Last year, we were proud to be one of the first websites to publicly promote the Republican Study Committee’s Cut, Cap and Balance (CCB) plan.  What started out as an idea hatched by a few principled conservatives grew into a unifying rallying cry for the entire conservative movement.  Sadly, GOP leadership jettisoned the universally-heralded CCB plan in favor of the Budget [Out of] Control Act, which gave Obama another $2.1 trillion in debt authority, while cutting nothing significantly except for defense.

Now, thanks to the indefatigable work of Reps. Jim Jordan, Scott Garrett, Mick Mulvaney, Tom McClintock, and Tim Huelskamp, CCB is back in the form of the annual RSC budget – and it’s here to stay.  The RSC budget – Cut, Cap, and Balance – immediately cuts discretionary spending in FY 2013 by $112 billion from last year’s spending levels, caps future spending at 18-18.7% of GDP, and balances the budget in just 5 years!  Overall, the RSC budget will cut $7.6 trillion relative to Obama’s budget and even $2.3 trillion more than the Ryan budget.

The amazing thing is that the balanced budget is achieved without accounting for the reforms to the biggest drivers of the deficits; Social Security and Medicare.  The budget proposal includes Paul Ryan’s Medicare premium support plan, and even adds Social Security reform (unlike the Ryan budget).  However, those changes don’t begin until after the 10-year budget frame.  As such, none of the savings are included in the budget.

While it is clear that those two leviathans must be reformed in order to maintain a balanced budget in the long-run, this budget illustrates something unique in budget land.  It is the first proposal that shows how to balance the budget in 5 years, even without reforming SS and Medicare immediately.  This does not diminish the importance of reforming those programs; rather it shows how much dead wood is lodged into the rest of the budget – an observation that is often overlooked.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the budget proposal:

Discretionary Spending: This budget sets the FY 2013 discretionary spending cap at $931 billion,roughly equal to 2008 levels.  That’s hardly too much to ask for.  It takes the $1.028 trillion level established in the Ryan budget and bakes in the $97 billion of impending sequester cuts (slated to begin on January 2) into the budget from the beginning of the year.  Specifically, it parries away the cuts from defense spending and directs it to the harmful, wasteful, and unconstitutional government programs and agencies.  The list of programs that will be terminated includes the National Labor Relations Board, Trade Adjustment Assistance, the Presidential Campaign Fund, the Legal Services Corporation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Universal Service Fund, the Economic Development Agency, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Here is the key point: All discretionary spending is frozen at the $931 billion level until the budget balances in FY 2017.  From FY 2018-2022, growth of discretionary spending is capped to inflation.  Moreover, in order to keep total discretionary spending at this level, while simultaneously providing for our national security needs, the sub-category of defense spending is allowed to rise gradually (the same levels as the Ryan budget), as non-defense discretionary spending actually declines every year until FY 2018.  Overall, the RSC budget saves about $750 billion more in discretionary spending than the Ryan budget.

Medicaid and Welfare: The paramount entitlement reform of the budget is Medicaid reform.  The proposal incorporates the recently-introduced State Health Flexibility Act (H.R. 4160), which combines Medicaid and SCHIP into one block grant to the states, allowing them to do with it whatever they deem prudent.  Unlike the Ryan plan, this proposal would freeze the block grant at FY 2012 levels (in nominal dollars) for ten years. Overall, the RSC budget saves $760 billion more than the Ryan budget from Medicaid/CHIP proposal and over $2 trillion from the current baseline.

For other mandatory programs, the budget incorporates the RSC’s Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1167).  Once unemployment dips below 6.5%, this bill would freeze all spending on the 77 means-tested programs at 2007 levels (pre-recession welfare payments), rising only with inflation.  It would also place some budget constraints on these “mandatory” programs, and subject the Food Stamp program to the same work requirements that were placed on TANF under the 1996 welfare reform bill.  Total savings from welfare reform will be $260 billion over 10 years.

Other reforms include:

• Requiring current federal workers to contribute more to their pensions and health benefits, while limiting the rate of growth of federal pensions to the “Chained-CPI.”
• Cutting agriculture subsidies by abolishing the Direct Payment farm subsidy, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the Market Access Program.
• Privatizing Freddie and Fannie
• Eliminating all mandatory spending for Pell Grants, subjecting 100% of price tag to the annual budget process.

Taxes:  In addition to balancing the budget in 5 years, the RSC plan would also enact pro-growth tax reform, “The Jobs Through Growth Act,” aiming for the same revenue baseline as the Ryan budget.  It would offer an optional transition to a new, flatter system that contains just two rates: 15% (first $50,000 taxable income for single filers, $100,000 for joint filers) and 25% (taxable income above that).  In order to ensure that there is no increased burden on middle-income families with several children; couples would get a $25,000 standard deduction and an additional $12,500 deduction for each dependent.  After this generous pro-family deduction, all other credits and deductions are eliminated, thereby putting an end to market distortions through the tax system.

The bill further calls for abolishing the death tax and AMT.  The corporate tax would be lowered to 25% and transformed to a territorial system.  Capital Gains taxes would be capped at 15% and indexed for inflation, so only the amount of gains beyond the level of inflation would be taxed.  Some other tax proposals offer slightly bolder plans for the capgains and corporate taxes, but the beauty of this plan is that it facilitates a balanced budget, even working with the inaccurate static scoring of the CBO.

In conclusion, this budget offers the broad contours for any serious plan to balance the budget, and more importantly, shrink the size of government.  On Thursday, the Cut, Cap, and Balance budget will be proposed as a floor amendment (H. Con. Res. 113) to the Ryan budget.  This will be one of those votes that shows who is willing to substantiate their commitments to spending cuts and limited government with real action.  It will also grant those who voted to kill CCB last year a second chance to right the ship.

Long live Cut Cap and Balance!

Last year, we were proud to be one of the first websites to publicly promote the Republican Study Committee’s Cut, Cap and Balance (CCB) plan.  What started out as an idea hatched by a few principled conservatives grew into a unifying rallying cry for the entire conservative movement.  Sadly, GOP leadership jettisoned the universally-heralded CCB plan in favor of the Budget [Out of] Control Act, which gave Obama another $2.1 trillion in debt authority, while cutting nothing significantly except for defense.

Now, thanks to the indefatigable work of Reps. Jim Jordan, Scott Garrett, Mick Mulvaney, Tom McClintock, and Tim Huelskamp, CCB is back in the form of the annual RSC budget – and it’s here to stay.  The RSC budget – Cut, Cap, and Balance – immediately cuts discretionary spending in FY 2013 by $112 billion from last year’s spending levels, caps future spending at 18-18.7% of GDP, and balances the budget in just 5 years!  Overall, the RSC budget will cut $7.6 trillion relative to Obama’s budget and even $2.3 trillion more than the Ryan budget.

The amazing thing is that the balanced budget is achieved without accounting for the reforms to the biggest drivers of the deficits; Social Security and Medicare.  The budget proposal includes Paul Ryan’s Medicare premium support plan, and even adds Social Security reform (unlike the Ryan budget).  However, those changes don’t begin until after the 10-year budget frame.  As such, none of the savings are included in the budget.

While it is clear that those two leviathans must be reformed in order to maintain a balanced budget in the long-run, this budget illustrates something unique in budget land.  It is the first proposal that shows how to balance the budget in 5 years, even without reforming SS and Medicare immediately.  This does not diminish the importance of reforming those programs; rather it shows how much dead wood is lodged into the rest of the budget – an observation that is often overlooked.

Here is a detailed breakdown of the budget proposal:

Discretionary Spending: This budget sets the FY 2013 discretionary spending cap at $931 billion,roughly equal to 2008 levels.  That’s hardly too much to ask for.  It takes the $1.028 trillion level established in the Ryan budget and bakes in the $97 billion of impending sequester cuts (slated to begin on January 2) into the budget from the beginning of the year.  Specifically, it parries away the cuts from defense spending and directs it to the harmful, wasteful, and unconstitutional government programs and agencies.  The list of programs that will be terminated includes the National Labor Relations Board, Trade Adjustment Assistance, the Presidential Campaign Fund, the Legal Services Corporation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Universal Service Fund, the Economic Development Agency, and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Here is the key point: All discretionary spending is frozen at the $931 billion level until the budget balances in FY 2017.  From FY 2018-2022, growth of discretionary spending is capped to inflation.  Moreover, in order to keep total discretionary spending at this level, while simultaneously providing for our national security needs, the sub-category of defense spending is allowed to rise gradually (the same levels as the Ryan budget), as non-defense discretionary spending actually declines every year until FY 2018.  Overall, the RSC budget saves about $750 billion more in discretionary spending than the Ryan budget.

Medicaid and Welfare: The paramount entitlement reform of the budget is Medicaid reform.  The proposal incorporates the recently-introduced State Health Flexibility Act (H.R. 4160), which combines Medicaid and SCHIP into one block grant to the states, allowing them to do with it whatever they deem prudent.  Unlike the Ryan plan, this proposal would freeze the block grant at FY 2012 levels (in nominal dollars) for ten years. Overall, the RSC budget saves $760 billion more than the Ryan budget from Medicaid/CHIP proposal and over $2 trillion from the current baseline.

For other mandatory programs, the budget incorporates the RSC’s Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (H.R. 1167).  Once unemployment dips below 6.5%, this bill would freeze all spending on the 77 means-tested programs at 2007 levels (pre-recession welfare payments), rising only with inflation.  It would also place some budget constraints on these “mandatory” programs, and subject the Food Stamp program to the same work requirements that were placed on TANF under the 1996 welfare reform bill.  Total savings from welfare reform will be $260 billion over 10 years.

Other reforms include:

• Requiring current federal workers to contribute more to their pensions and health benefits, while limiting the rate of growth of federal pensions to the “Chained-CPI.”
• Cutting agriculture subsidies by abolishing the Direct Payment farm subsidy, the Foreign Market Development Program, and the Market Access Program.
• Privatizing Freddie and Fannie
• Eliminating all mandatory spending for Pell Grants, subjecting 100% of price tag to the annual budget process.

Taxes:  In addition to balancing the budget in 5 years, the RSC plan would also enact pro-growth tax reform, “The Jobs Through Growth Act,” aiming for the same revenue baseline as the Ryan budget.  It would offer an optional transition to a new, flatter system that contains just two rates: 15% (first $50,000 taxable income for single filers, $100,000 for joint filers) and 25% (taxable income above that).  In order to ensure that there is no increased burden on middle-income families with several children; couples would get a $25,000 standard deduction and an additional $12,500 deduction for each dependent.  After this generous pro-family deduction, all other credits and deductions are eliminated, thereby putting an end to market distortions through the tax system.

The bill further calls for abolishing the death tax and AMT.  The corporate tax would be lowered to 25% and transformed to a territorial system.  Capital Gains taxes would be capped at 15% and indexed for inflation, so only the amount of gains beyond the level of inflation would be taxed.  Some other tax proposals offer slightly bolder plans for the capgains and corporate taxes, but the beauty of this plan is that it facilitates a balanced budget, even working with the inaccurate static scoring of the CBO.

In conclusion, this budget offers the broad contours for any serious plan to balance the budget, and more importantly, shrink the size of government.  On Thursday, the Cut, Cap, and Balance budget will be proposed as a floor amendment (H. Con. Res. 113) to the Ryan budget.  This will be one of those votes that shows who is willing to substantiate their commitments to spending cuts and limited government with real action.  It will also grant those who voted to kill CCB last year a second chance to right the ship.

Long live Cut Cap and Balance!

Paul Ryan is set to release the details of the House Republican budget resolution tomorrow.  While liberals, conservatives, tea partiers, etc. will have plenty to say about the content of the budget, we must all acknowledge that Ryan has worked assiduously to formulate a coherent blueprint for a responsible budget.  The same cannot be said for his counterpart in the Senate.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has not produced a budget of any sort in almost 1100 days!  Yet, he has the temerity to call Ryan’s budget a “breach of faith.”  CQ reports:

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and Appropriations Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, acting ahead of a House Republican action to lower discretionary spending below the level agreed to last year, on Monday urged GOP leaders to stick to the level set in a pact with the White House.

In a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, they said if the House GOP adopts lower spending levels it would delay action on this year’s appropriations bills and represent “a breach of faith that will make it more difficult to negotiate future agreements.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., plans to unveil a budget on Tuesday with a fiscal 2013 discretionary spending limit of $1.028 trillion, $19 billion less than the $1.047 trillion limit in the debt limit law (PL 112-25).

There are two glaring points that are overlooked in this puerile letter.  First, the Budget Control Act did not dictate a set level of spending; it established a cap.  In other words, we cannot breach the $1.047 trillion spending level, but there is nothing stopping us from the imperative to spend less.  Conrad makes it seem like it’s a cardinal sin to underspend the caps.  Only in Washington can someone advance such logic with so much conviction.

Moreover, Conrad is wrong about $1.047 being the bottom line figure, even under the BCA.  We all know that on January 1, 2013, three months after the start of the fiscal year, there will be an automatic sequester of $97 billion in spending.  Consequently, the ultimate spending cap for FY 2013 will actually be $950 billion.  It is more responsible to get out ahead of the sequester and steer the $97 billion to targeted expenditures rather than sit idly while the sequester cuts a disproportionate amount from the military, and does so indiscriminately.

Then again, Conrad doesn’t know too much about prudent budgeting because he doesn’t believe in budgets.  Instead of doing the hard work of creating a budget, Conrad plans to slightly embellish the BCA and deem it a budget resolution.  That’s a “breach in trust” of those who elected him to formulate a budget.

On the other hand, it’s hard to blame Conrad for his timidity.  If you don’t propose a plan to tackle such politically benign issues as…. entitlements, the tax code, welfare, and farm subsidies, nobody can criticize it.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Paul Ryan is set to release the details of the House Republican budget resolution tomorrow.  While liberals, conservatives, tea partiers, etc. will have plenty to say about the content of the budget, we must all acknowledge that Ryan has worked assiduously to formulate a coherent blueprint for a responsible budget.  The same cannot be said for his counterpart in the Senate.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has not produced a budget of any sort in almost 1100 days!  Yet, he has the temerity to call Ryan’s budget a “breach of faith.”  CQ reports:

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and Appropriations Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, acting ahead of a House Republican action to lower discretionary spending below the level agreed to last year, on Monday urged GOP leaders to stick to the level set in a pact with the White House.

In a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, they said if the House GOP adopts lower spending levels it would delay action on this year’s appropriations bills and represent “a breach of faith that will make it more difficult to negotiate future agreements.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., plans to unveil a budget on Tuesday with a fiscal 2013 discretionary spending limit of $1.028 trillion, $19 billion less than the $1.047 trillion limit in the debt limit law (PL 112-25).

There are two glaring points that are overlooked in this puerile letter.  First, the Budget Control Act did not dictate a set level of spending; it established a cap.  In other words, we cannot breach the $1.047 trillion spending level, but there is nothing stopping us from the imperative to spend less.  Conrad makes it seem like it’s a cardinal sin to underspend the caps.  Only in Washington can someone advance such logic with so much conviction.

Moreover, Conrad is wrong about $1.047 being the bottom line figure, even under the BCA.  We all know that on January 1, 2013, three months after the start of the fiscal year, there will be an automatic sequester of $97 billion in spending.  Consequently, the ultimate spending cap for FY 2013 will actually be $950 billion.  It is more responsible to get out ahead of the sequester and steer the $97 billion to targeted expenditures rather than sit idly while the sequester cuts a disproportionate amount from the military, and does so indiscriminately.

Then again, Conrad doesn’t know too much about prudent budgeting because he doesn’t believe in budgets.  Instead of doing the hard work of creating a budget, Conrad plans to slightly embellish the BCA and deem it a budget resolution.  That’s a “breach in trust” of those who elected him to formulate a budget.

On the other hand, it’s hard to blame Conrad for his timidity.  If you don’t propose a plan to tackle such politically benign issues as…. entitlements, the tax code, welfare, and farm subsidies, nobody can criticize it.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Editor’s note: Here is the latest bold endorsement on behalf of The Madison Project.

There are few states that will provide conservatives with as many electoral opportunities as North Carolina will this year.  Due to successful Republican redistricting, vulnerable blue dog Democrats, and several retirements, we have an opportunity to elect up to 5 new Republicans.

In past years, to the extent that we were focused on House elections, it was aimed at keeping or flipping seats to the Republicans side.  The plethora of candidates and the dearth of information regarding House primaries make it an arduous task to choose the right nominees.  Unfortunately, we have learned the lesson that inaction during a primary can lead to undesirable freshmen members.  That is why it is so vital that we decipher the intrepid conservatives from the bland conduits for leadership.

In district 8, there is a candidate running to unseat Democrat Larry Kissell who stands out as a shining star.  His name is Scott Keadle.  Keadle is a successful dentist and real estate developer who has a burning passion for conservative values and unencumbered free markets.  In 1998, Keadle won the Republican nomination in heavily-Democrat district 12 and garnered an impressive 43% against Mel Watt.  More recently, he has served one term as an Iredell County Commissioner.  On the county board of commissioners, Keadle earned a reputation as not only the most conservative member, but a man who did his homework and was knowledgeable of the issues.

Now that he is running for Congress, Keadle has certainly done his homework.  He isn’t just a passionate conservative.  He has a grasp of the issues and possesses a deep understanding of free-market economics to the extent that he is willing to oppose sacred cows, like protectionist trade policies and all forms of subsidies.  This represents a true revolution in North Carolina politics.  Instead of relying on vague platitudes, Keadle has released a 21-page “Plane for America” that is beautifully written and reveals an author who truly adheres to pure free-market principles.  If only it were adopted by the presidential candidates.

The 8^th district, which is situated in the south central part of the state, was redrawn in a way that makes it dramatically more Republican, presenting Larry Kissell with an almost insurmountable task to win reelection.  In 2004, Bush carried the precincts included in this district with 63% of the vote.  It’s easy to blithely ignore this primary with the same assumption that we’ll turn over the seat anyway.  However, it is that callous disregard of primaries in “safe” Republican districts that has saddled us with many wayward Republicans.

Unfortunately, the trajectory of the delegation’s voting record has deteriorated over the past few years, especially with its newest addition.  We need a figure in the North Carolina delegation who will challenge the other members to fulfill their campaign promises.  We must elect a conservative fighter in the May 8 primary who will be immune to pressure from leadership.  That man is Scott Keadle.  The Madison Project is truly proud to support his candidacy.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Editor’s note: Here is the latest bold endorsement on behalf of The Madison Project.

There are few states that will provide conservatives with as many electoral opportunities as North Carolina will this year.  Due to successful Republican redistricting, vulnerable blue dog Democrats, and several retirements, we have an opportunity to elect up to 5 new Republicans.

In past years, to the extent that we were focused on House elections, it was aimed at keeping or flipping seats to the Republicans side.  The plethora of candidates and the dearth of information regarding House primaries make it an arduous task to choose the right nominees.  Unfortunately, we have learned the lesson that inaction during a primary can lead to undesirable freshmen members.  That is why it is so vital that we decipher the intrepid conservatives from the bland conduits for leadership.

In district 8, there is a candidate running to unseat Democrat Larry Kissell who stands out as a shining star.  His name is Scott Keadle.  Keadle is a successful dentist and real estate developer who has a burning passion for conservative values and unencumbered free markets.  In 1998, Keadle won the Republican nomination in heavily-Democrat district 12 and garnered an impressive 43% against Mel Watt.  More recently, he has served one term as an Iredell County Commissioner.  On the county board of commissioners, Keadle earned a reputation as not only the most conservative member, but a man who did his homework and was knowledgeable of the issues.

Now that he is running for Congress, Keadle has certainly done his homework.  He isn’t just a passionate conservative.  He has a grasp of the issues and possesses a deep understanding of free-market economics to the extent that he is willing to oppose sacred cows, like protectionist trade policies and all forms of subsidies.  This represents a true revolution in North Carolina politics.  Instead of relying on vague platitudes, Keadle has released a 21-page “Plane for America” that is beautifully written and reveals an author who truly adheres to pure free-market principles.  If only it were adopted by the presidential candidates.

The 8^th district, which is situated in the south central part of the state, was redrawn in a way that makes it dramatically more Republican, presenting Larry Kissell with an almost insurmountable task to win reelection.  In 2004, Bush carried the precincts included in this district with 63% of the vote.  It’s easy to blithely ignore this primary with the same assumption that we’ll turn over the seat anyway.  However, it is that callous disregard of primaries in “safe” Republican districts that has saddled us with many wayward Republicans.

Unfortunately, the trajectory of the delegation’s voting record has deteriorated over the past few years, especially with its newest addition.  We need a figure in the North Carolina delegation who will challenge the other members to fulfill their campaign promises.  We must elect a conservative fighter in the May 8 primary who will be immune to pressure from leadership.  That man is Scott Keadle.  The Madison Project is truly proud to support his candidacy.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

As the 112th Congress begins to mature, it’s becoming painfully clear that not everyone in the “Tea Party freshmen class” is much of a tea partier.  In fact, some of them would fit in more with the coffee party [go here if you've never heard of them].  In 2010, we were largely focused on turning over the House from Democrat to Republican.  To the extent that we focused on intra-party battles, it was primarily in the Senate races.  Consequently, we nominated many sleeper progressives in conservative districts to win back the House.  One such member is Rick Crawford (Progressive AR-1).

Today, Rick Crawford will unveil a plan – in the spirit of the Gang of 6 – to impose a 2.5%+ surtax on millionaires in an effort to “compromise” with Democrats.  He is trying to be the first Republican freshman to jump in the hot bath of tax hikes to cool it down for his fellow travelers.  This, from Politico:

The Arkansas Republican will unveil the plan during a local television interview Thursday morning, and plans to introduce legislation when the House returns next week, according to sources familiar with his thinking.

Crawford will propose the additional tax— expected to be north of 2.5 percent — on individual income over $1 million as part of a broader fiscal responsibility package.

“He’s watched the Gangs of Six and 100 and deficit commissions, as well as leadership’s budget and tax plan, and he feels there will never be a deal that will pass the Senate without a revenue component,” a Crawford aide said, describing the legislation without attribution because it has not yet been officially announced.

Let’s clear up two fallacies here.  First, raising revenue will not help in the long run.  As the latest monthly Treasury report proves, even though revenues are climbing due to the economic recovery, we still incurred a record monthly deficit in February.  Moreover, nobody could possibly be so naive to believe that if Republicans agree to massive tax increases, Democrats will reciprocate with commensurate spending cuts.  Democrats will never willingly agree to close one major department, eliminate one major welfare program, repeal Obamacare, or institute free-market Medicare reform – even if we agree to all the tax increases in the world.  As such, there will never be a “balanced approach” to budget solvency.

This is not surprising coming from Crawford.  He voted for the debt ceiling increase, megabus, minibus, and against every single RSC budget proposal and spending cut.  What happened to the balanced approach between spending and revenues?

Crawford scored a failing 58% from Heritage Action and 53% from the Club for Growth.  But guess what?  Crawford has no primary challengers, and the filing deadline expired at the beginning of the month.  We are stuck with a progressive OWS congressman from a conservative state for another 2 years.

This is what happens when we ignore congressional races and voting records.  Will we learn the lesson for the remaining primaries?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

As the 112th Congress begins to mature, it’s becoming painfully clear that not everyone in the “Tea Party freshmen class” is much of a tea partier.  In fact, some of them would fit in more with the coffee party [go here if you've never heard of them].  In 2010, we were largely focused on turning over the House from Democrat to Republican.  To the extent that we focused on intra-party battles, it was primarily in the Senate races.  Consequently, we nominated many sleeper progressives in conservative districts to win back the House.  One such member is Rick Crawford (Progressive AR-1).

Today, Rick Crawford will unveil a plan – in the spirit of the Gang of 6 – to impose a 2.5%+ surtax on millionaires in an effort to “compromise” with Democrats.  He is trying to be the first Republican freshman to jump in the hot bath of tax hikes to cool it down for his fellow travelers.  This, from Politico:

The Arkansas Republican will unveil the plan during a local television interview Thursday morning, and plans to introduce legislation when the House returns next week, according to sources familiar with his thinking.

Crawford will propose the additional tax— expected to be north of 2.5 percent — on individual income over $1 million as part of a broader fiscal responsibility package.

“He’s watched the Gangs of Six and 100 and deficit commissions, as well as leadership’s budget and tax plan, and he feels there will never be a deal that will pass the Senate without a revenue component,” a Crawford aide said, describing the legislation without attribution because it has not yet been officially announced.

Let’s clear up two fallacies here.  First, raising revenue will not help in the long run.  As the latest monthly Treasury report proves, even though revenues are climbing due to the economic recovery, we still incurred a record monthly deficit in February.  Moreover, nobody could possibly be so naive to believe that if Republicans agree to massive tax increases, Democrats will reciprocate with commensurate spending cuts.  Democrats will never willingly agree to close one major department, eliminate one major welfare program, repeal Obamacare, or institute free-market Medicare reform – even if we agree to all the tax increases in the world.  As such, there will never be a “balanced approach” to budget solvency.

This is not surprising coming from Crawford.  He voted for the debt ceiling increase, megabus, minibus, and against every single RSC budget proposal and spending cut.  What happened to the balanced approach between spending and revenues?

Crawford scored a failing 58% from Heritage Action and 53% from the Club for Growth.  But guess what?  Crawford has no primary challengers, and the filing deadline expired at the beginning of the month.  We are stuck with a progressive OWS congressman from a conservative state for another 2 years.

This is what happens when we ignore congressional races and voting records.  Will we learn the lesson for the remaining primaries?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Last year, buoyed by unprecedented conservative uprisings, we elected a new Republican majority in the House.  The 87 freshmen were often referred to as the “Tea Party Congress.”  Unfortunately, it has become clear that not all freshmen were created equal; not all freshmen drink a strong brew of tea.  In fact, some members have nothing in common with the Tea Party.  Due in large part to redistricting, the 2012 election will pit some sitting members against each other.  We must be prepared to sort the conservatives from the insipid Republican types, and take sides in some of these contests.

Perhaps, the most intriguing member-on-member battle is in IL-16, where 20-year veteran Don Manzullo (current IL-16) and freshman Adam Kinzinger (current IL-11) are battling it out over the new district.  This is one of those situations where the freshman represents the values of the “old guard,” while the 20-year incumbent has amassed an imperfect, but clearly conservative record.

Adam Kinzinger was elected to the House with much fanfare, but turned out to be a water carrier for leadership.  Kinzinger voted against almost every opportunity to cut more spending and was in the tank for leadership whenever they wanted him.  He scored a dismal 63% from Heritage Action and 56% from the Club for Growth.  If this is how he votes during his first year in office, we can only imagine how much more he’ll deteriorate over time.  Adam also recently joined the Republican Mainstreet Partnership, the cabal of liberal and moderate Republicans in Congress.

Don Manzullo, on the other hand, has a consistent track record of voting conservative and standing up to leadership.  Manzullo is not perfect, and we must note that he did vote for the debt ceiling deal.  But in general, he has stood up to leadership and has an almost perfect consistency over his two decades in Congress.  Manzullo was one of only a few dozen Republicans to vote against No Child Left Behind.  He has regularly scored in the ’80s on the Club for Growth’s scorecard.  He scored an 84% on Heritage Action’s tough scorecard last year.

We could certainly do a lot worse than Manzullo to represent this marginally Republican district.  And we undoubtedly will, if we nominate Adam Kinzinger to run for the seat.  As such, Don Manzullo is the first incumbent to receive The Madison Project’s endorsement this election cycle.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Last year, buoyed by unprecedented conservative uprisings, we elected a new Republican majority in the House.  The 87 freshmen were often referred to as the “Tea Party Congress.”  Unfortunately, it has become clear that not all freshmen were created equal; not all freshmen drink a strong brew of tea.  In fact, some members have nothing in common with the Tea Party.  Due in large part to redistricting, the 2012 election will pit some sitting members against each other.  We must be prepared to sort the conservatives from the insipid Republican types, and take sides in some of these contests.

Perhaps, the most intriguing member-on-member battle is in IL-16, where 20-year veteran Don Manzullo (current IL-16) and freshman Adam Kinzinger (current IL-11) are battling it out over the new district.  This is one of those situations where the freshman represents the values of the “old guard,” while the 20-year incumbent has amassed an imperfect, but clearly conservative record.

Adam Kinzinger was elected to the House with much fanfare, but turned out to be a water carrier for leadership.  Kinzinger voted against almost every opportunity to cut more spending and was in the tank for leadership whenever they wanted him.  He scored a dismal 63% from Heritage Action and 56% from the Club for Growth.  If this is how he votes during his first year in office, we can only imagine how much more he’ll deteriorate over time.  Adam also recently joined the Republican Mainstreet Partnership, the cabal of liberal and moderate Republicans in Congress.

Don Manzullo, on the other hand, has a consistent track record of voting conservative and standing up to leadership.  Manzullo is not perfect, and we must note that he did vote for the debt ceiling deal.  But in general, he has stood up to leadership and has an almost perfect consistency over his two decades in Congress.  Manzullo was one of only a few dozen Republicans to vote against No Child Left Behind.  He has regularly scored in the ’80s on the Club for Growth’s scorecard.  He scored an 84% on Heritage Action’s tough scorecard last year.

We could certainly do a lot worse than Manzullo to represent this marginally Republican district.  And we undoubtedly will, if we nominate Adam Kinzinger to run for the seat.  As such, Don Manzullo is the first incumbent to receive The Madison Project’s endorsement this election cycle.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project