bjude

Toomey Debt Limit Proposal Shot Down

February 5, 2013 By bjude Leave a Comment

Last Thursday Senator Pat Toomey introduced an amendment to an underlying debt ceiling bill that was intended to resolve the devastating impacts felt by our country if Congress is not able to come to an agreement on raising the debt limit within the next three months. The original bill already gave Congress an extension for the three month period. However, Senator Toomey contested from the Senate Floor, “[My amendment is] an attempt to absolutely minimize the disruption, the danger and the drama, it’s an attempt to get away from ‘government by cliff’ and to have a sensible approach to bringing our spending under control.”

The Toomey Amendment proposed that if Congress was unable to raise the debt limit then the federal government would be able to prioritize what was paid first, focusing on debt obligations such as paying Social Security and salary for active duty military personnel. The amendment was voted down in a strict party line vote seeing every Democrat voting to table the amendment and every Republican in favor of it.

H/T The Morning Call

Below is video from the floor speech Senator Toomey gave.

Toomey Earmark Elimination Bill

February 2, 2013 By bjude 1 Comment

In recent months, I have read various stories in Lancaster newspapers with great interest pertaining to the state of our economy. I recognize that our economic issues are complex with many contributing factors, and we did not get into this position overnight. With recent issues such as the fiscal cliff debate, the role of the federal government and how it can impact our economy’s improvement has come into focus. I am encouraged to see the actions of fiscally responsible members of Congress like those of Senator Pat Toomey.

Sen. Toomey, taking a proactive approach in providing guidance on fiscal issues, introduced a bipartisan amendment with Senator Claire McCaskill called The Earmark Elimination Act. This amendment would have expanded the temporary moratorium on earmarks and made it permanent creating a point of order on any piece of legislation introduced with earmarked spending that would require a two thirds majority to override.

While earmarks are not the sole factor contributing to overspending, they have had a corrosive impact. Senator Toomey explained, “For years, earmarks played a significant role in fueling the overspending in Washington, currying favor with lobbyists and special interests, and undermining the integrity of our legislative process. My colleagues in Congress cannot credibly talk about cleaning up Washington if we do not get rid of earmarking for good. We cannot afford to allow Congress to resume this practice and play pork-barrel politics with taxpayer dollars.”

Unfortunately, the bill received strong opposition from congressional members reluctant to end the wasteful earmarking process. As fiscal policy is shaped in the coming months and years, Senator Toomey will continue to be a strong conservative voice that is willing to work in a bipartisan manner in order to do what is right for Pennsylvania and for the entire country. I support his continued leadership bringing transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility to the process.

*This post was originally a Letter to the Editor sent into Lancaster Online

Click here to see Senator Toomey’s Press Release

Click here to Senator McCaskill’s Press Release

Click here to see a video with Senator Toomey discussing the bill

Sen. Toomey Discuss the Debt Limit

January 24, 2013 By bjude Leave a Comment

Sen. Toomey discusses the debt limit on CNBC’s Squawk Box

Link

Sen. Toomey discusses the debt limit on The Kudlow Report

January 8, 2013 By bjude 1 Comment

Sen. Toomey discusses the debt limit on The Kudlow Report

Bill Whittle’s Election Recap

December 9, 2012 By bjude Leave a Comment

Here is a fantastic video of Bill Whittle giving an election recap. He highlights the problem the Republican Party faced with their message.

The Pros and Cons of Charters

July 15, 2012 By bjude Leave a Comment

Recently, The Economist posted two articles reporting on Charter schools. While they admit that there is difficulty with determining the success of Charters due to the lack of credible research on the subject, they make an interesting case on what they view are the pros and cons based on the metrics that are available. They argue that the states that are seeing success and are doing it right have correct laws in place governing Charters. They highlight that the key elements to Charters is that they are privately run while being publicly funded, and that because of the privatization they often bypass the teacher’s unions which makes it easier to provide oversight and monitoring and to quickly address failing schools. Quicker at least than their traditional public school counterparts.They contend:

…[T]he virtue of experiments is that you can learn from them; and it is now becoming clear how and where charter schools work best. Poor pupils, those in urban environments and English-language learners fare better in charters. In states that monitor them carefully and close down failing schools quickly, they work best. And one great advantage is that partly because most are free of union control, they can be closed down more easily if they are failing.

This assertion is based on research from institutions like Mathematica, an independent policy group, a national “meta-analysis” of research, done last year for the Centre on Reinventing Public Education in Seattle, and another recent study in Massachusetts for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which all concluded that in targeted areas with targeted students Charters are effective.

Another benefit to Charters that the article points out, is that Charters raise the bar and provide competition to their traditional public school counterparts. Thus, this may result in raising the level of performance from these schools in the same area. They quote Margaret Raymond, the Director of the Credo Institute (a leading researcher of Charters), saying:

Ms Raymond says traditional public schools no longer have the excuse that they cannot be blamed for the poor performance of children because of their background; so competition from charters may improve standards in non-charters, too.

The articles concludes with these thoughts:

It is pretty clear now that giving schools independence—so long as it is done in the right way, with the right monitoring, regulation and safeguards from the state—works. Yet it remains politically difficult to implement. That is why it needs a strong push from national governments. Britain is giving school independence the shove it needs. In America, artificial limits on the number of charter schools must be ended, and they must get the same levels of funding as other schools.[...]The least this generation can do for its children is to try its best to improve its state schools. Giving them more independence can do that at no extra cost. Let there be more of it.

Click here and here to see the full articles.
H/T Christina Diehl – LancasterHomeGirl for finding these articles for me.

Guest Post – Tim Murphy’s Liberal Record

April 19, 2012 By bjude Leave a Comment

Guest Post from Michael Smith, activist with the Campaign for Primary Accountability

Conservative voters in PA-18 can be excused for thinking Rep. Tim Murphy is one of them. Before every primary, when his seat is in play, Rep. Murphy sings the conservative tune on his web site, in ads, and on the stump. His Washington voting record, however, tells a different story.

First elected in 2002, Rep. Murphy entered his fifth term at the bottom of the fiscal-conservative lists. The Club for Growth, for example, ranked him the lowest-scoring House Republican in Pennsylvania for 2007, 2008, and 2009. (Club for Growth PAC was an early and consistent supporter of Sen. Pat Toomey against the profligate and eventual turncoat Sen. Arlen Specter.)

Other watchdog groups, such as Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers’ Union, have never scored Rep. Murphy’s record above 69 percent – in league with the American Conservative Union’s ranking him dead-last among all House Republicans for 2008, 2009, and 2010.

When free-spending Democrats took over the U.S. House in 2007, they found Rep. Murphy an ally in taking the nation further into debt. His voting record placed him 17^th worst for GOP unity in 2007, 12^th worst in 2008, 4^th worst in 2009, and 10^th worst in 2010. In 2009, only two other House Republicans outscored him in support of President Obama’s agenda.

It seems the more power Democrats have, the more Rep. Murphy votes like them.

His record on spending could be fairly characterized as “oblivious to cost.” In the 2008 session, Rep. Murphy requested more in earmarks than any other Pennsylvania Republican. He also voted against 138 amendments designed to strip earmarks out of spending bills over three years.

But aren’t earmarks just Congressmen’s way of ensuring their districts get their cut of the federal pie? Perhaps that would make sense if the federal budget were anywhere near balanced. Each year, Congress borrows more than a trillion dollars just to fill the gap between income and outgo.

With a $15.6 trillion running “bar tab,” this wild party is bound to end in an ugly hangover for everyone. No state, no Congressional district, and no taxpayer will escape responsibility for the bills their own elected officials have run up.

Instead of reckoning with the problem, Rep. Murphy returns to D.C. each year calling for another round. Since January 2003, he voted five times to raise the federal debt ceiling. For appearance’s sake, after Democrats took control of the House, he voted against raising the limit — when his vote couldn’t have made a difference.

President Obama’s economic agenda appeals to Rep. Murphy in another destructive way, as well. In 2007, Rep. Murphy defied conservative, pro-growth principles in voting for the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act of 2007. Also known as “card check,” this measure would have denied workers the protection of a mandatory secret ballot when unions attempt to take over their workplace. Rep. Murphy’s support drew a scathing write up in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, which called it “opportunism in pursuit of self-serving political survival.”

Rep. Murphy’s stand earned him a 2008 general-election endorsement from Teamsters Joint Council 40 … which also endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Rep. Murphy’s actions in office suggest a lack of seriousness about fiscal responsibility, and his self-proclaimed conservatism rings hollow in light of his actions. (His high pro-life scores might redeem his record somewhat if Congress cared as much about abortion as it does about spending to excess.)

For voters, the only opportunity to rebuke Rep. Murphy’s “my way” brand of conservatism is the 2012 primary. Recall that in 2010, a Tea Party-inspired movement shifted the U.S. House’s makeup by about 15 percent, enough for a working GOP majority. Now those same conservative voters are looking hard at the GOP primaries, the only opportunity to replace the “squishy” Republicans still jeopardizing our economic future with challengers intent on restoring limited government.

Nationally, only about 10 percent of registered voters participate in the primaries. That means only five percent, plus one vote, makes a majority in “safe” districts such as Rep. Murphy’s, where the boundaries are carefully drawn to prevent any Democrat from collecting enough votes to win his seat in November.

Will the conservative voters of PA-18 take this one opportunity?

Guest blog by Michael Smith who is an activist with the Campaign for Primary Accountability

Pat Toomey and Conservative Senators Challenge Insurance Mandate

February 16, 2012 By bjude Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and 42 of his colleagues filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court Monday on behalf of the bipartisan, multi-state challenge to the Democrats’ health spending law.

Senator Toomey

“The Democrats’ 2,700 page health spending bill represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American,” Sen. McConnell said. “Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and we hope the Supreme Court will do the same.”

The following are excerpts from the amicus brief:
“Put simply, Congress acted without constitutional authority in enacting the Individual Mandate of the PPACA. In so doing, it has damaged Congress’ institutional legitimacy and has triggered severe conflicts between state and federal governments that the Constitution was carefully designed to avert.”

“Because the Individual Mandate regulates a simple decision or choice not to purchase a particular product, it exceeds the proper scope of the Commerce Clause.”

“If Congress may punish a decision to refrain from engaging in a private activity (namely, the purchase of health insurance) because the consequences of not engaging in it, in the aggregate, could substantially affect interstate commerce, then the Congress can require the purchase of virtually anything. For example, this same rationale would allow Congress to punish individuals for not purchasing a host of health-related products, such as vitamin supplements, the use of which could lower aggregate health costs. Indeed, it is hard to imagine any private decision not to purchase a particular good or service that does not have some economic impact when aggregated among millions of people. Under that rationale, the government could mandate any commercial activity.”

The brief was signed by:

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Sen. Daniel Coats (R-IN), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV), Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), Sen. James Risch (R-ID), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS).