News of the Day
In Perspective
Posted on 10/05/2008 6:02:08 PM PDT by Weirdad
|
|
News of the Day In Perspective |
|
|
| 1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9 Tucson, AZ 85716-3450 Phone: (800) 635-1196 |
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943 Omnia pro aegroto |
Massive pork bill passed by unconstitutional process to “rescue” economy
October 5th, 2008
According to the U.S. Constitution, all revenue bills must originate in the U.S. House of Representatives. How then did the massive bill to make taxpayers buy all kinds of toxic debt originate in the U.S. Senate?
It only appears that way. For purposes of our lawmakers, “it”—that is the shell bill wrapped around the “rescue” package—did come from the House. Apparently, any bill previously passed by the House will serve. This one was a bill requiring “mental health parity,” H.R. 1424, originally sponsored by Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and pushed through as the shell bill by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). That is an insurance mandate that forces employers and insurers who offer mental health benefits to more than 50 workers to provide them on par with medical benefits. There can be no higher deductibles or copayments for mental health benefits, or stricter limits on physician visits (Kevin Freking, LA Times 10/2/08).
Starting out as a 3-page bill, the package rapidly expanded to 442 pages, despite a promise by Sen. Chuck Schumer not to “Christmas-tree” the bill. It got decorated even more after the House rejected it in response to an outpouring of rage from constituents.
In a tape played on talk radio, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said his mail was running about 50:50. “Fifty percent no, and 50% hell no.” Incumbents have a lot of explaining to do, especially if they switched their votes from “no” to “yes.”
Possible rationales: The stock market plunge after the “no” vote. Disaster aid to states struck by summer storms. A one-year patch for middle-class families facing a sting from the alternative minimum tax. More students able to finish college if a credit crunch on college loans is forestalled. Increasing FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000. Tax credits for “alternative” energy. A really good speech by Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) about how he was willing to pay the price of getting this important thing done.
The biggest single switch was in the Congressional Black Caucus. Thirteen members of the CBC switched from “no” to “yes”; many had heard from Barack Obama. Both presidential candidates strongly endorsed the bill.
“When I woke up this morning, I had real peace that this was the right thing to do,” said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), a certified public accountant (Patrick O’Connor, Politco.com 10/4/08).
Among the switchers was Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the hero of conservatives credited with the initial rejection. Apparently because of the addition of $150 billion in “sweeteners” to the $700 billion bailout, he called on Republicans to vote for the modified bill.
Among the least well-known features of the bill is a provision that makes IRS authority to conduct undercover operations permanent. IRS agents can, for example, run an extended sting operation disguised as an accounting firm. The bill also empowers the IRS to share personal tax returns with any federal agency investigating suspected “terrorist” activity.
The most earth-shattering provisions in the bill lay the foundations for an economy-killing carbon tax like the “cap-and-tax” system that is now destroying European industry, observes Matthew Vadum (Capital Research Center 10/2/08). On Oct 2, while Americans were focused on the threat of a credit meltdown, House Democrats released principles for an aggressive plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions, which could cost even more than the failed $6.7 trillion Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, writes Marc Morano, communications director for Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Inhofe staff.
The $700 trillion that the Treasury is now authorized to hold in “troubled assets” is piled on top of other recent bailouts. These include: $29 billion for Bear Stearns financing; $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization; $85 billion for AIG; $300 billion for Federal Housing Administration rescue bill; and much more, for a total of more than $1.8 trillion, or more than $17,000 for every American household, writes Declan McCullagh (Politics and Law 10/3/08).
As Congress and the President celebrate “dealing with” the problem, Treasury Secretary Paulson, with his selected associates, is planning to move quickly to buy distressed assets. What is his experience in valuing assets? Paulson, remember, was formerly head of Goldman Sachs and, simultaneously, the Nature Conservancy. He presided over the donation of 680,000 acres of land in Tierra del Fuego, Chile, to the Wildlife Conservation Society without ever assessing the area’s potential value for timber, oil, or metals, in order that Goldman Sachs shareholders could know the true value of the giveaway (Vadum, op. cit.) (Also see Fred Lucas, “In Goldman Sachs We Trust: How the Left’s Favorite Bank Influences Public Policy, Foundation Watch, October 2008.)
Carbon emissions trading is the biggest potential moneymaker for Goldman Sachs.
Who will be competing to unload assets on the U.S. taxpayer? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has his hand out for California, which has been shut out of credit markets and could run out of cash by the end of the month. Many foreign banks are also on the verge of the abyss.
The stock market fell further after the bailout, as did the dollar. The focus has now shifted to the fallout and to the question of whether the latest, biggest bailout will succeed in containing the panic.
Additional information:
Tags: bailout, rescue plan
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 5th, 2008 at 4:18 pm and is filed under economics.
The Nazi "doctors" are laughing in their graves at the irony of a bill for PSYCHIATRIC DISEASE being used as the nucleus (not 'nuculus' by the way, dang it!) for a return for National Socialism.
If you and I used such deceitful techniques to creatively get around our taxes, etc. of course the government would accept that, right?
And it violates the 10th amendment? Which one is that? What are you talking about, that the power to take this money and do this thing was not enumerated in the Constitution?
When our elected and appointed officials swear allegiance to the Constitution, and then after that turn around pull such schemes as this, it's like arguing the definition of "is" and is a crime in itself. Why am I surprised at any of the illegalities we are being attacked with when we've let things descend this far...
If it is unconstitutional, then who filed a case in Federal court. I see a lot of discussion, but no action.
(if you can fix those quotes in the title I would appreciate it — did not realize they were special quotes)
It wasn’t unconstitutional. The bill originated in the house as a pork bill. The Senate amended the bill to put in the bailout.
Like it or not, it passes constitutional muster.
People have given up fighting 10th amendment cases because they always claim falsely that it affect interstate commerce, or some other totally bogus baloney. I am not a lawyer but bet this is not the first “trick” bill originating in the Senate. Wonder is anyone knows if any have been argues against successfully before.
Heh. Sort of. The pork part of the bill is HR 6049. It passed the House in May, and after being amended by the Senate, passed the Senate on September 23, 2008. The vote in the Senate was 93-2, 2 Democrats voted NAY. All of that standing separately from the bailout, "the pork bill" (HR 6049) was in the House, ripe for passage.
The pork bill passed the Senate again, a second time, when approximately the same contents were combined with approximately the House-passed bailout language, and stuffed into HR 1424.
What used to be in HR 1424 is on the cutting room floor.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The other is an annoyance and a technicality that needs to be corrected so future politicians can't do that, because it is in part supposed to protect We the People supposedly “closer” to the House from the Senate; and it is supposed to slow down the process of legislation.
We were railroaded on this by politicians crying “fire” in a non-burning crowded theater and then pointing at the people fleeing as a good reason to panic!
They breeched with bad faith the US Constitution—deceit to get what they wanted. But even if they had not run that scam it is illegal under the 10th.
Exactly, gosh you and me both know it. That’s probably more than the entire Congress.
No, it doesn't.
Congress has the authority to legislate within its areas of enumerated jurisdiction only... at least according to Madison:
it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
BTW, the People have no legal standing to sue the federal government, as it is the States that are the parties to the Constitutional compact.
(ping to neverdem also for a slightly-medical article)
Was HR 1424 a bill for the raising of revenue?
I wish Texas had the huevos to take the feds to court, but I've already read about 2 States who want to ask the feds to 'help' them with their financial woes.
[GAG!]
Guess it never occurred to them to be like the rest of us poor schmoes and just STOP frittering away what funds they have!
Yes, in part. One can get to the details of that specific bill from the summary page of H.R.1424.
It's very common for certain statutory language to appear in multiple bills, simultaneously. Following Congress is a bit like a shell game, except all the containers are transparent for anybody who has the time to check Thomas. Not to say that the language is available in time for the public to scope it out in advance of a vote (contentious things are usually done in back rooms, with administration participation), but the language is always there after the fact.
“Exactly, gosh you and me both know it. That’s probably more than the entire Congress.”
Ron Paul knows it
Yeah, we'll all need shrinks in the end after all of the provisions take effect.
That’s a fact. One congressman. Every time I think someone else knows it they end up voting happily for some travesty.
Free tag line for someone: “The genius of American government is not “democracy”—it is limited government!”
These power grabbing politicians are all poisoning the genius of American government every chance they get.
I really like these guys. They have also spoken out against the anti-gun propaganda from other medical organizations, as well as sound alarms on the New Freedom mandatory mental health screening program.
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.
Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html
These are dark days for the Constitution.
The principles of our government need to be taught throughout all the grades. Unfortunately I wouldn’t trust most of the current teachers with the subject. But I think that’s where it needs to be addressed.
Of course, the other problem is how much our representatives are more influenced by money than voters anyway. They are even bribing each other with our tax dollars to ignore us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.