Monthly Archives: May 2017

Conservatives are blasting the five-month, fiscal 2017 spending deal written by Republicans and Democrats as nothing short of a "cave in" by the GOP despite its control of both the House, Senate and White House.

The deal, conservatives say, will make the fiscal 2018 spending process even more difficult.

The $1 trillion bill "does little more than kowtow to liberal Democrats and so-called moderate' Republicans," Jason Pye, policy director for the conservative FreedomWorks advocacy group, said Monday.

Republican leaders pointed to the GOP wins in the bill, including a $15 billion increase in defense spending that did not require the typical equal increase in domestic spending.

"We have boosted resources for our defense needs without corresponding increases in non-defense spending, as Democrats had insisted upon for years," House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., touted.

The bill also includes an unprecedented $1.5 billion for border security, although none of it can be used for a wall or to increase deportations of those who have already crossed the border.

But despite those Republican gains, a GOP aide who has spoken to conservative GOP lawmakers said most view the bill "as a complete concession to Democrats and that it is more or less what we have seen in the past that they are making the decision to pass it with Democrats rather than Republicans."

Conservatives had hoped a GOP-controlled Congress and White House would finally result in spending reform and policy changes they were forced to abandon while President Obama was in the White House and Democrats controlled the Senate.

In past years, conservative lawmakers have voted against spending bills because they believe the cuts are not substantial enough or because the legislation does not include key conservative provisions.

The fiscal 2017 spending plan looks a lot like past spending legislation. It leaves out many top conservative priorities as well as President Trump's requests.

As examples, it does not strip out taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, a women's health and abortion provider. The legislation excludes language that would withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, another conservative priority.

It does not include a penny for the southern border wall that was at the center of Trump's campaign agenda, despite a request from Trump to include the funding. The legislation also leaves in place Obama-era financial reform language the GOP has long criticized as burdensome.

Pro-life groups were particularly frustrated, even though House Speaker Paul Ryan signaled earlier this year he would include language defunding Planned Parenthood into the GOP's health care bill.

"The Republican Party is the only party with an anti-abortion platform and whose candidates ran specifically on the promise to defund Planned Parenthood, yet, here we are, watching them pass a bill that funds Planned Parenthood even though they control the House, Senate, and White House," said Kristina Hernandez, president of Students for Life of America, which describes itself as the nation's largest pro-life youth group.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said his group has not taken a formal position on the bill, but he is fielding angry feedback from constituents.

"What I'm hearing from a lot of my constituents is, we gave you the White House, we gave you the Senate, we gave you the House," Meadows said. "Why does this spending package appear to be driven by more of a left-leaning agenda than a conservative-leaning agenda?"

Meadows acknowledged the spending negotiations are "obviously a give and take situation." But for Republicans, there has been more giving in spending negotiations than taking since the 2013 partial government closure.

Over the years, the GOP has become increasingly fearful of spending showdowns and the prospects of a partial government closure. The last time the House and Senate failed to pass a spending bill in 2013, a partial government closure resulted in plummeting GOP poll numbers.

The view among voters was that that the Republicans were to blame for the mess by insisting the spending bill defund Obamacare. Republican poll numbers recovered but in subsequent years, voters signaled they would keep blaming the GOP in spending fights.

Public perception that the GOP is to blame has emboldened Democrats and provided the party real leverage in spending negotiations. The GOP can't pass a spending bill in Congress on its own, as the Senate filibuster rule requires 60 votes, and the GOP controls only 52 votes.

This time around, Senate Democrats threatened to vote against the fiscal 2017 bill if it included the border wall or defunded Planned Parenthood or sanctuary cities.

Republicans, fearful of cable news networks activating their government shutdown clocks, made no real effort to include conservative priorities, such as the border wall, that Democrats pledged to reject. Instead, individual GOP lawmakers were left to tout smaller victories in the bill that serve their constituents.

Republican lawmakers on Monday promoted money to permanently extend health care benefit for coal miners and to provide services to combat the nation's opioid epidemic, for example.

The spending bill is expected to clear Congress this week, leaving Republicans and Democrats to begin sorting through the fiscal 2018 spending legislation, which must be completed by the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.

Meadows predicted it will be even harder now to find common ground with Democrats, while one GOP aide warned that conservative Republican lawmakers are tired of waiting for wins in spending legislation now that they control both Congress and the White House.

"I think people are pretty dissatisfied and I think there is going to be a pretty big expectation in September that we do something better," the aide said.

See more here:

Conservatives fume over 'complete' spending concession to Democrats - Washington Examiner

Speaker Paul D. Ryanon Tuesday touted what he called "conservative wins"Tuesday in an omnibus package that would fund the government until September, despite members of his own GOP conference who beg to differ.

Several members of the House Freedom Caucus say they will vote against the spending package because it did not include enough of President Donald Trump's priorities even after members of the presidents own team, including his budget director, touted their own victories.

[Republicans Claim Their Own Victories in Omnibus Talks]

Rep. Dave Brat took a long pause when asked what he thought about White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer saying on Monday he had every expectation Trump would sign the funding package.

Thats surprising, the Virginia Republican said. But more importantly is his use of leverage going forward to get that agenda through, right? thats what he ran on, thats what the base wants out of us.

[After Dems Celebrate, Mulvaney Calls Spending Bill a Win for Trump]

Brat, a member of the Freedom Caucus, cited a list of concerns with the spending deal that included no funding for a border wall that Trump promised at virtually every turn on the campaign trail.

Im thinking theres going to be a lot of folks with huge reservations to put it mildly, Brat said.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said he expected the spending package would pass with mostly Democratic votes and absent conservative support.

He said a no vote by conservatives would still be a show of support for the president, despite the administration citing its own wins.

I dont know that it makes a big political statement one way or another, Meadows said.

[Trump Wants September Shutdown to Kill Legislative Filibuster]

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney on Monday called the omnibus a really solid deal citing a $15 billion increase in defense spending, which he disputed was actually $21 billion, as the top accomplishment.

The former GOP House member and Freedom Caucus member expressed his support for the bipartisan effort to fund the government until the end of the fiscal year.

Hes got a different boss now, Meadows said in response to Mulvaneys comments. It used to be the people of South Carolina, now its the president of the United States. I certainly understand his reasoning even though I may not totally agree with it.

Rep. Tom Cole, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said GOP members should think twice about voting down a measure supported bya White House of their own political affiliation.

This is voting against funding a Republican administration and the president has asked us to vote for it, Cole said. I would hope that carries some weight with every Republican.

Mulvaney was reaching out to the press again on a hastily arranged conference call Tuesday morning, shortly after Trump tweeted that Republicans should force a "good 'shutdown' of the government in order to do away with the filibuster in the Senate so more of his priorities could be passed with only GOP support.

I think thats a defensible position, Mulvaney said. He added it was one well deal with in September.

He added that, for now, he and his team are focused on the current omnibus spending measure due for floor votes later this week.

"Weve got a lot of things to do between now and September, Mulvaney said.But the truth of the matter, though, is that we averted a government shutdown in a way that allows the president to fund his priorities, and I think thats the story now, not what might happen in September.

Regardless of what waits later this year, the business at hand the House faces this week is still passing the omnibus. Forthat, Ryan and his team shouldnt count on too many conservatives, at least according to its most prominent members.

Were just doing what we told the voters we were going to do, nothing changes, Rep. Jim Jordansaid about his lack of support of the 2017 omnibus package.

The Ohio Republican did not agree that voting against the spending package would lessen leverage for the Freedom Caucus, which he used to chair, given its a bill Trump must sign.

Jordans feelings on the bill were clear: with a thumbs down, he said it stinks.

- John T. Bennett and Kellie Mejdrich contributed to this report.Contact Rahman at remarahman@cqrollcall.com or follow her on Twitter at @remawriter

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Excerpt from:

House Conservatives on Omnibus: 'It Stinks' - Roll Call

Corey A. DeAngelis is a Policy Analyst at the Cato Center for Educational Freedom. He is also a Distinguished Doctoral Fellow and Ph.D. student in Education Policy at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, and a Policy Advisor for the Heartland Institute.

His research focuses on the effects of educational choice programs on student achievement and non-academic outcomes such as criminal activity, political and economic freedom, schooling supply, and fiscal impacts. Corey has published several studies on educational choice programs with organizations such as the School Choice Demonstration Project, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. His research has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of School Choice, and has been cited by the Wall Street Journal. His work is also featured at the Foundation for Economic Education, EdChoice, and Education Next.

He additionally holds a Bachelor of Business Administration and a Master of Arts in Economics from the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Read more:

Corey A. DeAngelis - Cato Institute

In SC special election, GOP heads for runoff, Dems choose Parnell Charlotte Observer Last November, Mulvaney a prominent fiscal conservative and member of the often rebellious House Freedom Caucus was elected to a fourth term by nearly 20 percentage points over Democratic challenger Fran Person. Despite Mulvaney's strong win ... and more »

Here is the original post:

In SC special election, GOP heads for runoff, Dems choose Parnell - Charlotte Observer

Benjamin Franklin, one of the six signed endorsers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, scribed these words: The first responsibility of citizenship is to question authority.

He never lived in the Town of New Canaan where a budget referendum might have resulted in a public thrashing on the village green.

In 2013, after a career at CBS Television Network sales of over three decades, I began to research the dramatic rise in the assessment of property taxes since moving to New Canaan nearly a quarter century ago. Through the vigorous application of the use of the Freedom of Information Act, a group of public advocates began to amass a database for analysis which set forth the course of action for the intent to have a referendum vote to reject the 2017-2018 budget approved on April 5.

It took nearly five years of persistent research and data analysis to discover that the NCPS submission of their budgets estimates to estimates was not an acceptable methodology by any generally accepted accounting principle.

The rate of increase in the spending by the NCPS was inflated because the numbers were not compared to full-year actual spending from the prior year until long after the budget for the following fiscal year was approved.

My requests to reform this antiquated budgeting system never received a single emailed response from the Board of Finance or Town Council members during this five year period. Silence is not an answer. Ergo, a referendum is the only way to have accountability for spending administration by the taxpayers as stakeholders in this municipal corporation.

The referendum question proposed on petitions which require 688 signatures from registered voters (5% of the 13,800) seeks to have the Board of Finance to return a budget subject to taxation for the fiscal year 2017-2018 of $131.65 million.

The budget subject to taxation as approved on April 5 for the fiscal year 2017-2018 by the Town Council is $4.8 million higher than the $131.65 million for taxation purposes for fiscal year 2016-2017.

There are four matters of reconsideration in the petition that provides a roadmap to a flat budget:

Any referendum should not be viewed as a personal attack on any public servants competency. Consistent with the Town Charter provisions, vox populi (the voice of the people) do maintain rights to weigh in on property taxes gone wild.

There are less than 20 people who vote upon the budget. More than 7,850 property owners are impacted by their decisions.

A municipality is just that an incorporated entity that may require periodic review by stakeholders as taxpayers.

In the fiscal year 2015-2016 audit, nearly $3.2 million was discovered by the town auditors on the books of the NCPS including unspent funds appropriated and a non-disclosed salary account.

There are also legal rights of electors to seek answer to questions posed to elected BOE in a petition requiring fifty signatures pursuant to C.G.S. 10-238 to seek answers to questions about transparency and best practices within 21 days of the verification of the signatures before the referendum.

Fifty signatures were collected within six days of the budget passage on April 5 and have been verified by the Town Clerk as signatures of electors. Another 650 signatures are needed to move the referendum question into position for a vote by the electors no later than June 12.

A white paper on achieving the funding of needed appropriations by alternative means than taxation can be acquired by emailing me at [emailprotected] or attending public forums to be announced between now and May 8.

Thomas Jefferson wrote as a Founding Father: All that tyranny needs to gain a threshold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Only a budget referendum will signal the end tax tyranny in the Next Station to Heaven.

View original post here:

Questioning authority and getting no response, a 'referendum is the only way' - New Canaan Advertiser