Human Events writes today, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has an idea for cutting through all the parliamentary maneuvers and political kabuki theater: hold votes on Wednesday, in succession, on all three of the current proposals for avoiding Taxmageddon this January. Senate Democrats have been notably reticent to actually vote on any of the legislative props they’ve been waving around, particularly President Obama’s idea for taxing the hell out of small business owners, which his own Party regards with all the enthusiasm of a dead spider floating at the bottom of a coffee mug. . . . Republicans want to stave off Taxmageddon for all Americans, while the Democrats want to exclude certain politically disfavored groups. . . . Virtually everyone, pointedly including an earlier version of Barack Obama, knows that raising taxes in a recessionary economy is a horrible idea.
So Leader McConnell went to the floor this morning asking for votes on all three plans. The Hill notes, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Republicans would allow a simple majority vote on the two tax proposals. ‘Republicans will allow a simple majority vote on the two proposals,’ McConnell said on the floor Wednesday. ‘We’ll have a simple majority vote on the Democrats’ plan and Republican plan and I would also recommend we take a simple majority vote on President Obama’s plan.’ . . . McConnell said he believes lawmakers’ positions should be on the record. ‘The only way to force people to take a stand is to make sure that today’s votes truly count,’ McConnell said. ‘By setting these votes at a 50-vote threshold, nobody on the other side can hide behind a procedural vote while leaving their views on the actual bill itself a mystery to the people who sent them here.’”
Reporters were quick to recognize the implications of Leader McConnell’s move to have simple majority votes on the various tax plans. In a piece titled, “Senate GOP Call Reid’s Bluff On Bush Tax Cuts,” liberal news site TPM writes, “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wants his Democratic counterpart Harry Reid to show his cards. For days, Reid’s been signaling that he has at least 50 votes to pass legislation to extend the Bush tax cuts up to income of $250,000 — a close facsimile of the tax plan at the heart of President Obama’s re-election campaign.”
Roll Call points out, “The move to a simple-majority vote would ensure that the Democrats lose at least one vote on their plan. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has already announced that he would support a procedural vote to call up the Reid measure but oppose its actual passage without changes. Lieberman, who is not running for re-election in November, says that further tax code changes should take place this year.”
Other Capitol Hill reporters tweeted that the move puts significant pressure on a number of Democrats. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell observed, “Chess game in Senate. Mitch McConnell says Rs will allow simple majority vote, not 60, on Dems’ tax cuts bill. Pushes D’s in tough races.” And Carl Hulse of the New York Times tweeted, “Senate tax debate just got interesting with GOP decision to not block votes. Folks now recalculating, esp. those in tough 2012 races.”
And Roll Call points out another important factor, “McConnell admitted that under most circumstances, he would muster the votes to kill the Reid measure using Senate procedural rules. In this case, he says, it really does not matter because the House is sure to reject the bill that wouldn’t extend all of the Bush tax cuts. Not only will the GOP-controlled House oppose the measure on the merits, the bill runs afoul of Constitutional provisions that require revenue bills to originate in that chamber. ‘The only reason we won’t block it today is that we know it doesn’t pass constitutional muster and won’t become law. If the Democrats were serious, they’d proceed to a House-originated revenue bill as the Constitution requires,’ McConnell said.”
Of course, on the merits, the Democrats’ tax plan is bad all around. Jobs groups oppose it, warning it would “impose a massive tax hike on American businesses,” “result in higher taxes for the vast majority of manufacturers,” and “do very great harm to the middle class it purports to help.” Further, the American Farm Bureau Federation sounds the alarm that the Senate Democrats’ bill raises the death tax again, saying it “fails to provide any estate tax reliefwhich would allow a $1 million per person exemption and 55 percent top rate to be reinstated on Jan. 1, 2013. A $1 million exemption is not high enough to protect a typical farm or ranch able to support a family from estate taxes…”
As Leader McConnell said, “That’s what today’s votes are all about: about showing the people who sent us here where we stand. We owe it to the American people to let them know whether we actually think it’s a good idea to double down on the failed economic policies of the past few years, or whether we support a new approach; whether we think it’s a good idea to raise taxes on nearly a million business owners at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to find work; or to do no harm and commit to future reform.”
Spence said he would “love to lower taxes,” but the state can’t afford it. “We are barely paying our bills right now.
Never thought we’d read that a conservative Republican running for high office would say he won’t or can’t lower taxes. That’s definitely a first! Mr. Spence gave us further insight into his conservatism when it comes to school choice:
Spence said a voucher program “would be chaos,” with students flooding out of failing urban districts and overcrowding suburban schools. I can’t get fully there on a voucher system.”
Read more on what Mr. Spence thinks about wasteful “economic development” tax credits.
According to the AP today, “The Democratic leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Monday that the White House appears to be responsible for some leaks of classified information. ‘I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,’ Sen. Dianne Feinstein told a World Affairs Council forum.”
The story continues, “Republicans have criticized the disclosures, arguing that members of the Obama administration were intentionally leaking classified material to enhance the president’s reputation in an election year. Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed two attorneys to lead the investigation into who leaked information about U.S. involvement in cyberattacks on Iran and about an al-Qaida plot to place an explosive device aboard a U.S.-bound airliner. That hasn’t satisfied some Republicans who have pressed for a special prosecutor.”
These leaks are serious national security issues and it’s long past time to get to the bottom of who’s leaking what and why. If the leaks are coming from the White House, the American people deserve to know and the leaking needs to stop.
Governor Palin has had her intelligence and political gravitas questioned ever since she hit the national stage in 2008. The slash and burn, Saul Alinsky tactic of “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” is expected from the Democrats but when it comes from the campaign of the “conservative Republican” it’s doubly disappointing. The above quote from the Brunner campaign first reeks of sour grapes. Second, are they suggesting Governor Palin made an uninformed choice like the bimbo she’s often portrayed as in the liberal media and on Saturday Night Live?
In yet another attempt to pass their partisan DISCLOSE Act, Democrats once more fell far short of the 60 votes that would be needed to advance the legislation. After Democrat senators spent until after midnight complaining about this result on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has decided to… have ANOTHER vote on the DISCLOSE ACT yesterday. So the Senate will spend another day on this bill Democrats know can’t get 60 votes instead of doing anything to address the economy, unemployment, the looming fiscal cliff of tax hikes and defense cuts coming in January, or even basic appropriations bills to run the government.
No, Democrats are focused on their crusade to limit free speech and undermine the First Amendment through the DISCLOSE Act. In fact, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was fairly explicit about his desire to restrain the First Amendment as he spoke on the Senate floor: “I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute,” Schumer said. “You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the first amendment. Well, what could be more important than the wellspring of our democracy? And certain limits onfirst amendment rights that if left unfettered, destroy the equality — any semblance of equality in our democracy — of course would be allowed by the Constitution.” Of course the Supreme Court has said that many such limits on political speech through campaign finance reform are in fact not constitutional. Yet Obama advisor David Axelrod has said that if President Obama was re-elected, his administration would be open to even amending the First Amendment, a suggestion Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has called “An act of radicalism.”
But what would a debate about campaign finance reform be without myriad examples of Democrats’ hypocrisy on the issue? BuzzFeed reports, “The Senate Democrat leading the push for greater transparency in campaign donations to outside organizations slipped out of a highly orchestrated floor event Monday – to attend a fundraiser for an outside organization.Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the lead sponsor on the Disclose Act – which would force outside political organizations to disclose donations of more than $10,000 – briefly left a ‘midnight vigil’ on the Senate floor to attend a fundraiser for a health care reform group. Whitehouse and Sen. Chuck Schumer had set up a series of votes and debates on their Disclose Act — all of which were not expected to help the bill’s chances of passage in the near term — in an effort to hammer Republicans over their opposition to further transparency in campaign finance laws. Whitehouse didn’t go far – the event was held at Johnny’s Half Shell, a tony bar located less than a quarter mile from the Senate chamber that is a popular venue for fundraisers by politicians, lobbyists, political groups, and non-profits like the Alliance . . . .”
And the Washington Free Beacon noted, “President Obama blasted Senate Republicans Monday after the failure of the DISCLOSE Act for ‘(standing) with big banks and oil companies’—but made no mention of union spending in the statement, despite recent reports that unions both affected the legislation and spent an estimated $4.4 billion on elections between 2005 and 2011. The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that union leaders pressured Senate Democrats to drop a key provision of the legislation, according to a Republican aide.”
What the hell does it say when the chief law enforcement official for the state of Missouri is willfully engaging in deceptive schemes?????
KMOX.com:
Attorney General Chris Koster is switching up campaign tactics after using a deceiving social media ploy to get people on his mailing list. Last week, Koster sent out messages over Twitter asking people to register their support to stop abusive “puppy mill” style breeding practices.. However, if you filled out the form, a return email then notified you that your name had been added to Koster’s campaign email list. Read more…
Ever since he switched parties to win his current office, we have known that this guy will bend, break or massage any rule to win an election. Check out “a few” of our examples from over the years:
With Americans facing the largest tax hike in U.S. history and the Pentagon facing defense cuts the Secretary of Defense says would be “devastating,” with not a single appropriations bill passed in the Senate and with more than 3 years without a budget, Senate Democrats are of course ignoring all of these things today and instead pushing a vote on the partisan DISCLOSE Act in an attempt to squelch the political speech of those who disagree with them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought the bill to the floor for a vote this evening after it was written by Democrats behind closed doors without a committee hearing or vote.
Writing at National Review Online today, former FEC Chairman Bradley A. Smith explains why the DISCLOSE Act is such a bad piece of legislation. “It’s an election year, and incumbents are nervous. And so, in a classic sign of political weakness, Senate Democrats have scheduled a vote on legislation that would manipulate campaign-finance laws to silence their opponents. Their weapon is the “DISCLOSE Act,” a gimmicky acronym . . . . Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass various versions of the bill since the winter of 2010 . . . . [W]hy should anyone be opposed to it? First, because DISCLOSE attempts to scare and regulate people into remaining silent. Second, because this is clearly being done for partisan purposes. And third, because we already have more campaign-finance disclosure than ever before, and more disclosure is simply unnecessary.”
Smith writes, “As Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said when introducing the original bill in 2010, ‘the deterrent effect [of DISCLOSE] should not be underestimated.’ The bill’s real aim is to force trade associations and nonprofits to publicly name their donors. Such lists might be used by competing groups to poach members, or, more ominously, by government officials to threaten or retaliate against political opponents, or by interest groups to gin up boycotts and threats against the individual and corporate members of the groups. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) noted in a recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute, the Obama campaign has already been encouraging supporters to harass and publicly vilify and embarrass political opponents. Liberal groups have also been threatening corporations with lawsuits, disruption of shareholder meetings, and boycotts if they engage in political speech that departs from the liberal agenda. Conservative organizations’ members and donors have lost their jobs after liberal groups boycotted their employers — employers that had nothing to do with conservative causes themselves. Beyond intimidation, there is the sheer force of regulation. Perhaps the most infamous provision of the McCain-Feingold law was a restriction on the ability of groups, within 60 days of a general election, even to mention the name of a congressman running for reelection. DISCLOSE resurrects this idea with a vengeance.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon reports, “Democratic Senators introduced the new version of the bill on the same day the Wall Street Journal reported unions and labor groups spent $4.4 billion in political activity between 2005 and 2011. [A senior Republican aide] said the heart of the Democrats’ decision was protecting unions from disclosure while forcing their political adversaries, such as the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads, to reveal their donors. American Crossroads announced last week it was purchasing $40 million worth of advertisements in eight battleground states. ‘What’s interesting is the comparison,’ the aide said. ‘A $40 million ad buy has them scared to dickens, but unions on track for $800 million in spending this year get a pass.’ The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with 60 other business groups such as the National Restaurant Association and the National Retailers Association, sent a letter to Capitol Hill Friday that said the bill is ‘designed to chill the political speech of corporations, business interests, and others, while giving labor unions special protections.’”
