in the award of those contracts.  In other words, it is going to further devastate the small business sector and cause jobs to not be created or worse yet cause additional jobs to disappear.

It's for this reason I tried to reach out to our congressional representatives yesterday via email.  Interestingly enough, you'll notice on their websites that if you try to email our congressional delegation via their House websites, your only option is to use an online form.  The problem is, if your address is out of their district, the form rejects your submission.

Considering the fact, that I'm a small business owner who is currently bidding on projects in all three congressional districts as well as other states that could provide jobs for their constituents, you'd think they would want to hear from me regardless of where I live in New Mexico.

As a final note, take a moment to think about how one word in legislation passed in 1997 can devastate thousands of businesses over a decade later.  Then, factor in how difficult it is to get that one word fixed, and you'll understand why 2,000 pages of life and death legislation pushed rapidly through Congress (i.e. the new healthcare laws) are so dang scary.

Higher Cost Lower Quality of Care

By passing the 2,000 page over-reaching health insurance legislation on strictly partisan lines, Democrats in Congress just added to the tax burden of nearly all Americans.

Under the plan now headed to Obama, individuals are required to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of their income -- whichever is greater. It includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Companies with more than 50 employees that don't provide coverage are required to pay a fee of $750 per worker if any of its employees rely on government subsidies to purchase coverage.

The compromise package would drop the individual fine to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater. The fine on companies failing to provide coverage would jump to $2,000 per employee.

Worse yet, and admittedly by design, they have created a system that will encourage employers, to stop offering health insurance as a benefit:

Third, if more than two-thirds of the employees qualify for subsidies, the company would be paying the same tax penalty as if it had not offered a health plan in the first place. Faced with paying a hefty tax penalty whether they offer health insurance or not, many companies would drop their health plan, harming the remaining workers who do not qualify for subsidies. Those workers would be forced to buy health insurance on their own, paying 100 percent of the premium (instead of 40 percent or less through the employer) and paying with after-tax dollars. Even if the company raises pay by the amount they would have paid for health insurance (less the tax penalty), employees would now face income taxes on compensation that would otherwise be non-taxed health benefits.[3] 

This will result in an even higher cost for the program than projected, and will spell the decline of healthcare in America.  Those who will be impacted most, will not be the wealthy, who will always have access to quality care, or the poor who will see very little difference in their access to care.  Instead, it will be America's middle class who will bear a higher burden for a lower quality of care.

Think of the ever-growing costs and accompanying decline in quality when it comes to public education, and you've got a good idea of what to expect in the not too distant future of healthcare.

Putting Healthcare Before Jobs

Congress and President Obama have made it clear that their number one priority right now is pushing through a healthcare "reform" bill. If you ask me, this is a political mistake that is going to come back and bite them. Estimates of the numbers of Americans without health insurance range from 10% -20% depending on the point that is trying to be made and by whom.

Not having health insurance only really becomes a problem if you are ill, and severely or chronically ill at that. And, even then, if you have access to healthcare, the lack of insurance is irrelevant. So, we are talking about a relatively small percentage of the population at any given time.

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Mind you, that's 45,000 deaths out of a U.S. population of some 300 million. In fact, this number is almost equivalent to the number of people that die every year in car accidents.

Highway fatalities account for more than 94% of all transportation deaths. There were an estimated 6,289,000 car accidents in the US in 1999. There were about 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999. The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000.

Yet, we don't feel the latter is a crisis that deserves the full attention of Congress and the President. The healthcare insurance debate is a political sideshow at best. Yes, it is terrible for those who are struck with a chronic or fatal illness who do not have insurance, but it is not the the number one crisis facing America. Nor, for that matter is climate change, but I digress.

Let's look at the reality. People with cushy, protected government jobs, or the those at the highest and lowest levels of earnings scale are not impacted by a recession, but million of middle class Americans, who incidentally vote, are impacted. After all, they are the growing number of unemployed unable to find work.

Sure, the political elite and Wall-Street-Give-Me-A-Bailout-Followed-By-Large-Bonus types like to talk about how the recession has ended, and in their insulated bubble it may have. But, for millions upon millions of Americans, not only has the recession not ended, it is still expected to worsen:

National unemployment rates remain extraordinarily high, having reached almost 10 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, unemployment will climb to 10.2 percent in 2010 before falling to around 9.1 percent the following year.

Within particular states, the situation is dire. In Massachusetts, unemployment rates have reached a level not seen since 1976. Michigan's unemployment rate is at a little over 15 percent. State budgets, according to a report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, are still devastated by rapidly declining tax revenue. According to its study, collections by states fell by 16.6 percent from April to June.

Keep in mind that every time you read about another couple of hundred thousand jobless claims, those losses very often impact, not only the individual, but the other members of their households. Consider those millions compared to the 45,000 who die because they don't have health insurance. Now consider that the proposals in front of Congress are going to force 100% healthcare insurance coverage through punitive actions on business:

Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.

For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.

In other words, Congress is going to make it even more expensive to do business in the U.S. We'll see even more jobs evaporate in order to solve a problem impacting the lives of 45,000 of Americans. Not smart.

An Observation About the Changing Paradigm

For many people, Republican policy has always been seen aligned with business, and Democratic policy has been equated to big government. Now, with the Republicans out of power and the Democrats firmly in control, it has been interesting to observe the shift that is occurring.

President Obama and the vast majority of congressional Democrats are proposing big government solutions to every problem from the economy to healthcare and everything in between. Of course, that's exactly what was expected. What wasn't expected, at least not by me, is that the these same Democrats are not only out there promoting big government solutions, but the big government solutions have all been crafted in a way to put the interests of big business first.

Consider the bailouts, they have all gone to the biggest of the big businesses. The biggest banks, the biggest insurers, the biggest automobile manufacturers are the beneficiaries while the small businesses that drive our economy are left to languish with programs that are nothing but smoke and mirrors. Now, I've never thought of big businesses as evil empires. After all, as a small business owner, my goal is to one day become a big business. But, I've always been against legislation that specifically benefits one industry over another, or puts a competitor at a disadvantage.

Yet, this is precisely what is occurring on the federal level. A recent Business Week Behind This Week's Cover Story podcast examines the ways that UnitedHealth has been a key player in crafting the healthcare legislation, and how at the end of the day, it is the giants of the healthcare insurance industry that are going to be the big winners:

As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.

This is a theme that is being repeated over and over since the Democrats have taken full control. However, as a result of continued economic pressures, more and more people are finding themselves being laid off from large companies. More and more people are struggling to ensure their families have the basics. The Democrats in control may talk on the stump about being the advocates for hard-working Americans, but their actions speak louder than their words:

Missing from Washington's health-reform discussion is a simple change that would make insurance more affordable for millions of the nation's smallest business owners by letting them fully deduct the cost of their health insurance premiums.

By a quirk in the tax code, self-employed workers who buy their own health insurance essentially pay an extra tax on their premiums. They're the only taxpayers in the system who pay taxes on premiums, which count as a business expense for corporations and pretax income for employees. Because self-employed workers have no corporate employers to match their payroll tax contributions to Social Security and Medicare, they pay double the rate of wage and salary workers in a levy known as the self-employment tax equal to 15.3% of their net earnings. That's on top of regular state and federal income taxes, and the income they spend on health premiums is not exempt.

The nation's 9 million self-employed—sole proprietors with few or no employees, contract workers, and freelancers—constitute about 8% of the total U.S. labor force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (The Census Bureau counts 22 million sole-proprietors, but it's not clear how many of those may be payroll workers as well.)

Healthcare is just one example where inequities like these exist. Right now, there is a large section of the population that is not being represented by our elected officials. There is an opportunity for leaders to emerge that represent our interests. Those leaders will find their support crosses party lines. Their supporters won't be made up of the radical fringes of the left or the right. Their supporters will not look for big government solutions to their problems or to further their pet causes, anymore than they want big business to solve their problems. It's time for these leaders to step forward.

ABQ Journal Online Health Care Reform Debate

So, I'm a little late to the table due to travel schedule, but I was invited to participate in the ABQ Journal's Online Health Care Reform Debate. I just submitted my response this morning to yesterday's question. I'm also cross posting it below, but I'd encourage you to hop over to the Journal and read what the other panelists had to say.

What is the ideal way to expand coverage and cut costs in our health care system?

Let's look at the basic problem with this question. First, it is a contradiction. You can't expand coverage and cut costs. You can do one or the other, but it is not possible to do both at least not without degrading the quality of available care.

Moreover, it's a classic example of a one-size fits all type of question. The thing is that there in not a one-size fits all type of answer. In many cases the costs of health care are directly tied to the malpractice insurance doctors are required to carry as a result of lawsuits - some frivolous, some not. In other cases the rising costs of healthcare are the result of government regulation and mandates intended to reform the system or protect consumers. Then, there is the subjective nature inherent to providing "health insurance that covers all medically necessary care." To a family, it might seem that no expense should be spared to keep a loved one alive, but is it really society's responsibility to pay for that care? I would argue it is not.

Let's also examine the question of expansion of health care coverage. If someone smokes two packs of cigarettes a day, do they deserve the same access to health care and level of care as someone who does not? If someone chooses to live a rural lifestyle is it really the responsibility of society to build them rural health centers. If you choose to get cable television and a cell phone instead of paying for health insurance, should everyone else chip in to pay for your insurance. Again, I would argue not.

So, let's look at the latter first. The best way to cut costs in the health care system is on a case be case basis on the local level. Looking at the individual costs, be they hospital, doctor or individual, and coming up with solutions to reduce those costs. And, acknowledging that cutting those costs may very well involve making tough decisions about the type of health care services that will be made available. Incidentally, this is also the trick to expanding coverage. Get away from trying to provide the same level of coverage to everyone, everywhere. Health care is a service it is not a fundamental guaranteed right. Any more than than we should guarantee equal types of housing to everyone in America.

Does the current focus on costs undermine the importance of quality of care, as discussed in Win Quigley's article on Sunday?

Without moving to a barter system there is absolutely no way to separate costs from quality as it relates to health care. The two are inherently tied together. In our form of society the quality of every service or product purchased is related to price paid, up to the point of diminishing returns. Shifting to a government run health care system only shifts those costs from one entity to another (i.e. business-to-consumer to government-to-consumer).

It is the demand for quality and quantity of care that is causing escalating costs. In a government run system the costs will only increase not decrease. In fact, I challenge you to find any government run program where costs do not increase year over year. They don't exist. Medicare, public education, public housing... pick a program and the costs always increase.

Anyone who has ever worked inside a government funded institution understands why. Government run programs have no incentive to cut costs. Quite the contrary, they are incentivized to spend every last dollar in order ensure that they can receive the same level of funding the next year. This makes it all the more ludicrous for government to try and devise solutions for cutting costs. It's like asking a vegetarian what's the best way to cook a steak.

How can we change the incentive structure that leads to the use of expensive procedures that may not lead to optimal health outcomes?

There is only one way to significantly do this and that is at the consumer level. Something along the lines of health savings plans wherein individual consumer choices regarding the quality, quantity and type of care they receive directly impacts the dollars in their pocket. Also, I believe that consumers should indemnify medical providers, so that we remove the burdensome costs malpractice has introduced into the system.

And, finally, what proposals or ideas in Congress strike you as smart and feasible?

All of the proposals in Congress are feasible. Feasible in that they can be implemented. However, implementing a program is never the same as achieving a goal. I'm not aware of a single smart proposal in Congress. Anything Congress passes is going to be a one size fit all approach for the nation, and that is a mistake, a very costly and ineffective mistake made time and time again.

Congressman Harry Teague has a BIG Problem

Congressman Harry Teague of New Mexico's 2nd Congressional District has a big problem. No, it's not that former Congressman Steve Pearce has decided to take back his seat. Actually, that fact simply exponentially compounds the problem.

Congressman Teague's problem is that his first major vote impacting the lives of his constituents was a vote against their best interests:

As a Democrat from a right-leaning part of the state that is largely dependent on gas and oil, Congressman Harry Teague had to walk a fine line on the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House on Friday.

Teague stopped by Roswell on Wednesday, in part to explain and defend his vote in favor of the bill to constituents here.

"I had an idea it wasn't going to be popular with everybody," he said.

The bill that passed the House drew fire from both the right and left. Conservatives argued that placing any kind of restrictions on carbon would be economically damaging, especially given the current recession. Some commentators claimed that it would raise energy bills by 30 percent, although the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost the average household closer to $175 a year by 2020. Americans for Tax Reform issued a release estimating that the law would cost New Mexico's Second District $383.76 million in lost income in 2012, the year the bill starts to take effect.

Congressman Teague knew the vote was going to cost people living in the District more. He knew that it was going to cost the area jobs. Most importantly he knew "it wasn't going to be popular" with his constituents, but he did it anyway.

That's a problem. That's a big problem.

I spent a lot of the primary season of last election cycle running from one end of the district to another. And, I have to say that the people down there really impressed me with their hospitality and there no nonsense approach to life. They don't take kindly to spin, and they call it as they see it.

There not going to be fooled by silly statements:

Teague argued that there will still be substantial benefits to the bill, citing estimates that 40 percent of the people in his mostly-rural district will actually see a decrease in their electricity rates. He also believes that it will create new jobs in the renewable energy sector.

Because they know that if 40% are seeing a decrease in their electricity rates, that means that 60% - otherwise known as the MAJORITY - will SEE AN INCREASE in their electricity rates. They also know that oil and gas provides the jobs that puts food on their tables keeps a roof over their families heads and builds New Mexico schools.

I doubt very much they are going to take kindly to a man who made his millions from oil and gas talking about the fantasy of renewable energy jobs. It won't be lost on them that those incentives for the supposed new renewable energy jobs are going to solar plants in Albuquerque, not to Roswell or Hobbs, Capitan or Carlsbad.

And, if the best the DCCC can do is to attack Steve Pearce on fiscal policy, then they are in trouble:

The DCCC said that votes by Pearce for policies advocated by former President George W. Bush “created the economic crisis, growing the federal debt by $2.3 trillion from $3.5 trillion to $5.8 trillion.”

Okay, let's just state the obvious. We can all agree that Republicans spent too much while they held power. We can also say unequivocally that the Democrats are set to outspend them. So, this line of attack just isn't going to work.

Moreover, the truth is that there are three things you can say about Steve Pearce without question:

1. Steve Pearce is a fiscal conservative and has a long record of voting "No" to frivolous spending regardless of who was introducing it.
2. Steve Pearce is a social conservative who walks the talk just like the folks I met in the 2nd Congressional District - R and D alike.
3. Steve Pearce didn't forget where he came from in two terms in Congress. He knew how he made living, and he knew that raising the cost of energy for the majority of rural New Mexicans hurts.

That last point is of vital importance. See no matter what kind of attacks come out of the DCCC or the statewide Democratic Party, nothing changes the fact that it only took six months for Congressman Harry Teague to forget what got him where he is today and to stop representing the interests of his constituents.

Reading Bills is Overrated

So, you ever wonder how so many crummy laws get introduced and passed? You've probably thought to yourself, "Who in their right mind would read this bill and vote for it?" See, there was your first mistake. Reading bills is so turn of the last century.

We live in the thought at the speed of light age. Lawmakers don't actually need to read bills before voting on them. Need the proof:

There is currently some wacky legislative maneuvering going on with H.R. 2454, the cap and trade energy bill, that puts a serious spotlight on the failure of Congress to make bills properly available. According to the New York Times:

House Democratic leaders late last night released a revamped, 1,201-page energy and global warming bill (pdf), clearing the way for floor debate Friday even though it remains uncertain if they will have the votes to pass it.

The House bill posted on the Rules Committee Web site has grown from the 946-page version adopted last month in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Sources on and off Capitol Hill said the bulk of the changes largely reflect requests from the eight other committees that also had jurisdiction over the bill, including the Ways and Means Committee and Science and Technology Committee.

The bill is only available online at the House Rules Committee and is reported as “text of the bill to be introduced.” Despite having a bill, H.R. 2454, that has been reported out of the Energy & Commerce Committee and discharged by eight other committees, there is now, suddenly, a new bill that is almost 300-pages longer — but it’s still being considered as H.R. 2454. Stay with me here.

Want to get really annoyed? Go check out the bill's timeline.

The Great American Clunker Scam

Yesterday the House passed a bill that dumps another $4 billion into the auto industry. When is enough, enough?

The move by the House would deepen the federal government's involvement in the auto industry, only a week after federal officials announced spending another $30 billion in addition to the $19.4 billion already given to GM to cover its losses and operations.

Let's be real here. The government keeps dumping money into the auto industry, but it is doing nothing to protect jobs:

The number of initial claims in the week ending May 9 rose 32,000 to 637,000. It's the highest level since mid-April. Economists had been expecting claims to rise. They estimated that about 27,000 Chrysler employees are eligible to file claims in the wake of the company's bankruptcy filing.

Worse, we have a credit crisis in America because the country and it's citizens have borrowed themselves into a hole. So, what brilliant plan passes the House? A plan to encourage individuals to try and take on more debt to buy new cars. I fail to see the logic here.

Oh, and for those of you who believe this is all about a creating a greener environment:

While the original cash-for-clunkers proposal had its roots in an environmental initiative, this bill aims to jump-start sales of new cars and trucks, including some that don't quite meet the average fuel efficiency standards.

So much for that theory. At best, this is a finger in the dike, while the walls come tumbling down.

Senseless Legislation in a Weak Economy

Businesses of all sizes are struggling. Yet, what legislation do they decide to introduce in Congress?

A long-stalled effort to guarantee American workers paid sick days takes a big step forward Monday with the introduction of legislation by Congressional Democrats.

The proposal went nowhere during the presidency of George W. Bush, but as a senator and then a presidential candidate, Barack Obama backed it, and Michelle Obama embraced the idea last week in a talk to business leaders.

Companies are trying their hardest to keep the doors open, and Congress wants to make it more expensive do so. Where's the logic here?

Read the Bill is a Good Idea

I'm not a big supporter of ethics legislation because I don't think you can legislate ethics. However, I do believe you can and should legislate transparency in government. To this end, there is a movement gaining ground, and I think it is a good one. According to two emails I received today, this is the basic premise:

The stimulus bill is the latest in the Congressional trend of not reading legislation before debating them. We all remember the struggle for transparency in the bailout legislation last fall. These two bills are just a few examples in a long line of legislation including, appropriation bills chocked full of earmarks.

There is no reason to stand for this any longer Congress should be required to post legislation online 72 hours before debate. Members of Congress, their staff, and the American people should be able to read the bill and understand what is in legislation before they debate it. These aren’t bills naming post offices; these are bills that affect our daily lives.

I can't think of single good reason not to get on board with this. I've signed the petition, and I would encourage everyone who reads this blog, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on to do the same. Here are a couple of videos to motivate you to action...




Read The Bill from Sunlight Foundation on Vimeo.

So You Think You're a Moderate?

Ever wonder what someone means when they say they're a moderate Republican? Well, it looks like the "stimulus package" vote has defined the term moderate for the modern era:

Details are starting to emerge on the blending of House and Senate versions of the stimulus package. Two senior Democratic sources said negotiators had agreed on a top line number of $800 billion, but later one of those sources said the number could be even less. Both would be less than either the Senate's $838 billion bill or the House's $819 billion package.

Several sources involved told CNN that the number is lower to satisfy the three moderate Republican senators.

Wow, talk about showing restraint. Senator Specter, Senator Snowe and Senator Collins sure do know how to drive a hard bargain. Good thing they were there to push the envelope and shave 2% or so off of that mammoth spending proposal. Can you imagine the world of hurt future generations of Americans would have been in if they had not fought tooth and nail to keep that spending down in THIS SECOND $800 BILLION ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!

Sorry, didn't mean to yell.

Federal Government Intervention to Hit New Heights

Or could it be called New Lows?

With the country continuing deeper into a recession, it is expected that one of President-elect Obama's first actions will be to work with Congress to expand a second round of bailout packages (subscription):

Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end — an effort Obama supports. But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.

Don't be fooled. They may call it a "second economic aid plan," but the ugly truth is that it is the nationalization of yet another industry - the automakers:

In late breaking news, Treasury Secretary Paulson has announced a new plan to expand TARP coverage.

Congress was behind the push as Pelosi, Reid Press for TARP Aid for Auto Industry.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent to send a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to assist the Big Three auto makers by considering broadening the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to help the troubled industry.

The two top Democratic leaders in Congress are likely to make the request in a letter to the White House, which could be forwarded as soon as Saturday afternoon, said individuals familiar with the matter. President-elect Barack Obama is generally supportive of the appeal, but at the moment is moving on his own track to assist the industry, these individuals said.

Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with President George W. Bush at the White House Monday.

Though the administration is reluctant to widen the program to cover autos, there has been discussion among Bush officials of expanding use of the $700 billion to buy equity stakes in a range of financial-sector companies, moving beyond just banks and insurers. The focus would be on assisting companies that provide financing to the broad economy, such as bond insurers and specialty finance firms such as General Electric Co.'s GE Capital unit, CIT Group Inc. and others, individuals familiar with the matter said.

I doubt this will all have an immediate effect on the daily lives of you and me, but make no mistake the impact of these flawed decisions will impact the lives of our families for generatiosn to come.

Martin Heinrich Blew It

A lot of last night's televised debate on KOB-TV between former City Councilor Martin Heinrich and Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White for the 1st Congressional covered familiar ground and campaign tazlking points. However, Darren White hammered one point home that will really hurt Martin Heinrich going into this final stretch of the election.

Darren truthly pointed out over and over again that Martin Heinrich was the only candidate running for federal office in New Mexico who did not state a position on the bailout when questioned by the Albuquerque Journal.

Martin Heinrich Democrat Did not say if he would have voted for or against bill, but criticized it.

This fact, more than any other, demonstrates that Martin Heinrich is not ready to represent us in Congress. The biggest economic crisis to face our country since the Great Depression, and Heinrich dodges the question by refusing to take a position - UNACCEPTABLE.

The Boomers are Pulling Their Money

There has been a great deal written about the fact that the Baby Boomer generation has control of the greatest amount of wealth this country has ever seen.  In the past the focus has been on the ultimate transfer of that wealth.  But, of late, we're seeing that wealth disappearing at a phenomenal pace with market decline on top of market decline.

So, the question remains how long will the Boomers leave their money in the market?  My guess (and anecdotal evidence) is that they're starting to pull it out in droves, and I don't think that's going to stop between now and Election Day.  I don't believe they are going to put the money under their mattresses, but they are probably going to convert it into FDIC insured accounts until the market settles.

Obviously, I thought the bailout was a bad idea.  I put up a couple of posts arguing against it. And, I'm pretty sure, like most "great" government solutions, this one is going to suffer from unintended consequences - namely, the continued decline of Wall Street.  

See, by raising the FDIC insured amount to $250,000, the government just encouraged people on fixed incomes (read:retirees) and those about to retire to pull their money out and put it where it's safely insured.  

The politicians used a lot of doom and gloom rhetoric to rationalize the bailout, and they built up the expectation that as soon as it was passed the market and economy would be turned around. But, it's just not working out that way.  There is no way it can.  We're going to continue to see market declines through Election Day, and my prediction is that the Democrats are going to win big across the nation because of it - although, I hope I'm wrong.

No, it's not because the Republicans are the cause of the economic downturn.  There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle, and in our own lives (count your credit cards). However, most Democrats believe that government can provide the solutions to every social issue and economic challenge, so it makes sense they would vote for the bailout.  Whereas, Republicans are supposed to believe in a free market economy (or at least something resembling one), many turned their back on those values and opted for the magic quick fix.  

The problem is, there is no such thing as a magic quick fix. 

U.S Senate is Out of Touch

The Senate voted overwhelmingly for a bailout bill, and at the same time they took advantage of "the ecnomic crisis" to help some their favorite pet projects to some pork. That should convince you that it is business as usual in the U.S. Senate, and I hope the people's representatives in the House don't lose their backbone when it comes time to once again vote this bill down.

No Still Means No

The bailout plan failed, and contrary to the predictions of those in Washington, the world as we know it didn't come crashing down around our feet. So, what did we all do? We went about our daily business knowing that we would have to tighten up our belts and control our personal spending.

What did those in Congress do? Well, they decided: If at first you don't succeed, try, try again:

[House Republican Whip Roy] Blunt said one of the reasons he is more optimistic is that lawmakers are hearing less vocal opposition from their districts. He said that calls and e-mails to congressional offices that were running about 90 percent against the measure earlier now are at about "50-50."

Really, it's now "50-50." Any chance that's because we already told you how we felt, and now we actually have to make a living. Let me try and explain this for our Congressional Representatives the way I would explain it to my kids.

"I told you 'no' already, and I shouldn't have to keep telling you 'no.'"

Does Congress really think that 40 percent of the American public has changed their mind since last week? Why would we do that? What would be the cause. Nothing has changed for us. Everything is the same. We spoke loudly last week, and in a surprising turn of events, the Congress actually acted as Representatives of the people and voted down the bailout bill.

Now, if you want to go ahead and increase the FDIC insurance level, knock yourselves out. But, if you want to bundle that with a Wall Street bailout, please let me be clear... My answer is still a firm and resounding, "NO."

Common Sense Prevails - Barely

The failure of the $700 billion bailout plan ... um, rescue plan... um, economic stabilization plan... oh heck, let's just call it what it was - a bailout plan. Well, it failed to pass the House, which means common sense prevailed:

"Doing nothing is not an option," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said after seeing the $700 billion emergency package for the nation's financial systems fail 228-205 on Monday.

Actually, commons sense probably took a back seat to self-preservation. I believe some people voted their conscience, but I believe the majority of Congress voted based on self-preservation (i.e. pass this bill and you're not getting re-elected in November, and you're going to personally have to face the economic downturn like the rest of us).

Now, the question remains: Will Congress continue to do what's right and let the market correct itself? Unfortunately, I'm not very optimistic. The Dow Jones Industrial average tumbled over 777 points yesterday to close at 10,365.45.

Oh no, the sky is falling! Wait a second. That's still higher than it was 5 years ago at this time. And, you know what? That was less than a 1% 7% loss. [Oops, that's what I get for rushing this morning. Of course, the 2.44% increase this morning means my original point still holds.] Sure that's a lot in one day, but that doesn't quite seem like an "everybody get out your soup bowls" type of loss, does it? For the record, I did have soup for lunch yesterday, and felt well nourished until dinner. But, I digress.

In fact, there are a good number of economists that don't believe we are going to see one out of four people unemployed as we did during the Great Depression (subscription):

Hearing some of the dire predictions for an economy struggling to avert a financial collapse, it's easy to recall 1930s photos of people huddled in soup lines or traveling the country for work, and wonder what a depression would look like in the modern world.

Experts say that won't happen. Yes, banks are failing and the stock market plunged Monday. And, yes, there is genuine concern that, regardless of the government's $700 billion bailout proposal, the United States could still land in a severe recession.

But despite the alarms, including dire warnings from President Bush, economists insist there is no risk of a second Great Depression because, for some time now, the U.S. economy has been in the midst of a very different, less-threatening phenomenon: "the Great Moderation."

The Great Moderation. Folks looks around you. We need moderation. We're a society living in excess. Our houses are bigger than we can afford or need. We eat too much and have the health problems to show for it, and we've become a society of spenders instead of savers. Moderation might not be such a bad thing.

So, what's the worse part of this credit crunch? We won't have access to cheap credit for which we don't qualify. We may actually have to start living on a cash basis instead of in a credit accrual spending reality. And, let's not lose sight of the root cause of this credit crunch. No, not greed. It's this taken from John Mauldin's Weekly E-Letter (he argued for the bailout):

Because of a new accounting rule (called FASB 157), banks had to mark their illiquid investments to the most recent market price of a similar security that actually had a trade. Over $500 billion has been written off so far, with credible estimates that there might be another $500 billion to go. That means these large banks have to get more capital, and it also means they have less to lend.

I'm not a 100% sure, but I believe that new accounting rule emerged as part of Sarbanes-Oxley - the government's last great idea in response to the Enron fraud financial crisis. So, does the government need to print $700 billion in new money to avert this "economic crisis." No, all they have to do is kill Sarbanes-Oxley and let failing businesses fail.

There is an upside to all of this. People suddenly became aware again that investments have risk, and spending money you don't have may not be the smartest move. Eventually, the piper has to get paid.

A final note: Congress, if you want to get your approval rating up, don't be wishy washy here. Let the market work.

Democratic Ass Whisperer

Well, I've got good news for the Martin Heinrich campaign. It looks like Mr. Heinrich is off the hook. No, I'm not talking about that whole "I got principally paid to lobby, but broke the law because I didn't register" deal. That is still a BIG problem.

However, he is no longer the winner of the cheesiest campaign commercial of the 2008 election season. That award now belongs to Democratic Ass Whisperer and candidate for State Representative Scott Hudson from Michigan:



If I were Mr. Hudson's opponent, I would stop producing my own commercials and just pay to air Mr. Hudson's ass whisper spot again and again.

Getting Tripped Up by Your Own Story

I've read this over and over and over again. I've read it to myself, and out loud. Those of you have called me an idiot and moron in past comments, might be right. Because, for the life of me, I can't understand what Martin Heinrich is saying here (subscription):

Heinrich, a former Albuquerque city councilor, said he was paid principally by the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness to lobby for the creation of the Ojito Wilderness northwest of Albuquerque. The federal legislation passed in 2005.

Federal law requires registration if a lobbyist receives more than $5,000 in a six month period from an organization, and spends more than 20 percent of his or her time on lobbying activities of the organization.

“There was never a time when I was paid that much to lobby anyone,” said Heinrich. “Now, I did other things that I was compensated for, but I never made that much money lobbying any entity, either state or federal.”

How can you say that you were "principally" paid to lobby, and also say that your compensation was for other things? You can't, right? I mean, you can, but it doesn't make any sense. This is just like that Patricia Madrid's eight seconds of silence. All she had to do was answer the question honestly, and she would have in all likelihood been a member of Congress. I wouldn't have liked it, but I'm just being honest here.

Likewise, all Martin Heinrich had to do was to admit that he screwed up and pay the $50,000 fine, and this would have been water under the bridge. We already know from his failure to get a business license that following government regulations forced on everyone else is not one of his strong suits.

Of course, there is an ironic twist to all of this. During the Democratic Primary, Martin Heinrich made a point of calling for a federal investigation (subscription) of one of his opponents for failure to follow the letter of the law:

Martin Heinrich, running in a four-way Democratic primary race for the 1st Congressional District seat, will ask for a federal investigation into opponent Robert Pidcock's campaign financing because Pidcock did not report loans to his campaign in the time frame required by law.

But, this is the kicker...

Jon Blair, who is managing Heinrich's campaign, said Heinrich would file a complaint that could result in fines to Pidcock's campaign if he is found to have violated the law.

"He's not abiding by the law that every candidate in the country manages to abide by," Blair said.

I guess it takes one to know one.

Martin Heinrich's Friends in Congress

According to Democracy for New Mexico, Martin Heinrich, the Democratic candidate for the 1st Congressional District, is holding a press conference today with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

From the Martin Heinrich for Congress campaign: Martin Heinrich will host a press conference and tour of Sandia National Laboratories with Steny Hoyer, the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, this Wednesday, September 3rd, at 3:15 PM.

I must admit that I'm surprised that Martin Heinrich has no problem in sharing the stage with a Congressman who has a shown a well documented disdain for members of the Hispanic caucus:

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a moderate from Maryland, was beside himself. Congressional Quarterly reports that he jabbed his finger on the House floor at Joe Baca, the California Democrat who chairs the Hispanic Caucus, and yelled, "How dare you destroy this party? This will be the worst loss in 10 years.

Mr. Baca was having none of it. "You see this on the [voting] board?," he yelled back. "This is against me. This is against me personally." Luckily for Democrats, C-Span's microphones did not pick up the exchange. But it was audible to reporters in the press gallery.

Well, I guess New Mexicans might want to call Heinrich's campaign office and ask him
to explain how he can embrace a man who believes that Hispanic leaders are trying to destroy the Democratic Party?

Tom Udall Aligns With Litigating Radicals

Our nations founders believed that a separation of powers and a series of checks and balances were a critical component to maintaining a Democratic society. It is for this reason that we have three separate branches of government each with their own unique role - the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial.

In a nutshell, the legislative branch crafts our laws. The executive branch enforces our laws, and the judicial branch rules on whether or not enforcement of those laws violate our Constitution. This is the basics of our government that everyone is supposed to learn at an early age in school.

On a daily basis, this separation of power comes under attack by radical groups that believe that their agenda is more important than the balance of power created by the Constitution of the United States. One such group is Earthjustice. Read this excerpt from their President's vision:

We function like a law firm in some ways because we represent clients and we don't go to court in our own name. The clients' effectiveness is strengthened by the legal clout and other skills we bring to the issues on which we work together, and the breadth and depth of our work depends on our working with clients.

But, we are not like a law firm in the fundamental sense that we identify critical issues and strategies that need to be moved forward, rather than just wait for clients and cases to show up. We think about what kinds of clients are needed to best advance the particular cause. We bring judgment, experience, and strategic leadership to the problem, working with the clients to figure out what needs to be done in court and elsewhere to achieve lasting results. Our powerful and diverse array of regional offices take on litigation that will make a difference in the places they know best as well as cases that will set nation-wide policies that other groups can use in their own advocacy.

In addition to our unparalleled litigators, we have lobbyists in Washington D.C. who are skilled at moving the politics forward and at protecting our victories from Congressional attack.

In other words, they use the judicial system to do something it was not intended to do - namely the creation of new laws , and then try to prevent Congress from doing what it was intended to do - namely, pass laws. It is these actions, not their environmental cause, that makes them a radical group. Their vision is to try and disrupt the underlying fundamentals of our Democratic system.

So, where does Congressman Tom Udall fit into all of this. Well, a quick Google search of "Tom Udall" and "Earthjustice" shows that Congressman Tom Udall is a reliable ally for this radical environmental group. When they need a pawn in Congress to introduce a bill or an amendment to support their judicial activist efforts, they have been able to count on Tom Udall time and time again.

Earthjustice is one of those groups that keeps America reliant on foreign oil by fighting at every turn domestic oil and gas exploration. When we feel the pinch at the pump, we have radicals like Earthjustice and Congressman Tom Udall to thank.

Democrats Try to Silence Dialog with Gen Y

The Democrats have long positioned themselves as the political party of the younger generation. And, it is widely assumed that if Generation Y turns out to vote in large numbers, Barack Obama's chances of becoming our next President increase significantly.

So, it comes as a big surprise that the Democratic leadership in Congress is trying to shut down the outreach of its members through popular online sites:

New lines are being drawn about the restrictions Members face when using the Internet.

House Minority Leader Boehner today released a memo, entitled the “Internet Freedom Alert”, criticizing a letter sent by Rep. Capuano to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration.

Member Web use restrictions are among the main Open House Project priorities, and one of the chapters of the report is about the restrictions set by the Franking Commission, which operates under the Committee on House Administration. (This chapter was written by David All and Paul Blumenthal.)

Boehner’s letter today rightly sounds the alarm about Capuano’s newly proposed Franking commission guidelines.

Studies have shown that online forums are the town halls of years past for a whole new generation of Americans.

A recently released survey shows that Generation Y prefers to connect with government online in an interactive manner similar to the way they seek out news and other information.

The survey was commissioned by Meritalk, an online community of government information technology specialists, to examine the information-gathering habits of Gen-Y and its priorities for the next administration. A poll of 2,000 people born between 1977 and 1990 showed that 88 percent will obtain their news online during the next four years. Seventy-four percent want more information on government spending and programs, and 85 percent said they want the next president to reach out to the public online at least monthly.

"Generation Y really wants direct, honest, genuine communication [from the government]," said Liz Vandendriessche, spokeswoman for Meritalk. She said that through its research, Meritalk sought to capture how the fundamental relationship between government and citizens is changing.

Keeping all of this in mind, this recent action by Democratic leaders really begs the question, "What are they thinking?"

Tom Udall Attempts to Rewrite Recent History

It looks like Congressman Tom Udall has a new TV spot that is a little less than honest when it comes to his record on funding for Los Alamos labs:



At the end of the ad Congressman Udall says:

That's why I voted for funding to expand the mission of Los Alamos to create new jobs in counterterrorism and energy research. I'm Tom Udall and I approved this message because we have to do what's right for New Mexico.

Ok.... let's see... let me try and start this off with a positive. That is Tom Udall in that ad. We can all agree that he should be doing what's right for New Mexico. And, there is no question that Los Alamos plays a critical role in countering terrorism and energy research.

So, what's the problem? Well, Congressman Udall, knowing everything above, actually voted TO CUT FUNDING for Los Alamos labs. Of course, don't just take my word for it. You can can go back and read about Tom Udall's vote to cut funding for the labs last summer. Oh, and let's not forget the lack of concern that Tom Udall showed when layoffs were announced at Los Alamos because he wouldn't fight to protect their funding.

Look, Tom Udall is entitled to vote for his own priorities. But, he should not get a pass on trying to rewrite his history to run away from his votes to cut funding for our labs.

What's Tom Udall Doing in Congress?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but what Tom Udall is doing in Congress is voting to raise taxes on the middle class, families and small businesses. Of course, don't take my word for it. Instead, read what Democratic Congressman Bill Foster (IL-14) had to say about the tax bill that Tom Udall voted to pass:

“I can’t support a budget, from either party, that raises taxes on the middle class. This bill hurts families all across the 14th District by eliminating the 10-percent bracket for lower-income taxpayers, reinstating the marriage penalty and increasing taxes on small businesses and investments.

I campaigned on a platform of middle class tax relief, and I was elected to Washington to bring about change. When asked to choose between my party and the people I represent, I will choose the families of the 14th District every single time.”

Before my readers on the left start leaving comments about how Congressman Bill Foster is just some sort of rogue Democratic Congressman, I think you ought to watch the recent video endorsement by one of the Congressman's supporters.



So where does that leave us? Well, I think that leaves us with a novel concept that Tom Udall might want to consider... putting families before party. Congressman Tom Udall wants to become Senator Tom Udall, yet he's voting to eliminate the 10-percent bracket for lower income taxpayers.

In case you're wondering what someone in the 10-percent bracket is earning, if they're single, the answer is up to $8,025 per year. If they're married filing jointly, it is $16,050 per year. Let me put that another way. We're talking about people barely making the minimum wage, and Congressman Tom Udall voted to raise their taxes.

Is there any wonder that most people think Congressman Tom Udall is too liberal to be elected to represent everyday New Mexicans in the Senate?

Gasoline at a $100 Per Gallon

That would be devastating if gas became that expensive, right? Wrong. I hope gas prices keep going up. Don't get me wrong, I'm cringing at the pump just like everyone else. But, I've got faith in American ingenuity to solve that problem. And, it's already happening.

Open a copy of Brandweek, and it seems the Smart Car is all the rage. Flip on the television and the cars being advertised are the ones able to deliver more than 30 MPG. Look in the newspaper, and you can read an article on the plug and drive cars of the future (subscription):

An automotive revolution could soon appear in a driveway near you— a car that needs a lot less gasoline than the one sitting there now.

Depending on how you drive it, the car may need no gasoline at all. Most of its energy, if not all, could come from plugging it in and charging it all night.

You see, we don't need Congress to dictate auto fuel economy increases. We just need to rely on the market to drive consumer demands. It's unfolding right before your eyes. Take note.

As gas price continue to increase, it is not just the car choices that will change. Where people live will change too. All of the concern about "suburban sprawl" will become a non-issue as people choose to make their homes in communities where they can live, work and play without burning gas to get from one place to another.

Free markets trump government intervention every time.

Fruit Fly Research in France

So, I always thought New Mexico's special interest spending of taxpayer's money at the state level was ridiculous. But, it looks like that tilapia farm in Hidalgo county that got shot down two sessions ago is nothing compared to the type of earmarks coming out of one Congressman's district in Pennsylvania.

RedState hope to take it back with Chris Hackett. Mr. Hackett, a CPA, is both a fiscal and social conservative. He is pro-life and anti-earmarks. His opponent, Chris Carney, has been spending federal dollars on earmarks claiming they bring the bacon home to the tenth. The problem is, Carney can't explain how his vote for fruit fly research in France brings jobs home. Chris Hackett, on the other hand, can deftly explain how growth in Washington kills jobs in the 10th.

Fruit fly research in France paid for by American Taxpayers? That's just too much. It's no wonder presidential candidate, Senator John McCain thinks a one year moratorium on federal earmarks is a good idea.

Republicans Have a Shot at Udall's Seat

Well, normally we wouldn't. Hey, I'm nothing if not pragmatic. The reality is that the numbers in that Northern Congressional seat make it just short of impossible.

However, Steve Terrell is painting a picture that should make more than a few northern elephants stand up and take notice:

House Bill 1156, which won unanimous approval of both legislative chambers and was signed into law by Gov. Bill Richardson, makes it tougher for candidates to get on the primary ballot.

Before the new law, candidates won a place on the ballot if they received at least 20 percent of the delegate votes at their party’s preprimary convention. Those who got less than that magic figure still could get on the ballot by submitting additional petitions with signatures of registered voters to the secretary of state.

The new law got rid of the petition option. Those who get less than 20 percent are out of luck.

Only trouble is, the large number of Democratic candidates in District 3 could increase the chances no candidate reaches the 20 percent mark at the preprimary convention. And, under the law that passed, there is no provision to get anyone on the ballot with less than 20 percent.

Here’s a little nightmare for Democrats: No candidate gets enough delegates to secure a place on the ballot. The GOP runs one candidate who automatically wins a Congressional seat in a heavily Democratic district.

Gotta love technicalities.

Mayor Chavez Changes Gear

Oh what a bummer! It looks like Mayor Chavez has decided to abandon his gubernatorial campaign website for 2010 (see the last listing):


Now, he has decided to change gears. My favorite line from his announcement speech:

I know that in my gut the national and state GOP will fight mean and dirty. Their war effort and power are at stake. But in my heart, I know they no longer represent the mainstream of their party or New Mexico.

Say What! Republican power is at stake? Um, exactly where are we talking about? The Democrats control both Houses of Congress. The Democrats control both bodies of the state legislature. Am I missing something?

And, what did our esteemed Mayor forget to mention in his announcement speech:

All together, the city collected $10,611,397 in revenue [through red light cameras] and handed over $2,844,920 to Redflex. This left the city with between $5.8 and $7.8 million in net profit. The precise figure is not known as officials charged as photo enforcement expenses a number of part and full-time police officer salaries as well as the entire administrative hearing office budget. The audit report sidestepped the question of whether the ticketing program has had any beneficial effect on traffic accidents. It mentioned that police could claim only two of the nineteen intersections with cameras might have seen a decrease in accidents.

Kinda makes you wonder if he is elected Senator, whether or not he would be pushing for a national red light program. After all, it has been just so dang profitable for the City of Albuquerque.

A Rare Tom Udall Post

I don't spend a lot of time writing about U.S. Representative Tom Udall (D). Mostly, because he really doesn't seem to do much to write about - positive or negative. Sure, some bloggers and the MSM gave him a lot of ink when Udall was appointed to the House Appropriations Committee:

It wasn't an accident, fluke, luck or anything else of that nature. It had been in the works for a long time. And it was evidence that playing by the old rules still works quite well, thank you.

Udall had been working at getting a seat on this most powerful of all committees ever since former Rep. Joe Skeen announced his retirement almost five years ago. Skeen had been on the Appropriations Committee for many years and had chaired several of its subcommittees.

That made Skeen a "cardinal," a title given to Appropriations subcommittee chairmen because of the tremendous power they wield. Udall won't be chairing a subcommittee anytime soon, but that's where he's headed.

So, what does Representative Udall do after all of these years of trying to get into the powerful Appropriations Committee?

The House approval, on a 312-112 vote, would cut nuclear weapons spending by the Department of Energy by $396 million— 6 percent.

The Senate, meanwhile, is pushing a $213 million increase— 3 percent. To come up with a final spending plan, leaders of the two bodies must come together to reconcile the differences between the two spending plans.

Sorting out the differences in the nuclear weapons budget involve larger questions about how much money is available for related energy and water projects in fiscal 2008.

The House bill could mean the loss of 900 jobs at Sandia National Laboratories and even more at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Democrat Tom Udall, who represents Los Alamos, voted in favor of the bill. New Mexico Republicans Heather Wilson, whose district includes Sandia, and Steve Pearce voted against it.

Ouch.

Cutting Security Funding and Increasing Pork

Somethings are expected. For example, when the Democrats took over from the Republicans in Congress, it was a pretty safe bet that there would be some changes. However, no one could have predicted the type of vindictive changes that have in fact took place.

First, you had a Democratic Committee Chairman playing politics with the memory of a war hero, and now you have the Democrats willing to undermine national security to settle old scores:

“I am surprised by the extent to which the House Appropriations Committee has gone out of its way to single out Los Alamos, and to some extent Sandia. The House bill is stunningly punitive in its treatment of Los Alamos. This bill would be devastating for Los Alamos, surrounding communities and New Mexico overall,” said Domenici, who is the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee that funds DOE and the national laboratories.

And, you can't even argue these cuts are being done in the name of fiscal responsibility. Why not? Well, because the Democrats have already demonstrated a willingness to sidestep their own rules designed to shed light on frivolous earmarks.

Yeah, this all makes sense. Slash national security budgets in a time of war and make it easier to increase unaccountable spending for pork barrel projects. Aren't you glad you voted for change?

That Didn't Take Long

I remember something about the Democrats making all kinds of promises about the type of changes they would make in the first one hundred hours of controlling Congress:

If all goes according to plan, the House will get through its hundred-hour agenda in 15 days, or 360 hours, by standard definition. Today, the House will take up an ethics package. Tomorrow, new budget controls.

And, speaking of Congressional budget controls:

After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.

Now, that's got to be a new low: Creating a new rule in January and sidestepping it in June. You Independents, who read this blog, might want to keep that in mind for the next election.

Medal of Honor Recipient Deserves Respect

It's not often that I blog during work hours. After all, a guy has to make a living. But I just came across something that is probably one of the most offensive partisan acts I've seen come out of Congress in a long time.

Take a moment and watch the video that shows the floor discussion between the Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Veterans’Affairs, Bob Filner (D-California) and the ranking Republican, Steve Buyer (R-Indiana):



Naming the VA Medical Center in Albuquerque after New Mexico war hero and Medal of Honor recipient, Raymond G. 'Jerry' Murphy, was a bipartisan recommendation that enjoys the support of the entire New Mexico Congressional delegation. In fact, you can view the original press release in its entirety on Senator Jeff Bingaman's website. But, in a nutshell, this is the type of man we are talking about:

"Jerry Murphy was a true American hero who in war and peace dedicated himself to others. I am proud to have known Jerry and to have been able to call him my friend. It is a privilege to play a part in bestowing this deserving honor on a great man and a great American," Domenici said. "I will work with our House counterparts to get this bill passed and enacted as soon as possible."

"Jerry Murphy bravely served our country. While he was recognized during his life with a much-deserved Medal of Honor, we are now a step closer to ensuring that the memory of his service to our country—and his fellow veterans—will live on," Bingaman said.

So, why isn't this bill, which incidentally has the support of the VA Department as well as the New Mexico Department of Veterans' Services, Albuquerque Armed Forces Advisory Association, American Legion, American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Vietnam Veterans of America, being heard.

A very simple and offensive answer: "Companion legislation (HR.474) was introduced in the House by Representative Heather Wilson."

That's right, the Democrat leadership in Congress is willing to insult this Medal of Honor recipient's memory rather than let the legislation be carried forth by a Republican they so badly want to see defeated.

This is wrong. There are no two ways about it. This is wrong.