MN-02 : Kline Eerily Silent After Taxpayer Victory on JSF Engine

It seems that John Kline (R-MN-02) takes every opportunity to alert voters to Washington’s Reckless Spending … but not this week when the Department of Defense issued a stop-work order

DOD Issues Stop Work Order on the JSF F136 Extra Engine Program

The Department of Defense (DoD) today issued a stop work order in connection with the Joint Strike Fighter extra engine program.
The administration and the DoD strongly oppose the extra engine program, as reflected in the President’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal that was recently submitted to Congress, which does not include funding for the program. In our view it is a waste of taxpayer money that can be used to fund higher Departmental priorities, and should be ended now.
The House of Representatives has recently expressed its own opposition to the extra engine in its passage of H.R. 1 including the adoption of the Rooney Amendment which removed all fiscal 2011 funding for this program. In addition, funding for the extra engine was not authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2011, enacted in January. In light of these recent events, Congressional prerogatives, and the administration’s view of the program, we have concluded that a stop work order is now the correct course. The stop work order will remain in place pending final resolution of the program’s future, for a period not to exceed 90 days, unless extended by agreement of the government and the contractor.

Some considered this to be a victory for the TaxEnoughAlready movement that advocate Fiscal Responsible operation of OUR government.

Yes, some did issue press releases …
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) :
I have long called for the elimination of funding for a second F-35 jet engine which is a wasteful use of taxpayer money," said Senator Collins. "As we begin to tackle the mounting debt, we must eliminate programs like this that are duplicative and unnecessary. I applaud the Secretary of Defense's decision to halt further development of the extra engine."

Congressman John Larson (D-CT-01) “I applaud Secretary Gates for following through on his commitment to end the Joint Strike Fighter’s duplicative ‘extra’ engine program,” Congressman Larson said. “This program is the epitome of government waste, one that the Secretary himself referred to as an ‘unnecessary and extravagant expense.’ Today’s decision will save the American people nearly a million dollars a day and bring to close an issue that has been debated in Congress for more than 4 years. I hope that my colleagues will now join me in focusing our attention on more pressing national security matters.

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) “The termination of the alternate engine program is an essential step toward focusing our scarce defense dollars on the programs that will actually help keep America safer, ” Lieberman said. “As American service members fight to defend our freedoms and safeguard human life across the world, I hope that today’s decision will allow Congress to set this long-debated matter aside and move on to the critical business of the American people.”

That’s correct, Republicans, Democrats and Independent members of Congress laud this ending of another example of Washington’s Reckless Spending.

So, how did this happen.
First, let’s give credit to the man who put the nail in the coffin by corralling 47 freshman House members to score a 233–198 vote on an amendment that scuttled the program … Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL-16)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment striking funding for an extra engine for the F-35 fighter Jet to immediately save American taxpayers $450 million dollars.
“It is dubious why Congress continues to fund a program that the Air Force, Navy, the Marine Corps and Department of Defense adamantly state they do not want. Just today, Defense Secretary Gates called the program “an unnecessary and extravagant expense” and stated that this money is needed for higher priority defense efforts. As we decide which cuts to make in our defense, ones that won’t hurt our troops today, this should be at the top of the list.
“Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us here to change how Washington works. This amendment is a perfect opportunity to show your constituents that business as usual in Washington is over. I urge my colleagues to follow through with their promises, to listen to the voters on why they sent us here, and vote to strike funding for this expensive and unnecessary program. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.”

Normally, Mr. Kline likes to promote these successes …. but on the F136 alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, Mr. Kline was eerily silent.

Why because Mr. Kline voted to keep the funding going … as did potential President Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) and Raymond Cravaack (R-MN-08).

The Pentagon opposed this program … as did the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, yet Congress kept funding it.

The choice should have been clear … support John Boehner (R-OH-08) whose chief beneficiary, General Electric is a major employer in Ohio … or support Fiscal Responsible spending.

This vote tells voters who are the Faux Fiscal Conservatives that are working for the Washington powerbrokers … who are truly concerned about addressing wasteful spending.

THANKS to Tim Walz (D-MN-01), Erik Paulsen (R-MN-03), Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), Keith Ellison (D-MN-05) and Colin Peterson (D-MN-07) for voting to end this wasteful program.

Will “Drill now, Drill here” affect the August 20 prices ?

Could Minority Leader John Boehner (OH-08) be correct the Republicans daily “Drill now, Drill here” protests are "already helping to lower oil prices" ?

Well, maybe no.
The Wall Street Journal reported: “Hard evidence is emerging that the changing behavior of consumers and businesses may be making a dent in the oil market. The Energy Department reported last week that demand for gasoline for the four weeks ended Aug. 1 was 2.3% lower than in the same period last year. [Americans drove 9.66 billion fewer miles in May than they did a year earlier, according to the Transportation Department.] Declining demand is the prime force behind the oil market's recent slide.”

But, maybe yes … and that’s a bad thing.
On August 20, Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior will hold its second lease sale this year for Gulf Coast. Sale 207 encompasses about 3,400 unleased blocks covering approximately 18 million acres in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area offshore Texas.
The Republican “Drill Now” antics may actually lower the price at the lease sale … as the companies begin to realize that more off-shore drilling possibilities may be in the future. It’s supply and demand. Will their bids factor in that they already have enough work as their rigs are tied up (read yesterday’s commentary), and they foresee greater opportunities in a few years ?
If the price is higher at the August lease sale then the March sale that doesn’t mean that the prices wouldn’t have been higher without the Republicans ranting.
The revenues generated from these sales go to the Gulf States (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas) as well as the federal treasury …. funds that are needed with the exploding national debt.

But even at lower prices, this should mean jobs, right ?
But for whom ?
So, who is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico ?
According to Minerals Management Service report lists a number of companies include:
-- Australia's BHP Billiton
-- Brazil's government-run oil company Petrobras
-- Canada Nexen Inc.
-- Cobalt International Energy LP (which is owned by the Carlyle Group which is known for their relationships with George H. W. Bush and the bin Laden families)
-- ENI Petroleum Co. Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Eni Norge AS (Norway)
-- Shell Offshore Inc., (part of Royal Dutch Shell)
And you probably thought it was good-old US based Exxon-Mobil !
The argument offered is that America must become energy independent and not reliant on foreign countries … but that doesn’t mean that foreign business won’t be involved.
But are these employees, taxpaying Americans ?
Recalling how Kellogg, Brown & Root, a company that has experience in the oil patch, classified its employees so as not to pay taxes, the question should be asked. Although legislation has been initiated such that domestically controlled foreign persons performing services under contract with the United States Government are treated as American employers for purposes of certain employment taxes and benefits, but since these are foreign-controlled domestic corporations that may not apply.

If we’re going to do more drilling, American business needs to invest in more rigs and train more American workers … that’s the way to have America become more energy independent.

Fiscal Responsiblity in Minnesota's First District ... FINALLY !

As a fiscal conservative, there was a time when I thought Dick Day would be the next Congressman representing the First District. As his term limit pledge was approaching, Gil Gutknecht was talking of running against Mark Dayton. Gutknecht was a poster child for what fiscal conservatives want … a government that lives within its means. For me, that does not necessarily mean a small government. Government needs to serve the people and taxes are a definite necessity … but taxes should be equitable and fair. Day had the legislative experience, leadership experience, name recognition and strong support from the business community … this seemed to be a natural stepping stone and I told many Republicans that Day would easily win. But Gutknecht ceded his party’s nomination to Mark Kennedy and reneged on his term limit pledge.

During Gutknecht’s tenure, the Republican Party achieved total management of legislative-side of government – House, Senate and the White House. Alas, their opportunity was wasted as the Republicans seemed to more interested on controlling dissidents within their ranks, refusing to compromise, obfuscating their true agenda, focusing more on talking points than on policy. Gutknecht’s poster child status became as thin as a piece of poster board. The budget surplus became a budget deficit … not short term, but expanding. All the while, Gutknecht and his Republican associates talked fiscal discipline while avoiding addressing real issues … for example the Alternative Minimum Tax.

For years, the problem has been known … and for years, the Republicans have issued one year patches … moving the problem out for someone else to resolve. In fact, when confronted with the choice of addressing AMT or extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, Gutknecht rejected prioritizing AMT as the issue (HR 4927 February 8, 2006.) Further, on May 18, 2006 Gutknecht voted against a budget resolution which included requirements for a balanced budget by 2012 and "pay-as-you-go" rules.

Fiscal discipline was all talk.

The AMT, as an issue, has been effectively abused by the Republicans to maintain fiscal irresponsibility. Fear mongering that AMT will impact the middle class is very effective. It is true that the AMT, as construed today, will impact the average middle class family BUT it would have more of an impact on the wealthy. It’s the classic “share the pie” soft-shoe that the Republicans have been singing for awhile … the average middle class gets a piece of the pie, but those making in excess of $85,000 get an even bigger piece. Each year the ATM is not addressed, the borrowing continues forcing the next generations to pay. Equally troubling is that to finance this debt, we borrow from foreigners (individuals and sovereign nations) and at what time will those foreigners stop becoming our lenders ? After years of increased purchasing of US debt, China has now reversed course and has become a net seller of Treasury securities.

This shortsighted and irresponsible fiscal management must stop.

While Gutknecht was disappointing, as an independent voter, I was intrigued by Tim Walz’s campaign pledge of fiscal discipline.

I have not always agreed with all to Congressman Walz’s votes, but his vote on ATM (HR 3996 – the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007) was a vote FOR RESPONSIBLE FISCAL MANAGEMENT.
I couldn’t be happier with Mr. Walz.

As the 2008 election season approaches, the Republican Party’s attack machine has Mr. Walz in its crosshairs. When I read the IR press release , I saw a political sleaze campaign starting. But then when I read Ron Carey's other press release , I saw exaggeration bordering outright falsehoods. The headline “Washington Walz Denies Tax Relief To 20 Million Americans” fails to mention that the legislation passed over the objection of Congressman Walz, so NO ONE was denied tax relief. Carey does not state that the original bill that Walz voted FOR would have actually benefited 466,700 Minnesotans (according to the Citizens for Tax Justice .) Nor does Carey state the $50 billion impact to the national debt.

Carey is a partisan, through and through. This is the mentality that has been advocated by the Tom Delay Republicans believing that political gain comes from sticking with your base, attacking your enemies, and destroying their positions. Party first, country and the future generations be damned.

Reading today’s Star Tribune Dick Day is quoted : "Out of all the people who have represented the district in recent decades, Walz is by far the most liberal."
Hogwash !
Walz’s vote exhibits true fiscal discipline that the First District hasn’t seen since the days when Penny/Weber represented the reconfigured district.

To attract independent voters, the district deserves a viable alternative.
A strong candidate would focuses less on the attacking the opposition and more on the strengths of his own positions, feeling confident that a majority of the district supports that honest position.
Thus far with Day’s obsession with immigration and strong partisan rancor, he has sadly disappointed.
Conversely, a strong independent leader is more focused on governance … that fits Tim Walz.

Why Republicans Love Farm Subsidies but NOT the Farm Bill

At the Republican Presidential Candidates debate, Ted Faturos asked “I'm curious which candidate could label themselves fiscally responsiblee, will endorse the elimination of farm subsidies if they are elected president in 2008.”

Mitt Romney responded “I believe in supports” and Rudy Giuliani added “The governor's right.” Giuliani went on to say “The subsidies in Europe are far higher than they are in the United States. We could reduce subsidies here if they would do it there. But we shouldn't do it on our own.”
{NOTE : For an additional comment on this logic, please see the SIDEBAR below.}

So the two leading Republican candidates professing love for subsidies … but what about the people who really authorize spending – Congress ?

With all the media attention about farm subsidies ( Link -Farm Subsidies Go to Billionaires “Farmers” of New York City , Link - Deceased Farmers Got USDA Payments , Link – How Growers Double their Subsidies , etc.), Congressman Ron Kind tried to address these issues during the House debate. Kind’s proposal would have overhauled the farm bill by ending payments to farmers earning more than $250,000 a year (which was in line with what President Bush proposed), limiting payments farmers can receive under guaranteed loan programs, expanding conservation programs and replacing many subsidies with crop insurance and other protection that pays only if farmers lose money.
Roll Call Vote 747 was voted down by the Republicans 151 – 44 with Minnesotans Bachmann and Kline supporting continuing the subsidies.

Therefore, to an overwhelming majority of Republicans, subsidies are good government. So why hasn’t the Senate moved the bill forward ?

Well, like so many other pieces of legislation, there are a number of competing purposes. So, while Republicans Love Subsidies, there are other parts of the bill that they don’t like – taxes and welfare.
Collin Peterson said at FarmFest "We are spending less than 12 percent on farmers. Over 68 percent of the farm bill is for nutrition, for food stamps and the other feeding programs." {MORE on this in a commentary tomorrow.} Further, the bill would impose taxes on some foreign and multinational corporations operating in the United States that do not now pay taxes on some earnings as a result of international treaties.

There we have the crux of the Farm Bill problem. Republicans Hate Taxes ( I suspect as much as they Love Subsidies) … even closing loopholes to help to pay for the subsidies. Futher, they Hate Welfare (unless its Corporate Welfare which is synomosis with Subsidies.)

There is reason why Congress's approval is so low ... all they want to do is reward potential contributors and not be fiscally responsible in ensuring that our citizen’s receive the essential needs of substance.

SIDEBAR : Romney and Giuliani both complained that foreign governments pay subsidies. Therefore, if America didn’t do also, American farmers would be a competitive disadvantage.
Yet, neither recognize that many of these same governments also provide health care for their citizens … thus the logic would be that American business should not have to provide health care for their employees but instead it should be provided through the government. Don’t US companies that provide health care benefits operate at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors?
Oh, uh … I can see another “subsidy” program in the making.