Going, going, gone…

Galt.

I agree with Ben Nelson…

“This should be the last stopgap bill. At a time we’re engaged in two wars, with a fragile economy, Washington needs to promote continuity and stability,” said Senator Nelson. “Instead, Washington continues to kick the can down the road in this irresponsible way only because it refuses to set aside partisan politics.”

via Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator for Nebraska: Washington Should Pass Full Year Budget To Stabilize Business, Jobs.

Harry Reid and the rest of Ben’s fellow Democrats need to set aside their irresponsible, hyper-partisan, obstructionist agenda, and get serious about cutting the budget.

Do I really need to state the obvious?

CR budget cut in perspective

U.S. Debt Jumped $72 Billion Same Day U.S. House Voted to Cut Spending $6 Billion | CNSnews.com.

Sigh.

Ben Nelson means business?

From Ben Nelson’s website:

SENATE VOTES 98-1 FOR NELSON AMENDMENT TO CUT U.S. SENATE BUDGET BY 5 PERCENT

Sounds impressive, doesn’t it?

Impressive, but ultimately meaningless.

Ben’s amendment is a “Sense of the Senate” amendment.  It is a non-binding amendment.  It does nothing but give Ben, and the 98 other senators that voted for it, another opportunity to demonstrate their “seriousness” about budget cuts without having to actually cut anything.

Impressed?

Who do you think cast the lone vote against Nelson’s meaningless amendment?

An opportunity for Ben Nelson to get serious

Yesterday, Ben Nelson voted against both the Republican and Democrat spending plans, claiming “neither one is serious.”

If Nelson really wants to get serious about “runaway government spending,” why doesn’t he support Rand Paul’s plan to cut $500 billion?   That’s $500 billion in one year.

Republican freshman Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation Tuesday that seeks to cut $500 billion from government spending in one year alone, wiping out three cabinet departments and the entire foreign aid budget while sparing neither the Pentagon nor 2011 war-related funding for overseas military operations.

Sounds good to me. At least it’s a serious start.

Come on, Ben.  Grow a pair.  Sen. Paul could use the support.

Dem strategy in a nutshell

The Democrats are, in effect, now arguing that Walker is being unreasonable by being reasonable. By calling their bluff, Walker has exposed their line about his “inflexibility” as a pure hot air. Their current stance amounts to “we’re against anything that might make Scott Walker look good.” [my emphasis]

via The Corner – National Review Online.

Hah!  I’m pretty sure that’s been the Dems approach in general.  Oppose whatever Republicans support.

Union related news

But it’s not about the money…

While protesters roared that their objection to Walker’s plan wasn’t “about the money,” their bargaining units were working furiously behind the scenes to grab as much cash as possible before Walker dropped the guillotine.

Just read it:   Wisconsin Officials Rush to Walker-Proof Their Benefits – By Christian Schneider – The Corner – National Review Online.

* * * *

Then there’s this:  A Major Case Could Reverse the Decline of Private-Sector Unionization – By Peter Kirsanow – The Corner – National Review Online.

A single case pending before the National Labor Relations Board has the potential to match or even exceed the significance of the events transpiring in Ohio and Wisconsin. Yet the case has flown under the radar screens of mainstream media, most employers, and the general public.

* * * * *

But it’s not all bad news.  In Michigan, an attempt to force private day care providers in that state to become members of a public sector union failed.  Michelle Malkin followed the story as it unfolded back in 2009.

Union  conspirators were UAW and AFSCM, with an assist from the Michigan Employment Relations Committee (i.e., a state agency).

* * * * *

Finally, Daniel DiSalvo on Why the Unions Fight (from The Weekly Standard):

So we come to where the rubber meets the road: the money unions spend on politicking. This money originates with taxpayers, who pay public employees’ salaries, a portion of which is deducted in the form of union dues and then used by the unions to support, almost exclusively, the Democratic party. The public, in effect, subsidizes a powerful demand for bigger government and higher taxes.

 

 

HR 1 Report Card – Fortenberry Fails

How serious are our Nebraska Congressmen about cutting government spending?  All three voted “yea” on the final version of HR 1, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.  More revealing are the trio’s voting record on the many amendments leading up to the final vote.

In the open debate leading up to House passage of HR 1, hundreds of amendments were offered, and over a hundred votes were cast.  Heritage Action (an offshoot of Heritage Foundation) examined the amendments and votes to determine which Congresscritters are truly serious about spending cuts.   Check out the complete post here.   A brief explanation (pulled from the Heritage post) follows:

Heritage Action compiled all of the votes on the amendments that proposed to cut non-security spending.  We excluded amendments that proposed to shift spending from one program to another or sought to block various Obama policies—whether it be the many amendments to defund Obamacare or turn off the EPA’s rule making authority.  For this exercise, we chose to look solely at the unambiguous spending cuts and to see how Congress did.

They came up with 21 amendments.

How did our Nebraska reps do?

Adrian Smith voted for spending cuts a respectable 95% of the time.  (Excluding one missed vote.)

Lee Terry was less impressive, voting for spending cuts 71% of the time.

Finally, Jeff Fortenberry scored lowly 43%?  That’s right.   Fortenberry cast more votes AGAINST “unambiguous spending cuts” than for them. Gotta wonder about his priorities.

Below is a spreadsheet listing all 21 amendments, and votes cast by all three of our Congresscritters.  The “X” in Adrian Smith’s column indicates he missed the vote.

From the voting record above, what can we learn about Jeff Fortenberry’s spending priorities? (In no particular order.)

Fortenberry voted AGAINST cutting $324.4 million in funding to the Legal Services Corporation.

What is the Legal Services Corporation?

LSC is the single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation. Established in 1974, LSC operates as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes equal access to justice and provides grants for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income Americans. LSC distributes about 95 percent of its total funding to 136 independent nonprofit legal aid programs with more than 900 offices that provide legal assistance to low-income individuals and families throughout the nation. [my emphasis]

So the Legal Services Corporation is a middleman.  They funnel taxpayer dollars to state and local level legal aid groups around the country, after keeping a % for overhead, of course.  How many other government programs exist that do the same thing?  Is this something the federal government should even be doing?

Fortenberry voted AGAINST cutting a paltry $35 million in “land acquisitions at various agencies”.  The federal government should be selling land, not buying land.  Instead, as Michelle Malkin reported last fall, the feds have been on a land buying spree, especially in western states.

Fortenberry voted AGAINST a $446.9 million cut in Amtrak spending? Dude, seriously?  Amtrak loses millions yearly, and should have been privatized years ago.

Fortenberry voted AGAINST cutting $233.4 million from the National Labor Relations Board?

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.

If the NLRB deals with private sector unions only, and union membership in that area has been declining steadily, why not cut back on funding?  [The latest BLS report available here]

Fortenberry voted AGAINST cutting $42.7 million from the U.S. Institute of Peace.   Yet another federal office I’ve never even heard of.  From the “About Us” page, it appears they merely duplicate the effort of the U.S. State Department, the U.S. military, and who knows how many other federal entities.

USIP provides the analysis, training and tools that prevent and end conflicts, promotes stability and professionalizes the field of peacebuilding.  [my emphasis]

Professionalizes the field of peacebuilding?

The institute was established by Congress in 1984, and will move into a brand new 115,000 square foot, $186 million building this fall.  Our tax dollars at work.

Fortenberry also voted AGAINST cutting $211.2 million from “multilateral assistance through international financial institutions”.

Okay, I get that Fortenberry is into international issues since being appointed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Here are a couple closer to home:  Fortenberry voted AGAINST an across-the-board cut of all funding by 5.5% and legislative branch spending by 11%, with certain exemptions (naturally), saving $22 billion.   He also voted AGAINST an amendment that would require all funding be reduced to 2006 levels, with certain exemptions (naturally), saving $34 billion.

I understand that some Republicans voted against across-the-board amendments out of principle. Wonder what Fortenberry’s excuse was.

In the weeks leading up to the final vote on HR 1, I looked for Fortenberry to issue some sort of statement regarding the budget mess.  Instead, the “Fort Reports” and media releases dealt primarily with international issues.

So what is the takeaway from all of this?

Jeff Fortenberry is not serious about cutting government spending.

His recent email about “Getting a Start on the Debt Problem” is full of the usual canned bullsh*t,  calling for “shared sacrifice” and “tough decisions.”   Fortenberry is late to the party if he’s just now “getting a start” on our national debt problem.

Leftists on the march in Lincoln

Communist and former White House Czar, Van Jones, is calling for Leftists around the country to march on all 50 state capitols this Saturday, 26 Feb, at noon.

66 gatherings are currently planned.

Check out this story at The Blaze, and this post at RedState for more.

I already have plans for Saturday, but hopefully there will be plenty of camera-toting anti-communists on hand to record the festivities.  Susy may appreciate the company.

In addition to MoveOn.org, the rallies are sponsored by the usual suspects (minus Obama’s Organizing for America).

The PJ Tatler » Democrats gone wild, subverting our democracy (Updated)

This president and his party have gone over the cliff into lawlessness. At this point, I wouldn’t put impeachment off the table for discussion. The president is intentionally stoking a constitutional crisis, while his party fosters anarchy in the states. These acts cannot stand.

via The PJ Tatler » Democrats gone wild, subverting our democracy (Updated).

Impeachment?  Can you imagine the reaction of Libtards everywhere to the idea?  I can already hear some of my co-workers screeching “RAAACIST!!!”

Is there a Republican alive that has the stones to even raise the issue?  I don’t think so. (Well, maybe Allan West.)

Hell, even if they did, and he was, he’d probably refuse to recognize it and remain in office.