U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a leading fiscal conservative, today joined every Senate Republican in advocating for a Balanced Budget Amendment that would reign in federal government spending.

“A long time ago, while I served in the Oklahoma State legislature, I received a call from then-U.S. Senator Carl Curtis from Nebraska,” Inhofe said.  “He had been trying to get a Balanced Budget Amendment way back then, but the liberals in Washington wouldn’t go along with it.  So, he was calling me to help him get state legislatures, like Oklahoma, to pre-ratify an amendment.  That was my first involvement with a Balanced Budget Amendment, and I have been fighting for it ever since.

“Today, our country is in a terrible fiscal situation.  We’re spending money we don’t have while bankrupting our country’s future.  President Obama and the Democrats want to increase taxes.  Republicans want to have a balanced budget.  That is a clear and simple choice.  

“In the first two years of the Obama administration, he and congressional Democrats ran up deficits of $3 trillion, including the $814 billion stimulus that failed to stimulate.  Our $14 trillion debt is weighing down our economy.  Now is the time to get the Balanced Budget Amendment done.”  

Balanced Budget Amendment Supported By All GOP Senators:
Prior to each fiscal year, the President must transmit to Congress a balanced budget that limits outlays to 18 percent of GDP.
With the following limited exceptions, Congress must pass a balanced budget:
•    Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific deficit for a fiscal year.
•    Requires a majority of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a declared war.
•    Requires 3/5 of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” and the deficit must be limited to “outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict.”

With the following limited exceptions, Congress must limit outlays to 18 percent of GDP:

•    Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year.
•    Requires a majority of Congress for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year during a declared war.
•    Requires 3/5 of Congress for a specific excess above 18 percent for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” and the excess be limited to “outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict.”

Establishes new supermajority requirement for net tax and rate increases:
•    Requires 2/3 of both Houses for any bill “that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue.”
o    Excludes increases in revenue resulting from tax cuts.

Establishes new supermajority requirement for an increase in the debt limit:
•    Requires 3/5 of both Houses to increase the debt limit.
•    Requires a majority of Congress for a fiscal year during a declared war.

Provides for congressional enforcement and the use of estimates.

Prohibits courts from ordering revenue increases to enforce.

Becomes effective the fifth fiscal year after ratification.

A resolution put forward by U.S. Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jim Webb (D-VA), the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, unanimously passed the Senate last night deploring the use of force by China in the South China Sea.  The resolution also calls for a peaceful, multilateral resolution to maritime territorial disputes in Southeast Asia.

On June 9, three Chinese maritime security vessels ran into and disabled the cables of a Vietnamese exploration ship, the Viking 2, in an area within 200 miles of Vietnam’s continental shelf and recognized under international law to be within Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone. This followed similar incidents on May 26 near Vietnam and in March near the Philippines, as well as incidents at sea last year in the Senkaku Islands, which are under the legal administration of Japan.  

Following international condemnation of the June 9 incident, China deployed its largest maritime security ship to the South China Sea. Several other countries in the region have also deployed military vessels to the area.

“Over the past twelve months, China has been carrying out calculated acts of naval harassment in the South China Sea,” Inhofe said.  “Seeing this negative trend which threatens the freedom of navigation as well as the national security interests of the United States and its allies in the region, we introduced this Senate resolution.  China needs a clear message that their continued harassment will no longer be tolerated.  I am pleased that the U.S. Senate sent that clear message in a unified manner.  It lets Communist China know they must halt their aggressive behavior and return to the pledge made in 2002 to resolve this dispute peacefully.”

“A growing number of nations around the South China Sea are now voicing serious concerns about China’s pattern of intimidation. These nations include Vietnam and the Philippines, as well as countries such as Singapore that do not have a stake in the territorial disputes,” said Webb. “This is a significant development toward fostering a multilateral approach to resolve these territorial disputes in a peaceful manner, respecting the sovereignty of all claimants.”

“The United States has a clear strategic interest in facilitating such a multilateral approach, ensuring open access to international waters and air space, and promoting adherence to international law,” said Webb.

The resolution passed by the Senate:
     (1) reaffirms the strong support of the United States for the peaceful resolution of maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and pledges continued efforts to facilitate a multilateral, peaceful process to resolve these disputes;
     (2) deplores the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from China in the South China Sea;
     (3) calls on all parties to the territorial dispute to refrain from threatening force or using force to assert territorial claims; and
     (4) supports the continuation of operations by the United States Armed Forces in support of freedom of navigation rights in international waters and air space in the South China Sea.

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) this week introduced the Enumerated Powers Act of 2011.  This bill gives members of Congress new procedural tools to stop unconstitutional legislation. Dr. Coburn introduced the bill along with 24 cosponsors.   

“America is facing a debt crisis in large part because we have abandoned the Constitution’s limitations on congressional power.  We have more government than ever but less freedom, less prosperity and less hope for the future.  However, I’m confident in the American people’s ability to correct our course.  Reconnecting Congress with its limited and enumerated powers is a necessary part of that correction.  A government that is affordable looks much more like one that is constitutional than most politicians care to admit,” Dr. Coburn said.

The Enumerated Powers Act of 2011 does the following:

1)  Allows a point of order to be raised in either House of Congress for bills that fail to cite constitutional authority.
 
2)  Prohibits the use of the Commerce Clause, except for “the regulation of the buying and selling of goods or services, or the transporting for those purposes, across boundaries with foreign nations, across State lines, or with Indian tribes…”

3)  Requires each Act of Congress, bill, resolution, conference report and amendment to “contain a concise explanation of the specific authority in the Constitution” that is the basis for its enactment.

4)  States any legislation that abolishes a Federal activity, spending or overall power may cite the 9th or 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

The bill also explains that merely stating a portion of Clause 1, the Enumerated Spending Clause, such as the Common Defense Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said this about the “blank check” philosophy of government that dominates the modern Congress: ‘With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of [enumerated] powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” 

Analysis:  The question quickly comes to mind, "Is President Barack Hussein Obama stupid or evil" as he has now directed his administration to assert that bombs are not hostile.  His actions by this assertion could be interpreted as one of two positional statements:  “The Constitution I swore to uphold is meaningless and my oath worthless" or "My idiotic ideology trumps all law, honesty, and justice on the planet.”

At issue is a bi-partisan lawsuit that congressional members filed this week against the White House.  President Obama’s administration’s answer claims the War Powers Act does not apply to U.S. action in Libya.

By calculation of time in action, Mr. Obama has violated the War Powers Resolution that has guided the nation since Vietnam as of May 20, 2011 in Libya.  However, the administration asserts the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.  

All this comes after the administration took great pains to explain publicly that action was only begun after approval of the United Nations and the Arab League, but without approval of the U.S. Congress.  Apparently, these two groups supersede American law in the engagement of American military forces – when our children may die.

However, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an Oct. 14, 2007 interview with ABC News said, “…(A)ny president, if we are attacked, if our country is attacked, has even under the War Powers Act very strong powers to go after that country. But short of that, he must come to the Congress.”

According to press reports, Harold Koh, a State Department legal adviser said, “We are acting lawfully.”  Koh expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The administration claims that the U.S. has not been involved in “hostilities” since NATO took the helm on April 7.  According to the White House, America is merely providing a “supporting role.”  Since troops are not in harm’s way on the ground, they say there is “little risk” posed to U.S. forces. The New York Times wrote:

The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities.  But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.

The key issue here is the meaning of “hostilities,” as there does not seem to be a clear definition on the books. Furthermore, the administration discusses NATO as though the U.S. is not an integral part of the military alliance.  In reality, the country’s relationship in the allegiance means that America is, to a degree, still heading operations in Libya.

Apparently, Mr. Obama never visited the Pearl Harbor Memorial in his native Hawaii.  Maybe he was too busy listening on the lap of his mentor Frank Marshal Davis, a prominent Communist, to effort such a visit to the Memorial during his youth.  The watery graves of the USS Oklahoma tell a different story. 

Update:

Congressmen on both sides of the isle are not happy.  "We have got drone attacks under way, we’re spending $10 million a day," House Speaker John Boehner told reporters according to the Associated Press. "We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Gadhafi’s compound. It doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities."

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed saying, "Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me."

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., called the claims "really totally bizarre." Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said telling Congress and Americans "that this is not a war insults our intelligence. I won’t stand for it and neither will my constituents."

Updated:  Koch Industries issued a letter Monday in support of Dr. Coburn’s amendment to end the ethanol tax earmark and tariff which Senator Coburn then released to the press.  The amendment may be voted on in Congress today, Tuesday June 14.  The letter is reproduced in full at the end of this story.

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released a statement Friday regarding the Senate’s plan to vote this coming Tuesday on his amendment (#436) to repeal the ethanol tax earmark and tariff.  Dr. Coburn’s amendment is identical to legislation (S. 871) he has introduced with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to end the ethanol tax earmark and tariff.  If enacted, Dr. Coburn’s amendment would save $3 billion for the remainder of this year and $6 billion annually.  “The days of placing spending programs in the tax code and giving them holy status are over,” Dr. Coburn said. 

“Economic conservatives and leading free-market groups like the Club for Growth understand that using the tax code to pick winners and losers kills economic growth and job creation. 

"Today’s way of doing business is a tax increase on anyone who can’t hire a tax lobbyist or make large donations to special interest groups in Washington.  Taxpayers are tired of this game and expect us to eliminate wasteful special interest spending in all of its forms.

“Eliminating the ethanol tax earmark and tariff would be a big step toward restoring fiscal sanity in Washington.  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment on Tuesday.  Ethanol is bad economic policy, bad energy policy and bad environmental policy,” Dr. Coburn said.

Additional background on the amendment is here, including a letter of support from dozens of organizations on the left and right.

The Club for Growth’s statement regarding its decision to Key Vote the Coburn amendment is here.

Dr. Coburn has previously sent this letter to Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist urging ATR to end its inappropriate defense of tax earmarks. 

Koch Industries letter of support:

Senator Tom Coburn
172 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Coburn,

Koch Industries has opposed federal mandates and subsidies for decades. Our aim is to create a free market where consumers decide winners and losers based on which products they decide to buy, instead of government picking winners and losers based on which friends or products it chooses to subsidize.

One such government intervention is the tax credit that provides about $6 billion each year to blenders of ethanol. Lawmakers in the Senate could take a sensible step by approving an amendment sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK.) that would eliminate this credit. We hold this position despite the fact that we benefit from these tax credits.

We oppose ethanol subsidies because they distort economic signals about price and demand and create inefficiencies that divert resources from productive activities to politically favored ones. We have also opposed subsidies for natural gas vehicles and other biofuels for these same reasons.

Still, our company now produces and blends ethanol, because while we would prefer that there be no government mandates or subsidies, once such laws are in place we will comply with them. We will not place our company or our employees at a competitive disadvantage in the mixed-market economy in which we compete.

Our government and public affairs activities are based on principles of economic freedom and property rights that are core values recognized and held by the majority of Americans. Koch will continue to lobby for the repeal of energy subsidies and mandates. We will work to transform the current, mixed-market economy into a true free-market economy.

Sincerely,
Philip Ellender
President and COO Public Affairs
Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC