Pence's resolution unanimously passed in House

 

Last night, the House passed a resolution unanimously by 427-0 vote that called for religious freedom in Afghanistan. Pence sits on the Middle East and Central Asia subcommittee within the International Relations committee. His resolution stated the following actions:

· Condemns, in the strongest possible terms, enforcement of laws against apostasy.

· Requests the President to continue to work with the Government of Afghanistan to establish better protections for religious minorities, including converts to minority religions, and to enhance human rights protections in Afghanistan.

· Calls upon the Government of Afghanistan, and especially President Hamid Karzai, to continue to conform Afghan laws to Afghanistan’s international human rights treaty obligations, thereby protecting Afghan citizens who have converted or plan to convert to other religions from prosecution.

Speech by Pence

"I had the tremendous pleasure of traveling to Afghanistan in December 2004. Prior to departure, was eager to see this newly minted democracy, meet the Afghan people and see the good work being done by the people of Afghanistan in partnership and solidarity with American troops.

"I had the honor of visiting with newly inaugurated President Hamid Karzai. This affable and humorous man, who I came to view as Afghanistan’s “indispensable man,” greeted our delegation. President Karzai left me with the indelible sense that Afghanistan will succeed largely because this gracious, intelligent and humble man is leading it.

"While I am relieved that through President Karzai’s personal leadership on behalf of religious freedom Abdul Rahman has been freed, religious freedom in Afghanistan is still behind bars.

"The American people today have the luxury of looking upon the recent events in Afghanistan through the eyes of a people far removed from the volatile days of the beginning of their own republic. Far removed from the events unfolding over three years following ratification of the U.S. Constitution that established the protections granted under the Bill of Rights.

"Unlike the American people today, President Karzai and the people of Afghanistan find themselves just beginning the long and arduous journey of democracy. A democracy within which, I fear, the value of religious freedom is suspect and protections of religious freedom are vague.

"When the loya jirga in Afghanistan approved the Constitution, they were explicit in stating human rights protections.

"As stated in H.Res. 736, the Constitution of Afghanistan “affirms that the people of Afghanistan are ‘for creation of a civil society free of oppression, atrocity, discrimination, and violence, and based on the rule of law, social justice, protection of human rights and dignity, and ensuring the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people.’”

"Article 7 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan provides that “the state shall observe the United Nations Charter, inter-state agreements, as well as international treaties to which Afghanistan has joined, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and the freedom to change one’s religion or belief.

"Like House Resolution 736 says, I call “upon the Government of Afghanistan, and especially President Karzai, to continue to work to conform Afghan laws to Afghanistan’s international human rights treaty obligations, thereby protecting Afghan citizens who have converted or plan to convert to other religions from prosecution.”

"I implore the people of Afghanistan to continue to work through difficult issues such as this one. Vigorous debate is important within a democracy, but recognition of fundamental inalienable rights is also important.

"Like many Americans fearful of the dangerous chain of events a case like the one against Abdul Rahman could unfurl, I see religious freedom as a clear, inalienable right – a right that is a key to the survival of democracy.

"Thomas Paine said it well, 'That which we obtain too easily, we esteem to lightly.'

"I do not believe that the people of Afghanistan attained democracy too easily or take it too lightly. I believe the Afghan people fought long and hard at great personal cost. This is why I believe strongly that they should fight even more fervently to protect the rights and freedoms that so many Afghan men, women and children died before experiencing.

"Those who die in the cause of freedom did not die in vain, for they light the flame of freedom and instill its care to the generations who follow. This generation of Afghan people have the solemn duty of fanning that flame by protecting the fundamental rights of their countrymen, like the freedom to believe and practice a religion of one’s own choosing.

"It is my hope that this resolution would not send a message of condemnation, but a clear message that despite the grave concerns the American people have raised seeking protections for religious minorities, the American people are still committed to working in partnership and solidarity with President Karzai and the people of Afghanistan in defense of their hard-earned freedom."

Pence says "NO" to restricting freedom

 

Pence continues to fight for our freedom of Speech by saying NO to restrictions on a person's choice of how much money to give to a political campaign. Here is an article in The Hill about Pence leading his fellow Congressmen in signing a letter and sending it to Leadership to stop this non-sense of restricting people's freedom.

Eight members of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC), including chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) and GOP Conference Vice Chairman John Doolittle (Calif.), put House leadership on notice yesterday that they would not support a bill cracking down on unlimited political giving by so-called 527 groups without "a simultaneous decrease in other campaign-finance regulations."

The RSC members sent a letter yesterday to Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.), Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), as House leadership continues to weigh whether to include campaign-finance restrictions on 527s, named for the section of the tax code that authorizes them, in a forthcoming lobbying overhaul package.

Pence and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.) pushed for a bill last session that would curtail the growing political influence of 527s by eliminating the aggregate limit on total contributions that individuals can make in each two-year election cycle.

The letter was co-signed by GOP Reps. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.), Dave Weldon (Fla.) and Patrick McHenry (N.C.).

RSC members draw line in the sand

In God We Trust

 

Mike Pence along with several other colleagues in Congress have stepped up to defend our national motto, "In God We Trust." Here is an article discussing how the ACLJ is defending these honorable men and woman and protecting our Christian heritage in America.


WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 27, 2006--The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law, today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in federal court in Sacramento, California on behalf of 47 members of Congress in support of the federal government's request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of our national motto, "In God We Trust."

"We believe the court should dismiss this lawsuit which has no basis in fact and represents another flawed attempt to use the legal system to remove a legitimate reference to the religious heritage of our nation," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "The nation's history is replete with examples of acknowledgment of religious belief in the public sector. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly referenced the national motto as a legitimate expression of our religious heritage. It's clear that the national motto is not only permissible, but constitutional as well and we're hopeful that the federal district court will dismiss this frivolous lawsuit."

The ACLJ amicus brief supports the federal government's request asking the federal district court to dismiss the lawsuit filed last November by California atheist Michael Newdow. "In God We Trust" appears on U.S. currency and has been the official U.S. motto since 1956.

The ACLJ brief argues that the legal challenge to the national motto can have other ramifications as well.

The brief states: "A decision in this case invalidating the motto would render constitutionally suspect a number of practices that traditionally have been considered an important part of American society. Nothing in the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires the relentless extirpation of public references to God that Plaintiff demands. Whether it be in the national motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, patriotic music, or the nation's founding documents, such references are wholly consistent with the First Amendment."

The ACLJ represents itself and 47 members of Congress. The list includes: U.S. Senator Jim DeMint and U.S. Representatives Robert B. Aderholt, W. Todd Akin, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Kevin Brady, John Campbell, Steve Chabot, Chris Chocola, K. Michael Conaway, Geoff Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Phil English, Tom Feeney, Virginia Foxx, Trent Franks, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Gil Gutknecht, J.D. Hayworth, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Bob Inglis, Ernest J. Istook, Jr., Bobby Jindal, Sam Johnson, Michael T. McCaul, Patrick T. McHenry, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Randy Neugebauer, Charlie Norwood, Mike Pence, Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, Todd Russell Platts, Dana Rohrabacher, Paul Ryan, Jim Ryun, John B. Shadegg, Michael E. Sodrel, Mark E. Souder, Thomas G. Tancredo, Lee Terry, Todd Tiahrt, Zach Wamp, Dave Weldon, Lynn A. Westmoreland, and Roger F. Wicker. All are members of the 109th Congress and support the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

In its conclusion, the ACLJ brief urges the court to dismiss the suit. "The Establishment Clause was never intended as a guarantee that a person will not be exposed to religion or religious symbols on public property, and the Supreme Court has rejected previous attempts to eradicate all symbols of this country's religious heritage from the public's view. Although enterprising plaintiffs can find support for just about any proposition in the Court's multifarious Establishment Clause pronouncements, a claim that the national motto violates the First Amendment borders on frivolous."

The ACLJ brief is posted online at: http://aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJamicusbriefINGODWETRUST.pdf

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org.

ACLJ Represents Members of Congress in Asking Federal Court to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging National Motto ``In God We Trust''

Real leader in Republican Party

 

Here is an article in Human Events asking the question "Where are the real leaders in the Republican Party?" which he named Pence as someone with a vision Republicans can rally around.


The talking heads will tell you that the Republican Party is in trouble in the upcoming midterm elections. The prevailing wisdom is that unrest with the Iraq War and the President, combined with a few flubs such as the Dubai ports deal, could spell doom for Republicans in 2006. There is an underlying problem, though, that isn't getting enough attention. The Republican Party finds itself at this point in history without any real leadership.

Many in the media have it right when they label the current Republican's woes as being the result of a trust issue. There is a problem of trust, and trust can only be gained through strong positions and principles spelled out by a strong leader. Where is that leadership in the Republican Party today? There are many prominent Republicans in the public’s eye right now, yet there is no uniform vision or purpose. The Republicans, as much as they would like to criticize Democrats for having no agenda, have lost sight of their agenda.

In 2004, when the President was running for re-election, the Republicans had a real message. Social Security reform, tax code reform, national security, staying the course in Iraq, and making the tax cuts permanent. This is a bold, aggressive agenda that Republicans nationwide can buy into. However, they seem to have given up. The Democrats have effectively drowned out the Republican majority with the assistance of their long time accomplice, the mainstream media. This has caused Republicans to retreat on Social Security, punt on tax reform, and even begin to lose their courage on Iraq.

This is the result of no leadership. Republicans need someone to rally to, and that someone is absent today. There are a handful of prominent Republicans, each with their own issue or personal agenda, but none with the boldness and leadership to rally Republicans around them and advance Republican principles. This results in the public looking at Republicans and hearing nothing but empty promises and rhetoric from a handful of politicians, most with Presidential aspirations.

In order for Republicans to maintain the momentum that they've enjoyed in recent elections, it is imperative for them to unify around a vision. Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) and his Republican Study Committee have laid out just such a vision, but their lack of prominence means that few Americans will have an opportunity to hear these principles articulated. A prominent national Republican such as Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum could effectively step in and lead, although Santorum finds himself unable to as he battles for re-election in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.

Republicans find themselves unable to rally around a President who has descended into the classic “lame duck” period of his presidency. He is under assault from both sides. Liberals have always hated him and, therefore, continue to attack. Republicans have become more and more critical as they feel that this is what they must do to get re-elected. This leaves a void in the party and causes a gap between Republicans and the public that is not easy to mend. Combine this with a perceived softness on immigration, one of the hottest election topics among the public today, and the recent lobby scandals and you have a recipe for disaster.

On the positive side, Democrats are caught in a worse version of the same predicament. They are without a vision or a leader, and show no signs of attaining either any time soon. Their constant criticisms of the President and Republicans are perceived as hollow, partisan politics. This is not likely to garner large majorities in an election. However, this leaves the Republicans in the situation of positioning themselves as the "lesser of two evils." This is not how you build or maintain a majority.

Republicans must unify around a vision, and find a champion that they can count on. I don't advocate Republicans abandoning their President, but they must come to accept the fact that their President is not leading the party. This means that they need to find someone who will. That someone will most likely be best positioned to be the presidential nominee in 2008. Republicans are wandering around looking for someone to follow. The question is who will rise to the challenge and lead?

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Pence speaks to community members

 

Here is an article by Darrell Smith of newsexaminer.com on Mike Pence's townhall meeting last week in Indiana.


BROOKVILLE — Questions ranging from issues such as NAFTA, immigration and spending were offered Wednesday by citizens who attended a town hall meeting at the Brookville Public Library hosted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pence.

The Columbus Republican discussed the war in Iraq and government spending before taking questions.

Using the experience from two trips to Iraq and one to Afghanistan and recent talks with military personnel, he said there seems to be about 5,000 to 10,000 insurgents in a country of 25 million people.

“I know Hoosiers and Americans are frustrated with what they see on the television screen. I’ve had to pick up the phone and call the parents of nine service men in the counties which I serve in the last three years and they were nine of the worst calls I ever made in my life,”Pence said. “But let me say that despite what it might appear like on the television screen, I remain convinced we are making consistent and steady progress towards our military, political and strategic objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

He said the more than 100,000 Iraqi forces supplied the security for the December parliamentary elections and are taking over more of the responsibility of the war effort.

“The regular Iraqis I have spoken to become very dew-eyed very quickly when they begin to talk about what their new-found freedom means to them,” he said.

Pence announced he would be leading a Congressional delegation to Iraq in about a month to areas in the north where he has not visited on previous trips.

On government spending, he said the government must spend within their means like families. Last week he voted against a military spending bill because spending for other issues including Katrina relief were included, he said.

“People are asking what we’ve done with the money we already spend down there,” Pence said. “It included $36 million for Radio Free Europe, the last time I checked the Soviet Union is not there anymore.”

A Visteon employee asked about the North American Free Trade Agreement and Central America Free Trade Agreement and their effect on manufacturing jobs leaving the state.

“I hate when we see any jobs leave Indiana,” he said. “Indiana has lost more manufacturing jobs to other states in the U.S. than overseas by far. It is an axiom of my economic views — I think trade means jobs.”

He said wages are not as big an issue when it comes to industry leaving the United States as people think. Factors like high corporate tax rates, regulatory red tape and cost of litigation are important issues, he said.

He called for closing the borders to illegal immigration and then having a national debate about the numbers of legal immigrants the country wishes to allow in and which worker categories.

In January, Pence’s name came up as a possible successor to House Majority Leader Tom Delay. He said his wife was against him being the new leader and didn’t think the timing was right.

“To be elected majority leader, I had to feel most members of my party were interested in going the direction I’m going,” he said. “In January, I had been in a fight over paying for Katrina (relief) and spending reductions and most of that fight was with Republicans. I did not feel in January I personified where my party was ready to go to make the hard choices of making the income meet the outgo. That’s why you’re not interviewing the House majority leader.”

Pence calls Afghanstan to release Christian

 

Adbul Radman was recently imprisoned due to his conversion to Christianity in Afghanistan. His wife divorced him and told the courts of his new found faith. Now Radman is awaiting his death due to their strict religious laws. Mike Pence is calling for Afghanistan to release Radman and to transform their radical laws on religion so their people can proclaim faith in any religion without being persecuted.

Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, will introduce a congressional resolution next week calling on Afghanistan to dismiss the case against Abdul Rahman.

Here’s what Pence had to say:

"Religious and political freedom is the bedrock of any democratic society," said Pence. "After liberating Afghanistan from the murderous and tyrannical regime of the Taliban, America cannot stand idly by while the very freedoms for which we fought are trampled by radicals.

"The American soldier and the American people won freedom for the people of Afghanistan, including the freedom of religion. The Afghan people deserve more and the American people expect no less from our cherished ally Afghanistan."

In addition to calling upon Afghan authorities to dismiss the case, Pence's resolution:

- Condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the existence of laws against apostasy and their enforcement, either in the context of family disputes or otherwise.

- Requests President Bush to continue actively to seek the dismissal of this case and to work with officials in Afghanistan to establish better protections for religious minorities, including converts to minority religions.

- Urges President Bush to work with the government of Afghanistan to enhance human rights protection in Afghanistan.

- Calls upon the government of Afghanistan, and especially President Hamid Karzai, to conform their existing laws and practices to Afghanistan's international obligations, thereby ensuring that Afghan citizens who have converted or plan to convert to other religions do not face prosecution.

Pence plans to press for action on Rahman

Pence at townhall meeting

 

Here is an article about Pence at a townhall meeting in his home district in Indiana. Pence's discusses the importance of fiscal discipline and our mission in Iraq.


MUNCIE -- Republican Congressman Mike Pence spent some time Tuesday defending his recent vote against a $92 billion emergency appropriation to pay for the Iraqi war and rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

"We cannot solve our problems by printing money," said Pence, who told East Central Indiana residents Tuesday it could be two years before there are significant American troop withdrawals from Iraq.

People who attended Pence's town hall meeting at Elmcroft Assisted Living voiced more interest in Medicare, Social Security and putting people back to work. About 75 people, included Republican supporters and senior citizens, listened while Pence also defended the war effort.

Retired business Steve Cooper said he supported President Bush and the military's plan for ending the Iraqi war, but thought "war dollars" should be spent in America by rebuilding Gulf Coast towns, helping rebuild highways and "putting our people back to work."

Pence, seeking re-election to a fourth term this year, was concerned about mixing military spending with disaster relief and other unrelated discretionary spending when he voted against the emergency appropriation last week.

With the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars costing $400 billion and the national debt exceeding $8 trillion, Pence, a fiscal conservative, warned it was time for the federal government to trim runaway spending. He also warned that Medicare and Social Security would consume the entire federal budget in the next 25 years.

Phil Brooks, an auto worker, opposed President Bush's move to privatize Social Security. He also expressed concerns about outsourcing manufacturing jobs to Mexico, India and China.

Pence doubted any Social Security reforms would be undertaken by Congress, given the midterm election. And citizens also should not expect any changes in Medicare or other entitlement programs, he said.

LInda Muckway, an advocate for people with disabilities, said it would cost her more to buy medication with the Medicare prescription drug benefit than buying it over the counter at the pharmacy.

Pence reminded the crowd of mostly senior citizens that he voted against the Medicare drug benefit, mainly because most people already had prescription drug benefits with a retirement plan.

John Snow, an Air Force veteran, warned that the war in Iraq could be extended to other Islamic countries around the world. "We are outnumbered," Snow said.

Pence, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, also made it clear that he and Bush's administration were staunch supporters of Israel and would not tolerate any attacks against the Jewish state by Iran.

Pence defends vote against war spending

March Madness

 

It's the season for upsets. Survey Saint Louis created a 64 presidential bracket with all the presidential hopefuls in 2008. It was first time Pence has been to this dance and he drew a #16 seed against #1 Bill Frist. Frist was coming off the victory in the Memphis poll and looked as the favorite to win this year's tourney. Below is the update from Survey Saint Louis after the first round.


Cinderella story in the making!

House conservative leader Mike Pence upset #1 seed Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in the NORTH bracket. Online conservatives may have just sent a message to the Frist campaign.

Survey Saint Louis

Kudlow on Congressional spending

 

Here is an article by Larry Kudlow in the National Review about spending and the budget from our current Congress. We must follow Mike Pence's lead to cut spending or we will pay for it in November.


If the polls are telling us things are so bad, why is the stock market telling us things are so good?

Opinion poll after opinion poll reveals just how unhappy people are with President Bush, the economy, the war in Iraq, and the general direction of America. At the same time broad stock averages are hitting five-year highs. So who should you trust, forward-looking stock markets or backward-looking polls?

Here’s my answer: I have long believed that stocks are the best barometer of this nation’s economic health and wealth, as well as the status of our national defense that is so necessary to sustaining freedom.

There’s good reason why the NYSE (about 2,500 stocks), the Transportation Index, and the small-cap Russell 2000 are at their all-time peaks. New inflation reports show diminished price pressures, lower tax rates have boosted business, the Fed is nearly done tightening, job-creating profits are surging, consumers are spending, and former rust-belt manufacturing industries are enjoying their best run in twenty years as they participate in the growing global economy.

The rising stock market may also be telling us that the world picture is not as bad as reported. First, the U.S. military is learning to cope with the counterinsurgency in Iraq while it hands off more and more responsibility to the Iraqi security forces. Second, large-scale troop withdrawals are on the way in the Mideast while the bulk of the remaining U.S. forces will be repositioned on Iraq’s outer borders. Third, we are about to open up talks with Iran concerning its mischief in Iraq. You can bet these talks will include the topic of nuclear weapons.

Importantly, today’s strong stock market is also betting that investor tax-cut extensions for capital gains and dividends, the backbone of this recovery, will make it through Congress. “Paygo” legislation, which would force tax hikes to offset investor tax cuts, has been defeated. (I hold that a new Gramm-Rudman-like spending-limit approach would be much more fruitful.)

However, the big “if” in this optimistic stock market scenario is the GOP Congress. If Republicans cannot downsize the budget, tax cuts will be in jeopardy while tax hikes may even become a threat. In the early skirmishing, the GOP Congress is flunking the budget-cutting test.

Last week, the Republican-led Senate stiff-armed President Bush’s call for belt-tightening when it adopted a $2.8 trillion fiscal 2007 budget resolution — an entitlement-filled package that is more than $16 billion higher than the president’s request. The Senate snubbed even modest attempts to slow mandatory spending programs, which Bush had targeted for $65 billion in net savings over five years. Almost all of the proposed amendments sought to increase spending.

Republican budget architects are using gimmicks that violate all principles. Take, for instance, Arlen Specter’s “advanced appropriations,” in which the Pennsylvanian got an extra $7 billion for education and other programs. The senator’s blatant disregard for any sort of budget discipline was summed up with his smug remark, “It’s not ‘sort of’ a gimmick; it is a gimmick.”

To make matters worse, when fiscally-focused Republican senators like John Cornyn attempt to tighten Congress’s belt, they’re rebuffed. Cornyn proposed $10 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings over five years. His amendment failed 43 to 57. The disheartened Texas senator was later quoted as saying, “No one is at the wheel, and I’m afraid the plane will crash all too soon.” Jim DeMint’s amendment to stop the budget raid on Social Security surpluses also lost. Over in the House, the Mike Pence conservatives were even denied a vote for budget-cutting offsets to high-spending Katrina assistance.

GOP budget obesity is a huge problem. And it’s not just a tax threat. Politically, a big-spending GOP will demoralize its increasingly frustrated small-government conservative base. These are the folks who can carry the election in November. Without them the GOP Congress will be sunk.

Do voters and taxpayers really want Harlem Democrat Charlie Rangel as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee? Let’s take a peak into the future: In the House, Rangel will ignite tax-hike legislation. Next door in the Senate, Democrat Ted Kennedy will look to raise the minimum wage. Trial lawyers will rule the roost in their battle to undermine business. Wacko left-wing attempts to censure or impeach President Bush will move to center stage. Cut-and-run will become our new defense policy.

There is a way out. End budget obesity. Republicans must understand that the old pork-barrel politics of buying elections doesn’t work anymore. This is a center-right country that sees smaller government and lower taxes as the key to prosperity and economic freedom. The GOP must get back to this first principle. The Kyl’s, Cornyn’s, DeMint’s, and Pence’s have the story right, while the liberal Specter’s of the party are completely wrong. Which GOP is going to triumph?

End Budget Obesity: If the GOP doesn’t, it will pay dearly this November

Crisis with federal government

 

Here is an article by James Pinkerton of TCS Daily about the crisis that our federal government is currently undergoing.


We are in a Crisis of Process. OK, I have written more exciting lead sentences than that — everybody has. However, I will keep those words as they are, because they make an important, even life-saving point.

I will argue, in this two-part series, that problems of process inside the federal government are threatening not only our national well-being, but also our national security. And I will offer some solutions put forth by Bob Walker, who capped his 10 terms in Congress as chairman of the House Science Committee and member of the Republican Leadership in the historic 104th Congress.

Both of us will remind conservatives and free-marketeers, who like to affect a nonchalant disdain of government — even when they are running the government — of the following reality: Nobody makes you run for elective office. But if you want to hold high office, then you have to take that office seriously. If you are in the government, you have to govern. And that means, either make the existing system work, or else bring forth a better system. What you can't do is pretend that it's someone else's problem. The buck stops with you.

Yes, the topic of process is boring to many, but the consequences that flow from the failure of process are not boring at all. For example, if the once-obscure and back-burner-ish Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) fails at Hurricane Katrina relief, because it's tangled up in turf issues inside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — well, that's a front-burner, front-page issue.

Similarly, if the even duller-sounding Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) undoes the Dubai Ports World deal — that makes for an even hotter potato.

Six months after Katrina, nobody will argue that FEMA handled the storm well. The only question is: who, what, and who else is to blame?

As for CFIUS and Dubai, there had been plenty of good arguments to be made on behalf of that now-derailed deal, but the process was so badly handled that there was no chance for advocates to make those arguments. That is, if top officials — including the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Homeland Security — all found out about the decision after it was made, then by definition there was no possibility of a coordinated communications strategy for presenting the deal's merits to the American people. Apparently, the highest-ranking official involved in the CFIUS process was Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt, who has been known in the past to be inattentive to the politics-of-process sensitivities, as in his failure to spot the vulnerabilities of Dan Quayle back in 1988.

In a Dubai-deal post-mortem on the March 12 edition of "Fox News Sunday," Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, dismissed the CFIUS examination of the Dubai deal as "superficial"; on the same show, Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, declared bluntly that President George W. Bush had been "ill-served by an antiquated process."

Being ill-served on process means being ill-served on policy, and on politics. As Bush's declining poll numbers demonstrate, the American people expect their leaders to do a good job — on all aspects of the job.

Other process-problems are likely to loom large, too, as we head toward midterm and presidential elections. Let's consider education; at the federal level, that's a process-issue. That is, Uncle Sam can't actually run the schools, but the feds can set in place a system of carrots and sticks to make sure that kids get the education they need — and America gets the competitive workforce it needs.

Some might question whether that's a proper role for Washington to play, but in practical terms the argument was settled a quarter-century ago, when President Ronald Reagan declared that we were "a nation at risk" because of faulty education. The Gipper's own education task force included the famous sentence, "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." If the stakes were that high — and are that high today — then no presidential hopeful, in either party, can afford to disregard education. No wonder, then, that in 1988, George H.W. Bush campaigned as "the education president." Four years later, Bill Clinton campaigned as "the real education president." Most recently, in 2000, George W. Bush railed against the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and pledged a "no child left behind" education agenda.

Yet more than four years after the "No Child Left Behind Act" was signed into law, the improvements seem to be meager. A recent headline in The Washington Post reads, "Test Scores Move Little in Math, Reading/Improvement Appears Slight Since No Child Left Behind." OK, one might say, that's just the Post being its liberal Bush-bashing self. But plenty of responsible non-liberals say pretty much the same thing; in the carefully chosen words of Heritage Foundation analyst Dan Lips, "The jury is still out on whether No Child Left Behind is having a positive impact."

Meanwhile, many conservatives prefer to take the tack of denying that they have anything to do with the federal government — even when they run the federal government. Senator George Allen (R-VA) entering the Senate in 2001, as Bush was entering the White House, voted for "No Child Left Behind" in 2001, and has supported both of Bush's nominees to be Secretary of Education; in fact, Allen's overall support score for Bush stands at 96 percent, the third-highest for any Senator. Therefore it was a bit strange to see Allen trashing federal education policy to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis on Saturday: "We don't want to be dumbing down our [state] standards to federal levels and federal Department of Education bureaucrats in education."

If Allen feels that way, he should say so during his day job — that is, in Washington, as a U.S. Senator. More to the point, as he campaigns for the 2008 presidential nomination, however unofficially, he should talk in detail about how he would change the status quo. Is he for more privatization? Vouchers? The University of Phoenix? Installing Google in every student's head?

Once again it's worth noting: Engaging in the mental effort of thinking about process does not require devotion to the status quo of inputs; instead, it requires a devotion to improved outputs. And if improving outcomes means re-engineering the entire system, so be it. Allen and others should know that just dumping on the existing system won't accomplish anything — especially, after all, since Allen sits near the pinnacle of the current system.

Some conservatives will insist that the Republicans can win the presidency again, without paying much heed to domestic issues — other than, maybe, tax cuts and abortion. And that cynical calculus might hold true; so long as "macro" issues such as national security and the overall state of the economy are favoring the GOP, perhaps it doesn't matter too much, at least at the presidential level, if the party is seen as neglectful of education, health care, and so on. (Getting elected to lesser office, of course, such as governor or mayor, is a different story.)

But if that's the case — if Republicans seeking the White House can win by focusing only on macro issues — well, then, it behooves GOPers to get those macro issues right. So let's return to our first two examples of failed process: Katrina and Dubai. Both process-failures fall under the general umbrella of national security and homeland security. If Republicans are truly going to be the protective "daddy party", then they'd better be no-nonsense about getting their security act together.

Here's where a book published last year, Running The World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power, might be helpful. Author David Rothkopf is an alumnus of Bill Clinton's sub-Cabinet, although he is no lily-livered liberal. He describes himself as a "centrist Democrat" with a strong pro-globalization streak. Having worked in international issues at the Department of Commerce, Rothkopf later worked in the private sector for two former national security advisers, Republican Henry Kissinger and Democrat Anthony Lake; he has a solid enough understanding of how decisions get made, and why they succeed — or fail. And Running The World is a 554-page paean to the importance of process. It is basically a history of the National Security Council (NSC) and its operations, particularly emphasizing the first-hand recollections of key players over the last two decades.

As Rothkopf writes, ready or not, NSC-ers "find themselves in charge of the realities of leading the world." So he has written this book, in part, to help future NSC-ers prepare themselves for their daunting mission. Even those who disagree with Rothkopf's Clintonian vision history will find that the book makes a contribution to NSC-ology, to an understanding of NSC process.

Interestingly, the NSC has little institutional structure. Although it exists by statute — it was created by the National Security Act of 1947, which also created the Department of Defense and the Directorate of Central Intelligence — the NSC has virtually no permanent staff, and has never had a large staff, at least compared to other agencies. Yet the NSC succeeds, when it succeeds, when it pulls together useful information and advice to help the President make wise choices. That's the key issue, according to Rothkopf: Can the NSC coordinate an orderly and timely decision-making process?

But as we have seen, national security now means homeland security. And a look back at Katrina, which hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, reminds us that the national-homeland security nexus is still grievously inadequate. Katrina was a natural disaster, but it was fraught with national-security implications; the response was overseen (or not) by DHS, the same outfit that would have led the response to a mega-terrorist attack. Using Clausewitzian terminology, many who were at FEMA and DHS at the time have said the Katrina response suffered from "the fog of war" — or the "fog of bureaucracy".

Even the President, using a term straight from contemporary Pentagon-ese, told ABC News last month that the White House lacked "situational awareness" of the Katrina situation. That's a failure of process, the process of keeping the Commander-in-Chief fully informed, at the intersection where national security meets domestic tranquility — an intersection we are undoubtedly going to be visiting many times in the future.

So what to do? If the federal government is responsible for natural, as well as unnatural, disasters, then the federal government needs to improve its process. It needs a better standard operating procedure. Here Rothkopf has some suggestions. Reflecting the Clintonish view that foreign policy is mostly an extension of domestic policy ("it's the economy, stupid"), Rothkopf pauses from his history of the NSC to argue for a strong NEC — a National Economic Council — such as existed during the Clinton years.

As the name suggests, the NEC is the economic equivalent of the NSC; Rothkopf quotes the 42nd president saying that the NEC was intended to "operate in much the same way the National Security Council did, bringing all the relevant agencies together to formulate and implement policy." The result was an NEC that was "successful and productive," especially under Robert Rubin in 1993-4. And in fact, whether one likes it or not, the Clinton-Rubin team accomplished much — from raising taxes to securing Congressional acquiescence to two huge agreements, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Of course, many will insist that some of the Clinton-Rubin economic policies — the tax increase and the "Hillary-care" proposal come to mind — were counterproductive, and that the Clinton administration was saved from the economic shoals only by the push of the Gingrich-ized Republican Congress and the pull of the Internet. Which is a reminder: Effective process is a necessary, although not necessarily sufficient, condition for overall success.

And while Rothkopf's advocacy of a rigorous NSC-like process for domestic issues is basically sound, most non-Clintonians will probably reject his claim that "the biggest national security threats to the United States are domestic." When I heard him say that at a luncheon here in Washington, I asked him to repeat those words, so that I could be sure of what he said — and he did so, happily.

His argument is that the key variables for a country's well-being are the strength and dynamism of the economy and society, which of necessity must support any foreign policy or national security strategy. To which some might respond that if one defines "national security" too loosely, then anything can become an urgent "national security" issue, from fiscal policy to education; Vice President Al Gore even claimed that AIDS in Africa was a national security threat. Yet when national security means everything, national security policy means nothing. So part of the process is narrowing the process; not everything can be included.

Still, Republicans, with their more threat-oriented view of national security, face the challenge of helping Bush out of his current slump in the polls, as well as helping the GOP develop a more robust vision of problem-solving. That is, Republicans need to figure out how to deal more effectively with such process-failures as Katrina, Dubai — and, yes, even education. Come to think of it, all Americans, regardless of party, have a stake in those concerns. And they will certainly vote according to those concerns in coming elections.

For further perspective, I turned to G. Philip Hughes, a veteran of the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, whose federal service included a 1989-90 stint as executive secretary of the NSC; he is also deeply familiar with domestic issues, having worked in the Commerce Department, not to mention his current position at the White House Writers Group.

I asked Hughes: "What lessons does the NSC model offer for domestic governance?" In his answer, he echoed Rothkopf's point about the value of centralized and coordinated policymaking. In addition, he recalled one particular strength that diplomatic and national security-oriented outfits have brought to the policymaking table: centuries of ingrained professionalism. For the military, he declared, "It's literally a matter of life or death whether you're properly organized, equipped, and led in order to 'take that hill'" — that tends to focus the mind. By contrast, the stakes for domestic policy have rarely been so high; as a result, domestic agencies have often been used as "political dumping grounds." But such lazy hazy ma~nana-thinking could be changing, he concluded, in the Age of Terror.

One shudders to think of it like this, but Hughes is on to something: Just as, say, the U.S. Army had no choice but to shape up after Bull Run or Kasserine Pass, so it might be that FEMA and DHS and other entities will be remembered as having gotten their act together some time in the early 21st century.

But that hasn't happened yet. And of course, there's still the rest of the federal government to make better.

A Crisis of Process

Republicans need to remember their '94 roots

 

Here is an article in Townhall.com talking about the current Congress's out-of-control spending and how many Republicans have given in to big government.


On that memorable day in the spring of 1995, the entire House Republican establishment exuberantly embraced the most stringent budget Washington had seen in decades. Designed by former House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, R-Ohio, the plan balanced the government’s books in seven years by slowing the inexorable growth of federal spending and offered much needed tax relief to families and investors.
Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders labeled Kasich’s plan “crass,” “outrageous,” “vulgar” and “pathetic.” California’s raving liberal Pete Stark predicted the “cuts” would leave “our economy and society … devastated.”

But on that day 11 years ago, House Republican moderates rejected this nay-saying.

“I have waited 20 years for this day,” Chris Shays, R-Conn., said, “working and waiting for the opportunity to vote finally for a budget that will get our financial house in order.”

Many defended Kasich’s budget in explicitly moral terms by invoking images of their children or grandchildren struggling with unsustainable federal debt. “The legacy of chronic deficit spending,” Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, said, “is passed on to our children as a $4.9 trillion national debt.” Added Connecticut moderate Nancy Johnson added, “It is imperative that Congress regain control over our spending practices and leave our children an economically strong America.”

They stared down the special interests seeking to protect their corner of the federal budget. Former two-term Delaware Gov. Mike Castle lambasted politicians who “love to talk about making the tough choices and setting priorities” but retreat when faced with these choices. Instead, Castle urged his colleagues to focus on “the tremendous deficit ... and debt we have accumulated, and all the payments on that debt and the impact which that has on the economy.”

In the end, Kasich’s budget prevailed with 238 votes, attracting support from all but one Republican and eight Democrats. A decade later, the conventional wisdom among Republican strategists is that this assault more closely resembled Pickett’s Charge than the charge up San Juan Hill. After the government shutdown that followed, many of Kasich’s staunchest allies retreated like Thomas Paine’s “summer soldiers” and “sunshine patriots” from their commitment to limited government.

But the overwhelming majority of Kasich’s supporters did not suffer politically from their vote. Indeed, many prospered. His supporters that day included 11 future senators, two future governors, a future House Majority Leader, a future Speaker of the House, as well as the entire current crop of House committee chairmen.

This history matters because the members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) recently unveiled a budget plan modeled consciously on that 1995 Kasich budget.

The RSC plan would balance the federal budget in five years. It would eliminate more than 150 ineffective programs, slash foreign aid, limit Medicare growth, terminate hundreds of duplicative education and job-training programs, repeal the federal gas tax, block grant Medicaid and overhaul agricultural subsidies.

In total, the RSC plan would reduce spending on non-defense items by $691 billion over five years even as it extends the President’s pro-growth tax relief.

“If we do nothing,” RSC Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana and RSC Budget Taskforce Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas explained, “future lawmakers will have to either raise taxes to obscene levels, or deny funding to literally every other federal program regardless of its priority -- defense, border security, veterans and so forth.”

So where are those determined Republican moderates today? Mike Castle, who once excoriated politicians for refusing to make tough choices, spoke for his moderate colleagues when he announced that he will oppose even the president’s exceedingly modest budget plan.

Meanwhile, 60 House Republicans, moderates and conservatives alike, sent a letter to House Budget Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, emphasizing their opposition to the president’s proposal to trim a meager $37 billion from Medicare over the next five years.

What changed? Democrats have been the model of consistency these past 11 years. The rhetoric, guiding principles and policy ideas they offered in 1995 haven’t changed one iota. Moderate Blue Dogs accept spending restraint, but only if it is accompanied by tax increases. Liberal Democrats still defend every penny of federal spending, and they demand massive tax increases to underwrite it.

The movement has occurred entirely on the Republican side, where the moderates and even many conservatives have accepted Big Government.

Pence, Hensarling and their allies are telling us that Americans need not succumb to a debilitating future of European levels of taxation, unfathomably large budget deficits, and weakened national and homeland security.

Let’s hope they’re right.

Conservatives take a stand on budget

Pence leads opposition to leadership

 

Mike Pence let the revolt against the rule that Katrina spending and military spending be put in the same bill. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not dedicated to fiscal discipline so House conservatives had to go against the party line and vote their conscience in cutting spending. Here is an article by Tim Chapman discussing this vote.


Fiscal conservatives in the House led by Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee have been lobbying House leadership to split the $90 billion "emergency" supplemental spending bill into two parts: one for Defense spending and one for Katrina spending. The RSC wants to allow members the opportunity to vote to offset costs for Katrina.

Leadership has declined to do this and have produced a rule saying the two seperate titles must be considered together. As a result, fiscal conservatives are put in a box. Those who believe further Gulf Coast funding should be offset have no option - they must vote for the bill unless they want to vote against defense funding. Furthermore, the supplemental contains an extra budget-busting $1 billion in funding for Low Income Heating Assistance for northeastern states...incidentally, this provision was added by waiving a rule, something Leadership says it will not do to offset spending.

This is terrible leadership. Why would you not offer rank and file fiscal conservatives the opportunity to vote their conscience?

In response, the RSC has urged its members to vote against the rule. Mike Pence took the floor today to explain:

"But the reason I rise mostly in opposition of the rule is because there is no amendment that is being allowed under the waiver of the rules that will permit us to offset, even the cost of part of this bill, through budget cuts.

"I simply believe that in this day and age of record deficits and debts, it is absolutely vital that members of Congress be able to register their commitment to fiscal discipline while we fund the nation's priorities.

"It's for that reason that I was hoping the Rules Committee would see their way clear ,as they have with other aspects of this bill, to waive the rules that prevent legislating in an appropriations bill.

"In fact, my understand is that the LIHEAP funding in this bill, in and of itself, is the result of a waiver. We've waived the rules many times to increase spending in the Congress. It would be a welcome change if we waived the rules to cut spending and continue the process of putting our fiscal house in order."

UPDATE: The House has voted to uphold the rule. GOP Leadership prevailed on the vote but needed Democrats to do so. 29 conservatives voted the right way.

It is worth noting that Majority Leader John Boehner, in what many are considering his first tough test, voted against splitting the measure to allow offsets.

Leadership has demonstrated yet again to the rank and file conservatives that their principles don't matter. Conservatives who object to never-ending spending for the Gulf Coast region without offsets are now in a pickle. To register their opposition to fiscal irresponsibility they must now vote against defense funding.

Pence, RSC in opposition to leadership

Conservatives are disappointed by Republican leadership

 

We have lost many Republicans to the cause of limited government but House conservatives are standing strong and not losing hope. Here is an article by Robert Bluey of Human Events discussing the vote on a $91.8 Billion spending bill.


The honeymoon between House conservatives and Majority Leader John Boehner (R.-Ohio) is over.

Conservatives expressed deep disappointment Wednesday following a procedural vote on a $91.8 billion spending bill to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina recovery. They had hoped to offset the new spending with unused government funds, but GOP leaders blocked the plan.

On his first big vote since being elected majority leader, Boehner avoided embarrassment when the GOP won, 218-200. But in the process, 29 conservative Republican Study Committee members bucked their party leadership, and according to several Capitol Hill aides who spoke to HUMAN EVENTS, those members are very much displeased with Boehner. (See who opposed the bill below.)

“He cut off the hand that fed him,” lamented one senior House aide, referring to the support conservatives gave Boehner last month when he won his post as GOP leader.

“The bottom line is that they’re allowing votes on amendments that increase spending,” the aide said. “But they’re not allowing votes on amendments that decrease spending.”

Leading the opposition to the plan were Reps. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), the RSC’s chairman, and Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.), who has taken a lead role on spending issues. Pence and Hensarling unveiled the RSC’s “alternative budget” last week, drawing widespread praise from conservatives.

Hensarling tried to offer an amendment before the House Rules Committee that would have offset the entire $91.8 billion supplemental with unobligated funds—money the Bush Administration won’t spend in 2006.

Hensarling also wanted House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R.-Calif.) to split the two requests: $67.6 billion for funding the troops and $19.1 billion for hurricane recovery. But Lewis chose to combine them, leaving Republicans few options to strip what they view as wasteful spending included in the hurricane recovery bill.

“House conservatives made it clear these two supplemental requests should be considered separately on their own merits,” Hensarling said. “I am very disappointed we were also denied the opportunity to offer our offset amendment. The House repeatedly waives the rules to spend money, but they hardly ever waive the rules to save money.”

Ultimately, it was Boehner’s decision, along with other members of the House Republican leadership, to put forth a bill that will add nearly $100 billion to the government’s burden with any offsets.

Boehner spokesman Kevin Madden defended his boss. He said the majority leader supports the RSC’s efforts to reduce wasteful spending.

“Mr. Boehner worked together with many members of the conference about various concerns,” Madden said. “And, of course it's very important to Mr. Boehner that there be an ongoing dialogue about reforms to cut wasteful spending and the RSC's role in realizing that goal.”

During a press briefing with reporters Tuesday, Boehner responded to questions about the conservatives’ attempt to restore fiscal prudence.

“I am for reducing spending,” Boehner said in response to a question about the RSC’s plan to require offsets. “There hadn't been a discussion yet about their proposal in the leadership, and depending upon how they go about it, there is a question about whether it is germane to the process.”

Over the next 22 hours, the House GOP leadership, under Boehner’s direction, thwarted Hensarling’s plan to offset the entire supplemental spending request. (He is unable to offer it on the House floor because of rules about appropriations bills that I won’t even try to explain.)

At yesterday’s press briefing, a reporter bluntly asked Boehner: “But if efforts by the Republican Study Committee to reduce spending get defeated, what is the message that goes out to the conservatives who you would be counting on in this year's election?”

Boehner’s response: “I don't know.”

Conservatives in the House haven’t given up hope entirely. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R.-Tex.) has introduced an amendment that would separate the two spending bills. Neugebauer said the measures deserved to be debated independently on the House floor.

“Fighting the War on Terror and rebuilding the Gulf Coast are two different issues and deserve to be considered on their own merits,” Neugebauer said. “Doing so will allow Congress to remove any funding that is not truly critical or that is unrelated to these two emergencies.”

House Republicans Voting ‘No’

Akin
Chabot
Davis, Jo Ann
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hostettler
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Otter
Pence
Poe
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Shadegg
Stearns
Tancredo
Westmoreland

House Conservatives Are Disappointed After Boehner's First Big Vote as Leader

Heritage on renewed contract

 

Here is a research article by the Heritage Foundation explaining exactly what the "Contract with America: Renewed" would do for the budget.


Unless Congress changes course on federal spending, within a decade lawmakers will have to raise taxes by nearly $7,000 per household just to balance the budget.[1] Rather than resign the nation to a fate of inevitable steep tax increases and the resulting slower economic growth, fewer jobs, and lower incomes, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) has unveiled a budget proposal that bravely and honestly confronts the nation’s budgetary challenges. The RSC’s “Contract for America: Renewed” makes the difficult choices necessary to rein in spending and balance the budget by 2011—and would thus avert the unprecedented tax increases that would otherwise result from unrestrained federal spending.[2]

Without changes, higher taxes are all but guaranteed. The current federal spending spree has already expanded government by 45 percent since 2001, and spending growth is still accelerating: the 10 percent increase slated for 2006, fueled by entitlements and supplemental spending, is the largest in over two decades. Furthermore, this spending spree occurs as lawmakers should be paring back spending to prepare for the coming retirement of 77 million baby boomers that will cause Social Security and Medicare costs to skyrocket.

The RSC Proposal

The RSC budget would reduce FY 2007-2011 federal spending 2.8 percent below the baseline. Rather than spend $14.213 trillion over that period, as projected, Washington would spend $13.821 trillion. Federal spending would still increase every year, albeit at a slower rate than is now projected. This rate of growth would not be substantially different from the spending growth of the 1990s.


The RSC proposal would keep tax rates at the current levels that have helped the economy expand. Instead of forcing Americans to send more money to Washington to fund wasteful and outdated programs, the RSC would:

-Eliminate over 150 programs, such as the Advanced Technology Program, a notorious bit of corporate welfare;

-Turn back the gas tax and federal highway program to the states; (Currently, states send their gas tax revenues to Washington, which subtracts a hefty administrative fee and then sends the funds back to the states, with many strings attached.)

-Eliminate all pork projects from the recent highway bill;

-Pare back a fraction of the 137 percent increase in education spending since 2001 in return for providing states with more freedom to spend federal education dollars how they wish;

-Convert Medicaid and S-Chip into block grants and provide states with freedom and flexibility to tailor these programs to the needs of their low-income citizens;

-Pare back Medicare growth by requiring that upper-income recipients pay slightly more for their benefits and by reforming Medicare based on the successful Federal

-Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and providing seniors with an annual health insurance contribution that they could use to purchase the health care plan of their choice; and

-Fully budget for the anticipated costs of maintaining troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Too Radical?

Critics will no doubt charge that this budget proposal is radical and unrealistic. Such sentiment reveals more about the timidity of Congress than the RSC’s plan. The RSC’s goal of trimming 2.8 percent off the FY 2007-2011 spending baseline is neither unprecedented nor radical. Most of the RSC’s reforms are in a reconciliation proposal that would shave $358 billion off the growth of entitlement spending over the next five years. The table below shows that the RSC’s proposal barely exceeds the average during the 1990s of $308 billion in spending reductions per reconciliation bill.


Table: RSC Reconciliation Proposal Is Not Far From the 1990s Average

Year/Proposal
Five-Year Entitlement

Spending Savings

1990
$447 billion

1993
$244 billion

1997
$232 billion

2005
$40 billion

2006 RSC Proposal
$358 billion

All amounts inflation-adjusted for 2005 dollars.
Source: Congressional Research Service.

Medicare and Medicaid

Medicare reform and Medicaid reform rightly play a major role in the RSC budget. No credible proposal to restrain spending can ignore that these programs, which are expanding at a 7 percent annual rate, will double in size within a decade. This coming expansion, left unchecked, will crowd out nearly every dollar spent on discretionary programs, from defense to education. Even the RSC’s common-sense reforms, such as means-testing the Medicare drug entitlement, would still allow the program to expand by 30 percent through 2011. Surely 30 percent growth, coming on top of the 58 percent growth since 2001, is not unrealistically stingy. Better yet, the RSC proposals will help Medicare to function more efficiently. As well, converting Medicaid funding into block grants to the states will provide states with the ability to tailor their programs to local needs, free from federal micromanagement.

Confronting Budget Reality

Federal spending now tops $22,000 per household and is growing each year. The coming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs from the retirement of the baby boomers will place enormous pressure on the budget and leave lawmakers with a choice: enact massive tax increases, pile up unprecedented federal debt, or rein in federal spending.[3] Lawmakers who vote to sustain the current spending path are, in effect, voting for large tax increases down the road. The RSC budget proposal is a serious plan to rein in spending and restructure entitlements. Parts of this proposal may not be easy or popular, but neither is the $7,000 per household tax increase that the nation faces if lawmakers continue to duck the difficult decisions.

RSC Budget Provides Serious Blueprint for Spending Restraint

Give the facts and the Republic will be saved

 

After assembling a small group of congressional Republicans, George Bush decided to release tapes and documents on Saddam after receiving this advice from Mike Pence. Here is an article by the Weekly Standard discussing how Mike Pence wants the American people to know the truth about Saddam.


On February 16, President George W. Bush assembled a small group of congressional Republicans for a briefing on Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley were there, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad participated via teleconference from Baghdad. As the meeting was beginning, Mike Pence spoke up. The Indiana Republican, a leader of conservatives in the House, was seated next to Bush.

"Yesterday, Mr. President, the war had its best night on the network news since the war ended," Pence said.

"Is this the tapes thing?" Bush asked, referring to two ABC News reports that included excerpts of recordings Saddam Hussein made of meetings with his war cabinet in the years before the U.S. invasion. Bush had not seen the newscasts but had been briefed on them.

Pence framed his response as a question, quoting Abraham Lincoln: "One of your Republican predecessors said, 'Give the people the facts and the Republic will be saved.' There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?"

Bush replied that he wanted the documents released. He turned to Hadley and asked for an update. Hadley explained that John Negroponte, Bush's Director of National Intelligence, "owns the documents" and that DNI lawyers were deciding how they might be handled.

Bush extended his arms in exasperation and worried aloud that people who see the documents in 10 years will wonder why they weren't released sooner. "If I knew then what I know now," Bush said in the voice of a war skeptic, "I would have been more supportive of the war."

Bush told Hadley to expedite the release of the Iraq documents. "This stuff ought to be out. Put this stuff out." The president would reiterate this point before the meeting adjourned. And as the briefing ended, he approached Pence, poked a finger in the congressman's chest, and thanked him for raising the issue. When Pence began to restate his view that the documents should be released, Bush put his hand up, as if to say, "I hear you. It will be taken care of."

It was not the first time Bush has made clear his desire to see the Iraq documents released. On November 30, 2005, he gave a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy. Four members of Congress attended: Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee; Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), the Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee; Rep. John Shadegg (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona; and Pence. After his speech, Bush visited with the lawmakers for 10 minutes in a holding room to the side of the stage. Hoekstra asked Bush about the documents and the president said he was pressing to have them released.

Says Pence: "I left both meetings with the unambiguous impression that the president of the United States wants these documents to reach the American people."

Negroponte never got the message. Or he is choosing to ignore it. He has done nothing to expedite the exploitation of the documents. And he continues to block the growing congressional effort, led by Hoekstra, to have the documents released.

For months, Negroponte has argued privately that while the documents may be of historical interest, they are not particularly valuable as intelligence product. A statement by his office in response to the recordings aired by ABC said, "Analysts from the CIA and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating from a historical perspective, the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their postwar analysis of Iraq's weapons programs."

Left unanswered was what the analysts made of the Iraqi official who reported to Saddam that components of the regime's nuclear program had been "transported out of Iraq." Who gave this report to Saddam and when did he give it? How were the materials "transported out of Iraq"? Where did they go? Where are they now? And what, if anything, does this tell us about Saddam's nuclear program? It may be that the intelligence community has answers to these questions. If so, they have not shared them. If not, the tapes are far more than "fascinating from a historical perspective."

Officials involved with DOCEX--as the U.S. government's document exploitation project is known to insiders--tell The Weekly Standard that only some 3 percent of the 2 million captured documents have been fully translated and analyzed. No one familiar with the project argues that exploiting these documents has been a priority of the U.S. intelligence community.

Negroponte's argument rests on the assumption that the history captured in these documents would not be important to those officials--elected and unelected, executive branch and legislative--whose job it is to craft U.S. foreign and national security policy. He's mistaken.

An example: On April 13, 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle published an exhaustive article based on documents reporter Robert Collier unearthed in an Iraqi Intelligence safehouse in Baghdad. The claims were stunning.

The documents found Thursday and Friday in a Baghdad office of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi secret police, indicate that at least five agents graduated Sept. 15 from a two--week course in surveillance and eavesdropping techniques, according to certificates issued to the Iraqi agents by the "Special Training Center" in Moscow . . .

Details about the Mukhabarat's Russian spy training emerged from some Iraqi agents' personnel folders, hidden in a back closet in a center for electronic surveillance located in a four-story mansion in the Mesbah district, Baghdad's wealthiest neighborhood. . . .

Three of the five Iraqi agents graduated late last year from a two-week course in "Phototechnical and Optical Means," given by the Special Training Center in Moscow, while two graduated from the center's two-week course in "Acoustic Surveillance Means."

One of the graduating officers, identified in his personnel file as Sami Rakhi Mohammad Jasim al-Mansouri, 46, is described as being connected to "the general management of counterintelligence" in the south of the country. . . .

His certificate, which bears the double-eagle symbol of the Russian Federation and a stylized star symbol that resembles the seal of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, uses a shortened version of al-Mansouri's name.

It says he entered the Moscow-based Special Training Center's "advanced" course in "acoustic surveillance means" on Sept. 2, 2002, and graduated on Sept. 15.

Four days later, the Chronicle reported that the "Moscow-based Special Training Center," was the Russian foreign intelligence service, known as SVR, and the SVR confirmed the training:

A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Boris Labusov, acknowledged that Iraqi secret police agents had been trained by his agency but said the training was for nonmilitary purposes, such as fighting crime and terrorism.

Yet documents discovered in Baghdad by The Chronicle last week suggest that the spying techniques the Iraqi agents learned in Russia may have been used against foreign diplomats and civilians, raising doubt about the accuracy of Labusov's characterization.

Labusov, the press officer for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, confirmed that the certificates discovered by The Chronicle were genuine and that the Iraqis had received the training the documents described.

The Russians declared early in the U.N. process that they preferred inspections to war. Perhaps we now know why. Still, it is notable that at precisely the same time Russian intelligence was training Iraqi operatives, senior Russian government officials were touting their alliance with the United States. Russian foreign minister Boris Malakhov proclaimed that the two countries were "partners in the anti-terror coalition" and Putin spokesman Sergei Prikhodko declared, "Russia and the United States have a common goal regarding the Iraqi issue." (Of course, these men may have been in the dark on what their intelligence service was up to.) On November 8, 2002, six weeks after the Iraqis completed their Russian training, Russia voted in favor of U.N. Resolution 1441, which threatened "serious consequences" for continued Iraqi defiance on its weapons programs.

Maybe this is mere history to Negroponte. But it has practical implications for policymakers assessing Russia's role as go-between in the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Perhaps anticipating the weakness of his "mere history" argument, Negroponte abruptly shifted his position last week. He still opposes releasing the documents, only now he claims that the information in these documents is so valuable that it cannot be made public. Negroponte gave a statement to Fox News responding to Hoekstra's call to release the captured documents. "These documents have provided, and continue to provide, actionable intelligence to ongoing operations. . . . It would be ill-advised to release these materials without careful screening because the material includes sensitive and potentially harmful information."

This new position raises two obvious questions: If the documents have provided actionable intelligence, why has the intelligence community exploited so few of them? And why hasn't Negroponte demanded more money and manpower for the DOCEX program?

Sadly, these obvious questions have an obvious answer. The intelligence community is not interested in releasing documents captured in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. Why this is we can't be sure. But Pete Hoekstra offers one distinct possibility.

"They are State Department people who want to make no waves and don't want to do anything that would upset anyone," he says.

This is not idle speculation. In meetings with Hoekstra, Negroponte and his staff have repeatedly expressed concern that releasing this information might embarrass our allies. Who does Negroponte have in mind?

Allies like Russia?

Hoekstra says Negroponte's intransigence is forcing him to get the documents out "the hard way." The House Intelligence chairman has introduced a bill (H.R. 4869) that would require the DNI to begin releasing the captured documents. Although Negroponte continues to argue against releasing the documents in internal discussions, on March 9, he approached Hoekstra with a counterproposal. Negroponte offered to release some documents labeled "No Intelligence Value," and indicated his willingness to review other documents for potential release, subject to a scrub for sensitive material.

And there, of course, is the potential problem. Negroponte could have been releasing this information all along, but chose not to. So, in a way, nothing really changes. Still, for Hoekstra, this is the first sign of any willingness to release the documents.

"I'm encouraged that John is taking another look at it," Hoekstra said last Thursday. "But I want a system that is biased in favor of declassification. I want some assurance that they aren't just picking the stuff that's garbage and releasing that. If we're only declassifying maps of Baghdad, I'm not going to be happy."

He continued: "There may be many documents that relate to Iraqi WMD programs. Those should be released. Same thing with documents that show links to terrorism. They have to release documents on topics of interest to the American people and they have to give me some kind of schedule. What's the time frame? I don't have any idea."

Hoekstra is not going away. "We're going to ride herd on this. This is a step in the right direction, but I am in no way claiming victory. I want these documents out."

So does President Bush. You'd think that would settle it.

Who'll let the docs out?

Pence's Podcast

 

Mike Pence recently launched a podcast on his website called "Pence's Podcast." This will allow people to listen to what Pence is doing in DC and his thoughts about very important matters in America. Below is the link to his podcast where you can stay updated by listening to the latest happenings with Mike Pence.


Before being elected to Congress, Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) was a professional talk-radio host. So Pence’s decision to begin offering Podcasts on his House website should come as no surprise for anyone who closely follows the man who calls himself “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.”

The congressman who was the first to have an in-office radio studio and the first to start an official blog is now offering his constituents—and his conservative fans—the latest technology craze: Podcasts, downloadable audio files that draw their name from the iPod.

Pence will make available floor speeches, radio interviews, press conferences and other multimedia presentations on his website. Right now you can listen to Pence on the Dubai Ports World contract, the Republican Study Committee budget proposal and the importance of renewing the Patriot Act.

So what inspired Pence to take the leap?

"'Pence's Podcasts' are basically Internet broadcasts that can be viewed, listened to and downloaded anywhere, in any format, in many different ways," he said in a press release Monday announcing the new feature. "This will give me even greater ability to communicate with my constituents on issues that are important to them."

Pence joins at least two other House Republicans who already offer Podcasts: Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.) and Mike Conaway (Tex.).

Kingston has his own Podcast Station, complete with his Top 10 Tunes, which range from Ray Charles’ “Georgia on My Mind” to Outkast’s “Hey Ya!” On a more serious note, you can hear Kingston speak about fuel independence and port security. He also provides Podcasts of Rep. Bob Inglis (R.-S.C.) and Gil Gutknecht (R.-Minn.)

Conaway, meanwhile, offers Podcasts as part of his blog. You can hear him talk about immigration reform and the AMERICA Act, a bill he introduced that stands for “A Modest Effort to Read and Instill the Constitution Again.”

Kudos to these congressmen (and any others I’ve missed) for embracing blogs and Podcasting. As we’ve discovered at Human Events Online, there is a market for Podcasts—one that will only grow larger—and that’s why we’ve begun offering audio alongside the weekly columns of Terry Jeffrey and Mac Johnson. We hope to add more soon.

Pence's Podcast are welcome addition

Pence's Podcast

Pence on Foxnews Sunday

 

Here is the transcript to Mike Pence on Foxnews Sunday with Chris Wallace.

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: After the GOP revolt over the Dubai ports deal, what's the fallout for the president and congressional Republicans? And who will be setting the agenda this election year? We turn to Republican Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Mike Pence, who have both had their differences with the Bush White House.

And, gentlemen, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."

REP. MIKE PENCE, R-IND.: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: Good to have you here. I want to start by asking you both about the Dubai ports deal and about assurances the president gave the American people that it would be safe for homeland security. Let's take a look.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: People don't need to worry about security. This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.

WALLACE: Mr. Bush said that U.S. intelligence agencies okayed the plan. He was satisfied with it.

Congressman Hunter, why wasn't the president's endorsement enough for you?

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, R-CALIF.: Well, the president has an arm of government. It's called the Committee on Foreign Investment, CFI. It is supposed to look at these foreign acquisitions and look at them from a security standpoint. These folks let him down.

The Dubai government in 2003 shipped 66 nuclear triggers, high-speed switches that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons — allowed that shipment to go to Islamabad, even while we had an American agent standing on the dock asking the customs director of Dubai not to let this shipment go.

That information was not given to the Committee on Foreign Investment. They didn't get it. They let him down. They did a superficial look at this thing. And when the president turned to his people that he'd relied on, they gave him the go sign. They had rubber stamped this thing. So they let him down.

And you know, I gave the president the federal district court documents, the affidavits of our customs agents, and he was very interested in getting those before they made the decision to — before Dubai pulled the plug on this thing. So I think the president, having all the information, would have stopped this deal.

WALLACE: Let me bring Congressman Pence in and ask it a little bit differently.

You're a loyal Republican. This is a Republican president. He says I'm satisfied with the security of this deal. Why not follow the line, follow the leader?

PENCE: Well, Chris, let me tell you, I thank God every day that George W. Bush is a president more determined than the enemies of this country to keep the American people out of harm's way.

On this deal, I just think the president was ill-served by an antiquated process in the so-called CFI plan that Chairman Hunter refers to. We simply ought to talk in an orderly way about changing that in ways that reflect the post-9/11 world.

This new homeland security report confirms what the common sense of the American people felt about this deal, that while we cherish our relationship with the United Arab Emirates, that this was just a bridge too far in that new relationship given some of their troubling associations in the past.

But let me also say I think it's extremely important, Chris, that the United States Congress and this administration seek a way in the immediate future to reaffirm our sense of the importance of our new relationship with the United Arab Emirates.

WALLACE: And how do you do that?

PENCE: Well, there are a variety of means, economic and diplomatic, and as a member of the International Relations Committee, I hope to be a part of some conversations on the Hill and with the White House about ensuring that the royal family in Dubai knows that while this particular deal was not possible in our new relationship, that there's a great deal of gratitude for their support of our War on Terror.

WALLACE: Congressman Hunter, you not only wanted to block the ports deal, you have proposed legislation that would mandate all critical infrastructure in the United States be American-owned.

HUNTER: Sure.

WALLACE: Are you going to go ahead with that bill?

HUNTER: Yes, we're moving ahead with the bill. Now, part of what was in the bill, which was to kill the Dubai deal, is now done. And of course, that would be stripped away.

But it's important that the secretary of defense, in consultation with Homeland Security, identifies what is critical infrastructure. That is, infrastructure that is critical to national security. And having identified that, that that infrastructure be owned, operated and managed by Americans.

And you know something, Chris, it can be. And the idea that somehow we Americans can project enormous power halfway around the globe, we can offload tons and tons of material, and we can send people to far reaches of the globe in very short periods of time, but we can't run a port — that idea is just not logical.

And we've got lots of great people coming back from Afghanistan, from Iraq. Let's get a good colonel out of the 101st Airborne, retired, and let him operate some of this critical infrastructure.

WALLACE: Congressman, I want you to take a look, though, at this list, if you will. Foreign companies now operate about 80 percent of U.S. port terminals. Another Dubai company, Inchcape, moves ships in and out of two dozen American ports.

An Australian company owns the Chicago Skyway Bridge and the Detroit Windsor Tunnel. And German and French firms purify water for 24 million Americans. Congressman, would you ban all of that?

HUNTER: Well, what we do in this bill is require that you have a security committee, if something is defined by the secretary of defense as being critical American infrastructure.

WALLACE: Well, we're talking about water purification, key bridges, key tunnels.

HUNTER: Well, whatever he goes with, we give a five-year period for divestment by the parent companies. You don't have a fire sale.

And we have a requirement that you have a security committee made up of independent directors in that entity that runs that critical infrastructure, and that has to work with the secretary of defense to put together a security plan.

The point is, Chris, you know, we talk about having a strong homeland security, checking 100 percent of cargo containers, et cetera. In the end, our commercial interests get ahead of us, and here we are, years after 9/11, still with a relatively small percentage of cargo being checked. We have to move ahead.

And the other point is this, Chris. You couldn't open a hamburger stand in Dubai because Americans can't own anything. All we're asking to foreclose to foreign ownership is a tiny percentage of that vast array of economic opportunities. Let's let people buy apartments in Chicago or farmland in Iowa, but they can't own and operate port operations.

WALLACE: Let's do a lightning round on other issues that are likely to come up this year.

Congressman Pence, you proposed a budget this week that would cut spending faster and deeper than the president. No problem at all separating yourself from the president's budget?

PENCE: Well, it wouldn't be the first time that House conservatives disagreed with this administration, Chris. Many of us broke with the president on the expansion of the Education Department and No Child Left Behind, and a few dozen of us broke with the president when he advanced the creation of the first new entitlement in the Medicare prescription drug bill.

What we put out this week we actually call the Contract With America Renewed, because it was based on the budget that the brand new Republican majority passed out of the House of Representatives in 1995. We balanced the budget in five years. It is significantly more aggressive than the budget that the president sent to the Hill.

But, Chris, I really believe that we are in danger of becoming the party of big government. And despite the fact that we just passed the first deficit reduction bill since 1997, I think the American people long for leadership, independent leadership, on Capitol Hill that hews to the conservative principles that minted this majority in 1994.

WALLACE: Let me ask you about another issue, immigration. The president wants a guest worker program to provide a basis for immigrants to work in this country. Are you going to support that?

PENCE: Well, just as many Americans that feel that we can't control spending worry that we won't control the border, and I along with many House conservatives believe that the first priority of our government in this immigration issue is to secure our borders.

A nation without borders is not a nation. But once we secure our borders and the American people are confident that we have control of the south, in particular, I believe that we will be able to have a rational national debate about what to do with the 8 million to 10 million souls that are here.

WALLACE: Given these issues, Congressman Pence, and given past concerns when it came to Social Security, or the Miers nomination or the Katrina response, are Republicans moving away from this president? Is Mr. Bush becoming a lame duck?

PENCE: Well, I don't believe this president's a lame anything. He is a determined and focused leader who is going to continue to be that energetic executive that the American people have come to appreciate.

I think what you're actually seeing is that the Congress is simply beginning to step back up to its truly independent role. You know, I always tell those eighth grade kids that I give tours of the Capitol to that the Congress, even if it's of the same party, doesn't work for the president of the United States, that they are two co- equal branches of government.

And to some extent, I think what you see here is a very healthy constitutional friction that our founders contemplated.

WALLACE: But you know, taking the long look at this, Congressman Hunter, over the course of the first five-plus years, I think it would be fair to say you followed the party lines set by the White House. What's changed?

HUNTER: Well, I followed the party line except on trade. We've always had a difference of opinion on that and, you know...

WALLACE: But now it goes to a lot more areas — and not just you. I'm talking just generally.

HUNTER: I disagree with that. I think that the president's main role now — because everything, I think, is taken against the backdrop of the war against terror, and specifically the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is strong, strong support for the president as commander in chief. And if you — you know, this guy's a tough guy, and he's also a guy that likes Congress to stand up. When you go to the White House and you disagree with the president, I've never seen him do anything but say okay, that's your position. In the end, he tries to change your position. Let's move ahead.

He's good at that. He's resilient. He's tough. He's got a lot of endurance. He's a good leader. And he's been doing a great job in the war against terror.

In this particular ports deal, he got totally let down by this Committee on Foreign Investment that rubber-stamped it, said we've checked it out. They hadn't checked out anything. And so the president was left in an embarrassing position, but he's recovered from that already.

WALLACE: Congressman Pence, I want to show you a comment by one of your colleagues. Take a look at this. Republican Congressman Tom Davis said this week, "This is probably the worst administration ever in getting Congress' opinion on anything."

Truth to tell, has this White House been high-handed in dealing with Congress and has that caught up with the White House?

PENCE: I really don't think so. I mean, I disagreed with the president along with a few others on his top priority during the first session of Congress, No Child Left Behind. I disagreed with him on the creation of the new Medicare entitlement. If anybody...

WALLACE: You disagree with him on the budget. You disagree with him on...

PENCE: Well, yes.

WALLACE: ... immigration. You disagree with him on ports.

PENCE: But, Chris, if anybody would have felt the high hand, I think it would have been me and House conservatives. And I think it's actually what Duncan Hunter just said. This president is a man of strong opinions, and he's always been more than willing to have members of Congress down to the West Wing and have a conversation about that.

But I haven't sensed a high-handedness. I really do believe — and I've only served under one president. I've been in Congress for five years. I really do believe that what you are seeing happen is not that the president has changed, but that Congress is beginning to assume that independent role that our founders contemplated here.

And whether it be Duncan Hunter's leadership on Dubai Ports World or what House conservatives are doing on trying to reassert fiscal discipline, I think this is really the kind of friction between the two co-equal branches of government that our founders contemplated.

HUNTER: And, Chris, Let me follow up on what — Mike has just said something I think is really important. This president is very busy. When he was back here to — the last time I saw him on the Dubai ports thing, he was coming back to brief us on being on the India trip, talking with Pakistan, India, about their nuclear relations.

He didn't have the time to have a seven-hour hearing, which the House Armed Services Committee did. He didn't have time to get into the weeds in this and drill down on this Dubai ports thing. We provided, I think, a valuable service in doing a lot of investigation and coming up and shoring up this Committee on Foreign Investment and uncovering some of this.

WALLACE: I'm not sure he'd thank you for that, but we're going to have to...

HUNTER: Oh, I'm sure he would.

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there. Congressman Hunter, Congressman Pence, I want to thank you both so much for coming in and talking with us today.

PENCE: Thank you, Chris.

HUNTER: Good to be with you.

Transcript: GOP Reps. Hunter, Pence on 'FNS'

Weyrich gives "Contract: Renewed" an A+

 

The Republican Study Committee has become very influential under the leadership of Mike Pence. With the new proposal of "The Contract with America: Renewed," Paul Weyrich, a founding member of the organization, wrote this article discussing the history of the RSC and his extreme enthusiasm for the direction in which the RSC is leading the Congress.


The year was 1973. Republicans had ushered in a large class of some 42 new Members in the House of Representatives due to gains in the 1972 elections. They were nowhere near controlling the House but they suddenly had become more relevant. Gerald R. Ford, Jr. (R-MI) was Minority Leader. He was a nice fellow but conservatives among House Republicans regarded him as too willing to compromise with liberals in both parties.

Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. was Chief of Staff to Representative Philip M. Crane (R-Ill.). I was on the staff of Senator Carl T. Curtis (R-NE). I had discussed with Feulner and Crane the operations of the Democratic Study Group (DSG), the caucus of Democratic liberals which continually pulled their party to the left. I mentioned to Ed and Phil that Representative Floyd D. Spence (R-SC), who first was elected in 1970, had tried unsuccessfully to form a counterpart to the DSG.

Feulner and Crane suggested that we needed a more senior Member who could attract Members to a meeting. They suggested we confer with Representative Edward J. Derwinski (R-Ill), first elected in 1958 but who maintained his conservative principles.

We met with Derwinski, who agreed to attempt to persuade Members to form a counterpart to the DSG. Derwinski asked how the DSG funded its considerable staff. We pointed out that each Member contributed a portion of his own staff allowance. The money was pooled, the DSG’s having had what was called “shared staff.”

Derwinski, ever the practical fellow, asked what our relations were with the Members just elected. We said we knew a number of them. Trent Lott (R-MS), for example, had been part of a Senate/House staff group which met each month beginning in the 1960s as I had. I had also been part of that group. Lott had been a Democrat working for a Democratic Chairman, William M. Colmer. In early 1972 he had switched parties and had been elected as a conservative Republican, a harbinger of the future in the South. John B. Conlan (R-AZ) I had met through evangelical religious groups, Robert P. Hanrahan (R-IL) was introduced to me by Illinois conservatives and so on. Derwinski instructed us to sell the concept of shared staff to each new Member and to get them to agree to volunteer a portion of their staff allowance for the good of the cause. Derwinski chaired the organizational meeting, which was again held in the office of Floyd Spence. There was an overflow crowd. Not only did many freshmen show up but some older Members, such as John H. Rousselot and Claire W. Burgener (R-CA), as well. The meeting could not have been more productive.

We walked away with a large membership for what we termed the House GOP Steering Committee and we had sufficient money pledged to hire six people. The House leadership soon demanded that we change the name to the Republican Study Committee (RSC). It has been operating ever since.

I mention that background because one of the first assignments which Feulner, then Acting Staff Director, made was to have the RSC come up with an alternative budget. We had a staff person who was an expert on budgets, facts and figures. He produced a very credible piece of work.

Over the years the RSC has produced alternative budgets. They were often offered as substitute motions for the leadership budget as it was debated on the House floor. The high water mark for this substitute budget was 110 votes a few years ago.

Now, more than three decades following that first RSC alternative budget, the Study Committee has come up with its most brilliant and promising piece of work.

When Republicans first took control of the House after 40 years of Democrats in charge, Rep. John R. Kasich (R-OH) was Budget Committee Chairman. He produced a budget which passed the House. Ultimately, after compromise with the Senate, Kasich’s excellent work was watered down. Still and all, it was the best budget the House has ever voted on.

Today there is all this talk about how Republicans have lost their way since 1995 and that we must get back to the principles which first caused the voters to make the change they did in the 1994 elections.

So this time, the RSC took the Kasich budget, which the House already had voted on, and adapted it to the needs of 2006. The result is a very realistic budget, but one which asks the question, “What has changed in the past dozen years?” If Republicans really are concerned about losing their compass, if they need to be re-directed, if they are serious about bringing Federal spending under control, this is the budget which should be passed by the entire House of Representatives.

The budget would eliminate, not merely halve, the deficit by 2011. It would leave intact the Bush Administration pro-growth tax policy, one of the few achievements of which this Administration justly can be proud.

The RSC budget would achieve real reductions in discretionary spending, while increasing defense spending to the level the President has requested, especially in the out years. This budget also would achieve what the American taxpayer has sought as long as I can remember to reduce significantly foreign aid. As with the Kasich budget, the Departments of Commerce, Energy and Education are so restructured that the case could be made that under this budget those agencies would be, for practical purposes, abolished.

A total of 150 government programs would be eliminated altogether, including significant programs, ranging from subsidies for certain Indian tribes to the Legal Services Corporation.

In fact, this budget contains a number of budget reforms, including a Constitutional Line Item veto. The proposed net deficit reduction in this budget is $392 billion. Next time your Congressman or Senator whines that Congress has cut everything it can cut, show him or her this budget. The RSC has found nearly $400 billion in plausible cuts. The RSC budget does not touch Social Security, so if enacted it would not hurt the elderly. The budget would block-grant Medicaid. That way the States, with almost no strings attached, would be able to allocate this money as they saw fit, as should have been done decades ago. The budget would cap Medicare spending and also allow greater flexibility in the spending of Medicare funds.

Remember the Bridge to Nowhere, that multi-million dollar project to build a bridge to a remote area of Alaska in which only 50 people live. This budget would rescind that and all other earmarks in the highway bill.

The budget would permit drilling in ANWR, just as the Kasich budget bill did a dozen years ago. Liberal favorites, such as Title X Family Planning and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, would be eliminated. I could go on and on.

Just as Chairman Kasich (who now hosts a FOX News show on Saturdays) produced a responsible budget, so does the RSC. There are over 100 Members now in the House who voted for the Kasich budget. Since then the RSC has grown considerably. If the RSC could persuade those Members who voted for a nearly identical document plus those new Members who have been elected in the past five elections to vote for this budget it would pull the Leadership Budget to the right.

The RSC Chairman is Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). A former radio talk-show host, Pence is principled, charismatic, dynamic and is serious about this budget and other matters the RSC tackles. He has gone toe to toe with the GOP Leadership many times and has walked away still standing. They, not he, have given in. In this budget Pence was assisted by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who has mastered the ins and outs of this complex document.

I think it can be fairly said that the RSC is doing exactly what Feulner and I had in mind when we assisted Derwinski and Crane in organizing it. Leadership in Congress always drifts left. No matter how sound leaders are when elected, it is the inevitable result of the need to satisfy a constituency which includes Members such as Christopher Shays (R-CT) or Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) or the many others who wear the Republican label but who are anything but conservative. The RSC is here to say to the Leadership, “Not so fast.”

This budget deserves to be enacted. If that proves impossible then the Leadership at least should examine it closely to see where additional savings from its budget could be achieved. True, this budget is not designed to mollify special interests. Virtually all of them would be zinged, as well they should be. I am unenthusiastic about most things which emerge from Congress these days. But as for this budget? If I were grading it I would give it an A+!

A Realistic Budget From A Realistic Steering Committee