If You Knew Then What You Know Now. . .

Coach Jerry Sloan

I watched more than a few post-game shows with Jerry Sloan, the legendary coach of the Utah Jazz. When he would get questions like what could the team have done better in that game just completed, his classic response was, "You can't play this game backward. We're getting ready for the next one."

When asked once what he needed to do to beat a certain team after losing badly to them that night, he answered wryly, "Score more points than they do." 

Recently, former Florida Governor, and probable presidential contender, Jeb Bush, younger brother of George W., was asked a dumb question. "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone to war in Iraq?"

Politics aside, and the media's tendency to ask "gotcha" questions in general, I'll bet everyone out there would be a lot smarter then if they knew what they know today.

I'm now 50 years removed from my high school graduation. A lot of water has passed under the bridge to my future I built back in 1965. Were there some bricks in that bridge that I would love to go back and reconstruct today, knowing what I know now? Of course.

Bush was criticized for his bungled answer to that hypothetical. I'm not here to defend Jeb Bush, only to point out what a stupid question it really is.

Knowing what Americans now know about the real Barack Hussein Obama, would we (if we could) go back and ask for a re-do on two presidential elections? TWO?

Knowing what we know now, is there anyone who would have allowed Muhammed Atta and his band of "freedom fighters" (or is it "terrorists"?) to fly hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001?

Knowing what we know now, would George Washington have ever taken on the might of the British Army and Navy?

Knowing what we know now, would anyone have allowed the door to the presidential box at Ford's Theatre to have gone unguarded that night on April 14, 1865, when Lincoln attended?

These are a few examples of decision making. When Presidents and their advisers make decisions, they have enormous consequences that are felt for generations yet to come. They cannot be reversed. We may boldly fly "Mission Accomplished" banners, only to learn our euphoria was premature and ill-advised.

America continues its interminable war against terror. The body count continues to rise. Leaders of the new ISIS (rhymes with "crisis") phenomenon in the Middle East are routinely hunted down and surgically removed in the name of homeland security lest their poisonous tentacles infiltrate America's borders. However, on a larger scale, the fall of Ramadi to ISIS begs the question, "Is there really an American strategy at this juncture?" Nothing changes in the trajectory of nations, it seems, except heightened threats of instability and the potential for nuclear proliferation. Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary under Obama, flatly stated, "There is no strategy in Iraq."

And, oh by the way, those were all existential threats 50 years ago in the "idyllic" times of my youth. We practiced hiding under our desks, and neighbors were building bomb shelters. The protests of the Sixties had all the familiar earmarks of those we witness today. The Vietnam War was the social springboard for anti-war protests, flower children, free love, and psychedelic drugs like LSD and marijuana.

All that seems tame indeed when today we are dealing with Islamic extremists among whom murder is common practice, legalization of marijuana, the infiltration of illegal aliens pouring through our porous borders and flaunting our laws, and those who have advocated "gay marriage" (in quotes because there really is no other way to express that oxymoron in my lexicon) seemingly on the brink of victory in all 50 states pending a POTUS decision that is weeks away. Even conservative Utah Governor Gary Herbert said this week he's keeping "an open mind" about legalizing medical marijuana in Utah.

Some call it "progress" under a "progressive" political agenda. Neanderthal Man that I am, I just call it sin. I know we live in a secular world, surrounded by human secularists on all fronts, but I'm still clinging to my guns and my Bible. I am such a cultural dullard, I guess.

I wonder if some dull-witted reporter in some future day will ask a presidential candidate, "Knowing what you know today, would you vote in favor of gay marriage?" When we put in place a broad and sweeping declaration for marriage equality, when there is nothing "equal" about it, we must imagine there will be consequences.

When we make personal decisions, they may not be as far-reaching in global politics, but in each case those decisions can only be made on the basis of what is known at the time. Imagine what a different life it would be for each of us if we could make a decision where we know the outcome at decision time plus X years out into the future! I know many who would crave that kind of certainty.

There are very real issues that face our country today. The media does not serve the electorate well when they engage in such stupid parlor games with questions like "If you knew today what you didn't know then, would you have decided differently?"

I was thinking back on what my mindset was seven years ago in 2008, then 2010, then 2012, then 2014, when the political pot was boiling with what I thought were massive issues requiring immediate attention. Now, seven years removed from the heat of the battle for the White House in 2008, little has changed on immigration, the massive federal debt, the lack of a balanced budget, not to mention an executive branch usurping constitutional authority reserved to the legislative and the judiciary branches. In fact, much of that troubling agenda I thought about then has only gotten worse.

I was tempted to believe that when the House returned to GOP control there was hope for a brighter future. Then in 2014, the Senate was returned to Republicans as well. Even more cause for hope! But what has happened instead is I have grown older and more weary of the familiar rhetoric. I am heartened with the announcement that we will at least have a federal budget prepared and submitted to the Senate for consideration this year. But the rhetoric is all too familiar, and the results all too predictable.

It seems there are many who are willing to engage in one of life’s favorite fantasies, daydreaming about living one’s life over knowing what one knows now. If it's an idle speculation indulged in on occasions like your 50-year high school graduation, it's harmless enough I suppose. But I would advise against spending too much time on it. You can't have your yesterdays today and make them into something you wish they had been. But you can repent and move forward.

I teach and counsel young people today. I say essentially these same things to them. I counsel them to live well in their youth, to put the building blocks of a sure foundation in place in their lives today while they aren't even thinking about their future too much. Then, as I do now, they can look back without regrets (some, maybe, but not too many). I always treasure the counsel of Mark Twain, who noted: "Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life." So I counsel my young friends to surround themselves with those three to prepare them for old age lived serenely.

My takeaway from Jerry Sloan is the bit of advice I pass along today - don't live your life in reverse, going backward to revisit what happened yesterday. If you learned from your past, and hopefully we have all done that, take the lessons learned and move forward. Life must always be lived into the future.

That's where true hope and happiness reside, as we look forward to our next great adventure, not backward on past events.

Mike Lee - Balanced Budget Amendment Dies in Senate Today

Senator Mike Lee

Senator Mike Lee's (R-UT) statement on the BBA vote in the Senate today qualifies as the Political Quote of the Day:


“Though it was no surprise that getting the requisite two-thirds vote on either amendment was a tough hill to climb, I am shocked that more than sixty percent of the Democrat caucus could not support either version.  It sends a strong signal that the majority of Democrats in the Senate do not view Congress’s out-of-control spending to be a problem, and the American public should be appalled.  Despite all the warnings from economists and experts on both sides that we are headed for a fiscal meltdown if we don’t control spending, the majority of Democrats in Congress are content to do nothing about it and choose instead to fight political battles aimed at the next election.

“The silver lining is that with 47 Republican votes for SJRes 10 and 20 Democratic votes for SJRes 24, we have a total of 67 Senators who are officially on record supporting a constitutional amendment to require the federal government to balance its budget. Americans should find some relief in the fact that Congress has the votes to pass a balanced budget amendment so long as we can find consensus on a bill.  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this issue.”

Mike Lee Says Compromise NOT a Solution

Utah's freshman Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) makes it clear in this interview why this next election in November 2012 is a national debate with clearly drawn differences in the two philosophies for governing America. One path says government spending and ongoing expansion of the federal government is desirable. The other path suggests to do so would be catastrophic.

Never in my memory has the debate been more clearly defined by President Obama and whichever Republican candidate emerges as the eventual nominee.

If the economy were functioning and growing at an annual rate of around 4%, all the anxiety over government spending and deficit spending goes away because the growth of the economy is a reality that would cure all evils. That's why it is imperative the federal government adopt policies that will grow the economy, and not the debt, not the size of government, and not the deficits.

As Lee points out in his new book The Freedom Agenda, we have reached a point as a nation that we must now consider Constitutional restraints through the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Every time I listen to Senator Lee I ask myself, "Do these ideas rise to the level of extreme or radical?" Call me stupid, but they sound reasonable and immediately actionable. The only question before us as a nation is which path we will choose by electing the candidates who represent the right policies we need to adopt.



In another appearance, Lee reiterates the same points:

The Balanced Budget Amendment, coming soon

Roll up your sleeves, America. It's time to go back to work and stop waiting on the Washington establishment to solve our problems. The failed policies of this administration are numerous. This month's jobs report, released yesterday, confirms idle labor is still sitting on the sidelines with ZERO jobs added to the economy. It's time to put Washington in a debt and spending straight jacket from which it will never again be released. There are two prominent GOP versions of the Balanced Budget Amendment that will be floated to both the House and the Senate, requiring a 2/3 majority to send it to the states for ratification.

In 1995, a BBA failed to win approval in the Senate by only one vote. Imagine where we might be today if only one Senator had voted the other way. We certainly would not be in the debt debacle we are.

It is imperative we change the trajectory we are on as a nation. All that is necessary is that Washington STOP coming up with solutions that don't work, get out of our way, and let US as the sovereign people we are step forward and put an end to elected representatives who are unresponsive to our desires. Here's a thoughtful approach to doing things the right way. Further, there is incontrovertible evidence the regulatory environment under the Obama administration has been stifling.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), the sponsor of two leading GOP versions, makes the case for the necessity of the BBA in a weekly Republican address airing Saturday that an amendment would create jobs by putting Congress on a spending diet. It is clear Americans have finally tuned out this president. What is becoming obvious to even the casual observer is that speech making by this president isn't demonstrating the kind of leadership for which Americans yearn and expect. Obama may be reaching a point where no one cares anymore what he says. His deeds have not matched his rhetoric, and that's record his opponents will increasingly jump on then pile on. When he speaks next week about his plan for creating new jobs, we would be well-advised to look elsewhere for our answers, since nothing he has promised has come to pass. Presidents do not create new jobs. Their policies either enhance or destroy the incentives for those who do. Thus far he has done nothing but paralyze private capital investment into the economy.

Republicans, of course, maintain by ending attempts at Obama-style stimulus spending we can finally put the nation back to work. To get the BBA passed, it will take a bipartisan effort, setting party politics aside and keeping it on the sidelines. We need representatives in Washington who will finally decide to do what is right for America's future, not their own individual interests.

Be patient. If Congress fails to pass the BBA this fall, and the "super committee" fails in its mission to send a serious signal to the rating agencies that we are serious about managing our debt and deficits, then Americans will elect those who will get it done in the next Congress following the 2012 election. We really have no other choice. That's why this next election is so critical to our collective welfare as Americans. We are at a crossroads. We can no longer have it both ways. Decision time is upon us.

“The president’s ‘stimulus’ spending has proven counterproductive,” Goodlatte says. “This fall, both the House and the Senate will vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would force Congress to spend only what the government takes in… That doesn’t just mean a fiscal house in order: it also means more certainty for the private sector and a better environment for job creation.”

Goodlatte calls on Obama to back a balanced budget amendment in the president's Sept. 8 jobs speech to Congress. However, one should acknowledge this president is tone deaf to anyone who dares to oppose his point of view. Don't expect that tiger to change its stripes in yet another speech filled with empty rhetoric and unrealistic promises involving more government spending.

Why would we give the federal government a free pass on spending and running up unconscionable deficits, when in 49 of the 50 states their individual state constitutions mandate a balanced budget?

Senator Lee Leads the Way

U.S. Senator Mike Lee Responds to S&P Downgrade of United States

Lee lays out path back to AAA rating and American greatness

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Lee responded to S&P lowering the long held AAA rating for the United States saying, “This downgrade confirms what we have known was coming, but have chosen to ignore, for a long time.  This downgrade further confirms that the true threat to our country, our economy and our way of life is our debt and the continued deficit spending Washington and the current administration are pursuing.”

For the first time ever the United States does not hold a AAA rating.  The impact could be felt in numerous ways including higher interests rates for car, home or student loans along with credit card rates.  Lee then stated, “Unfortunately, when it comes to the significant financial challenges this country faces, we have been swatting at the branches and symptoms instead of attacking the root and core causes. Never has there been a greater need for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution – to ensure we get our fiscal house in order, reduce our debt, and get Washington to live within its means.”

Calling on his colleagues in the House and Senate along with the Administration and Americans across the country Lee said, “The answer to our economic challenges lies within a simple concept most Americans and most states understand and live by – balance your checkbook and don’t spend more than you bring in.  This is not a liberal or conservative issue, it isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue – it is an American issue.  If ever there were a time for Americans and members of Congress to have an open debate and dialogue about the future of our country, that time is now.  I invite everyone to begin to understand where we are as a nation and what it will take to restore both our AAA rating, and more importantly, our strength and greatness as a country.”

* * *

I hear Mike Lee being criticized for being an "ideologue," or too rigid in his conservative beliefs. I hear him being branded as a political extremist, a threat to the economy, a tea party terrorist. 

Honestly, all the name calling in the world doesn't change the facts as they are -- we need leadership out of the fiscal mine shaft, and Mike is leading the way. I'm grateful for his leadership in a time when there seems to be so little elsewhere. If anything, the S&P statements about the reasons for the downgrade have only given our politicians more fodder to scream and yell at each other. We should all be weary enough of the name calling that we are willing to support reasonable solutions that can be discussed and acted upon. 

Others would do well to give heed to his guidance. It strikes me as anything but "extremist." 

I hope and pray we haven't gone so far that common sense and good judgment are seen as extremist points of view.

Compromise -- Like Kissing Your Sister

Everyone hates this compromise unlike anything I've ever seen coming out of Washington D.C.

President Obama failed to get tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans for now, but in January 2013 the Bush-era tax cuts expire. That's a tax increase by any calculation. But Paul Ryan gave Sean Hannity assurances tonight (Monday after the House passed the bill) the measure will not allow it to happen.



There's a bicameral bipartisan committee of twelve (six from each house) being handed authority to come up with more spending cuts (half defense and half entitlements) by November of this year. If they don't, some "triggers" kick in that are designed purposefully to be painful enough for both sides to compel action. We'll see. There is a troubling habit in Washington in recent years. We don't openly debate anymore. We appoint committees. It's a trip down memory lane.

The House has held its ground since the mid-term elections in 2010. They repealed Obamacare, they passed the proposed Ryan budget, and they passed Cut, Cap and Balance and got an assurance for an up or down vote in both the House and the Senate on the Balanced Budget Amendment. Apparently the sticking point for Democrats is a mechanism for a "super majority" vote of 67% in each house to raise taxes. Look for that provision to be modified to be more acceptable.

But tonight it's all political, not meaningful. Here's the biggest problem -- the entitlement spending is on autopilot and increases (because of the absence of a restraining budget) by 8% for the next several years. The "cuts" proposed in this compromise deal merely state we will cut 3% from the projected spending we haven't spent yet, and it's not real. The net result that just got cast in stone today is that S&P will downgrade the AAA bond rating, assured by this deal. Moody's may be more patient, but not for long. Strange, that knowing what the rating agencies wanted to see, the politicians couldn't satisfy their demands.

This is a political compromise of the first order, nothing more nothing less. It's avoided a default in the short term, but the structural economic weaknesses still remain. We're on a path to borrow 100% of our GDP, and this does nothing to short circuit that trajectory. The total economy is $14.8 Trillion, and we've borrowed $14.3 to date with more coming. The debt is accumulating at $4 Billion PER DAY! Astounding to me is Obamacare and its impact, already being

We need to take the baseline for this year, then cut 1% off that per year until spending comes down to the level of tax revenue. That's real. This deal is just more Washington compromise as usual. Watch for Paul Ryan (R-WI), the House Budget guru, to take up the return to the baseline budgeting in committee. We learned nothing from the TARP lesson of September of 2008, and you can add Obamacare to that pattern. Remember, "We have to pass this bill to know what's in it?" (That was Nancy Pelosi when they passed Obamacare).

And now we repeat the same pattern. This compromise deal was struck by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Vice-President Joe Biden (don't let anyone tell you any differently -- that's who did it). Panic at the last minute is once again what this looks and feels like. Will anyone actually get to read and study this thing before a vote? Let's hope so.

Some members of the House and Senate complained that the details of the backroom deal were in the hands of the media for a full hour before getting a conference call to their respective caucuses. That doesn't sit well with elected representatives who were sent there as the representatives of the people. What a horrible example of Constitutional government!

However, lest we sink all hope with these comments, there is a ray of sunshine. The House and Senate freshmen Republicans who were sent to change things have held their ground and have succeeded in changing the conversation. Instead of being able to buy votes with more pork barrel spending, this time the POTUS and the Senate majority leader were compelled to have a conversation with Speaker Boehner in the back room, all of them realizing the American people now had representation and they meant business. We sometimes forget that only a year ago the Obama administration got a $1.9 Trillion increase in the debt limit rubber-stamped through both houses of Congress without anyone even finding the story in the mainstream media because it was buried on page 10 under the fold. Why? See Obamacare -- you'll find it there.

So that's some progress on some level; some, but not enough.

What comes next? We haven't really had a comprehensive debate yet about the underlying economic issues. That has to come next, and it isn't going away until after the 2012 election, like President Obama would have preferred. He's actually going to have to defend his record as the biggest spender in the history of the Republic.

So what we got after all the angst over the last two months was the one thing the country can least afford -- more uncertainty. We'll lose the AAA bond rating, there's little doubt. Whether or not S&P decides to follow through on their threat of a downgrade, that fact may be the least of our financial worries. A Democrat-controlled Congress seems to believe adding a "mere" $7 trillion to our debt between now and 2020 instead of $10 trillion represents a victory for prudent budgeting. GEEZ! And even a "modest" $3-trillion trim is a theoretical number. Further, nothing can bind a 2018 Congress to follow the will of Americans expressed in 2011. That's a lot more frightening than any credit downgrade. Married with inflation that's already on the way, the impact on discretionary spending is negative for everyone.

Last night CNN interviewed Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). Notice how many times the interviewers bring up the political implications, none of which Lee is interested in discussing. Instead, he's focused totally on the underlying economic issues that have not been addressed. Blitzer tried to suggest the Republicans got nearly everything they asked for, so why can't Lee be happy about that? Well, it's simple. This request for an increase in the debt ceiling is unprecedented in U.S. history, and cannot be granted without a structural reform to the way Washington spends our money in the future. This is a debate that has just barely begun, and I don't expect a political "deal" to tamp down that economic debate.



The rest of the story is even easier, which may make all this academic -- will the deal actually pass through both houses among the rank and file members? Lee first wanted to invoke the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the Senate for passage to break the filibuster, then backed off when the votes lined up in support of the measure. It's the American way. It's the Constitutional way. It's not the political way Lee's interested in. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also stood by his pledge to oppose it without the BBA.

We are finally beginning to wake up from our long national nap, it seems. If there is any good news, both sides are finally compelled because of the economy to end their lavish dreams. The Tea Party uprising has killed both the neoconservative dream of an ever-expanding American empire and the liberal hopes once entertained that roughly 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, roughly 75 years after the New Deal and roughly 50 years after the Great Society, we were living in another great age of progressive reform.

Given the era of fiscal scarcity we’re now entering, those neocon and progressive dreams are now likely dead for many years to come. This recovery will take years, not months, to materialize. Meanwhile, the Tea Party’s dream of a government reduced to its pre-welfare state size becomes self-fulfilling.

Stay tuned, this thing isn't a done deal yet, even when the votes are in.

Mike Lee Making Headway on the BBA

Forget everything you're hearing about Mike Lee being ineffective as a freshman Senator:

23 Senate Democrats Support a Balanced Budget Amendment

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): “Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m for… a balanced budget amendment.” (Rep. Brown, “Where I Stand,” YouTube, 11/1/06)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): “I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party.” (Michigan Senate Debate, 10/22/00)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It’s time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing - balance the budget.” (Sen. Begich, “Begich Statement On 2011 Budget Vote,” Press Release, 4/15/11)

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL): “Over the years, I have supported a balanced budget amendment…” (Sen. Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, S.1920, 3/29/11)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “[T]he balanced budget amendment's very, very important to me and to every governor, to every state, to every household, especially in West Virginia. And if they can do it, they think we can do it also.” (U.S. Senate, Budget Committee, Hearing, 1/27/11)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I voted yes and support a balanced budget amendment that allows for flexibility in times of war and for natural disasters.” (Sen. Nelson, Press Statement, 3/4/11)

SEN. MARK UDALL (D-CO): “I've long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole.” (Sen. Udall, “Udall Co-Sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment,” Press Release, 2/1/11)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet broke his hesitation on endorsing the balanced-budget amendment last week… pledging support for the idea.” (“Bennet Balancing His Approach To Budget,” Denver Post, 3/6/11)

SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” (“McCaskill For ‘Responsible’ Balanced Budget Amendment,” PoliticMo, 6/29/11)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “New York families must continuously balance their checkbooks. Forty-nine states, including New York, require a balanced budget. An amendment to the Constitution will finally hold the federal government to the same, common sense standard.” (Rep. Gillibrand, “Nation Deserved A Balanced Budget,” The Time Union, 6/4/07)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): “As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution…” (Sen. Carper, Congressional Record, S.8063-4, 7/14/04)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “…I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.1333, 2/12/97)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I believe deeply in the need to balance the Federal budget… I would support an amendment to the Constitution.” (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.1147, 2/10/97)

SEN. HERB KOHL (D-WI): “The balanced budget amendment does, in my opinion, embody a principle simple and vital enough to deserve inclusion in the Constitution.” (Sen. Kohl, Congressional Record, S.1609, 2/26/97)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I took a position to support a Balanced Budget Amendment…”(Sen. Landrieu, Press Conference, 2/25/1997)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment.” (Sen. Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.1594, 2/26/97)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again...” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.2460, 2/10/95)

SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD): “It is time to get our priorities straight. I've been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment…” (Rep. Johnson, Congressional Record, H.11213, 10/26/95)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “I have always supported a balanced budget. Montanans want a balanced budget. We must listen to the people and give them a balanced budget.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.2469, 2/10/95)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…we need to move toward a Balanced Budget Amendment.” (Rep. Durbin, Congressional Record, H.1310, 1/11/95)

SEN. JON TESTER (D-MT): “It’s absolutely critical.” “My folks did not teach me to not have a fiscal balanced budget. It’s absolutely critical… Because I am of the belief that you take care of your own self and you don’t pass your debts on to your kids... Let’s be fiscally responsible. Let’s have a fiscally balanced budget.” (Montana Senate Debate, 6/25/06)

“Jon Tester will lead efforts to balance the federal budget…” (“Real Change, Real Vision For Montana Plan,” Jon Tester Website, Accessed 7/14/11)

Tester Spokesman: “Of course Jon supports a balanced budget…” (“Rehberg Chides Tester Over Budget-Balancing Vote,” Billings Gazette, 3/3/11)

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): “I Believe In A Balanced Budget. Government Should Live Within Its Means, Like Any Small Business.” MR. RUSSERT: “Let me find out how you would implement something that you’re promising the voters of Pennsylvania. Here’s a Casey campaign ad about our budget.” (Videotape, Bob Casey campaign ad): MR. CASEY: “I believe in a balanced budget. Government should live within its means, like any small business.” MR. RUSSERT: “How would you get a balanced budget?” MR. CASEY: “It’s not easy, Tim, but here are the steps we should take. First of all, when it comes to the budget, what’s missing principally is a lack of fiscal responsibility, you know that. We’ve gone from about two, 236 of, of surplus down to 296 in deficit. We need some fiscal discipline.” (Pennsylvania Senate Debate, “Meet The Press,” 9/3/06)

Sen. Lieberman Voted For A Balanced Budget Amendment. (S.Amdt.115, Roll Call Vote #30, Amendment Rejected 58-40: R 48-0; D 10-39; I 1-1, 3/2/11)

THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL ON THE RECORD AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER -- WE'LL SEE WHERE THEY STAND NOW.

Thanks, Mike, for holding them accountable. . . in a word: SCOREBOARD!!

Debt Ceiling Deal Pending

Negotiations continue over debt ceiling and spending cuts

Politics is a treacherous but ever-so-predictable business these days. What seemed within reach a few days ago to stop the insanity over debt and spending is now slipping through the cracks of the time-honored traditions of political compromise.

Personally, I favor the ideologically pure notions presented by the "Cut, Cap and Balance" idea coupled with the Lee/Hatch/Cornyn (et. al.) Balanced Budget Amendment, but now the "smart money" tells us there is no chance of passage. They wanted no increase in the debt ceiling without an up or down vote on the BBA. It's the members of the Utah congressional delegation who are leaders in the fight, specifically Hatch and Lee in the Senate and Jason Chaffetz in the House. Watch for the tea-party-dominated House to pass Cut, Cap and Balance this week, then watch it die in the Democrat-laden Senate.

The reason it isn't going to happen, apparently, is because the ideology on the other side in the personification of Barack Obama senses no urgency and wants tax increases on the rich. "We don't need a Balanced Budget Amendment," he says, "We just need to do our jobs." Well, we've all seen how that has worked out. "Doing our jobs" on his watch has included running up record debt, deficits, stimulus bills that didn't stimulate anything, the biggest entitlement program in the history of man, threats of more taxes as far and the eye can see, printing worthless currency and regulating everything that moves in the economy. They don't seem to be aware that tax increases on the wealthiest Americans just isn't enough to close the gap mathematically. If you confiscated, not merely taxed, that wealth it still wouldn't be enough. Perpetuating the myth that you can tax the rich to help the poor is what I've labeled "The Great Big Fat Lie." (Click the link to my post on April 16, 2011, and watch the embedded video).

Yes, blame Bush too -- government programs, unfunded wars, TARP, etc. -- so don't single out the criticism for Obama alone. But you can top all that history with a presidential threat just last week that Social Security recipients might not get their checks in August unless Congress comes to heel at his command. That kind of threat, first, isn't very presidential, and second, it's a big fat whopping lie.

The lies are piling up with every news conference.

Despite it all, there will be a budget spending deal along with an increase in the debt ceiling struck here in the next few days; Washington working in its "finest hour," some will yet say. However, it will be a watered down deal and the questions will remain to haunt us going forward: Will whatever they come up with satisfy the rating agencies, Moody's and S&P as being "sufficient" to stave off a downgrade of America's "AAA" bond rating? Both agencies upped the ante last week in the political poker game, by signalling they will not hesitate to degrade the rating if meaningful progress is not achieved. A downgrade in the bond rating of America would mean higher borrowing costs for everyone.

I suspect Americans, however, are growing weary of the same old rhetoric and class warfare struggles -- "tax the rich for the benefit of all who aren't." Tax revenues have been historically low these last three or four years because of the collapse of the financial markets in the wake of the toxic mortgage securitization marketplace, and this much is clear in hindsight: the federal government promoted that market and its interventions have proven catastrophic in the aftermath.

There have been reams of paper and gallons of newspaper ink spilled over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. When he was a freshman senator from Illinois, Barack Obama assailed George W. Bush for lack of leadership in coming to Congress to raise the debt ceiling back then, and now as POTUS, Obama rides to the rescue once again proclaiming the end of the world as we know it unless he gets a big budget deal to carry him through the 2012 election. He doesn't really want to have to deal with this question of fiscal responsibility and accountability between now and then. Truth is, the Republicans voted many times under George Bush to raise the debt ceiling. The hypocrisy on both sides is stunning, and they expect Americans to keep buying their explanations? I don't think so.

In the back and forth for over two years now, one detail is seemingly lost. The President has a Constitutional duty to propose a budget each year. This president, however, has failed to do so for two and a half years, abdicating his responsibility to Congress and carping over every proposal that comes his way. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, complained the other day that negotiating with Obama is like trying to strike a deal with Jell-O; he's a little slippery and wiggly. So much for golf diplomacy.

The historic election of 2010 notwithstanding, where Obama was handed an overwhelming rebuke by the voters, political sea changes are slow in translating into reality and seemingly impossible to make stick. One thing is clear: this president thinks he's got the voters with him. He was bold enough to quote a fuzzy poll result the other day, claiming 80% of Americans favor a tax increase on the wealthy. Really? Whether it's true or not, he absolutely believes he is doing the right thing for America and the people are on his side. That's the belief of an avowed extremist, and one could say the same thing about the other end of the spectrum perhaps.

So this morning it appears likely we will see the classic result coming from Washington once again. Negotiations over political positions where both sides can claim some watered down portion of victory. Political maneuvering continues to plague our national debate. This morning it is reported Paul Ryan, the House's Budget Chief, who actually had the courage to propose a sound but politically suicidal budget a few months ago, and got it passed in the House, has been lecturing the freshmen House members about the futility of pressing their case not to raise the debt ceiling. The voters back home won't be pleased who sent them there to put a cap on the spending spree and to take away the blank checks from the president, but until there is a majority in both houses of Congress and the present occupant of the White House is expelled, there are going to be half-measures that please no one.

There are about four options that are still on the table that can be identified by their biggest supporters. 

• The McConnell plan would force Barack Obama to take some very uncomfortable public positions but, policy-wise, would likely mean the fewest amount of real spending cuts. 
• The plan Eric Cantor is pushing for is a short-term small-cut deal that would cut much less than the "grand bargain" and would force more debt ceiling votes and negotiations before the 2012 election. 
• Barack Obama is negotiating for a medium-term cuts-and-taxes deal that would solve the issue past 2012. 
• And finally, there's the John Boehner-backed "grand bargain" that would contain up to a reported $4 trillion in cuts.

The average American doesn't wake up every morning wondering whether or not the planet has been saved from a potential debt crisis in the USA. Instead, they awaken to another day oblivious to the issues their elected representatives are tasked to tackle. Even with all the angst on display in the election of 2010, it appears we're back to business as usual in Washington, and both sides are dug in until they find the partial solutions they are so adept at crafting together -- wait for it, it's coming -- "This isn't a perfect deal, but it's the best we could do under the circumstances."

There is a titanic struggle for the future unfolding before our eyes, however, that looms ahead. As anyone who carries enormous debt obligations will tell you, freedom is curtailed with debt and spending money at a rate that cannot be sustained. America has always been among the leaders in freedom in virtually every category, but we are threatened by our self-inflicted cancer of debt and deficits:



We are under siege and sometimes don't even know it or understand what's at stake. It's true for individuals, businesses and countries. We may not see the effects immediately, which is why life appears to go on as normal each day, but the underlying erosion is taking place imperceptibly but unrelentingly.

Until the political gimmickry stops and we put this federal government in a straight jacket that binds future congresses and the president to fiscal sanity, we are in bondage even if we don't see the velvet shackles binding our wrists and ankles. I remember a wise old businessman telling me years ago, "Borrowing money is like wetting the bed -- it keeps you warm for awhile, but eventually you have to get up and change the sheets."

I don't really care much for political parties and their partisan rhetoric that merely keeps them wetting the beds. As I've said before, what we need now are patriots who can rise above party and stop the insanity by changing the course of America. If we can't do it ourselves, the consequences will overtake us.

One final point: The underlying issue distills to whether we should have a larger and more expensive federal government. Over many years, federal spending has averaged about 20 percent of gross domestic product.

The Obama Democrats have raised that to 24 or 25 percent. And the president's budget projects that that percentage will stay the same or increase far into the future. The decision point has arrived at our doorstep. In the process, the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product has increased from a manageable 40 percent in 2008 to 62 percent this year and an estimated 72 percent in 2012. And it's headed to the 90 percent level that economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have identified as the danger point, when governments face fiscal collapse. Those are the stakes and the politicians are still posturing.

I'm still waiting for the serious debate.

Mike Lee and "The Pledge"

Today in the Cannon House Office Building Caucus Room, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) will participate in a press conference with many of his colleagues to introduce a topic he hinted at when he spoke to the Utah Republican Party Organizing Convention last weekend here in Utah.

The topic of today's press conference is to announce "The Pledge;"

I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:


Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.


Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.


Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

Laugh if you want -- "yeah, right, would any politician actually commit to such a path?" -- but I for one salute the junior senator from Utah for his unrelenting determination to change the "business as usual" approach to what's going on among lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

I'm going to be interested in how many like-minded people there are, who will actually take steps to address the details of our spending as a nation. The Federal Reserve has downgraded its projections for growth in the economy from two-month-old estimates. I'm guessing the conflagration of tripwires in the economy is going to force a resolution among lawmakers, not because they will voluntarily sign up for distasteful political realities, but because conditions will compel them to finally get serious.

At the press conference remarks will also be offered by Senators Hatch, DeMint, Rubio and others.

I don't know about any of you, but I for one am grateful for these men who have the guts to take on the problem without apologies to the go-along-to-get-along crowd that has put us in the financial jeopardy we find ourselves as a nation. Until this moment in time, nothing like this has happened, and I credit an aroused electorate for putting the pressure on the elected representatives.

It's why we sent Mike Lee to Washington. If not in 2012, then in the cycle after that in 2014, the Senate must turn over into a filibuster-proof majority with enough votes to turn the Republic around. Today's press conference is only a good start. . . but,

I like the direction it's going. . .

Two BIG Reasons for Economic Stagnation

When I was in a position to counsel those who were seeking for new employment opportunities, I routinely recommended they not watch the news.  I warned the mainstream media is always looking for a headline to grab the attention of their followers, and frequently the news is not good on the unemployment front.

As this long and protracted recession drags on, however, it may be useful to understand some of the underlying structural reasons the economy is still staggering.  I realize it's cold comfort for those still seeking employment, but there may be some legitimate reasons jobs are hard to come by regardless of their best efforts.

The most recent jobs report from the government is sobering.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate edged up to 9.1% in May, from a level of 9.0% in April and 8.8% in March.  This "jobless recovery" is a useful myth perpetuated by the administration and other like-minded politicians, but it is not a recovery until each American seeking work can be assured they have recovered.  If the economy continues to stagnate, Obama will be a one-term president.

Of deepest concern to me is the number of long-term unemployed (those unemployed for 27 weeks or longer).  Those numbers jumped up to 45.1% and 6.2 million in May, from 43.4% and 5.8 million in April.  It proves to me that those who are being successful in their job quest are those who are following the principles taught in the Employment Resource Centers of the LDS Church.  In the Career Workshop, attendees are encouraged to take control of their own job search and create their own opportunities, rather than depending upon the old ways of going about their search by sending out resumes and responding to job board listings.

In addition, registering at www.ldsjobs.org has been yielding fruit not only for job seekers, but also for employers who are finding qualified applicants in a much simpler and easier cyber-market where they can find what they are looking for.  I've had the opportunity recently to teach the Career Workshop in our ward, and was reminded once again of the power of the principles outlined by the Church in the workbook for the attendees.

What is clear to me now, after initially hoping for the best under the Obama administration's efforts to resuscitate the economy, is that their policies are deeply flawed.  The federal spending per household is rocketing upward on a dangerous trajectory that must be halted.

It is reminiscent of the three government workers who gathered at the shore of a lake, each armed with a bucket.  Into the lake each dropped his bucket and filled it up with water, thus lowering the level of the lake minutely.  Then they marched with much fanfare around the lake to the other side, emptied their buckets back into the lake, and declared they had "stimulated" the lake by pouring the contents back into the lake.  (Thanks to Grover Norquist for the visual image).

After 28 months in office, it is clear the President’s policies have failed to positively affect our economy.  He has two signature pieces of domestic "achievement."  His first was ObamaCare and the second was the stimulus package.  Each cost something in the range of $1 Trillion, and it was all borrowed money.  Even Obama admitted recently that "shovel ready" wasn't quite as shovel ready as they had initially posited.

Instead of stimulating the economy, however, these two biggest domestic spending experiments in the history of our nation have only served to exacerbate the two biggest systemic economic challenges we face as a country -- overspending and rapidly escalating debt.  Rather than introducing "new money" into the economy, the administration's efforts to date have been nothing more than cost shifting from one pocket with holes in it to another.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

Compounding the seriousness of the matter is that Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in more than two years, and couldn’t even bring themselves to vote for the President’s most recent proposal.

I'm not naive enough to believe one man can change everything all at once, but watch for Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and others who believe as he does, to continue making the case for addressing these issues head on without apology to those who keep demanding a continuation of the status quo.  Lee is leading out with a Balanced Budget Amendment proposal, seeking to hammer legislators into a spending straight jacket in the years ahead.  To his credit, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has long been an advocate for the BBA, but has never been able to push it through.

It is my judgment that the administration has ceded their leadership to others by default.  Look for the emergence of new leadership, men and women who are not nearly as interested in politics as usual as they are in real solutions with apolitical consequences.

It's what we used to refer to in this country as statesmanship.

Mr. Lee Goes to Washington

There's a striking parallel between the old Jimmy Stewart movie and what Mike Lee (R-UT) is doing right now in Washington. Like Stewart in his role as Mr. Smith, Lee has taken a principled stand against all the forces arrayed against him, and he is doing what few before him have ever dared to do -- he's questioning the status quo, asking the obvious questions, and seeking to round up support from his like-minded colleagues.

The Senate still hasn't reconvened yet, but when it does the debate about spending will be front and center.

Mike Lee is doing what President Obama is failing miserably to do: provide true and effective leadership.

As never before, those who are playing politics as usual are easier to spot. Those with serious ideas are boldly declaring themselves despite the potentially suicidal political ramifications of attacking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The polling data would suggest Americans don't really want to dismantle or rearrange their entitlement programs, but if someone can make an honest case why it needs to be done and done now, I believe that principled stand will prevail.

The political miscalculation currently being made by the status quo club -- doing whatever you have to do to win the next election with enough votes -- has a very short shelf life. The America public is now poised to back leadership when they perceive leaders doing what true leaders always must do by taking a principled, rather than a politically popular, position.

In this phone interview yesterday, Lee discusses the progress being made in rounding up enough votes to pass out of the Congress a Balance Budget Amendment. He points out there will be no favorable vote on raising the debt ceiling forthcoming from him and a growing number of his colleagues without an up or down vote on the BBA. Once again, the threshold for amending Constitution is a high bar -- 2/3 in favor in both Houses of Congress, then a 3/4 ratification by the states.

Knowing it will take years to achieve, perhaps, isn't as important as the signal it sends to Americans and the whole world that the United States is serious about taking the corrective steps necessary to rescue our economy from the disastrous trajectory that it is on.

That said, Lee adds in this interview what is fact. The U.S. would not default on its credit obligations if the debt ceiling isn't raised. The Treasury takes in ten times what it owes in interest obligations. Suggesting a credit default in the absence of the vote to raise the debt ceiling is just wildly irresponsible. It hasn't seemed to matter which political party is in power, they have gone to that trough now one too many times.

I like Mike. He's speaking from a position of strength. I don't know how persuasive he'll be in the end of the day among his colleagues in the Senate, but whatever the final outcome may be I am grateful for his leadership in this area. It's only going to take a few more votes to make his proposition viable. I'm hoping the American people will have the integrity to back their elected representatives when it comes to the final vote after all the debating ahead. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) also has a plan worth considering.

We have a better chance now than ever to put the federal government in a strangle hold on discretionary spending. People from both parties would be well-advised to follow Senator Lee's admonitions.