“These allegations, if true, amount to bribery,” Wilson charged, adding, “Using a federal appointment as the means to affect the outcome of a primary challenge against an embattled incumbent Senator is a gross misuse of the Office of the President.”

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out ‘yes’ to veteran news anchor Kane’s direct question.

“’Was it secretary of the Navy?’ Kane asked.

“‘No comment,’ Sestak said.

“‘Was it [the job] high-ranking?’ Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would ‘never leave’ the Senate race for a deal.”

Wilson praised Sestak for “not taking the bribe, and for being honest about what happened. Congressman Joe Sestak has the integrity to admit that the offer was made.”

Thus far, the White House has denied the charges.

Wilson called upon both chambers of Congress to immediate launch investigations into the matter, saying, “If true, heads should roll for this perversion and inherent corruption of our representative form of government.”

Wilson said the investigations were necessary, since the White House was overtly denying the accusations.

According to the Inquirer, interviewing Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political science professor specializing in Congress, “Clearly, the offers are made. When a White House wants to preempt a [primary] challenge, they’ll dangle something. But it is almost never uttered.”

The report continues, “In addition, Baker said, conversations in such cases are nuanced, and savvy operators know not to use explicit quid pro quo language.”

Wilson said, “In this case, the language must have been pretty darn explicit, since he answered ‘yes’ to a direct question about a quid pro quo.”

Baker told the Inquirer that he could not think of another instance in which a candidate had ever divulged such an offer from White House officials.

Wilson said that “Congressional inquiries, and barring that, an Independent Counsel, are necessary and appropriate to get to the bottom of this cesspool, and Congressman Sestak should be called to testify under oath.”

Wilson concluded, “Offices of the public trust are not chips on a table to be bartered by elected officials who want to favor incumbents in Congress.”

###

 

The Mt. Vernon statement—intended in its timing to influence the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference—comes almost fifty years after the 1960 Sharon Statement by William F. Buckley, Jr. that many consider to be one of the founding documents of the modern conservative movement.

Wilson said that today’s statement is relevant to the current political climate: “The rise of the tea party movement and increasing citizen opposition to government-run health care, runaway spending and debt creation, are all evidence that Americans still believe in constitutional principles of limited government and the rule of law.”

Wilson said, “This statement is for the American people, who have shown throughout our history they will defend their constitutional rights. Today, we stand with them in affirming those rights.”

According to the Mount Vernon Statement, “The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.”

The statement continues, “The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”

Wilson praised former Attorney General Edwin Meese for putting together the coalition of national, grassroots leaders to pen the document. “We owe Attorney General Meese a debt of gratitude for bringing us together and crafting a broad, united message that joins the ongoing discussion of the proper, limited role of government.”

Wilson said the “need for that discussion is urgent,” pointing to what he termed “the perversion of the Constitution through the unbridled, unlimited, and dangerous expansion of the powers of the federal government throughout the 20th Century.”

Wilson concluded by saying, “The Mount Vernon Statement seeks to chart a new course for the 21st century by . History has shown that out of control growth in the federal government has established entitlements that threaten to bankrupt the nation, increasingly taken on new powers to tax and regulate practically every human activity imaginable, and weakened the nation’s economic standing in the world by debasing our currency, bailing out politically-favored institutions, revoking property rights, and placing primacy into the hands of government over the people.”

Wilson urged citizens to sign the statement themselves at www.themountvernonstatement.com.

 

 

###

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

• It applies the principle of limited government based on the
rule of law to every proposal.
• It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
politics and life.
• It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
• It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
end.
• It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America
Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation
Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center
Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator
David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority
Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review

###

“The House so-called ‘jobs’ bill is really a bailout for insolvent states and, specifically, kickbacks to the public sector unions. The Senate should have nothing to do with it,” Wilson said.

The $154 billion House “stimulus” contains $48.3 billion for infrastructure and transportation spending, and some $23 billion for an “education jobs fund” that Wilson called “bailouts for state and local construction and public teachers unions, totaling more than $71 billion for states that refuse to make necessary cuts to spending.”

The $787 billion “stimulus” bill also contained $53.6 billion to bail out state and local governments. Wilson said “despite all of the deficit-spending, unemployment remains close to 10 percent, and underemployment near 17 percent.”

Currently, the Senate is considering a $15 billion bill that does not include the state bailout funds. Wilson urged the Senate to keep the states bailout “off the table.”

Some states are already clamoring for more federal funds, as reported by CNNMoney.com: “States are looking to the federal government for more help balancing their budgets, but the Senate is not heeding their call… Experts and state officials say they need to know now whether they’ll get more funds. Governors are currently crafting their budgets and, for many, it will be their third year of contending with massive deficits due to declining tax revenues.”

According to the CNN report, “States are looking at a total budget gap of $180 billion for fiscal 2011, which for most of them begins July 1.” Compared with prior years, according to Sunshinereview.org, state budget shortfalls totaled $113.2 billion for FY 2009, and then rose to $142.6 billion in FY 2010.

“With shortfalls this large, and with no end in sight for the economic downturn, Congress is now running the risk of creating a permanent line on the budget to bail out profligate states,” Wilson said, adding, “Instead, the solution is tough medicine: states like California and New York need to scale back their budgets to be in line with revenue.”

California currently faces a $20 billion shortfall. On the east coast, New York faces a more than $8 billion deficit, and New Jersey too faces a $11 billion deficit more 2011.

Wilson called for “permanent tax relief and bringing state spending to be in accords with revenue, not the old way of simply tax, borrow, and spend, which fuels the insolvency crisis.”

According to the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), state spending grew from $945.3 billion in 2000 to more than $1.5 trillion 2008, almost a 58.7 percent increased during the 2000’s, where revenues were generally rising because of inflated property values and what Wilson termed “a bubble economy.”

Wilson pointed out that states knew a downturn was coming as early as 2007, “but spending still grew by about $100 billion in 2008.”

“Instead,” Wilson urged, “the solution is to stop taking capital away from what would be productive sectors of the economy that could create new jobs, and redirecting it to areas that really do need to be cut. The solution is to let the true job-creators keep their money and invest it.”

An editorial published yesterday by ALG News warned that a states bailout would send the wrong message to markets and creditors: “With the federal national debt rapidly approaching $14 trillion, and the nation’s Triple-A rating already threatened, now is not the time to be sending the message that Washington exists simply to finance unsustainable operations.”

Wilson concluded, “Enough is enough with these public sector union kickbacks. It is not up to American taxpayers to go deeper into debt to put off the painful, necessary decisions that must occur at the state level.”

###

“On one hand, Barack Obama is approaching Congressional Republicans to sit down and negotiate anew on the enacting legislation related to health care, but on the other, Congressional Democrats are threatening to ram the legislation in its current form down the throats of the American people via ‘reconciliation,’ a process usually reserved for minor budget fixes,” Wilson explained.

“Reconciliation was never intended to be used to avert the Senatorial filibuster in order to enact sweeping changes to the laws of the land,” Wilson added.

Wilson pointed to comments by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s legislative director Wendell Primus stating that the reconciliation process was “the only way” for Congressional Democrats to pass what Wilson termed “a takeover of the nation’s entire health care industry.”

Speaking at the Academy Health National Health Policy Conference, Primus said, “The House would have to take up [the reconciliation bill] first because it would involve revenue changes and then the Senate would pass it and then I think hopefully with the passing of that legislation, the House, only then would take up the Senate bill and pass it… The trick in all of this is that the President would have to sign the Senate bill first and then the reconciliation bill would be signed second and the parts of the reconciliation bill that trump the relevant portions of the first signed bill.”

Wilson said that “The net effect would be to eliminate the filibuster to enact ‘ObamaCare,’ guaranteeing one-party rule in Washington, and forcing the American people to accept a plan that will ration care away from seniors, bankrupt the treasury with over $2.5 trillion in costs over ten years once fully implemented, lower the quality of care, raise premiums, and force Americans off of their private insurance options.”

Wilson added that “no negotiations should take place while the threat of reconciliation on current legislation is on the table. Republicans should not be sitting down with a gun pointed at their heads.”

Thus far, Barack Obama has refused to take reconciliation off of the table, as reported by the Huffington Post, despite calls from House Republican leaders to do so prior to the highly anticipated February 25th meeting.

Wilson said that “Instead, Congressional leaders and Barack Obama should start over, especially since the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the bill in its current form.”

According to Rasmussen Reports, 61 percent of voters say they want Congress to start over on any health care legislation. 58 percent oppose the bill in its current form, which only 39 percent support.

In an oped published this morning, Wilson described the parliamentary maneuver as “a significant threat to the liberty of the American people and the institutions of limited government.”

Wilson warned that if Congressional leaders were successful in implementing the legislation via reconciliation, that the process could be used to enact other controversial bills that cannot garner 60 votes in the Senate.

Wilson explained in his oped, “If reconciliation can be invoked to avert the filibuster on this issue, it surely would be used to enact other radical proposes such as caps on carbon emissions, the takeover of the energy industry, and the nationalization of the banks.”

Wilson also cautioned that the $2.5 trillion bill “like the rest of the nation’s entitlement spending, is unsustainable, and as ALG News has previously reported, will hasten the nation’s descent into financial Armageddon, as the U.S. would eventually lose its Triple-A credit rating.”

Wilson concluded, “Members of Congress should consider carefully what they do next. If they refuse to take the threat of ‘reconciliation’ off the table, the American people will know that the fix is in and that the televised negotiations are fraudulent; nothing more than a distraction from the true danger.”

###

“How can anything Congress says about cutting the deficit or improving economic conditions be taken seriously?” Wilson demanded, adding, “If they’re willing to waste $50 million buying a beach in the Virgin Islands, is there nothing too ridiculous for them to waste our money on?”

The final vote in Congress was 240-175. Not a single Republican voted to buy the beach.

According to a FOXNews.com report, the vote took place despite the fact that the National Park Service has yet to complete a study on the purchase.

The land includes 2,900-plus acres of beachfront property that, according to the report, “the Gasperi family maintains it wants to sell the land to the U.S. government in order to protect it from developers. Critics in Congress say there is nothing stopping them from doing that. They don’t have to sell, or the family could impose a conservation easement on the land, preventing development forever.”

“This Congress has lost all credibility,” said Wilson, concluding, “It has broken faith with the American people and no longer even pretends to have the public interest in mind. They are looting, pure and simple.”

###

“The obscenity of this vote is nearly limitless,” Wilson said, adding, “This is the equivalent of requesting a credit limit increase on a son or daughter’s MasterCard to help pay interest — not even pay down the principal — on the family Visa card that is maxed out.”

“No family could sustain itself in such a manner, nor can any nation which robs from future generations to purchase temporary, illusory prosperity,” Wilson explained. “It is both immoral and profoundly foolish.”

The final vote in favor of the debt increase was 217 to 212.

“The House has once again voted to kick the can down the road instead of bringing the nation’s finances into proper order,” Wilson said, adding, “The House has now voted to permanently shackle the American people to a mountain of debt that cannot be paid back, further pushing the nation along the road to financial Armageddon.”

Moody’s has warned that the United States’ Triple-A debt rating could be in jeopardy “if the current upward trend in government debt were to continue and become irreversible.”

Barack Obama’s proposed 10-year budget will add $10.6 trillion to the national debt, totaling in $25.77 trillion in total debt come 2020. That averages $1.06 trillion every year added to the nation’s debt.

As a result, the nation’s Triple-A debt rating “could come under downward pressure,” according to Steven A. Hess, senior credit officer at Moody’s.

This legislation, H.J. Res. 45, will increase the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to $14.294 trillion when signed by Barack Obama. House Democrats have said that a failure to pass the debt increase would result in “default.”

Wilson earlier today said that was “inaccurate.”

“If this bill had failed, the U.S. would not have failed to pay interest on its debt obligations nor to make debt payments,” Wilson explained. “Therefore, the nation was not going to default, unless House Democrats are stipulating that the U.S. actually needs to borrow more money simply to make national debt payments.

“What would have happened if the vote failed is the U.S. would not have been able to borrow any more money for so-called ‘mandatory’ spending,” Wilson added.

Wilson said that the U.S. was at “considerable risk of default,” not from any failure to increase the debt ceiling, but from Congressional “refusal to restrain current exorbitant spending.”

“Default will only result because we have increased borrowing to unsustainable levels, which is what increasing the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion represents,” Wilson said, noting that in Barack Obama’s proposed 2011 budget, interest paid on the national debt is $251 billion, or 9.7 percent of total projected revenue.

“By 2020,” Wilson said, “interest owed on the national debt will more than triple to an unprecedented, unsustainable $840 billion annual cost, or 17.8 percent of total revenue.”

“After that, it gets even worse,” Wilson warned, predicting that eventually, “simply paying interest on the debt owed will overtake the national budget, to say nothing of ever being able to pay down the principal owed.”

The previous national debt limit was currently $12.394 trillion, and that limit was set to be reached by the end of February.

Wilson noted that the debt increase was tied to so-called “Pay-Go” rules, requiring either tax increases or spending cuts to pay for any increases in spending. “Since approximately 56.4 percent, or $2.165 trillion, of the 2011 proposed budget is so-called ‘mandatory spending,’ and ‘mandatory spending’ will increase by $1.219 trillion to $3.384 trillion in 2020 under Obama’s plan, House Democrats have precluded the possibility of ever cutting entitlement spending.”

Wilson explained, “Meaning, the House has just voted to increase taxes by at least $1.219 trillion over the next ten years to pay for the unsustainable increases in entitlement spending that will occur every year.”

Wilson earlier said there was an alternative: “The only solution to the nation’s financial Apocalypse, where Moody’s is preparing to downgrade our Triple-A debt rating, is to reduce spending, not to borrow more money.”

“Instead,” Wilson concluded, “the House chose to bankrupt the nation.”

##

“House Democrats, in order to pass the largest debt increase in American history, are arguing that if Congress fails to increase the debt ceiling, the U.S. will ‘default.’

“This is inaccurate. If this bill fails, the U.S. will not fail to pay interest on its debt obligations nor to make debt payments. Therefore, the nation will not default, unless House Democrats are stipulating that the U.S. actually needs to borrow more money simply to make national debt payments.

“What will happen should the vote fail nis the U.S. would not be able to borrow any more money for so-called ‘mandatory’ spending. This differs drastically from failure to make debt payments. ‘Mandatory’ spending is not actually mandatory, it could be cut. Discretionary spending could be cut, too, if Congress preferred to keep ‘mandatory’ spending levels at current levels.

“But, the American people and their representatives in Congress are under absolutely no obligation to borrow more money to pay for Congress’ preferred level of spending.

“The U.S. is at considerable risk of default, but it will not result from a failure to increase borrowing, which is what this bill will do. Default will only result because we have increased borrowing to unsustainable levels, which is what increasing the debt ceiling by nearly $2 trillion represents.”

“The only solution to the nation’s financial Apocalypse, where Moody’s is preparing to downgrade our Triple-A debt rating, is to reduce spending, not to borrow more money.”

###

“Ordinary Americans who recognize that The New York Times has become over-loaded with agenda-based editorials that masquerade as straight news finally have a new outlet devoted toward the exposure of biased coverage,” said Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson.

TimesCheck.com was officially launched on Feb.1st and includes analysis of news reports with national ramifications. “For over a hundred years the New York Times has marketed itself as a straightforward, highly-detailed newspaper glued to hard facts as opposed to agenda-laced reporting,” said TimesCheck.com Editor Kevin Mooney.

“But under the present management, this original mission has been subverted and it has become increasingly evident in recent years that the nation’s paper of record too often serves as a left-wing propaganda sheet,” Mooney added.

“Thanks to alternative media resources it is now possible to highlight and debunk biased reporting that does a disservice to the readership and runs counter to American interests,” Wilson explained.

Mooney said that TimesCheck.com was “sorely” needed. “The same newspaper that hid behind the First Amendment when it exposed CIA counter-terrorist activity in the aftermath of 9/11 saw fit to vituperate against a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January that expanded those same freedoms,” said Mooney, adding, “Americans who care about the future of their country recognize that there is a big double-standard at work in the self-described ‘paper of record’ that routinely offends their values and cuts undermines the nation’s long-term health.”

“It’s not honest, it’s not good journalism and it is costing The New York Times readership,” Mooney declared.

Wilson emphasized that TimesCheck.com would also “be certain to give credit where credit is due,” concluding, “Despite the steady wave of biased coverage, there are solid reports, packed with valuable information that show the newspaper can still perform a valuable service that does proper justice to divergent viewpoints. TimesCheck.com will be sure to recognize and credit top reports in tandem with daily analysis that calls attention to coverage that is overly skewed toward a liberal agenda. We are also pleased to hear from readers on all sides of the political spectrum who believe in the original mission of the New York Times and would like to see it restored to its proper station.”

###