See How Your Senators Voted on 4 Gun Control Amendments

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Senate shot down a series of gun control measures Monday, all brought up for debate after the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

The four gun control bills—two proposed by Republicans and two by Democrats—were torpedoed after the sides were unable to come to an agreement.

The votes came less than a week after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., filibustered for more than 14 hours to support a universal background check system to stop terrorists from acquiring guns.

After learning the FBI had twice investigated Islamist-inspired mass murderer Omar Mateen on suspicion of terrorist sympathies, Democrats and Republicans largely agreed that those under investigation for terrorist activity should be barred from purchasing weapons. Mateen killed 49 persons and wounded 53 more in his June 12 shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

“No one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives. No one,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

But senators could not come together on specifics to address the problem, with each side accusing the other of using the votes for base political ends.

Senate Republicans rejected two Democratic proposals that would have barred firearm sales to people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list and required every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, arguing that the measures too dramatically expanded the federal government’s power.

“The Democratic alternative would not ensure due process, protect our constitutional rights, or require the government to periodically review its procedures to ensure it’s investigating the right people,” McConnell said.

Democrats, in turn, shot down Republican alternatives that would have required the government to prove probable cause within three days to block a gun sale to a suspected terrorist and increase funding for background checks. They argued the proposals were insufficient half measures only intended to help Republicans who receive donations from gun groups to save face.

“It doesn’t matter how sensible the legislation or how terrible the tragedy,” said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “Republicans are beholden to the National Rifle Association, the NRA, and not the people that elect them to come here and represent them.”

The votes of 60 senators were needed to end debate and proceed to a final vote on each measure.

The Republican proposals each received 53 votes. A total of 47 senators voted for the terrorist watch list amendment proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and 44 voted for the expanded background checks proposed by Murphy.

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., was the only Republican to vote for both Democratic proposals. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., voted against one or both.

Some hope for a compromise amendment remained.

Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, said they would present a measure that, while similar to Feinstein’s bill, would restrict gun purchases to a smaller group than the FBI’s far-reaching terrorist watch list.

“There is a solution here, and I’m committed to finding it. But to find that solution, we have to come together instead of having competing proposals that have already mostly failed in this chamber when we took these votes back in December,” Ayotte said. “Let’s put aside the gamesmanship and come together to get a proposal that will be effective and get a result for the American people.”

Here’s how the Senate voted on the first Republican-sponsored gun control measure:

Senate-Roll-Call-Vote-103-2

Here’s how the Senate voted on the second Republican-sponsored gun control amendment:

Senate-Roll-Call-Vote-104-1

Here’s how the Senate voted on the first Democrat-sponsored gun control measure:

Senate-Roll-Call-Vote-105-1

Here’s how the Senate voted on the second Democrat-sponsored gun control amendment:

Senate-Roll-Call-Vote-106-1

(For more from the author of “See How Your Senators Voted on 4 Gun Control Amendments” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hacked Documents Reveal DNC Investigations Into Hillary Clinton ‘Vulnerabilities’

/0 Comments/in , /by

News of computer hacking of U.S. presidential campaigns by “Guccifer 2.0,” first reported a week ago by the Washington Post among other sources, has taken a new turn today with the release of information revealing that the Democratic National Committee has been investigating Hillary Clinton for potential vulnerabilities as a candidate for president.

The hacker, whom U.S. officials have claimed is associated with Russian intelligence services but who claims he is actually a Romanian national, released thousands of additional pages of DNC information to the internet today. The documents, summarized in reports by thesmokinggun.com and the Daily Mail, include dozens of pages of DNC investigations into Clinton’s speaking fees, her use of private aircraft and concerns related to the Clinton Foundation’s financial affairs.

One section is headed, “The Clinton Foundation has accepted donations from individuals, some of whom had ties to foreign governments, during her tenure as secretary of state.” Another noted that donations to the Foundation from “individuals tied to Saudi Arabia” had “raised eyebrows inside the FBI.”

The DNC Noted

The DNC also made note of Hillary Clinton’s “standard” $225,000 speaking fee and her requirement for travel aboard a 19-passenger private jet, a presidential suite plus up to “three (3) adjoining or contiguous rooms for her travel aides;’ and “a flat fee of $1000” for “an immediate transcription of Secretary Clinton’s remarks” to be prepared for Clinton’s private use by a stenographer.

The DNC also indicated potential concerns related to the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with organizers of paid speaking engagement by former president Bill Clinton. DNC accounting indicates he was paid $105.8 million for 544 speeches in the first three years following his departure from office.

There were also questions raised in the DNC documents about the Clinton Foundation’s compliance with disclosure agreements made with President Obama.

Guccifer 2.0 objected to The Smoking Gun’s previous characterization of himself or herself as a “felon” or “vandal.” “I’m not a criminal,” he said. “I’m a freedom fighter.”

Hilary Clinton Responds

Hillary Clinton responded to the cyberattack, reported the International Business Times, that “The Russian government uses cyberattacks to gain information to be used for economic commercial advantage, for political advantage and for military advantage. This seems like another example where they are trying to vacuum up information. Why? We don’t know yet.”

She said he campaign had not been hacked but that she would make cybersecurity “an issue that I will be absolutely focused on as president because whether it’s Russia, China, Iran or North Korea more and more countries are using hacking to steal out information. We can’t let that go on.”

The same report adds that “Russia has denied involvement. German Klimenko, the advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin, said it was likely that a DNC staffer “simply forgot the password.” (For more from the author of “Hacked Documents Reveal DNC Investigations Into Hillary Clinton ‘Vulnerabilities'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bachmann, Dobson, Reed Headline Trump Evangelical Advisory Board

/0 Comments/in , /by

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump rolled out his evangelical advisory board Tuesday as he looks to assuage conservatives and supporters of Sen. Ted Cruz to unify the GOP ahead of November.

Trump released a list of 24 members of his “executive board,” which is headlined by former Rep. Michele Bachmann, Pastors Robert Jeffress and Tony Suarez, as well as Dr. James Dobson. Suarez and Dobson are notable inclusions.

Earlier in the race, Dobson supported Cruz and campaigned with him in Iowa. Suarez, on the other hand, has been a critic of Trump’s in the past thanks to the real estate mogul’s rhetoric on immigrants and the Hispanic community.

Meanwhile, Bachmann declined to endorse anyone during the GOP primary contest after her own 2012 bid, which ended after a sixth place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Earlier in the day, Trump held an event with Dr. Ben Carson in New York where Trump answered questions from those in attendence and questioned Clinton’s faith, saying “we don’t know anything” about it. (Read more from “Bachmann, Dobson, Reed Headline Trump Evangelical Advisory Board” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kim Davis Faces Last Fight in Same-Sex Marriage Battle

/0 Comments/in , /by

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis is attempting to end her long legal battle for refusing to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

Davis’ legal team filed a motion Tuesday requesting a federal appeals court dismiss the lawsuit against her after Kentucky passed a law to accommodate Davis and clerks like her. After the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, Davis made headlines for refusing to issue marriage licenses. She was sued and jailed for five days for her refusal and became a national point of debate on the ongoing legal struggle to find the line between freedom of conscience and discrimination.

Davis was released from jail when other employees in the clerk’s office began issuing licenses. Her office continued issuing the licenses without her name.

In April, Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed a bill that brings “statutory finality” to the long battle over marriage licenses in the state. The law, which takes effect July 14, changes marriage licenses so they do not include the county clerk’s name and allow people to check whether they are a bride, groom or spouse.

Because of this new law, Davis says the suit against her should be dismissed.

“Because Davis’ appeals are rendered moot by this recent legislative enactment before the merits of her appeals have been decided, this Court, in dismissing the appeals, should also follow its normal course of vacating the district court’s orders on appeal,” Davis’ motion reads.

It remains to be seen how the court will respond. A hearing is set for July.

“From the beginning, Kim Davis requested the very accommodation for her religious convictions that the Kentucky legislature passed and which Gov. Matt Bevin signed into law,” Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, the group representing Davis, said in a statement. “The previous governor could have made the same accommodation but refused to do so. Instead, he was willing to violate deeply-held religious convictions about marriage in order to press his ideological agenda. Now that Kim Davis obtained the accommodation she has always requested, we notified the Court of Appeals that the case has become moot and no further legal proceedings are needed. We are very pleased with this outcome.” (For more from the author of “Kim Davis Faces Last Fight in Same-Sex Marriage Battle” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former SEAL Riles CNN Host by Pointing out How to Stop Mass Shootings

/0 Comments/in , , /by

During a discussion hosted by Alisyn Camerota on CNN’s New Day Monday, political commentator Bob Beckel weighed in on gun control measures being pushed in the wake of the terrorist attack at the Pulse night club in Orlando, Fla., in which Omar Mateen killed 49 people.

“If you can’t pass one thing, after what happened in Orlando on terrorists not getting guns, then I don’t think you’ll ever get gun control laws,” reflecting on gun control bills in the House and Senate on Monday. The measures aren’t expected to pass according to Beckel.

David Gregory, also a CNN analyst, called the bills before Congress “common sense” but admitted he’s “similarly pessimistic” the bills will pass.

Former Navy Seal Carl Higbie was asked by Camerota to share his thoughts on gun control.

“I think the fact is that if you had security guards at that club that were carrying firearms, bullets going in the other direction always has stopped criminals from being armed and carrying out further acts of violence,” he said.

Seemingly agitated, the CNN anchor noted that the club did have one armed guard. “Carl, Just answer that. There was an armed security guard there and this time it didn’t stop the gunman.”

Higbie countered that the problem isn’t guns, it’s radical Islamic terrorism. “So let’s look at the fact here that they’re trying to blame guns for this whole thing,” he said. “You don’t blame Boeing for the planes hitting the towers [on 9/11]. You don’t blame spoons for people getting fat. … Let’s stop blaming guns and let’s start blaming the ideology.”

The former Navy Seal concluded the FBI should clarify what criteria must be met before someone is placed on the terrorist watch list before any American be placed on such a list, and before any decision banning those individuals from obtaining a firearm is made. He went further saying, “If you’re on a terrorist watch list, you should be in jail. I don’t think you should be on a list, you should be in jail.” (For more from the author of “Former SEAL Riles CNN Host by Pointing out How to Stop Mass Shootings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Florida Governor Furious After Obama Rejects Request for Orlando Aid

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Obama administration has denied a request for federal emergency funds to be sent to Florida in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting that left 49 dead and 53 injured, much of which would have gone to assist the victims of the June 12 attack. The state’s Republican governor is not happy about it, declaring it is “unthinkable that President Obama does not define this as an emergency.”

Gov. Rick Scott had requested $5 million in federal funds under the Stafford Act to help with “emergency response efforts, law enforcement response, emergency medical care, counseling services and other social services to assist victims.”

The Obama administration authorized only $253,000 to be sent in order to pay for the overtime of those who worked during the crisis.

In a press release on the issue, Scott said, “It is incredibly disappointing that the Obama Administration denied our request for an Emergency Declaration. Last week, a terrorist killed 49 people, and wounded many others, which was the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. It is unthinkable that President Obama does not define this as an emergency. We are committing every state resource possible to help the victims and the community heal and we expect the same from the federal government.”

Scott also pointed out that the Obama administration has approved emergency funding for a Massachusetts water main break in 2010, the Boston marathon bombing in 2013 and the Flint water crisis this year, making the rejection of Florida’s request even more puzzling to him.

In his letter to Scott denying the request, William Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said, “Because your request did not demonstrate how the emergency response associated with this situation is beyond the capability of the State and affected local governments or identify any direct federal assistance needed to save lives or protect property, an emergency declaration is not appropriate for this incident.” (For more from the author of “Florida Governor Furious After Obama Rejects Request for Orlando Aid” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Paul Ryan’s Treason

/0 Comments/in , /by

In an awkward interview with the Huffington Post, House Speaker Paul Ryan threatened to sue Donald Trump if he were to ban Muslim immigration or build a border wall with Mexico. Considering the current track record of suing Obama over abuses of power, this is little more than a confession of impotence.

And yet it’s deeply troubling that a top Republican is willing to go to such lengths to fight for Muslim migration or for that matter illegal immigration in general.

Paul Ryan insists that he will continue to “speak up in defense of our principles, in defense of not just our party’s principles, but our country’s principles”, but it’s telling that these principles seem to involve illegal immigration and Muslim migration.

Since when are either of these representative of our party’s principles or our country’s principles?
And yet they are indeed core principles for Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan had complained that a Muslim ban was, “not reflective of our principles not just as a party but as a country.” Like Obama, Ryan speaks of “our principles” without actually referencing specifics. While a constitutional conservative, speaks in terms of the Constitution, Ryan uses the “values” language of the left which references no laws, only general sentiments attributed to no specific law or document.

Though Paul Ryan claims that he wants to maintain the traditional separation of powers, and quotes the exact basis for it, he seems reluctant to do so when he claims that a Muslim ban would be wrong. Ryan knows quite well that his opposition to a Muslim migration ban is not based on the law. Like his support for illegal alien amnesty, it is based on the values construct of the left and not on the Constitution.

Paul Ryan was a longtime supporter of illegal alien amnesty. Back when amnesty was still being disguised as “immigration reform”, Ryan was a key player in pushing it forward. Ryan was so notorious for his support for illegal alien amnesty that he had to promise not to move forward on it under Obama in order to gain enough support to become Speaker. And yet despite this Ryan continues to sound amnesty notes.

Like most of the left, Paul Ryan describes illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” Last year, he once again endorsed some measure of legalization for illegal aliens. Even now his website’s top 5 issues includes a call for “immigration reform” which remains a euphemism for illegal alien amnesty.

As is typical of stealth amnesty bids, up front are a raft of security measures and at the very back is a plan for more guest workers and finally a call to “give people a chance to get right with the law”.

That is yet another amnesty euphemism.

Paul Ryan’s amnesty pledge expires when Obama leaves office. That means that, if we take his website at its word, he would like to push amnesty measures under the next administration. A few years ago he was anticipating a move on “immigration reform” in 2017. And so it is not surprising that he remains less than fond of any calls to crack down on illegal immigration.

While Paul Ryan has currently been fairly quiet about amnesty, there was a time when he was one of the more vocal national legislators throwing out amnesty talking points about a “broken immigration system” and “de facto amnesty”. Ryan was certainly not the only prominent Republican to climb on board the amnesty express, but he remained aboard it long after it was leaving the station.

Despite the general shift in the GOP, there is no sign that Ryan has abandoned it. Instead he views Obama’s divisive tone as having poisoned the wall on amnesty. He’s still the same politician who complained two years ago, “People say, ‘amnesty!’ No, it’s taking a problem that’s intractable, that’s been around forever, and trying to fix it in a way that as best guarantees as you can that we’re not going to be in the same [situation] ten years from now.”

Trump’s victory has made it quite clear that Ryan’s view of amnesty, once mainstream in the GOP, is now on the outs. If Trump were to win a national election, then the country would have ratified a rejection of amnesty. The thing that Ryan once fought so hard for, turning illegal aliens into guest workers, was thoroughly rejected by Republican voters.

But there is no sign that Ryan is willing to give up or give in. And that is the problem.

Paul Ryan insists that a ban on Muslim migration would be wrong because, “Muslims are our partners.” That would come as news to all the Americans killed at home and abroad by “our partners” from Saudi Arabia to Muslim refugees and terrorists operating in the United States. And yet even after the latest Muslim terrorist attack in Orlando, Paul Ryan shows no sign of being willing to reconsider his position.

And that’s not surprising.

Paul Ryan doesn’t represent any kind of national Republican consensus. Instead he is a vocal and effective spokesman for the point of view of his backers and sponsors. That is why Ryan not only supports illegal alien amnesty, but also backs “sentencing reform”, a euphemism for freeing criminals.

Despite the anti-establishment election, Paul Ryan continues to represent a particular strain of elitist establishment politics which is concerned with the advocacy of very specific and specifically destructive policies without regard to their consequences, whether it involves criminals, illegal aliens or Muslim terrorists. These principles are often put forward as conservative, but in fact they are a particular species of libertarianism that has very little regard for national interests and none for their victims.

Ryan’s support for illegal immigration and Muslim migration is treasonous. And yet the deeper treason is his treason to the ordinary Republicans whose views and interests he simply does not seem to care about. This is a problem that did not begin with this election and is not likely to end with it.

And yet it is a problem that must be confronted.

The GOP came dangerously close to endorsing amnesty because special interest agendas mattered more than national interests and community interests. And we are not out of the woods yet.

Paul Ryan represents everything wrong with allowing a handful of special interests to set the agenda for the GOP. The agenda has been repudiated at the polls, but it will take far more work to repudiate it in the GOP. (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan’s Treason” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Burned by Liberal Refugee Policies, Sweden Now Wises Up

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sweden had been one of the top refugee intake countries in the world, accepting 160,000 asylum-seekers last year despite only having a population of 9.5 million.

But on Tuesday the country overwhelmingly passed a series of tough new restrictions that will limit the number of people granted permanent residency and make it harder for migrants to bring family members over.

A New York Times report says Sweden viewed the restrictions as “necessary to prevent the country from becoming overstretched”:

The government said that under the new rules, individuals who want to bring over family members but do not apply to do so within three months of arriving in Sweden, would have to prove they can financially support them; current regulations require sponsors to demonstrate only that they can support themselves. Permanent residency for asylum-seekers under the age of 25 would be restricted to those who have completed high school and can support themselves. (emphasis mine)

People who are formally granted refugee status would be able to bring over family members from abroad, but the legislation would circumscribe the family members who are eligible.

The new rules clearly have an emphasis on migrants being financially independent enough that they can support themselves and contribute to society.

Of course, human rights groups have already jumped on Sweden, denouncing the move as harmful to children, according to the New York Time. Protesters have gathered outside of Parliament declaring it “inhumane,” says the Associated Press.

Is a sovereign nation not permitted to decide who does and does not enter their borders?

Kudos to the Swedish lawmakers for finally paying attention to their citizens who have been negatively affected by Sweden’s past extremely liberal refugee policies. Better late than never. (For more from the author of “Burned by Liberal Refugee Policies, Sweden Now Wises Up” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Inside the Legal Challenge to the FAA’s Drone Registry

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last December, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rushed an arbitrary and ineffectual recreational drone-owners’ registry into effect, mere days before Christmas and just in time to criminalize the flying of toys by thousands of children and hobbyists. The agency has potentially roped those toys under its definition of “aircraft” for purposes of all aircraft regulation as well. Following this bureaucratic overreach, a hobby drone operator who happens to be a lawyer, John Taylor, filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the registry.

Here are some of the highlights from Taylor’s brief in the case:

“For the first century of American aviation and beyond, the federal government made no attempt whatsoever to regulate recreational model aircraft.”

The FAA first wrote on the matter in 1981 in Advisory Circular 91-57, a guidance document calling for “voluntary compliance” with certain safety standards. In 2001, the FAA concluded that model aircraft fliers ought to comply with AC91-57, but that the FAA had no ability to enforce compliance because “Federal Aviation regulations do not apply to [model aircraft].” Model aircraft have historically and sensibly been considered categorically different from traditional manned aircraft. As Taylor put it, you might “use the word ‘train’ in defining a ‘model train,’ [but] it does not turn a model train into a train.”

“The FAA seeks to revise history when it argues its failure to register model aircraft, or otherwise treat them in any manner as ‘aircraft,’ in the past was the exercise of an ‘enforcement discretion.”

Since Oct. 2015, when the FAA first announced its intent to regulate recreational drones, the agency has attempted to erase from history its longstanding policy and now claims it has always considered model aircraft to be “aircraft” subject to federal aviation rules. Why? Because Congress, in 2012, barred the agency from promulgating any new rules governing recreational model aircraft activities—hence the claim that the rules now in force have always existed. Taylor sees this for what it is: an attempt to conceal “a direct and blatant violation of” federal law.

“Congress has adopted the FAA’s consistent interpretation that recreational model aircraft are neither ‘civil aircraft’ nor ‘public aircraft.’ As such they are not aircraft at all.”

This is the correct stance to take, because drones differ from manned aircraft in nearly every respect. What’s more, federal aviation laws and regulations are clearly written with manned aircraft in mind. For example, regulations require that an aircraft’s airworthiness certificate be displayed near the entrance to the cockpit and be legible to passengers and crew. The FAA has yet to clarify how it expects drone operators to comply given there are no cockpits, passengers, or crew. Meanwhile, federal aviation regulations include steep civil and criminal penalties for violations – for example, a possible 20 year prison sentence for shooting down an “aircraft” – that are clearly wildly disproportionate to drones. Nevertheless, the FAA insists these penalties apply.

“The FAA’s sudden re-characterization of any contrivance that flies as ‘aircraft,’ and thereby allowing it to shoehorn recreational model aircraft into aircraft regulations, places hobbyists in an untenable no-man’s land of compliance. The FAA has taken us down a rabbit hole of irrationality to achieve its goal of legally justifying registration.” (Emphasis added)

In addition to outrageous potential criminal and civil penalties, drone operators are now expected to comply with mutually exclusive directives from the FAA. For example, the agency demands that recreational drone owners swear an oath not to fly above 400 feet, yet by deeming drones to be “aircraft,” these operators are subject to federal regulations requiring them to fly above 500 feet at all times except during, for example, emergencies, or take-off and landing maneuvers. There is no way that drone fliers can comply with both rules simultaneously. Further, “the FAA’s broad new interpretation of the definition of ‘aircraft’ would similarly make Frisbees, paper airplanes, and other small flying toys subject to the myriad statutes and regulations applicable to ‘aircraft.’”

“People are entitled to a coherent and applicable definition of a term governed by such a massive and important body of federal regulation. It should not be subject to the FAA’s ever-changing whim.”

In its rush to regulate drones, the FAA created a regulatory scheme that is unconstitutionally vague and utterly irrational. Case in point: while the flight of any toy drone weighing more than 0.55 pounds is considered to be a threat to the safety of the national airspace requiring mandatory and criminally enforceable registration of drone operators, the pilot of an “ultralight aircraft, which can weigh up to 254lbs [and] carry a human” can fly without being registered.

“Simply put, the FAA’s rules regarding real aircraft, when applied to recreational model aircraft and other small flying devices, make no sense. The absurd and contradictory results in applying full-size aircraft regulations to these toys… show a lack of ‘consideration of the relevant factors’ and a ‘clear error of judgement.’”

The FAA has provided no rationale as to why it is reversing a century of non-regulation. Of course, a regulatory agency is not barred from changing its mind, but it must demonstrate a rational connection between the change in policy and the problem it purports to solve. Setting aside the fact that Congress has clearly spoken on the issue and curtailed the FAA’s authority in this space, there is no good reason for drones to be governed by regulations written for manned aircraft, making the policy arbitrary and capricious.

Last year, the FAA tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by presenting a false narrative to justify the indefensible overcriminalization and over-regulation of drone hobbyists. John Taylor’s ongoing lawsuit will, with any luck, put the brakes on this instance of executive overreach. (For more from the author of “Inside the Legal Challenge to the FAA’s Drone Registry” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Koch Brothers Push 2-Year ‘Stop, Cut, and Fix’ Spending Plan on Congress

/0 Comments/in , /by

To put Washington’s fiscal house in order, an organization inside the conservative Koch network is pushing Congress to skip a budget and move straight to a two-year spending bill instead.

Dubbed “Stop, Cut, and Fix,” the plan calls for a continuing resolution that would fund government in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 at current spending levels and then set up a spending cut in fiscal year 2018 according to limits imposed in the 2011 Budget Control Act.

By funding the government for two years, Congress would suspend the annual threat of a government shutdown because of disagreements between Democrats and Republicans. That could buy enough time for lawmakers to rework the mechanics of the budget process, said Andy Koenig, a senior policy analyst with the business group Freedom Partners.

“This gives them an opportunity to do process reforms,” Koenig told The Daily Signal, “move into 2018 knowing what spending levels would be, and hopefully get Congress on that normal budget path.”

Freedom Partners is a more conservative version of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, funded in part by Charles and David Koch, the politically active and libertarian billionaire brothers.

Republican leadership has made a priority of funding the government through regular order—that is, passing individual spending bills one at a time to fund distinct government agencies.

That effort appears to be faltering as time is running out. The House and Senate have finished work on just three of the 12 spending bills. Lawmakers have until Sept. 30 to fund the government or risk a government shutdown.

“Let’s be realistic, they’re not doing a budget. Probably, they’re not going to finish more than a few appropriations bills,” Koenig said.

He predicted lawmakers are “going to do a CR,” or continuing resolution, a stopgap spending measure that locks in federal spending for a particular amount of time.

Rather than negotiate that spending deal days before a potential government shutdown, the Koch network of donors and activists wants lawmakers to begin work now. Conservatives regularly complain that last-minute spending agreements only increase the size of the federal debt.

Before Congress goes on July recess, Koenig said, Freedom Partners is trying to raise the profile of the issue to avoid any impromptu spending increases.

The plan would establish spending cuts before the November elections and would go into effect in fiscal 2018, which begins Oct. 1, 2017, regardless of which party controls the House or the Senate.

Koenig paints a bleak picture if Washington fails to cutback on spending, a habit he warns could lead to “the bankrupting of America.”

His organization projects that within 15 years, the national debt will double, Social Security and Medicare will run out of money, and interest on the national debt will triple. (For more from the author of “Koch Brothers Push 2-Year ‘Stop, Cut, and Fix’ Spending Plan on Congress” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.