Target 2010 - Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)

I suppose no list of Congressmen that need to be fired would be complete without Charlie Rangel. Charlie began life in Harlem, New York in 1930 as the second of three children. Rangel’s father was frequently unemployed and absent from the home until he finally left his family in 1936. At first, this didn’t seem to affect Charlie and he appeared to do well in elementary and intermediate school; even holding a job at a neighborhood drug store at the age of eight. By high school, Rangel began losing interest in school, was frequently truant and often driven home by police. Rangel’s maternal grandfather worked for the courts and knew many of the local judges and lawyers. He managed to keep Charlie out of serious trouble while he struggled with life in his early teens trying to come to grips with his own identity. Rangel would eventually drop out of Dewitt Clinton H.S. at the age of 16 and began working at a number of menial and low paying jobs.

Charles Rangel would eventually enlist in the Army and served from 1948 through 1952. During the Korean War, Rangel was part of the all-black 503rd Field Artillery Battalion in the 2nd Infantry Division. Rangel distinguished himself during the battle of Kunu-ri in North Korea. Despite heavy fighting and relentless air strikes, Chinese forces flanked the U.S. 24th Division and the U.S. 35th regiment forcing them into retreat. During the retreat, Rangel was part of a vehicle column that became trapped and fell under attack by Chinese forces. Wounded by shrapnel from Chinese shell and facing sub-zero cold, Rangel found himself fighting the elements as well as the Chinese. As U.S. soldiers were being cornered and captured, a number of men from Rangel’s unit looked to him and his reputation for leadership. It took three days but Rangel managed to extricate roughly 40 men out of a battle that would kill nearly half the battalion. They manage to escape the Chinese encirclement and return to American held territory. For his wounds and bravery, Rangel would receive the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star for Valor, a Presidential Unit Citation, The Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation and three Battle Stars.

Rangel considered his time in the military as a formative period in his life and made himself a promise that he would not return home to the same life he left behind. Rangel left the military with an honorable discharge at the rank of Staff Sergeant. Rangel returned home and immediately finished high school completing two years of study in a single year. Rangel went on to earn a B.S. from the New York University School of Commerce in 1957, where he made the dean's list, and on full scholarship, obtained a Juris Doctor from St. John's University School of Law in 1960. His college experience also moved him into the realm of racial and social activist Rangel is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African-Americans. He is a member of the fraternity's World Policy Council, a think tank whose purpose is to expand Alpha Phi Alpha's involvement in politics, social and current policy regarding international concerns.

After passing the Bar Exam, Rangel began work with Weaver, Evans & Wingate, New York’s most prominent black law firm where Rangel earned a reputation for providing legal representation for black civil rights activists. In 1961, Rangel was appointed as an assistant U.S. Attorney for New York’s Southern District by then, U.S. Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. With a number of new positions in and around the Democratic political scene, Rangel developed a greater interest in politics and with Percy Sutton, formed the John F. Kennedy Democratic Club in Harlem which over time would be re-named the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Democratic Club. After several unsuccessful bids for elected office, Rangel would get his big break when his friend and mentor, Percy Sutton, was appointed as Manhattan Borough President leaving a vacancy in the New York State Assembly. With Sutton’s help and endorsement, Rangel won that seat in 1966, serving two terms during which; he became friends with New York Governor, Nelson Rockefeller.

Emerging as a leader among black legislators in the Assembly, Rangel supported many ideas that were not widely viewed as popular or in the best interest of the City. He proposed the legalization of gambling, specifically the “numbers” game; saying that for the average Harlemite, playing the numbers was “moral and a way of life.” Rangel opposed harsher penalties for prostitution stating it was ineffective. Curiously, Rangel proposed holding drug pushers criminally accountable for the actions of drug users. While he claimed illegal drug use was a national security issue he also believed that Harlem drug users were principally victims and wanted to move the criminality of drug related crime a little further up the ladder. This way he could claim to be tough on crime while sparing his constituents from harsher penalties. His reputation and friendship with Nelson Rockefeller paid off in 1970 when he defeated long term NY Congressman Adam Clayton Powell for NY’s 18th Congressional District’s seat.

Rangel is a skilled speaker and an adept politician but like his predecessor, has remained in Congress long enough to develop an air of elite entitlement. Powell found himself deeply embroiled in scandal and by the mid-1960s, Powell was being increasingly criticized for mismanagement of the Education and Labor Committee budget, taking trips abroad at public expense which included travel to his retreat on the Bahamian isle of Bimini. He was also under attack in his district, where his refusal to pay a slander judgment made him subject to arrest. He spent increasing amounts of time in Florida and gained a reputation for absenteeism during the meetings of his own committee. In 1967, the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his Committee Chair and the entire Congress eventually voted 307-116 to exclude him from Congress; a move that the Supreme Court would later call improper. Powell would eventually win reelection and was seated with the 91st Congress but was also fined $25,000 and denied seniority.

The budget scandal, Powell’s absenteeism and a personal scandal where it was found that Powell’s mother was on the payroll of his staff from 1961 until 1967 even though she left the U.S in 1961 to reside in Puerto Rico made him an easy target in the 1969 election. Rangel used the accusations against Powell to forward his campaign for Congress. While Rangel only defeated Powell by a mere 150 votes in the Democratic Primary, he won the Congressional seat with 88% percent of the vote over his Republican challenger.

One would think the fall of Adam Clayton Powell would have served as a notice to other presumptuous demagogues but I suppose those lessons are only apparent if you haven’t enjoyed overwhelming reelections for nearly forty years. Now, Charles Rangel has just had to resign his position as Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee because of allegations of scandal that are curiously similar to Powell’s committee budget fiasco. Additionally, Rangel has failed to pay taxes on rental properties that he owns abroad and has misused New York’s rent control assistance by joining three rent controlled apartments together for an office and an additional rent controlled apartment as a residence; all while listing his permanent address as a home in Washington. I suppose what makes the allegations against Rangel even worse is that he was the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; the Committee that writes the tax regulations the rest of us have to live with or else.

Charlie counted on his Parties dominance in Washington to protect him and they tried their best until public opinion demanded that he be removed from the chairman position and fully investigated. Charlie was so secure about his Parties protection that when an independent video journalist saw Rangel in the Capitol building and asked about the allegations, Charlie laughed at him and said “Why don’t you mind your own God damned business” before boarding an elevator. Apparently Charlie forgot that the Congress is our business. That tax cheat Congressman should expect serious questions from tax payers when there are questions of wrong-doing. That the reasons he is being questioned by the ethics committee is because even after 39 years in Congress, we still expect that the people that write the rules actually follow them too.

Today is shopping day and I have already checked the expiration date of the perishables in my refrigerator. I think it’s about time we put an expiration day on our Congressmen too. It only took 15 years for Adam Clayton Powell to take advantage of his position but Rangel has been there more than twice that time and is apparently, twice as corrupt. His answer to that video journalist only proves that he believes Congressmen, especially senior Congressman, are the elite and no longer need to address the questions posed by mere peasants. Charlie’s expiration date came and passed decades ago and it’s time to dump out the stale and bring in someone new (and honest). Sorry Charlie…it’s time to go.

Paul

Iran Builds Nuclear Capability and the US Disarms?

I am confused. We have Iran actively seeking nuclear weapons, North Korea saying not only that they possess these horrible devices but are willing to use them against South Korea and the US troops stationed there and the Obama administration not only says we will cut our stocks in half, but actually seeks to eliminate our nuclear weapons all together. He has already made a statement modifying the circumstances under which nuclear retaliation is possible, but apparently even that isn’t enough for our radical President.

He claims this will make the world safe but one would have to assume that the United States is nothing more than a renegade aggressor in need of restraint for that to be true. Mr. Obama may be swept up in the Progressive drivel he learned at Harvard, the anti-American sentiments he used as a community organizer or perhaps he actually bought into the lies spoken by Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, but America is not the problem. We are not an aggressor nation and we do not engage in wars of militaristic expansion. While we reserve the right to defend ourselves, we do not hold the threat of nuclear arms out as just another weapon in that struggle. After World War II, we have maintained the posture that our nuclear forces were strictly a deterrent against nuclear attack and have never seriously considered their use for any other purpose.

I do agree that we live in a different world where massive stock piles of nuclear weapons are not actually needed but to come to the conclusion that America can totally dismantle her nuclear capabilities as rogue nations hostile to the United States are actively seeking to obtain nuclear capabilities is not only foolish, but dangerously short sighted. Mr. Obama obviously hasn’t learned the lessons of the Cold War; lessons that clearly show if it were not for our preparedness, we most certainly would have had to counter a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in another long and bloody conventional war. It was the threat posed by our massive stocks of high grade nuclear weapons that kept the Soviet Union at bay.

Today, our potential enemies have no fear of America because we are currently bridled with a Commander in Chief that has no stomach for war and refuses to take decisive action to prevent these nations from obtaining a nuclear capability. Benjamin Franklin once said that “if we act like sheep, we will be eaten by wolves” displaying a keen understanding that we can only preserve peace by making it abundantly clear to threatening nations that we are prepared, capable and willing to defend ourselves against attack. The United States will invite aggressive challenges to our interests if we assume a posture that shows any weakness at all.

World opinion sees United States foreign policy as unclear at best and even friendly nations have begun to question our abilities. Yes, we are committed to winning the war against terrorist factions in Afghanistan but the actions we have recently taken treat foreign combatants and terrorists as third rate burglars for the court system to deal with and has undermined the efforts our brave soldiers have made in the field. The idea that we actually have three Navy SEALs on trial for giving a terrorist a bloody nose after he was captured for kidnapped several Americans, hanging them from a bridge and setting them on fire is not just a travesty but an embarrassment in the court of world opinion.

Our allies and enemies look at these actions and realize that President Obama is transforming our military by turning soldiers in battle into policemen on the beat. This is a war and our men and women under arms have gotten more than a bloody nose because we have rules of engagement and the enemy doesn’t. The idea that we could even consider trying our elite soldiers for the performance of their job is ludicrous. What is the message we are sending? Will our soldiers simply refuse to search for these terrorists out of fear that they too will be prosecuted or has the President just set the stage for military assassinations? After all, the message they hear is that a bullet eradicates the problem but an arrest will bring more false charges of abuse and result in more court martial’s of U.S. military personnel. Either way it serves the terrorists and will steel their efforts against us.

Now the President has made their mission even more hazardous by announcing to our enemies that they needn’t worry about nuclear retaliation if they employ the use of chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction, setting the stage for precisely that kind of assault against our soldiers. While the President piddles around with healthcare, cap and trade, card check, bank bailouts and corporate take-over’s, he has abdicated the only clear cut mission of the Federal government; the defense and security of the United States.

No, I don’t believe that he is intentionally weakening our military and nuclear capability in order to make America vulnerable to attack. I do believe that the man is a hopeless and confused ideologue that actually thinks that if we disarm, that other nations will cheer and follow suit.

Paul

The Commerce Clause Hoax

The other day I hinted that the President and Progressive members of Congress secretly fear the constitutional challenge to the healthcare bill. It has nothing to do with actually negating that healthcare bill per se, but rather the spill over affects of challenging the liberal use of the Commerce Clause that has given, or rather, that has allowed the Federal government to seize powers that were reserved for the States and the People when the Constitution was enacted.

Much of what the Federal government has done over the past one-hundred years has been justified through an interpretation of the Constitution and not what is actually written in the law. Since the Congress and President see fit to invoke the Commerce Clause as their justification lets take a look at that clause.

The United States Constitution
Article One
Section Eight
The Powers of Congress (third paragraph)

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

While seemingly innocuous, the Commerce Clause has been intentionally manipulated ever since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. To derive the power needed to create massive agencies and oppressive regulations using this simple statement one must first ignore or conceal the words and intentions of the founding fathers. “To Regulate”, at the time the Constitution was written, simply meant “to make regular” and the authority to regulate was never meant to imply that the Federal government would have any powers beyond those that were enumerated in Article one, Section Eight. There are numerous examples that prove this interpretation in both the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers and it doesn’t take very long to find them.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers three definitions for “regulate” which are”:
1- To govern or direct according to rule: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority: to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)2- To bring order, method, or uniformity (to regulate one's habits)3- To fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)

Congress loves to use the first definition of “regulate” to justify their actions through the use of the Commerce Clause but is that really appropriate? The Commerce Clause gives Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign nations but we all know that foreign nations are sovereign and will only recognize the rule and authority of law within the framework of their own governmental processes. Can Congress claim the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to negate the lawful structure of government in a foreign nation and burden that nation with laws and controlling regulations simply because we have trade with that nation? Of course not! As much as Congress may love that definition of regulate, it is clear that since the Commerce Clause also uses the word regulate in conjunction with commerce between the US and foreign nations; the definition that best applies would be the second “To bring order, method, or uniformity.”

In Article one, Section Eight, Congress also has the authority “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. Money is an object, so clearly one cannot control the actions of money through legislative regulation. The regulation of the value of currency can only make sense in the context of insuring that the value of money was uniform throughout the United States and that the exchange rate with foreign currency was equally uniform; that a dollar in Massachusetts was worth the same as a dollar in Georgia and both of those dollars could be exchanged for an equal amount in British Pounds.

In the Madison debates staged during the August meetings of the Federal Convention of 1787, Representative John Mason of Maryland argued the point of regulating the militia. In fact, his motion was for the “…power to make laws regulating and disciplining the militia...” Since discipline is a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity using regulation to imply control through legislative regulation would be redundant and redundancy was not something our founders were famous for. Therefore, the word regulate in that case also referred to insuring a basic uniformity of standards for the militia. Many examples exist within the Federalist papers and each time the word “regulate” appeared, it could only have meant to guarantee a degree of uniformity.

Since the inception of the Federal government and most especially, over the last hundred years, Congress has routinely overstepped its authority and in doing so, has slowly diluted the rights of the States that were clearly denied to the Federal government by the Tenth Amendment. The Federal legislation resulting from this seizure of power is now challenging the rights of all American citizens. For the Federal government to assume a power that is not clearly enunciated as one of the enumerated powers, they must first take that power away from the States, the people or both and the Commerce Clause is what has been most often used to achieve that. The President and the Congressional Democrats will fight tooth and nail in the defense of their new healthcare legislation but much of that fight will be waged to prevent the toppling of the healthcare bill from being used as a springboard by a coalition of States intent on restoring their Tenth Amendment rights and the Constitutional balance of power.

In addition to the actions taken by the States to block the individual mandate in the healthcare bill, a number of States have already enacted legislation or have legislation pending, designed to bolster the rights of gun owners in response to the threat of new Federal legislation that would restrict our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. These same States are considering measures to protect the rights of those that hunt and fish now that there are threats of Federal interference with those activities as well. As the Federal government attempts to cultivate more power in Washington, the States have finally realized the danger and are taking action themselves. Eventually the cases questioning the constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill will find their way to the Supreme Court and a defeat for Obama there may open the door for the States to question the authority of the Federal government in other areas where the definition of commerce is in question or where the interstate activity of that commerce has not been firmly established.

This reigning in of the Federal government is long overdue and if these measures fail, there may be no way to restrain the Washington leviathan the States created through their own complacency. If however, the individual mandate to purchase insurance fails to pass muster for constitutionality, the healthcare bill will fall with it and that failure will set the stage for a reevaluation of other, equally intrusive Federal agencies, programs and regulations. Federal law may supersede State law as the law of the land but not if the Federal laws, are themselves, unconstitutional. The Constitution grants the Federal government authority to enact any and all laws needed to fulfill their lawful obligations under the Constitution but those obligations are few and limited. I have a feeling they are about to find out how few and how limited their powers will be and they aren’t going to like it very much.

Paul

Is the Healthcare Bill Constitutional?

Is the Healthcare Bill constitutional? This may well be the most important question ever asked in the United States and many of those States are asking it. The premise dictated by Congress is that they derive their authority to enact the Healthcare Bill through both the Supremacy Clause that states that Federal Law supersedes State law and the Commerce Clause that gives the Federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The argument in favor of the Supremacy Clause is a moot point if the law that Congress passed is found to be unconstitutional. Since the Healthcare Bill relies heavily on the funding accrued through a mandate that every American must now buy healthcare insurance, the obvious question is what actually constitutes commerce? The Congress has obviously mistaken their need to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance to fund their program with the constitutional authority to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance. Since the Healthcare Bill is an empty shell without that mandatory purchase, the Congress and the President are not likely to give this up easily.

So what is commerce? According to Merriam-Webster, commerce is: “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”. Franklin Roosevelt broadened the definition of commerce during the Great Depression to facilitate government control of food prices. For this FDR used the argument that even the production of food products for personal consumption could disrupt the interstate price of those commodities. His rationale speculated that if too many people began growing their own foods, then the national price of food would be adversely affected, causing further economic harm. Since the nation was in a State of economic emergency, people were willing to try anything to stop the bleeding and Roosevelt got his way.

FDR’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause allowed him broad powers and he used them to create a multitude of new agencies that began the process of seizing powers that clearly belonged to the individual States under the banner of aggressively attacking the Depression and putting people back to work. Of course, the left loves to argue that is was those measure that saved the nation from economic ruin even though the enlightened and educated know that the Depression didn’t end until World War II destroyed every manufacturing center in the world except those safely located in the United Stated and the carnage killed and wounded more than 600,000 previously unemployed Americans; Americans that would no longer add to the unemployment rolls no matter what Roosevelt did.

More than seventy years later, the U.S. Congress is still using that perverse interpretation of the Commerce Clause to broaden the power of the Federal government even further. Today, as in Roosevelt’s day, for something to be considered commerce, an action had to take place and someone would have to buy, build, sell or grow something before we could claim that commerce existed. Now Congress wants to go even further and Congressional Democrats are struggling to make the case that since not buying insurance could adversely affect the commerce of healthcare, it may be lawfully regulated by Congress through the commerce clause. It was a stretch of the imagination and a violation of the Constitution when FDR claimed Congress had the right to regulate the actions of private citizens because those actions “might” interfere with interstate commerce. The idea that Congress can now regulate the inactivity of private citizens because that inactivity will interfere with a level of commerce that didn’t exist until Congress passed a healthcare bill that required the unwilling involvement of all US citizens goes beyond unconstitutional and could very well be criminal.

Why do I say criminal? Well, let’s look at the crime of extortion. Again, the Merriam-Webster definition says that extortion is: “the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice”. Ok, what does it mean to extort? Merriam-Webster says that is: “to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power”.

The Healthcare bill dictates (forces) all Americans to purchase healthcare insurance. Failure to purchase health insurance will result in a fine (obtain money) of up to 2/1/2% of that persons income. The Internal Revenue Service (an official) will be responsible for confirming that you have adequate insurance and will levy and collect fines if you don’t (intimidation). Why did they use the IRS and not the massive new agency that will direct healthcare benefits and expenses? Because the IRS is the only Federal agency that can collect fines without proof of guilt or due process; forcing the afflicted citizen to prove his innocence rather than the government having to prove your guilt; a must in every other area of law.

Well, what do you know! The penalties and collection of fines established by the healthcare bill fits the definition of extortion perfectly! After all, the President and Congressional Democrats were clear that this was not a tax or else the President would have broken his promise of not imposing a middle class tax increase. Even if they called it a tax, Congress only has the Constitutional authority to raise taxes to pay the bills of the Republic and to provide for the defense of the nation but those taxes must be uniform and a tax only collected from those that do not purchase health insurance is certainly not uniform.

As with many things, once this finds its way to court the question of intent is bound to arise. Some unwitting Democrats have already provided us with the answer to that. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) says the bill is meant to correct a maldistribution of wealth….and you thought this was about health. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says it’s “more about diet than diabetes” indicating that they intend to use the bill to exert unconstitutional control over the general population. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) invoked a quote from Thomas Edison during a meeting of the rules committee that “there are no rules here – we’re trying to accomplish something”. He then added that “all the Republicans are want to talk about are the people” as if a duly elected representative of the United States Congress can act without the consent of the governed and still claim constitutional authority. Even worse was the moronic statement made by Representative Phil Hare (D-IL) who said “I’m not worried about the Constitution; I’m worried about the thousands of people that are dying because they don’t have healthcare”.

It looks like the intentions have been clearly established here. Max Baucus wants to play Robin Hood, Nancy Pelosi wants to pick your lunch for you and I’m not sure how that squares with Alcee Hastings equivalent of one of the ruling elite saying “let them eat cake” in response to the unpopularity of the legislation. Bringing up the rear we have Phil Hastings that never even heard of the Constitution even though he swore an oath to support and defend it. And these are the people that want us to believe they have the authority to demand you buy insurance or else?

No, there is no constitutional authority for Congress to demand that you purchase a private product of their choosing for your personal use, using your money to purchase it. I’ve heard the left wing spokesmen on radio and television trying to equate this mandate with auto insurance. Well, there is a big difference. The insurance requirement is only mandated for people that choose to purchase a car for use on public roads (an act of commerce). There are no insurance requirements for vehicles that are operated solely on private property and there is no mandate for people that do not own a car to have to purchase insurance to help drive the cost down for those that do. The auto insurance mandate is required by the individual States, not the Federal government and anyone that has bothered to read the Constitution knows that the States and the people retain all powers not specifically given to the Federal government by the Constitution; including the right to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle within their respective States.

Paul

Healthcare - The Myth of Neutrality

Now that the Healthcare bill has become law, we are finally getting some of the transparency we had hoped for during the debates. Unfortunately, this transparency came too late to be of any use during the legislative process and the news is devastating. Despite the promises of budget neutrality made by the President and the Congressional Democrats, this neutrality is turning out to be a shameless and cruel hoax. While the President points to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that claims the bill will provide deficit reduction of just over $100 billion dollars in the first ten years and $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years, those numbers were intentionally manipulated by the Democratic leadership.

The CBO can only score what it is before them. It can not extrapolate based on intent and it cannot adjust even when it knows key provisions have been left out of the materials they have been given. The $500 billion that this bill cuts from Medicare was factored in as a savings measure to provide solvency for Medicare through 2019. One would think that if it were a savings measure, that the money would remain in Medicare to restore balance to the program considering the projected rate of expansion. No; instead that $500 billion was also scored as part of the funding for a new entitlement program in the healthcare bill to provide subsidies for the purchase of healthcare insurance for low income families. Counting the same money twice in a business plan or as a proposal to investors would be a crime unless that plan or proposal is being submitted by Congress to the CBO for analysis.

The CBO must also score the bill based upon the language contained in the bill and must assume the cuts proposed in the bill will be law and will take place. Historically, the Congress has already passed cuts to Medicare in many previous years and to date, none of those cuts have ever been enacted. The CBO would love to say “Are you kidding? You guys have never made Medicare cuts before so why should we believe you will now?” The sad truth is they are prohibited from adding anything to their analysis that isn’t part of the actual language before them; including the intent and historical spinelessness of Congress.

Since the $278 billion dollar “doctor fix” was also removed from the legislation and will be considered as part of a spending package separate and apart from the Healthcare Bill, the CBO was prohibited from considering the budget implications from that as well. So far, a cursory look at the fiscal manipulation Democrats used to conceal the true cost of this bill adds up to three-quarters of a trillion dollars and that is just the beginning. It doesn’t sound like that $100 billion dollar savings in the first year is all it’s cracked up to be. As far as the $1.2 trillion dollar savings the CBO estimated for the second ten years is concerned, that is equally as fictional. What the President left out in his speech to the nation was the side note the CBO gave him on their estimates for year eleven through twenty of the program. The CBO made sure they cautioned that the estimates they provided are unreliable beyond ten years and that the projected savings can only be realized if the assumptions made by Congress in the legislation remain valid.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Large portions of the uninsured are going to be driven into the expanded Medicaid program; a program that bears little consequence for the Federal government but can spell disaster for the individual States. It is very easy for Congressional Democrats to claim budget neutrality when they can shift 70% of this new burden onto the States and let them worry about how to deal with it. Many of these States are already struggling with budget problems of their own because of the recession and loss of tax revenue. In short, while Congressional Democrats try to sell the illusion of budget neutrality and the benefits of the healthcare bill before the November election, the States are going to have to raise your taxes, cut your services or both just to avoid bankruptcy because of the new unfunded mandates in the bill.

Many of the States realize they are already at the tax saturation point and will find it exceedingly difficult to raise taxes to offset the increased Medicaid liability without driving their real tax payers out. States like New York, New Jersey and California have already seen an exodus of the highest earners in recent years and when the affluent in these areas have finally had enough, they aren’t moving to neighboring States for a measly one or two percent decrease in taxes; they are moving to one of the seven US States that have no personal income tax which should be a lesson for us all. As world markets decline, investors are going to look for the safest place to put their money and many would prefer the security and stability of the United States. Unfortunately, the wild spending and outrageous taxes have taken us out of the running and nervous investors would rather take a chance on China’s experiment with limited Capitalism than America’s incredibly stupid experiment with Socialism.

As Federal policy drives the States closer to the brink of disaster, many are beginning to fight back. Several have passed legislation negating the individual mandate that would force citizens to purchase healthcare insurance under the new Healthcare bill and more than twenty more have identical legislation pending. Of course that legislation does not exempt the citizens and businesses in those States from the new tax liabilities so it in fact, allows people the privilege of paying more for absolutely nothing in return.

Congressional Democrats are already kicking back stating that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution invalidates those measures reminding those States that Federal law supersedes State law. Of course the Supremacy Clause only applies to Federal law that is actually constitutional and that is where several States are applying their attention. Within minutes of the signing of the Healthcare Bill into law, a number of States filed suits challenging the constitutionality of the mandates that force individuals to purchase healthcare insurance and the unfunded mandates the States will face as the number of people enrolled in Medicaid climbs as a result of the bill.

Tomorrow, we will discuss the constitutional questions surrounding the Healthcare Bill and why Congress and the President are secretly concerned about those challenges.

Paul

Target 2010 - Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Henry Waxman is one of the more nefarious members of Congress and poses a greater threat than most because of his seniority as a thirty-five year veteran of Congress. His political ideology and voting record are currently rated between 85 and 100% by a whole host of Progressive and Leftist political organizations but of course, that should come as no surprise. Anyone that has followed Waxman’s career has seen that time and time again, Waxman has openly displayed a real love for political activism and Socialist principals. He champions many of his causes with a hard core belief that government must act for the good of the people, even if those actions are unpopular and stretch the very fabric of the Constitution. Curiously, as he claims to speak for the public, much of the legislative action that Waxman is famous (or infamous) for, necessarily requires a degree of government control over the people that is clearly beyond the lawful limits decreed by the enumerated powers of the United States Constitution.

Many Progressives are drawn to the study of Political Science and Law to facilitate their ideology and Waxman was no different. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a Degree in Law from UCLA Law School. Anyone that has been alive for the past forty years knows who UCLA is and what they represent. They have been one of the centers of Progressive ideology for decades and their halls and buildings are clogged with openly Socialist professors and educational programs. Many of those professors actively pursue the indoctrination of their students until they are drawn into a zombie-like belief of what is now called, social and economic “justice”. The curious thing about this brand of justice is that it unapologetically advocates stomping on the rights, freedoms and possessions of some, to provide a subsistence level, government funded existence for others. I was raised to believe that the redistribution of wealth is not justice; it is Socialism but then again, I didn’t go to UCLA. In the end, I think the only thing UCLA excels in is providing future Progressives with a lexicon of new and less threatening words they can use to sell Marxist principals to an unsuspecting nation.

It is clear that Waxman drank the “Kool-Aid” while he was in UCLA because he is one of the most far left leaning Progressives in Congress and second only to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that is an admitted Socialist. Waxman pushed for crushing legislation against the tobacco industry and was instrumental in the House passage of many anti-smoking legislative packages that included the imposition of heavier “sin” taxes for tobacco products. I know there aren’t many people that think that smoking is a good thing, including me. It is a nasty, filthy habit but in reading the Constitution, it should remain a nasty, filthy personal choice because there is no way to tax smokers into submission without inflicting grave damage on the Constitution.

Taxation was never meant to regulate behavior and the imposition of those specific taxes is a direct assault on the Ninth Amendment affirmation that the general public has more rights than those that are specifically stated in the Constitution. It also flies in the face of Article One, Section Eight (The Powers of Congress) which states clearly that taxes are to be collected only to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States and that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. There is nothing uniform about a tax on one consumable item that is not levied on all of them and there is no compelling argument that the Congress has the right to impose a tax that exceeds the criteria of Article One, Section Eight to encourage or dissuade behavior. The Constitutional issues with Waxman’s urge to ignore personal freedoms for our own good have been argued six ways from Sunday and I doubt little progress will be made on that unless we can establish a list of definitions that clearly state the intentions of the law as it was written by the founding fathers.

Laying taxes aside for the moment, Waxman is quoted as saying something far more dangerous to a nation of free people. Henry Waxman said "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” One must first recognize that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because it was the only way to guarantee that the rest of our rights would remain inviolate at the hands of the Federal government. The founders did not trust a strong central government and recognized that a limited government would only remain limited for as long as the people maintained the ability to “keep them honest”; by force if needed.

I submit to you that the only people that would be nervous about American citizens that would use weapons in the defense of their rights are the people that intend to deny those rights in the first place. The Progressive movement seeks to replace the Free Market with a government based on Socialist principals and it is well known that the first impediment to this “Progressive Transformation” is the uninhibited private ownership of weapons. As such, the first assault on our rights must have the affect of nullifying the Second Amendment before they can move with impunity to tamper with any of the rest. I don’t think it’s any great mystery that Henry Waxman is a devoted advocate of strict gun regulation. For those that think gun registration and licensing is a benign action that promotes safety; don’t forget that every government that made radical changes towards Socialism used those very registration and licensing records to zero in on gun owners when the confiscation of weapons finally began.

Henry Waxman is currently Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is an extremely powerful position and Waxman has used that position to nudge the country closer to the hidden goals of the Progressive movement than at any time in our history. In many ways, Henry Waxman was the muscle behind Nancy Pelosi when it came to extorting the votes they needed for the Healthcare Bill from reluctant Democrats. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, there are matters taken up before his Committee that can direct billions in funding to the States of Congressmen willing to cast the “right” vote and those same Congressmen could see projects and special funding dry up and blow away if their votes weren’t in line with the demands of the House leadership.

Of course, those deals are never discussed openly on the floor of Congress but you can bet that language favoring Congressmen that sold their votes behind closed doors has already been slipped into Bills totally unrelated to Healthcare so the trail to connect the bribes to the votes would be difficult, at best, to follow. The justification for this can be found in the open admission by the Democratic leadership is that this is the way business in Washington is done. It doesn’t really matter if Candidate Obama campaigned on a new era of transparency and honesty in government, Obama is President now and he made it very clear during the healthcare summit that the campaign is over.

Henry Waxman used every power at his disposal to move the healthcare bill forward and now he is already positioning himself to do the same for the comprehensive Energy Bill otherwise known as Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is his bill and is even more intrusive and fiscally irresponsible than the Healthcare Bill. Through the smart grid, smart meters and compliant appliances, the government will have the ability to reach into your home and regulate how long your appliances run and how much you will pay to run them. The regulation of CO2 is not actually meant to curb climate change. It is meant to provide a vast new source of revenue for redistribution, bringing us even closer to a Socialist State. Just as in smoking, if the government were serious about reducing CO2, they wouldn’t simply charge you a fee to produce it or to use it; they would actually regulate it with goals for reduction.

Waxman is a vicious little troll that has been in Congress long enough to believe that he is a member of the ruling class instead of just another United States citizen elected to represent his constituents. As with most Progressives, Waxman has forgotten his responsibility to his district and to the Constitution. You can always spot the Congressmen that have been there way too long. They are the ones that think the Constitution is a hurdle to be jumped or a challenge to be overcome. Unfortunately, Henry represents an area that doesn’t pose much difficulty for his reelection but I still have faith. I think this year exposed career politicians for what they really are and that is the polar opposite of the founder’s intention of having a citizen legislature. You can’t stay in Washington for thirty-five years and pretend you have the first idea about what your constituents expect from their government. The biggest favor anyone can do for Henry Waxman is to send him home so he can get reacquainted with the human race.

Paul

Off Shore Exploration or a Prelude to Cap and Trade?

Yesterday, the President announced plans to open certain off-shore areas on the East Coast and Alaska for oil exploration. While that may sound like Mr. Obama is finally coming to his senses regarding energy independence, the actuality is that this is just another red herring to promote cap and trade. The plan would limit exploration for new sources of domestic oil to the East Coast in an area that spans from just south of New Jersey to the northern limits of Florida and in limited portions of the Alaskan coastline. This plan excludes the entire Pacific coast and the Gulf of Mexico where we know oil actually exists in qualities that make extraction financially viable. Additionally, only a few leases for drilling will actually be allowed under Obama’s plan and the bulk of his plan is limited to convincing oil companies to launch new exploration in permissible areas on a hope and promise that after spending millions to map the area for potential that they will actually be allowed to drill there when the dust settles.

We need to find new sources of fuel if we are ever going to marginalize the stranglehold that the oil producing Middle East nations and Venezuela have on us. If I thought the President were serious about exploiting the domestic reserves of oil and natural gas I would applaud Wednesday’s announcement, but he is not. This is merely a clever two pronged strategy to cultivate support for his energy bill otherwise known as cap and trade. He as much as admitted that by invoking the need for his comprehensive energy plan in the same speech that spoke of this new exploration initiative. The opening of these areas for exploration is meant to silence his critics by giving the media something with which they can counter the claims that Obama will cripple the domestic production of energy resources through his energy bill. After all, if he intended to shut down that entire industry why would he allow exploration?

Well, exploration is not development and actual development except for a very small area, is not in Obama’s plan. His intentions have been made very clear in the fourteen months since his inauguration and include massive taxes on energy and new restrictions on oil and coal development. The Obama administration recently nationalized another thirteen million acres of American land by Executive Order under the guise of a national monument imitative. Curiously, much of that land was in areas that are known or are suspected to be rich in oil shale and coal and would prevent the development of those resources for all time. This is on the heels of a push by Federal Wildlife officials to designate more than two-hundred additional species of minor fish, rodents and other worthless pests as endangered in a move to protect their habitats; habitats which also happen to be in areas that are potentially rich sources of fuel and coal. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Since the “comprehensive” Energy Bill the President is now aiming for would cripple industry by mandating caps on CO2 production unless costly CO2 credits are purchased, it is clear there will be no need to drill for any of that oil because America will no longer be able to afford to use it once the bill is passed into law. The Energy Bill does not just affect business but penalizes each and every household by exponentially raising home energy costs. A major component of the cap and trade initiative is the so-called “smart grid” and equally nefarious “smart meter”. For the first time in American history, a consumer will have no idea what the cost of something is before they purchase it. The meters can instantaneously report area usage and raise the cost of energy based on demand. There will be no more pre-determined peak and off-peak hours to base your home consumption of electricity on.

Don’t believe me? Well, certain areas of California have already installed these “smart” meters in a pilot program and residents were shocked by an immediate increase in energy costs of up to 25%. Let’s not forget that Obama had already admitted during the campaign that “electric prices would necessarily have to skyrocket under his energy proposal”. The President’s energy plans are about denial and not development. They are about directing consumption through punitive taxation and not at all about expanding the availability of low cost fuels and energy. They will force people to reduce the CO2 generated by electrical power plants by forcing a reduction in energy consumption. People will see a net increase in their electric bills of up to 65% nearly immediately and of more than 100% by 2015. That coupled with the damages wrought by our new healthcare legislation will spell a loss of no less than five million additional jobs in the United States as people scale back the purchase of their few remaining comfort items just to keep the lights and refrigerator on and as US industries scale back in kind.

So how can we predict a rise in household energy costs of 65% if the pilot program in California only showed a 25% rise? Simple, the pilot program was to test meter and smart grid technology and that test resulted in a 25% increase. It will not be until cap and trade passes before the effects of having to purchase carbon credits are added to the bill as well. One that has happened….Viola! 65%!

Don’t forget that these are the same people that recently announced that $7.00 a gallon gasoline prices would be a good thing for the country. Of course that was the recent finding of a Harvard University study and I am sure I don’t have to remind you that Harvard is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts; an area well serviced by mass transit. Cambridge is a far cry from the rural areas and industries that would be hit hardest by such a short sighted call for an energy policy based on forced conservation. Of course the government loves the idea because the revenues that could be collected under such a policy are just the sort of things that attracts the attention of Progressive ideologues bent on pursuing the Socialist platform of wealth redistribution.

Max Baucus waited until the Senate passed the Healthcare Reconciliation Act before admitting that a large portion of the Healthcare bill was designed to correct what he called the “maldistribution” of wealth that he claims has become problematic over the past few years. Simply, the “maldistribution” of wealth simply means that the people that actually earn money in this country have been allowed to keep way too much of it. It is the intention of every Progressive to introduce America to the Soviet Constitution piece by piece until they can arrive at a state of pure Socialism.

Progressives fought hard for the Healthcare Bill claiming that Healthcare was a right. Under our Constitution, the Federal government is merely shackled by the law to prevent it from interfering in the individual’s pursuit of their God given rights. The government can neither deny a citizen their rights nor can they create them. On the other hand, the Soviet Constitution clearly enunciates a right to healthcare, education, housing, a job, etc. Does that sound familiar? Of course what proponents of this “Nanny” State have failed to realize over the past hundred years is that government cannot provide anything for you unless you are willing to relinquish your right to make those choices for yourself. Where do you think the mandate to purchase healthcare came from? As part of the cost of the government provision of healthcare you are required to surrender your right to choose not to purchase health insurance.

The President’s energy proposal (cap and trade – cap and tax) is rife with additional redistributive programs that will take your money in the form of energy taxes and hand them out to their favorite group of domestic indigents. If you are already one of the bona-fide American welfare recipients, there is a program to help you offset any increase you may see in your energy costs. Of course, that doesn’t apply to the rest of us but hey, if you make more than the Federal poverty level you have plenty of money – right? There is also a “cash for clunkers” program for manufactured homes. If one of the qualified poor lives in a manufactured home built before 1976 they have a provision in the bill to use American tax dollars to help them trade up to a new “energy efficient” manufactured home! Nope, we don’t get that either.

This is not an Energy plan. This is a Federal mugging; the theft of even more of your hard earned dollars to keep as many people locked into Federal aid programs as possible. For now, it is merely aimed at keeping those “recipients” loyal to the Democratic Party. You know, the Party of “Here have some more….it’s free!” The problem is that it really isn’t free; it’s actually stolen property. These are dangerous years because 47% of America are either exempt from taxation or actually receive aid from the government already. Once the scales tip past 50%, there will never be another honest election in this country. There is no limit to the greed of the people that collect your money and that greed will have no boundaries once they represent the majority of the electorate.

Paul