Here we go again. Republicans talk incessantly about the need to cut the deficit, yet they are once again proposing a policy that will actually augment the deficit. On March 31, authorization for transportation spending, along with its accompanying revenue source – the federal gasoline tax – is set to expire. Republicans in the House and a bipartisan group in the Senate have introduced dueling proposals to fund long-term transportation projects, in lieu of the short-term bills that have been enacted since 2007. Unfortunately, the Republican House bill is not much better than the Senate bill. One need not be a staunch conservative to appreciate how inane it is to collect gasoline taxes from all 50 states into one pool, only to be doled out randomly for every state’s personal transportation project. Ever since the Interstate Highway System was completed almost 20 years ago, there has been no rational purpose for the current top-down federal control over transportation. Successive congresses have diverted as much as 38% of the gas tax revenue to mass transit projects and wasteful endeavors for specific states. The net result is that some states are donors (contribute more), while other states are recipients (receive more in funding than they contribute). We need to abolish the federal gas tax, and devolve all responsibility and taxes for transportation projects to the states. The two bills percolating through Congress will double down on failed policies, add to the debt, perpetuate inefficiencies in highway construction, continue to encumber traffic, and preclude any devolution of responsibility to the states. The Senate bill, S. 1813 , funds transportation at $109 billion over two-years, $54.5 billion per year. The House bill, despite accolades from Republican leadership, is only slightly smaller than the Senate version. The House bill, HR 7 , will authorize $260 billion over 5 years, $52 billion per year. Both bills continue to divert about 20% of the gas tax revenue to fund liberal mass transit projects. But here’s the kicker: according to CBO, the Highway Trust Fund will only take in $187 billion in revenue over 5 years. Both bills rely on using all unspent funds in the trust fund, totaling about $20 billion. We will still incur a $30-50 billion deficit over 5 years, and at least $136 billion over 10 years. Remember we already bailout out the trust fund in 2008 with general fund revenues to the tune of $35 billion. But, fear not, Republicans plan to attach three bills authorizing drilling in ANWR, offshore, and in the western states. They pledge to use the revenue from the royalties to offset the deficit engendered by general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund. The problem is that these proposals are dead on arrival with the Democrats. Once we agree to the premise of higher transportation spending, and the Democrats jettison the drilling royalties, we will be left with a deficit once again. This position mirrors the cycle of capitulation with the budget bills. Democrats propose some profligate legislative budget bill. Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected. Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat budget is a priority too big to fail. They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the budget bill fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets. Democrats balk at the offsets. Finally, we are left agreeing to the spending without the offsets. Moreover, if we run a perennial deficit in the trust fund, we will be permanently exposed to future hikes in the gas tax. The Chamber of Commerce and Big Labor are already joining in an unholy alliance to support a gas tax hike. We must defeat the 847-page highway bill , and call upon Congress to devolve transportation authority to the states . At the very least, they should stick with the original House proposal to peg the cost of transportation spending to revenues from the gas tax. Why are we negotiating with ourselves again? Cross-posted from The Madison Project
More here:
Defeat The Highway Bill
Here we go again. Republicans talk incessantly about the need to cut the deficit, yet they are once again proposing a policy that will actually augment the deficit. On March 31, authorization for transportation spending, along with its accompanying revenue source – the federal gasoline tax – is set to expire. Republicans in the House and a bipartisan group in the Senate have introduced dueling proposals to fund long-term transportation projects, in lieu of the short-term bills that have been enacted since 2007. Unfortunately, the Republican House bill is not much better than the Senate bill. One need not be a staunch conservative to appreciate how inane it is to collect gasoline taxes from all 50 states into one pool, only to be doled out randomly for every state’s personal transportation project. Ever since the Interstate Highway System was completed almost 20 years ago, there has been no rational purpose for the current top-down federal control over transportation. Successive congresses have diverted as much as 38% of the gas tax revenue to mass transit projects and wasteful endeavors for specific states. The net result is that some states are donors (contribute more), while other states are recipients (receive more in funding than they contribute). We need to abolish the federal gas tax, and devolve all responsibility and taxes for transportation projects to the states. The two bills percolating through Congress will double down on failed policies, add to the debt, perpetuate inefficiencies in highway construction, continue to encumber traffic, and preclude any devolution of responsibility to the states. The Senate bill, S. 1813 , funds transportation at $109 billion over two-years, $54.5 billion per year. The House bill, despite accolades from Republican leadership, is only slightly smaller than the Senate version. The House bill, HR 7 , will authorize $260 billion over 5 years, $52 billion per year. Both bills continue to divert about 20% of the gas tax revenue to fund liberal mass transit projects. But here’s the kicker: according to CBO, the Highway Trust Fund will only take in $187 billion in revenue over 5 years. Both bills rely on using all unspent funds in the trust fund, totaling about $20 billion. We will still incur a $30-50 billion deficit over 5 years, and at least $136 billion over 10 years. Remember we already bailout out the trust fund in 2008 with general fund revenues to the tune of $35 billion. But, fear not, Republicans plan to attach three bills authorizing drilling in ANWR, offshore, and in the western states. They pledge to use the revenue from the royalties to offset the deficit engendered by general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund. The problem is that these proposals are dead on arrival with the Democrats. Once we agree to the premise of higher transportation spending, and the Democrats jettison the drilling royalties, we will be left with a deficit once again. This position mirrors the cycle of capitulation with the budget bills. Democrats propose some profligate legislative budget bill. Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected. Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat budget is a priority too big to fail. They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the budget bill fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets. Democrats balk at the offsets. Finally, we are left agreeing to the spending without the offsets. Moreover, if we run a perennial deficit in the trust fund, we will be permanently exposed to future hikes in the gas tax. The Chamber of Commerce and Big Labor are already joining in an unholy alliance to support a gas tax hike. We must defeat the 847-page highway bill , and call upon Congress to devolve transportation authority to the states . At the very least, they should stick with the original House proposal to peg the cost of transportation spending to revenues from the gas tax. Why are we negotiating with ourselves again? Cross-posted from The Madison Project
The rest is here:
Defeat The Highway Bill
LYNDEN, Washington — You wouldn’t think getting a haircut could affect your opinion of a presidential candidate. Yet that’s what occurred to your humble but no longer quite so shaggy scribe last week. I went in for a trim and shampoo and came out with that silky fresh smell, and sympathy for Mitt Romney. No, this has nothing to do with his very Mormon hair. Romney is in pitched battle with Newt Gingrich and the terrain is populism. Gingrich’s people have dusted off Ted Kennedy’s old anti-Bain Capital campaign to paint Romney as a ruthless capitalist, itching to fire people to improve his bottom line. One alleged Romney misstatement came from his speech to the Nashua, New Hampshire Chamber of commerce. Romney said, “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.” He was speaking of health insurance companies, not the butler, the maid, or the secretary. Critics pounced anyway, and the press didn’t do him any favors. The ABCNews.com non-parody headline reads , “Romney Likes ‘Being Able to Fire People.’” Romney was contrasting a free market in health insurance with one that is substantially controlled by the government. Being a businessman, he elaborated, “You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service for me.” This earnest, commonsensical point came to mind Sunday as I was driving a wee bit over the speed limit toward nearby Bellingham. It snowed in all of western Washington and the place I normally go to get my hair cut was closed due to weather the two times I had showed up during the week. The first time it was closed, I shrugged, hiked across the parking lot toward the McDonald’s to get some work done with the free wifi and fell pretty hard on the slick pavement. The second time, the snow was mostly melted, but Great Clips was still closed. So I came back Sunday, before 4, and found that it closes at 3. Three trips to get a haircut was too much trouble, so I took off. I found a salon in Bellingham that was still open, put my name in the queue, and read a book while I waited. The wait proved well worth it, for entertainment value alone. The twentysomething girl who cut my hair, who we’ll call Sherry, chatted as she buzzed and snipped away and fretted over my cowlicks. One of the many things Sherry told me was a story about an argument with her boyfriend. He doesn’t want to cut his own toenails and they end up fighting over who has to do it. “He says ‘Either you do it or they aren’t going to get clipped,’” she told me. “It’s ridiculous!” She thought about it for a few seconds and revised her remarks, “Then again, he gives me his paycheck, I clip his nails. Maybe it’s a fair trade.” When it was time to pay at the counter, Sherry tried to give me on a punch card, one that gives you a free cut after so many trips. Normally, I say no to such things because, odds are, it’ll get lost somewhere. But this time I said, what the heck. I had to go somewhere to get my hair cut, perhaps I’d come back here. She smiled and threw in the shampoo for free. Now, maybe I’ll go back and maybe I won’t. It was more of a drive than Great Clips, but it was also more amusing, the cut was good, the price was $1 north or south of the usual fee-for-haircut, and the salon was actually open in my hour of filamental need. That’s all the “good service” I was looking for. Great Clips, you’re fired.
Continue reading here:
Fire Away
From the diaries . . . Just in case all the early primary fun hasn’t put you in a fetal position next to the liquor cabinet, maybe this will finish the job: After his aborted press tour/election tease, Donald Trump nearly immediately went back to hinting at an independent run for President. Speculation has been driven through the last few months by surrogates, media interviews and a rising frustration with the field of Republican candidates. We even had a few moments earlier this month when it looked like some of the GOP presidential candidates would actually take part in a debate that Trump moderated. Thankfully, that moment of insanity passed. This afternoon I was forwarded an email that originated with Everett Wilkinson ( @TEApartyCzar ) of South Florida. Everett describes himself as, “a rising local and national star in the tea party movement and the founder & chairman of South Florida Tea Party as well as the Florida Tea Party and Tea Party Chamber of Commerce .” The email is copied below in its entirety: ———- Forwarded message ———- From: Everett Wilkinson Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM Subject: Confidential TX Issue Dear Patriot Leader, My name is Everett Wilkinson and I am a tea party leader in Florida and friend of Donald Trump. I am sure you have heard on the news that Mr. Trump is considering a run as an independent. He has asked me to find a “tea party” Texas Chairman for a potential third party by next week. The role requires a Texas voter registration and is due to the voting laws in Texas. The person would not have to change their party affiliation or anything. Would you or do you know of any Texan that would be interested? Sincerely, – Everett Wilkinson (561) 880-x xxx http://www.SouthFloridaTeaParty.org http://www.FloridaTeaParty.com After receipt of the email I called Mr. Wilkinson and had a brief conversation. He confirmed that he is working at the request of Mr. Trump, whom he describes as a personal friend, to find and register state campaign chairmen across the country. He declined to give any indication of progress other than to say that he was able to find a “well known, solid TEA Party leader” so serve as the Texas campaign chairman. It was unclear from our conversation why he was using what appeared to be a TEA party affiliated email or whether the effort had been sanctioned by other members of the group. Everett said that Trump hasn’t made a final decision on the campaign but that due to election law in some states they need to secure campaign chairmen and begin collecting signatures in case Trump pulls the trigger. The Donald has apparently put Everett in charge of this effort. All in all it’s just another big face-palm moment to add to the long list. If you really want Obama to get a 2nd term then by all means, throw your support behind a Trump run. There’s a lot to be frustrated about with the state of the Republican party but cutting off your nose to spite your face isn’t exactly an optimal strategy.
View original post here:
TEA Party Leader Recruiting Campaign Chairmen for Trump
For more than five years, Left-wing union bosses have tried to ram union representation down the throats of America’s union-free workforce. They first tried, through their bought-and-paid-for stooges within the Democratic party, to enact the delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act . After that scheme failed, they opted for Plan B : Using Obama’s appointments of union extremists at the National Labor Relations Board to issue a slew of pro-union decisions and usher in changes that make it easier for unions to pick off job creators and their employees. On Wednesday, the union attorneys at the NLRB adopted a final rule on their controversial proposal that paves the way for unions to conduct ambush elections on America’s union-free workplace. While the rule will not go into effect immediately (it takes effect April 30, 2012), the substance of the rule goes to the stripping of due process from the minority of employers who challenge the validity of a union’s petitioned-for voting unit. As the result of removing an employer’s right to object to the petitioned-for unit through a regional NLRB hearing and request for review by the NLRB in Washington, not only does it enable the NLRB to conduct “quickie” elections (in as little as 17 days from petition filing), but it will also likely cause more employers to use the federal courts as a means of redress against a blatantly pro-union NLRB. As union organizers are legally allowed to manipulate and mislead workers into unionizing, at the heart of the issue is the amount of time union organizers can spend attacking a company in stealth, picking out a small section of the workforce to unionize into “micro-units,” and leaving employers virtually no time to counter the misinformation. Currently, most union elections occur within 42 days of petition filing. Under the new rules, they may occur in as little as 17 days. Even before the NLRB formally issued its final rule on Wednesday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace sued the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to challenge the rule. Coalition for a Democratic Workplace’s Chairman Geoffrey Burr stated : “Instead of putting fairness first, the NLRB bowed to special interests by abandoning longstanding rules governing union-representation elections for this new rigged system where employees have less information and employers have fewer legal rights and a diminished due process.” He continued, “Big Labor’s paid union organizers seeking more dues-paying members spend months making their pitch. Employees deserve to hear from employers too – employees deserve the full story.” Burr concluded, “Unfortunately, taking legal action was the only way to block the rogue agency’s unfair rule.” With the NLRB’s Wednesday move, there will likely be a push by many employers to begin planning for the ambush elections. Unfortunately, for those that do not plan in advance—most typically, small employers—there will be many caught wholly unprepared for the attack. As with the Boeing case and numerous other examples, Wednesday’s action by Obama’s union appointees at the NLRB is just another reminder of how tilted the playing field has become against America’s job creators. ______________ “Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, 1918
The rest is here:
Union Bosses’ NLRB Rams Through Ambush Election Rule
