(Washington Examiner) “Let’s see it,” a frustrated Sen. Jeff Sessions said on the Senate floor Monday afternoon. “Let’s bring it forward.”

By “it,” Sessions meant a Democratic proposal for a 2012 federal budget. In recent days Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has been asking, pushing, pleading, cajoling and begging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put forward a Democratic plan. So far, Reid has steadfastly refused.

That’s nothing new. The last time the Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009, which was, if you are counting — and Jeff Sessions is — 755 days ago.

Oh, wait, my mistake, that’s annoying, that was Byron York writing last year. Let’s move to this year

(The Hill) Senate Democratic leaders on Friday said they do not intend to bring a fiscal 2013 budget up for a floor vote.

“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on Friday.

Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that the debt-limit agreement in August directs spending for the next year and said Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has already asked the heads of the subcommittees to write their appropriations bills for fiscal 2013.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has said he would probably mark up a budget resolution for 2013, but Reid recently told the Hill he didn’t expect any floor action on a measure produced by the panel.

And then we have

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is working on his own budget plan, tweeted Friday that Senate Democrats “?confirm they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Reid’s refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis.?”

Ryan has said that Democrats should be embarrassed to claim the debt deal as their blueprint because it “fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems.”

“It’s been more than 1,000 days since Senate Democrats have offered a budget plan to the American people,” Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the budget committee, said in a statement. “Now, once again, the Senate’s ineffectual Democrat majority balks at the task of leadership.”

Obviously, this has to be Bush’s fault in some manner or form. I’m not sure how or why, but, definitely Bush’s fault for this complete abdication of responsibility by Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats. It’s not like that pesky Constitution says

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Technically, I suppose we could generously consider the aforementioned debt ceiling agreement to be a “consequence of appropriations,” but that would be very charitable for FY2012 and certainly does not cover Fiscal 2013. The House GOP need to make sure they go on record with a true budget, brought to the floor and passed. They’ve done that for FY2012 already. Multiple times. The Democrat controlled Senate refuses to pass one, which is quite understandable, what with the next general election coming up. They’ve decided that there is less damage in abdicating their responsibilities than in showing the American public what they intend to do with the People’s money.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(The Hill) The White House and Democrats have seized on legislation barring lawmakers from making insider stock trades as a political weapon to use against House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his GOP colleagues.

The Senate voted 93-2 on Monday evening to advance the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which prohibits lawmakers from using non-public information for financial advantage.

The overwhelming vote came after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) charged behind-the-scenes GOP opposition was holding up the debate. A senior GOP aide denied the allegation.

This raises the issue that it was done for purely partisan political purposes, not for any notion that it is wrong and distasteful for elected officials and government workers to engage in stock trades based on non-public information.

Because the House has yet to schedule a vote on a similar bill, Democrats in the Senate hope their quick action will suggest Republicans are resistant to the popular bill, which gained national attention after a November report on “60 Minutes.”

The Dems are crowing that the STOCK act was removed from markup last fall, but, um, wait a second

The STOCK Act was originally introduced in the 109th session of the House of Representatives on Mar. 28, 2006 by Brian Baird (D-WA) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) where it died in committee. It was reintroduced in the 110th (May 16, 2007) and 111th (Jan. 26, 2009) House sessions where it also died in committee.

On Mar. 17, 2011, Tim Walz (D-MN) introduced the STOCK Act into the 112th House session where it gained one co-sponsor and was referred to various committees. Eight more co-sponsors joined by Nov. 4, 2011.

So, it died multiple times while Democrats controlled the House? And couldn’t get more than a few co-sponsors in 2011? And Dingy Harry never bothered with it previously, despite the legislation being out there? And that this looks more like a political stunt? Though, this stunt does have real teeth. S.2038 does say, in Sec. 605

A Member of Congress or an employee of Congress who violates the prohibition under section 602 shall be subject to appropriate punitive, disciplinary, and other remedial action in accordance with any applicable laws, resolutions, rules, or regulations.

At least until the Senate quietly passes legislation that invalidates that section, or the whole bill. Of course, in order for most criminal penalties to be assessed, a member of Congress has to be kicked out, and we’ve seen how well that has worked with tax cheats like Charlie Rangle.

That said, the GOP needs to get off their butts in the House and pass this. They also need to proactively pass legislation extending the payroll tax break for at least one year. Perhaps pushing a 2 year extension, put Democrats on the defensive.

(NPR) For the first time, the Justice Department has made public a series of sensitive messages that passed to the highest levels of the agency within hours of an ambush that killed a U.S. border patrol agent along the Southwest border in December 2010, igniting a national scandal over a gun trafficking investigation gone wrong.

Justice officials sent the documents to Congress late Friday evening, only a few days before Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The email messages show the former top federal prosecutor in Arizona, Dennis Burke, notifying an aide to Holder via email on Dec. 15, 2010 that agent Brian Terry had been wounded and died. “Tragic,” responds the aide, Monty Wilkinson. “I’ve alerted the AG, the acting Deputy Attorney General…”

Only a few minutes later, Wilkinson emailed again, saying, “Please provide any additional details as they become available to you.”

Burke then delivered another piece of bad news: “The guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] … officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about — they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.”

Eric Holder has maintained that he first heard about Fast and Furious a few weeks before he testified on May 3rd, 2012. Remember, Issa had this to say back in October

“His chief of staff had intimate details; we have notes in his handwriting that shows that the number two and Eric Holder’s right hand had intimate details for long time,” Issa told CBS’ Bob Schieffer. “One of the questions is, why wouldn’t you tell your boss about a program that had gotten so out-of-control that it had all kinds of people scurrying to try to stop it?”

The aforementioned emails show Holder’s deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson discussing the issue. Are we to believe that Wilkinson didn’t pass the information up to Holder? It strains credibility, veracity, reality. Especially when we see this in the emails, as mentioned above

He’s “alerted the AG.” Care to change your testimony, Mr. Holder? At 7:22pm on the same day Burke emailed Wilkinson about the guns. Are we to believe that Wilkinson failed to alert Holder 9 hours later? Are we to believe that Holder was not interested in what was going on in regards to the murder of a US Border Agent?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Anyhow, The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza called the speech a “confrontation wrapped in kumbaya”

At first listen, President Obama’s State of the Union address had all the hallmarks of the sort of bipartisan, let’s-do-the-right-thing-for-America tone that characterized his 2008 presidential campaign.

Probably because it was a campaign speech, in which Obama has proved further that he is only interested in being president of some Americans, and not others.

But, listen closer and a more hard-edged, challenging tone reveals itself— a preview of what the incumbent will likely sound like as he seeks a second term this November.

“We’ve come too far to turn back now,” said Obama at one point. “As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.”

First, those policies were primarily Democrat ones, and who was in charge of Congress when the economy went south? Yup, Democrats. Second, if we do not turn back now, we’ll end up going over the falls like Greece, Italy, and other European countries.

Later, he offered an even more blunt challenge: “With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow.” He also repeatedly urged Congress to “send me a bill”, making clear that the ball, legislatively and politically, was in their court.

Well, gee wiz, Barry, the House GOP has passed over 30 economic bills which are languishing in the Democrat controlled Senate. Perhaps you should have a talk with Harry Reid, ya think? But, I guess it is easier for Obama to mimic Hugo Chavez then Bill Clinton, who mostly played well with others and realized that the game is about leadership and compromise, rather than abusing one’s political opponents and becoming a tin pot dictator.

Obama even had the temerity to whine at the Republicans for not immediately passing the payroll extension for a whopping two months, and he wants a long term extension, which is what Republicans wanted in the first place.

Anyhow, over at Speaker Boehner’s website, we find a few things Obama didn’t say during his 7,000 word campaign speech

“My policies are hurting families and small businesses, and making the economy worse.” Since President Obama took office, 1.7 million fewer Americans have jobs, gas prices have doubled, and families have endured nearly three years of an 8 percent or higher jobless rate.

“I’m to blame for the failure of my policies to create jobs and strengthen our economy.” President Obama has resorted to the politics of division, blaming everything and everyone from Congress to his predecessors to the American people to ATMs for his poor economic record.

“I have listened to the American people and will approve the Keystone XL energy pipeline.” The Keystone project, which would create at least 20,000 new jobs in manufacturing and construction, is supported by lawmakers in both parties, labor unions, governors, and editorial boards across the country. And US News reports most Americans want the pipeline built too.

“My own hand-picked jobs council has urged me to embrace the Republican approach to job creation – and I’m going to take their advice.” Not only does the president’s jobs council report align with the Republican approach to creating new private-sector jobs, it reflects legislation already passed by the House and awaiting action in the Democratic-controlled Senate. See here.

Along with a few more. Oh, and apparently Obama didn’t take the time discuss his signature legislation, Obamacare. He ignored it. I wonder why?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Global Warming Policy Foundation) President Obama’s jobs council called Tuesday for an “all-in approach” to energy policy that includes expanded oil and gas drilling as well as expediting energy projects like pipelines. “[W]e should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” states the year-end report released Tuesday by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines.

“The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the report says.

Again, I’m not a real big fan of oil, it’s kinda dirty and not particularly good for the environment (I’m not talking about CO2, but real pollutants), but, I live in Reality Land where the world runs on oil at this time, and reducing the amounts will not see a unicorn magically crap out viable renewable methods. Seeing more oil based projects increases employment with good paying jobs, and these good paying jobs lead to, yes, spreading the wealth. I had a post drafted a few months ago which I never posted about the North Dakota oil workers getting so much money that they were snapping up property. In Arizona.

(Washington Times) House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said the presidential jobs council’s recommendations for expanding domestic energy production, cutting government red tape and overhauling business taxes are exactly the policies passed by the House in the past year. Most of those bills have stalled in the Senate.

White House Spokesweasel Jay Carney said that the Jobs Council wasn’t referring to the Keystone XL pipeline specifically, which is kinda true, but, we all can see that it factors in. Canada is not going to be patient forever, as China is knocking on the door, wanting that oil. I suspect that Canada will make no decision till the day after the general election in November to make a decision.

Getting our own oil, as well as getting it from Canada, will increase employment, increase wages, and reduce our dependence on oil from countries around the world which are run by dictators and Islamists. Security.

We all know that Obama will blow off these recommendations, otherwise, his base will revolt and drive to D.C. in fossil fueled vehicles and take unnecessary fossil fueled flights to protest.

(Politico) Think the Supreme Court is where the future of President Barack Obama’s health care law will be settled? Think again.

The real verdict on the future of Obama’s signature achievement will come in November — and the law’s supporters say a Republican sweep could pose a bigger threat to the law than the nine justices ever could.

The court is expected to hand down its decision at the end of its term in June. But most legal observers doubt that it will strike down the whole of the Affordable Care Act, even if it finds the mandate unconstitutional.

In contrast, the Republican candidates are all on record as promising to scrap the whole thing.

Yes, they are, though I think The Politico is underestimating what a SCOTUS decision against the ObamaCare mandate would mean, since there is no severability within the law.

While a Republican president wouldn’t be able to hand out waivers for states to get out of all of the health law’s requirements, as some of the presidential contenders suggest, he’d be able to direct the new Health and Human Services secretary to slow-walk pivotal programs, dramatically relax the regulations and possibly defund the law.

Why not? Perhaps the Republican could give a waiver to right handed people on January 20th, 2013, and left handed people on the 21st. Let’s not forget that the waivers Obama has handed out have a limited time-span of a few years. They aren’t permanent.

Front-runner Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal the law, and his policy aides are figuring out just how much dismantling could be done through the White House and HHS, without congressional action.

Now that’s a good idea. I’ve said time and time again that the GOP cannot simply focus on defeating Obama, but must retain the House and retake the Senate.

And it’s unknown whether the Senate or House will be controlled by Democrats, who could stop legislative efforts to repeal or defund the law. Even if they lose control of the Senate, Democrats may still have enough votes to be able to slow down or block efforts to repeal the law signed by Obama nearly two years ago.

Obviously, the media and Democrats will all of a sudden have no problem with the minority party being “obstructionist”.

For those who listen to talk radio, especially Hannity, we get a constant dose of “this being the most important election of our lifetime” every election cycle. In this case, that’s correct: doing away with a law that affects every single one of us along with 1/5th of the US economy is, as Joe Biden would say “a pretty big f**king deal.”

Any GOP president would not be able to do away with all the provisions, as the article points out. But, that person can certainly do away with the most burdensome parts, such as the mandate, and work with Congress to enact real world fixes that help actually lower health insurance costs while extending the possibility of obtaining health insurance to the 30-45 million who are without, which, if you remember, was the original point of health insurance overhaul, before it truly became a step down the road towards single payer.

That said, how does Obama run on his “signature achievement”? Democrats, including Obama, declined to discuss the law in the run up to the 2010 mid-terms. How can he run on the need to give so many waivers, excluding tens of millions of Americans? How does he run on ObamaCare when the majority of Americans are against the law? If the eventual GOP is smart, he’ll almost immediately attempt to engage Obama on these issues.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act, and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Well, that’s a pretty good response, eh? Then it gets kinda weasely

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.

But, what is lawful? There are competing laws that make excerpts legal or not. Every-time you read an excerpt here, at Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, The Other McCain, The Lonely Conservative, Weasel Zippers, and so on, we are breaking copyright law. Same with some videos. But, we are also covered by Fair Use law.

Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity.

OK, that’s a little better, but, is the White House saying that US law should be extended to cover things outside of the US? With respect, that’s kinda what SOPA and PIPA say, too.

Anyhow, the White House does definitively come out against DNS blocking, which was a major issue of concern with the legislation. Tina Korbe points out that Reddit plans a 12 hour blackout in protest of the legislation, and further goes on to say

To clarify, it’s not like the White House promised to veto or anything. Instead, the administration has said it will “not support parts of” SOPA and PIPA, which, technically, is not quite the same as “opposing” the bills. It could be the White House just wants to stay out of a fight that pits liberals (Hollywood, etc.) against liberals (Google, etc.). Nevertheless, it’s still helpful that the president doesn’t want to push very hard for SOPA and PIPA — because you can bet opponents will continue to push against them.

Any little bit helps in the fight against legislation which gives way to much power to the Central Government and its unelected and persistent bureaucrats.

Meanwhile

(The Hill) House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless there is consensus on the bill.

Well, it’s a start, and could mean that the legislation gets shelved permanently. Now the ball’s in Harry Reid’s court. He plans on a Senate vote in the next two weeks. I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear that he has postponed any vote within the next few days.

Huffington Post points out that “The Motion Picture Association of America Inc. (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have each released a response to the White House’s position on SOPA and PIPA.” All are in support of the current legislation.

But, as a DUmmy points out, let’s not forget that Obama was against NDAA and it’s indefinite detention provisions right up till he signed it.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Washington Times) Eleven states and the District of Columbia are siding with the Obama administration in the legal battle over the constitutionality of the new health care law, as more than half the states prepare to challenge the law before the Supreme Court.

Attorneys general in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Friday supporting Congress‘ authority to pass the sweeping legislation, arguing that health care is a national concern because the industry constitutes nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy.

Iowa is rather a shocker, especially with a Republican governor and House. However, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is a…..Democrat. The others are no big surprise, and include, for the most part, the most expensive states to do business in, some of the worst economies in terms of debt, and some of the highest costs of living.

The attorneys general rejected a central argument made by the 26 states challenging the law — that Congress overstepped its authority by passing an “individual mandate” requiring Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a fine.

Instead, they emphasized a key argument made by the administration: that because Americans are legally entitled to health care — and everyone needs health care at some point in their life — Congress can mandate coverage to ensure others don’t have to pay for it.

An interesting argument, but, one that really has little to nothing to do with forcing people to purchase an item because they may possibly use it at some point. This would be the same as requiring every American to purchase a handgun and bullets because they might possibly have to use it at some point. Think these same Liberals would like a federal law like that, based loosely on the commerce clause?

And whether they are “legally entitled to health care” doesn’t follow that the Constitution gives the Central Government the power to only regulate commerce between the states, not what happens in states. The Commerce Clause is more of a key argument by the Obama administration.

Furthermore, the law doesn’t legally entitle people to purchase health insurance across state lines, so, there is no interstate commerce. This can all be moot, though, if Republicans realize that this election cycle isn’t simply about getting rid of Obama. Even if he is defeated, the GOP must retain the House and retake the Senate, otherwise, controlling the White House is moot.

It would all be moot, too, if the Democrats had decided to pass wise legislation that actually deals with the costs of health insurance, rather than a highly partisan piece of legislation which the majority of Americans are against.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(CBS News) Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 – and went bankrupt last year. The government’s risky investment strategy didn’t stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.

Take Beacon Power — a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.

Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of “CCC-plus.”

Asked whether he’d put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, “Not on purpose.”

“It’s, it is a junk bond,” Morici said. “But it’s not even a good junk bond. It’s well below investment grade.”

Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that’s not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.

“This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term,” he said.

Here’s where it gets even better

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

In terms of the Central Government budget, $6.5 billion is chump change. For the 53% who do pay federal taxes, this is an obscene use of our hard earned money to prop up companies that are bound to fail in the name of making Obama’s politically motivated “green” energy initiative look good, at least in the short term, as well as hook up Democrat campaign donors and backers.

The long term shame here is that this type of malfeasance damages the future of clean energy. I believe that most of us can agree that these “alternative” energy sources are part of the future. They aren’t ready for prime time. Not yet. Not even close. Wasting taxpayer money on doomed and mostly worthless ventures will certainly erode any near term future investments in these types of companies, even ones that are probably going to be winners.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Fox News Latino) A senior member of the Obama administration said Thursday that the administration plans to change a rule to reduce the time the spouses and children of undocumented immigrants are separated from citizen relatives while they try to win legal status in the United States

Currently, undocumented immigrants must leave the country before they can ask the government to waive a three- to 10-year ban on legally coming back to the U.S. The length of the ban depends on how long they have lived in the U.S. without permission.

The official said the new rule would let children and spouses of citizens ask the government to decide on the waiver request before the undocumented immigrant heads to his or her home country to apply for a visa. The undocumented immigrants still must go home to finish the visa process to come back to the U.S., but getting the waiver ahead of time could reduce the time an undocumented immigrant is out of the country.

The waiver shift is the latest move by President Barack Obama to make changes to immigration policy without congressional action. Congressional Republicans repeatedly have criticized the administration for policy changes they describe as providing “backdoor amnesty” to undocumented immigrants.

It’s not so much Obama showing a clear lack of respect for the People’s House, ie, Congress, as it is 1) Obama attempting to create political issues with which to fight the GOP, and 2), and more importantly, the fact that Obama has never been a real leader, has no skills as a leader, and becomes petulant and therefore unwilling to do the hard work necessary to reach across the aisle and make accommodations with the opposition Party, who represent specific parts of the United States as laid out by the Constitution. Every other president has had to do this, and has worked, or at least attempted to work, with the opposition party. That’s too difficult for Emperor Obama. Funny how he keeps calling himself a “Constitutional Professor”: who’s constitution, Venezuela’s? Iran’s?

That said, if the GOP plays their cards right (sometimes a big “if”), they can use Obama’s unilateral extension of unchecked power grabs against him during the General Election, and perhaps tie it in to the Congressional Democrats. Perhaps some videos of Democrats complaining about Bush unilaterally taking on new powers juxtaposed with Obama actually doing just that.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.