Sessions on Progressive Obstructionism

Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) in his closing remarks preparatory to casting his vote on the Jack Lew confirmation last Wednesday, had this to say on a related matter.

I would also like to place this [confirmation vote] in a wider context.

Today is the 1,400th day since Senate Democrats passed a budget.  Why has this gone on so long?  Because they decided it would be better to offer no solution, no plan to help struggling Americans, and instead to tear down anyone who dared to offer a plan to solve our nation’s economic problems.

This is the heart of the problem here in Washington right now.  We have one political party that sees the budget debate as exercise in political warfare, not problem-solving.

At the center of this strategy is the White House.

In his campaign for re-election, President Obama repeatedly said that he had a plan to “pay down our debt.”  He even ran a campaign ad saying: “I believe the only way to create an economy built to last, is to strengthen the middle class—asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way.  So we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and home-grown American energy, for good middle class jobs.”

But this is all totally false.

Again, this was the strategy: offer a plan that does nothing to alter our dangerous debt course while pretending the opposite.

Then, once you’ve done that, attack anyone who dares to reduce the size of the bureaucracy.  Attack anyone who suggests Washington is too powerful.  Attack, attack, attack—while never offering anything to help Americans who are struggling every day.

After the White House budget was submitted in 2011, President Obama spoke at George Washington University and, with Congressman Paul Ryan sitting in front of him, and said:

“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives….  It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years….  But the way this plan achieves [that goal] would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history….  This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit.  And who are those 50 million Americans?  Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid.  Many are poor children.  Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome….  These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”

Majority Leader Reid said of one Republican reform effort that it was “a mean-spirited bill that would cut the heart out of the recovery that we have in America today….  It goes after little children, poor little boys and girls….  We want them to learn to read.”

This is how the White House and Senate Democrat leaders approach the budget debate.  It’s the same strategy with the sequester.  And Republicans, candidly, have not done enough to stand up to these egregious slanders.  Voting against Jack Lew would be a vote against these dishonest tactics. Misrepresentation of fact.

The painful truth is, the White House strategy has been largely successful up until now.  President Obama and his Senate Majority have blocked fiscal reform and continued our path to fiscal disaster.

It is time that we pointed out that the establishment they are shielding from cuts—the big-government apparatus they are defending—is hurting people every day.  Their policies, their endless support of the bureaucracy, has created poverty and joblessness and dependency.  In cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and Chicago—governed almost exclusively by Democrats at every level—good, hardworking people are hurt every day by the policies of the Left.

  • In the city of Baltimore, one in three children live in poverty.  One in three Baltimore residents are on food stamps.
  • In Chicago, there were roughly 500 homicides in 2012.  Fifty-one percent of the city’s children live in a single-parent family.
  • In Detroit, almost one in three households had not a single person working at any time in the last 12 months.  The city’s violent crime rate is among the worst in the country.  More than half of all Detroit children live in poverty.

This should not happen.  These are the consequences of leftist policies.  We are fighting to create jobs, to create rising wages, to create opportunity, to help more people earn a good living and care for themselves financially.  We are trying to lift people out of poverty, to strengthen family and community.  And we are trying to protect the good and decent people of this country from a debt crisis.

What he said.

This is Nonsense

The fourth quarter 2012 GDP growth rate was revised last week from -0.5% to +0.1% (of course it was, says the cynic in me), because trade contributed more to our GDP than had been originally estimated.

But in the opening paragraph, the WSJ‘s authors demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what GDP growth is:

…the meager showing underscored that government spending cuts are slowing the recovery’s momentum.

They pursue this misunderstanding (I’ll ignore their euphemistic “momentum”) by citing carefully unnamed economists.  Noting that the fourth quarter performance includes “federal government outlays that fell at a 14.8% annualized rate,” they say that their anonymous economists

say restrained federal spending will continue to be a drag on GDP growth during the first half of 2013.

No.  GDP is the production of goods and services in an economy, it is not the spending of government in that economy.  Government spending impacts the reported GDP figure tautologically: it’s a line item in the GDP calculation.  Growth in production, though, can come only from the private sector, the private economy, in which our businesses and our citizens operate.  It is here that those goods and services are produced; work for those businesses on that production occurs; and spending or saving the sales revenue and the wages of the labor occurs.

Growth cannot come from government, including government spending.  Government spending, instead, comes at the direct expense of private production and spending.  Government has no money of its own, it can only spend money that it takes from the private sector today in the form of taxes, or tomorrow in the form of taxes to repay today’s borrowing.

Thus, the failure of the present “recovery” is caused by government spending, as the last four plus years have demonstrated empirically (along with FDR’s profligate spending, which contributed to prolonging the Great Depression), not from a reduction in government spending.  For instance,

Real final sales—GDP less changes in private inventories—increased 1.7% in the fourth quarter.

That’s still appallingly weak, but it’s much faster than the overall GDP growth, demonstrating that government spending isn’t necessary for the private sector—the real economy—to grow.

Yes, Virginia

…the law applies to the Federal government, too.  At least to the SEC, as the Supreme Court has ruled.  In a case involving alleged special treatment for a mutual fund advisor—the fund supposedly allowed one investor to engage in frequent trading of the fund in violation of a rule that applied to all of the fund’s other investors—the SEC claimed it could alter, on its own recognizance, the statute of limitations for bringing an action against the trader.

As The Wall Street Journal described the matter,

The SEC faced a five-year statute of limitations on bringing a case.  The agency alleged the market timing took place between 1999 and 2002, but it didn’t bring a complaint until 2008.  The defendants, Marc J Gabelli and Bruce Alpert, argued the agency’s five-year clock ran from the time of the alleged offense, but the SEC said the clock should have started later, in late 2003, when it says it discovered the conduct.

The Supremes waved the BS flag at that claim.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, said

This Court, how­ever, has never applied the discovery rule in this context, where the plaintiff is not a defrauded victim seeking recompense, but is instead the Government bringing an enforcement action for civil penalties.

Roberts expanded on his statement:

There are good reasons why the fraud discovery rule has not been extended to Government civil penalty enforcement actions.  The dis­covery rule exists in part to preserve the claims of parties who have no reason to suspect fraud.  The Government is a different kind of plaintiff.  The SEC’s very purpose, for example, is to root out fraud, and it has many legal tools at hand to aid in that pursuit. The Gov­ernment in these types of cases also seeks a different type of relief.  The discovery rule helps to ensure that the injured receive recom­pense, but civil penalties go beyond compensation, are intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers.  Emphasizing the im­portance of time limits on penalty actions, Chief Justice Marshall admonished that it “would be utterly repugnant to the genius of our laws” if actions for penalties could “be brought at any distance of time.”

The opinion can be read here.

A Progressive Sequester

On the difficulty of even the trivial reduction in the rate of growth of spending that is the sequester, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D, MD) had this to say:

Can’t we just cut 2 percent just like American families?  American families don’t run prisons.  They don’t build their own roads.  They don’t have to put out their own local police department.

And so with this red herring, Mikulski identifies a central problem for our government: she’s utterly unable to find 2¢ out of every dollar in her purse that she can choose not to spend.  She’s unable even to conceive the idea of not spending those 2¢.

How very Progressive of her.