Rep. John Culberson and facts on the CRomnibus

Comments

1. Marc Young says

   December 21, 2014 at 7:28 am

   While the bill offered may have been able to garner some modest cuts in appropriations, it suffered from an extreme limitation in vision and understanding in how the politics of socialism are being progressed. Venezuela is a prime example. We are at war with a philosophy of entitlement and big government support that must be opposed, not with a small ball type of game plan but an aggressive winner take all opposition to continued erosion of the rights, checks and balances guaranteed by our constitution. We must always stand with our backs to a wall, A wall of jealously guarding those rights so they are not just allowed to be eroded away through illegal executive action, regulatory action by an out of control bureaucracy that has been hijacked by those totally opposed to our capitalistic system. The bill allows for 9 months of continued erosion of those rights with absolutely no way to stop those actions. The mandate that was given to the new 114th Congress has already been handicapped by this 113th Congress. There was no rush to agree. Yes the government could have been shutdown. But that was the mistake of the last CR that set this time bomb in place to be decided in a lame duck session. What would have been the penalty of holding to a high standard of protecting our rights, defunding the illegal activities entirely of the EPA, IRS, and putting restriction on the funding of the DHS? If the President vetoed such action he would be the one shutting down the government, and yet, he would have had the knowledge that his prospects would have been worse after the 114th Congress is seated. This was the leverage that the founding fathers gave Congress in the making of the constitution. The leaders of this Congress have developed a myopic vision that has been promoted by the losing left that somehow the mandate they have is to show that they can lead. They believe that somehow translates into working with the enemy. Those that want to take away our rights and surrendering to the President and allowing his illegal agenda to be continued unobstructed, the lame dusk Congress has surrendered our rights and permanently damaged our Constitution, Their leaders have lost their moral compass and proved they are incapable of protecting our rights. The next election cycle where any such lost souls must be replaced in the front lines is too far off. We must immediately let these wavering souls know that we will jealously defend our rights but we need them to buck up and understand the strategy. They are trying a losing strategy just as was done by the English, French and Europe in the pre World War II. If continued it will come to the same end. Be warned, those that fail to study history are destined to repeat it.

2. Ken Hawley says

   December 21, 2014 at 10:27 am

   “Too many people are getting duped by talk radio entertainment hosts into believing that the “establishment” has “sold out” the conservative base.”

   This notion embodies pretty much everthing that is wrong with Mr. Culberson’s attitude and yours. It says, essentially, that we, “the little people who are duped” should be grateful to the big government GOP “conservatives” for the little Phil Gramm babysteps they make.

   Incremental action is not going to get the job done. The other side has been working the ratchet for 100 years. Cutting a few percent here and there is not the answer. What was worse in Mr. Culberson’s email to his constituents, was that he was STILL bragging about the pork he was bringing home. Talk about clueless…

   As I said to Mr. Culberson in an email to his office … thanks for making me feel like a chump for voting for you. Apparently, given the unprecedented PR effort, including your post, others feel the same.

   • david jennings says

     December 22, 2014 at 11:23 am

     Ken Hawley,

     The only way that the government is going to change is by doing exactly what the Republicans accomplished with the CRomnibus – making incremental changes. No one, especially me, said that it was perfect. But it did move the ball in our direction.

     You can talk about purity and platitudes all day long and you won’t get a thing done. These guys are getting things done.

     It’s fine to criticize them for not doing x or y but it is also okay to thank them when they do good things.

     DJ

     • Wade Miller says

       December 28, 2014 at 2:28 am

       This is not an incremental improvement. The debt burden from this bill carried out adds up to trillions, assuming Obama’s amnesty isn’t dealt with. There were no net gains from this bill.

     • Wade Miller says

       December 28, 2014 at 2:30 am

       “Getting things done”, thank them for doing “good things”??? Is this a joke? The only significant achievements by the GOP the last 4 years has been the 70 or so conservatives blocking the moderates from caving in more often to Obama and Reid’s demands. We’d have significantly more spending and bigger government had conservatives not stopped the moderates from comprising away our nation legislatively.

3. Jim says

   December 22, 2014 at 8:35 pm

   All of the “positives’ listed here are far too small, and they are outweighed by the fact that Obamacare is not being stopped. Every month that an unconstitutional entitlement program continues, it becomes less likely to be stopped. This was the time to stop Obamacare. If the democrats stopped such a bill, then the govt would be shut down–that is the dream of a conservative like me. Remember, most Texans want the federal govt completely ended (so a partial shutdown should be wonderful!).

   • Ross says

     December 22, 2014 at 9:35 pm

     So, Jim, what would; you replace the ACA with? Or are you in favor of the poor just being left to die because they are poor? What would you tell a 58 year old whose company goes bankrupt, he loses his insurance and has a chronic medical condition that would make insurance prohibitively expensive? The ACA isn’t perfect, but it’s a damn sight better than anything the Republicans have come up with. Like my Dad says, Republicans seem to hate other people, and couldn’t care less whether anyone who is poor, brown, or disadvantaged dies.

     • Bill Miller says

       December 23, 2014 at 9:18 am

       “What would you tell a 58 year old whose company goes bankrupt, he loses his insurance…”

       You’re starting in the middle of the story. Do you know why medical insurance is tied to one’s job in the first place? Employer-sponsored health insurance plans are a direct result of wage controls imposed by the federal government during World War II. So apparently we need more government mandates to fix problems created by previous government mandates.

       A 58 year old with a chronic medical condition seeking to buy an insurance policy is like a home owner whose house is on fire seeking to buy a fire insurance policy. Insurance is not supposed to be for normal expenses in the ordinary course of events, such as multivitamins, house painting or oil changes. Insurance is for unexpected catastrophes: fires, accidents, cancer. Perhaps your hypothetical 58 year old could afford insurance were he not required by government mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments, birth control pills, and unlimited OB/GYN visits, among other things.

       Furthermore, your 58 year old man has had at least 30 years to save and invest for a rainy day. Everyone knows that we grow old. Everyone knows that just because you have a job today doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll have a job tomorrow (unless you work for the government). So how did this guy’s lack of planning become *my* problem?

       Let’s talk about the facts. In 2009 fewer that 10{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of people over 55 were uninsured. So Ross wants a government takeover of the healthcare sector because of this 10{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}?

       • Fat Albert says

         December 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm

         To add to Bill Miller’s comments – one of the things that has always frustrated me is the fact that a business get to deduct all of the money they spend on you health insurance. BUT, if you buy your own insurance, it’s not deductible at all!

         A major part of the solution would simply be to remove employers from the whole health insurance conversation. Another part of the solution would be to eliminate the stupid restriction of having to buy insurance only from a company inside your state. I’m all for states rights, But this restriction only works to curtain competition and drive up prices.

4. Wade Miller says

   December 28, 2014 at 2:23 am

   Many people are using false arguments to defend support of the CRomnibus bill. These are specific responses to those arguments. If your member voted correctly and isn’t using these excuses, find a friend or family member who lives in a district where these excuses are being used and share this with them.

   Status: Last week, Congress voted to pass the $1.1 trillion cromnibus bill (by 219-206 in the House and 56-40 in the Senate). House Republican Leadership, working closely with the White House, managed to gain enough support for this enormous spending package that does nothing at all to combat the President’s unlawful amnesty actions. In the aftermath of final passage, many are seeking political cover for their bad vote by putting forth a series of false narratives.

   CLAIM: The cromnibus is fiscally responsible and adheres to current spending caps.

   >> The cromnibus makes use of budget gimmicks to adhere to the current spending caps. For instance, the bill uses the “emergency spending” loophole, providing $5.7 billion in disaster spending (only $321 million of which to actually be spent this fiscal year), and another $5.4 billion (only $1.5 billion to actually be spent this year) in emergency spending for Ebola response and preparedness. Emergency spending is exempt from the caps. There are also dozens of examples of funding increases that reflect liberal, biggovernment priorities and a host of objectionable policy riders. Furthermore, these spending increases lock in the inflated Ryan-Murray spending levels that were raised earlier this Congress to allow for greater spending.

   CLAIM: The President’s amnesty actions are not in the form of an Executive Order, therefore Congress cannot defund them.

   >> This is not true. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has issued an official Directive to implement the President’s new policy, instructing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and several other agencies to ignore the law. The services of these agencies are under the control of congressional appropriations. The House is completely empowered to restrict DHS’s amnesty initiatives; it simply chose not to last week. As Heritage Foundation’s Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovksy explained: For any who doubt that the administration is moving ahead with the president’s policy, DHS is already working on hiring 1,000 new full-time employees at an “operational center” in Virginia to process applications and issue work permits to the 4-5 million illegal aliens who qualify – and “many of the openings were posted the day after” Obama’s speech. So Congress needs to act immediately if it wants to prevent DHS from using any funds that have already been appropriated to implement the president’s plan.

   CLAIM: The cromnibus stopped the President from implementing executive amnesty.

   >> This is a lie. This is precisely what the bill did not do. While DHS is only funded through February 27th in the cromnibus, there was no rider attached to prevent the President from granting unilateral, unlawful amnesty. USCIS has no restraints placed on it by this cromnibus and is growing its capacity exponentially to begin the process of granting quasi-legal status to illegal immigrants. Executive amnesty is being enacted now. Congress has done nothing to stop it.

   CLAIM: This bill cancels “Race to the Top” funding, slashing the mechanism for Common Core funding at the federal level.

   >> The “Race to the Top” initiative has not been funded since its inception in the 2009 stimulus package. Preventing additional funding for another year is not a conservative victory and is certainly not a dismantling of the federal push for Common Core standards. The cromnibus funds the Department of Education apparatus pushing to further nationalize our education system.

   CLAIM: This bill contains “no new funding” for Obamacare.

   >> At no point in the cromnibus debate was the possibility of “new funding” for the President’s disastrous health care law on the table. This claim attempts to rescue constituents from a nonexistent threat. Furthermore, the measure of a conservative victory in the Obamacare debate is not how much “new funding” a member is able to prevent, but what serious step he or she can take toward defunding and repealing the law completely.

   CLAIM: The cuts to Obamacare were strong enough to merit support of this bill.

   >> In reality, the cromnibus makes very few—and no significant—changes to parts of Obamacare. While the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) sees a $10 million cut in funding, this board is not even currently operating and is not expected to be needed until a few years—and a few more appropriations bills—from now. The board has not yet received a single appointment. These members are celebrating a miniscule reduction for a team of bureaucrats that does not yet exist. Another provision of the spending bill reins in the risk corridor payments. However, this change only prevents the use of appropriated funds from going to compensate for insurers’ losses; it may still be possible for the Obama administration to transfer funds from other user fees to make excess payments to insurers. Congress will need diligent oversight to ensure this does not happen. Furthermore, this merely codifies the administration’s stated intention. So, while formally preventing the administration from playing games with bailout funding, it may have no practical effect. As Heritage Foundation Health Policy Research Associate Alyene Senger explained: These changes do not go far enough and should not be a distraction from the larger spending provisions that are operating on autopilot: the Medicaid expansion and the government exchanges subsidies.

   CLAIM: This bill makes serious strides in the pro-life fight and includes the Hyde Amendment barring use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions.

   >> The pro-life community can hardly claim a win. The cromnibus continues to commingle our tax dollars with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which has been linked to some inhumane practices in China, including family planning through forced abortions and involuntary sterilization. Tax dollars are also going to fund insurance coverage of abortion. As Heritage Foundation Policy Analyst Sarah Torre explains:

   “[F]ederal taxpayers in all 50 states are footing the bill for subsidies for the purchase of health plans on Obamacare exchanges that cover elective abortion. During the last enrollment period, more than 1,000 Obamacare exchange plans included coverage of elective abortion while remaining eligible for tax subsidies.”

   The Hyde Amendment, while indispensable to the pro-life fight, has been routinely attached to appropriations bills since 1976 (even during periods of Democratic control of Congress). Its inclusion in this bill represents the continuation of the bare minimum defense of pro-life values. Moreover, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins notes the cromnibus is “missing a very crucial piece: the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA). That means Californians, who were hoping for some relief from their state’s order that all health care plans cover abortion, will leave 2014 somewhat emptyhanded.”

   CLAIM: The cuts to the IRS and EPA were enough to merit support.

   >> This defense clings to a roughly $300 million reduction from current IRS funding levels. It makes no mention of the $11 billion the cromnibus provides to this agency. Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency receives $8.1 billion, $250 million more than the Obama administration requested. It also shouldn’t go unnoticed the massive new coal regulations the EPA dropped on Christmas Eve.

   CLAIM: Overall, this bill contained enough worthy provisions to warrant support.

   >> Many supporters are using the lump-sum argument that this package advanced conservative interests to the point that they had to vote for it. As a general rule, mega-spending bills are the enemy of conservative governing. Recent congressional history has demonstrated that even in the absence of an executive immigration standoff, these bills inflate government, increase spending and act as a magnet for the pet projects of individual members. The 2013 Ryan-Murray budget, for instance, busted the sequester spending caps and helped revive the then-dormant Obama agenda. This bill is no better, employing a variety of budget gimmicks to allow legislators to claim “savings” and “reductions” and providing broad funding for the administration to carry out its final agenda items through executive fiats (which, we now know for sure, will only be increasingly bold and unconstitutional). With each headline “victory” of this bill either debunked or exposed as a gross exaggeration, it is difficult to see this claim as anything more than a desperate defense for agreeing to fund the President’s unlawful amnesty at the behest of GOP leadership.

   CLAIM: You cannot defund Obama’s amnesty because USCIS is funded through user fees.

   >> This is just bluntly a false claim. The CRS and GAO have both issued memos stating that you can defund agencies that are funded through user fees. Additionally, the 2014 appropriations bill signed into law by both chambers and the President, under Title V, Section 505 specifically makes this clear by directing how and on what user fees can be spent on. The same type of language was included in the appropriations bill that came out of committee in this years appropriations bill. Congress can create and control any type of revenue stream, including those from user fees.

   CLAIM: Obama’s amnesty would continue to be funded during a shutdown so there is no point to try to defund his amnesty.

   >> This is a smoke and mirrors claim to confuse people. The point of defunding Obama’s amnesty isn’t to stop it during a shutdown. It’s also worth pointing out that if you don’t defund Obama’s amnesty, it will also continue to happen. This argument from some members makes no sense. The whole point of using an appropriations bill to defund Obama’s amnesty is to stand our ground and make it clear to the President that he has no choice but to sign the bill into law. With the leverage of a must pass bill, and a Republican Party that confidently paints in bold colors by standing on principle and by actually putting forward a serious effort to sell those actions to the American people, a bill defunding Obama’s amnesty would become law and at that point Obama’s amnesty would be halted. Those who to to distract us by focussing only on whether it would be defunded during a government shutdown are most likely those willing to give Obama a blank check to continue funding his amnesty, as we have seen just today with a Hill story about millions being spent to put in place Obama’s amnesty.

   Call to Action: Members of Congress must be held accountable for their decision to give the President a blank check to carry out his executive amnesty actions. The cromnibus sets up another opportunity to defund these policies in the new year. Only through continued accountability efforts and a sustained focus on the fight on the horizon will the Republican Party be encouraged to stand up to the President’s lawlessness.

5. loren smith says

   December 29, 2014 at 12:55 pm

   Hey Wade, if you are going to bloviate, at least give a link. Here’s yours
   http://ateaparty.net/ATP/cromnibus-claims-and-realities/
   Your disingenuousness belies your depth of knowledge.

6. loren smith says

   December 29, 2014 at 1:36 pm

   I thought; He must be an educated aviator
   His thoughts are way above it
   Turns out he’s a cloven hoofed bloviator
   Wallowing in his own…pit