“Scott Garrett” on The Daily Caller

When former President Bill Clinton signed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law, it was supposed to “end welfare as we know it.” Despite that pledge, spending on the 77 welfare programs administered by the federal government and the states has skyrocketed over the past 15 years. (more)

ORLANDO – Republicans are calling on Washington to begin winding down mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the first step in a longer-term plan to get the federal government out of the housing business. (more)

A sizable bloc of conservative House Republicans are moving to keep GOP leadership from waffling on a pledge to cut $100 billion dollars in the 2011 fiscal year, the first sign of rank-and-file willingness to challenge new House Speaker John Boehner. (more)

A number of the House GOP’s leading conservative members on Thursday will announce legislation that would cut $2.5 trillion over 10 years, which will be by far the most ambitious and far-reaching proposal by the new majority to cut federal government spending. (more)

1.) Has the Great Walking Back of Promises (TM) begun? — House Speaker John Boehner has been in possession of Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s bejeweled gavel for less than 24 hours and already his party is modifying its promise to cut $100 billion in spending before the fiscal year is over. “A few House Republican aides admitted to TheDC that the party had slipped up in failing to correct the $100 billion figure – first thrown out in the ‘Pledge to America’ document released in late September – before this week,” writes Jon Ward. The more important goal, say Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan, is to reduce spending to a level last seen in 2008, an apparent golden age of fiscal restraint. Also, says Ryan, the fiscal year began three months ago, which means “[w]e are halfway through the fiscal year right now,” and cutting $100 billion from the budget would be almost as difficult as figuring out how many months are in a year. Why did Republicans not walk back this promise on, say, September 23, 2010, the day after the Pledge was announced? Because Congress critters are terrified that the Tea Partiers will drizzle their coagulated blood on the Tree of Liberty. And metaphorically speaking, you know they will do it, too. (more)

The first significant policy push in the new Congress by Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, the incoming chair of the House Republican Study Committee, will be an effort to reduce the House’s ability to spend funds from savings derived from defeated earmark proposals. (more)

The founder and chairman of the Congressional Constitution Caucus wants to ensure that all Hill staffers are familiar with their country’s founding principles. (more)

New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett plans to introduce a resolution in the House of Representatives Tuesday that would require all legislation to cite an enumerated power in the Constitution that grants authority for the bill’s mandate. (more)

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King’s discharge petition, aimed at repealing Obamacare, is gaining momentum in the House as more representatives sign on. (more)

In 1901, 40 percent of a consumer’s income was spent on food consumed at home. By 2001, that number had dropped dramatically to 7.8 percent. As a result of the low cost of food, more of a family’s income can be spent on housing, transportation and health care. In this economic climate, when many families are affected by unemployment, the consistent low cost of food is more important than ever in order to stretch each dollar as far as possible. While it may not be apparent at the supermarket, complex financial products called derivatives play an essential role in avoiding significant price spikes in your groceries. Unfortunately, new regulations being considered in Congress may threaten the ability of businesses to utilize these products to help consumers. (more)

In news accounts about fights over new regulation, the story is almost always the same. The media portray the drama as that of well-intentioned experts wanting more regulation to protect the public good versus the business lobby ferociously opposed to the imposition of these new rules. (more)