Mike Johanns commends Colleagues For Passing 1099 Repeal VIDEO

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today commended his Senate colleagues for rising above the partisan fray and pushing the 1099 repeal effort onward to the President's desk. Over the past eight months Johanns introduced 1099 repeal seven times, and today it finally passed in the Senate by a vote of 87-12.

"Today, the wrench has finally been pulled from the gears of progress," Johanns said. "I appreciate that my colleagues have seen the wisdom of avoiding further delays and getting this costly, looming paperwork burden off the backs of our job creators. We now need only a simple signature from the President and this bill will become law, saving jobs and much needed capital for our small businesses." Background: • The 1099 repeal passed today is identical to a stand-alone bill Johanns had previously introduced, and which has already passed in the House of Representatives.

Since both houses have passed identical versions, 1099 repeal will not have to go to a Conference Committee, and now only needs the President's signature to be enacted into law.

• An amendment that would have resulted in further delay of 1099 repeal was rejected.

• Johanns has introduced legislation to repeal the 1099 mandate seven times. Click here for more on his efforts, and for a list of businesses supporting full repeal of the 1099 provision.

VIDEO CREDIT: SenatorMikeJohanns

TEXT CREDIT: Mike Johanns Washington, D.C. Office: 404 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-4224 Fax: (202) 228-0436 Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. ET.

IMAGE CREDIT: This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it is an official Congressional portrait, because it was taken by an official employee of the Congress, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain

Paul Ryan Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution FULL TEXT VIDEO

This 3-minute video is a visualization of the House Republicans' budget, "The Path to Prosperity," presented by Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee.

For more information on our plan to avert the US's nearing debt crisis and chart a path of growth and prosperity, visit budget.house.gov

The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution FULL TEXT in PDF FORMAT STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate funds from the Treasury, pay the obligations of and raise revenue for the federal government, and publish statements and accounts of all financial transactions.

By law, Congress is also obligated to write a budget representing its plan to carry out these transactions in the forthcoming fiscal years. While the President is required to propose his administration’s budget requests for Congress’s consideration, Congress alone is responsible for writing the laws that raise revenues, appropriate funds, and prioritize taxpayer dollars within an overall federal budget.

The budget resolution is the only legislative vehicle that views government comprehensively. It provides the framework for the consideration of other legislation. Ultimately, a budget is much more than a series of numbers. It also serves as an expression of Congress’s principles, vision and philosophy of governing.

This Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2012 intends to recommit the nation fully to the timeless principles of American government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – liberty, limited government, and equality under the rule of law. It seeks to guide policies by those principles, freeing the nation from the crushing burden of debt that is now threatening its future.

This budget is submitted, as prescribed by law, to apply these principles, reflect this vision, and provide a framework for the orderly execution of Congress’s constitutional duties for Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond.

House Budget Committee | April 5, 2011

Statement of Constitutional and Legal Authority Summary of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution

I. A Choice of Two Futures .................................................................................... 9
Introduction
Components of the Federal Budget
The Crushing Burden of Debt
A Reform Agenda for the U.S. Government

II. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution ................................................................... 27
Efficient, Effective and Responsible Government.................................................................................... 28
Providing for the Common Defense
Streamlining Other Government Agencies
Restraining the Growth of Government by Repealing the Health Care Law
Ending Corporate Welfare
Changing Washington’s Culture of Spending
Strengthening the Social Safety Net ......................................................................................................... 38
Repairing a Broken Medicaid System
Stopping the Abuse of Medicaid by Repealing the Health Care Law
Protecting Assistance for Those in Need
Preparing the Workforce for a 21st Century Economy
Fulfilling the Mission of Health and Retirement Security for All Americans .................................... 44
Saving Medicare
Stopping the Raid on Medicare by Repealing the Health Care Law
Advancing Social Security Reforms
Pro-Growth Tax Reform .............................................................................................................................. 50
Simplifying the Tax Code for Individuals
Stopping Job-Destroying Tax Hikes by Repealing the Health Care Law
Making the Corporate Code More Competitive

III. The Path to Prosperity ........................................................................................ 55
Lifting the Crushing Burden of Debt
Removing the Hurdles to Economic Growth
Appendix I:

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: HouseBudgetCommittee

Paul Ryan Preview of FY2012 Budget - no more empty promises from a broke govt VIDEO

Paul Ryan Preview of FY2012 Budget - no more empty promises from a broke govt -

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan previews the House Republicans' FY2012 budget to be launched this week. While Chairman Ryan's budget is determined to deliver a stronger, more prosperous America for the next generation, too many in Washington remain focused on their next election.

VIDEO and TEXT CREDIT: HouseBudgetCommittee

Reince Priebus Meet the Press 04/03/11 TEXT VIDEO

Reince Priebus the chairman of the Republican National Committee tells Meet the Press moderator David Gregory of his work to rebuild trust and credibility in the organization and offers his take on some potential GOP presidential contenders.

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: www.msnbc.msn.com/

Mike Rogers Meet the Press 04/03/11 TEXT VIDEO

MR. GREGORY: We're going to turn now to House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, Republican from Michigan. Rogers was elected to Congress back in 2000. Since the 9/11 attacks, he's had a major role in forming key legislation involving the intelligence community, like the Patriot Act, as well as developing counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was a special agent for the FBI, also served in the Army. And he took over the gavel as the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at the beginning of this year. The committee has operational and budgetary oversight over the country's intelligence agencies. His appearance this morning comes on--just as news is breaking this week of covert CIA operations on the ground in Libya.

Chairman Rogers, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.

REP. MIKE ROGERS (R-MI): David, thanks for having me.

MR. GREGORY: Good to have you here. Let's pick up on Libya here and specifically about the CIA's role. What are they doing on the ground? And is this part of the strategy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Libyan rebels?

REP. ROGERS: Well, first of all, I can't comment on any intelligence operations anywhere in the world. They're classified for, for a reason. But let me back up. The CIA was developed and has grown into a pretty robust organization that's designed to go places, even where there are dangerous places, to collect information for policymakers like the United States Congress, like the president, like the military, so that they can make real-time, up-to-date decisions based on what we know on the facts on the ground, so.

MR. GREGORY: But here the major facts are what are the, the rebels doing, what are they, and what do they need? You've said it's not a good idea to supply arms for the rebels. But without it, without the air cover, can they topple Gadhafi?

REP. ROGERS: Well, I supported the no-fly zone early on, as a matter of fact, and support the continuation of the no-fly zone with the ability to strike targets on the ground, armored columns, other things. But what we need to know is who they are. We know what they're against, the rebels.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

REP. ROGERS: We know that they're against Moammar Gadhafi remaining in power. But we don't know what they're for.

MR. GREGORY: Is there a terrorist element among them?

REP. ROGERS: Well, in most Middle East countries there are elements of al-Qaeda. Now, that doesn't mean they're a part of the government, it doesn't mean they're the majority, it doesn't mean that they're having major influences in the, in the country that--of which they reside. But yes, it's a concern. We know that they're there. They, in the past--the Libyan al-Qaeda element, or al-Qaeda in the Maghreb--provided foreign fighters in Iraq to target U.S. citizens. But that didn't mean that was a part of the Libyan government. It's very tribal, 140 tribes, 30 are which politically active. We just need to know a lot more before we give them advanced weapon systems.

MR. GREGORY: Would you like to see Arab special forces units in a lead role, rather than the CIA on the ground?

REP. ROGERS: Well, I mean, special forces and, and intelligence collection I think are two very, very different things. The special forces on the ground would be designed to, to go and hit targets and, and cause some chaos, if you will, for the enemy. If the Arab League is putting those types of forces on the ground, you know, good on them. The rebels could certainly use that help and support from the Arab League. And I think what you're seeing now amongst the rebels is a little bit organization. One of the good things I think has happened is we've found the, the thousand soldiers or so that have defected. They're getting organized, they're now interfacing with the rebels, getting them more tactically oriented. The pressure on the Gadhafi regime is intense. You know, the--Moussa Koussa, his foreign minister, former head of intelligence, has defected. They're treating him well. He is providing, I think, valuable information to the British and the United States and to the rebels at this point, just by his fact that he is cooperating, being treated well. The pressure on the regime--and more defections, I do believe, will follow--is adding a lot of pressure.

MR. GREGORY: Right. But you heard, you heard Senator Durbin talk, talk about pressure on the regime. The Wall Street editorial this week argued for a more robust, unified voice from the Republicans, saying this: "Republicans ought to prod Mr. Obama," the Journal wrote, "to push for a faster resolution that ends with toppling of Gadhafi and his sons from power. Any result short of that guarantees a divided Libya that may well require international peacekeepers to separate the warring factions. If there is any leader whose terrorist nature the American people understand, it is Gadhafi's." Should that be the view of the Republican Party, to topple him? Is that realistic?

REP. ROGERS: Well, I, I do think Gadhafi remaining in power is not an option, it's not the--an option. But this is--shouldn't be a Republican issue, a Democrat issue, it shouldn't be an Obama issue vs. a John Boehner issue.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. ROGERS: This is an American issue.

MR. GREGORY: But how do you get him out? How do you get him out?

REP. ROGERS: Well, continued sustained efforts here. The rebels are getting better organized. We're putting lots of pressure for defections. And people in the regime have to make choices. They're going to have to decide, do they want to be prosecuted when this is all over for war crimes, or do they want to defect early on and be part of the solution for the future of Libya? And believe me, that's, that's an intense amount of pressure. He's running out of money. We--the United States and Europe has seized some $60 billion-plus worth of assets of Libya that will be turned back over to a Libya to rebuild itself. All the components here and a smart way of going forward so that we don't get embroiled in, in owning the problem of the cleanup, if you will.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. ROGERS: And we don't arm people that we don't know who they are and if they're going to use those weapons against civilians or maybe us in the future. And so you have this growing in the region fight for liberty so that these governments are less hostile to the United States. There are so many reasons for us to be here and show leadership. And I argue Republicans and Democrats ought to stand together with the president to get--to make sure that this thing ends well for the United States and the people of Libya.

MR. GREGORY: But are we in a conflict that it has at its core a vital U.S. interest? I posed that question to the secretary of Defense on this program last week, this is what he said.

(Videotape, last Sunday)

MR. GREGORY: Is Libya in our vital interest as a country?

SEC'Y ROBERT GATES: No, I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States. But we clearly have interests there. And it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the United States.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And part of that interest, as the president outlined it in a speech that a lot of people thought was about Libya but about something of an Obama doctrine, was humanitarian. And yet you read the papers this morning, about 800 civilians killed in the Cote d'Ivoire. I mean, how do we form a policy around when we intervene and when we don't if this is not a, a, a war that's in our interest?

REP. ROGERS: Well, I argue it is in our interests, and we ought to stand with the president on making this a, a positive outcome for the United States, again, the people of Libya. Here's--the humanitarian component of it was real and it was something we should have done, stopping the slaughter of tens of thousands of people that we knew was going to happen. But here's somebody who is a state sponsor of terrorism; the bombing of the German discotheque killed American soldiers, planned thought Gadhafi's regime, the Pan Am bombing. This is somebody who still has a chemical weapon stockpile and he has other weapon systems that keeps me up at night thinking about if these things were to, to happen to fall into the wrong hands.

MR. GREGORY: Is Libya a terrorist threat?

REP. ROGERS: Listen, I think if you have a stalemate with Moammar Gadhafi still in power, when you have this split country where he still possesses stockpiles of some pretty awful stuff, I think you have to worry that he is a terrorist threat.

MR. GREGORY: That's significant...

REP. ROGERS: I believe...

MR. GREGORY: ...that this is what the endgame is about for the U.S. is preventing a terror strike by a, by a cornered Gadhafi.

REP. ROGERS: Well, it's a whole host of things. I think that clearly has to be one of them. I mean, we know he has it. He used chemical weapons in his fight against Chad in 1987, that's a fact.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

REP. ROGERS: We have seen--I've been in Libya, I have seen his chemical stockpile. We know it's there, it exists. He has other weapon systems that concern us. But it can't be just that, it has to be all of the other factors.

MR. GREGORY: Just a couple more points in our remaining time. I want to ask you about what I asked Senator Durbin about...

REP. ROGERS: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: ...these protests that we're seeing throughout Afghanistan because of the Quran burning here in the United States; a publicity stunt for sure, but also an act of extremism. It has real consequences.
Advertise | AdChoices

REP. ROGERS: Absolutely has consequences. And we've asked Americans in every tough conflict we've had in the history of this country to be thoughtful and mindful of each citizen's responsibility to make sure that you're doing your part for our soldiers to come home safely with an accomplished mission. When you do something like this, clearly the First Amendment has--protects that individual from doing that. But when you jeopardize our soldiers and the folks who are--and our civilians who are trying to put Afghanistan back together so we can come home, I would hope that you would stop with that bit of extremism and pull yourself back and look at the bigger, broader, more important picture as a unified and successful United States overseas.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about Iraq because the politics there, the sectarian division is started to tear at the seams a little bit. Of course, we have 47,000 troops there, they're due home by the end of the year. The Washington Post's editorial just this morning poses a pretty provocative question, which is "Iraq's ticking clock: What will happen when the last U.S. troops depart?" If we leave, does Iran become the dominant player in Iraq? And what does that mean for the U.S.?

REP. ROGERS: I don't think it becomes the dominant player in Iraq. It certainly has the potential and they have been a very bad actor in the entire region--which I think is why you saw many Arab countries, both overtly and quietly, support the United States from keeping check on Iran's ambitions in the region. That's not going to go away anytime soon. Their proxy state, Syria, clearly is acting on Iran's behalf. Their activities in Bahrain, very concerning of what they're doing. We're going to have to watch it in Iraq and around the rest of that region. Again, why Libya's important? Imagine now a change where you have Libyans, free democracy of some sort, at least of their choosing, that is less hostile to the United States and more inclusive of other Arab League partners. That's a positive outcome for the United States. When liberty is on the march, we ought to be with it in ways that we can, and responsibly, but we ought to be with it.

MR. GREGORY: Just 20 seconds. You're a former FBI agent. What's the key quality the next FBI director should have?

REP. ROGERS: They need to understand the agent culture. The next 10 years of the FBI are critical. Director Mueller has pulled, pulled the FBI along with some serious changes. Understand the agent culture, the core value of being an investigator first, and applying that to their new mission of counterterrorism and analysts.

MR. GREGORY: Counter--yeah, and counterterrorism.

REP. ROGERS: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: Really, that experience is important.

REP. ROGERS: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: All right, Chairman, thank you very much.

REP. ROGERS: Thanks, David, for having me here.
Advertise | AdChoices

MR. GREGORY: We appreciate you being here.

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: www.msnbc.msn.com/

John Boehner Weekly Republican Address TEXT PODCAST VIDEO 04/02/11

Podcast of the address: Download MP3 for PODCAST || FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT BELOW. || Download Video MPEG Video || MP4 Video

John Boehner Weekly Republican Address TEXT PODCAST VIDEO 04/02/11

Washington (Apr 2) Delivering the Weekly Republican Address, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) discusses the new House majority’s efforts to cut spending and tackle the big challenges facing job creation in America. In the address, Boehner, a former small business owner, talks about how the spending binge in Washington is creating uncertainty for private-sector job creators and holding our economy back. He reiterates Republicans’ commitment to fighting for the largest spending cuts possible, and says it’s important to resolve last year’s budget mess so we can tackle the bigger challenges facing job creation. Those challenges include the job-crushing $1.5 trillion tax hike in President Obama’s budget for next year, and his request for an increase in the national debt limit without a commitment to ending runaway spending. Following is the full text of the address.

“Hello, I’m John Boehner. Before I had the honor of representing the people of Ohio’s 8th Congressional District, I ran a small business back in West Chester, Ohio.

Small businesses are the engine of job creation in America: they actually create jobs, the government doesn’t. That’s why I ran for Congress – to do my part to get government out of the way of American prosperity. Despite some recent signs of life, our economy still isn’t creating enough jobs. And one of the reasons for that is the spending binge that’s been going on in Washington.

“Washington’s inability to get spending under control is creating uncertainty for our job creators. It’s discouraging investment in small businesses, and eroding confidence in our economy. To put it simply, the spending binge in Washington is holding our country back and keeping our economy from creating jobs.

“Last year, when the President tried to put forward another big-spending budget on top of his ‘stimulus,’ Americans rose up and demanded we stop the spending binge and start working together to create a better environment for job creation. They put a new majority in charge of the House with clear orders: crash the spending party in Washington so our economy can get back to creating jobs.

“We’ve made some early progress. This year, the federal government will spend at least $51 billion less than it would have if the president had gotten his way. And because we’ve kept the pressure on, Democrats in the White House and the Senate are being forced to talk about a bill that would cut tens of billions more. Over the next decade, the savings will be hundreds of billions of dollars. This is nowhere near enough, but it’s a clear change in direction.

“Now, you’ve heard Democratic leaders claim an agreement has been reached on this issue, but let me be clear. There is no agreement. Republicans continue to fight for the largest spending cuts possible to help end Washington’s job-crushing spending binge.

“To support job creation in America, we need to keep the cuts coming, and we need to do much, much more. That’s why it’s important for Congress to get moving and pass a final bill that resolves last year’s budget mess while making real spending cuts – so we can tackle the bigger challenges facing job creation.

“One of those challenges is stopping the $1.5 trillion tax hike the president called for in his budget for next year. This tax hike will affect every family and small business in America, and it will destroy jobs. The president has also asked Congress to increase the national debt limit – without any commitment to stopping the runaway spending that got us into this mess in the first place. If the president gets his wish, it would send the signal that America has no plan to deal with her spending illness – and that’s going to have the effect, again, of destroying more American jobs.

“We also need to address all the red tape and regulations that are making it harder to create jobs and driving up the cost of health care and energy.

“To put America on a path to prosperity, we need to remove regulatory obstacles to job growth, expand American energy production, end the threat of tax hikes, approve stalled trade agreements that would open new markets, and get government spending under control once and for all. These are the pillars of the Republican plan to help get our economy back to creating jobs, and this is the focus of our new majority in the House.

“Thanks for listening, and have a great weekend.”

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: JohnBoehner

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

AUDIO / VIDEO FILES CREDIT: The House Republican Conference - Digital Communications visual.media@mail.house.gov 202-225-5439

Rand Paul Congressional Correspondents' Dinner VIDEO

Rand Paul M.D. U.S. Senator [R] KY, United States Length: 9 minutes, 25 seconds. The Radio and Television Correspondents Association gathered for their annual dinner. The 67th annual dinner was the first to be called the Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner.

Ben Quayle Congressional Correspondents' Dinner VIDEO

The Radio and Television Correspondents Association gathered for their annual dinner.

Ben Quayle (R-AZ) takes on Obama, Biden, Gingrich, Weiner, Spitzer, and many others at Wednesday evening's Congressional Correspondents' Dinner (formerly the Radio-Television Correspondents' Dinner). The 67th annual dinner was the first to be called the Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner.


VIDEO CREDIT: PoliticoLach

Charles Boustany Conducts Hearing on IRS Practices and the 2011 Filing Season

Washington, DC – U.S. Congressman Charles W. Boustany, Jr., MD (R-Southwest Louisiana) today held a Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight hearing to discuss the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the 2011 Tax Return Filing Season. IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman was on hand to testify. “Charged with administering this growing tax code, the IRS must simultaneously respect the rights of taxpayers, provide assistance to the millions of taxpayers who have questions about their taxes, and go after those who seek to cheat the tax system,” Boustany said in his opening statement. “The IRS’s dual mission of both revenue collector and social policy program administrator diverts IRS resources from its core mission and can diminish taxpayer service.

Among the biggest contributors to this problem is the new health care law, which gives IRS a host of new responsibilities, including the indoor tanning tax, new taxes and fees on employers and individuals, and a complex small business tax credit.”

Boustany indicated the committee’s desire to work on ways to reform the tax code. When asked if he felt the tax code was too complex, Commissioner Shuman responded, “Yes, it has become incredibly complex.”

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Boustany plans to hold several hearings to look into government waste and spending in federal agencies.

###

Boustany Opening Statement: Hearing on Internal Revenue Service Operations and the 2011 Tax Return Filing Season

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the Internal Revenue Service and the 2011 Tax Return Filing Season.

Today’s conversation about the IRS should begin with a topic too often ignored: the taxpayer. The National Taxpayer Advocate’s recent report to Congress provided some alarming facts on what the federal tax code has become, and how it affects the average taxpayer.

Every year, taxpayers face a tax code of growing complexity. For instance, there have been nearly 5,000 changes to the tax code in the past ten years. Between the period of 1975 and 2005, the code tripled in size. As a result of the growing length and complexity of the tax code, individual taxpayers and businesses spend an estimated 6.1 billion hours and $163 billion every single year simply complying with tax-filing requirements. The cost of compliance for your average individual taxpayer was over $250 in 2007.

As we meet today, we are in the middle of the 2011 tax return filing season and millions of individuals and businesses are working to meet their annual tax return filing obligations. As of March 18, IRS had processed over 73 million individual tax returns and issued nearly 65 million refunds totaling $193 billion. With two and a half weeks to go until the April 18 filing deadline, the Subcommittee looks forward to hearing more about the ongoing tax return season and any problems the agency and tax return filers might be encountering. The Subcommittee would also like to learn more about efforts the IRS has undertaken to improve the efficient processing of returns and refunds, including its e-filing modernization program.

Charged with administering this growing tax code, the IRS must simultaneously respect the rights of taxpayers, provide assistance to the millions of taxpayers who have questions about their taxes, and go after those who seek to cheat the tax system.

And the agency has to do this against a backdrop of ever increasing responsibilities to administer social policy programs. The IRS’s dual mission of both revenue collector and social policy program administrator diverts IRS resources from its core mission and can diminish taxpayer service. Among the biggest contributors to this problem is the new health care law, which gives IRS a host of new responsibilities, including the indoor tanning tax, new taxes and fees on employers and individuals, and a complex small business tax credit.

For FY 2012, the IRS has requested nearly $6 billion dollars, an increase of more than 8 percent from the FY 2010 appropriation. Included in this $6 billion is a request for nearly half a billion dollars, and over 1,200 new employees, to implement the health care law’s provisions. And the costs of the health care law do not end there. IRS’s implementation of the health care law is estimated to cost between $5 and $10 billion over the next ten years. So in addition to the current tax return filing season and the IRS budget request, I hope we can take this opportunity to discuss this dual mission and whether it hampers IRS’s core revenue collection responsibilities.

With that, I would like to welcome Commissioner Douglas Shulman here today, and I look forward to a fruitful discussion of his agency, its mission, and the ongoing tax return filing season.

I am now pleased to yield to our Ranking Member, Mr. Lewis.

###

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Congressman Charles Boustany Washington, DC Office 1431 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515-1807 Phone: (202) 225-2031 Fax: (202) 225-5724

TEXT CREDIT: House Committee on Ways & Means 1101 Longworth HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone (202) 225-3625 Fax (202) 225-2610

John Boehner Calls For House to Renew D.C. School Choice Program H.R. 471 VIDEO FULL TEXT

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks on the House floor in support of H.R. 471, legislation renewing the bipartisan, successful D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has helped thousands of disadvantaged students gain access to a quality education. Boehner also submitted for the record letters from a parent and several students who hope the Obama Administration will work with Congress to ensure the program will continue.

H.R. 471 To reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program, and for other purposes in PDF FORMAT

TEXT and VIDEO CREDIT: JohnBoehner

John Kline, Michele Bachmann, Erik Paulsen and Chip Cravaack Voice Concern Over Medical Device Tax

Last night, Reps. John Kline (MN-02), Michele Bachmann (MN-06), Erik Paulsen (MN-03) and Chip Cravaack (MN-08) sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman voicing their concerns about the $20 billion medical device tax included in the new healthcare law. In January, Rep. Paulsen introduced the “Protect Medical Innovation Act” which would repeal the job-crushing medical device tax. Reps. Kline, Bachmann and Cravaack are among the bill’s 110 co-sponsors. Minnesota is home to over 400 medical device companies employing 35,000 people.

“The planned $20 billion excise tax on medical device manufacturers will lead to higher prices for devices and increased health care premiums. We also believe the tax will force medical device companies to reduce US employment and research and development expenditures,” said the letter. “We encourage you to look toward established industry sources to better understand the practicalities of the medical device market. As you work through this process, we need to learn more about your approach to these issues to ensure that the regulations do not exacerbate the impact on jobs and competitiveness resulting from the excise tax on medical devices.”

###

Contact: Becky Rogness 202-225-2331

MN Letter to IRS Commissioner Re Medical Device Tax in PDF FORMAT

H.R.436 -- Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011 in PDF FORMAT

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Proudly Serving the 6th District of Minnesota. # Washington Office 107 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2331 Fax: (202) 225-6475.

Spencer Bachus We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac H.R. 1182 FULL TEXT

WASHINGTON (March 29) – Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6) released the following statement about the proposals introduced today by several Republicans on the Committee to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bachus is Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “In our Pledge to America, House Republicans said: ‘We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover, shrinking their portfolios, and establishing minimum capital standards.’ As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I want to make it clear: We are fully committed to these goals.

“On March 17, the Committee’s Vice Chairman, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, introduced H.R. 1182, a bill that represents Republicans’ ultimate objective, as articulated in the Pledge to America, to end the $150 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and make sure that such a bailout is never again forced on the American taxpayer.

Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012) H.R.1182.IH in PDF FORMAT To establish a term certain for the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to provide conditions for continued operation of such enterprises, and to provide for the wind down of such operations and the dissolution of such enterprises.

“This comprehensive reform of the U.S. mortgage market will be supplemented by targeted bills which Capital Markets Subcommittee Chairman Scott Garrett will shepherd through his Subcommittee, all of which advance the same goal as the Hensarling bill: to create a well-functioning, private, competitive secondary mortgage market to price mortgages according to risk, be more innovative and efficient, and operate with less political interference.

“Finally, Insurance and Housing Chairman Judy Biggert will begin a parallel legislative effort to reform the Federal Housing Administration. This effort will focus on legislation to clearly define FHA’s mission and prevent it from simply replacing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a source of taxpayer exposure to the mortgage market.

“The strength of the Republican Financial Services Committee team has been and will continue to be the cooperation and collaborative effort of its subcommittee chairmen. The reform of housing policy, which spans the jurisdiction of several subcommittees, will display the power of this willingness to work together and accomplish great things.”

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Spencer Bachus Washington Office 2246 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515 (p) 202-225-4921 (f) 202-225-2082

Rand Paul Responds to President Obama's Address 03/28/11 VIDEO FULL TEXT

Following President Obama's national address this evening regarding the situation in Libya, Sen. Rand Paul released the following remarks in response to the President.

VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Rand Paul Response to President Obama’s Address Time to consult Congress, follow Constitution before action Monday, March 28, 2011.

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.

Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden’s radical jihad?

In 2007, then-candidate Obama said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval

What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States’ vital national interest.

Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.

Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.

But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.

At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.

When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.

Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.

The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:

The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.

If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.

The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.

The Constitution says Congress – all of Congress – is responsible for declaring war.

While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.

We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.

We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.

The subtext to the President’s speech concerning Libya tonight was “What if we had done nothing?” But a better question might be, What if helping Libya’s interest actually hurts America’s interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?

It’s time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don’t have. And we can’t afford to address every other nation’s problems before we can address our own.

Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress – the People’s House – deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.

We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.

Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.

TEXT CREDIT: Senator Paul, U.S. Senator for Kentucky:

VIDEO IMAGE and TEXT CREDIT: SenatorRandPaul

John Boehner asks Five Simple Questions for Democrats on Spending Cuts

It was 37 days ago that House Republicans passed H.R. 1, a clear plan for cutting spending to create a better environment for job growth and keeping the government funded for the rest of this fiscal year. But here we are, more than a month later, and nobody knows where the Democrats who run Washington stand on cutting spending – including Democrats themselves. To help move the process along, we’d like answers to these five simple questions: * 1) When will Senate Democrats offer a serious plan for cutting spending and funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year? AP noted that “[t]he House has voted for $61 billion in cuts” – H.R. 1. But Politico says “Senate Democrats haven’t put forward a long-term spending plan that can move through their chamber.” In fact, Democrats have “shown no ability to rally behind a long-term budget proposal.” So where is their plan?

* 2) Where does the White House stand on cutting spending and funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year? “Democrats on both sides of the Capitol say they have no idea where the White House stands or who’s running the show,” reports Politico. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said on the Senate floor, “Our president has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for.” And Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) asked, “Where is the president going to lead? And are we going to follow?”

* 3) What exactly is the White House willing to cut? The Washington Post says “Democrats are being disingenuous by suggesting they have already worked hard to reduce spending or to reach out to Republicans.” Despite repeated claims by the White House and top Democrats, “when they're translated into real numbers, the White House is arguably meeting the GOP just one-sixth of the way — not halfway at all,” says AP.

* 4) What exactly are Congressional Democrats willing to cut? “The top two Democratic leaders in the House have twice split on whether to approve short-term government funding bills that cut billions from federal accounts,” reported Politico. And remember: the House-passed H.R.1 received more votes in the Democrat-run Senate than the status quo spending plan put forward by Democratic leaders.

* 5) Do Democrats intend to shut down the government because they can't agree among themselves? Politico says Democrats have been “wobbly in their budget message, divided on major votes and out of sync…” To mask these ongoing divisions – and their desire to keep the job-crushing spending binge going – Democrats have repeatedly rooted for a government shutdown. As CNN reported, “it is the Democrats talking most about shutting down the government.”

The new Republican Majority is working to clean up the mess left behind when “the Democratic-controlled Congress failed to pass a budget” last year. But we need to know – as Speaker Boehner asked the other day – “when it comes to cutting spending and keeping the government running, where are Washington Democrats?”

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

Donald Trump if Pesident Obama was born in the United States he shoud have a birth certificate VIDEO

“They give you a certificate of live birth which anybody can get. Just walk into the hospital. This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn't.”

Michael Hayden Stephen Hadley CNN's State of the Union VIDEO

CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley talks to two former intelligence officials. Michael Hayden and Stephen Hadley about the task of removing Moammar Gadhafi from power.

Stephen John Hadley (born February 13, 1947, in Toledo, Ohio) was the 21st U.S. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (commonly referred as National Security Advisor), serving under President George W. Bush.

Michael Vincent Hayden, (born March 17, 1945 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is a retired United States Air Force four-star general and former Director of the National Security Agency. On May 8, 2006, Hayden was nominated by President George W. Bush to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

VIDEO CREDIT: State of the Union with Candy Crowley

Richard Lugar Meet the Press 03/27/11 TEXT VIDEO

MR. GREGORY: We are joined now by the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Welcome to MEET THE PRESS, Senator.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN): Thank you very much.

MR. GREGORY: You've heard from Secretary Gates and Clinton. And I wonder, are you satisfied with the progress in Libya and with their explanation of our mission?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, I was startled to hear Secretary Gates say that Libya was not a vital interest, that Secretary Clinton then came in with the fact that our European allies are very disturbed about the situation. And, of course, we have justified military action as a humanitarian action to stop the shooting of civilians. I would just start by saying, before our nation goes to war or has military action, there must be a plan, there must be objectives, the endgame, what we want to, to achieve. And then, at least, some means as to how that's going to occur. That has not happened as yet, and the president has said we've had success because Gadhafi would have murdered many people in Benghazi. But the fact is that there was fighting in Benghazi because the so-called rebels, the other people that are not Gadhafi supporters, started a civil war in Libya, following civil wars that had commenced in Tunisia and Egypt. And, and facts are that that civil war was proceeding and, in many cases, the rebels seemed to be winning, except when they got to Benghazi, or in Tripoli. So, at this point, we then adopt a no-fly zone with the thought of knocking out Gadhafi's aircraft. And then the ground zone situation in which we knocked out the tanks and trucks and the other situation.

Now, having done all of that, the fact is now that the rebels, as you pointed out, in Ajdabiya and...(unintelligible)...have come back, so that on the eastern side of Libya, the cities all seem to be lined up with the rebels. On the western side and Misrata, the Gadhafi people are trying to take that so they at least have all of that side of the country. And, in the meanwhile, we're saying that we're going to back off of the no-fly zone or take a much less of a role there, leave that to the Europeans. It--and it simply leaves the whole situation up for grabs in which there is hopefulness, maybe, that Gadhafi will leave or that something bad will happen to him, or, or, in fact, that somehow these persons who are the rebels who we really don't know, who have no particular government, are, are going to form something that is more friendly to us or to the Europeans.

MR. GREGORY: Well, let me ask you to unpack that a little bit. If it's not in our vital interest, bottom line, should we not be involved?

SEN. LUGAR: I think there should have been a plan for what our objectives were, a debate as to why this was in our vital interest before we committed military forces to Libya.

MR. GREGORY: It's interesting, the press secretary for the president, Jay Carney, said this was not, in fact, a war. This was, "A time limited, scope limited, military action." Do you think that that's a bit of dancing there? And does the president, when he speaks to the nation, have to be more forthright about what we're engaged in?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, when I had the opportunity to ask the president during this telephonic conference that Secretary Clinton has mentioned, he justified action as a humanitarian gesture, that it would have been unconscionable to stand by while Gadhafi murdered people in Benghazi. As a result, these people were saved, and now we move backward in terms of our obligations in the situation. An, an event no boots on the ground. The president has reiterated that. So this means, in essence, the Libyans are still going to have to solve their civil war. We've pretty well knocked out Gadhafi's air force and many of his tanks, but the fact is that the country is still very divide with east and west cities...

MR. GREGORY: And what is our commitment? What is our commitment to that civil war?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, I don't believe we should be engaged in the Libyan civil war. I believe the Libyans are going to have to work that out. The fact is that we don't have particular ties with anybody in the Libyan picture, and we will have to at least adjust to whatever that outcome may be. But, as far as we're concerned, as Secretary Gates has said, it is not of vital interest to the United States. American interests are not at stake, and we clearly have already done much more than our part with regard to the no-fly zone, with regard to European friends.

MR. GREGORY: Will it require more funds from the government for this military operation?

SEN. LUGAR: Of course. And that's what I stated from the beginning. There has to be objectives and a plan and an agreement that we're prepared to devote the military forces but also the money. It makes no sense, sort of in the front room, where in Congress we are debating seemingly every day the deficits, the debt ceiling situation coming up, the huge economic problems we have; but in the back room we are spending money on a military situation in Libya. Estimates are that about $1 billion has already been spent on an undeclared war in Libya.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEN. LUGAR: Some would say only hundreds of millions, and that that will diminish in the days ahead. But what knows how long this goes on? And furthermore, who has really budgeted for Libya at all? I have not really heard the administration come forward saying that we're going to have to devote these funds, folks. And therefore something else will have to go or it simply adds to the deficit.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you, finally, Senator Lugar, can the U.S. and its allies accomplish the mission that they've set out to achieve if Moammar Gadhafi remains in power?

SEN. LUGAR: Probably not. In large part, since we have taken the position that Moammar Gadhafi is an especially evil, bad dictator, and we have now indicated, the president said that he must go, he lacks legitimacy and so forth. Others have made the same statement. But if, in fact, he stays, is successful with his forces in subduing the rebels, then we are going to have to deal with Gadhafi and whatever we have there. I think there is sort of a vague hope still, animated by Secretary Clinton, that perhaps he may be thinking about where he might go, or with his money and his family and so forth, who might accept him in the world and sort of slip out of the picture. But even if he did...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEN. LUGAR: ...the forces that are allied with him may very well still prevail in the civil war.

MR. GREGORY: All right. We will leave it there. Senator Lugar, thank you very much.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you.

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: www.msnbc.msn.com/

Bob McDonnell Weekly Republican Address TEXT VIDEO 03/26/11

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

Hi I'm Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Before I begin today, I want to thank the brave men and women of our armed forces for their selfless service during recent operations in Libya, and their ongoing great work in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their relief efforts in Japan.

Virginia is home to many of our nation’s most important military installations, and we thank these courageous Americans for their defense of the freedom and liberty that we hold dear.

Like most governors, my top priority for our Commonwealth is ensuring fiscal responsibility and helping the private sector create the good jobs our citizens need.

Here in the states, we have to balance our budgets. We can’t print money, and we have....
... strict debt limits, so we have to live within our means. We manage our state budgets like you run your family and business budgets. That means making tough choices.

When I took office last year, we faced historic budget deficits of $6 billion here in Virginia. And we closed those deficits by cutting spending, not raising taxes. In the process we reduced state spending to 2006 levels -- and turned a shortfall into a surplus.

We’ve acted in a fiscally responsible manner here in Richmond. And that’s what Republican governors from Madison to Austin and Tallahassee to Albuquerque are doing right now.

But our work in the states is at risk of being undermined by some of the unrealistic and irresponsible policies that are coming from Washington.

Chief among those: the passage, one year ago this week, of the federal healthcare bill.

Unlike states, families, and businesses, the federal government doesn’t have to balance its budget. And that unfortunate reality leads to policies like the federal healthcare bill that push expensive, unfunded and unsustainable programs onto the rest of us. Washington passes the law, and then expects us to balance the books.

One year after the federal healthcare bill was rammed through the Congress in a partisan vote, we now see it has more to do with expanding control by the federal government than actually reforming our healthcare system.

The 2,700-page legislation simply will not work. It creates new entitlements and bureaucracies, and could cost all of us in fewer jobs and lost opportunities.

The law shifts billions in unfunded mandates onto state governments, and rigid new requirements restrict the governors’ abilities to manage our state programs. The result: higher costs, less innovation and freedom. That’s a prescription for serious problems at the state level, where much of this plan must be implemented.

Most notably, the federal healthcare bill dramatically expands Medicaid, which was already growing at unsustainable rates.

In Virginia alone, state spending on Medicaid has grown by a staggering 1,600% over the past 27 years. The program now accounts for 21% of our entire general fund budget, and is projected to grow another 26% between 2012 and 2016. Under the federal healthcare bill, Virginia will be forced to spend $2 billion more on Medicaid between 2014 and 2022.

The more spending required for Medicaid entitlements, the less money available for roads, schools, law enforcement and higher education. The more mandates on employers, the less jobs that they can create. This federal law will lead to painful decisions that will impact every American.

The federal healthcare bill is not only a budget buster, it’s also unconstitutional.

Virginia, like the majority of states, is challenging this legislation in court. Already a federal district court judge has ruled in our favor, concluding that the provision that a Virginia citizen must purchase insurance or face a penalty is unconstitutional.

Courts have split on this issue. Everyone agrees that the case will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court. But now the very same administration that was in such a rush to pass the bill is in no hurry to find out if it’s legal. And that’s an answer we all need to know.

The legal issues must be settled promptly by the court to create certainty and finality for healthcare providers, businesses and all Americans. Shockingly, the Obama administration opposes an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court, preferring the potential for years of costly litigation in the lower courts.

Regardless of party, we should all agree that the sooner we know if the law is constitutional, the better for the American people.

Also, we can all agree that we must make our health system more affordable, accessible and accountable.

Republican governors are on the front lines of this effort.

We believe that the best way to do that is by repealing this burdensome and bureaucratic bill and replacing it with innovative free-market policies that drive down costs and increase coverage.

We can do that by instituting real lawsuit reform, allowing citizens to purchase healthcare insurance across states lines, encouraging health savings accounts, allowing voluntary market-based purchasing pools and exchanges and focusing on prevention and real health maintenance. Those are just a few of the ideas.

We need policies that give greater freedom to citizens and employers and don’t overly burden states and businesses. Policies that recognizes what history teaches well: and that is that the creative solutions of the free market beat one-size-fits-all plans of big government.

Here in your state capitols, Republican governors are leading the effort to cut government spending, keep taxes low, help the private sector create jobs, provide access to affordable healthcare and get our economy back on track by making our states more competitive.

We are asking this administration to join us in the effort. Thank you for taking the time to listen today and have a great weekend. ####

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: gopweeklyaddress

John Boehner “The Status Quo Is Unacceptable, and That’s All Washington Democrats Are Offering”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is joined by, left to right, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), and Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) at a press conference to announce the American Energy Initiative. March 10, 2011.

Speaker Boehner on Cutting Spending: “The Status Quo Is Unacceptable, and That’s All Washington Democrats Are Offering” Washington (Mar 25) House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement regarding Washington Democrats’ continued failure to offer a credible, long-term plan to cut spending and keep the government running: “It has now been 34 days since the House passed H.R. 1 to keep the government running through September and make the spending cuts economists say are needed to end the uncertainty facing job creators. At no point in the 34 days since the House acted have the Democrats who run the Senate and the White House put forward a credible, long-term plan to resolve their budget mess. Instead, Washington Democrats continue to downplay the severity of their budget mess, and the uncertainty it’s causing job creators in America.

We have been ready to do the people’s work, but we weren’t sent here to negotiate with ourselves. Many questions remain, starting with: when it comes to cutting spending and keeping the government running, where are Washington Democrats? If they have a plan, what is it? If Democrats don’t have a plan, do they intend to shut down the government because they can't agree among themselves? The status quo is unacceptable, and right now that is all Washington Democrats are offering.”

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

IMAGE CREDIT: SpeakerBoehner

Michele Bachmann Nuclear Power Remains Vital VIDEO

Rep. Bachmann joined David Asman and Liz Claman on Bulls and Bears on Fox Business today. She spoke about why the situation in Japan can be a learning opportunity for the U.S. Our nation should not do away with nuclear power, but rather we can put greater safety measures into place and new responses into place because of what happened in Japan. Bachmann also discussed her "no" vote on the continuing resolution, due to the fact the CR did not included language to defund ObamaCare

TEXT and VIDEO CREDIT: RepMicheleBachmann

Jim Jordan, Tim Scott, Scott Garrett Welfare Reform Act of 2011 VIDEO.

Jim Jordan, Tim Scott, Scott Garrett Welfare Reform Act of 2011 Bill Summary & Status 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) H.R.1167

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), and RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) have introduced the Welfare Reform Act of 2011. This legislation will help food stamp recipients become independent of government assistance, give taxpayers a clearer picture of national welfare spending, and return the federal welfare budget to pre-recession levels after unemployment falls to 6.5%. Currently, there are 77 means-tested federal programs that provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income Americans.

“Welfare’s chief function should be to help people reach the point where they no longer need it,” said Chairman Jim Jordan. “Decades of experience prove we can’t just throw money at the problem of poverty. We need a smarter approach that promotes self-reliance and acknowledges the interconnected nature of all our anti-poverty programs. At the end of the day, the most effective welfare benefit is the one that leads to a job.”

“I am proud to be a principal co-sponsor of the Welfare Reform Act and will work with my colleagues to see this measure advance through the House,” said Rep. Tim Scott. “We have seen welfare spending continue to rise dramatically, even as the number of Americans living at or below the poverty level increases. We should seek to break the cycle of poverty and offer a path to self-reliance, and with it, self-respect.”

“The Welfare Reform Act takes the necessary step of reforming an antiquated system tainted with inefficiencies and consumed by costly government spending,” said Rep. Scott Garrett. “I’m proud to stand with my colleagues in supporting this important bill that streamlines our country’s welfare system and promotes self-reliance as the solution to poverty in America.”

Since President Johnson declared a War on Poverty in 1964, Americans have spent $16 trillion on welfare at the state and federal level. Congressional Republicans and President Clinton enacted reforms in 1996 that required beneficiaries of a new program (TANF) to either work or prepare for a job. Millions of families have since moved off the TANF rolls and begun to provide for themselves.

Despite the success of these reforms, national welfare spending has almost doubled since 1996 and could total more than $10 trillion over the next decade. Even with all these resources devoted to assistance for the poor, poverty is higher today than it was in the 1970s.

Key Points on the Welfare Reform Act of 2011

* Building on the Success of 1996 – TANF-like reforms will help food stamp recipients become self-reliant by requiring able-bodied adult beneficiaries to work or prepare for a job.
* Disclosure of National Welfare Spending – To provide taxpayers a clearer picture of the money they spend on means-tested welfare at all levels of government, each year the President’s budget will report figures for total federal, state, and local welfare spending over the ensuing decade.
* Return to Pre-Recession Budget – In the first budget written after unemployment falls to 6.5% or lower, overall federal spending on means-tested welfare will return to its 2007-level and be allowed to grow with inflation.

TEXT CREDIT: Republican Study Committee (RSC) - The Caucus of House Conservatives FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

VIDEO CREDIT: RepublicanStudyComm

Joe Miller to chair Western Representation PAC

SPARKS, NV -- Western Representation PAC (website: www.WesternPAC.org), one of the largest and fastest-growing conservative action groups in the country, announced today that former Alaska US Senate Republican nominee Joe Miller, is the PAC’s new Chairman. Miller is replacing Dustin Stockton, who founded the PAC and has assumed the role of Chief Strategist for the organization.

Regarding the announcement Miller said, "I am thrilled to be joining the Western Representation PAC. Despite being formed fairly recently, the PAC was able to gain strong support and make an important impact during the 2010 election cycle. We plan to build on that great start and bring the voice of ‘We the People’ to bear even more as we move towards 2012."

Miller joins the organization as it continues its campaign against the overbearing influence and unsustainable cost of government employee unions. Western Representation PAC spearheaded the nationwide support for Gov. Scott Walker. The group launched an aggressive ad campaign supporting Walker's commitment to balanced budgets and ending compulsory unionism. We will be supporting similar efforts across the country.

“We couldn’t be more excited to have Joe Miller join our team,” said Stockton. “His character, and his commitment to protecting the values that make America the greatest nation on Earth, make Joe the perfect man to chair our organization.”

Western Representation PAC supported Miller in his stunning primary victory over Sen. Lisa Murkowski. The group also ran independent expenditure campaigns in Nevada and Massachusetts.

Stockton formed Western Representation PAC with his father, Roger Stockton, in early 2009, with the goal of making a difference in the political process.

Beginning with no financial or political backing, the organization has become one of the largest and fastest-growing political organizations in the nation thanks to over 250,000 supporters across the country.

###

TEXT CREDIT: www.WesternPAC.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 23, 2011 CONTACT: Roger Stockton at (775) 313-5800 or Roger@WesternPAC.org

One-on-one with Governor Rick Scott VIDEO

Governor Rick Scott has only held office for only 65 days and already he's managed to sell the state planes, win a Supreme Court case and upset many members of the state legislature.

VIDEO and TEXT CREDIT: WPTVnews

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death PODCAST FULL AUDIO and TEXT

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death PODCAST FULL AUDIO OF SPEECH

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

TEXT CREDIT: Wikisource

AUDIO CREDIT: Embassy of the United States

IMAGE CREDIT: Public Domain Clip Art

NRSC Statement On Senator Claire McCaskill’s Latest Ethics Admission VIDEO

Will Senator Claire McCaskill come clean about the $76,000 of taxpayer dollars funneled to her shell companies? Ask her to release the tax records on her LLC's that she paid $76,000.

In the wake of U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill’s (D-MO) admission today that she failed to pay nearly $300,000 in property taxes on her private plane – a confession that came only under heavy pressure from Republicans in the wake of reports that she billed taxpayers for travel on her personal aircraft, including for at least one purely political trip, which her office had initially and vehemently denied – National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Executive Director Rob Jesmer issued the following statement:

“Can Missouri voters even believe anything Senator McCaskill says anymore? This is the third time in less than two weeks that she’s had to change her story about her private plane, and she only admitted any of her wrongdoing once she got caught by the media. Now, millionaire Claire McCaskill wants to simply write yet another big check and hope people won’t ask any more questions. It’s high time for McCaskill to finally live up to the same standards of transparency and accountability that she demands of others by immediately releasing her shell company tax records.

TEXT CREDIT: National Republican Senatorial Committee.

VIDEO CREDIT: TheNRSC