Ive had it folks. Ive had it up to here (hand gesture passed head).

We need to win this fall in the worst possible way. Not because of pure partisanship, but it is the only thing that will save this nation from falling into a dark state of socialism, if not out right communism.

On the surface it seems like things could be worse with a number of radical anti-freedom, anti-American bills queued up in Congress and the economy looking to be in recovery.

That belittles the significance of what is occurring in front of our eyes. The government is in full nationalization mode - taking over of several industries while quadrupling our debt striping the most basic of freedoms to determine our own fate via the passage of Obamacare.

With our nation shrouded in such darkness you would believe opposition would unite and people would focus on breaking the back of the policies creating the problem and destroying what made this nation great.

People get it, too. With every tweet I read and person on the street I discuss happenings in our nation with it is apparent people are mad as hell. We all know and agree that the government has gone too far. Way too far. The power needs to be returned to who it belongs to, us.

This is where our common ground ends, unfortunately.

In the search for political scalps or muscle flexing we seemingly end up in a tirade which produces scorched earth campaigns. This not only splits our efforts and undermines our goals, it serves the needs of those who seek to control us.

There is a reason why Reagan preached the 11th commandment.

Am I saying backing Rubio or Stutzman was wrong? No way. That is what primaries are for. He is the right man for the job. Crist’s changing of parties proves what Erick said before regarding the double standard conservatives are forced into during contentious elections. We must “playing nice.”

However, while we are striving to produce the best candidate who serves our nation, we should also not char participant’s policy positions beyond recognition. To do so is plain dumb and intellectually dishonest. Period.

It is for this reason I opposed “purity” tests and approach primary claims without policy backing with skepticism. We should have each others backs, without there being a knife involved in the process.

In my state, Sarah Steelman’s flirting with a U.S. Senate candidacy serves as a perfect example. Early on she attempted to smear Roy Blunt on earmarks (see my post on earmark demagoguery)  and smooze Erick Erickson while trying to figure whether she could win a GOP nomination for United States Senate. She never did follow through with her inquiry, but left plenty of ink for Democrats to use while the rest of Missouri was getting to know Roy. I should note Steelman joined the “Blunt Brigade” later.

We have one shot at returning the power base to the people and limiting our government.

We either lose the me first attitude and contempt for others within our movement or our nation loses what remaining freedoms we enjoy.

It is our choice.

A few weeks ago I posted a piece regarding candidate demagoguery of the entire earmark issue. I predict that the issue will be raised repeatedly in the Seventh Congressional District (Missouri) primary.

To that end, Chad Livengood’s piece today is a home run and must read.

Why? Because it provides at very least a glimpse into the soul of each of the perspective candidates (at least the announced ones) and how they not only view what the earmark is, but how they would approach the process if elected.

I will defer my personal feelings on earmarks for another time but leave everyone with this question: Congress abused what used to be a legitimate process and corrupted it. Does this mean the process should be reformed or completely abandoned?

Whats more, Democrats are spending in excess of four times what the GOP Congress proposed with thousands of more earmarks - yet they seem to be still riding high. Why does this issue not plague them?

In a poll that is certainly going to change between now and November 2010, Republicans took a slight two percent (within the margin of error) lead.

The significance is not so much the lead, is that the ballot is so close and the mood of the country still may be in an anti-incumbent mood - simply that people believe Democrats are now (as they were back in 2008) control or simply own the problem.

It should be noted that results will vary and people will of course have a different opinion of their own Congressman than the impression at large.

The difference between now and November, 2008, is a spread of Democrats plus six.

Republicans still are not breaking above the 41% mark, but Democrats have fallen eight points.

Any reasonable observer of our political system will tell you that the earmark process needs honest reform. From the notorious bridge to no where to money spent on various home district pet projects.

Still, while proven reformers like Representative Jeff Flake and Senator John McCain from Arizona lead the way, others try to mimic their actions for personal gain. There were two such instances here in Missouri this week.

Junior Senator Claire McCaskill started the process this week by making a call for “tougher pork barrel spending reform.”

The former “porker of the month“, voter for “porkulus” and TARP 1 legislation offered the following proposal with co-sponsor Senator Udall from Colorado.

• Include all earmarks in the text of the bill. Congress has attempted in the past to crack down on adding earmarks to bill text during closed-door conference negotiations between the House of Representatives and the Senate, but in practice members continued to add earmarks by including them in the “statement of managers” (a document attached to the bill that is not technically part of the text and therefore not subject to the rules). McCaskill’s bill would close this loophole by requiring that all earmarks appear in the bill’s actual language, rather than in a statement of managers.
• All authorization bills must comply with the same earmark requirements as appropriations bills. Both appropriations bills and authorization bills frequently include earmarks, but currently only appropriations bills are subject to the most stringent earmark rules. McCaskill’s legislation would ensure that authorization bills are subject to the same rules as appropriation bills.
• All earmark requests must be made public on the internet within 48 hours. Under the McCaskill bill, senators must post on their website all their earmark requests - not just those that actually make it into appropriations and authorization bills - within 48 hours of submitting them to committees. Committees must also post these requests within 48 hours.
• All appropriation and authorization conference reports must be electronically searchable. Although bills are required to be electronically searchable before they reach the Senate floor, there is a loophole that allows bills emerging from House-Senate conference negotiations to forego this step. McCaskill’s legislation would fix this loophole by explicitly requiring that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before they are considered by the full Senate.
• Eliminate earmarks for private companies and non-profit organizations. Private companies currently receive billions of dollars in earmarks, bypassing the competitive bidding process. Congressional offices simply do not have the capacity to conduct objective, cost-benefit and merit-based analyses of the private companies and non-profit organizations requesting earmarks each year.

These points sound good until one digs into what happens in Washington, then its a completely different story in which find the proposal either duplicates existing policies or does more harm than good.

Democrats proved with the passage of the stimulus bill (aka porkulus) such rules simply do not matter as unrelated projects are tucked skillfully into places which most of our legislators or their staff never got the chance to read.

Similarly, the blanket exclusion of earmarks for private and not for profit organizations in the name of “competitive bidding” could cripple local or state organizations and or one time projects which can be vital to a community while entrenching established bureaucracies.

In the end the only true advantage of the proposal is to give Democrats political cover and perpetuate an on going media generated myth regarding their budget record in Congress.

Not to be out done, former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman decided to chide Congressman Roy Blunt and Republicans for praising Senator Bond for fighting for Missouri in Congress while labeling the process and most Republicans in the process as “corrupt.”

Steelman, who seemingly is more interested in getting even with Roy Blunt and other Republicans who endorsed her primary opponent last year, lashed out against a series of questions posed toward Democrat Senate candidate Robin Carnahan.

The implication filters down to the Republican State Committee not supporting wasteful spending and earmarks being evil - and by extension those who are currently in office (with a focus on the Roy Blut, Kitt Bond) being corrupt.

Steelman is correct that Missourians do not support inefficient and wasteful spending. However, she could not be more wrong regarding the lack of accountability or what her apparent targets do in Congress.

To be sure, Blunt and Bond are not perfect.

I would mark 2002 as a low point for Roy Blunt specifically with his insertion of tabacco interests into legislation and massive spending votes. This was wrong, as was the increased levels of pork which as whip he helped pass. This is not an accurate picture of where Roy Blunt is or his entire legislative list of accomplishments, though.

Since then Roy Blunt recanted and rebuked past budget votes and committed him self to earmark transparency and budget reform. In fact he championed many “clean” defense and various budget bills which never allowed a vote because of rules put in place by Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Of those earmarks Roy did submit, all are listed in plain speaking on his Congressional website.

Outside of defense spending earmarks which certainly are debatable, the list is filled with financial requests for first responders, schools, much needed highway maintenance and the White River Basin project.

For fiscal year 2008 the list includes money for local reading programs, law enforcement, schools and “Crisis Nursery of the Ozarks” - a battered women’s shelter.

My question would be to both Steelman and McCaskill which of these earmarks are unethical? Which represents irresponsible government spending?

Niether McCaskill or Steelman offer real reform. Neither one offer any real reform beyond lip service and media wagging rhetoric.

America needs real earmark reform which serves our needs but takes as much political preference out as possible.

It is apparent to this political observer that both are unaware of the earmarks being requested and simply want to gain positive media experiences to further their own careers.

Such demagoguery must stop.

The big hubub across the Missouri media recently was a budget estimate by incoming Governor Elect Jay Nixon’s point man, State Senator Wayne Goode. It is estimating that there will be a $340 million short fall in the state budget.

Budgets that come up short usually result from someone not living within their means and spending money hand over fists on what ever.

With that said, however, it is reasonable to understand that the economy isnt doing as well so the tax reciepts will be down. This is vital in understanding why the government shouldnt be spending like it does in the first place.

How many new government positions were created with the past two to three years which are linked within not just education, but social services? Similarly, could you imagine the boat we would be in if the medicaid cuts did not take place?

Of course, as being someone who apparently fails understand how the free market works, Nixon is supposedly looking at killing off some of the incentives in place to drive business. What kind of backwards thinking is that?

If the idea is to drive tax revenues higher on a more permanent basis, wouldnt it be smart to encourage growth instead of slamming the door shut on those who hire and fire people?

I can only wonder aloud if this supposed shortfall will be used to try and pressure the Republican lead General Assymbly into raising taxes.

I believe we are seeing a carefully crafted game in which the Nixon administration welds power from media coverage which does not question facts and figures, but echos talking points. The question now becomes how will the state GOP respond.

This is a question which most of us should be asking, and it is a question Blunt spokesperson Nick Simpson was kind enough to answer:

For people in the 7th district, it means you have a senior member of Congress, on a very powerful committee who can now focus his full measure on the district. Mr. Blunt first came to the leadership table at the end of his first term and has been there since then — long enough to build serious clout and seniority. That remains the same, basically the 7th district has never had a freshman Congressman in Roy Blunt.

It doesnt mean Roy is stepping down in 2010 to make way for his son Matt to run while he takes a shot at the senate either. Nor is it indicative of some sort of bad omen.

I think Congressman Blunt said it best answering a question of a reporter’s earlier (paraphrasing here) - ten years of listening and trying to get people to switch votes which they dont want to is enough.

It will be good to have Roy back in the district more often and not making runs around the country because of his leadership duties.

Wanted to note in a bit of breaking news this morning that Congressman Roy Blunt decided not to run for the Minority Whip and clears the way for Congressman Cantor.

In a press release, Blunt explains that he dedicated himself to serving only a single term as whip in the minority. Today he made good on his promise to himself.

Dear Republican Colleague,

In January 2007, I wrote myself a letter and mailed it to my office.
The letter, unopened, sat on my desk until Wednesday. Almost two years
ago, I wrote that our ideas didn’t lose the mid-term election, we did.
I wrote that it was my intention to spend the next two years holding the
Democrats accountable and defining the differences between our parties.
I also wrote that, were we not successful in recapturing the majority in
2008, it was my intention to serve only two years as Minority Whip.

With another election behind us, I still believe that conservative ideas
define where the country wants to be and needs to be. And I believe
that together we held the Democrats accountable and that we began to
define some of the differences between our parties.

Against the pundits’ best predictions, we stood against a flawed
expansion of government run health care in the SCHIP bill. When many
were saying it was political suicide, we gave the surge a chance to work
and today we are rapidly handing over control of Iraq to a stable
government capable of securing the peace. We stopped billions of
dollars in frivolous spending. We won an unprecedented number of
motions to recommit, defining the differences between our parties and on
a few occasions forcing the Democrats to pull their own bills from the
floor. And when an energy crisis threatened our families and our whole
economy, we advanced common sense solutions that resonated with the
American people.

Yet, in part due to circumstances beyond our control, we were not
successful in 2008. And I believe my instincts two years ago were
correct, I can best contribute to our efforts to regain the majority and
advance the interests of the American people in a different role in the
111th Congress. Therefore, I will not seek re-election as your Whip.

It has been one of my greatest honors to serve in the House Leadership.
I have been truly humbled by the trust you have placed in me and by the
opportunity to serve our nation.

I am optimistic about our future. I firmly believe that if we
successfully define the Democrat agenda for what it is and present a
compelling alternative we will be the majority in two short years. I
look forward to working beside you to build that majority.

Thank you for your friendship.

Roy Blunt

Larry Kudlow posted something which should make us all sit up and pay attention. Apparently Nancy Pelosi might very well be doing as some of us predicted but a few minutes ago.

The bill will be chalk full of left wing goodness (read ACORN funding, judicial intervention, death to capitalism, etc) in order to buy her 218 votes.

There probably will be no or few Republican votes to be sure - but at this case it just doesnt matter as Democrats can ram through what ever they feel like.

That means this measure will more than likely be taken up in the senate where I dont know if there will be enough Republican opposition to support any sort of a fillibuster.

That would leave things in the hands of President Bush, which Kudlow is predicting will sign any such law just to stabilize the economy.

So, as Kudlow put it, is this The End of the U.S. Financial System as We Know It?

Im going to cut straight to the chase and note a few things which should be highlighted about the failure of HR 3997.

• Democrats control Congress. If they wanted to do so, they could and still might pass this legislation through, complete with ACORN funding and all. The fact that Speaker Pelosi failed to do so is fairly significant. It shows her (and Obama for that matter) lack of leadership and the fear of losing the upcoming election within the caucus.
• Just before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi explodes into an antibush tirade. Yeah, buddy, thats how you bring people to your side before an important vote. Oh, did I forget the unpatriotic remark ealier in the week?
• Democrats can blame Republicans all they want to, but forty percent of her own caucus voted against the bill.  This should tell us all something about what the American public at large thinks about the bill (or at very least its perception).
• Minority Leader Boehner and Minority Whip Blunt were able to deliver thirty percent of Republicans to the party. For the type of bill it was and the concerns which average citizens have about it, thats a large number. When was the last time you saw Pelosi or Reid bring that sort of number to the Republican side at any time?
• Contrary to what some Conservative pundents were pushing on the bill, The Heritage Foundation released a paper today noting that the bailout package was “Vital and Acceptable.”
• Personal view - I think Representative Mike Pence was correct in principle, but his actions are border line irresponsible given the situation we are in. There is a time to fight and a time to get something done. This is the latter of the two.Maybe I am wrong, but I would agree with Jim Manzi over at NRO. This is not a time to be tinkering with the market. The problem from everyone I read (many of whom are conservatives) is real and is only getting worse because of people’s fears.I also believe it shows the difference in House Republican leadership styles. I believe we should commend Roy Blunt and other House Negotiators for getting what they could. It wasnt perfect, but it is far better than what it started out to be. We might yet face that worst case scenario.
• After the vote today, Pelosi might very well draft a far more radical version of the bail out which includes everything that was fought so hard to win over the past couple of days, and pass it on a party line vote. So I ask, was that really a smart move?
• What Americans think? Based on a small sample today at lunch I heard moans of money going to ACORN (which was stripped in this version), to government control to “this doesnt fix the problem in the first place.”

Indeed, all of these issues need and should be addressed.

I would also agree that the bill more than likely does give the government too much power. That is a given because the bill is written by Democrats who loathe free markets and capitalism. It is these same people who are writing the bill, which caused the problem in the first place (and were warned by Republicans in 2004).

There are real problems with the bill and I dont think it, in its self would completely solve the problem at hand. What it would, though, is at very least stabilize the market.

Still, there are real problems in bank equity which needs to be addressed. We cannot ignore the problem else history will repeat its self.

Just a note here regarding the “bail out” bill being discussed in Congress at the moment - I just dont know.

There is just too much uncertainty and not enough odds and ends are being released to the public at large for me to make an informed decision.

I do like what I heard in that there will be no ACORN gimme and there might be adequate tax payer protection.

Until the bill is posted live and is analyzed to make sure Democrats dont get to sneak garbage into it, I just dont have any faith in the process.

I would also note that we should give kudos to House Republicans who stood their ground and got a lot of junk out of the bill which would have hurt the American tax payer at large.

I am proud to say that our Congressman, Roy Blunt, was the representative and negotiator for that group.

To be sure Congressman Blunt faced a lot of tough wrangling and pressure applied by Democrats in the process. We should all be proud that he and House Republicans were able to force a better bill.

Equally important is the role John McCain took in making sure that House Republicans received representation which was not afforded them until the Senior Senator from Arizona stepped in.