“Earmarks will come back.”No, you’re not hearing things and that’s not a joke. It was uttered by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. If Reid and his friends get their way, we could see the return of earmarks this year.Speaker John Boehner and Republicans in the United States House of Representatives are keeping their promise to end earmarks. When the speaker says “no earmarks” we believe him. Watch this short video, and keep up to date with Ending Spending by following us on Facebook and Twitter for the latest on what is sure to be a critical fight on Capitol Hill as we continue to battle against earmarks.

It’s official: voters are tired of big government, big spending politicians. And this week’s special election in Florida confirms it.Obamacare is perhaps the biggest new spending programs of the Obama presidency. And it’s the single issue David Jolly use to defeat Democrat Alex Sink. In fact, he made it clear that he is committed to repealing Obamacare entirely.Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, correctly noted: “It’s rare in politics that anything other than a presidential contest is viewed as a must-win, but the special election in Florida’s 13th District falls into that category for Democrats.”And here’s even more frightening news for the big spending Democrats in the Senate. From National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar: “The results are a clear warning sign to Senate Democrats, whose majority is threatened thanks to a Republican-friendly map and a national environment that’s tilted in the GOP’s favor. At least seven Democratic-held Senate seats are being contested in states more conservative than the Florida House battleground.”So it’s official: this weeks’ special election was referendum on Obamacare spending. The voters spoke. And elections have consequences.For more check out James Taranto’s coverage in the WSJ

“The ‘Bipartisan Budget Act’ reminds us why bipartisanship is sometimes a four-letter word. Bipartisanship in DC usually just means that the size of government is growing, and that appears to be true with this compromise as well. We would have preferred that the full amount of the sequester cuts had remained intact. But what do fiscal conservatives expect? Does anyone actually believe a bill negotiated by Paul Ryan and Jeff Sessions wouldn’t be infinitely better than a Patty Murray-Paul Ryan bill? The way to fix that is simple — we must put fiscal conservatives in charge of the Senate — and the way to do that is obvious. First, stop attacking Senators who favor cutting spending, balancing the budget and repealing Obamacare. Second, go on the offense and take the battle to those Democratic Senators who consistently vote for higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government.”

BreitbartThere are a lot of reasons to be upset about the latest bipartisan Congressional responsibility punt – i.e., the CR and debt limit deal.For starters, it is beyond unfortunate that the Senate’s short-term agreement does not include any of the sensible reforms proposed by Republicans – such as a one-year delay of Obamacare or the individual mandate and the provision under which Members of Congress and senior government officials would be subject to the same law they are forcing on the rest of America. The fact that individuals are being mandated to live with Obamacare, while Congress is exempt from the law, is not fair and probably not legal. There are countries on this planet that pass laws that apply only to the people and not to the government – like Russia, North Korea, and Iran – and now the United States.The shortcomings in this agreement are due to the abdication of leadership on the part of the President and Senate Democrats, and fiscal conservatives have no reason to cheer. The debt is now free just to keep growing and growing.However, one provision in the bill that has received extra scrutiny is the so-called “Kentucky Kickback.” Given the catchy name, this is understandable. Because our advocacy group, Ending Spending – which was originally named “Taxpayers Against Earmarks” – had worked so hard to convince the House and Senate to pass the earmark moratorium in 2010, I was especially dismayed by the news.The victory over earmarks was more important than people realized at the time. In fact, just yesterday on Morning Joe, liberal reporter Al Hunt argued that the reason we were in the shutdown mess this month was because of the earmark ban. Hunt longed for the days in the 1990s when leadership would just hand out “free bridges” in exchange for a budget agreement.Al Hunt is both right and wrong. He’s right – because of the earmark ban, it is more difficult to pass legislation that does not enjoy broad public support. But that’s a good thing. Earmarks were the gasoline on the fire of the growth in government, and the earmark ban makes it harder to waste taxpayer dollars.So I decided to look into this business about a possible earmark for Kentucky in the CR – called the Olmsted Lock and Dam project, which is being administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The provision in question, inserted by Senators Feinstein and Alexander, increased the budget authorization up to $2.9 billion – meaning the provision did not actually appropriate any money, it just increased the existing budget authority.Like other anti-earmark groups, we evaluate appropriations earmarks based on a number of different factors, including:

• Was the project requested by the Administration? If it was requested, does the funding greatly exceed the original budget request?
• Was the project requested by only one or a few Members or Senators?
• Was the project the subject of Congressional hearings, review and authorization?
• Does the project serve only a local or special interest?
• Was the funding the subject of a government contracts award competition?

Applying these criteria, it is not even a close call – the Olmsted project was not an earmark, an opinion shared by the respected independent group Taxpayers for Common Sense.For starters, the provision was specifically requested by the Obama Administration. Second, the provision in the bill does NOT appropriate money – but rather is an authorization. This is precisely what anti-earmark advocates want to happen. Any actual dollars expended will have to be appropriated at a later date. Moreover, it has been the subject of other Congressional action. Increased budget authority for the Olmsted project was included in the Water Resources Development Act – which has passed the Senate and passed in committee in the House. Finally, as discussed above, while there certainly will be benefits for Kentucky, completion of the new locks system clearly has benefits for the larger Ohio-Mississippi River area and the nation as a whole.These technical distinctions about what is an earmark, however, don’t solve the question of whether the project is wasteful parochial pork.The Olmsted project is a massive public works project that has been under construction for several years and is only halfway to completion. As with most government programs, it is costing way more than originally estimated – hence the need for Congressional action to increase the amount permitted to be spent on the project. The locks are located near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers in the town of Olmsted, Illinois, and the new dam and locks will help increase the speed and amount of commercial traffic on the busy rivers.The conclusion that the Olmsted project is not an earmark and appears worthy of funding does not mean that Ending Spending endorses the practice of putting extraneous provisions in continuing resolutions – we don’t. CRs should be as narrow and possible. For that matter, we don’t even like CRs to begin with. That the Olmsted project was included in the CR is further evidence that Congress is dysfunctional and we need to return to regular order where legislation is prepared and passed in a timely fashion. As usual, the process that led to this CR was terrible, and no one should be surprised at the result.Brian Baker is the President of Ending Spending.Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/18/The-Earmark-That-Wasnt

It is very unfortunate that the Senate’s short-term agreement does not include any of the sensible reforms proposed by Republicans – such as a one-year delay of Obamacare or the individual mandate and the fairness and equality provisions under which Members of Congress and senior government officials would be required to live under the same laws they are forcing on the rest of America. The fact that Obamacare is going forward but yet those who foisted this sham on our country don’t have to live with it is a travesty worthy only of a dictatorship or a banana republic.The shortcomings in the CR and debt limit bill are directly due to the absolute abdication of leadership on the part of a President who refused to negotiate with Congress on solutions to our country’s most pressing problems. We are also in this mess because Democrats voted to keep spending money we don’t have and protect their special privileges. Meanwhile, I applaud the many Republicans in Congress who, throughout the past month, have proposed several fair and responsible solutions to re-open the government and lift the debt limit. We must also recognize that fiscal conservatives are faced with a difficult vote on this bill because we failed to unite around a strategy to achieve our goal of limiting the harmful effects of Obamacare and replacing it with market-based, common-sense health insurance reforms that will actually work.On the bright side, given the scheduling deadlines inherent in the Senate’s short-term agreement, Congressional Republicans can now finally engage Democrats and all Americans in an important national discussion on our deficit and debit crisis, and we look forward to a productive and spirited debate. In order for this debate to be productive, we need to cut out the dysfunctional behavior of the President and Democratic Congressional leaders and address the simple fact that we spend too much and borrow too much.

I am proud to report that Ending Spending, and our sister organization Ending Spending Action Fund, as well as the folks who help further our mission, recently have received several awards.Ending Spending was a big winner at the annual dinner of the bi-partisan meeting of the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) “Pollies” Awards dinner. Here a just a few of the awards our team received:

• Ending Spending Action Fund was recognized with a bronze “Best In Show” award for our independent expenditures in support of the Romney/Ryan ticket;
• Additionally, our friends at American Media Advocacy Group won the gold trophy for print media ad for the custom, 12-page newspaper insert (known as the “Mitt-Zine”), while the media team at Victory Film Group won a silver for best television ad for the “Why I Changed My Vote” ad. Meanwhile, our online agency Campaign Solutions won numerous awards for the digital engagement efforts.
• The creative teams behind Ending Spending’s “Cops” parody and ESAF’s radio ads in the Ohio Senate race were recognized for “Best Use of Humor.”

At a dinner last night in Washington, D.C., Ending Spending was named a finalist (one of three) for the Weyrich Awards in the category of “Outstanding New Organization of the Year.” Four candidates endorsed by Ending Spending were elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012: Senators Cruz, Fischer, Flake and McCaskill. I was honored to receive the award on behalf of the entire Ending Spending team, all of whom should be proud of our efforts last year.The annual Weyrich Awards are given in honor of conservative icon Paul Weyrich, who served as the first president of the Heritage Foundation and who later founded the American Legislative Exchange Council. Weyrich passed away in 2008. According to the Weyrich Awards Dinner website, the awards are meant to recognize “those who have made a major contribution to advancing the cause of liberty through organizations and media and whose work reflects beliefs, principles and convictions that are harmonious with Paul’s own values.” Former Sen. Jim DeMint, the new President of the Heritage Foundation, was the honorary chairman of the dinner.At the dinner, attended by Senators Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz — each of whom Ending Spending was proud to endorse in their campaigns for office — former Reagan Administration Attorney General Ed Meese was given a special “conservative hall of fame award.” Additionally, Sen. Cruz delivered an important keynote address on the need for leaders to “stand on principle.”Read more here and here.

* Written with Ned Ryun, RedState

As the eyes of the nation turn to key state races in 2013 – New Jersey and Virginia – the issues of fiscal responsibility and economic growth will be a yardstick for how voters measure candidates. This year, Virginia will play a critical role in the ongoing national discussion of how we reverse the massive growth of the federal government and begin to solve the problem of out-of-control government spending.

One thing is certain: we need strong, principled, innovative new leaders not only in Washington, but also in our state capitals—leaders who will attack fiscal problems head-on by reforming faulty tax codes and broken spending mechanisms, not just nibble around the edges. We need leaders who will take the fight directly to the political establishment and disrupt the ruling class which has failed our country so badly.

In 2012, American Majority Action and Ending Spending – non-partisan advocacy groups dedicated to reducing excessive government spending and waste, and restoring responsible spending practices in government – went to great lengths to support Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch in Wisconsin. As we said during the Wisconsin recall elections, “courage” was on the ballot.

For voters in 2013, the only real game in the country is in Virginia – and we’ve decided to team up again to help a brave and bold ticket win. Ending Spending and American Majority Action whole-heartedly endorsed Attorney General and GOP nominee Ken Cuccinelli for Governor. As regular Red Staters know, Cuccinelli is a champion for American families, small businesses and other liberty-minded people. Cuccinelli led the effort against Obamacare, and is one elected official who truly understands the importance of organizing and mobilizing the grassroots. But we’re not stopping there.

Given the tie in the Virginia State Senate – where current Lieutenant Governor Bolling at times votes with Democrats to stop practical reforms pushed by Governor McDonnell – future Governor Cuccinelli will need a courageous Lt. Governor. We think we’ve found what amounts to a great draft pick—in Virginia entrepreneur Pete Snyder, part of the important next generation of leaders who will get us back on the path of fiscal responsibility. A technology executive who pioneered the industry of social media marketing, Pete is making his first run for office, seeking the position of Lieutenant Governor in Virginia.

In a crowded field for the Republican nomination, Pete Snyder is the lone stand-out. Pete is a rare breed: he’s not another career politician—he’s an innovator and job creator, who has also supported smart policies and the right candidates for nearly twenty years, including as Governor McDonnell’s choice to run the Virginia grassroots effort in 2012. Pete’s experience growing jobs in the private sector makes him the best qualified candidate to be Virginia’s next Lieutenant Governor.

Pete is the real deal—and he’s proving it every day by running a campaign that is challenging the status quo. In the past few weeks, Snyder, a former college wrestler, showed that he’s unafraid to call the political class and career politicians out on the mat for their failures. Snyder took Virginia’s liberal Senate Democrat Leader to task for holding citizens hostage to insider political games. (Angered at being outmaneuvered by Senate Republicans, the top Senate Dem declared that he would retaliate by blocking critical work during the current legislative session). Snyder’s leadership earned him the ire of Richmond liberals, who angrily attacked him as “some nut job.”

The Virginian-Pilot correctly notes that Snyder’s show of leadership is “a score” for his campaign, demonstrating “to the Senate Republican Caucus he hopes to preside over next year that he’ll give them political cover when needed.” In other words, Snyder is going to stand strong on his common sense principles, and help others in Richmond do the same—and that is precisely what Virginia (not to mention every state in our country) needs right now. We agree with Erick and believe strongly that Pete is the best candidate to run alongside and complement Cuccinelli.

Ken and Pete’s demonstrated records as principled, effective leaders make them a great team to lead Virginia. We hope you will join us in supporting these candidates, and encourage you to join learn how to become delegates for both Ken and Pete at the Republican Party of Virginia’s nominating convention this May.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “77 percent of American households will face higher federal taxes in 2013 under the agreement negotiated between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans” over the New Year holiday.

As a result, the government will bring in over $620 billion in new revenue, over ten years – or approximately $62 billion per year.

However, the deal also provided for over $300 billion in new spending over the next ten years, adding an additional $4 trillion dollars to the deficit in the same time period.

Given that the federal deficit in 2012 was $1.1 trillion, simple arithmetic shows that the fiscal cliff deal goes a long way from even making a dent in our nation’s long-term debt problem.

The mission of Ending Spending in 2013 will be advocating for large-scale solutions that put America back on a path to prosperity. In the coming months, we’re looking forward to a serious conversation about just how we get there.

Stay tuned.

“The president’s stimulus plan was sold as a magic elixir that would lower the unemployment rate to 5.6 percent. Instead, Americans know it has remained stubbornly above 8 percent for over 40 straight months. They have seen their net worth decline some 40 percent as deficits reached record levels and debt as a percent of GDP grew alarmingly.”

That’s the indictment from Nancy Pfotenhauer, the former RNC Chief Economist who delivered a blistering blow to the President’s economic policy last month over at U.S. News and World Report.

The most potent piece of data brandished by Pfotenhauer is, without a doubt, the 40% decline in family net worth since Obama assumed office. While arguments over spending can sometimes be a bit esoteric, American families are worth 40% less now than they were four years ago, and that’s pretty real.

Much of the argument over the Obama economic agenda surrounds treatment of the stimulus which, even by the President’s own devices, was a gross failure. Consider this 2009 projection from the President’s Economic Council on the impact the stimulus would have on unemployment. Even without the stimulus, the administration projected less than 7% unemployment by 2012 (with the stimulus, they reached for the stars at just over 5%). Unemployment has now been over 8% for a record 40 straight months. By the Obama Administration’s own standard, they have failed.