HOUSE Republican Leader John Boehner

Democrats’ Staggering Deficits Will Bury Future Generations Under a Mountain of Debt

This morning’s New York Times reported that the bill from all the taxing, borrowing, and spending that Washington Democrats have engaged in over the past year is coming due sooner than expected.  The Times report and the continued reckless policies being pursued by out-of-touch Washington Democrats should give every American pause.  The Times reported that:

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher…

The White House estimates that the government will have to borrow about $3.5 trillion more over the next three years. On top of that, the Treasury has to refinance, or roll over, a huge amount of short-term debt that was issued during the financial crisis. Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt - about $1.6 trillion - is coming due in the months ahead.

This kind of reckless spending isn’t what the American people were promised.   In fact, the President declared at Georgetown University on April 14 that:

We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand.  We must build our house upon a rock.  We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity - a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.

Unfortunately, the President’s words are undermined by the actions his Administration and Speaker Pelosi’s Congress have taken, as this graph, courtesy of the House Budget Committee Republican staff, shows:

The following chart, produced by the House Budget Committee Republican staff, shows how out-of-touch Washington Democrats could learn from the American people - and quit spending money we don’t have.

Douglass Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, noted in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal that:

The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth.  They will force upon our children and grandchildren the bill for our overconsumption.  Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living.  Financing deficits could crowd out exports and harm our international competitiveness, as we can already see happening with the large borrowing we are doing from competitors like China…The time to worry about the deficit is not next year, but now. There is no time to waste.

Holtz-Eakin has it exactly right.  The time is now for Democrats to abandon their budget-busting, job-killing agenda, and to start practicing the fiscal sanity that families and small businesses live by every day.

Permalink | No Comments »

---

Fact Check: Criticism of “Abortion Fee” Comes Up Short; Pro-Life Experts Back Boehner’s Concerns About Taxpayer-Funded Abortion

When it comes to the issue of taxpayer funding for abortion, Democrats know their far-left special interest allies are pushing them to do something that 61 percent of the American public opposes - use taxpayer dollars to pay for ending innocent unborn human life.  So instead of arguing the facts, Democrats are simply throwing up a smokescreen of misinformation and hoping the press keeps the American people in the dark.  One story in this morning’s Congress Daily is a good example. 

Myth: The Congress Daily headline reads, “Boehner Attacks Fee Provision, But Claim Comes Up Short.”

FACT: Nothing in the story supports such a declarative (and opinionated) headline.  And Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee (the gold-standard when it comes to protecting the unborn) has said, “The Boehner piece is accurate.  It is literally impossible for the public option to pay for abortions without using public funds, because all of the funds spent by the public option will be federal funds.  A federal agency cannot spend anything except federal funds.  Even the CBO document released with the Reid bill treats the ‘premiums’ as federal funds, because of course that is really what they are.”  

Myth: “Abortion-rights supporters say the section is actually a safeguard that makes sure that an insurance company always has enough strictly private money to cover any abortion services its enrollees claim”

FACT: This is an obvious gimmick.  Johnson explains, “This claims that a federal agency can pay for abortions without spending federal funds.  The ‘premiums’ become what are in fact federal funds when the government takes them, and they are federal funds when the government spends them on abortions, whatever contrived label may be slapped over them in the bill.  Even the CBO document released with the Reid bill treats the ‘premiums’ as federal funds, as we read it.” Pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak agreed that Reid’s language falls short, saying, among other things, “it would mandate abortion coverage for the first time in history.”

Myth: Congress Daily reported, “The provision requires that companies calculate the actuarial value of a plan’s abortion coverage and put at least that much private money - collected from individual premiums instead of government subsidies or tax credits -  into a separate account.  Abortion claims must be paid from this separate account, and companies ‘may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.’  Boehner pointed to that section as proof of the fee. But the provision doesn’t dictate coverage requirements, which would affect premiums.”

FACT: This argument betrays a basic ignorance of health care financing.  The focus on “coverage requirements” is bizarre, considering that a number of factors, including federal mandates like the abortion fee, increase premiums.  Coverage is always paid for by some kind of premium (or direct federal funding), not by pots of gold found at the end of rainbows.

Permalink | No Comments »

---

On the Job Hunt: Independent GAO Says 1 in 10 Jobs “Saved or Created” in the “Stimulus” Don’t Exist

Last night, ABC’s World News Tonight with Charles Gibson highlighted a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on misleading “stimulus” jobs claims.  The GAO report found that “More than 50,000 jobs, or one out of every 10 jobs…came from projects that reported spending no money yet,” according to ABC News.

Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Obama Administration’s “stimulus“, said in an interview with the Boston Globe that: “The agency has made ‘significant referrals’ to the inspectors general of federal agencies.”  But the Globe noted that “Pound declined to provide specifics, and would not comment on whether the money was handed out too quickly, without adequate oversight.  ‘It’s a work in progress,’ he said of the stimulus funding.” 

A work in progress? 

The Boston Globe dug into the “progress” from the “stimulus” in Massachusetts - and here’s what it found:

• $1.5 million to fix a remote lighthouse on uninhabited Monomoy Island, off Cape Cod.
• $123,000 for “security measures” to protect the Spirit of Boston party cruise ship from terrorist attacks. Entertainment Cruises - the company which owns the Spirit of Boston - said: “We feel that we’re really a low threat for a terrorist incident. But the stimulus was a nice perk.”
• $95,000 for the University of Massachusetts at Boston to study pollen samples from the Viking era in Iceland.
• $9 million for a pedestrian bridge connecting parking lots near the New England Patriot’s Stadium.
• “Stimulus” funds to study “circadian clocks of monarch butterflies,” “researching tusks of the Narwhal whale in the Arctic,” and “developing a colony of robotic bees.”
• “Stimulus” money also went to window blinds, photocopiers, a cafeteria dishwasher, taser guns,  a riding lawnmower, and even a freezer for fish sperm.

The Globe did find one job created:

UMass Boston said stimulus money from the National Science Foundation created a job for a graduate assistant to help count pollen grains collected from farms in Iceland and allowed researchers to continue studying the role the arctic environment played in the evolution of civic life during the Viking Age.  

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink | No Comments »

---

Sen. Reid’s Government-Run Health Plan Requires a Monthly Abortion Fee

Follow @GOPLeader on Twitter for updates.

Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan. 

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan.  Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan.  It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.”  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

Leader Reid’s 2,074-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  The National Right to Life Committee has called the Reid abortion language “completely unacceptable.” The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.  The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats.  The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange.  The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree.  House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

UPDATED: Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans reject government funding of abortion.

Permalink | 448 Comments »

---

White House On “Stimulus” Errors: “Who Knows, Man, Who Really Knows”

Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Obama Administration’s “stimulus” website (recovery.gov), dropped a bombshell in interview with the New Orleans Times Picayune, stating that the Obama Administration has no idea how phantom congressional districts - such as Ohio’s 00th or Louisiana’s 26th - received “stimulus” funds.  The Times Picayune story reported:

‘We’re not certifying the accuracy of the information,’ said Pound ….Asked why recipients would pluck random numbers - 26, 45, 14 - to fill in for their congressional district, Pound replied, ‘who knows, man, who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.’

Problems surrounding the Democrats’ $1 trillion “stimulus” aren’t limited to Louisiana.  Last night, ABC News’ World News TONIGHT with Charles Gibson reported on false claims of jobs “saved or created” by the “stimulus” in real congressional districts (as opposed to the phantom congressional districts that we found out about yesterday).

But “stimulus” waste, fraud and abuse isn’t just limited to nine pairs of work boots in Kentucky or phantom congressional districts in Louisiana, as stories in newspapers across America have confirmed:

In Alabama, the Birmingham News reported yesterday that “The Fort Payne Housing Authority this year got a $540,071 grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and mistakenly reported in early October that the stimulus grant would create 7,280 jobs,” but, “Actually, the grant to re-roof 154 apartments owned by the authority has created 14 jobs, [Fort Payne Housing Authority Director Pamela E.] Darwin said, adding that someone at the authority meant to type on a federal survey that the grant would create 7,280 hours of work, not jobs.”

In New Jersey, The Record reported on “stimulus” funding for scientific research: “Disclosure reports for NIH and NSF grants filed last month with the federal Web site recovery.gov showed that while UMDNJ netted the most funding, its 89 grants totaling nearly $22 million produced just 71 jobs.  Rutgers reported 50 jobs from 93 grants; Princeton just 22 jobs from 52 grants.”

And In Tennessee, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that “[t]he web site says 9,566 Tennessee jobs were created at the cost of $3.8 billion but, in another section, reports that three jobs were created in Tennessee’s 47th Congressional District at a cost of $2.3 million.  Tennessee has only nine congressional districts.”  The Commercial Appeal also noted that “Recovery.com raises eyebrows with $3.1 million for the Monteagle Diner.”

Any wonder only seven percent of Americans say the “stimulus” has created jobs, according to a recently released CBS News poll?

As House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) commented yesterday:

Americans are asking ‘where are the jobs?’ but all they are getting from out-of-touch Washington Democrats is more spending and more debt piled on our kids and grandkids.  A jobless recovery is not what the American people were promised.

House Republicans have a better solution that will actually create real jobs in America because it recognizes that small business, not government, is the engine of job creation in America.  Last month, House Republican leaders sent a letter to the President urging him to consider common-sense solutions to help small businesses and put Americans back to work. These proposals, some of which were presented to President Obama as early as his first week in office, were developed by House Republicans’ Economic Recovery and Health Care solutions groups. The Economic Recovery Solutions Group, led by Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), is also developing additional proposals to spur job creation.

Permalink | 28 Comments »

---

“Stimulus” Money Going to 10 Ohio Congressional Districts That Don’t Exist

A lot has been made of the non-existent congressional district in Arizona that the White House claimed received “stimulus” money.  So today, we went to Recovery.gov to find out how the state of Ohio - a state with 18 congressional districts - fared.  Guess what we found: TEN congressional districts in the Buckeye State that DO NOT exist received stimulus money.  Take a look below:

In fact, Ohio has never had more than 24 Members of Congress.

Not soon after the “stimulus” was signed into law in February of this year, stories about “stimulus” funds going to to Wisconsin for a bridge to Rusty’s Backwater Saloon; to North Carolina where “stimulus” funds were reportedly used by one town to hire a new worker whose job is to apply for more “stimulus” funds from Washington; to pay for bonuses for AIG executives, a turtle crossing in northern Florida, install skylights in Montana’s state-run liquor warehouse - and on and on and on. 

House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a statement to the Cleveland Plain Dealer today:

Not only has the ’stimulus’ not produced jobs the Administration promised, but now we learn that the Administration’s reports intended to track the effectiveness of government spending are riddled with errors and gross inaccuracies.  How many more mistakes have been made? How are Ohioans supposed to take the Administration seriously on the economy when its own Web site credits jobs saved or created in districts that don’t even exist?

The latest example - claiming credit for creating jobs in Ohio Congressional districts that don’t even exist - is just one more sign the “stimulus” isn’t working.

Permalink | 2 Comments »

---

“Stimulus” Outrage: Tax Dollars Go to Con Men, Congressional Districts That Don’t Exist

Ten months after the President signed a $1 trillion “stimulus” spending bill that his aides claimed would keep unemployment below 8 percent, Americans are still asking: “where are the jobs?“  It turns out that some of jobs the Administration claimed were “saved or created” by the so-called “stimulus” were from Congressional districts that don’t even exist.  

Fox News reported on it this morning:

ABC News has also uncovered even more “stimulus” spending in non-existent Congressional districts:

• “In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending — and 15 jobs created — in yet more congressional districts that don’t exist.”
• “In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent and 39 jobs created — in nonexistent districts.”
• “In Connecticut’s 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.”
• “The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.”
• “$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.”
• “$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.”
• “$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.”
• “$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico’s 99th congressional district.”

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, blasted the Administration’s claims of “jobs created or saved” in a statement yesterday:

The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.  Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We’ve got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen.

But the exaggerated jobs numbers aren’t the end of the “stimulus’” troubles.  As USA Today reported this morning, “Stimulus aid has sparked an economic boom for some unwanted entrepreneurs - con men.”  The story goes on:

State and federal officials say they are fielding thousands of reports of scam artists, many operating from overseas, using the promise of money from the Obama administration’s $787 billion economic recovery plan to entice people to hand over bank account numbers. The scams are so numerous, and the criminals hard to identify, that authorities say it’s all but impossible to catch them.

It seems that “stimulus” money has gone everywhere - except to helping create jobs for the 10.2 percent of Americans who are unemployed.

The “stimulus” hasn’t created the jobs the President promised because it relies on big-government spending instead of helping small businesses, which create between 60-80 percent of jobs in our economy.  House Republicans offered a plan to let small businesses and families keep more of what they earn, but Democrats ignored it, took a go-it-alone approach, and passed their trillion-dollar big government plan anyway.   And yet after a trillion dollars of deficit financed spending, Democrats still can’t answer the question: “where are the jobs?“

Permalink | 1 Comment »

---

Editorial Boards Weigh in on Decision to Import Terrorists to New York City

The fallout from the Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his cohorts in New York City is still being felt around America.  Over the past few days, editorial boards and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) condemned the move to try terrorists in a civilian federal court.   Even New York Governor David Patterson (D-NY) said last night that that “I would prefer that [the U.S. government] not be trying the terrorists in New York City.”

Mayor Giuliani commented on Fox News’ Your World With Neil Cavuto:

I think this is a very dangerous decision and an irresponsible one.  And one that is absolutely unnecessary…[T]his was an act of war.  And one of the things I thought we learned from September 11th was that we were in a state of denial before September 11th.  We went through this once before - 1993.  We had people - terrorists - attack the World Trade Center.  We did not recognize it as an act of war.  We tried them in the Southern District of New York.  It did no good.

It is fitting that the 9/11 murderers be treated as war criminals, because it was an act of war. This was not just another murder in the City of New York that year. This was an act of war, and an act of terror. They should be prosecuted in a military tribunal.

A roundup of newspaper editorials from the past few days follows:

New York Post, “Wake up, Mr. President! We’re in a war here”

The fundamental question is whether such a proceeding will make America safer, or place her at greater risk…Certainly, the decision represents a return to pre-9/11 sensibilities, when terrorism was seen as a law-enforcement issue, to be fought in the courtroom — not on the battlefield… It makes no more sense to try those responsible in a civilian court than it would have been to hold a trial for the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor.

New York Daily News, “From here to hell”

Obama erred in calling upon New York to host Mohammed as a run-of-the-mill criminal defendant in Manhattan Federal Court.  The President and Holder are wrong to treat the worst attack on American soil as a crime, not as an act of war. The Al Qaeda leadership, soldiers in an army that had declared war on the U.S., should rightly face justice as enemy combatants.  They are war criminals.  They belong before a military tribunal.

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink | No Comments »

---