Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-7) admits everyone in the US House read the Cromnibus bill in July and knew what was in it

In a recent interview, here (Capital City Recap with Michael Cohen for Monday, December 15th), Republican Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-7) said one of the reasons he ended up voting for Cromnibus was that it overturned some parts of Dodd-Frank, a law which in his view is responsible for the middle class being "destroyed".

How putting the FDIC on the hook for derivatives is good for the public in a crisis like we just had is beyond me. The FDIC went severely into the red, had to be backstopped by the very public it serves, and then was replenished by raising rates on member banks which have crushed the small and regional banks who behaved honorably, and raised costs for everyone who uses a bank. The whole process has accelerated bank sales and consolidations, reducing competition in the industry. 

Well, at least Walberg acknowledges the middle class is in big trouble, unlike some people. But becoming "unbanked" is hardly at the top of the list of their troubles like being unemployed is.

Walberg also stated that voting against Cromnibus and shutting down the government as a possible consequence was not an option because that would have punished members of the American military who wouldn't get their paychecks, presumably at this the happiest time of the year. No, you wouldn't want to shut down the government and anger a government employee, no sir.

Maybe the most interesting thing Walberg said, however, and doubled-down on in the interview is that everyone in the House knew what was in the massive spending bill because they had all read the individual components of the bill in the form of individual legislation which they had passed in July and sent to the Senate piecemeal . . . all to die under the withering glare of Dirty Harry Reid.

So all the crap that's funded in the bill Rep. Tim Walberg is admitting to knowing about ahead of time, and voting for.

Read like what, here, but not after meals.

Ted Cruz blows it again, big time: stalled appointments to make it through lame duck

From the Washington Post story here:

"As Democrats and a bloc of conservative Republicans jousted on parliamentary disputes on an unrelated matter, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) took advantage of the dispute to set up a string of votes on nominees that might have otherwise not made it to confirmation before the session adjourned. Once this session ends, the Republicans take charge next month and have vowed to block any nominee a vast majority of them oppose."

US Senate reaches new low under Democrat Leader Dingy Harry

TheHill.com reports here:

But even some Democrats have chafed under Reid’s refusal to allow votes on GOP-sponsored amendments, which derailed an energy efficiency bill last week and a package of temporary tax cuts this week. ... Senators have complained for months that the chamber, once dubbed “the most deliberative body in the world,” has become dysfunctional. The collapse of two modest bills with broad bipartisan support this month marked a new low in cooperation.

Senate Dems Pull All-Nighter Talking Global Warming As Lake Michigan Posts All-Time High Ice Cover

The Christian Science Monitor reports here:

Twenty-eight Democrats and two left-leaning Independents, including Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada and his top lieutenants, are scheduled to speak in shifts until about 9 a.m. Tuesday. The event is not a filibuster, nor is it related to any legislation. The intent is to urge a divided Congress and nation to “wake up” on this issue.

Meanwhile Lake Michigan broke a record on Saturday for ice coverage at 93.29%, as reported here:

The National Weather Service says more than 93-percent of the lake was covered in ice on Saturday. A rapid build-up of ice came with a stretch of cold weather from late February into the first week of March. The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory measured the ice cover at 93.29 percent. That's the most since record keeping started in 1973, breaking the record of 93.1 set in 1977.

NR's Libertarian Kevin Williamson Helpfully Informs Us The Koch Bros. Support Sodomy

Kevin Williamson of National Review obviously has no imagination when he says "There is no CPAC of the Left" right after almost busting his buttons informing us that Gov. Rick Perry at CPAC and Mike Lee and Ted Cruz in the US Senate all support reductions of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders.

Of course there's a CPAC of the Left. It's called CPAC.

But this was helpful here:

Senator Reid’s recent obsession with denouncing Charles and David Koch from his congressional perch is of a piece with that: Never mind the merits of the things the Kochs endorse politically — from liberalizing energy markets to gay marriage — they are a handy bogeyman. And, given the politics of the situation, Senator Reid surely would prefer to talk about the Koch brothers’ allegedly nefarious plans for world domination (the great “libertarian conspiracy to take over the world and leave you the hell alone”) than about Democrats’ recent meandering energy policies, which would hold hostage U.S. producers in order to appease the Birkenstocks-and-white-boy-dreadlocks set.

If Harry Reid Is Protesting Unlimited Money In Politics, You Know He Must Mean His Own

Kimberley Strassel for The Wall Street Journal, here:

Mr. Reid was quite agitated on the Senate floor about "unlimited money," by which he must have been referring to the $4.4 billion that unions had spent on politics from 2005 to 2011 alone, according to this newspaper. The Center for Responsive Politics' list of top all-time donors from 1989 to 2014 ranks Koch Industries No. 59. Above Koch were 18 unions, which collectively spent $620,873,623 more than Koch Industries ($18 million). Even factoring in undisclosed personal donations by the Koch brothers, they are a rounding error in union spending. ...

[I]n addition to a system in which organized labor spends "unlimited money" to "rig the system to benefit themselves" and "buy elections," (to quote Mr. Reid)[about the opposition], Mr. Obama's IRS has made sure to shut up anyone who might compete with unions or complain about them.

Democrats: The things they are for and against are the things they are against and for.

Democrat Leader In Senate Makes Unprecedented Change To Centuries-Old Filibuster Rule

Senate majority leader Democrat Harry Reid has just thrown out the rule book for filibusters in the Senate.

Story here:

By a vote of 52-48, the Senate invoked the so-called “nuclear option” to change the historic filibuster rules of the upper chamber. As a result, the minority party will be prevented from filibustering any nominations other than those to the Supreme Court.

"It's time to change the Senate before the institution becomes obsolete,” Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday morning on the Senate floor ahead of the unprecedented alteration to centuries-old rules regarding the power of the minority party to contest Senate business.

“The need for change is so, so very obvious,” he said. “It’s manifest [that] we have to do something to change things.”

... lawmakers lamented that if the party in power can change the rules, then rules are meaningless. 

Spineless Republicans Cave On Cordray Nomination, CFPB Spying On Citizens

Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), John McCain (Ariz.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with Democrats to confirm Cordray. ... Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee ... pointed out that Republicans want to replace Cordray's director position with a bipartisan “board of directors with staggered terms.” He also expressed concern over recent reports that the bureau is conducting “unprecedented data collection.” “The CFPB [Consumer Protection Financial Bureau] is collecting credit card data, bank account data, mortgage data and student loan data,” Crapo said ahead of the vote. “This ultimately allows the CFPB to monitor a consumer’s monthly spending habits.”

More here, if you need to puke.

Sen. Harry Reid wins.

Molly Ball Doth Espy The Flaccid Organ Called The Senate

For The Atlantic, here:

"The last time a major new piece of policy legislation passed the U.S. Senate was July 15, 2010.

"That's when the Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill came through the Senate. And it was 951 days ago."

Just before the Republicans retook the House in 2010, over 400 bills passed by the then Democrat-controlled House under Speaker Pelosi languished unactioned in Sen. Harry Reid's Democrat-controlled Senate, on which, see here.

Hey Obama! Go Sequester Yourself!

CHRIS WALLACE, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST: Bob, as the man who literally wrote the book about the budget battle, put this to rest. Whose idea was the sequester, and did you ever think that we'd actually get to this point? 

BOB WOODWARD: First, it was the White House. It was Obama and Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and said, 'this is the solution.' But everyone has their fingerprints on this. (FOX News Sunday, February 17, 2013)

Watch here.

Senate Cliff Deal Settles For TEN TIMES LESS Revenue Than Cliff-Diving

As reported here:

"Before [Obama] spoke, details of the emerging deal emerged. It would raise $600 billion in revenue over the next 10 years [emphasis added] by increasing tax rates for individuals making more than $400,000 and households making above $450,000 annually, officials familiar with the talks said.  ... The Biden-McConnell negotiations appeared to offer the last hope for avoiding the fiscal cliff of $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts that economists fear could throw the country back into recession."

$600 billion over ten years?

Notice how CNBC leaves out "per year" after "$600 billion" in that second part of the snip after the elipsis. A $600 billion annual hit to the economy would be bad indeed, but only because it would post as a bookkeeping negative. Government spending counts as GDP, and removing $600 billion annually from the pool of funds normally tallied under GDP would "book" a recession before we even got there.

Look, by letting the Bush tax rates expire we were supposed to face a tax increase generating revenues of $500 billion PER YEAR or so, plus $100 billion per year from separately agreed to sequestration cuts to defense and social spending from August 2011's debt-ceiling imbroglio. That's why this fiscal cliff was such a big deal. We were talking $600 billion per year in the case of the Bush tax cuts expiring, not $60 billion per year as the Senate has now agreed. Tax increases on the first $9,000 of income ALONE would have generated $65 billion per year by letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the lowest wage earners for the simple reason that that tax increase affects EVERYONE'S first $9,000 of income. That's how progressive taxation works. Keep going on up the income ladder with all those expiring Bush tax rates reverting to the higher Clinton rates and soon you are talking about $500-$600 billion PER YEAR in revenues. What do you think Obama and Dirty Harry Reid have been greedily eyeing after all? That they are caving to this "deal" just shows how really weak is their position, and how much power the House has in fact, if only they understood it.

Unless of course it is all an elaborate ruse, a trap for the House, which just might be conservative enough to reject the deal for its surrealism at a time when the political consensus in favor of "balance" is rearing its ugly head. In which case the political position of the conservative House will be marginalized more or less indefinitely, and the political power of the Senate enhanced.

The US Senate is clearly the most despicable institution in the federal system, if that were possible, for obscuring all this from the American people, for the way bipartisanship means liberals get to remain liberal while Republicans have to check their conservatism with the coat girl, for continuing to spend through borrowing, and especially for acting as a Super House in doing all this, trying to shove this crap down our throats just as it has already shoved the ObamaCare crap down our throats. Bills are supposed to originate in the House after all, but those which do are routinely ignored by the Senate, which thinks itself superior and possessed of a priority it does not have.

The problem clearly is the US Senate and the way it is elected, how long it serves, and the way it acts. If ever it were time to repeal the 17th Amendment, this is it.

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Dirty Harry Changes His Tune

"The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can't do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51."

-- 2005 

Liberals Hate Middle Class: Bruce Bartlett Attacks The Mortgage Interest Deduction

Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction has become something of a fetish for liberals and libertarians in America. The enthusiasm for eliminating the deduction suggests a hatred for bourgeois values.

Liberals use it like a shield to obscure the hidden privileges they enjoy under the tax code, privileges which the vast lumpen proletariat is too dumb to understand. Extracting more revenue from their lessers so that they have more money to play with is the goal of liberals, whose constant refrain is "the money is in the middle." Actually, the money escaping taxation in America is at the top, where nearly $2 trillion of net compensation escapes Social Security taxation, amounting to a tax loss to the feds of about $300 billion annually.

Libertarians use elimination of the mortgage interest deduction more actively. To them it is like a club which they can use as a weapon to drive people from their homes in their effort to turn workers into interchangeable parts, which they can then move around wherever they need them and thus drive down the cost of their labor. If you are unemployed for a very long time because you won't move from your home, to a libertarian like a John Tamny or a Megan McArdle at The Atlantic, you are nothing but a depreciating asset, as she has put it.

Just look how Bruce Bartlett attacks the mortgage interest deduction here, misrepresenting its place not simply by singling it out but also by failing to place it within the spectrum of tax loss expenditures generally:

"The problem, insofar as tax reform is concerned, is that the mortgage interest deduction and that for property taxes reduce federal revenues by $100 billion per year."

If only that were an impressive number compared to the usual categories of tax loss expenditures.

The Joint Committee on Taxation, for example, puts the combined tax loss from deductions for health-related and cafeteria plans at $140 billion.

Tax loss from exclusion of retirement-related benefits comes to $160 billion when you include Social Security and Railroad retirement benefits, capital gains excluded at death, and pension and 401k plan contributions.

The last two together alone come to $91 billion.

Coincidently, reduced rates of tax on capital gains and dividends as a category by itself means a tax loss of nearly $91 billion, more than the mortgage interest deduction at $78 billion. 

The rich may benefit a lot from the tax perspective from the mortgage interest deduction, but they benefit more than anyone from reduced rates of tax on capital gains, and Bruce Bartlett knows it:

For most people, income is simple: it means wages or perhaps a pension or Social Security benefits. Income from capital – dividends, interest, rent and capital gains – seldom enters into the calculation. The vast bulk of such income is earned by the ultrawealthy, like Mr. Romney.

Bruce Bartlett has made it a regular habit to sniff at the proposals of Republicans, who recently restored the mortgage interest deduction plank in their platform, the real inspiration for his screed.

In this he reminds me of no one so much as Katie Couric when she went nosing around the "unwashed middle" before her ilk got hosed off in the November 2010 elections. But liberals still have a certain air about them.

I think they need another bath.

Bob Brinker Of "Money Talk" Is Wrong: GDP Isn't Growing At An Average Of 1.75 Percent

On his radio program "Money Talk" yesterday Bob Brinker sought to defend recent economic performance as better than the Q2 report of 1.5 percent makes it appear. He accomplished this feat by averaging that number 1.5 with the 2.0 percent reported in Q1, coming up with a little better number, 1.75 percent.

This is wrong and I stated so in a post I have since removed.

I thought Bob Brinker said this for political reasons in the context of the remarks, and in a fit of pique I posted that Bob Brinker is a shill for the Obama regime in doing this, remembering as I am wont that Bob Brinker has stated on the program, among other things that hint of leaning to the Democrats despite calling himself an independent, that Obama's man in the US Senate, Dirty Harry Reid, is "a good man, a good man." Harry Reid is manifestly not a good man, recently using the well of the Senate to innoculate himself for potentially libelous remarks he has made from there against Mitt Romney, a fellow Mormon to Reid no less. Harry Reid has also been the chief instrument of gridlock on Capitol Hill, both now and when Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Just ask her how many bills she sent to him which never received action.

I've removed that post because I think it's possible Bob Brinker made the comments entirely out of ignorance, not from political bias. The reason is that I've realized that I've made the exact same mistake about GDP myself on this very blog, and my bias against Obama didn't keep me from making it. I actually forgot about those errors long after I had improved my understanding of GDP. So even if Bob Brinker did make the statements in order to put Obama's performance in the best possible light, it's also possible Bob Brinker just isn't as smart about GDP as he thinks he is. After all, it is a complicated subject about which very few people really are expert, and if I can make an honest mistake about it, so can he.

So the politics aside, it is impermissible to take the sum of quarterly headline GDP and divide by 2 or 3 or 4 to get an average rate. Each quarterly statement of GDP is already stating the annual rate, that is, the annual rate prevailing during the quarter. That's what the meaning of annualized is. As the quarters roll and the data become more full and complete, the numbers are routinely refined, even many years after we learn of the third and final estimate of quarterly GDP for month x, y or z. GDP is always a work in progress, and even somewhat controversial among the truly expert.

So in the second quarter, the annualized rate of GDP growth is 1.5 percent, not 2 percent, and not 1.75 percent. And that is terrible for everyone, Democrat, Republican and independent alike, because we are all in this together.

At least that is what we would like to think.

Mormons in Congress as of January 2011

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah

Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona

Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nevada

Rep. Wally Herger, R-California

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho

Senator Reid Goes Nuclear, So Does Senator McConnell

“We are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House."

-- Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, quoted here.

Sorry, Mitch, but the 17th Amendment already did that in 1913.

Net Revenue from Dem. Surcharge on Incomes Over $1 Million in '09 = $9 Billion

Nowhere near enough to pay for Obama's nearly $500 billion "pass this bill now" jobs bill.

In 2009 (the last year for which the data is available) 78,147 people made more than $1 million in net compensation, according to socialsecurity.gov, here, pulling in about $184 billion. I said "billion."

A 5 percent surcharge on that, which is what the Democrats are proposing to pay for Obama's latest jobs spending bill of nearly $500 billion, is . . . drum roll please . . . $9.2 billion.

Sen. Harry Reid must think the whole country is as stupid as the voters in Nevada who re-elected him, the man Bob "Money Talk" Brinker has called "a good man."

Hell, CONFISCATING EVERYTHING from everyone who makes over $1 million WOULDN'T PAY FOR HALF the proposal.

Do you hear me? A 100 percent tax on everyone making $1 million or more would pay for precisely 41.0 percent of Obama's spending bill. SPENDING BILL! A 5 percent tax pays for 2.0 percent!

Which means YOU are paying to create someone else's MAYBE one year job.

Instant replay of stimulus bill, February 2009.

Female Dem. Gov. of NC Gets Hysterical Over Growing Tea Party Power

As reported here:

I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.

She calls herself Bev Perdue.

This is obviously a desperate ploy to short-circuit Tea Party anger and get it to go away out of sheer fatigue and get it accustomed to the idea of the increased power of the state under Obama. The outcome would be two more years of the status quo, with a divided Congress doing nothing because that's the way Sen. Harry Reid wants it.

What's next? Suspension of presidential elections? 

This is a small depression by comparison with historical depressions, but a woman governor of a southern state completely loses her mind and calls for a blatantly unconstitutional recourse to tyranny to get us over it.

Did FDR propose such a measure under far worse circumstances?

If ever there were an argument to deny the vote, and the right to serve in office, to women, this is it.

No more Sarah Palins. No more Michele Bachmanns. No more Hillary Clintons. No more Debbie Blabbermouth Schultzs. No more Nancy Pelosis. No more Laura Ingrahams. No more Tammy Bruces. No more Barbara Boxofrocks. No more Jennifer Granholms.

No more . . . Ann Coulters.

Today's DOW Drop Ranks 9th For Daily Point Losses. It's Not a 'Crash'.

Wikipedia has this nice chart, among others, here:

The percentage loss was big, but won't be truly significant unless it becomes part of a larger pattern of losses like we had in the fall of 2008, which dominates this chart.

For all we know, the decline today and Tuesday was the market's verdict on President Obama's and Senator Harry Reid's expressed resolve to raise taxes in the very near future in the wake of the debt ceiling deal.

Notice, however, that the historic market lows of February and March 2003, and March 2009 are absent from this chart. Those were incredible buying opportunities which did not reveal themselves precipitously. Those lows were achieved by grinding down to them.

Republicans Should Have Demanded Far More Than Reid's Cuts Because They're the Last

(Have you noticed that just like with ObamaCare, it's the Senate calling the shots on everything?)

Senator Reid's cuts are the last spending cuts anyone's going to be seeing for the foreseeable future.

From TheHill.com here:

“The numbers relative to the problem are minimal, but the directional change is huge,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Yeah, right.

The opposite is more like it. The next fight will be over the 2012 fiscal year budget, and Republicans will die on that hill, after which it's a long way to the election.

Democrats will dig in, having compromised on the Bush tax rates extension, new revenues in the debt ceiling debate, and spending cuts. Their attitude will be that it's time for Republicans to give in on something.

More spending cuts before the election aren't going to happen.