Only one Democrat senator voted to limit future IMF bailouts for Europe

Sen. Jim Demint
Sen. Jim Demint

First, a quick re-cap on Jim Demint’s Amendment 501, which would have prevented the IMF from using $108 billion of American money to bail out foreign nations.

Excerpt:

The Senate on Wednesday defeated an amendment in a 44-55 vote that would have prevented the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from using $108 billion in U.S. monies to bail out foreign nations.

The author of the amendment, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), said he is concerned that the IMF is using U.S. funds to rescue irresponsible nations and banks. He said the U.S. can no longer afford to offer such aid.

“There is no excuse for us giving away money around the world when we cannot even keep our promises here in America today, promises we have made to our seniors, promises we have made to our veterans,” said DeMint.

Now, Jim explains in the Wall Street Journal why 55 Democrat senators shouldn’t have voted against it.

Excerpt:

If the United States wants to help Europe find a way out of its current debt crisis, we must be a strong, world economic leader, not merely the lender of last resort.

American taxpayers sent $40 billion to Greece last year, through the International Monetary Fund, to stave off an economic collapse. But the bailout did not prevent Greece’s day of fiscal reckoning. It only delayed it. Austerity measures are still needed throughout Europe’s socialized economy and the debt contagion has not been stopped. Financial chaos has spread from Greece to Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain, and it now threatens the very future of the 17-member euro zone.

Undeterred, President Obama last month told the press after breaking from a closed-door meeting with European leaders, “the United States stands ready to do our part to help them resolve this issue.” He would do better to focus his attention stateside. The most dangerous threat to the U.S. economy is not across the pond. It’s in the swampland of Washington, D.C.

[…]Greece’s economy reached its tipping point and was bailed out when government debt topped 137% of its gross domestic product. Despite all the measures that have been taken to aid it, Greece’s debt-to-GDP-ratio is even higher now, at 160%. Ireland was bailed out at 74% of GDP and is now at 80%. Portugal was bailed out at 94% of GDP and is now expected to top 100%. The bailouts have arguably made the European debt crisis worse, not better.

Total U.S. debt, including entitlement liabilities, reached 100% of GDP when Congress increased the debt ceiling in August. Our $15 trillion debt now rivals the size of the entire U.S. economy.

When he first took office, President Obama promised to cut the federal deficit in half by 2013. But instead he’s increased it by more than $4 trillion. Indeed, under his direction, the U.S. government spent about $1 trillion on a Keynesian-style stimulus that failed to create the jobs promised, will spend trillions more creating a European-style health-care entitlement with ObamaCare, and has more Americans on welfare than ever before.

[…]This year the U.S. sent about $67 billion to the IMF, which represents 17.7% of the IMF’s yearly budget—nearly three times more than any other nation. On top of that, taxpayers provided an additional $108 billion credit line to the IMF in 2009.

In 2010, the IMF sent nearly $40 billion in assistance to Greece, which did nothing to prevent the country’s economic collapse in 2011. On Monday, the IMF approved another $2.95 billion worth of bailout funds for the struggling country.

[…]Earlier this year, I offered an amendment to repeal the IMF’s authority to use the additional $108 billion credit line to provide any more bailouts. It was overwhelmingly rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate. Forty-four senators voted for it; only one was a Democrat.

This has to stop. We have to stop electing people who don’t believe that people are responsible to create their own wealth, instead of stealing it from others – and impoverishing generations yet unborn. The right way to solve economic problems is to create the conditions that incentivize people to create wealth, not to discourage them by confiscating what they earn. There is a problem in Europe right now – huge numbers of benefits are being taken from those who produce (the private sector) and given to those who don’t (the public sector). The first step is to stop the bailouts.

Donald Sensing posted some thoughts from Abraham Lincoln on his blog that seem appropriate for this post.

Excerpt:

If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Any society that takes away from those most capable and gives to the least will perish.

Few can be induced to labor exclusively for posterity. Posterity has done nothing for us.

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other man’s consent.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.

Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws … become the political religion of the nation.

If ever this free people, if this Government itself is ever utterly demoralized, it will come from this incessant human wriggle and struggle for office, which is but a way to live without work.

We have to distrust each other. It’s our only defense against betrayal.

Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus, by example, assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.

It has ever been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.

I understand that stealing money from working people and their employers and giving it to lazy people is an important goal for Democrat politicians, because it builds up their self-esteem and it makes them feel admired and popular. But it’s not their money. They need to stop. Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth around” is not a moral policy, it’s an immoral policy – because it’s not his wealth. He didn’t produce it.

Hugh Hewitt: is he a conservative radio talk show host?

Hugh Hewitt is a strong supporter of Mitt Romney. Let’s look at Romney’s views.

Here is Mitt Romney on abortion:

And more:

Mitt Romney on immigration:

Mitt Romney on global warming:

Here is Mitt Romney on gun control:

Here is Mitt Romney on embryonic stem cell research:

Here is Mitt Romney on the flat tax:

So long as Hugh Hewitt endorses Romney, then Hugh Hewitt is not a conservative in any sense of the word.

Newt Gingrich and Michaele Bachmann won the Iowa debate, Romney lost

That’s not me saying that… that’s CBS News.

Excerpt:

WINNERS

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is now clearly the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president. Saturday’s debate in Iowa was the first one since he has surged in the polls and Gingrich handled it with his usual aplomb. Many expected the debate to be a full-throated attack on the former House speaker, but shots were fired at both Gingrich and Mitt Romney, which helps Gingrich.

His recent surge stemmed in part because of impressive debate performances and he was clearly at ease on the stage Saturday. Many of his answers showed more depth than his rivals, especially his lengthy factual explanation of why he changed his position on a very important issue for voters: the individual mandate to buy health insurance. He also struck Mitt Romney hard in the early part of the debate, telling Romney that the reason he is also not a professional politician is because he lost a 1994 bid to unseat Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. And, perhaps most significantly, the thrice-married Gingrich had as strong an answer on questions of infidelity as could be expected. He directly addressed the issue, acknowledging mistakes and said he is older and wiser now.

Michele Bachmann

Bachmann also did quite well for herself Saturday night, and sought to go after both Gingrich and Romney by calling them “Newt Romney” in a sustained attack for what she called their similarities (Gingrich and Romney both took issue with the characterization). It may be too late for the Minnesota lawmaker. She has essentially bet her entire campaign on winning Iowa, but she has struggled to get out of the lower tier in opinion polls and Gingrich’s surge makes it even harder for her to be a top-tier candidate. Saturday was the first debate since businessman Herman Cain dropped out of the race, and Bachmann sought to woo his former supporters but it appeared a bit too transparent and insincere. Not to mention that most of Cain’s supporters have already moved on, many even before his officially ended his bid last week.

And the loser:

LOSERS

Mitt Romney

Romney has been strong in most of the debates until now, though this debate he may have lost for not winning. While most of his answers were adequate, Saturday’s debate was about whether Gingrich could take the heat and Gingrich clearly won. On top of that, Romney challenged Texas Gov. Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet about what he said in his book about the Massachusetts health care plan and its connection to President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. Romney may have won the spat with Perry (who didn’t actually bite), but betting that kind of money may have backfired and perpetuated Romney’s image as someone who does not have empathy with average voters because of his enormous wealth.

I think I just heard Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Jennifer Rubin, and the entire staff of National Review sobbing uncontrollably. It was a bad night for RINOs who want to give short shrift to social issues. They just saw their RINO candidate go down in flames on national television.

And more, this time from the left-wing The Daily Beast.

Excerpt:

Newt not only survived, but thrived, and showed why he deserves to be the frontrunner and why he’s not likely to lose altitude quickly.

And Mitt Romney, after a series of flawless debate performances, made a huge unforced error proposing a $10,000 bet. Basic errors and bad moments are one thing. But when you make a mistake that reminds people of your greatest vulnerability, it can be a campaign killer.

The Mitt moment reminds me of when John Kerry took the stage in front of a hall of veterans and tried to explain a vote against funding American troops in battle, and said: “I actually voted for it, before I voted against it.”

Michelle Bachmann had a very strong performance and tied together the two frontrunners as Newt Romney: both similarly inconsistent in their conservative orthodoxy.

Newt wins hands down. The whole story line as I wrote earlier was whether Newt would walk off the stage without being bloodied. And he walked off the stage like Mohammed Ali without a scratch. And knocked Romney to the canvas by reminding the audience that Mitt Romney would be a career politician if he hadn’t lost to Ted Kennedy.

And voters will long remember and Mitt will long regret his bet that reminded everyone of a candidate who seems rich, elite, and out of touch.

I was in the Indian restaurant on Saturday reading my lunch book – I am just starting Arthur Brooks’ “The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future “. I was surprised to see that Newt Gingrich gave the foreword to the book, and it was really very conservative. (Here’s a paraphrase of his foreword). Newt is not my candidate, but if he’s the nominee, I’ll support him. I am still hoping that Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum can win in Iowa.

UPDATE: Watch the full debate here.