Spencer Bachus (R-AL6) Named House Financial Services Committee Chair – Barney Frank (D-MA4) Replaced by Most Conservative House Member.

Spencer Bachus, Newly elected Chair of Financial Services Committee Image Alabama Public Television

Yesterday, Congressional Republicans chose Spencer Bachus, Representative of the Alabama 6th District, as Chair of the powerful Financial Services Committee. (FT) Bachus will replace Barney Frank (D-MA4) in January – the two men are polar opposites; Frank being a Progressive “Democrat” most often associated wit the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Bachus known as the most conservative House member ((Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Terry Everette (Retired-AL2) had the top two slots according to Open Congress.org)


Barney Frank, still holds seat on Financial Services Committee as Ranking Democrat - image wikipedia

In January of 2010 he sponsored a bill that would have suspended the current compensation packages for executives of Freddie and Fannie , HR 4476, the Equity in Government Compensation Acthas sat on the sidelines, once sent to “Committee” for review. The Committee: House Financial Services, chaired by none other than Barney Frank. A bill cutting compensation for Freddie and Fannie execs would not pass muster under Frank’s tenure – however, the new “Sheriff” may be able to, with a majority behind begin to make sense of the house finances (taxpayers dollars) after 6 years of Barney Frank’s oversight.

From Representative Bachus’ House website: http://bachus.house.gov/; in reading the “official biography” one gets the sense of a solid fiscal conservative and conservationist, who is going into his seventh term in the House. He has voted 93% of the time with Republicans, and has the ability to cross the aisle, albeit infrequently (OpenCongress).

Bachus caused a bit of a brouhaha, when speaking at a local Alabama function following the mid-term elections placing some blame on Sarah Palin, and her support of candidates, which , Bachus believed caused the GOP to lose the Senate(Shelby County Reporter), although one might argue, that the Senate was never in play, regardless of Palin's backing of Christine O’Donnell candidacy in Maryland. However, in the same address, he tempered his speech with a tone of reality, noting that the Republican’s are not in total charge in Washington, and importantly, that independents were responsible for changing the course of party fortunes, first for the Democrats in 2008 and then for the GOP in 2010. With Palin as one of the top GOP fundraisers in 2010, the remarks made by Bachus (although one might disagree with his point of view vis a vis Sarah Palin), show a man who is a pragmatist, looking at the “big picture” when it comes down to a numbers game.

It will be interesting to see how Bachus deals with Frank, who now is the ranking Democrat on the Committee – neither man appears to be a wallflower, and with Frank’s tight race for reelection, and knowing he will be challenged again in 2012, with perhaps a tougher race on his hands, he will be virtually hamstrung trying to fight on two fronts: one for the Progressive school of finance in his Committee Assignment, and one for his job, in the MA 4th Congressional District.

Obama and GOP Tax Cuts Deal – Progressives in Democrat Party Clearly Upset with President!

Obama moves to middle on Tax Cut Deal - photo European Press Agency via WSJ

From the AP: President Obama and the GOP have brokered a deal that included keeping all the Bush Tax cuts, plus additional tax cuts offered by the President for two years, with an extension of the unemployment benefits for over 2 million people in 26 states that expired this month. One has to give credit where credit is due, Obama and the GOP worked together, regardless of where one stands on the ideological scale of Democrat vis a vis Republican, the move by both camps to ensure the continued aid to the unemployed while taking the burden off businesses in order to begin hiring shows compromise is alive in D.C. In fact, the President offering to put more on the table for American’s working class in the form of a cut in the Social Security payroll deduction. Therefore, kudos to Obama for taking the steps necessary to at least, temporarily , move into the middle of the road, and to the GOP for meeting the President on common ground.

Not every member of the political class is excited about this “new deal”, with left wing Progressives clearly upset with the Presidents willingness to work for the people rather than the Progressive Party. NPR reports that Progressives within the Democrat Party are against any type of deal that takes away from their mantra “Tax the Rich”. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is a Socialist, not a Democrat) is threatening to filibuster while “Progressive Democrats in the House wrote a letter of opposition”. One Adam Green, who is with an organization called the “Progressive Change Committee, went blathering on about the President appearing “weak” in the wake of his coming to an agreement with the GOP. The latest round of “no’s” from Progressives who have held sway over the American public with the election of Pelosi and other hard-left Progressives in 2006. With this mini-tantrum, one can better understand the gap that exists between the Democrats and the Progressives, who should, in all fairness, should move to form their own political party, and leave the Democrat party to fend for themselves in the political arena. The problem with that scenario, Progressives do not do well unless they hide behind a brand as they are socialists who merely mask themselves as Democrats. Perhaps in the best case, those Unions would do best to join with the Progressives and do everyone in the U.S.A. a favor by taking up their actual “brand” instead of co-opting some other.

Progressives and Tea Party members differ in that the Tea Party, although most closely aligned with the Republican Party ideologically, does not pull any punches in warnings to both parties regarding the purity of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility. The Progressives on the other hand, speak for the Democrats, which, even if there were one Democrat left standing in the Senate or the House, that elected official should call them out, and tell them to shut up and speak for themselves. The formation of additional parties would serve the Republic in that these parties would offer more choices to the American people, and push the two older, dominant political parties to be a tad more honest.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the “tax deal” package is the fact that it is not permanent, and is set to expire in 2012. This sets up an “us versus them” clear line in sand over economics between President Obama, who will campaign for reelection and growing field of Republican contenders. Progressives, for some unimaginable reason, believe the “tax the rich” mantra is a “winner” with the public, and while it may have appeared to work in the last election, it is a risk to believe it would work a second time. First, the last election was not necessarily about “taxing the rich” and some pie-eyed idea that the American public was welcoming Progressive (socialism) with open arms. What the more likely rise of the Party can be attributed to are those on the hard left and in the middle, afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome, voting in order to rid the nation of any Republican (including McCain). However, now as a consequence, they are experiencing buyers remorse. (The Progressives appear to have missed that development with the 2010 election.)

Should the tax cuts work, the economy begin to see a positive reversal, the job market improve, which is, historically, highly probable, then it would be a folly to campaign on “taxing the rich” who, any one of those GOP candidates would be able to say – “are providing the jobs American’s need”. They would have the proverbial proof in the pudding. Obama literally fell on the political sword for the American public in working with the GOP, and brought to light the reality of the Progressives as the “Party of No”. As Obama has clear Progressive leanings, the decision to meet in the middle to save the nation from ruin, puts him on the road to being less Carteresque. The tax cuts aside, there are myriad issues one can pick that still places the President in the ideological Progressive camp, and although one may agree to disagree on any of those points (legion), it is important for Conservatives to acknowledge that President Obama indeed broke rank and, as of this moment, should be applauded for the action. It will not diminish the fortunes of the GOP field of contenders for the Top Job in 2012 given the big picture.

One may call his move political expediency (saving one’s own hide), or what have you, however, regardless of motive, (which unless one is a mind-reader, there is no way to determine what the man is thinking), give him his due. One can also add courage to that list if one is a follower of the Beck school of thought, who has claimed that the President is in danger from “Progressives” within his own sphere that may attempt to physically harm Obama. Either or, today, the President deserves a pat on the back for stepping up.


Side note: Historically, one has to concede that Beck has a point as far as Progressives throughout history using any means possible to further Socialism, however, those murders, assassinations, concentration camps, etc., were part of the early to mid 20th century, pre-information age. One would hope, the consistent bungling of Progressives in the House and Senate, coupled with their current ability to hide nothing, (even state secrets from junior hackers who should retire to their mothers basements in Australia), would render any “plots” against the president (other than protests and strongly worded letters of condemnations and perhaps another wiki leak or two directly aimed at Obama instead of potential Progressive opposition in the form of current target, Hillary Clinton) useless.

As Clock Runs Out on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits, Obama and Democrats in Senate Move to Middle.

Growing Public Disgust of Big Government pushing Politicians to Choose Will of the People

With unemployment benefits for those who have been collecting for 99 weeks expiring this month, and the unemployment rate jumping to 9.8%, the need to reassure businesses and economic stability in an extension of the Bush tax cuts, took shape in the Senate this weekend when Senate Democrats joined with Republicans in blocking a “middle class tax-cut” only bill, that the Congress and Obama administration had hoped for. Several key Democrats joined with Republicans to advance a “simple majority vote” to overcome a filibuster. Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA) and Rockefeller (D-WV) also voted against the so-called “millionaires tax”. (New York Times)

On Sunday’s talk show circuit, it appeared that a deal would be reached between Senate Republicans and the Obama administration that involved a trade-off for a 2-year extension of the tax cuts for another extension of unemployment assistance for those whose benefits expired. . This signaled, for the first time, a move to the middle by the Obama administration, who has been taking hits from the hard left over several issues including the extension of tax cuts at any level.

Although it may be argued that with a new GOP controlled House and increased clout in the Senate set to take the reins in January will push Obama to concede points on the tax cuts, it is also possible that the President could stand firm in Progressive ideology and refuse to budge. It is most possible that a chess game is being played out with America’s fortunes and basis needs of millions of jobless American’s in a compromise between the political think of both parties in order to avoid what would be a more than a mere public relations disaster.

That said, with the increased clout of the fiscal conservative Tea Party and a growing interest and acceptance of the Constitutionally based, fiscal conservative group by American’s, both major political parties would be best served to pay attention and work towards putting the U.S. Financial House in order above all else. With the 2012 elections on the horizon, and the White House at stake, Obama, who appears, at this point, unelectable for a second term, and a majority of Democrat Senators up for reelection, a move to compromise would, at the very least, possibly save proverbial political hides that otherwise would be ousted. The Republican’s, however, are not out of the woods, as those such as Susan Collins (D-ME), voted against a ban on earmarks, with 6 other Republican’s breaking ranks with the Party. (Alternately 7 Democrats, including Claire McCaskill (D-MO) who sponsored the bill to ban earmarks broke ranks with the Democrats.) It appears to be a case of “those who get it” and “those who don’t – the “it” being the millions of American’s who have had it with government spending, the sheer size of the federal government and the political futures of each Senator and Congressional Representative.

A ban on earmarks, many of which are frivolous at best, would go a long way towards paying for the unemployment extension which is badly needed for those who are about to lose their benefits in states that signed on for Federal aid in extending Unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, including Massachusetts. Interestingly, those States that did not accept the Federal Aid in extensions, have lower unemployment rates (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of October 2010). A map from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, shown below outlines the benefits offered by all states. However, those States that did accept the aid, such as California and Massachusetts, have higher percentages of individuals on the “public dole” than those that did not, some might argue by sheer volume of population coupled with the state’s high dollar “give-away” programs, as well as impending bankruptcy, makes it imperative to continue to fund those programs. That said, it is also true, that those states also have higher corporate tax rates (8% plus) (Tax foundation tables here), literally sending job creators running for the border appear to be on the list, for the most part, of those states seeking Federal assistance. One would think, at some point, those that are elected to run both the State and Federal governments, would get the bigger picture - Lower corporate tax rates, equal less unemployment. The Progressives who would have tax increases across the board (mainly academics, students, certain elected officials and the professional press), apparently do not grasp the premise that tax cuts offer incentives for corporations (which these same people feel are the root of all evil), to hire people (who in turn pay taxes, in order to prop-up the entitlement programs favored by the same ivory tower idealists.).


Map of States Taking Fedederal Aid for Unemployment Benefits - image Center for Budget and Policy Priorities


Although the aforementioned may hold sway with the President and even share his ideology, surely at some point, the light bulb must turn on, and understanding of how a simple economic principle which has been successful since the nation was founded (few to no taxes and a limited Federal Government), would continue to work as long as the Federal Government and those same progressives, keep their nose out of economics and stick to their chosen fields; union bosses, professional anarchists and teachers.

For a rousing take on State Government versus the Unions see Video Below where NJ Govenor, Chris Christie (R), takes on the Teachers unions (Unions = Progressive Doctrine) who cost taxpayers millions.