A procedural vote Monday would allow the Senate later this week to pass a bill prohibiting members of Congress from using nonpublic information for their own personal benefit or “tipping” others to inside information that they could trade on.

Insider trading laws apply to all Americans, but CBS’ “60 Minutes” in November said members of Congress get a pass, citing investment transactions by party leaders and a committee chairman in businesses about to be affected by pending legislation.

The broadcast report raised questions about trades of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; the husband of Democratic leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; and Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

All three denied using any insider information to make stock trades, but the broadcast set off a flurry of efforts in Washington to deal with the public perception.

A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of registered voters found 56 percent of them favor replacing the entire 535-member Congress. Other polls this year have given Congress an approval rating between 11 percent and 13 percent, while disapproval percentages have ranged from 79 percent to 86 percent.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said he’s working on an expanded bill that would go beyond stock transactions and ban lawmakers from making land deals and other investments based on what they learned as members of Congress.

Read more at Associated Press.

House Republicans will be prepared with a plan to replace ObamaCare with free-market alternatives after the Supreme Court delivers its decision in June. The High Court is planning to hold oral arguments on the healthcare law in March.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and chairs its Subcommittee on Health, said that Republicans will be ready for the open window provided by a Supreme Court ruling regardless of the nature of that decision.

Congressman Pitts said he expects the High Court to strike down the individual mandate, but not the entire law. He added that it is also possible the Court could say that federal tax law precludes its decision on the mandate’s constitutionality until after 2015. “We’ll have a window of opportunity with everyone looking to explain that the Affordable Care Act is not fully implemented yet…We’ll use that opportunity and that window to discuss the full ramifications of the Affordable Care Act,” Rep. Pitts said.

Rep. Pitts, who has a Heritage Action for America score of 79%, indicated that the Republican plan will include long-standing GOP priorities, such as limits on medical malpractice suits, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and expansion of the use of health savings accounts. In addition, his committee plans the following:

• A bill to be sent to the House floor this spring which will repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the “expert” panel charged with cutting Medicare payments to health providers.

• Continue to urge a roll-back of the section of ObamaCare that prohibits states from cutting their Medicaid eligibility until 2014.

• Oversight hearings on the Obama administration’s approach to the definition of “essential” health benefits.

• A major Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reauthorization by June 30, ahead of the September deadline when the current reauthorization expires.

Congressman Pitts indicated that Republicans do not plan to preserve the requirement that insurers cover people who have pre-existing conditions. Instead, the GOP will propose state-based pools in which the government would pay costs for the very ill who require the most care, rather than requirements for coverage by private insurers, a situation that leads to higher insurance costs for everyone.

All for show, or is it too be real? You decide.

It is good for Republicans to begin the discussion of free market healthcare reform. But, reliance upon the decision of the High Court to rid the nation of this overreaching law will likely lead to disappointment. All the more reason to elect more conservative members of Congress and a conservative President with vision who will fully repeal this onerous legislation and lead us into a new era of liberty.

The Blaze reports:

Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has announced his endorsement of Newt Gingrich.

Cain joined Gingrich at the Palm Beach County Republican Party’s 2012 Lincoln Day Dinner Saturday night, where the former Speaker delivered the event’s keynote speech. Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio tweeted that Cain was greeted to huge cheers when he walked on stage with Gingrich.

“I herby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for President of the United States,” NBC News campaign embed reporter Alexandra Moe quoted Cain saying.

Noteworthy detail:

The former Speaker promised that Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan would be part of the national conversation.

This reminds me of how Sarah Palin’s recent big push for Newt (which involves comparing her fellow conservatives to cannibals and Joseph Stalin) has come alongside the Speaker’s promise that she would receive a job in his administration.

The triad of strategic delivery systems continues to have value. Each leg of the nuclear triad, comprised of heavy bombers, intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), provides unique contributions to stability. As the overall force shrinks, their unique values become more prominent

President Barack Obama has expressed support for modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, but the Administration now appears to be backing out of its commitment. But as usual, talk is cheap, but he has done nothing.

In 2010, General Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, stated regarding the U.S. stockpile arsenal:

I do not agree that it is more than is needed. I think the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent. And I say this in light of—when we talk about the non-deployed portion of the arsenal, it is sized to be able to allow us to hedge against both technical failures in the current deployed arsenal and any geopolitical concerns that might…cause us to need more weapons deployed.

General Chilton’s statement calls into question the rationale that the Obama Administration is now developing for further nuclear reductions and abandoning the nuclear triad. Yet as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has stated, the United States is headed for a future without the nuclear triad if sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011 proceeds. The Bush Administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review recognized the importance of other elements of the U.S. strategic posture, namely nuclear and nonnuclear offensive strike systems, active and passive defenses, and a revitalized defense infrastructure to provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats.

The United States needs to increase investments in its nuclear weapons complex and reverse two decades of deterioration.

B53 Nuclear Bomb Dismantlement

The elimination of the B53 by Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is consistent with the goal President Obama announced in his April 2009 Prague speech to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. The President said, “We will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.” The dismantlement of the last remaining B53 ensures that the system will never again be part of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

As a key part of its national security mission, NNSA is actively responsible for safely dismantling weapons that are no longer needed, and disposing of the excess material and components.

POLITICO: Dems bash, bank secret cash.

Democrats have seized on a new attack line: Republicans as the party of unlimited secret money.

The only problem: so are the Democrats. n recent days, Obama released an ad blasting “secretive oil billionaires” for attacks on him, Nancy Pelosi unveiled a campaign slogan, calling for “a new politics free of special interest influence,” and the Democratic National Committee released a Web ad accusing Mitt Romney of lying about his ties to a super PAC that’s spent millions supporting him.

Maybe that would have sounded better in 2008, when Obama put the kibosh on the Democratic outside money infrastructure — or even in 2010, when Obama led a chorus of Democrats assailing Republicans’ outside spending.

But this year, Democrats are playing the same game. Obama’s team has blessed a network of super PACs trying to raise the same seven-figure checks as Romney’s. And Obama’s allies have gone even further than Romney’s, setting up nonprofit groups that do not disclose their donors at all.

In fact, top Democrats are so adament about the need to raise unlimited — and sometimes secret — cash this year that some operatives aren’t pleased about the recent attacks. It’s a whole lot tougher to get wealthy liberals to fork over mega-checks when the politicians who’d benefit are ripping Republicans for taking the same types of contributions.

Forked tongues.

America was built on affordable energy and food. Those two items  left extra income for other things … Like the rest of our economy. And those two items are inflating the most, but not included in the Government’s inflation index. Ever wonder why???

Green energy, read high cost, ridiculously expensive and scarce energy for America, let the world use plain old  oil and gas.

Despite the fact that America has much more oil and gas to supply us for 100s of years. What did you think the whole global warming scam was built on???  Ever been to east Colorado? You know, over the Rocky’s and out in the lains? Oil sands, walk anywhere and watch the ground squish up around your shoes. Oil sands, the same ones actually that reach all the way up to Alberta Canada, what Keystone is all about.

Drive up energy and food costs, drive up the cost for every American, and drive down our economy.

Nicolas Loris at Heritage writes this must read article:

President Obama’s State of the Union address laid out his long-term economic recovery plans, which he claims will “work for everyone, not just a wealthy few.” That is, unless it is the pipeline construction business. President Obama’s politically intoned decision to reject TransCanada’s permit application to construct a 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Texas refineries last week sent a clear message that special-interest demands are more important than more energy and much-needed job creation.

Despite the Department of State’s (DOS) finding that Keystone XL would pose no significant environmental threat, environmental activists’ relentless opposition persuaded President Obama to deny the permit application.[1] Congress should recognize the findings in the DOS Final Environmental Impact Statement and authorize the application submitted by TransCanada on September 19, 2008.

Broad Support for Jobs, Energy, and Economic Growth

Although President Obama is catering to a narrow group of special interests, broad support exists for construction of the pipeline. The most glaringly obvious is the labor unions that stand to benefit from the jobs that would be created.[2] Nor is this a partisan project. On October 19, 2011, 22 House Democrats sent a letter to President Obama pleading that “America needs the Keystone XL Pipeline. It is in our national interest to have a Presidential Permit issued for Keystone XL as soon as possible.”[3] Understanding the economic implications, Senators Max Baucus (D–MT), Jon Tester (D–MT), Joe Manchin (D–WV), Ben Nelson (D–NE), Mark Begich (D–AK), and Mary Landrieu (D–LA) have all expressed support for the pipeline.[4]

The President’s own jobs council underscored the need for not only more oil, natural gas, and coal but also energy infrastructure projects:

Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel. The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs.[5]

The President’s “Forced” Decision

President Obama initially delayed the decision until after the 2012 elections because he claimed that additional environmental review from the DOS was necessary. The payroll tax holiday legislation signed at the end of 2011 moved that decision deadline up to February 21.

The President rejected the permit, claiming, “This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.”[6]

The reality is that DOS has already conducted a thorough, three-year environmental review with multiple comment periods. DOS studied and addressed risk to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and endangered species. They concluded that construction of the pipeline would pose minimal environmental risk.[7] Keystone XL also met 57 specific pipeline safety standard requirements created by DOS and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Furthermore, the pipeline would be equipped with 16,000 sensors connected to a satellite that would monitor the pressure of the pipeline.

Much of the concern of environmentalists and Nebraska residents has focused on the original route of the pipeline, particularly the area where the pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer and the state’s Sand Hills region. Nebraska already has miles of natural gas, crude, refined products, and petrochemical pipelines crossing the state’s purportedly sensitive Ogallala Aquifer, specifically including pipelines in the Sand Hills region.[8] DOS also concluded that oil contamination of drinking water would not be likely in many instances because the soil composition prevents or mitigates the downward migration of oil.

With respect to the Sand Hills region, experts from the University of Nebraska, the State Resource Conservationist, the National Resources Conservation Service, and the Nebraska Department of Roads all provided valuable information to the DOS on how to properly maintain the area. DOS studied a number of alternative routes to minimize or completely avoid the pipeline crossing over Sand Hills.[9] The department worked with the Bureau of Land Management and state agencies where the pipeline passes through and made more than 340 minor realignments to the entire pipeline route.

Time for Congress to Step Up

A simple, effective approach to commence construction immediately would be for Congress to authorize the pipeline application as submitted by TransCanada pursuant to its authority to regulate commerce with other nations. TransCanada and Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality are already working on a reroute to satisfy landowners and state officials in Nebraska.

Since there is no federal entity that sites and authorizes interstate petroleum pipeline construction, the state of Nebraska could site and approve an alternative route following the PHMSA’s construction codes. Doing so would create jobs and increase energy production—both of which the nation desperately needs—from a friendly supplier and ally.

Nicolas D. Loris is a Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

How did they do it?

That is the question many Americans are asking of Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax bill, disclosed on Monday evening. While the couple paid almost $3 million in taxes, that amounted to less than 14% of their $21.6 million income.

The Romneys’ rate was far lower than the average of 24% paid by the top 1% of U.S. earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The couple’s 2010 filing presents a rare glimpse into how the ultrawealthy can use the tax code to their benefit, and offers important lessons for others.

The biggest: the powerful tax benefits of capital gains, which are taxed at a top rate of just 15% if the underlying investment is held for more than a year.

“There’s a saying in Texas: If you don’t have an oil well, get one,” says Janet Hagy , a certified public accountant practicing in Austin, Texas. “I tell my clients, ‘If you don’t have capital gains, get some.’”

Another lesson: Get good tax help. The Romneys’ 1040 return is 203 pages long, with different “schedules” and 20 different forms attached, some of them multiple times—not the sort of work typically done by a neighborhood Joe.

Says David Kautter of the Kogod Tax Center at American University in Washington: “The only schedules missing [from the Romneys' return] are the ones for fishermen, farmers and the elderly. Maybe Mitt should get some cows so he can have a ‘full house’ of schedules.”

Some have suggested that, despite their low tax rate, the Romneys might have paid a few thousand extra dollars in tax. Among other things, they take no mortgage-interest deduction—a write-off claimed by 80% of taxpayers who itemize—or deductions for a home office, a car or travel expenses.

Saunders:

[Mitt Romney's tax returns] lift the veil on how the wealthy can use the tax code to their advantage. Here are some lessons the experts have gleaned:

• Avoid salary, wages and tips to the extent possible
• Muni-bond interest isn’t the be-all and end-all
• Strive for “qualified” dividends
• If you have a “Schedule C” business, think twice before claiming a home-office deduction
• Generate income from long-term capital gains
• Know the score on itemized deductions
• Capital gains and dividends can help trigger the AMT
• Beware of small benefits requiring large tax-prep efforts
• Offshore investments can save onshore taxes

“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” – President Calvin Coolidge

The undeniable failure of progressives:

The spread of progressive ideology has plagued this great nation from the time Theodore Roosevelt had introduced progressivism in its rawest form to the United States. Progressive derives from the root word; progress, meaning to drive forward and ever-changing. To apply the word in political context it means to, fundamentally change the norm and past policies. As a general rule a Roosevelt progressive and a current progressive are unchanged. They strive to achieve the same goal and that is to transform and revolutionize the constitution, creating a living breathing entity. The constitution has been deemed “outdated” and non-relevant by progressive standards. They fight for strong government, entitlement programs and lack economic and social choice, which deviates from the true definition of freedom. Throughout history progressivism has failed, creating two of the most unmistakable failures of all time, the Great Depression and the Depression of the 1920’s.

Prior to the Great Depression the United States had seen an era that can be matched by no other time period in our history. The Roaring Twenties had not been christened the name “Roaring” for no particular reason. It was a time of economic and social prosperity. At this time President Calvin Coolidge had taken office following arguably one of the worst economies in the history of the United States. Prior to the Harding and Coolidge 20’s, Woodrow Wilson set the stage for many of the problems that overwhelmed the country. The abysmal policies succeeding World War I had crippled Germany; the Treaty of Versailles, and can be directly tied to the animosity of Hitler to spark another World War. Wilson’s policies had not only stifled the German economy but also the U.S. was procuring unprecedented debt that would subsequently lead to the first and sometimes forgotten depression. Unemployment had reached its highest margin to date starting at 11.8%; Wilson’s remedy entailed higher taxes and greater spending. Sound familiar? His failures while in office represented the essence of the progressive movement; the League of Nations, the “Progressive” income tax, universal healthcare, prohibition and The Federal Reserve. Freedom was not in the nature of President Wilson. “Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin” – Woodrow Wilson

In contrast to Wilson, Coolidge had done just the opposite. Once Warren Harding had passed away, Calvin Coolidge took over a weak United States. His actions were on route to change U.S. history for the long run if proceeding Presidents had followed his path. A common misconception made by Republican candidates is that if we cut taxes and spend, the economy will prosper or vis-à-vis. This is simply not true, to create economic prosperity there must be action taken on both; cut spending and cut taxes. Coolidge had accomplished both and created an immediate boom within the economy. His strong opposition to progressivism characterized his successful presidency, by obtaining economic stability. To demonstrate the radical change post 1920, government spending had decreased over 50%, taxes had dropped from a staggering 77% to a minute 25%, and lastly unemployment had dropped to its lowest rate in peacetime history to 1.8%. Which led to what has been previously stated, the Roaring Twenties. This time period gave way to technological advances that revolutionized America such as in home telephones, cars, radios and the airplane.

Unfortunately Coolidge and his policies would be short lived after the death of his son, Herbert Hoover, who had been despised by Coolidge and labeled as unfit for office, took his place. Like Wilson and Roosevelt before him, Hoover took the progressive route and went in a fundamentally different direction, creating the second and more legendary depression.

With the economic crash of 2008 and the seemingly endless spiral into economic destabilization, one would think the American people would learn from history and past mistakes. Progressivism has no place in the U.S.; it breeds undoubted failure that is only realized once the damage has been amassed. We must band together and educate the unaware of the falsehoods that liberals and progressives feed through mass media outlets into the minds of the impressionable citizens. Give them true hope and change through economic freedom and limited government.

“It was an opportunity for the president to talk about his accomplishments over the last three years and to lay out his plans for the year ahead. And he missed on both counts,” the Florida Republican said, delivering the weekly GOP address. “You didn’t hear much talk about the success of his administration — and that’s because there isn’t much.”

Acknowledging that Obama inherited a significant national debt, high unemployment and a struggling economy, Rubio said the president’s policies have only exacerbated a bad situation.

“This president didn’t talk about his record for one simple reason: He doesn’t want you to know about it. But you do know about it, because you feel the failure of his leadership every single day of your life,” Rubio said.

Rubio, a Tea Party favorite, continued, “The bottom line is this president inherited a country with serious problems. He asked the Congress to give him the stimulus and Obamacare to fix it. The Democrats in Congress gave it to him. And not only did it not work, it made everything worse.”

Rubio said Obama plans to “divide us against each other, to pit Americans against other Americans in the hopes of generating enough votes to get re-elected.”

“He tells Americans worried about their jobs that the way to help them is to raise their bosses’ taxes,” Rubio said. “He tells those who are hurting that the only way they can be better off, is for others to be worse off. He tells all of us that the only way for some of us to climb up the economic ladder is for others to be pulled down.”

Rubio, who has not yet endorsed a GOP candidate for president even as the days tick closer to Florida’s Tuesday primary, said Obama is using “divisive rhetoric” to call for higher taxes on the rich.

“For the first time in my adult life, we have a president who’s asking us to abandon our economic heritage,” he said