Daily Archives: 4 October 2013

Government Funding

Posted on by
1

When I got up this morning, I found in my inbox the following email (reprinted in its entirety, including the link he provided for his short floor speech) from Senator Mike Lee (R, UT).  He makes some valid points; please read his email carefully.  After that, I have a couple of minor points.

We shouldn’t have to fund everything in order to fund anything

Why won’t Democrats take “yes” for an answer on Vet funding

Today, in an effort to move forward and end the government shutdown, I asked for the Senate to pass a bill that had already been passed by the House to fund veterans’ benefits.  The motion was quickly shot down by Democrats who provided little explanation for their opposition to funding veterans’ benefits.

Following proper regular order, Congress would vote on and ultimately approve a dozen or so separate, segmented appropriations measures to fund each area within the federal government.  Each program or function area would have to stand on its own merits in order to get funded.  In a big government that spends between $3.5 and $4 trillion a year, and it’s important that we break spending decisions into pieces.  Unfortunately, over the last 4 1/2 years, we’ve been funding government on the basis of back-to-back continuing resolutions. The problem with these measures is that they basically require us to fund everything or fund nothing at all.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives are quite wisely saying that we should start funding bills within those areas where there is broad-based bipartisan consensus.  I agree  that we should immediately start funding the government in those areas where there is obvious and overwhelming support including programs like veterans’ services, national parks, cancer research, and the National Guard and Reserves.

Republicans and Democrats came together in the House and approved bills overwhelmingly. I think we owe it to the country to show that we can do the same thing in the Senate.  In a matter of hours the vast majority of the government could be funded.  It was the president himself who asked Congress to fund a list of priorities in a speech to the nation a few days ago.The House of Representatives has courageously delivered a series of bills that will do exactly what the president asked.  Now President Obama and Democrats in the Senate are having a hard time taking “yes” for an answer.

I continue to work around the clock with my staff and my colleagues in both houses of Congress to fund the government and protect the people from the harmful effects of Obamacare.  I am confident we can do what is best for Utahns and for the future of our country.

Now, my lesser points.  First, finally, Republicans are talking to us directly.  This is good.  Second, look at the tone of his email, and compare it with the tone of the emails many of you may have gotten from Democrats—usually fund-raisers (none of that in Lee’s email).  If not, the folks at Power Line get missives from Democrats and reprint them.  Which party actually is making an argument for their case, and which cannot and so is limited simply to attacking the other party?

The Coming Obama/Reid Debt Default

Posted on by
Reply

As part of the effort to fund the government, and this time, by the way to prevent default on our national debt, the House last week passed a CR that included an amendment that guaranteed that interest and principle on our national debt instruments would be paid first out of all the revenues coming in to the Federal government—an amount that exceeds the value of those payments by a factor of around 10.

When the CR got to the Senate,

[Senate Majority Leader Harry, D, NV] Reid moved to strip it out, and his motion passed the Senate 54 to 44 [a straight party line vote].

Last May, the House had passed that amendment as a stand-alone bill, but President Barack Obama said he’d veto the bill if it got to his desk:

unwise, unworkable, and unacceptably risky.

You read that correctly.  Obama said it was unwise, unworkable, and unacceptably risky actually to pay our debts ahead of any other obligations the Federal government might dream up.

Reid’s reason for stripping that amendment from last week’s bill?  It’s clear from his derisive title for it: “The Pay China First Act.”  I’ll elide the open racism in Reid’s title; he also simply sees no the value in paying our debts ahead of any other obligations.

This line is drawn clearly, also, it seems.  Not only have the Democrats in the Senate and the White House fought hard for a government shutdown—which they got with their refusal to negotiate on any funding bill sent them by the House—now they’ve shown themselves dedicated to holding our economy and our nation’s welfare hostage against their threatened default.

And for what, exactly?

School Choice

Posted on by
Reply

The Arizona State Court of Appeals (a level junior only to the State’s Supreme Court), Division One, ruled on a suit against that state’s creation of an education savings account (officially, Empowerment Scholarship Account) for grades K-12.  The Arizona ESA is designed to provide state funds to help parents send their children to schools of the parents’ choice (and away from failing schools), which might have included church schools.  The state had been sued on that last basis—the potential for state funds to be used in a religious environment.

The Appeals Court, politely, waved the BS flag at the suit:

The ESA does not result in an appropriation of public money to encourage the preference of one religion over another, or religion per se over no religion.  Any aid to religious schools would be a result of the genuine and independent private choices of the parents.  The parents are given numerous ways in which they can educate their children suited to the needs of each child with no preference given to religious or nonreligious schools or programs.  Parents are required only to educate their children in the areas of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science.

The ESA is neutral in all respects toward religion and directs aid to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion.  The ESA is a system of private choice that does not have the effect of advancing religion.  Where ESA funds are spent depends solely upon how parents choose to educate their children.  Eligible school children may choose to remain in public school, attend a religious school, or a nonreligious private school.  They may also use the funds for educational therapies, tutoring services, online learning programs and other curricula, or even at a postsecondary institution.  We therefore concur with the trial court that the ESA does not violate the Religion Clause.

Attorney General Eric Holder might want to keep this in mind as he sues Louisiana over that State’s use of state funds to subsidize parent choice.  The Louisiana case isn’t about separate of church and state, but it is, as was the Arizona case, very much about parents’ choice of schools for their children.

“Parents are required only to educate their children in the areas of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science.”  They can’t do that much when their children are trapped in failed schools.  Holder needs to get out of the way; the only serious outcome of his winning his suit is to keep Louisiana’s children trapped in that state’s failed public schools and so trapped in poverty.

Failed education is the first, and most important, link in the cycle of poverty.  By functionally denying children an education, Holder will be making it extremely likely that his victims grow up into either of two adult cycles of poverty: poverty and crime, or poverty and government dependence.

 

h/t AEIdeas