Republican enthusiasm for the Line Item Veto began under Reagan and was their version of the imperial presidency

No different than Reagan's enthusiasm for federal mandates like EMTALA, which is the proximate cause of ObamaCare. But J. T. Young doesn't remember it that way, or that far back, here:

'Unmentioned in Obama's legacy is that he killed the line-item veto. While not having done so directly, Obama's presidency has ended this long-time Republican goal just as assuredly as if he had. The political and fiscal role reversals between the Congress and presidency - and between Republicans and Democrats - transpiring for twenty years, have culminated with this administration.

'Twenty years ago, Republicans, armed the Contract with America, dramatically rode to Congressional majorities for the first time in decades. Prominent within that important document was a call for a line-item veto for the president.

'The intent was to give a president power to eliminate wasteful federal spending with pinpoint accuracy. Instead of having to veto an entire bill, and risk shutting down all, or part of the government, a president would be able to stop particular provisions but leave a larger spending bill intact. This authority would reverse the "Hobson's Choice" that prevailed between Congress and a president.'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, "Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I'll take the responsibility, I'll make the cuts, I'll take the heat."'

WHATEVER CONSERVATISM IS, IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT ABOUT SEEKING TO ACQUIRE MORE POWER BUT RATHER ABOUT SEEKING TO DIFFUSE AND DISTRIBUTE IT, SOMETHING THE CONGRESS DELIBERATELY BETRAYED IN THE 1920s WHEN IT DECIDED TO STOP THE NATURAL EXPANSION OF REPRESENTATION. NO BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE SAID SINCE THAT TIME TO BE IN ANY WAY CONSERVATIVE IN SPIRIT, EXCEPT IN THE OCCASIONAL IRRITABLE MENTAL GESTURE IN THAT DIRECTION WHICH IS USED AS A CLOAK FOR MORE SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT. NO ONE ANYWHERE RETAINS "SELF-RESTRAINT" IN THEIR LEXICON.

Useless Steve Gruber Show shields Rep. Tim Walberg from heat for Cromnibus vote

Steve Gruber had his opportunity this morning to let Congressman Tim Walberg feel the heat for his vote last week which helped move Cromnibus through the Congress, and instead shielded him by talking about anything but that.

1320 WILS' Michael Cohen had a much better interview of the Congressman here on Monday addressing the issue in depth, but alas it was not a talk show which takes callers' questions and comments.

They call it freedom of the press in America, but its organs make sure that they continue to protect the liberal status quo for obscene government spending and its representatives, because they PROFIT from it.

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.

Did Steve of the Steve Gruber Show ever pay attention to the guy he just helped reelect?

You know the guy: Rep. Tim Walberg, who said the middle class in this country was getting crushed?

You know Tim Walberg, the same guy Gruber had on his show like clockwork during election season, campaigning for free, who just got reelected and promptly voted for Cromnibus?

And you know the Gruber, the one who recently agreed with his buddy Liberal Lee that the middle class in this country was quite intact, and spoke out against Cromnibus?

They must be smokin' the really special ganja on the set of the Steve Gruber Show, you know what I mean man?

True Born Sons of Liberty 2, Gruber 0

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says Britain's George Osborne is full of fiscal baloney

George Osborne is in today's Wall Street Journal here, bragging about Britain's fiscal discipline, among other things:

"In the U.K., faced four years ago with a record budget deficit of over 10%, we set out a clear deficit-reduction plan and steadily implemented it. The challenging spending totals I set out for the British government have been consistently achieved year after year."

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has heard it all before, and says baloney, here:

On the fiscal front, Britain has a deficit of 5pc of GDP a full five years into the economic recovery, when growth is running at 3pc and should be generating a windfall of tax revenue. This is prima facie evidence of a chronic reliance on state borrowing to perpetuate a consumption model.

The deficit is 4.4pc in France, 1.5pc in Italy and 0.2pc in Germany. The US deficit - once similar to ours - has dropped to 2.8pc of GDP on a quarterly basis. Britain sticks out like a sore thumb. ... 

For all the superficial likeness, the Anglo-Saxon growth stories in Britain and America have nothing in common. The US has cut its current account deficit from 6pc to 1.9pc of GDP. It is on track to achieve energy independence by 2018, igniting a revival of its chemical, plastics, glass and steel industries along the way. Luck has played its part but one recovery is durable, the other is literally on borrowed time.

---------------------------------------------------

Methinks Ambrose overestimates US GDP in his analysis to arrive at his rosy 2.8% deficit, and is too sanguine about the future of Republican spending restraint now that Cromnibus has passed, but you get the idea . . . Politicians spinning tales.

US Senate votes 56-40 last night just before 10PM to approve Cromnibus spending bill

The 40 votes against this p.o.s. illustrate the minority which represents what passes for the extreme wings of the two political gangs which tyrannize this country:

22 Democrats

Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

18 Republicans

Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Flake (R-AZ)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Vitter (R-LA)

Four senators decided showing up wasn't worth it:

Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inhofe (R-OK)

These are the 24 Republican traitors to fiscal conservatism who voted for the bill:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fischer (R-NE)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)

And these the 32 Democrats:

Baldwin (D-WI)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Hagan (D-NC)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Walsh (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA).

Screwing the American people is a bipartisan affair, but leans Democrat 1.3:1.

Stupid things heard on the Steve Gruber Show radio program last week

Both the AM drive-time host, Steve Gruber, a libertarian for whom every opponent is taken as a challenge to his manhood, and his weekly punching bag guest, Liberal Lee, last Tuesday agreed that the middle class in America is basically . . .  intact!

Which just proves that ideologues are impervious to the destruction which has been all around them and that libertarians and liberals drink from the same cup. Both camps are too heavily invested in the political gangs they support to say otherwise, for if the one did it would mean George Bush and Alan Greenspan would have to be blamed, and if the other, Barack Obama, Larry Summers and the rest of the Clinton re-treads which steered the economy through the latest depression to give you . . . nearly $90 billion in costs for over 500 failed banks, over 5 million homes lost to foreclosure, full-time jobs still 4 million below the 2007 peak seven years ago, ObamaCare's lies, higher costs, poorer coverage and limited networks, the deaths of Americans at Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservatives, the most imperial presidency in our history, 30 million prime working age people not working, a lawless executive, and 1.8% GDP, the worst in the post-war.

For his part, Gruber basically gave over a segment on his show every week this fall to the reelection campaign of Congressman Tim Walberg, a conventional Republican who normally votes with the majority of his caucus, but who did vote against making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Walberg notably just rewarded his radio benefactor who opposed Cromnibus with a vote for it, in keeping with his past voting record for sweeping spending bills which avoid the traditional appropriations process in order to take the politics out of spending the people's money. Hey, thanks Gruber.

The Steve Gruber Show is unfortunately heard on many small market radio stations during morning drive throughout Michigan, which through August 2014 was the top state for completed foreclosures among non-judicial states for the prior twelve month period. But the show's best rank is only #3 in the Lansing market according to dar.fm, and #31 in the mornings overall, here. The best thing that can be said for it is that the stations it is on are typically low-power, like its commentary. 

139 Democrats vote against Cromnibus and make theirs look like the party of fiscal conservatism

Nine Michigan Congressmen vote for Cromnibus, five against

For Cromnibus:

Benishek

Huizenga

Camp

Upton

Walberg

Rogers

Miller (D)

Dingell (D)

Peters (D)

Against Cromnibus:

Amash

Kildee (D)

Levin (D)

Bentivolio

Conyers (D)

The roll call vote is here.

Carnage in Commodities: Gold/Oil Ratio soars to 18.08

Gold continues to lose ground to plunging oil prices, making oil the preferred investment of the two, if you had to chose between them. Gold would have to plunge to 987.60 to restore the ratio to parity of 15 at the current price of oil, 65.84, or 17%.

Gold is presently about 200 off its 2014 high of 1385 (London fix), about 14%, while West Texas Intermediate Crude is down over 35% from its June close at 102.07.

The surging dollar in 2014 has been deflationary for commodities. Closing as low as 79.09 in early May, .DXY closed yesterday at 89.36, up almost 13% in just seven months.

Behind that no doubt has been the Yellen Federal Reserve's commitment to end QE, which it did in October, and the continued Republican stranglehold on spendthrift liberalism, creating positive fiscal conditions liked by markets. Federal revenues are at an all time high of $2.775 trillion in fiscal 2013 while outlays remain stabilized at about $3.5 trillion for each of the last five fiscal years in a row. At $3.4 trillion in fiscal 2013, the often ugly dance between a Republican House and a Democrat Senate and Executive has meant that federal spending has risen only 2.75% in nominal terms for each fiscal year since the 2008 baseline. The S&P500 is up over 12% year-to-date on top of last year's stellar 32% gain.

The permanency of the Bush tax cuts and the AMT fix which heralded in the new year in 2013 continue to work their magic in combination with the stronger dollar and Washington gridlock, for which neither John Boehner nor Barack Obama will ever get their due.

What a country.

FiveThirtyEight Economists Assert But Don't Demonstrate Distributional Characteristics Of Great Recession Spending Pullback

I refer to "Why the Housing Bubble Tanked the Economy And the Tech Bubble Didn’t" by AMIR SUFI and ATIF MIAN, here, where they basically blame the spending pullback of the Great Recession on the poorest, most indebted homeowners:

"The poor cut spending much more for the same dollar decline in wealth. This fact is one of the most robust findings in all of macroeconomics, ... It also makes intuitive sense."

Their forthcoming book may show this, but this article surely doesn't.

They present data which tell us about homeowners' housing as a share of their net worth by quintiles, their mortgages as a share of their home values by quintiles, and about the net worth of richest and poorest homeowners. These are useful distributional observations which, unfortunately, in the case of spending are missing in the presentation! You'd think they would be present in a story which attacks traditional economists like Ben Bernanke for ignoring distributional data sets. Ah, yeah.

Apart from whether showing the distributional characteristics of the spending pullback is even possible, I wonder if it makes any sense that the poorest homeowners could cut their spending enough to account for the sums involved, which is what traditional economists wonder. Weren't they the ones primarily represented in the 5.6 million who lost their homes to foreclosure in the first place?

Using November 2007 real retail and food service sales as the baseline ($179.37 billion), the cumulative month to month shortfall from that to November 2012 came to $663.09 billion. Yes, it took five full years for real retail to recover. But the peak to trough decline in real GDP from 4Q2007 to 2Q2009 alone, on the other hand, was $639.2 billion, not even half way through the great retail depression. Retail spending shows only part of the picture.

Which is why it's wrong to imply, as the authors do, that the decline in spending, supposedly linked to the poorest homeowners, explains the Great Recession. It only explains about a third of it, but just how much of that can be blamed on the poorest homeowners remains a mystery.

Obama Regime Doubles Down On Using IRS To Silence Political Opponents

Kimberley Strassel for The Wall Street Journal, here:

Democrats are instead fully vested now in using the IRS to shut down criticism by outside groups of ObamaCare, overspending or (ironically) the IRS targeting. Even liberal groups are howling about the White House's use of the IRS to silence political speech, and the House on Wednesday passed a bill to delay the regulations. The White House's response? A veto threat.

How The 2009 Stimulus Has Hidden The Obama Decline

As everyone knows by now, when the Democrats swept into power in the 2008 election one of the first things they did was pass the stimulus spending bill in February 2009, five years ago this month.

The passage of the stimulus has been a boon to Democrats and their program. One, the added spending for fiscal 2009 got charged to George Bush's account, not Obama's, making Bush's spending record look worse than it was. Two, the added spending became the new baseline for spending in every year since, keeping government big, its most insidious affect. Three, because Republicans retook the House in 2010, spending in 2011 and 2012 has had to hew more closely to what it was in 2009 because of Tea Party demands to put the brakes on spending, allowing Obama to brag that he's kept government spending increases low for a longer period of time than has been usual. This is sort of like how Obama takes credit for our oil production boom, which happens in spite of him on private lands, not because of him.

What's so disturbing about the increase to baseline spending is that over 75% of the GDP gains for 2009 through 2012 can be attributed to that, not to anything real in the US economy. In other words, GDP growth from government spending has been propping up reported GDP and masking the severity of the current economic depression in which millions of homeowners remain underwater, similar millions remain without work after five years, and those still working suffer under a real multi-year decline in their earnings because of stagnant wages and increased costs for food, energy, clothing, healthcare and taxes. The middle class is being pushed inexorably downward. Like the infamous Climategate emails which showed an effort by scientists to hide the decline in global temperatures over the last decade, US government spending has been doing the same for the decline of GDP.

The figures are startling.

Using 2008 as the baseline from Table 3A of the Bureau of Economic Analysis's summer 2013 comprehensive revision of GDP ($14,720.3 billion), the net increase to GDP in nominal dollars for each year 2009 through 2012 relative to 2008 was $2.8782 trillion:

2009    -302.4 billion dollars

2010   +238.0

2011   +813.5

2012 +1524.3.

Similarly, using 2008 as the baseline for federal outlays as tracked by the Tax Policy Center using figures from the OMB ($2,982.5 billion), the net increase to federal spending in nominal dollars for each year 2009 through 2012, again, relative to 2008, was $2.1841 trillion:

2009 +535.2 billion dollars

2010 +473.7

2011 +620.6

2012 +554.6.

Thus the nominal gain in GDP relative to 2008 for all four years apart from nominal increases to government spending has been all of $694.1 billion, for a gain overall of 4.71% since 2008, 1.17% per annum on average, one of the most appalling records in all of American history because that figure is not adjusted for inflation. The all items CPI has risen 19.388 seasonally adjusted between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2013, an increase of 9.1% which completely wipes out the nominal GDP gain of 4.71%.

So GDP has actually been negative for the whole of Obama's first term, but completely hidden from view by the increase to baseline spending caused by the 2009 stimulus. If it has felt like a depression, it's because it is one.

Mark Levin Is Smokin' Something, Too

Tonight Mark Levin's calling on the US House to pass a resolution declaring our lawless president's executive orders null and void.

You know, the same House which is about to betray the people who put them in charge up there by passing another illegal alien amnesty.

The same House which just screwed veterans out of their retirements.

The same House which completely botched the so-called government so-called shutdown.

The same House which capitulated on the sequester and raised spending.

And that's the litany of woe for just the last couple of months.

Let's face it. This House isn't worthy of conservatives' support. And we aren't worthy to be called Americans if we support it.