GOP leaders have spent the past few years rubber stamping Obama’s agenda and refusing to confront him on the most consequential societal issues of our time. This week they plan to preemptively undermine the next Republican president from his ability to make substantial reforms to our inefficient federal transportation system.

The House plans to consider a $325 billion 6-year highway bill that will require an $85 billion bailout through FY 2021. Where will they find the $85 billion in savings? The same place the found the $112 billion in “offsets” to fund the budget betrayal deal last week. In other words, they will use Enron-style accounting and an array of intangible offsets to pay for another bailout of the failed and inefficient federal transportation system. But what is most offensive about this bill is that, by reauthorizing federal highway programs for another 6 years instead of 2 or 3 years, this bill will preemptively sabotage the leverage of the next president to force critical policy changes in the system.

On July 30, the Senate passed its version of the bill, with only 15 Republicans opposing it. The Senate bill only offsets the first three years of the 6-year shortfall (an estimated $85 billion), and as noted, even those offsets are notional. For example, one of the offsets is the dubious notion of selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, ironically, the very same offset they just counted against the budget bill!

The House plans to pass the Senate version of the bill (H.R. 22), albeit with a provision that will prohibit Congress from spending more money on highways after the first three years unless they come up with more revenue. But this is nothing more than a ruse to get conservatives to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate. We all know how this will end. A full 6-year bill with no real offsets and no conservative policy reforms that fix the systemic problem with our surface transportation system.

Once again, 21% of the entire bill is allocated for mass transit expenditures, something that should only be funded by states that are willing to pay for it with their own funds. As the Competitive Enterprise Institute observed earlier this year, we are spending a quarter of the highway funds on a method of transportation that accounts for less than 2% of all trips. Accordingly, 81% of the entire projected shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund is the result of increased spending on mass transit.

The irony of the bailout for mass transit coming on the heels of last week’s bailout of the Disability Insurance program is probably lost on the politicians, but it’s worth reviewing now.

Much like the payroll tax was sold as a pay-as-you go supply for Social Security, the 8.4-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and the 24.4-cent diesel excise tax were promised to be used exclusively for highways and bridges. And just like with Social Security whereby 17% of the funds were later diverted to the disability program, 20% of the highway funds have been diverted towards mass transit, as a result of the urban pressure groups.

This is why the responsibility for transportation and the revenue of the gas tax must be returned to the states. They must be forced to prioritize their transportation projects. This is a common sense reform conservatives have united behind over the past few years, yet Paul Ryan has failed his first test and is embarking on a process that will not only continue the failed status quo and drive yet another $85 billion bailout, it will preclude the next president from enacting these reforms.

And of course, the Senate bill contains a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, the only federal agency Republicans have successfully shut down in recent memory. Ryan himself claims to oppose Export-Import Bank, but this process clearly shows that he will not deviate from the Washington Cartel, even to push the few ideas he shares with conservatives.

New party leader, same mentality. (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan’s House Sets the Stage for Next Highway Bailout Boondoggle” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

All the headline grabbing difficulties to choosing a new Speaker of the House are due mostly to one thing — the emergence of the powerful House Freedom Caucus. But the caucus may also now be the solution to those difficulties. Now that a supermajority in the caucus is supporting Paul Ryan to replace John Boehner as speaker, Ryan is all but certain to get the position. Two other factions in the House are expected to endorse him Friday, the centrist Tuesday Group and the mainstream Republican Study Committee, and he is expected to be confirmed by the full House the next day. Ryan has a respectable rating of 90 from The American Conservative Union, and is well-liked by both conservatives and moderates, so he is a natural choice for speaker.

For those who thought the establishment status quo could never be defeated, it was a real shock to see Boehner announce his resignation. But when the Republicans took over the House in 2010, a powerful new conservative GOP formed, the Freedom Caucus, currently composed of 38 conservative, anti-establishment and Tea Party House Republicans. Together, they presented enough of a voting bloc that Boehner realized his effectiveness would be short lived, as the caucus began plotting to force him out.

After Boehner announced his resignation, there was another shock when Boehner’s designated establishment successor, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, announced he was withdrawing from the race. As a former majority whip, he had experience rounding up votes, and said at one point he had collected enough votes to win. But the Freedom Caucus decided to put their support behind little-known Daniel Webster from Florida instead, and McCarthy realized that even if he could get enough votes for the first vote among Republicans, he wouldn’t make it past the second vote on the House floor if the Freedom Caucus members refused to support him. He didn’t help himself by making a comment on TV at this time that seemed to imply the House Benghazi Committee had been set up for the purpose of taking Hillary Clinton out of the presidential race.

Even conservative Jason Chaffetz couldn’t capture the Freedom Caucus’s support after Boehner announced his resignation. Chaffetz has a respectable 92 rating from The American Conservative Union, but he would not agree with the Freedom Caucus on all of the procedural changes they are demanding. Procedural issues are such a serious concern for those House conservatives that they were willing to put their support behind the more moderate Daniel Webster instead, whose lifetime conservative rating is only a paltry 78. This is because without key reforms, the House faces more of the same gridlock that has stopped the Republicans from getting much done even while in control. The changes the conservatives are demanding will decentralize power away from the establishment and old guard in Congress and turn more of it over to committees and other members of Congress.

But with Webster as such a weak candidate, the clamoring increased to entice a uniter like Ryan to enter the race. After much persuasion, he finally did, and the rest should become history.

Why didn’t Ryan jump into the race earlier? Because the speaker’s job is a taxing and thankless position. The speaker is expected to spend much of his time flying around the country fundraising for the party. He (or she) gets the blame when things go wrong — even if they’ve done a great job getting things accomplished. Think of Newt Gingrich’s successful Contract With America, followed by his sudden resignation. Ryan understands this about the position.

He also understands that he may want to run for president some day and that the speaker position could take a toll on his reputation as principled conservative — all that wheeling and dealing and compromising to get bills through can make for powerful fodder for attack ads coming from opponents. Can Ryan serve as speaker then move on to president? Can he do the speaker’s job and still find time for his young family? Can he compromise on prudential matters to achieve worthy ends while never compromising on core principles? It’s a gamble he’s decided to take. (For more from the author of “How Did We Get to Paul Ryan as the Likely New Speaker of the House?” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The establishment fears an open process for any election because the competition inherent in such a process brings out the truth and the truth hurts their cause. That is why they are seeking to preempt a protracted race for Speaker by clearing the field with Paul Ryan.

Much like the presidential election, whenever the establishment lacks a “next in line” presumptive front-runner, they lose. For the first time in recent memory, the establishment can’t find a viable candidate to run for president. This dynamic has created many choices and robust competition for the presidential nomination. The voters are the beneficiaries of such a process.

This process is set to unfold in the Speaker’s election with multiple choices and the opportunity to force each candidate to address issues and processes important to conservatives. That is why the media and the establishment are working overtime to clear the field for Paul Ryan. That is why Mitt Romney, the very armpit of the system conservatives seek to dismantle, is begging him to run.

Paul Ryan represents one of the absolute worst outcomes for conservatives. There is nobody in modern politics whose record and true priorities are more divorced from their rhetoric and public perception. Unlike McCarthy or some of the other choices, Ryan’s ascendancy to the speakership would be hailed as fresh change. In fact, it would serve nothing more than putting the prettiest face on the ugliest policies. Just take a look at his Liberty Score for a rundown of some of the worst policies Ryan has supported.

While conservatives understand they won’t get everything they want in a Speaker, the worst thing is to perpetuate the current failed leadership structure. In 2010, three House members authored a book titled “Young Guns,” promoting a new “nuanced” conservative agenda: Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan. Eric Cantor was defeated, McCarthy was blocked…now they are pulling out all the stops for Ryan. There are many choices from which to choose, but shouldn’t we rule out the TARP coalition?

Ryan has used his leverage and respect to sabotage conservatives on every last budget fight of our time. He forged the Ryan-Murray budget deal, which actually countermanded the few budget victories we’ve had over the past few years. He was a wet blanket over the effort to defund Planned Parenthood. There is nobody in the conference who feels stronger about the need to preemptively announce we will not “default” or “shut down the government” than Ryan.

Despite being widely acclaimed as a social conservative and a devout catholic, Ryan was one of only 35 House Republicans to vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). This bill infringed upon religious liberties and promoted liberal values, including the sexual identity agenda.

But no issue is more foundational to our survival than the issue of borders and immigration. Yet, there is nobody around in the party who is more fanatically dedicated to the cause of open borders than Paul Ryan. Whereas most others could be talked off the ledge on this issue, Ryan is a true believer. When asked to comment on Obama’s executive amnesty – the single biggest act of imperialism from a modern president – Ryan said “call my office.”

At a time when we need the next GOP leader to fight another year of Obama’s lawlessness on criminal aliens and dangerous refugee policies, Ryan will give Obama tail winds and could possibly use his respect within the conference to promote these issues.

Nothing threatens the foundation of our Republic than the growing assault on our sovereignty. That is the number one issue of our time. Almost nobody has the ability and desire to score points for the Democrats on this grave issue than Paul Ryan.

It’s time to let the Young Guns go the way of the Whigs. (For more from the author of “Paul Ryan Is the Absolute Worst Choice for Speaker” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.