“A budget is values,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office and an adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “When you put together a budget, you display where you’re going to put the nation’s resources and what you care about.”

(HT:Washingtonexaminer)

Something went wrong with the universe after the Puerto Rican GOP Primary. Mitt Romney not only made an accidental relevant statement, he made an intelligent and acutely cutting statement. He pointed out that nobody with a time horizon much beyond November 2012 could cast an intelligent vote for the Democrats. His actual quote was “I don’t see how anyone who is a young person could vote for a Democrat, I’m going to be honest with you.”

I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, but when he said that, he explained what we need to be shouting from the rooftops about the American Left. They have no values, they have no vision, and they offer no future. Well, they do offer a future; it’s just not a particularly bright or promising one. The chart below gives you the details. Maintaining Barack Obama’s current budgetary practices will spend our great nation into its grave and they know it.

The Current Path Is A Highway To Hell

Why do I believe they will spend us into perdition? Well as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have told us recently; past performance is a powerful indicator of future results. CBS News explains how things have gone under the first 3 and 1/3 years of Barack Obama’s Presidency.

The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency. The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

Barack Obama Wastes More in 3 Years Than GWB Did In 8. Yells "It's All Bush's Fault!!"

It would be grossly unfair to blame just Barack Obama for this deficit. It would be meaner than going on Fox News calling the poor man a Moslem! Barack Obama had plenty of help with the deficit. Despite the unequivocal language of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party had the following things to say about the impending 2012 budget process.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid told reporters last month, arguing that legislation setting limits on spending is sufficient. “The fact is, you don’t need a budget,” agreed fellow Democrat and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer a few weeks ago. “We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

The more accurate statement of fact would be that Barack Obama, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid do not want there to be a budget. A budget restricts your choices to something less than “all of the above”, “more than I can possibly afford” or “whatever the [barnyard epithet] gets me elected next time.” It’s always saying the magical word “No” that requires a set of nuts and a set of values.

This explains why no budget has made it to Barack Obama’s desk for 1,056 days. It explains why the US Senate has not passed one since 2009. It explains why House Minority Whip Hoyer does not want one to go up for a vote this year either.

Yet like Sisyphus, Republican Paul Ryan will try to bring Congress back into compliance with its own Federal Law. He will yet again attempt to pass his budget and cut $5.3 Tr from future domestic spending. The Democrats will predictably rerun their infamous advertisement showing him pushing Grandma Wheelchair off of a cliff. But Ryan has looked into the Abyss that is Southern Europe, and he’s seen Illinois, Rhode Island, California…(and quite possibly the other 54 states as well).

For his efforts to at least mitigate the problems of our profligacy Ryan will be castigated, stone-walled and ultimately defeated in 2012. This is when whomever we nominate needs to do more of what Mitt Romney did in his Chicago speech. When the Democrats hide from the future they arrogantly and self-righteously bluster that they represent, the Republicans need to call them on it. Those deficit charts need to be stapled to every Democratic Congressional Candidate’s forehead. This is the only way we can force our Congress to actual pass a budget. This budget is the only way to make our government actually make a choice.

“A budget is values,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office and an adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “When you put together a budget, you display where you’re going to put the nation’s resources and what you care about.”

(HT:Washingtonexaminer)

Something went wrong with the universe after the Puerto Rican GOP Primary. Mitt Romney not only made an accidental relevant statement, he made an intelligent and acutely cutting statement. He pointed out that nobody with a time horizon much beyond November 2012 could cast an intelligent vote for the Democrats. His actual quote was “I don’t see how anyone who is a young person could vote for a Democrat, I’m going to be honest with you.”

I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, but when he said that, he explained what we need to be shouting from the rooftops about the American Left. They have no values, they have no vision, and they offer no future. Well, they do offer a future; it’s just not a particularly bright or promising one. The chart below gives you the details. Maintaining Barack Obama’s current budgetary practices will spend our great nation into its grave and they know it.

The Current Path Is A Highway To Hell

Why do I believe they will spend us into perdition? Well as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have told us recently; past performance is a powerful indicator of future results. CBS News explains how things have gone under the first 3 and 1/3 years of Barack Obama’s Presidency.

The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency. The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

Barack Obama Wastes More in 3 Years Than GWB Did In 8. Yells "It's All Bush's Fault!!"

It would be grossly unfair to blame just Barack Obama for this deficit. It would be meaner than going on Fox News calling the poor man a Moslem! Barack Obama had plenty of help with the deficit. Despite the unequivocal language of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party had the following things to say about the impending 2012 budget process.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid told reporters last month, arguing that legislation setting limits on spending is sufficient. “The fact is, you don’t need a budget,” agreed fellow Democrat and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer a few weeks ago. “We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

The more accurate statement of fact would be that Barack Obama, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid do not want there to be a budget. A budget restricts your choices to something less than “all of the above”, “more than I can possibly afford” or “whatever the [barnyard epithet] gets me elected next time.” It’s always saying the magical word “No” that requires a set of nuts and a set of values.

This explains why no budget has made it to Barack Obama’s desk for 1,056 days. It explains why the US Senate has not passed one since 2009. It explains why House Minority Whip Hoyer does not want one to go up for a vote this year either.

Yet like Sisyphus, Republican Paul Ryan will try to bring Congress back into compliance with its own Federal Law. He will yet again attempt to pass his budget and cut $5.3 Tr from future domestic spending. The Democrats will predictably rerun their infamous advertisement showing him pushing Grandma Wheelchair off of a cliff. But Ryan has looked into the Abyss that is Southern Europe, and he’s seen Illinois, Rhode Island, California…(and quite possibly the other 54 states as well).

For his efforts to at least mitigate the problems of our profligacy Ryan will be castigated, stone-walled and ultimately defeated in 2012. This is when whomever we nominate needs to do more of what Mitt Romney did in his Chicago speech. When the Democrats hide from the future they arrogantly and self-righteously bluster that they represent, the Republicans need to call them on it. Those deficit charts need to be stapled to every Democratic Congressional Candidate’s forehead. This is the only way we can force our Congress to actual pass a budget. This budget is the only way to make our government actually make a choice.

Last week, the House passed a slam-dunk jobs bill (H.R. 3606) 390-23.  The bill reduces red tape, securities regulations, and reporting requirements on small companies that desire to go public.  It also eliminated some of the new regulations implemented under Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley on companies that generate less than $1 billion in annual revenue.  With all the unctuous complaints about partisanship, one would expect the Senate to harness this rare opportunity to work together and pass the bill expeditiously.  With Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, all bets are off.

Reid announced that he would bring the House bill to the floor, but would attempt to attach a non-germane amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which expires May 31, through 2015 and raise its loan limit from $100 billion to $140 billion.  He is taking a no-brainer bill and sinking it with a poison pill.  What’s worse, the consideration of the House jobs bill was supposed to be the prize to Republicans for agreeing not to block Obama’s judicial nominees that are being rammed through the Senate in short order.

Unfortunately, the Ex-Im corporate welfare bank is not necessarily a poison pill for many Republicans.  In typical pale-pastel fashion, House leaders planned to bring a separate Ex-Im bill to the floor that would enact one-year reauthorization at $113 billion.

At a time when we are fighting against Obama’s corporate welfare, why are we picking winners and losers in the market by extending taxpayer loans to entities that are too risky to receive private-sector loans?  When we are scouring Obama over his loans to failed solar energy companies, why are we agreeing to expand the Fannie Mae of corporate welfare?

Republicans must call out Harry Reid for his duplicity and must stand united against the Ex-Im Bank reuthorization.

Last week, the House passed a slam-dunk jobs bill (H.R. 3606) 390-23.  The bill reduces red tape, securities regulations, and reporting requirements on small companies that desire to go public.  It also eliminated some of the new regulations implemented under Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley on companies that generate less than $1 billion in annual revenue.  With all the unctuous complaints about partisanship, one would expect the Senate to harness this rare opportunity to work together and pass the bill expeditiously.  With Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, all bets are off.

Reid announced that he would bring the House bill to the floor, but would attempt to attach a non-germane amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which expires May 31, through 2015 and raise its loan limit from $100 billion to $140 billion.  He is taking a no-brainer bill and sinking it with a poison pill.  What’s worse, the consideration of the House jobs bill was supposed to be the prize to Republicans for agreeing not to block Obama’s judicial nominees that are being rammed through the Senate in short order.

Unfortunately, the Ex-Im corporate welfare bank is not necessarily a poison pill for many Republicans.  In typical pale-pastel fashion, House leaders planned to bring a separate Ex-Im bill to the floor that would enact one-year reauthorization at $113 billion.

At a time when we are fighting against Obama’s corporate welfare, why are we picking winners and losers in the market by extending taxpayer loans to entities that are too risky to receive private-sector loans?  When we are scouring Obama over his loans to failed solar energy companies, why are we agreeing to expand the Fannie Mae of corporate welfare?

Republicans must call out Harry Reid for his duplicity and must stand united against the Ex-Im Bank reuthorization.

Harry Reid, the floor leader of the Democrats in the United States Senate, the most influential Democrat in the entire Congress, is innumerate. You see, he not only lacks an understanding of mathematics, apparently having no understanding of what kinds of sample sizes are needed to get an accurate sense of American public opinion, but he is also actively promoting his anti-math viewpoint against statistical, scientific polling.

Innumeracy is a real problem in America, said to be associated with problems like belief in pseudoscience, higher debt, problem gambling, and limited job prospects. Sadly, America is already suffering some of these consequences under the poor leadership of Harry Reid and his party. Since Harry Reid took over the Senate our debt has indeed skyrocketed, thanks in part to the failure of the Harry Reid Senate even to pass a budget at all, America’s job prospects have diminished, and the fad of global warming pseudoscience has continued unabated.

It’s easy to see why Clark County, Nevada wanted to return him to the Senate though, since innumeracy is what keeps the lights on there. I don’t understand why we must endure him as our Senate Majority Leader any more, though. Let’s take the Senate and knock him off in November.

Mathematics is at the heart of science. Millions of students of science all across America learn every day about how confidence intervals are a basic tool in understanding data. The typical Margin of Error cited for a poll is simply a particular way of stating the 95% confidence interval of the data gathered in the survey.

This is a subject from Chapter One of the government’s own Engineering Statistics Handbook, and a subject matter that any serious student of gambling should also know about. It’s shocking that a four-year Chariman of the Nevada Gaming Commission would not understand the application and limits of variance to random results.

What’s interesting though is that Harry Reid didn’t used to be quite this innumerate. Even though now he claims that relatively small samples are inappropriate for measuring the opinions of “300 million people,” in the past he claimed that as few as 1200 people were enough to tell us popular opinion on SCHIP.

It would be unkind of me to suggest that Harry Reid’s sudden and vocal innumeracy was a dishonest effort motivated by political calculations, so I’ll instead float the idea that Reid suffers from late-onset Dyscalculia.

Harry Reid, the floor leader of the Democrats in the United States Senate, the most influential Democrat in the entire Congress, is innumerate. You see, he not only lacks an understanding of mathematics, apparently having no understanding of what kinds of sample sizes are needed to get an accurate sense of American public opinion, but he is also actively promoting his anti-math viewpoint against statistical, scientific polling.

Innumeracy is a real problem in America, said to be associated with problems like belief in pseudoscience, higher debt, problem gambling, and limited job prospects. Sadly, America is already suffering some of these consequences under the poor leadership of Harry Reid and his party. Since Harry Reid took over the Senate our debt has indeed skyrocketed, thanks in part to the failure of the Harry Reid Senate even to pass a budget at all, America’s job prospects have diminished, and the fad of global warming pseudoscience has continued unabated.

It’s easy to see why Clark County, Nevada wanted to return him to the Senate though, since innumeracy is what keeps the lights on there. I don’t understand why we must endure him as our Senate Majority Leader any more, though. Let’s take the Senate and knock him off in November.

Mathematics is at the heart of science. Millions of students of science all across America learn every day about how confidence intervals are a basic tool in understanding data. The typical Margin of Error cited for a poll is simply a particular way of stating the 95% confidence interval of the data gathered in the survey.

This is a subject from Chapter One of the government’s own Engineering Statistics Handbook, and a subject matter that any serious student of gambling should also know about. It’s shocking that a four-year Chariman of the Nevada Gaming Commission would not understand the application and limits of variance to random results.

What’s interesting though is that Harry Reid didn’t used to be quite this innumerate. Even though now he claims that relatively small samples are inappropriate for measuring the opinions of “300 million people,” in the past he claimed that as few as 1200 people were enough to tell us popular opinion on SCHIP.

It would be unkind of me to suggest that Harry Reid’s sudden and vocal innumeracy was a dishonest effort motivated by political calculations, so I’ll instead float the idea that Reid suffers from late-onset Dyscalculia.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has tossed some red meat to his left wing base who have called for an end to the filibuster.  On Monday, Reid filed cloture on 17 district court nominations as a means to argue that Republicans are obstructing President Obama’s judicial nominations.  According to one Senate study, President Obama and President George W. Bush’s nominations are on the same pace. Reid’s allegations of Republican obstructionism are pure politics. 

Republicans are not obstructing Obama judges nor are they even filibustering any of these 17 judges today.  If you turn on CSPAN to view this Senate filibuster of 17 judges, you will be disappointed.  You will not see an extended debate of these 17 Obama nominations, yet will instead see a debate of the Senate highway bill or an extended quorum call. 

Reid is trying to trick the American people into thinking that Republicans are a bunch of obstructionists who are on the Senate floor filibustering judges and legislation.  I bet if you cornered all 100 Senators, including Reid, and asked them to recite the names of these 17 judges who are being “debated” this week, not one could get through even five of the names.  American politics is entering silly season and this fake filibuster is yet another example of the lengths some politicians will go to make a political point.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee (Senate RPC) put out a blog post today comparing the pace of Obama confirmations to President George W. Bush’s nominations.  Obama’s nominees are being confirmed at a similar pace to Bush’s.

President Obama already has more lower court confirmations (129) in three years of his presidency than President Bush had in his final four years (120). Supreme Court nominations require far more time and effort both by the Judiciary Committee and the rest of the Senate, and leave less time for consideration of other judges. That is why the fairest comparison is how each President fared during the presidential term in which he had Supreme Court nominations.

The Senate RPC  argues that even if you compare Bush’s first term to Obama’s current term in office, they both had about the same ratio of lower court confirmations — the same lower courts that Reid is trying to install 17 new justices.

In other words, although President Obama has fewer lower court confirmations than President Bush did in his first term, President Obama made far fewer judicial nominations in the first three years of his presidency than President Bush did in his first three years (173 versus 215). Considering the smaller number of nominations made by President Obama, as well as the considerable time spent processing his two Supreme Court nominees, it’s hard to see where President Obama is being treated unfairly. President Obama has had about the same number of lower court confirmations relative to the number of nominations he has made.

Here are the nominations by the numbers using the Senate RPC data.  

• Average number of days from nomination to confirmation Bush 211 days — Obama 218 days;
• For 83 judicial vacancies, the Obama Administration has made only 39 nominations;
• There are 44 judicial vacancies without any nomination from the President;
• 17 of 39 nominations are stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee; and,
• 61 out of 83 current vacancies are either in the Obama White House (44) or Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee (17).

As I wrote yesterday in my post Fake Filibuster Outrage From Left, there is no filibuster going on right now. 

These nominees were never blocked by any obstructionism.  They were never debated.  There has not been one word of debate on the Senate floor.  Furthermore, if many Republicans voted for the bulk of these nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is likely that they will pass pretty easily.  Reid is trying to break the back of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for objecting to President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointment.

This fake battle over the filibuster this week will test the strength of Republicans in the face of a Senate Majority Leader Reid’s bullying tactics.  Conservatives will be looking to see if Republicans join Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) who has already stood up to the bully or back down.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has tossed some red meat to his left wing base who have called for an end to the filibuster.  On Monday, Reid filed cloture on 17 district court nominations as a means to argue that Republicans are obstructing President Obama’s judicial nominations.  According to one Senate study, President Obama and President George W. Bush’s nominations are on the same pace. Reid’s allegations of Republican obstructionism are pure politics. 

Republicans are not obstructing Obama judges nor are they even filibustering any of these 17 judges today.  If you turn on CSPAN to view this Senate filibuster of 17 judges, you will be disappointed.  You will not see an extended debate of these 17 Obama nominations, yet will instead see a debate of the Senate highway bill or an extended quorum call. 

Reid is trying to trick the American people into thinking that Republicans are a bunch of obstructionists who are on the Senate floor filibustering judges and legislation.  I bet if you cornered all 100 Senators, including Reid, and asked them to recite the names of these 17 judges who are being “debated” this week, not one could get through even five of the names.  American politics is entering silly season and this fake filibuster is yet another example of the lengths some politicians will go to make a political point.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee (Senate RPC) put out a blog post today comparing the pace of Obama confirmations to President George W. Bush’s nominations.  Obama’s nominees are being confirmed at a similar pace to Bush’s.

President Obama already has more lower court confirmations (129) in three years of his presidency than President Bush had in his final four years (120). Supreme Court nominations require far more time and effort both by the Judiciary Committee and the rest of the Senate, and leave less time for consideration of other judges. That is why the fairest comparison is how each President fared during the presidential term in which he had Supreme Court nominations.

The Senate RPC  argues that even if you compare Bush’s first term to Obama’s current term in office, they both had about the same ratio of lower court confirmations — the same lower courts that Reid is trying to install 17 new justices.

In other words, although President Obama has fewer lower court confirmations than President Bush did in his first term, President Obama made far fewer judicial nominations in the first three years of his presidency than President Bush did in his first three years (173 versus 215). Considering the smaller number of nominations made by President Obama, as well as the considerable time spent processing his two Supreme Court nominees, it’s hard to see where President Obama is being treated unfairly. President Obama has had about the same number of lower court confirmations relative to the number of nominations he has made.

Here are the nominations by the numbers using the Senate RPC data.  

• Average number of days from nomination to confirmation Bush 211 days — Obama 218 days;
• For 83 judicial vacancies, the Obama Administration has made only 39 nominations;
• There are 44 judicial vacancies without any nomination from the President;
• 17 of 39 nominations are stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee; and,
• 61 out of 83 current vacancies are either in the Obama White House (44) or Democrat controlled Senate Judiciary Committee (17).

As I wrote yesterday in my post Fake Filibuster Outrage From Left, there is no filibuster going on right now. 

These nominees were never blocked by any obstructionism.  They were never debated.  There has not been one word of debate on the Senate floor.  Furthermore, if many Republicans voted for the bulk of these nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is likely that they will pass pretty easily.  Reid is trying to break the back of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for objecting to President Obama’s unconstitutional recess appointment.

This fake battle over the filibuster this week will test the strength of Republicans in the face of a Senate Majority Leader Reid’s bullying tactics.  Conservatives will be looking to see if Republicans join Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) who has already stood up to the bully or back down.