Mikayla Hall

Public demanding action? Check.

Bill written? Check.

Catchy slogan? Check.

Is this Constitutional? …whoops.

It has been 1,377 days since the Senate passed a budget.  The last time the Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 29, 2009. Back then, the iPad didn’t exist, nobody knew who Snooki was, and YAL had only been around for a few months. Public unrest over this failure has consistently grown since then, and multiple Members of Congress, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA), advocate for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. 

At the end of January, House Republicans decided to challenge the no-action Senate by pushing H.R. 325, “to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes.” Introduced by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), this bill “solves” the debt ceiling debate by raising the debt limit until May 19 of this year. Additionally, there was an addendum that dictated until the Senate passed a budget, they would not receive payment for their work. This is more commonly referred to as “No Budget, No Pay.”

In theory, this sounds great. The average American doesn’t get paid if he or she doesn’t complete his or her work, so surely we can hold Congress to the same standards. There is one minuscule difference, however. The average American’s pay is not dictated by the U.S. Constitution. The 27th Amendment states:

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

Pretty clear, right? You can change pay for Congress, but it won’t take effect for two years. No Budget, No Pay changes the payment schedule of Senators, and thus could not take effect until 2015. 

To justify their legislation, the GOP Conference sent out memos with Founders’ intent, saying that James Madison submitted it in 1789 to prevent Congress from giving themselves constant pay raises. Unfortunately for the GOP, the Amendment doesn’t say that, nor does it say “rate of compensation.” This rhetoric is coming from the same party fighting against gun control advocates’ insistence that the Founders didn’t mean all guns, despite the 2nd Amendment also being very clear. 

To make matters worse, commentary on the Hill trying to justify the vote was, for lack of a better word, shady. The logic behind the bill was that the only way the bill could be ruled unconstitutional was if it passed and then someone sued, and what Senator is going to sue and be on the record saying they demand pay for their job? They’re essentially admitting that they know “No Budget, No Pay” was weak constitutionally, but who would be gullible enough to challenge their authority?

H.R. 325 ultimately passed both the House on the 23^rd and the Senate on the 31^st.

I will commend the House leadership for putting pressure on the Senate to pass a budget. It was a clever messaging idea. It’s a pity, however, that they had to resort to gimmicks and compromising their beliefs again and again to only get the country back to where it was before—excessive spending and a raised debt ceiling. I’m glad that, even though it passed, there are a handful of Republican Members willing to stand up for principle.  

I apologize for the few and far between posts on here. Holidays and work have certainly been keeping me busy. Heading to Las Vegas tomorrow to spend Christmas with my parents and brother. 

Politically speaking, a lot has been going on. Benghazi aftermath, gun control, the fiscal cliff, NDAA, etc. that all necessitate in-depth analysis. My new year’s resolution is two-fold: In addition to pledging to be consistently adding to my “Mikayla Wants to Move to Alaska” fund each month, I pledge to post at least once a week on this blog. 

Thanks for reading! And for the patience. Merry Christmas!

In other news, I recently got a cat. His name is George W. Bush. I blame all my political frustrations on him.

Forgive me, I’m feeling nostalgic.

Today I had the opportunity to go to the House Gallery to watch Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) give his farewell speech. I feel so blessed to have been able to watch amongst friends.

One statement he made that particularly resonated with me was: “We allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither.”

I won’t say that Ron Paul “cured my apathy.” I come from a long line of Constitution lovers, and one of my earliest memories is of me crying over Bill Clinton’s 1996 win. However, I must credit Dr. Paul with giving me a new perspective on what it means to be a conservative. In December 2007, Hunter Burton came into my AP U.S. Government class at Gig Harbor High School and said that some guy named Ron Paul got a blimp for his presidential campaign. I had never heard of him before, so that night I went home and Googled him. I’m so glad I did. I wanted to hate him. I really did. I argued with myself about his stance on immigration. But after watching a video called Ron Paul: A New Hope, I caved. I found myself tearing up.

From that 17-year-old, naive high school student to my life as  a Hill staffer, Dr. Paul inspires me to fight for freedom and defend the Constitution in any way I can. The liberty movement is about more than one man, though we have big shoes to fill. With Congressmen like Justin Amash, David Schweikert and Thomas Massie, and Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee in office,  and a nation-wide network of liberty-loving conservatives, I am confident we will be the future of the Republican Party.

Thank you for everything, Dr. Paul. Enjoy your retirement.

On Facebook, I saw my friends from Seattle posting President Obama’s campaign photo:

Now, I made a name for myself on campus for being a loud conservative, and now I work for a Republican Member of Congress. Few would classify me as a “liberal” and even fewer would confuse me for an Obama supporter. I figured that my trolling would be obvious to anyone who reads my Facebook posts.

Most people were able to tell immediately that I was joking, but I was shocked by some of the angry text messages I got. One informed me that I am “required” to be loyal to the GOP in all races because I work for a Republican. Although I was joking in my Obama post, I felt obligated to argue with this individual because he highlights exactly what is wrong with politics today: people putting party over principle.

I generally vote Republican, but I have voted for Democrats in the past. I am driven by the principles of fiscal responsibility, reasonable foreign policy and my social views. I don’t vote for people who are inconsistent or violate my trust. However, I don’t owe the Republican Party my vote. I didn’t hand over my free speech when I went to the Hill. I am an American citizen and I will vote for whomever I want for whatever reason I want.

Who am I voting for? None of your business.

For the past month, President Obama has been going around the country heralding the September drop in unemployment. For the first time in over 40 months, unemployment dipped below 8% to 7.8%. The President claimed it a victory for America and touted his plan and how it is clearly working in getting Americans back to work. He conveniently left out that 7.8% is the exact same unemployment rate as when he entered office in January 2009.

Today the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released it’s newest report on unemployment for the month of October. Unemployment rose once more to 7.9%. If we include those who have stopped looking for work or have accepted part-time jobs and are now underemployed, the rate would be as high as 14.6%.

It’s interesting to work in a congressional office when these jobs numbers come out. Each month, the Republicans point out how badly and unacceptable the numbers are, and the Democrats talk about it’s Bush’s fault and it “takes time” to “fix” the economy. But what’s most frustrating is when the numbers, which are facts, are released to the public, and the public’s immediate response is to call foul and inform members of Congress that they are “liars.” Apparently, Capitol Hill has a magic wand and can make the jobs numbers go any which way on a whim, despite an inability to get most jobs-related bills past the opposite chamber.

Anyway, here are some FACTS from October jobs report:

• The United States now ranks 13th in ease of starting a business in the world according to a World Bank report. We were ranked 3rd in 2007.
• The number of Americans on food stamps increased 45% since President Obama took office, with 15% of the population involved in the program. This also means that food stamp growth is 75 times greater than job creation.
• According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate as of 2011 was the highest since 1993 at 15%. This was up from 14.3% in 2009.
• 8.3 million Americans work part-time jobs out of necessity due to an inability to find full-time employment
• President Obama promised the unemployment rate would be under 6% today because of the stimulus bill he passed. Since this bill passed, unemployment has averaged around 9%

People really shouldn’t make promises they can’t keep.

Last night, as I put away the raisins (yes, I was that jerk) and take off my Halloween costume, I noticed and heard a steady stream of ambulances, cop cars and firetrucks rolling by my house. I live along a busy road that leads to the hospital, so hearing sirens is nothing new to me, but this seemed excessive even for Halloween. Because I was curious and a glutton for punishment, I went on the DC Police Department Twitter account and found this:

5D Shooting //4th & V Street NE //A/M shot multiple time unconscious not breathing //6559

— DC Police Department (@DCPoliceDept) November 1, 2012

About a mile from my house, a man was shot multiple times. The thought was unsettling. This is on top of the sexual assault last week near  my neighborhood that left a woman fighting for her life after a man stabbed her 25 times and ran away. Probably the best response of the night was when Jon B. (@JonEMTP) tweeted: “How to people keep getting shot in a city where almost no one can have a gun?”

It’s interesting how the cities with the greatest amount of gun control seem to continue to be the cities with the greatest amount of gun violence. It’s a very simple answer, one that few seem able to comprehend–gun control does not stop gun violence.

I confess myself new to the pro-gun position. Up until my senior year of college, I was a supporter of restrictive gun laws. The thought of concealed carry on campus made me uncomfortable to the point that, although my campus in Seattle did not have concealed carry, I imagined people all around me carrying weapons. When my speech professor had us give speeches on a topic, I chose concealed carry on campus, and we were required to argue the side that had the least amount of support. It appeared that most college students agreed with me at the time, so I was forced to give a persuasive speech in favor of allowing guns in college classrooms.

I changed my own mind. The statistics, logic and stories left me no choice. Rape rates fell in states with less restrictive laws. Murders were deterred by civilians standing up for themselves.

Now when a shooting makes the news, I have to ask myself if concealed carry could have prevented the tragedy. Virginia Tech? Absolutely. Aurora? Absolutely. Both of these Northeast DC victims? DC residents aren’t allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Who knows? All I know is that if I am going to be an empowered woman and defend myself, I am going to fight for my 2nd Amendment freedoms.

Rep. Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill received overwhelming, bipartisan support last month. The evening of the vote, Senator Rand Paul announced to a crowd at YAL’s National Convention: “If we win on [Audit the Fed], we should next audit the Pentagon.”

Well, the efforts to make this happen are not waiting for Sen. Harry Reid to bring Audit the Fed to the Senate floor. About a week later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced, S.3487, the Audit the Pentagon Act of 2012. If enacted, this bill would create incentives and enforcement mechanisms to force the Pentagon to pass an audit. By law — the Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990, to be exact — the Department of Defense is required to pass an audit, but Congress has yet to act in enforcing this requirement.

Why the sudden push? After the Budget Control Act (BCA) had been signed into law, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction failed in their task to find $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and/or revenue increases over the next ten years. This forces sequestration, which, in part, mandates the Department of Defense cut $500 billion in projected spending over the next ten years.

In his August 18 op-ed in the Washington Examiner, Sen. Coburn writes:

Auditing the Pentagon is critically important not just because it is the law but also because our ignorance of how we spend defense dollars undermines our national security. When the Pentagon can’t tell Congress — or itself — how it is spending money, high-priority defense programs face cuts along with low-priority programs, the exact situation in which we find ourselves today under sequestration.

Sequestration cuts are scheduled to begin this coming January, making the call for an audit necessary to remove wasteful spending instead of highly important programs. Waste that has already been discovered without an audit include the Pentagon Defense Logistics ordering billions of dollars more in equipment than is needed and building systems before the designs were fully tested, leading to unnecessary expenses.

S.3487 currently has seven co-sponsors: Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John Cornyn (R-TX), Scott Brown (R-MA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

According to the Huffington Post, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly fully welcomes the idea of a Pentagon audit, and wants to see it happen by 2014.

This was originally posted on YALiberty.org

Through the lens of Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel, Fahrenheit 451, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke to the crowd at last month’s FreedomFest about the growing threat of government intrusion in individuals’ lives and the continuous loss of Americans’ liberty. Says Sen. Paul:

Last week I asked for a report. …I wanted to know to what extent your privacy is being invaded. To what extent are they reading your emails? Reading and listening to your phone conversations without a judges warrant? And I can’t tell you an answer because it’s classified. It’s classified how many times they’re doing it. But what I think I can get away with saying is that when the government says it’s a few hundred, it’s closer to a gazillion.

Watch the full video of Sen. Paul’s speech here:

Meanwhile, in a Washington Times column yesterday, Judge Andrew Napolitano expounded on Sen. Paul’s speech and the dismal trend of government intrusion and secrecy:

The government gave Mr. Paul the distinct impression that it was afraid of our exercise of our personal freedoms and thus it needs to watch us as we do so. This is the same government whose stated principal purpose is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and thus personal freedom.

Read the rest of Judge Napolitano’s column here.

Originally posted on YALiberty.org