Government Expenditures -- Senate Edition

I came across an article in the Christian Science monitor called, "Well, here's a billion dollars the US can have," that lists how much we spend on our 100 senators.

According to a document at Treasury called the “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances" Senators and their staffers actually cost tax payers a grand total of $815,257,000 in 2010 above and beyond their regular salaries. Yes, that's correct taxpayers, almost a billion dollars in non-salary expenses for the maintenance of 100 men and women in civil service.

If that didn't sink in, read it again. Think about it. There are only 100 senators, and somehow they cost us more than 3/4 of a billion dollars a year, on top of their individual salaries of $174,000. And people wonder why many of us think the government is way too large and spends far too much money.

Mitch McConnell: Typical Weasel Politician

The GOP establishment is not more much interested in tackling the nation's financial problems than Democrats, who are totally uninterested. This is particularly true in the Senate, where Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP senators are considering a new plan to weasel out of any responsibility, purely in the interests of political expediency.

the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.

In effect lawmakers would be surrendering the very power of approval that the GOP has used to force the debt crisis now. But by taking the disapproval route, Republicans can shift the onus more onto the White House and Democrats since a two-thirds majority would be needed to stop any increase that President Barack Obama requests.

McConnell and his cohorts are well aware that Obama and the Democrats don't want to make any sort of serious cuts, and that the only reason cuts are even under consideration is because of the threat of the debt ceiling. The party of big government isn't about to cut government in any substantial way. But rather than forcing the president to make cuts, they'd rather just give up -- as long as they can do it in such away as to place the blame solely on Obama.

Christine O’Donnell's Win

Christine O’Donnell's upset win in the Delaware GOP primary has been the talk of the blogosphere, with the storyline involving a split between the Republican party establishment and the conservative base. I've seen quite a bit of nonsense from both the pro & anti-O'Donnell camps. Let's start with the antis. 

O'Donnell supporters have been bashed for hurting the GOP's chances of taking the Senate. But why should conservatives -- and the GOP base that votes in primaries is overwhelmingly conservative -- vote for Mike Castle? I'm not usually in the habit of calling people RINO's, but Mike Castle is a RINO's RINO.  There are really only two reasons for conservatives to vote for a candidate like Castle: 1) as a lesser evil, and 2) purely as an attempt to secure a Republican majority in the Senate. I myself am a lesser of two evils voter, and also someone who sees politics very cynically, so I'd probably have voted Castle. But there are very good arguments against those positions, which seem to go unrecognized. A Republican who aligns with Democrats can be worse than just having a Democrat. It gives Democrats cover to claim bipartisanship when he joins their legislation, and he provides talking points with which to bash other Republicans as being extreme. It does no good to retake the Senate if it is done with Republicans who basically support lighter versions of Democratic initiatives, and who will help President Obama pass legislation. 

Then there is the argument that Christine O’Donnell can't win. This is ridiculous and premature. With Republicans energized, the Tea Party movement, an unpopular Democratic president and Democrats depressed, anything can happen in November. Has there ever been a better time to put up hard-line ideological conservative candidates? Not in quite some time. As we are already seeing, O’Donnell has national support. Donations are coming in from all over.

On the other hand, the "true conservative" types who support O'Donnell are spouting nonsense as well. Anyone who reasonably supported Castle in order to take the Senate is denounced as aligned with an out-of-touch "ruling elite" party establishment. The same goes for anyone that dares point out that Christine O’Donnell appears to be kind of a nut, with serious personal issues that make her a flawed candidate. Just because Mike Castle is a liberal Republican, it doesn't follow that conservatives have to support a lousy candidate purely because she's running against him. The ideological purists are also prone to ignore the real advantages that come with control of the Senate, focusing only on the potential that liberal Republicans might assist Democrats. Apparently they've forgotten that even Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins held firm and voted against Obamacare. There's definitely a risk in sending a liberal Republican to the Senate, but we've already seen the results of Democratic control. Personally I'd take my chances with someone like Castle over an even worse Democrat senator, and Democratic control.

Finally, given that the voters have decided, all Republicans should support the GOP candidate for better or worse. If you can't do that, you are basically an independent pretending to be a Republican, much like Colin Powell. Don't be a Colin Powell. That means you, Castle.

A Good Day for the GOP

Various media sources are reporting that Scott Brown has won the special Senate election in Massachusetts. It seems like just yesterday that Democrats were gloating after their underqualified, inexperienced presidential candidate rolled to victory to take total control of the government, with both houses of Congress already in the grip of strong Democratic majorities. Remember all the predictions of doom for the GOP? Yet here we have a Republican winning a Senate seat in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts of all places, the first GOP Senate win there since 1972. Somebody needs to check Ted Kennedy's grave and see how fast he's spinning.

Congratulations to Scott Brown for his amazing upset win, and for showing that the right GOP candidate can compete even in the deepest blue states. And thanks to President Obama and the Democratic Congress for making this possible. Keep up the arrogant attempts to ram through unpopular legislation on a purely partisan basis. Republicans will take all the Democratic help we can get in this year's Congressional elections.

Bad News on Health Care

It looks like Senator Ben Nelson, the last Democrat holding up the health care bill, has been bribed into supporting it. It isn't over yet, but things are not looking good. When health care reform was first proposed, I thought it was likely that something would pass, given the strong Democratic majority and President Obama's popularity. But as it languished in the Senate, I began to hope that it might be killed. Unfortunately, it looks like that hope has now been extinguished. Democrats have been determined to ram this massive expansion of government through, despite zero Republican support, and its unpopularity with the public. 

As everyone is aware, the health reform bill is a gigantic piece of legislation. I'm not sure anyone knows all the details. In a bill so large there are no doubt some good ideas that represent genuine reform. But what we do know for sure is that this bill is an attack on free market principles, a huge expansion of government power over private industry, and another government encroachment on personal freedom. Forcing insurance companies to ignore risk in who they insure turns their business model upside down. It is an attempt to replace basic market rules about how insurance works, with a government fiat. And forcing individuals to buy insurance, whether they want to or not, is a direct attack on individual liberty, and yet another expansion of the nanny state. Let's hope all the independents and even Republicans who voted in a Democratic president with a Democratic Congressional majority are happy with these results.

Thank the Founders for the 2/3 Majority Requirement

Although it appears that little will be accomplished at the Copenhagen climate summit fiasco, the chance that this or future negotiations could produce an international treaty again demonstrates the wisdom of the founding fathers. Given Obama's apparently limited concern about advancing U.S. interests, and the tendency of Democrats to swallow radical environmental doomsaying and support drastic, harmful "solutions," it's a good time to remember that treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. This is an excellent protection against the whims of presidents and parties in power. Getting 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster is difficult enough. Obtaining a 67 vote majority is an order of magnitude greater.

Should the time come when the president commits the U.S. to a harmful climate treaty, one which would cripple the U.S. economy, waste taxpayer money in hand-outs to the third world, or impose other conditions damaging to U.S. interests, the Senate represents America's last line of defense. It's one of the many reasons to vote Republican in 2010.

Specter's Party Switch

After his long career as a senator, Arlen Specter finally faced what looked like sure defeat in the next Republican primary. In a desperate attempt to cling to power, he has now switched parties. Naturally he released some statements pretending otherwise, but it should be obvious to all that this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to extend his already too-long stay in the Senate. Hopefully it won't work and he'll be defeated in the Democratic primary instead.