Obama’s trying to campaign against a do-nothing Congress. But he doesn’t mind at all if the Senate does nothing. Even if it fails to pass a budget for, what, the fourth year in a row?… Originally posted here: Carney: White House Has Absolutely No Opinion On Whether Senate Should Do Its Job And Pass a Budget
Excerpt from:
Carney: White House Has Absolutely No Opinion On Whether Senate Should Do Its Job And Pass a Budget
The STOCK Act – which is short for the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act; honestly, I wish that they’d stop coming up with cute names for these. This particular one is not really obnoxious, but some of them have really reached for the acronym – started to get really pushed through last year, once it came out that Members of Congress, including then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, were profiting unduly from legal insider trading* . I call it ‘legal’ not in the sense that there was nothing wrong with said insider trading; I call it ‘legal’ because Congress exempted itself from the rules that the rest of us have to follow. The distinction is important. It’s perfectly legal for, say, Senator Dianne Feinstein to buy into a biostock company just before the company picks up a fat government subsidy check, even if she knew about it ahead of time. That’s the problem . Anyway, one of the more egregious things being done – again, involving then-Speaker Pelosi in at least one case – was the practice of offering Members of Congress a favorable position from which to buy into an IPO. Pelosi in particular used this practice to buy into a Visa IPO , right before credit card legislation that hampered Visa g ot somehow sidetracked in Congress for a year ; she ended up making a killing on the (again, ‘LEGAL’) deal. And, naturally, the amendment that would ban this practice in the future has been named the ‘Pelosi Provision’ by Republicans. By all accounts, the former Speaker is unhappy about this; I am uncertain whether or not that she is as unhappy about this as I am that the woman made several million unfortunately-legal dollars off of her former position to manipulate and delay legislation, but I somehow doubt it. The bill is largely expected to pass, by the way: the real fireworks will be in conference. If the thing gets defanged, it will be there – so keep an eye out for that particular problem. It wouldn’t be the first time that a troublesomely reformist piece of legislation got revised out of existence, while out of camera range… Moe Lane ( crosspost ) PS: Politico reports that the STOCK Act’s original sponsors Louise Slaughter and Tim Walz are unhappy that the Republican majority has taken away their bill and are now busily reshaping it. Alas for Rep. Slaughter, it’s not exactly Eric Cantor’s fault that she was incapable of getting it passed in the first place…
Go here to see the original:
Proposed ‘Pelosi Provision’ of the STOCK Act unveiled yesterday.
I’m traveling today, so this will be a ‘light’ edition. Today is February 8th. On this date in 1936, the first NFL draft was held. The first player drafted was Jay Berwanger, to the Eagles. Berwanger is also the first winner of the Downtown Athletic Club Trophy the year before, an award known today as the Heisman Trophy. Berwanger, a halfback, is also known for his tackling future President Gerald Ford in 1934, leaving a scar beneath Ford’s left eye. The moral of the story is, if you scar Gerald Ford, they give you a trophy, and then a job. Government Can’t Make Us Happy | John Stossel “Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the right to pursue happiness has been perverted into a government-backed entitlement to happiness.” Who is hurt most by rising energy costs? | Hot Air “According to a new study, the hardest hit are precisely who you would expect. The poor and the elderly are having the biggest bite taken out of their checkbooks.” Sue Myrick 15th House Republican member to retire | Human Events “The decision of Myrick—a former Charlotte mayor who first came to Congress in the “Gingrich Class” of 1994—was somewhat of a surprise, in that she represents a district that has been in Republican hands without interruption since 1952 and continued re-election for her, as one local wag put it, ‘was the nearest thing to eternal life on earth.’” Today’s Word of the Day comes from Dictionary.com . piacular (pahy-AK-yuh-ler): adjective 1. Expiatory; atoning; reparatory. 2. Requiring expiation; sinful or wicked

See the article here:
Daily Links – February 8, 2012
The annual federal budget is a whopping $3.6 trillion, but that figure fails to capture the true burden of government on taxpayers. There are a number of GSEs (government sponsored enterprises) that are considered off budget. Politicians use off-budget entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Postal Service to obfuscate the true cost of government. Additionally, the government runs a number of credit programs, in which taxpayers are on the hook for loan guarantees. These guarantees include loans for college students and for energy programs, such as the one that purveyed failed green energy programs like Solyndra. Under current law, Congress only factors in the cost of the loan itself when formulating the annual budget. Perforce, if the money is paid back with interest, there is no cost to the government. However, as we have learned so painfully, the loans are, all too often, never paid back. Taxpayers have been called on to bailout a modicum of failed loan guarantees. In the private sector, they use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of credit programs. Fair value accounts for the costs of the market risk the lender incurs by issuing a loan, in addition to the actual borrowing costs. Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 3581 – The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act (Scott Garrett). This legislation brings Freddie and Fannie back on budget so taxpayers can see the true cost of these officious and destructive enterprises. In addition, the bill will subject all loan guarantees to the “fair value” accounting method that is used in the private sector. Astoundingly, almost every Democrat voted no on this commonsense bill. Remember that this bill doesn’t mandate any changes to these programs or enterprises; it is not an ideologically charged bill. This legislation merely forces Congress to reflect the true cost of government in the annual budget, not unlike what every family does with their household budget. Sadly, even this moderate reform was too bold for Democrats. We will be forced to clash with members of the House leadership over the next few weeks, but we should commend them when they bring legislation from conservatives, such as this budget reform bill, to the floor. As for the Senate, we need to get them to agree to pass any budget, much less use prudent accounting methods. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Read the rest here:
House Republicans Pass Budget Transparency
Romney’s Colorado lesson
Rick Santorum swept the Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado caucuses last night. Enough ink has been spilled on Rick’s “big night,” which indeed it was, and I think the political implications are fairly obvious: it will put increasing pressure on Newt Gingrich to get out of the race to leave just one non-Romney (whereas I incorrectly predicted that the pressure would be the other way because, frankly, I didn’t see this coming). It’s true that Mitt Romney spent no resources in Minnesota and Missouri, and he would be expected to shrug off those losses for that reason, though the magnitude of the losses was significant. After all, if Romney spent no money in those contests, then that means that he and Santorum spent similar amounts of money — leading to Santorum more than doubling Romney’s vote in Missouri (55 percent to 25 percent) with another major drubbing in Minnesota (45 percent to 17 percent, with Ron Paul taking second with 27 percent). But as a resident of Colorado, that’s the caucus I want to talk about. I attended my local caucus, but since it’s in Boulder, there were only about 200 people there. Also, since it’s in Boulder, it is not reflective of the larger, more conservative parts of the state. That’s why the results at my caucus location had Romney just barely beating Ron Paul, with Santorum and Newt Gingrich a distant third and fourth. Like I said, not representative of more Republican areas of the state — and obviously not representative of the more conservative caucus-goers in Minnesota and Missouri. Although Santorum’s victory in Colorado was narrower than in the other two caucus states last night, winning 40 percent to 35 percent over Romney, with Newt Gingrich taking 13 percent and Ron Paul taking 12 percent, anything other than a Romney win here is an important surprise. Rick Santorum did have a couple of high-profile endorsements, such as from former Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer. But many big guns were out for Romney, including the popular former governor Bill Owens, former Senators Hank Brown and Wayne Allard, former Congressman Bob Beauprez, and current Attorney General John Suthers. Robo-calls featuring recorded voices of many of the above were received with annoying frequency across the state in the prior 48 hours. I got at least two robo-calls featuring Mitt Romney and two more from Ann Romney. Furthermore, Colorado was one of the strongest early pro-Romney states during the 2008 Republican primary contest, with Romney taking 60 percent of the vote, more than tripling John McCain’s 18 percent second-place finish. And the state Republican Party organized a live conference call (which I listened to) during which the very popular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie aggressively supported Romney as a true conservative, as most electable, and as a good person. If there were any state in which Romney should have been a prohibitive favorite last night, it was Colorado — and yet he lost. Perhaps the recent endorsement by the Denver Post of Romney as “right for Colorado Republicans” might have been the kiss of death, since the small number of conservatives on the editorial board there are routinely swamped by typical big-city newspaper liberals. So, what to make of a Santorum victory? At least in Colorado, it’s not just that Republican voters are worried that Romney isn’t a true conservative. They’re also sick and tired of “the establishment.” They’re tired of Republicans nominating the person who can claim to be “next in line”, who has diligently waited his turn, and who might lead to defeat against a beatable opponent, as we saw Bob Dole and John McCain, among others, do. Also, as a resident of Colorado, I didn’t see or hear a single negative ad aimed at Rick Santorum, quite out of character for Romney and the Super-PAC supporting him. Maybe they were around and I missed them, but there was certainly no saturation like we saw done to Newt Gingrich in Iowa. Maybe Romney was so confident that he decided not to spend money on advertising in that way. Maybe the fact that delegates won’t actually be awarded until April meant this contest was not worth buying airtime for. Who knows? But negative ads work, whether we like them or not, and it was surprising that there were so few here. But whatever the reason, losing Colorado should be a big wake-up call to Mitt Romney: He needs to show more passion and more principle. He has to be a better champion for conservative principles, not just technocratic “turnaround” expertise. He has to be more inspiring than his refrain of late that he “believes in America.” Heck, even Barack Obama can probably say that without his nose growing too much, just because it means so little. Romney has tremendous organization and a lot of money behind him. But as the country gets to know the candidates better, so that messaging in a particular state just before that state’s contest becomes a less dominant factor in voters’ opinions, he will have an increasingly difficult time winning if he doesn’t become a more appealing candidate to Republican activists. For this libertarian-leaning Republican, there is plenty not to like about Rick Santorum, not least his repeated statements that “I support the 10th Amendment, but…” with the next words being about some social issue that he wants to make a federal issue. There is, of course, plenty not to like about Mitt Romney, too, though those things are better-known than Santorum’s less-than-conservative positions. And I continue to believe that when the “mainstream” media is done with Rick Santorum, he’ll have a hard time winning anything. But when no gloves are laid on him, he’s proven himself with last night’s results to be the last anti-Romney going through the GOP wringer. Whether he’ll survive better than Perry, Cain, Bachmann, and others is yet to be seen. While I (and political bettors) still expect Romney to be the Republican nominee, his loss to Santorum in Colorado is, more than any prior result in this political season, a signal to me of Romney’s inherent weakness, and the remarkable change from 2008 when he ran as the conservative alternative to John McCain. No doubt Santorum struck a nerve last night when he said ““I don’t stand up here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. I am here claiming to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.” And as Rick Santorum was tossing that red meat to his Missouri audience, Mitt Romney was in Denver offering pablum about “restoring the values that have made America the greatest nation in the history of the earth,” calling for “fundamental, bold, dramatic change,” and asking supporters, with nary an ounce of passion, to “fight for the America we love because we believe in America and its Founding Principles…We have a long way to go, and I sure love this country.” Yawn. Come on, Mitt, you barely sounded sincere. The way you said “and I sure love this country” sounded as if you remembered a talking point which your consultants told you to mention every time you speak. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe in something, that you’re principled and not just a pragmatist. But you’re not making it easy. And with speeches like that, you’ll also start making me and others wonder whether you are indeed reasonably likely to beat Barack Obama. Everything Obama says is wrong, but at least he says it like he means it (his last State of the Union speech notwithstanding.) Colorado’s caucus results should be a slap in the face to the Romney campaign, perhaps the biggest one so far. Romney’s remarks last night show that at least in the minutes after he realized he was likely to be swept in three caucuses by a semi-appealing opponent with no financial backing, Mitt still hasn’t understood why.
View original post here:
Romney’s Colorado lesson