In my opinion, the best and most articulate Member of Congress, present company included, is Paul Ryan (R-WI). He is the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, and a guest blogger here at the Greeneyeshade. Here is a 4 minute clip of his very powerful closing argument in last Wednesday’s debate.  Right below the video, I have included a link to his Op-Ed in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal.

President Obama's Budget passed through the House Committee on the Budget, of which I am a member, late Wednesday night on a party line vote. It will come to the House floor late next week, and I expect it to pass. Like the ‘non-stimulus package,’ I expect that not a single Republican will vote for it, and a few moderate Democrats will also likely oppose it. This budget quickly moves America to the sort of place that Pastor Rogers described in yesterday's quote.

I usually give you lots to read, but today I'll give you a few things to watch. Here is my opening statement on the budget debate.  It explains some of the reasons why I oppose this budget with such vigor. It is 3 minutes long.

If you want to see what a 30% tax increase looks like, take your paycheck and multiply the total taxes deducted by 1.3.  Then, subtract that from your gross income and that will be close to your new net income. So, if you made $3,000 gross and $2,000 net, you will now only net $1,700. Oh, and that won't include the cuts your employer has to make in order to pay for their tax increases. By the way, this budget includes all kinds of things that are minor in the grand scheme of things, but big to certain people. For instance, it would repeal the use of the ‘Last In, First Out’ (LIFO) inventory accounting method.  This will dramatically raise taxes on all retail businesses who carry inventory.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does not good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

- Adrian Rogers - American pastor (1931-2005)

"…We're very serious about working on a bipartisan basis to reduce those deficits or reduce those costs.” – 3/24/2009:

Frankly, had the stimulus bill been anything remotely close to something Republicans could support, we would have had met the President way farther than half way, due to the severity of the current economic situation and his popularity at the time (which is now falling quickly). But he didn't. The stimulus was so far to the left that not one Republican voted for it, and some of the more centrist Democrats voted against it too. But he hasn't stopped there. He has since declared that his "cap and trade" energy proposal (which will double the cost of electric and heating bills nationwide) is "non-negotiable." Yeah, way to gain consensus. Now, he is proposing to use a "nuclear option" in the Senate for “cap and trade,” and socialized medicine plans so that he will not need any Republican votes, and can afford to lose some centrist Democrats as well. His agenda is left of center of the Democratic Party, not to mention the nation.

"…we invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and government... And in this budget, we have ..." 3/24/2009

He included an extra $600 billion in his budget to cover the extra costs of his healthcare plan. How is that bringing down costs?

"We are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression…" 10/07/2008

"We are beginning to see signs of recovery." -  3/24/2009: 

When he wants to spend money, he overstates the state of the crisis. Then, if people start to lose confidence, he understates it.

"I will make a firm pledge: I pledge under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase, not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of taxes," - 11/12/2008: 

First of all, this is completely inaccurate on its face. The president's budget straight up limits tax deductions for incomes over $208,000 joint and $104,000 single.  Furthermore, it imposes an energy tax (cap and trade) which is expected to double utility rates for everyone regardless of income.  Additionally, the president is guilty by omission.  There is no way he can spend the money he wants to without raising taxes on everyone at some point. You can confiscate all income over $250,000 (a more plausible idea after the bonus vote last week) and you would not balance the Democrat budget over the next 10 years. It would require a 30% increase in EVERY federal tax on EVERBODY, at EVERY level, in order to pay for the spending they want.  That's 30% more social security tax, Medicare tax, income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, etc. That's the real message in his budget.

President Obama likes to speak. He likes to speak a lot. At one point while I was recovering from my surgery, I remember seeing him give 3 separate televised speeches on the same day!  Whether it's Leno or a prime time press conference, he's on TV saying something pretty much every day.

But is he doing what he is saying? A couple of weeks ago an editorial appeared in none other than the Washington Post (not exactly a conservative publication) suggesting that he is saying one thing and doing another. I agree. Here are some specific examples:

"…I've pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am President" Candidate Obama - 11/22/08: 

But one of his very first acts was to sign a massive spending bill with nearly 9,000 earmarks costing over $7.7 billion. Heck, he didn't even ask, or try to ask, that the earmarks be removed.  He appears to have no intention of following through on this popular campaign pledge.

"…I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office" Address to Joint Session of Congress - 2/24/09:

This statement is so far from the truth that I hardly know where to start. The budget, as computed by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, does cut the budget in half in 5 years, but only because the first year deficit has been enlarged so much (to $1.8 trillion) by the stimulus package and omnibus spending bill.  It's like pledging to lose 10 pounds, but then gaining 20 pounds first. Secondly, after the 5th year, it rises again dramatically every year thereafter, even under his own numbers!  His 5 year number is only a brief moment in time. His budget averages over $1 trillion in deficit a year for as far as the eye can see. He will add more debt in 6 years than was accumulated by every president from George Washington to George W Bush. But, more on the budget tomorrow.

"So if you look at our budget, what you have is a very disciplined, fiscally responsible budget…” - 3/06/2009: 

Give me a break. This is clearly the least responsible budget ever proposed, for the reasons I have laid out above.

Below is my statement at today's Budget Hearing:

 

I firmly opposed and voted “no” on HR 1586. Let’s first understand exactly what the bill does. It imposes a 90% federal income tax on any bonus paid to any employee of any company that has received over $5 Billion in federal rescue funds. Such companies include, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Chase Bank, JP Morgan, CitiBank, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac amongst others. The tax would only apply to people with total joint incomes over $250,000 or single individuals with income of over $125,000. When combined with California Income taxes which now top out at 10.55%, this can be a tax just short of 101% of the income.

Under this law, a bank teller at Wells Fargo could receive a bonus of $1,000 for doing a great job. If that bank teller was married to a physician who made $175,000 and they had some additional investment income, that bank teller would pay a tax of $1,055 on the bonus of $1,000 that they received for doing a good job. This is horrible!

This is not raising revenues, this is punishment. It is a terrible precedent to use the tax laws for punishment. If we go down this road, the government can impose a 100% tax on anyone they don’t like, or anyone they believe is paid too much. Employees of other companies, doing the same thing for the same bonus, will not receive this tax. That probably makes it unconstitutional and I hope it does.

I understand the public outrage over these bonuses and I share much of it. But this is not the way to fix it. Sue them to get the money back. But don’t do this.

You may or may not realize it, but embezzlement income is taxable today, but at normal rates. So if you steal money, you will not have a tax higher than normal. You may be forced to give the money back because you stole it, but it will not be taxed away from you. This bill makes a bonus from Bank of America a more egregious offense under the tax laws than bank robbery.

All of this was caused because we nationalized companies that are created to make a profit. Throughout time, governments have shown themselves to be particularly inept at such an enterprise. This is another example of why.

Yesterday I appeared on CNBC's Closing Bell to unveil legislation that I will be introducing which will repeal the Capital Gains Tax to spur economic activity in 2009. 

My interview is featured below.

Stimulus Factoid: States, cities, and private companies from around the country are applying to get some of the $850 billion ‘non-stimulus package’ signed by the President last month. Many of the applications are unbelievable. West Virginia is applying for $380,350 to contact 160 landowners and encourage them to grow shiitake mushrooms and ginseng. By the way, that’s $2,377 per call to each landowner.

Omnibus Factoid: There’s $1.8 million to study and manage the odor from “swine manure” in Iowa. Look, I could never think of stuff like this to make it up. This is proof that sometimes, fact is stranger than fiction.

Last week’s witness in this committee was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner talking about the President’s budget. He vigorously defended the budget, which I would expect from any member of the President’s cabinet. But I was disappointed that he did not acknowledge any of the highly questionable projections and assumptions that were made in order to make the deficit appear to not increase so drastically.

The budget predicts economic growth of 3.2% next year, increasing to an astounding 4.6% by 2012 with inflation levels staying at or below 2.0% during that time. If growth turns out to be that strong, we will indeed have inflation because of the monetary policies that have been pursued during this crisis. If inflation is that low then there won’t be growth. But budget numbers look better if there’s tax revenue from growth and low interest rates on the expanding national debt.

Geithner also made it clear that virtually all of the first $700 billion of TARP funds has been committed. The President’s budget calls for another $750 billion of TARP money but it does not say when it will be requested, or for what it may be used.

Here is my exchange with Geithner on these issues.

I have been telling you for some time now, a number of things that I think we should be doing to make this recession shorter and shallower while minimizing damage to the eventual recovery. You all know that I think the actions of Congress and the President thus far, have been counterproductive. Certainly the markets agree with me at this point.

Well, here is an idea that was sent to me by a concerned citizen. And it’s one of the best ideas I’ve heard yet. So good in fact, that I will be introducing it as a bill this week and talking a lot about it.

The bill would eliminate all Capital Gains taxes for any assets purchased in 2009, regardless of when the asset is sold. So, people would be encouraged to purchase homes, property, stocks bonds and businesses in 2009. This incentive would alter the risk/return ratio and likely spur a great deal of economic activity that is currently paralyzed by fear and uncertainty. And from the federal government standpoint, there might be an increase in revenue to the federal government now as the sellers report capital gains. The “loss” of revenue on the sale would not occur until some years later when the asset is sold and hopefully the government is also on better footing.

This would stimulate lots of job-creating economic activity NOW, with no cost to the taxpayer and no reduction in federal revenues until later.

I’ll keep you posted on how much traction this idea gets.

Last week, I spoke to Dave Weigel from the Washington Independent about the applicability of the fabled Ayn Rand novel, Atlas Shrugged, and it has generated some considerable buzz among liberal and conservative blogs and activists alike.

If you are unfamiliar with the book, this is the synopsis the Washington Independent provided:

Creative people (the “Atlases” of the title) are hounded and punished for their labor by an oppressive, socialistic state. In response, they retreat from society to a hidden enclave where they watch civilization’s slow collapse.

I spent the last few weeks recovering from surgery, and I’ve had a lot of time to talk with business owners in my district, and to be perfectly blunt, I am hearing more and more of those owners thinking of “Going Galt” in response to President Obama’s spending spree. After all, someone is going to have to pay for this massive expansion of government.

This is troubling because small business supplies a substantial number of jobs in America, and now they are beginning to see that they are being force-fed a de facto punishment for their ambitions and success. 

Don’t worry, I am not predicting a mass revolt by world economic leaders; we are a ways off from that. But what I am seeing, is a sort of protest, on the micro level from people that create jobs and those who create all the things the rest of us benefit from.

Let’s hope I am wrong, and let’s hope President Obama has a change of heart.  

Last night Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was unable to come up with the necessary votes in order to pass the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for 2009.  Why you ask?  Earmarks and oversized spending. 

Senator Reid, who has 58 Senators on his side of the aisle, was unable to garner the necessary votes in order to cut off debate, in fact was unable to sway the coax enough Republican support for the bill, and actually saw a few from his side of the aisle switch sides.  Needless to say this is major victory for fiscal responsibility.

So what happens next?  Today the House and Senate will pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the government at its current levels.  Then next week Congress will likely be debating this bill once again. 

Either way, President Obama should veto this bill unless the nearly 9,000 earmarks are taken out.  It’s time for President Obama to exercise the fiscal discipline we so commonly hear him talk about.

This morning, the DC Examiner, a beltway newspaper, featured an interesting editorial about President Obama’s rhetoric versus actions on earmarks.

The editorial highlights a question from Time Magazine, “Does Obama have a double standard on earmarks?”  I am not sure if you caught it, but during the President’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress, he boasted that there were no earmarks (however, earmarks have a multitude of guises) in his $787 billion dollar ‘Big Spending Package’ disguised as “Stimulus.”  Yet the President remains quiet when Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats ram a bill through Congress the very next day, neatly stuffed with nearly 9,000 earmarks.

To say that each of these earmarks is ‘worthy’ is complete fantasy, here is a healthy sampling courtesy of the Examiner’s Editorial Department:

“$1.8 million to manage swine manure in Iowa, $190,000 for a “Buffalo Bill Historical Center” in Wyoming, $2.2 million to study grape genetics in New York, $175,000 for “fa?ade improvements” on a dilapidated theater in Pennsylvania, $162,000 for cricket control in Utah, and a total of $41.5 million for the presidential libraries of three former Democratic presidents: FDR, JFK and Lyndon Johnson.”

Nevertheless, the American taxpayer will be on the hook for these projects, worthy or not.  President Obama has repeatedly said he “Get’s It,” but perhaps it is time he gets on board with the rest of America on earmark reform.  Even Congress is slowly beginning to get the message; this issue is not going away.

Today, the Wall Street Journal featured an Editorial by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh regarding President Obama’s Omnibus Appropriations Bill.  He encourages a ‘No’ vote and a return to fiscal responsibility in Washington.

Deficits and Fiscal Credibility

A Democratic senator says no to a huge federal spending bill.

By: Evan Bayh

This week, the United States Senate will vote on a spending package to fund the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 is a sprawling, $410 billion compilation of nine spending measures that lacks the slightest hint of austerity from the federal government or the recipients of its largess.

The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.

Drafted last year, the bill did not pass due to Congress's long-standing budgetary dysfunction and the frustrating delays it yields in our appropriations work. Since then, economic and fiscal circumstances have changed dramatically, which is why the Senate should go back to the drawing board. The economic downturn requires new policies, not more of the same.

Our nation's current fiscal imbalance is unprecedented, unsustainable and, if unaddressed, a major threat to our currency and our economic vitality. The national debt now exceeds $10 trillion. This is almost double what it was just eight years ago, and the debt is growing at a rate of about $1 million a minute.

Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy. The amount of U.S. debt held by countries such as China and Japan is at a historic high, with foreign investors holding half of America's publicly held debt. This dependence raises the specter that other nations will be able to influence our policies in ways antithetical to American interests. The more of our debt that foreign governments control, the more leverage they have on issues like trade, currency and national security. Massive debts owed to foreign creditors weaken our global influence, and threaten high inflation and steep tax increases for our children and grandchildren.

The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.

The omnibus debate is not merely a battle over last year's unfinished business, but the first indication of how we will shape our fiscal future. Spending should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy. Most people are willing to do their duty by paying taxes, but they want to know that their money is going toward important priorities and won't be wasted.

Last week I was pleased to attend the president's White House Fiscal Responsibility Summit. It's about time we had a leader committed to addressing the deficit, and Mr. Obama deserves great credit for doing so. But what ultimately matters are not meetings or words, but actions. Those who vote for the omnibus this week -- after standing with the president and pledging to slice our deficit in half last week -- jeopardize their credibility.

As Indiana's governor, I balanced eight budgets, never raised taxes, and left the largest surplus in state history. It wasn't always easy. Cuts had to be made and some initiatives deferred. Occasionally I had to say "no."

But the bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning. Voters rightly demanded change in November's election, but this approach to spending represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters' mandate.

Now is the time to win back the confidence and trust of the American people. Congress should vote "no" on this omnibus and show working families across the country that we are as committed to living within our means as they are.

Mr. Bayh, a Democratic senator from Indiana, served as governor of Indiana from 1989 to 1997.