Weekly Columns
After a summer of debt discussions, the contrasts between House Republicans and Senate Democrats remain as clear as ever. House Republicans are committed to solving the long-term debt crisis. Senate Democrats just want to raise the debt limit long enough to make it through the next election, and then go back to business as usual. In their case, that means more spending.
Polls show the American people are justifiably fed up with the debt debate in Washington. As frustrating as the process has been, it is very encouraging that Congress -- for the first time in years -- is focused on reducing spending instead of increasing it. The federal debt limit has been raised no fewer than 51 times since 1978, but this is the first time in memory that Congress has tied spending cuts to the debt ceiling vote.
The ongoing debt ceiling debate highlights, once again, the fundamental differences in each party's approach to dealing with the deficit. Republicans want to cut spending; Democrats want to raise taxes.
Unemployment increased to 9.2 percent in the latest monthly jobs report, marking a modern record of 29 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent -- the longest such period recorded since the Great Depression. The dismal report happened to be released on the date that marked 800 days since Senate Democrats last passed a budget. The timing is fitting. There is a direct connection between sluggish job creation and the budget policies of President Obama and congressional Democrats.
With the economy still faltering and the debt limit deadline approaching in August, Democrats continue to tout tax increases as the great panacea to cure the nation's deficit and unemployment woes. President Obama doubled down on this flawed policy in a much-discussed press conference on June 29. Rather than directly calling for tax increases, the president cloaked his plans in empty rhetoric about "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires" and euphemisms like "tackle spending in the tax code."
President Obama committed American forces to intervene in Libya without congressional authorization on March 19, and the operations in Libya remain unauthorized today. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that "The Congress shall have power to declare war" and "to raise and support armies." The legislative branch has finally moved to exercise both its war-making authority and its exclusive power of the purse to weigh in on the Libyan war -- but with limited impact.
Last week marked exactly one year since President Obama declared the summer of 2010 to be "Recovery Summer" -- the season, so we were told, when his $787 billion "stimulus" plan would finally start creating jobs. In urging passage of his plan, the president insisted the stimulus would ensure the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent and predicted that the jobless rate would be 6.8 percent by now.
It has been almost three months since President Obama sent U.S. forces to Libya -- without bothering to seek authorization from Congress. This action violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution -- both of which clearly identify Congress as the sole governmental body with the responsibility to declare war and raise and support the armed forces. With U.S. troops and resources still embroiled in the Libyan conflict, Congress recently moved to reclaim its constitutional authority by holding two important votes.
Since 1985, Congress has voted 27 times to increase the debt limit -- often with little fanfare. The debt ceiling has already been raised three times and by almost $3 trillion just since President Obama took office. Debt limit increases have become so routine in recent years that the Obama administration, along with more than 100 House Democrats, thought it was realistic to call for a debt limit vote with no spending cuts attached.
The Obama administration floated a draft Executive Order in April that would require federal agencies to collect information about the campaign contributions and other political expenditures of any company applying for a federal contract. At first glance, this may seem like an acceptable method to promote transparency in the federal contracting process. In practice, however, it would create a number of disturbing consequences.