DEFAULT, A RED HERRING

-By Bob Ward

From the beginning of the debate over raising the debt limit, Democrats and the media have been warning us that not raising the limit means the U.S. defaults on its debt for the first time in our history. With few exceptions, the Republicans have failed to refute this claim.

In recent days, Obama has upped the ante by suggesting that there may not be enough money to make Social Security payments if the limit is not raised. The claim is not believable on its face. The President does not have to cut off payments to the elderly and the disabled. He would only do it if he hopes to blame the cut-off on the Republicans. With the help of the media it is entirely possible he could pull it off.

Terence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews, reports that according to the Treasury Dept, since Federal borrowing reached the legal limit on May 16, tax revenue will more than cover the cost of interest payments, Medicare,Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel.

Jeffrey notes that between May 16 and July 7, the Federal government took in a total of $296.176 billion in new tax revenue. In that same time period, total interest payments on the national debt equaled $14.632 billion. So the Federal government took in enough money between May 16 and July 7 to pay the interest on the debt 20 times over.

The combined expenditures for interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs Department and Federal workers wages and insurance benefits equaled $270.151 billion. So government would have met all those expenses, paid the interest on the debt and still have $26.025 billion left over. By claiming that the government may lack the funds to pay Social Security recipients Obama is making Bill Clinton look like Honest Abe. If the government fails to send out Social Security checks it will be because Obama wants it that way for political, not economic, reasons.

If there really was a money squeeze he could take a bite out of the Education Dept, or, better yet, ask Congress to abolish it. Every state in the union operates a public school system. The Federal department is an expensive redundancy.

Or he could agree to shut down the Public Broadcasting System. There are hundreds of TV channels available on cable so there is no need for this unconstitutional haven for artists who couldn’t cut it in the private sector. And National Public Radio could go too. Americans should get their news from real journalists, not from government flaks masquerading as reporters.

Also a suitable target for abolition is the National Endowment for the Arts. Before the government was in the business of supporting art, we got composers like George Gershwin, Aaron Copeland, Rodgers & Hart, and Cole Porter, playwrights Eugene O’Neill, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, novelists Mark Twain, Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser. With government money we get a photograph of a crucifix dipped in urine.

And if things really got desperate he could stop funding Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills or even cut off Obama's pals at ACORN. Imagine that!

Refuting Statements by "Conservatives 4 Joe Straus"

Timothy E. Bradberry
President, Central Texas Republican Assembly (CTRA)
National Committeeman, Texas Republican Assembly (TxRA)

The opinions and viewpoints expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions and viewpoints of the CTRA or the TxRA or their members.

Straus apologists talk about how conservative he is, now that conservatism is so popular. Below I attempt to refute, or at least pose questions about, some of their claims. All bulleted quotes are taken from Conservatives 4 Joe Straus.

• Contrary to false rumors and allegations, Speaker Straus is and has always been pro-­life, and his pro-­life legislative record has been verified by Texans for Life President, Kyleen Wright, who is supporting Speaker Straus. - Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

If Speaker Joe Straus has been such an advocate for the unborn pray tell why/how did Rep. Joe Straus earn a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice Texas in 2007? To date no explanation from the Straus team has been offered to this question.

• Speaker Straus is a lifelong Republican, a family man, and a committed conservative. - Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

If Speaker Joe Straus is a committed conservative, why did he appoint exclusively moderate Republicans and liberal Democrats to chair committees when he became Speaker in 2009, thereby diluting the influence of conservatives and the potential of conservative bills, like Voter ID?

• As Speaker, 81st Legislative Session, requested ZERO earmarks.
  - Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

A ban on Congressional earmarks are all the rave these days. That seems to be the only reason that Conservatives 4 Joe Strauss made this statement. By saying Speaker Joe Straus has been anti-earmark it makes him appear ahead of the curve on earmarks. This simply exploits current sentiment to make Straus appear more fiscally conservative. I'm scratching my head trying to think of an example where a Speaker of the Texas House would ask for earmarks in the State budget, but I don't claim to be a legislative wonk.

• Donated over $1.5 million to Republican House Members and candidates, helping increase the Republican majority to 99, 2010. - Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

And from the Conservatives 4 Joe Straus "Open Letter" we read this:

"...While our Republican Majority shrunk in the previous three elections, under Speaker Straus’ leadership, we made substantial gains in the November 2 election to an unprecedented 99 seats in the Texas House. Joe Straus gave unprecedented early sums of money to Republican incumbents, and Republican candidates in open seats, as well as to the Republican Party and Party organizations working to get out the vote, making the gains Tuesday possible. (emphasis added)

There was one candidate that Joe Straus did not give any money to. On the contrary, on May 12, 2010 Speaker Straus allowed his name and presence to be used to raise money for that Republican candidate's opponent, Patrick Rose. With no contribution from Joe Straus, and in fact the Speaker actually helping his opponent raise money, Jason Isaac proved to be not only a viable candidate (which Joe did not consider him to be), but he also soundly defeated Rose on Nov 2nd.

Shortly before the Rose fundraiser I had the unique privileged of talking to Speaker Straus about why he was headlining the Rose fundraiser. After our conversation I sent an email to the CTRA Members and Friends list. Here is what I wrote:

I have now talked to Speaker Straus (via phone) regarding this matter. He was very gracious and obviously had already fielded some calls on the issue. He was quite animated. He made the following points, and more I can't remember:

(1) He would not do anything that would jeopardize the Republican majority in the House;

(2) In spite of #1, he will support incumbent House Democrats if they are not vulnerable;

(3) He did not know that Rose had a viable opponent and had never spoken with Jason Issac;

(4) He is cognizant that Rose has a very substantial "war chest" (seem to implied that that is why Rose's opponent is not viable);

(5) Had he known about Jason Issac and felt like Rose was vulnerable, he would not have gotten involved with the Rose fundraiser;

(6) He said his (sic) is committed to growing the Republican majority and mentioned that the Republicans recently gained one seat with the flipping of a Democrat;

(7) He said Craddick did the exact same thing he (Speaker Straus) is doing for Rose and was not criticized. He said Craddick has been giving money to Democrats in this election cycle as well;

(8) He said he has been a lifelong Republican and mentioned his mom becoming a Republican in 1960;

(9) He mentioned that Rose voted with Republicans on some key pro-business votes in the last session;

(10) He was very gracious and said that I had the right to disagree with him. He even remembered the last time I criticized him at a TCRP Fundraiser in Austin about his committee appointments.

So lets be honest, Conservatives 4 Joe Straus, you cannot claim HD 45 as a seat Speaker Strauss helped a Republican fill. That leaves the Speaker only able to say that he was not in the way of some 98 seats, and perhaps less, and that he actively tied to fill some of those seats with Republicans, most or all of whom now actively support him in his bid to be re-elected Speaker.

Overall, Republican gains in the Texas House are due more to the backlash against Obama, Pelosi and Reid than to support from Speaker Joe Straus.

BTW, Speaker Straus and his team seem to blame Speaker Tom Craddick almost as much as Obama blames President George W Bush.

• Donated over $100,000 to local Republican Party clubs, Republican Women clubs, and other local conservative groups to cultivate Republican grassroots support across Texas, 2010.

Interestingly, Speaker Straus did not give any money to the Travis County Republican Party, like he did to the Harris, Bexar and Dallas County varieties. I wonder why?

Maybe his support for and donations to the Alamo City and Bexar County Republican Women (though the amount given was peanuts compared with the Republican Party organizations and the candidates) explains this email from the TFRW that was forwarded to me with this message "Your club may not be a federated club like ours, but I have to agree with her particularly the last sentence":

Dear Club Presidents,

Again, Congratulations on an Excellent Election! Texas appreciates you. Now, as we enter the next Legislative Session we must remember our role as a Support Team for the Republicans that are making decisions for the State of Texas. One of the important decisions our Representatives will be making soon is to elect their leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Please remember that your members may choose to support their political views in the way they see best--as individuals. However, as an organization TFRW will not endorse or publicly support any candidate for Speaker of the House. Additionally, your club should not support or endorse in this race. Please encourage your members, should they choose to support one of the candidates, to do so in a positive manner.......Democrats just love when we hurl insults at each other.

Thank you,
Rebecca Bradford
TFRW President

Having that forwarded to me may be innocuous enough, but the same person sent me two emails warning me about being divisive over the Speaker race even though she knew, or should have known, that the Central Texas Republican Assembly, in it's bylaws is charged with rooting out RINOs and backing conservatives. This fellow conservative, for whom I have great respect, wrote in the second email:

Might think about William F Buckley's advice...support the most electable candidate. A "moderate" Republican may not be one's #1 choice but much better than the leftist alternative who will win against an unelectable one. Delaware is a prime example.

"Democrats just love when we hurl insults at each other."

The way I see it, the worse that could happen here is for Joe Straus to be reelected as Speaker under a mandate to move right, so I don't know why we conservatives have to back down from our clarion call for a true conservative to be picked as Speaker of the Texas House, someone like Rep. Ken Paxton who has a solid conservative voting record.

Off to the Vet

I think it is fitting that I need to take my dog to the veterinarian this morning for his routine checkup, because after watching the Travis County results come in last night, I feel like somebody kicked my dog. I think it is time for Republicans to get a check-up as well.

There are many ways to break this down, but in the end, Republican candidates in Travis County lost by a margin of 2-1 county-wide. The Republican Party in Travis County is only represented by Barbara Bembry, the Justice of the Peace in Precinct 2, who was not up for re-election yesterday.

The GOP needs to take ourselves to the vet to find out what ails us. Is it something we ate or simply did a more charismatic and younger dog run us off of the playground? I think it is a combination of both.

GOP invites inputs on their 2008 platform

GOP taking inputs on their Platform online:

The Republican Party is seeking your input as we develop the policies and principles upon which we should stand for the next four years. On this website, you can share your thoughts, participate in polls, and communicate directly with the policymakers who will be shaping the party's agenda.

They will even take video submissions. It was interesting to read submissions from online poker players advocating taking that out of the platform. This is a great way to open up the process and 'level the playing field'.

SD-14 Convention - Open Thread

Open comment thread for thoughts on the convention ... what do you think?

Huckabee's tax-and-spend past

GOP Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is surging on conservative claims that don't fully check out - he is a pro-life, pro-gun, populist ... tax-and-spend Nanny-stater. Pity. We seem to have a gaggle of awe-insiring almost-maybe-partly-notreally-conservative Republicans running for President, and a few real conservatives getting 1%. Huckabee hit hard by Club for Growth's Pat Toomey:

... here is a quick summary of Huckabee’s worst hits. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. Huckabee calls himself an economic conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but the above list doesn’t sound like either.

Would Rudy Split the GOP?

I'm just asking. I mean, Hannity was spinning like a top today on the radio, talking about how we wouldn't have any issues decided or get anywhere as a country if we didn't win against the terrorists. All as a way to say "Forget about those other issues, pull the lever for Rudy."

Well, for one, is Rudy any better than Hunter, Thompson, Romney, McCain, or Tancredo on Iraq or global war on terror? he tries to be Mr 9-11 but he has less experience than McCain or Hunter. So if we want to win the war on terror, why not go for Hunter? Or McCain?

If we want to beat Hillary with someone with executive experience, why not go for the tailor-made to be the anti-Hillary - Mitt Romney, who is running on the Reaganesque themes of family values, fiscal restraint and strong military, has a great resume and beat a Hillary-clone liberal Democrat in a blue state in 2002?

And if we want a unifying conservative who the base can embrace, it might well be Fred Thompson. Fiscal conservative, federalist, pro-life record, etc. proven in 8 years in the Senate. And if he's not it, it could be, well ... anyone but Rudy Guiliani.

Rudy's nomination buys nothing for the GOP but a hangover; his nomination means open wounds and platform fights on social issues, and the fracturing of the Reagan coalition as attention gets focussed on the very issues Rudy would want to avoid. That is even without the threat of a 3rd party split, which could easily take out a crucial 3-5% of the vote and cause some 'Reagan Democrats' who voted Bush for prolife reasons to vote Hillary for economic reasons.

All this will only help the liberal Democrats and hurt conservatives.

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell's speech at the RPT Texas Straw Poll Event

When I first heard Lieutenant Colonel Brian Birdwell speak at the 2006 Republican Party of Texas State Convention last year I was deeply moved. When I heard him again speak, on September 1, 2007, this time to the 1500 delegates of the RPT Texas Straw Poll Event in Ft. Worth, I was inspired. I was inspired with the idea the next President, the next Commander-in-Chief could very well be the most important leadership choice Americans will make in a generation. We must not give in to the Billary hype. We can, we must, make a difference. We must make the right choice this time.

I hope the video log below, helps you know better what kind of leader to choose.

I apologize for the quality of the video. It is my first attempt to get something I videoed posted to YouTube.

Video 1 of 7

Video 2 of 7

Video 3 of 7

Video 4 of 7

Video 5 of 7

Video 6 of 7

Video 7 of 7

GOP Base Revolts on Immigration

WND: RNC fires all phone solicitors as cash 'evaporates' over Bush":

Previous GOP donors have given RNC solicitors a lashing about the president's proposed immigration measure.

"We have not heard anyone in our donor calls who supported the president on immigration," said a fired phone solicitor, who described himself as a Republican activist.

"We write these comments up from each call, and give them to a supervisor who passes them on to the finance director or the national chairman," he said. "But when I talked with the White House, the people there told me they got nothing but positive comments on the president's immigration stand."

Yikes. Talk about out of touch.

I had to send this note to the RNC:

I am one of those who has stopped giving to RNC because of the support of pro-amnesty candidates, and the fact that Bush decided to install a pro-amnesty figurehead to lead the RNC. Unless and until the RNC stops being supportive of such candidates, I will take my political contributions elsewhere.

For goodness sake, tell the White House the truth. Tell them that the President's eager support for legalization for illegal aliens, and his failure to secure the border and enforce immigration law, is destructive to the unity of the party and is demoralizing, disaffecting and angering the Republican base. We cannot follow leaders who walk away from our values and ideals!

UPDATE: New York Times posts an article on the GOP rebellion over immigration, noting the hue and cry from the GOP base:

This week, after Mr. Bush’s suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan “don’t want to do what’s right for America” inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, “I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security.” He added, “But he might lose some of you.”

Such sentiments have reverberated through talk radio, conservative publications like National Review and Fox News. They have also appeared on Web sites including RedState.com and FreeRepublic.com, where postings reflect a feeling that Mr. Bush is smiting his own coalition in pursuit of a badly needed domestic accomplishment, and working in league with the likes of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a co-author of the legislation.

White House officials said it had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.

White House officials are welcome to have their claims dissected, but I'll give the same advice Senator Coburn gave: “I think President Bush hurts himself every time he says it is not amnesty,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, referring to the bill’s legalization process for immigrants. “We are not all that stupid.”

UPDATE: DC Chapter of FreeRepublic 'freep' of the RNC HQ on June 4 to protest amnesty for illegal immigrants:

Texas GOP leaders - time to save tax relief

What is happening to our property tax cuts promised last year in the wake of a new state tax? In early May, in a 'dark day for taxpayers', the Texas House turned tax cut into spending increase:

The legislation was amended to require that before any new tax relief can go into effect, every public school teacher, counselor, librarian and nurse in the state would have to receive a $6,000 per-year raise. That represents almost $4.4 billion in additional spending every two years that taxpayers would be asked to carry, completely dwarfing the tax cut. ... This was a calculated effort by legislators to increase the size of government and stop property tax relief.

The combination of liberal Democrats and few turncoat Republicans were enough to make this happen. And Tommy Merritt of Longview just happened to be one of them.

Lt Gov Dewhurst tells me via email that they are doing great:

With less than a month to go in the 80th Legislative session, I want to update you on how the Legislature is prioritizing your tax dollars for the next two years and beyond. The Senate recently passed a fiscally responsible budget that cuts local school property taxes by more than $14 billion in 2008-09, sets aside $3 billion and preserves the Rainy Day Fund to continue those tax cuts in 2010-11, and holds all-funds spending to a modest 3.4 percent per year.

Oh really?

Some thoughts from Bill Crocker, Texas' RNC committeeman:

The 2007 session of the Texas legislature is fast drawing to a close, and we are about to see it end without action on two key items that are of tremendous importance to Texans, and especially to Texas Republicans.

The first is a refusal to apply a surplus of tax revenues in such a way that the promised property tax reduction becomes a reality. Representative Ken Paxton has authored a bill, HB 2785, which can accomplish that goal. It got a bad amendment before being passed by the House, and now awaits Senate action. It can be corrected by the Senate and returned to the House for concurrence. If the Senate does not do so, all hope of real property tax reduction in this session appears to be lost.

Meanwhile, there is open revolt in the House. Will Dewhurst save the day? If the Republican lege fails to do the Republican thing and keep its promises on tax relief, 2008 will be a painful year for Republicans.

First GOP Presidential Candidates Debate

Good news: All 10 announced candidates got to debate, From Guliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, to Rep Ron Paul and Rep Tom Tancredo. Bad news: Chris Matthews, former Democrat staffer and current annoying media person, got to moderate. Some live-blogging reaction from powerline, Heading Right, and The Corner at NRO.

Update: I was impressed by the rapid-fire debate on several points. Well done to the candidates who didn't take bait to go after other candidates. I thought Romney, Huckabee and Hunter did best. Brownback and Gilmore better than I expected. Guliani not so good. Tancredo not-quite-ready. I came away thinking we have a pretty good field, and that Romney/Hunter might make a good ticket.