US Budget Compared To Your House Budget

If you haven’t seen this before, it breaks it down to easy-to-understand numbers.

This will get your head wrapped around our problems.........why do we think these people have any mind at all? Take a moment and read this all the way thru…..

US Debt Status

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000

Now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's YOUR Household Budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Current outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

Then check these statistics:

(This list represents the percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is -- a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages...)

T. Roosevelt...........38%
Taft.........................40%
Wilson ....................52%
Harding...................49%
Coolidge...................48%
Hoover ....................42%
F. Roosevelt.............50%
Truman....................50%
Eisenhower..............57%
Kennedy..................30%
Johnson....................47%
Nixon........................53%
Ford..........................42%
Carter.......................32%
Reagan......................56%
GH Bush....................51%
Clinton ......................39%
G.W. Bush.................55%

And the winner is:

Obama.......................... 8%*

*This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and for you and me?!

Do you think you’ll EVER see these facts in the mainstream media?

"One of the penalties of not participating in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors." -Plato

Pearl Harbor, WWII, and a Lesson for Today

On this day 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and requested a declaration of war against Japan following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt's words carried forth across the nation via radio, and the consequences of the actions America would take would be felt around the world--and across history. The lessons America learned in those fateful days should be remembered even today.

Roosevelt noted that the day of Japan's attack would be "a date which will live in infamy," and he also pledged the following:

I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounding determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

At 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, Roosevelt signed the declaration of war, and the rest is history. Through America's incredible sacrifice and determination, the United States and its allies won victory, though it came at an incredible cost.

Just as Roosevelt proclaimed that "hostilities exist" 70 years ago, those words are true today. The United States faces threats at home and abroad--as we were reminded on September 11 and with every man and woman in military who makes the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms. The hostilities we face today are different from those we may face tomorrow, and there is no telling what challenges may lie around the corner. For that reason, our military must stand ready, prepared, and adequately equipped and funded to meet all threats, foreign and domestic.

Unfortunately, the U.S. military's ability to effectively carry out its mission is in jeopardy. Today, there are those who would like America to return to an era of disengagement while also slashing military spending to dangerous levels. Under the Budget Control Act (BCA), the military budget will be cut by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts come on top of successive rounds of deep cuts in defense dollars and capabilities that Congress and the Obama Administration have already implemented. In a new paper, Heritage’s Mackenzie Eaglen writes that those cuts will undermine U.S. power and influence around the world and reduce the ability of the military to meet future threats:

The military is a vital tool of U.S. foreign policy. Slashing defense spending without any reduction in U.S. foreign policy commitments around the world is not only dangerous, but also more costly in the long run than maintaining stable defense budgets. A review of roles and missions will not change U.S. foreign policy; only the President can do that. Starving the military as part of a deficit reduction plan may cost taxpayers more in the future if it makes the country less safe and increases the risk of another terrorist attack or the likelihood of U.S. forces being drawn into yet another overseas mission.

The only responsible way to fund defense is to identify the nation’s vital national interests, ask what is required to defend the nation and those interests, determine what military capabilities are required to do so, and then build a defense budget to match the foreign and defense policies of the United States.

Eaglen recommends that Congress tackle debt reduction responsibly with American security interests in mind. That means stopping the current rounds of defense cuts, budgeting responsibly for America’s foreign policy needs and objectives, and repealing the debt ceiling deal "trigger." Other actions she recommends include stabilizing the military’s modernization accounts, aggressively promoting foreign military sales and increasing cutting-edge defense exports to friends and allies, and forcing the Department of Defense to innovate even as budgets fall.

Some would have Americans believe that defense budget cuts required under the BCA would reduce only the rate of increase in the overall defense budget. While precise defense budget projections under the BCA are not possible, it is a certainty that the overall defense budget will decline under its terms. And those are reductions the military can ill afford. Since President Obama took office, more than 50 major weapons programs at a value of more than $300 billion were cut or delayed. On top of this, the Administration told the military to cut almost $600 billion more over the next 15 years. That was even before the BCA took effect.

This is no way to fund a military or to fulfill the Constitution's prescription that the primary role of the federal government is "to provide for the common defence." That duty is just as important now as it was 70 years ago when America faced one of its greatest challenges. Just as they did then, Congress and the President should ensure that the federal government carries out its responsibilities today and fully funds our military.

---------------------------------------------

Originially published on December 8, 2011, by Heritage Foundation Morning Bell at morningbell@heritage.org

Pearl Harbor and Ned DiMartino

Ned DiMartino enlisted in the Navy early in 1941. On December 7, 1941, he was aboard the USS Maryland. It was a day he never forgot. This is his story. This is the way he remembered it.

We were all lined up on what they called Battleship Row. They had big cement pillars that went into the bottom of the harbor, called foxes, that we tied up to. The Colorado was ahead of us, and the Oklahoma was tied right beside us. The West Virginia was behind us, and then was the Arizona. We were lined up in that manner. That was battleship row. There were only battleships there, all the battleships of the Seventh Fleet. There were other ships in the harbor. Other ships at the submarine base, and Ford Island. All of us were getting ready for the holidays.

It was Sunday, December seventh, and I decided to go over to the Oklahoma. They had a Catholic priest over there. I’m Catholic and so I thought, I’ll go to mass over there. The Oklahoma and the Maryland we were tied side by side. The Oklahoma was on the outside of us. We were against the fox. They had a plank, like kind of a bridge, between the ships, so we could go over and board the Oklahoma.

It was about 7:45 when I started over the plank to go to church. The plank was on the aft deck, it’s called the quarter deck, or the half deck. The rear mast is there, the rear stack. I got to the plank and was just starting over, when I saw these planes lined up, coming in. I thought, what are they doing this early in the morning? We never had this kind of action in the morning, and we didn’t have any carriers in the area. I knew that. And they weren’t off the airfield at Schofield Barracks, you know, Schofield Field. All the aircraft there were on the ground. I couldn’t figure out who the heck they were. Then I see this big red deal on the wing. I was just 18 years old, had never been away from home before, and didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t know anything. A green horn. Green as can be. I said, what the heck’s going on?

I started to get on the plank, and all of a sudden I saw it. Four planes coming in and four fish dropped. At that time, I didn’t know they were torpedoes, but that’s what they were. I could see them in the water coming right at us. And I’m standing there on that plank trying to figure out what’s going on. The next thing I remember was that they hit the side of the Oklahoma. By God, she saved us. We would have been the ones that got it if the Oklahoma hadn’t have been there.

In a matter of minutes, the Oklahoma bellied up. Just bellied up. I just stepped back on the deck of the Maryland. And I just stood there and watched it. I didn’t know what the hell was going on. I stood there and watched it. Everybody was hollering and screaming. You could see guys jumping off the Oklahoma when she went down.

I looked up again and saw some more planes coming in. This time, there was a Marine behind the stack. I don’t know where he came from, or what he was doing there. He grabbed me by the seat of my pants and pulled me back behind the stack, when bup bup bup, right along the deck where I was, came these bullets. I wouldn’t even be here today if it hadn’t been for him. And I didn’t know the man. We got out of there fast. There were bullet holes in the stack and everything else. I wasn’t scared actually.

My gun station was up forward, in front of the pilot house. You might not believe it, but all we had were .50-caliber machine guns. Instead of going to my gun station, some of us went up the main mast on the back, on the half deck. There was a Marine up there with a machine gun and a couple of guys with rifles. With rifles. And I’ll tell you it was a party. They had the machine gun shooting. I was loading for that machine gunner, putting shells in for him, you know, holding the band for him. He got tore up. He got hit. I don’t know how I got by. There was blood all over me. Shit, I was drenched in it. I thought I was hit too. I didn’t know. I always heard you never feel it. I thought, hell, I’d had it too, but I kept feeling around and I was okay. But, that guy was gone. Hell, they just ripped him wide open. Hit one of the Marines, and there was an officer also. They killed him.

Somebody told us to get down off of there and get to our battle stations. We climbed down on the deck and went up to the pilot house. We went up the ladder there, me and another sailor, I forget who it was, and a big piece of shrapnel went between us, and it hit the side. It put a big hole right in the side of the ship.

We finally got to our station, and when we started shooting, half the damn shells wouldn’t go off. To this day somebody else claims that they knocked the first Jap plane down, but I think we were the ones that did it. The gunner that was on that 50-caliber, I was loading for him, was shooting, and he hit this plane, I know he hit it. It went down on and crashed on a tin can that was in dry dock, and blew it all to heck.

By now, the harbor was an inferno. An absolute inferno. It was blacker than night. The oil smoke, the debris, the hollering, the screaming, I mean it was horrible. It seemed like it lasted for hours, but it wasn’t long. It wasn’t long at all. It was like a tornado going through and that was about it.

We had some of our planes up. They had observation planes on the battlewagons, but they’re not armed. Every little noise that was heard, those guys on the guns would shoot. Oh, God. This poor guy up there, the pilot of one of our planes, was screaming, “For Christ sake, you damn fools, it’s me.” He told them it was our plane, it was our plane. He was coming in to land at Schofield Field. When he finally got landed, he came back aboard ship and he said, “Man, you guys are all crazy.”

Well, we weren’t crazy. We were just jumpy. We didn’t know what the Japs were up to. Nobody ever said, that was a Jap plane, or that was an American plane. We didn’t know anything. We shot down many of our own planes.
The funniest thing that happened for the whole thing, was that we had ammunition that was absolutely no good.

The powder magazines were all locked and nobody had the keys to them. We tried to get the locks off. We got axes, anything we could get, and busted the locks off. When we got them off, we got shells for the anti-aircraft guns, but when we put them in the guns, they wouldn’t even go off. We had to eject them, throw them in the damn bay, put another one in, and hope it would go off. Maybe one out of three would go off. Our ammunition was obsolete. It was old, deteriorated. As far as I’m concerned, we didn’t have anything to protect ourselves with. I don’t give a damn what anybody says, we just didn’t have anything to really fight with.

Most of the officers, I can’t say all of them, were off the ships. All they had on the California was one of the quartermasters. He ran that son-of-a-gun out of the harbor. At least, he tried to get out, but they nailed him. He had to back the California up on a rice paddy to keep it from sinking in the middle of the harbor. If he hadn’t, it would have blocked the harbor. Man, those screws were whipping up that harbor. It was something else.

It was just very, very bad. The worst thing was when the fires started clearing. When the smoke started to clear, we went out in the harbor with motor launches, whale boats, it didn’t matter what kind of boat it was. They had cleats, like what they call street car catchers, on the front of them, picking up bodies. Sometimes, a head, sometimes an arm. It was very gruesome I’ll tell you. Very gruesome. Over two thousand people were killed that morning.

When the smoke cleared, you couldn’t have seen a more pitiful, or a more disastrous thing, in your life, as the scene that was there. People can’t even imagine what the heck it was like. You would have had to be there. It’s hard to tell you, really, exactly how bad it was.

Ned DiMartino took part in the battles for Iwo Jima and Tawawa while on the USS Maryland. He also served on the aircraft carrier Lexington. He retired from the service after 20 years honorable service.

Agenda 21 and the Threat in Your Backyard

Ready to trade in your car for a bike, or maybe a subway instead? Interested in fewer choices for your home, paying more for housing, and being crammed into a denser neighborhood? You can have all this and more if radical environmentalists and "smart growth" advocates have their way and local, state, and the federal government impose the policies set forth in the United Nations' Agenda 21.

You might have heard of this nefarious-sounding policy in a recent Republican presidential debate, but even if you haven't, here's some background information: Agenda 21 is a voluntary plan adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment. The end goal? Getting governments to "rethink economic development and find ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet."

As adopted, Agenda 21 was described as "a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment." That includes hundreds of specific goals and strategies that national and local governments are encouraged to adopt. And that translates into restrictive zoning policies that are aimed at deterring suburban growth. Ultimately, they suppress housing supply and drive up home prices, in turn imposing unnecessary costs, especially on middle- and lower-income households. These policies contributed to and aggravate the real estate bubble by putting inflationary pressures on housing prices.

But here's the catch: Nothing about Agenda 21 is binding, and it's not a threat in and of itself. Instead, the threat Americans need to be concerned about is the one that lies in their own backyard. In a new paper, "Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies," Wendell Cox, Ronald Utt, Brett Schaefer explain:

Opponents of Agenda 21 should not be distracted from the more tangible manifestation of the smart-growth principles outlined in that document. If they focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that date to the early 1970s and undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests.

In the United States, smart-growth policies started in California and Oregon but then spread around the country to "deter suburban growth for all but the well-to-do," as Cox, Utt, and Schaefer explain. They also write that those policies were not without detrimental impact:

As they became more prevalent and restrictive, their impact on housing prices and construction likewise expanded. An explosion of exclusionary zoning throughout the U.S. encouraged many communities to adopt zoning policies to ensure that they maintained a certain demographic 'profile.' Such zoning limited real estate development to higher-cost homes in order to 'price out' moderate-income households, which included a disproportionate share of minorities.

Where do these home-grown smart-growth policies stand today? The Obama Administration has embraced them while also increasing environmental regulations and restrictions on the use of natural resources. But the White House isn't the only one behind the smart-growth movement. Local and state officials, along with interest groups, are promoting the policies at all levels of government.

And that's where smart growth must also be thwarted. It's not just a matter of standing against the implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level; it's also about protecting our own backyards against the home-grown threat.

------------------------------------

(Originally published December 5, 2011 by morningbell@heritage.org)

How the EPA May Cost You Thousands

(Originally published by morningbell@heritage.org on November 29, 2011)


Brace yourself. The cost of a new car in America is set to explode, skyrocketing by thousands of dollars, all thanks to a new regulation proposed by President Barack Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Under a new 893-page proposal unveiled last week, automakers must hit a fleet-wide fuel economy average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025--double today's 27.3 standard. The government says it would cost automakers $8.5 billion per year to comply, which means a spike in sticker prices of at least $2,000 to $2,800, according to official projections. Other estimates peg the added costs at $3,100, and that could go even higher. As The Wall Street Journal writes, "Vehicles that currently cost $15,000 or less will effectively be regulated out of existence."

Apart from increased costs, the new regulations would have other impacts on consumers as well. In a new paper, Heritage's Diane Katz warns that another unacceptable consequence is loss of life resulting from smaller vehicles:

In past years, the structure of the regulations induced automakers to dramatically downsize some vehicles to meet the standard, which increased traffic fatalities by the thousands. The new standards would require downsizing to both small and large models, which the government contends will neutralize the risk. However, the NHTSA and the EPA disagree on the extent of the risk, while outside experts say that the danger would be heightened by the extreme stringency of the proposed standards.

While consumers struggle to pay the price of higher cost vehicles, U.S. automakers would likely take a hit as well. They would be forced to change the lineup of vehicles they offer in order to meet their fuel efficiency targets, and they would produce cars and trucks that Americans don't even want. The Wall Street Journal explains:

The only way Detroit can hit these averages will be by turning at least 25% of its fleet into hybrids. But hybrid sales peaked in the U.S. two years ago at 3% of the market and are declining. The EPA's $157 billion price tag includes only the estimate of what manufacturers will have to invest in new technology, not the billions more that will hemorrhage when nobody buys their EPA-approved products.

And all this comes as the former "Detroit Three" are struggling with weak auto sales, projected to be down by 17.9 percent in 2011 from where they stood at the onset of the recession. Ironically, the federal government that bailed out the industry is now imposing regulations that could once again threaten its existence. The Obama Administration is pointing to the supposed benefits of the new standards--including a fuel savings of $1.7 trillion--but as Katz writes, that number is "pure speculation given that actual savings would depend on the price of gasoline," which can't be predicted 14 years into the future, much less next summer.

There's another point to be made, as well: American consumers would face higher-priced vehicles and fewer choices all at the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the EPA who have never been authorized by Congress to set fuel-efficiency standards for any purpose. That, though, is consistent with President Obama's modus operandi--to regulate where he cannot legislate. There is something Congress can and should do: bar the EPA and the NHTSA from implementing and enforcing the new standards by withholding funds or passing a law prohibiting the regulation.

The EPA should not be in the business of picking and choosing what kind of cars and trucks Americans can drive, and neither should President Obama. But if Congress does not take action, that could certainly be the result.

Issue 2 Yes Vote Will Save Your Budget

Election day is drawing closer and the hottest issue is that of keeping Senate Bill 5 in force. It is listed as Issue 2 on the ballot. Make no mistake about it, Issue 2 is the most important decision Ohio voters have been asked to make in recent years. Senate Bill 5, passed by the Ohio Legislature this year, returns to elected officials their ability to manage the political entities to which they were elected. From the state to counties, to cities, to townships, the ability of elected government to manage their employees has been taken away by a system which has transferred municipal management from officials elected by the voters to arbitrators which, being union biased, have granted pay raises, promotions, created new job positions, set working standards, regardless of the desires and needs of elected officials and those citizens who elected them.

Two classes of people will be effected by the vote on Issue 2. The first are government employees, fire and policemen, street workers, garbage men, highway patrolmen, secretaries, public health workers. The second class are tax payers, the citizens who pay government workers and under the scheme of things before Senate Bill 5 came along, had no say in what government employees were paid, disciplined, required to work, or what benefits they received.

Should Issue 2 be defeated and Senate Bill 5 not be kept in force, the results will be terribly one sided. Uncontrolled pay raises for government employees will continue to be legislated through "collective bargaining". Increased numbers of personnel on government payrolls will become unmanageable. Benefits, which currently add 48% to the cost of wages will increase government payrolls to unmanageable amounts. Workers benefits, such as holidays, comp time, overtime pay, minimum pay for call-in backup, uniform allowances, more fully paid health insurance, will be increased by union contract to the point that cities will no longer be able to pay the bill.

Can this be true? As a matter of fact, it is occurring now, and has been for a number of years. This is how it works. The unions under the current system present a city with a proposed contract for coming years, which contains all the conditions in the existing contract, plus any new requests they may have. These requests are not limited in scope nor cost. The city, say, does not accept the union requests. The union, then, takes the contract to arbitration, or fact finding, and the arbitrator or fact finder makes the final decision which is binding on both parties. And that becomes the way it is. The problem is that in the majority of cases the union wins. That is why unions are paying $35 a month for comprehensive family health insurance and cities are picking up the other $965 a month for their employees. That is why police and fire departments are able to add lieutenants and sergeants to their departments, along with mandating what their salaries will be, without the approval of city administrations and city councils regardless of budget restraints and shortfalls. This translates to unbalanced budgets and red ink accounting.

If you listen to the ads of those who oppose SB 5, you are told that services for fire, police, public health, and the like, will be decreased. This is not true. Issue 2, SB 5, will provide better services to the citizen than is available today, and at a lesser cost. Consider that currently the cities have no control over pay raises, the unions assuring everybody covered by a contract will get the same pay regardless of competence, ability, motivation, and ambition. Incompetence is rewarded in the same way as is achievement. There are exceptions however in the case of layoffs. In that case the newest hired is laid off while the do-nothing long term employee is retained. Incompetency in school systems is similarly rewarded. Poor teachers are protected by longevity while good teachers are discriminated against. The current system is basically poor.

But not all is lost for the taxpayer. We are going to get the bill. And don't believe for an instant that is not coming. What's more, good civil employees are going to be laid off because of the inability of municipalities to pay the bills, a situation which has become common place in the past couple of years. It will become worse as time goes by. This depression is not over. Ask your neighbor who is out of work. Check your own budget. How are you doing? Unless you are a government employee, probably not as well as a year or two ago.

If you are a government employee you should be doing pretty well. Police and fire departments recently received a 9% raise over the next three years. Not that bad when one considers that pay raise will also raise the cost of benefits by an equal amount.

Is it any wonder that public service employees are against Senate Bill 5 and are pushing to have Issue 2 defeated? It is not a case of offering more protection and services from police, fire, public health, and the rest of the government employees, because you aren't going to get it. Public services have not increased over the past years. They have become more complex because of union rules. They have become more expensive because of mandates from union influenced arbitrators.

So why are public employee unions so against retaining Senate Bill 5? Money. That's it. Money. Self interest. Greed. Public employees who are being paid more than the citizenry they serve want more. They want to maintain control of what they are paid, when they will work, how they will perform. And that is what Senate Bill 5 is all about, to return the control of government to elected officials who are responsible to citizens.

Your vote is going to decide this issue. Voting Yes on Issue 2 will put the responsibility of government back where it belongs, on elected officials who are answerable to you, the citizen who pays the bill. If the keeping of Senate Bill 5, Issue 2 on the ballot, is not approved you will pay the bill, and the cost will be dear. Without a Yes vote on Issue 2 taxes will increase on your income, your business, your property, and sales tax.

It is your money. It is your choice. Vote Yes on Issue 2.

Biden Shoves Foot in Mouth, Again

Friday, October 21, 2011

Americans could have taken little comfort when the man a heartbeat away from the nation's nuclear launch codes predicted, in another context, "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong." This week, however, Vice-President Joe Biden increased his probability of error to 100 percent, making and repeating statements indicating that he's just about the only elected official in America that doesn't know that violent crime has been declining for the last 20 years.

Perennially casting himself as the nation's leading empathizer with the working class, the gaffe-prone Veep often talks about the importance of jobs, which he once described as a three-letter word. So, it was no surprise when he returned to the subject of jobs again this week. But even the leftist Huffington Post didn't give a friend a pass when Biden warned on Tuesday that if Congress doesn't pass the new "jobs bill" favored by President Barack Obama, violent crime would "continue to rise."

The next day, questioned about the claim by a reporter, Biden indignantly defended his position, saying, "Don't screw around with me. Let's get it straight. . . . Go look at the numbers. Murder's up, rape is up, and burglary's up. [And if the Republicans don't pass the Obama "jobs bill,"] murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crimes will continue to rise."
Instead of making stuff up, Biden should have resorted to plagiarism, as he's been accused of before. If he had done so, he could have gotten his crime numbers straight by copying them from the FBI's Crime in the United States, 2010 report and its online database of crime statistics from the last half-century. As the great New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, "You can observe a lot just by watching."

According to the FBI, the nation's murder, rape and burglary rates decreased five, six and two percent, respectively, between 2009 and 2010; have decreased 14, 14 and four percent, respectively, over the last decade; and have decreased 51, 35 and 44 percent, respectively, over the last 20 years. Today, murder, rape and burglary are at 46-year, 33-year and 44-year lows, respectively. Total violent crime, which includes murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, is at a 37-year low. Total property crime, which includes, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft, is at a 42-year low.

Meanwhile, from another source of information more reliable than Biden, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the nation's unemployment rate is still 9.1 percent. If the nation's jobless numbers were declining like crime has been, it would be cause for a celebration like none other in many years.

Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

An Open Letter to Sherrod Brown

Senator Brown:

The Labor Department reported on Wednesday that U.S. job openings dropped by 157,000 in August to 3.06 million, down from July's downwardly revised 3.21 million, while hiring increased by 38,000 to 4.01 million. Although openings remain well below the 4.4 million at the start of the recession in December of 2007, it's 26% higher than at the end of the recession in June 2009.

Now, ignore the comparisons and look at the raw numbers. What this says to me is that there are over three million job openings in the United States RIGHT NOW that are crying for someone qualified to do them who WANTS to work. No takers.

While I do realize that unfair trade practices and currency manipulation are partially to blame, I also know that entitlements and welfare play an important part, as well, because they make it easier to be unproductive and unmotivated. The bleeding-heart attitude that enables welfare cheats and illegal aliens to steal our hard-earned tax dollars MUST stop, as does the political garbage that enables such a system to exist and flourish in the first place.

We are tired of it, and by the looks of things, nobody is doing anything to right the ship.

If our elected representatives expect to earn our trust and confidence, these things must not only be addressed, but a real solution put forth and adopted.

Obama was elected because people voted for change without understanding what changes were really needed. Obama and his cohorts didn’t understand either. They still don’t, and it doesn’t look to me like they care to learn or do anything about it. I am not impressed. I am insulted.

We will never fix a broken system, a misguided system, by throwing more money at it. We will never spend our way out of debt. We will never develop a more competitive workforce by paying them to do less or to do nothing. Our “leaders” have engaged in those practices for far too long already, and the ship is still in serious disrepair and taking on water.

I have always believed that money is a yardstick of service to people. THIS government is changing that definition, and it is a crying shame. Our federal government needs to be lean and mean, not fat and ugly. The free ice cream must stop.

Have a nice day.

Rod Kirkendall
Dover, Ohio

Obama's First 1,000 Days As President

Today marks the 1,000th day of Barack Obama's presidency, and unfortunately for America, those days have been marked by deeper deficits, lost jobs, prolonged unemployment, and bigger government. Meanwhile, many of those charged with leading the federal government have all but abdicated their responsibilities.

The national debt stands at $14.9 trillion--$4.2 trillion of which has been added since Obama took his oath of office. Fourteen million Americans are unemployed--that's 9.1 percent of the workforce. The unemployment rate has been above nine percent for 840 of the 1000 days, and the average unemployed worker has been without a job for more than 9 months. All told, 2.2 million jobs have been lost under Obama's watch, despite the White House's claims that the President's $787 billion stimulus would create 3.3 million net jobs by 2010.

Unfortunately, instead of leading America toward fiscal sanity and a stronger economy, the President is taking the country in the opposite direction. Last week, his latest proposal to "stimulate" the economy with another $447 billion in spending failed to pass the Senate, but instead of recognizing that more taxing and spending is not what America wants or needs, he's redoubling his efforts. Today, the President is starting another bus tour to sell a different version of the same plan--this time broken up into pieces of taxing and spending still big enough to choke a horse. It's the same plan, only in different packaging.

Former Congressman Ernest Istook explains the danger: Even segmented versions of Obama’s $447 billion plan can be used to squeeze in those worst parts. That’s because it’s almost impossible to get both the House and the Senate to enact identical versions of a bill, thus requiring a conference committee to "work out the differences"--which sometimes includes adding distasteful details.

While it's good news that the Senate rejected the President's jobs plan, the bad news is that the Senate has utterly failed to help put America back on a strong fiscal path. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) point out that it's been 900 days since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan, calling it "a national disgrace."

As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan — in open defiance of the law and the public they serve.

What we have seen from the Obama Administration is bigger government, more regulations, and massive amounts of government spending in the hopes of stimulating the economy. The trouble is that it hasn't worked, as the numbers show. Obama promised that his $787 billion stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. It didn't, and given the jobs that were lost, he came up 7.3 million jobs short of his goal. His health care plan, better known as Obamacare, did not reduce health care costs as promised and is in fact responsible for increasing costs in 2011. On top of that, the law will price many unskilled workers out of full-time employment.

And those are just the big-ticket items. Over the last 1,000 days, America has seen increased regulations, a 9,000-earmark omnibus bill, a government union bailout, a Wall Street reform bill that will do more harm than good, a nuclear arms treaty that is detrimental to missile defense, a refusal to expand domestic energy production, federal overreach into education, an undermining of the rule of law, and a dark cloud hanging over our military's future due to a failure to ensure adequate defense spending.

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, James Freeman writes of an interview with billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman--Democrat, real-estate mogul, and New York Daily News owner. "Among business executives who supported Barack Obama in 2008, [Zuckerman] says, 'there is enormously widespread anxiety over the political leadership of the country.' Mr. Zuckerman reports that among Democrats, 'The sense is that the policies of this government have failed.'" Given the track record of the Obama Administration over the last 1,000 days, they would be right. Bigger government has not put America on a stronger fiscal path, it hasn't created jobs, and it hasn't built a stronger economy.

There is a better way. Heritage's Saving the American Dream plan charts a course that fixes the debt, cuts spending, and restores prosperity. It redesigns entitlement programs, guarantees assistance to those who need it, and saves the American dream for future generations. If Congress and the President want to move America forward, create new jobs, and spur businesses to grow and invest, then piling on debt, raising taxes, and increasing spending is not the answer--no matter how much Obama would like it to be.


******************

Originally Published by morningbell@heritage.org on October 17, 2011.

Why Obamacare Might Cost You a Job

Back in February 2010, when Congress was still debating the Obamacare legislation, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proclaimed to America that the law "will create 400,000 jobs almost immediately." But according to a new report by Heritage's James Sherk, Obamacare will have the opposite effect, pricing many unskilled workers out of full-time employment due to the law's requirement that employers offer health benefits to full-time employees.

According to Sherk, the minimum cost of employing full-time workers under Obamacare amounts to an average of $27,500, more than what many unskilled employees produce. He explains in his paper, "Obamacare Will Price Less Skilled Workers Out of Full-Time Jobs" why increased costs will lead employers to shift to employing part-time workers:

After paying the new health premiums, the minimum wage, payroll taxes, and unemployment insurance taxes, hiring a full-time worker will cost employers at least $10.03 per hour. Full-time workers with family health plans will cost $13.75 per hour.

Employers who hire workers with productivity below these rates will lose money. Businesses employing less skilled workers will probably respond by dumping their employees onto the federally subsidized health care exchanges and replacing full-time positions with part-time jobs.

Fewer full-time jobs in favor of more part-time positions is not what America needs, particularly as it struggles with a stagnant economy, 9.1 percent unemployment, and 14 million people out of work. But just when the United States needs businesses to expand, grow, and invest, Obamacare is piling on the costs and regulations--making it more difficult for businesses to create new jobs.

Under the law, businesses with more than 50 workers must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty, thereby reducing the amount of capital they have to invest in expanding and hiring new workers. That requirement also has the effect of incentivizing businesses with fewer than 50 employees to maintain their size to avoid the costs. And then there's the uncertainty that Obamacare has brought about--businesses don't know what their future costs will be under the legislation, making it difficult for them to plan for the future.

America might already be seeing the job-killing effects of the President's signature law. Sherk writes that following Obamacare's passage, economic growth in America changed course:

Initially, the economy appeared on track for a steady recovery. The economy went from losing 841,000 jobs in January 2009--the recession's low point--to gaining 229,000 jobs in April 2010...

Within two months of Obamacare's passing, the recovery stalled... In May 2010, the job situation stopped improving. Job creation dropped to just 48,000 net private sector jobs, and private-sector hiring took a new course. From May 2010 onward, private job growth improved by only 6,500 jobs per month--less than one-tenth the previous rate.

Though correlation doesn't prove causation, the economy's slowdown following the passage of Obamacare, when considered alongside complaints from business owners about the law's effects on new hiring, should cause alarm for anyone who cares about unemployment in America. Heritage's Nina Owcharenko explains why the law is the wrong prescription for turning the economy around:

Obamacare is perhaps the most damaging of the Administration's policies that are impeding the country's recovery. At a time when there should be a focus on cutting spending, reducing regulation, and lowering taxes, Obamacare does the complete opposite. It spends more, imposes costly new mandates and regulations, and raises taxes on individuals and businesses. This is no way to get the economy up and running again.

Unfortunately, Obamacare will make an already bad economic picture worse. Unskilled workers are struggling to find employment, and the President's health care law will make finding full-time jobs even more difficult. If President Obama truly wants to reduce unemployment and help businesses grow, he should admit that Obamacare was a mistake and work with Congress to repeal it.

*************

Originally published on October 14, 2011, by Morning Bell, morningbell@heritage.org, a publication of the Heritage Foundation

Solyndra Scandal Ends Green Jobs Myth

President Barack Obama's solution for America's unemployment woes has been a stubborn campaign to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on economic "stimulus"--much of it on so-called "green jobs." Report after report has shown the approach to be a total failure. And now, a new scandal involving Solyndra, a bankrupt solar panel company in California, should be the final nail in the coffin for the government’s meddling in the free market.

"[W]e can see the positive impacts [of the stimulus] right here at Solyndra," Obama claimed when he spoke at the company's newly unveiled factory in May of last year. He was correct that the results of his stimulus would be on display at that factory. But he was wrong that those results would be positive. Little more than a year later, the company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and plans to lay off more than 1,000 employees.

The Solyndra factory where Obama spoke was built after the company received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department as part of the stimulus's green jobs push. "Through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations," Obama noted. "This new factory is the result of those loans."

But "everyone knew that the plant wouldn’t work," according to a former Solyndra employee. So why was the President so sure of the plant’s success when he spoke there? What's more, the company was built on "a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars," according to an industry analyst. That would normally be a red flag for investors. So why did the President claim that "the true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra"?

The answer to both of those questions: The government's decisions are driven by politics and ideology and are divorced from economic reality. Want proof? Take a look at a January 31 e-mail between Office of Management and Budget staff regarding "Solyndra optics" -- that is, how the issue looks in the public's eyes. "If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today," they wrote, adding:

In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up, whereas a default today could be put in the context of (and perhaps even get some credit for) fiscal discipline / good government because the Administration would be limiting further taxpayer exposure letting bad projects go, and could make public steps it is taking to learn lessons and improve / limit future lending.

In other words, in January the Administration was essentially letting the 2012 campaign dictate decisions on the federal government's financial involvement with Solyndra. They were not responding to normal profit-and-loss signals, as they should. Had Energy Department bureaucrats been investing their own money, they might have been more careful. But it was others' money -- taxpayers' money -- at stake. Self-interested investors, who naturally weed out bad investments, were wholly absent. The result: Taxpayers are likely to lose up to $535 million, while the people who made the decision to throw money at Solyndra have, so far, been completely insulated from reprisal.

Much attention has been paid to accusations of cronyism in the Energy Department, given that a major Solyndra investor is also a big Obama donor. But the fundamental lesson of the Solyndra scandal is not that money buys political favors. That now goes without saying. The real takeaway is that government intervention in the economy is a fool’s errand, as Heritage’s Nicolas Loris notes:

Solyndra exemplifies the government’s abysmal track record of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and the solar company is not the only example of energy stimulus struggles. With a number of targeted energy tax credits set to expire at the end of this year or next, industry groups are lobbying hard for extensions. Especially given the U.S. fiscal situation, this is a time to end all energy subsidies—not to extend wasteful, market-distorting policies. When the government decides to favor a technology with subsidies, it’s a good bet that subsidy 'winner' is a loser in the marketplace.

Indeed, at least four other companies to receive money from Obama's stimulus package have gone bankrupt, Fox News reports.

Even where companies do create jobs, they do so at such exorbitant cost that the effort cannot reasonably be considered a success. To date, The Washington Post reports, the Energy Department loan guarantee program from which Solyndra benefited has created one new permanent job for every $5.5 million spent. Lend that kind of money to a private business in an industry that doesn’t rely on taxpayer support, and it will put hundreds if not thousands to work.

Government subsidies are invitations for political favoritism, of course. But more importantly, as engines of job creation, they simply don't work (just ask Spain). Sure, the Administration's "green jobs" program has led to allegations of corruption. But it has also failed even in its foremost task of creating jobs for an economy with a chronic unemployment problem. Columnist Jim Pethokoukis writes, "Solyndra is the logical endpoint of Obamanomics." Unfortunately, the American people are paying the price for getting us there.

*********************************

Originally published on September 16, 2011, by Morning Bell, morningbell@heritage.org, a publication of the Heritage Foundation

New Philadelphia Treasurer Johnson Cited by State Of Ohio Auditor

On September 8, 2011, the Auditor of the State of Ohio, Mr. Dave Yost, released his report on the recent audit of the finances of the City of New Philadelphia for the year of 2010. On the whole, the City is doing relatively well. But the audit report exposed a problem which needs immediate correction and suggests an inability on the part of the City Treasurer, Mr. David Johnson, to efficiently perform the job for which he was elected.

Quoting Mr. Yost, “The City’s 2010 general checking/investment bank accounts were not always reconciled to the City’s book balances on a monthly basis by the City Treasurer. These reconciliations were only prepared by the City Treasurer through June 2010. No general checking/investment bank account reconciliations were presented for audit by the City Treasurer for the period July through December 2010. The January through June 2010 general checking/investment reconciliations were subsequently determined to be incomplete and inaccurate with unreconciled differences that varied monthly.”

In short, the City’s checkbook did not balance with the bank’s statement. To make matters worse, from January through June of 2010, while the City Treasurer submitted monthly reports to the City Council, those reports were incomplete and incorrect. From July through December of 2010, reports were not even submitted to the City Council by Mr. Johnson.

Keeping such records is not a complex task. Housewives do this on a continuing basis when balancing their checkbooks against the monthly statements sent them by their banks. Businesses do this on a daily basis. If one’s arithmetic isn’t up to par, there are numerous computer programs available to help not only the housewife, but the City Treasurer as well.

An outside accountant was hired the first of the year to assist Mr. Johnson but this appears to be an exercise in futility. Frankly, it didn’t do any good as there have been no financial reports forthcoming for the current year which have not contained substantial errors. In the first two years of Johnson’s tenure in his current office, reports sent to council from his office were not in balance. That trend continues to exist.

A number of questions arise when reading the State Auditor’s report about the City Treasurer’s performance, not all of them related to Mr. Johnson. Why did it take such a long time for the Administration to recognize that this problem existed? Why was there not concern expressed by Beth Gundy, the City Auditor, about errors in the Treasurer’s report? Why did not the President of Council, Mr. Day, not press Mr. Johnson for monthly reports when they were incorrect or not forthcoming?

The answers to those questions probably will never surface, which is a shame. The possibilities are chilling: Not everybody reads the reports; many members of Council do not understand what the reconciliation reports mean, which is chilling as Councilman Maurer is a branch manager of a local savings and loan association and would be expected to knowledgeable on such affairs; Is there animosity between Administration members which prevents open communication between departments? Or is the answer that members of the Administration and City Council just don’t care and sit in their positions for reasons other than for the good of the city?

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that the City is in jeopardy, so much so that the State of Ohio Audit Report states, “It is our opinion, that the current Treasurer must work diligently to get all his records reconciled to date as soon as possible. If the treasurer feels that he is unable to do this then he may conclude that he should relinquish this position for the benefit of the city. This out-of-balance situation and delayed reconcilements should not continue.”

There is one other problem which should be confronted. The lack of interest on the part of the media to recognize that a problem exists in our community. It is difficult to imagine that the Times-Reporter and the two local radio stations failed to recognize that there is a financial problem in New Philadelphia. It is strange that they had no knowledge of the Ohio Auditor’s report. Probably they didn’t care that much. Strange, though I didn’t have that much trouble finding it.

While Dave Johnson is ultimately responsible for what occurs in his office, why was he apparently alone when his present dilemma was developing? Where were his friends and associates then and where are they now? Did he ask for advice and get none? Did he refuse offered suggestions and turn their makers away? Did he really see the problem as it grew in scope? I guess we’ll never know.

Department of Justice Illegal Gun Sales to Mexico

You’ve seen this in the movies. A group of gangsters surrounds an innocent bystander. One of the thugs pulls out a bat and smashes the poor guy’s windshield. “It’d be a shame if this sorta thing continued to happen,” says the thug. Unable to afford any future damage to his property, the bystander-turned-victim is now forced to surrender his money to the mob so they can “protect” his belongings.

President Barack Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder are now using this same mob-style tactic on American gun owners.

Officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), an agency under the direct purview of Holder’s Justice Department, forced American gun shops to illegally sell guns to people they knew would cross the border and put those guns in the hands of violent Mexican drug lords.

The operation was dubbed “Fast and Furious” and many of the over 2,000 illegal guns that were supplied to Mexican criminals under this program were then used to commit murder – over 150 murders in Mexico, and two “Fast and Furious” guns were found at the murder site of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

Meanwhile, as drug crime and murder raged out of control in Mexico, President Barack Obama blamed it all on law-abiding American gun owners and our Second Amendment rights.

“This [drug] war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border,” said Obama during one of his visits to Mexico.

This line was repeated over and over again by Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The media ran with it. Soon, the perception everywhere was that our Second Amendment rights were responsible for drug crime and murder in Mexico.

And it was a bald-faced lie.

Leaked State Department cables proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Central America was the main supplier of illegal guns to Mexican drug lords – not the United States of America.

And those guns that did find their way from America to Mexico were being illegally pushed across the border by our own federal government, as we now know. This scheme was so devious, that even Mexican President Felipe Calderon knew nothing about it.

There’s your busted windshield, Mr. Law-Abiding American Gun Owner. Now the Obama administration expects you to surrender your gun rights so something like this never happens again.

BATFE is now requiring American firearms dealers that are located in states that border Mexico to register the sales of anyone purchasing multiple rifles. You know…to solve the gun-running problem that BATFE itself illegally created.

BATFE’s new gun registration requirement is not only useless in stopping Mexican drug violence, but it’s also an illegal and blatant end-run around Congress. Not that you would expect an administration that breaks the law to all of sudden begin respecting our American law-making process.

All freedom-loving Americans – not just gun owners – should be alarmed by this dictatorial move by the White House. If Obama and Holder can circumvent Congress and make their own gun control laws, it won’t be long before they’re ramming a whole host of other unpopular laws down our throats.

This is why the National Rifle Association is suing the Obama administration in federal court so we can defend the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans in border states by stopping this unconstitutional gun registration scheme. And we will continue to pressure Holder and the Justice Department to come forward with all of the facts surrounding the secretive and illegal “Fast and Furious” scandal.

This is real-life America, not a fictional episode of The Sopranos. And we Americans need to stand up for ourselves and defend our Constitutional rights whenever and wherever they fall under attack. NRA will fight this illegal gun-control edict no matter how many windshields the Obama administration smashes.

**************************

Originally published by the National Rifle Association, info@nraila.org

Second Amendment, Obama, and the United Nations

Saturday, September 17, 2011

In a clear sign the 2012 presidential election campaign is in full swing, the Obama campaign launched a new website this week: AttackWatch.com . The purpose of the site is to give Obama supporters a way to report “attacks” on the president, implying that any criticism is based on lies or misinformation.

Let’s leave aside for the moment the disturbing notion of a president of the United States setting up a web site so that his supporters can “report” on the statements and activities of his opponents. When it comes to firearms issues, it’s this site that is misrepresenting President Obama’s record on guns.

The site says “Public figures have made outlandish claims that President Obama is planning to use a United Nations treaty to take away legal firearms from gun owners in the US.” It goes on to claim that “The Obama Administration supports a UN treaty that would help stop the worldwide illegal arms trade, while opposing any treaty that would interfere with US gun laws. While an arms treaty is currently being drafted, it has not yet been ratified.” What’s left out is that many of the treaty’s strongest proponents are demanding provisions would directly threaten American gun rights if it were ratified. Also omitted is that the position of the U.S. has changed since Obama took office: from strong unwavering opposition to the treaty, to support for the treaty if is passed by “consensus.”

The NRA has kept close watch on UN gun control efforts for more than 15 years. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified last month at the UN, making it clear that any treaty that includes civilian arms in its scope is a threat to the Second Amendment rights of Americans. But the misrepresentation of Obama’s position on the UN treaty is not the only misinformation on the AttackWatch site. The site also repeats claims from the 2008 campaign that Obama “supports” the Second Amendment and quotes the president as saying “There’s nothing that I will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition.” But that statement is inaccurate in many ways.

First, the primary function of the Second Amendment is not to protect “sportsmen,” but to protect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and for the defense of our homes, families, communities and country. And this lip service to the Second Amendment is dwarfed by Obama’s lifetime Supreme Court appointments of two Supreme Court justices with clear records of antagonism toward the fundamental right to keep and bear arms: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. These nominations alone are proof of Obama’s true stance on the Second Amendment, but there is much more. Obama has appointed dozens of high officials with long records of opposition to gun owners’ rights. From Vice President Joe Biden to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama has surrounded himself with anti-gun extremists. With people like these at the top level, it’s no surprise the administration has launched initiatives such as the effort to ban the importation of popular sporting and defensive shotguns, or the illegal use of “demand letters” to force southwest border state gun dealers to report multiple sales of certain rifles. And it should not be forgotten that “Operation Fast and Furious” not only happened under Obama’s watch, but has been covered up for ten months and counting, while growing evidence suggests the operation’s goal was to create support for more gun laws.

Finally, while Obama did sign legislation allowing firearms possession in national parks, he only did so when the provision was added as an amendment to a credit card reform bill that was one of his top priorities. In fact, Obama opposed the parks provision and accepted it only because he had no choice. The bottom line is this: The NRA has been incredibly successful over the past 20 years, not only in the legislatures and the courts but in changing the debate on the Second Amendment. This success has forced Obama to try and hide his life-long opposition to guns and gun ownership. Repeating a campaign sound bite that he “supports the Second Amendment” will not make it true. Nor does including that lie on the AttackWatch site make the claim any less preposterous. That’s not an attack; it’s the truth.

**************************************************



Reprinted from an article, Obama Misinformation Machine Gears Up, published on September 17, 2011, by the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, www.nraila.org.

Obama Insaniity Exposed

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

After last Thursday night’s presidential address before the Congress, there can be no question about it. Barack Obama is certifiably insane. He has gone beyond stupidity, apparently having no intention of rebuilding the economy of the United States. If he is not insane, the only other explanation for his comments is that he is, in fact, attempting the destruction of our country for his personal ambition, whatever that may be.

The Obama jobs proposal outlined to Congress on September 8, has as its goal, the financial destruction of the United States economy, our liberty, our way of life. His proposal displays a total lack of common sense, a trait which evidently is rampant in the United States Congress.

Today the national debt stands at 14.7 trillion dollars, the total tax revenue of the United States as of today is 2.3 trillion dollars, and the current goods and services sold, again as of today, in the United States is 19.9 trillion dollars.

Social Security is close to going broke, a situation which did not exist prior to the Congress authorizing the theft of money from the Social Security Trust Fund in the 1970s to fund other programs. The solution to this problem, according to Obama, is to cut the Social Security tax. He proposes a fifty-percent reduction on what employees and employers pay. Yep. The government that stole from the trust fund plans to make up the Social Security deficit right by reducing revenues to Social Security by half.

But that is not enough. He also wants to cut taxes to the “Middle Class.” According to Obama, the savings to the taxpayer earning $50,000 a year would be about $1,500. With a taxpaying population of 112-million plus, the tax revenue lost by this brilliant plan would increase the deficit by a mere 118 billion dollars. Obama’s plan to increase jobs, by the way, will, according to Obama, will cost 450 billion dollars.

Talk to any housewife who does the grocery shopping and she can explain how a decrease in family income somehow fails to be solved by spending more money at the grocery store and Wal-Mart.

But the logic of an increasing debt caused by increased spending just doesn’t compute with Obama. What he wants to do is to increase jobs by building and repairing, bridges, roads, schools, you name it, anything which will pour money into the coffers of organized labor. It doesn’t matter that the United States can’t pay for it. It doesn’t matter that we are on the verge of bankruptcy. It doesn’t matter that the real unemployment rate is over 19%, not the 9% the government claims, that figure being based on how many are being paid unemployment insurance, not how many are actually unemployed.

Obama’s economic plans won’t work. The only way to solve the problem of unemployment and debt is to stop government spending, and stop it now. Our current leadership is not up to the task.

But then by definition, Obama is insane.

Van T. Barfoot, the Flag, and the Medal of Honor

Remember the guy who wouldn't take the flag down?

You might remember a news story several months ago about the crotchety old man who defied his homeowners association and refused to take down the flagpole on his property and the large flag that flew on it. Now you can learn who, exactly, that old man was.

On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg -- probably didn't make much news back then. Twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944, near Carano, Italy, Van T. Barfoot, who had enlisted in the US Army in 1940, set out to flank German machine gun positions from which fire was coming down on his fellow soldiers. He advanced through a minefield, took out three enemy machine gun positions and returned with 17 prisoners of war. If that wasn't enough for a day's work, he later took on and destroyed three German tanks sent to retake the machine gun positions.

That probably didn't make much news either, given the scope of the War, but it did earn Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a colonel after also serving in Korea and Vietnam, a Congressional Medal of Honor.

What did make news was a neighborhood association's quibble with how the 90-year-old veteran chose to fly the American flag outside his suburban Virginia home. Seems the rules said a flag could be flown on a house-mounted bracket, but, for decorum, items such as Barfoot's 21-foot flagpole were unsuitable. He had been denied a permit for the pole, erected it anyway and was facing court action if he didn't take it down.

Since the story made national TV, the neighborhood association has rethought its position and agreed to indulge this old hero who dwells among them.

"In the time I have left I plan to continue to fly the American flag without interference," Barfoot told The Associated Press, as well he should.

And if any of his neighbors still takes a notion to contest him, they might want to read his Medal of Honor citation. It indicates he's not real good at backing down.

Van T. Barfoot's Medal of Honor citation:

“For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty on 23 May 1944, near Carano, Italy. With his platoon heavily engaged during an assault against forces well entrenched on commanding ground, 2d Lt. Barfoot (then Tech. Sgt.) moved off alone upon the enemy left flank. He crawled to the proximity of 1 machinegun nest and made a direct hit on it with a hand grenade, killing 2 and wounding 3 Germans. He continued along the German defense line to another machinegun emplacement, and with his tommygun killed 2 and captured 3 soldiers. Members of another enemy machinegun crew then abandoned their position and gave themselves up to Sgt. Barfoot. Leaving the prisoners for his support squad to pick up, he proceeded to mop up positions in the immediate area, capturing more prisoners and bringing his total count to 17. Later that day, after he had reorganized his men and consolidated the newly captured ground, the enemy launched a fierce armored counterattack directly at his platoon positions. Securing a bazooka, Sgt. Barfoot took up an exposed position directly in front of 3 advancing Mark VI tanks. From a distance of 75 yards his first shot destroyed the track of the leading tank, effectively disabling it, while the other 2 changed direction toward the flank. As the crew of the disabled tank dismounted, Sgt. Barfoot killed 3 of them with his tommygun. He continued onward into enemy terrain and destroyed a recently abandoned German fieldpiece with a demolition charge placed in the breech. While returning to his platoon position, Sgt. Barfoot, though greatly fatigued by his Herculean efforts, assisted 2 of his seriously wounded men 1,700 yards to a position of safety. Sgt. Barfoot's extraordinary heroism, demonstration of magnificent valor, and aggressive determination in the face of pointblank fire are a perpetual inspiration to his fellow soldiers.”

This 1944 Medal of Honor citation, listed with the National Medal of Honor Society, is for Second Lieutenant Van T. Barfoot, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry.

WE ONLY LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE AND BECAUSE OF OLD MEN LIKE VAN BARFOOT!

Obama Food Regulators to Censor Food Commercials

(An editorial printed by Morningbell, a Publication of the Heritage Foundation, morningbell@heritage.org, on September 1, 2011)

Food Regulators Out of Control

First Lady Michelle Obama’s obsession with “childhood obesity” has bothered many since it began two years ago, especially those who think that White House nagging of parents should be reserved for more pressing issues. Now it is getting more serious, with food regulators starting to infringe on the free speech rights of advertisers.

In the latest upset, four federal agencies known as the Interagency Working Group (IWG) have delivered a plan to drastically censor food advertisers with products deemed to be “too high” in sodium, sugar, or fat that cater to any viewing audience between the ages of two and 11. These advertisers would lose key slots during some of America’s most popular shows, like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and Glee—simply because the nanny state is “uncomfortable” with what they are selling.

The IWG, formed within the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to study childhood obesity and offer possible solutions, has gone far beyond their descriptive reach. Now, perfectly reasonable companies may be penalized severely.

The regulators plan to get away with this by disguising their rules as “voluntary guidelines.” In reality, the guidelines are anything but optional, according to food manufacturers affected by them.

As Heritage’s Diane Katz explains:

The restrictions are voluntary in name only. Food manufacturers can hardly ignore “recommendations” from the very federal agencies that exercise regulatory authority over their every move. It is akin to a cop asking for ID or to search one’s vehicle: While the law treats such citizen cooperation as voluntary, most individuals would not view it as such, nor would the police look kindly on anyone who denies their requests.

It’s not just Twinkies and cookies that will be affected, either. Anything deemed to have a little too much sodium or fat will be tested under the new rules, including foods whose very production requires a high sodium content (like pickles) and those that are naturally high fat (like peanuts).

As Katz wrote, “Nutritional staples such as Cheerios, peanut butter, and yogurt are verboten under the proposed standards, which effectively constitute a government-regulated grocery list.”

The regulations hit traditional favorites where it hurts. In turn, the free market and consumer choice is manipulated to fit a misplaced government agenda that doesn’t solve the problem.

Even if the feds are well-intentioned, their action plan isn’t grounded in reliable research. The whole point of the regulations is to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity—but the Institute of Medicine found no link between advertisements and children’s food choices.

According to Katz, children have seen about 50 percent less food advertising in the last six years than before that time—yet obesity rates continue to climb. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Mark McClellan attributes the obesity problem to “physical inactivity”—not caloric intake. In fact, McClellan noted that children’s calorie intake has remained about the same for the last 20 years.

Not only do regulations hinder the market and censor speech; they hurt the businesses behind the labels. Sara Lee CEO Christopher J. Fraleigh recently spoke on the overextended regulations, which will hurt his business in particular:

A turkey sandwich made with Sara Lee fat-free lean turkey meat, we would not be able to advertise that on venues, be it the Superbowl or anything that would have a significant child audience, because the product is a little bit too high in sodium…. Current regulation of advertising toward children is a perfect example of regulation that just goes way too far.

The Obama Administration’s food regulators think that if you give them an inch, they can take a mile. But when free speech is on the cutting board, they will certainly hear from the people, and the people will not stand for it.

White House Quiet On Investigation Into Justice Department Gun Sales to Mexican Drug Cartels

A U.S. government gun-trafficking investigation gone horribly wrong has resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol officer, some 2,000 firearms in the hands of criminals, and the dismissal of a 24-year veteran law enforcement official. This is the story of Fast and Furious, and yesterday the latest chapter unfolded when two top officials associated with the operation were removed from their positions, while a third individual resigned.

The story begins in the fall of 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) office in Phoenix, Arizona, began selling weapons to small-time gun buyers in the hopes of tracing them to major weapons traffickers along the southwestern border and into Mexico. Their efforts failed, the number of arms unaccounted for numbers around 1,500 as of late July, and about two-thirds of those guns ended up in Mexico, according to congressional testimony.

Tragically, the botched operation has had serious consequences. On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed during an effort to catch several bandits targeting illegal immigrants in Arizona near the border. When law enforcement rushed to the scene, they discovered two of the killers' assault rifles that were among those sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, 57 Fast and Furious weapons have been connected to at least an additional 11 violent crimes in the U.S.

In December 2010, ATF agent Vince Cefalu spoke out about the operation before the first reports on the story appeared in February. FoxNews.com reports that Cefalu said at the time, "Simply put, we knowingly let hundreds of guns and dozens of identified bad guys go across the border." Other agents later came forward, congressional hearings have been held, and President Barack Obama called the operation "a serious mistake." Cefalu, though, was forced to resign.

Yesterday, more Fast and Furious–related personnel changes came about when the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Kenneth Melson, the acting head of the ATF who presided over the operation, is being replaced and transferred to the Office of Legal Policy where he will serve as a senior advisor on forensic science. Heritage's Lachlan Markay reports that "Melson bucked his superiors at DOJ in July by revealing details about the operation to congressional investigators in a closed door meeting with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who have been investigating the operation in their respective roles."

Also on Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, announced his resignation. The Hill reports that "Burke oversaw the legal aspects of the Fast and Furious operation, providing advice to agents involved." And The Arizona Republic reports that the lead prosecutor for Operation Fast and Furious cases in Burke's office was also reassigned Tuesday. Issa, who has led the congressional investigation into the case, said that even with yesterday's news, he will continue looking for answers:

While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn’t offloaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department.

Meanwhile, the White House has said little about Fast and Furious. In June, President Obama said in a press conference: "My Attorney General has made clear that he wouldn’t have ordered gun running into Mexico. . . That would not be an appropriate step by the ATF." He then deflected further questions by citing an "ongoing investigation." And press secretary Jay Carney previously said that the President "did not know about or authorize this operation." But as Heritage's Rory Cooper wrote, "If that’s the case, how could neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder not know about an operation that everyone else at the Department of Justice seemed to be actively involved in, including the Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and head of the ATF?"

And if the White House has been silent, so has the media. It has been 57 days since the press has questioned the White House on the matter, when ABC's Jake Tapper peppered press secretary Jay Carney on the issue, asking why the public knows so little about the story, what the Administration is doing to get to the bottom of it, whether the acting head of ATF would go to Capitol Hill to testify on the subject, whether it is something the White House is worried about, and if the President upset about it. Carney's reply: He referred Tapper to the Department of Justice and remarked, "I think you could assume that the President takes this very seriously."

The President should take it seriously. And so should the American people. The ATF sold guns to criminals in Mexico, a life has been taken, and crimes have been committed with the weapons that were trafficked by the federal government. And yet, shockingly, questions remain under the Administration that called itself "the most transparent in history." It's time for more answers.

***************

This article originally published on August 31, 2011, morningbell@heritage.org., as
The Fast and Furious Scandal Continues.

English Mobs Run Wild

By Chris W. Cox


If you want to see what a disarmed society looks like, look no further than England.

Thousands of angry, drunk, violent thugs running wild and stealing anything they can carry. Shopkeepers and homeowners crippled with fear, unable to defend their loved ones or their property. Innocent citizens forced to watch helplessly while their life’s dreams — everything they worked so hard to build and acquire — are carried out the door, or smashed to pieces, or burned to the ground.

Men, women and children forced to strip naked in the streets, while packs of criminals laugh and ridicule them before making off with their clothing.
The fact is, when British politicians stripped their citizens of their God-given right to self-defense, they robbed them of their freedom and their dignity.
Sales of baseball bats are up over 5,000% on Amazon.co.uk. This isn’t to mark the beginning of little league season. These are desperate homeowners and shopkeepers purchasing the best — and in reality, only — self-defense tool that the British government will allow them to own…at least for now.

If past is prologue, this flood of baseball bats into London will spark cries from government leaders for mandatory bat registration and a wave of new laws on how, when, and under what circumstances British citizens may carry or swing a bat. After all, this is exactly how British citizens lost their gun rights.

First came mandatory gun licensing. Next came a wave of restrictions on firearms ownership. Then came the outright gun bans.

It has been illegal to own a handgun in Britain for nearly 15 years. As a result, Britain’s violent crime rate has soared. In fact, Britain consistently clocks-in with the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe. Last week’s riots notwithstanding, you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York. These are the inconvenient statistics that the gun-ban crowd likes to sweep under the rug.

As if banning handguns didn’t send a strong enough message to criminals that British citizens are ripe for the picking, the British government went even further in 1999.
Recall the tragic story of Tony Martin, the British farmer who was awakened one night to the sound of breaking glass and found two burglars in his home. Martin had been robbed six times before. This time, he went downstairs, retrieved a shotgun, and fired at the intruders.

For this, Martin received life in prison for killing one of the burglars, ten years for wounding the other thug, and one additional year for possession of an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar served just 18 months of a three-year sentence and was given $5,000 in legal assistance from Britain’s Legal Services Commission so he could sue Martin for violating his civil rights.

The British government goes out of its way to embolden the criminal element in society, and now British politicians look at last week’s riots in utter amazement, confused as to how such a thing could happen. As Britain’s Home Secretary recently said in an interview, “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”

All Americans should pay close attention to the riots in the Great Britain, because this is the criminal utopia that gun-ban extremists at the United Nations, and in our own White House, want to impose on us.

Next year, the U.N. will convene leaders from various countries around the world to finish writing an international Arms Trade Treaty that could severely restrict or even outright ban Americans’ right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm. Anti-gun extremists have been working on this treaty for well over a decade. Now they’re closer than ever to realizing their dream.

Ironically, the British government is one of the strongest proponents of this latest U.N. scheme to destroy our Second Amendment rights. Evidently, British politicians think America and the rest of the world should enjoy the same the criminal utopia that was on full display in London last week.

The U.N. and its anti-gun allies incessantly campaign for the United States to be more like the rest of the world — especially disarmed Great Britain. As we watched the horror unfold in the UK, it has never been clearer: The rest of the world should be more like America when it comes to freedom.

**************

Chris W. Cox is executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.

More Bad News From the Budget Control Act

The Spending Threat to Our National Defense

Consider it a warning from the highest levels of the U.S. government. Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta held a joint press event in Washington in which they cautioned that U.S. debt is jeopardizing America's ability to ensure national security and preserve its interests abroad.

Under the Budget Control Act of 2011—the debt ceiling agreement enacted earlier this month—$350 billion in cuts to defense spending must be made over 10 years. But if Congress doesn't reach an agreement on $1.5 trillion in deficit savings, $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts would be made. Half of those would come from the military's budget by 2013. And Panetta said yesterday that those cuts would be disastrous:

This kind of massive cut across the board, which would literally double the number of cuts that we're confronting, that would have devastating effects on our national defense; it would have devastating effects on certainly the State Department.

Clinton agreed. "It does cast a pall over our ability to project the kind of security interests that are in America's interests," she said. "This is not about the Defense Department or the State Department . . . This is about the United States of America. And we need to have a responsible conversation about how we are going to prepare ourselves for the future."

The Heritage Foundation's Mackenzie Eaglen explains that the draconian cuts to our armed forces would result in a military ill-equipped to sustain its mission at home and around the world.

Secretary Panetta said any additional defense cuts—on top of the hundreds of billions over the past several years and hundreds of billions over the next 10 years—would result in a hollow force. The term “hollow force” describes the situation when readiness declines because the military does not have enough funding to provide trained and ready forces, support ongoing operations, and modernize simultaneously.

Like a freshly painted house with no plumbing or wiring inside, the military may appear functional, but in reality it would be too poorly trained and equipped to be reliable without incurring excessive and unnecessary risk.

The U.S. military is already woefully underfunded, and for months the Pentagon has warned that even with $400 billion in cuts—less than half of what the military could face—the United States "may have to scrap some military missions and trim troop levels." And if Members of Congress don't act to reform mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—which account for more than 60 percent of the entire federal budget—the ax will automatically fall on the military (or Congress will be forced to raise taxes to halt the automatic trigger.)

The Constitution clearly states that one of the primary duties of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense." Yet today, because of the government's unrestrained spending, national defense is falling by the wayside. Former Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) writes, "The great irony of our time is that the bigger the federal government has become, the less well it has performed its priority function of providing for the national defense." Now, after all the stimulus spending, the bailouts, and the runaway entitlements, America is seeing the results. Congress must act now to rein in spending so that it can ensure that the government's ability to execute its primary duty remains intact.


*********************

Originally published by the Heritage Foundation on August 17, 2011, on their website www.morningbell@heritage.org.

The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order

August 4, 2011
By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson

In a Constitutional Republic of the sort that we thought we had, the process by which laws are made is at least as important as the laws that are enacted. Our Constitution prescribes that law-making process in some detail, but those who voted for the "Budget Control Act of 2011" ("BCA 2011") were wholly unconcerned about trampling upon required constitutional processes on the way to the nirvana of "bi-partisan consensus "to avert a supposed crisis. At least two titles of the bill now being rushed through Congress are unconstitutional.

First, the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" in BCA 2011 Title III unconstitutionally upends the legislative process.

The Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 vests in Congress the power "to borrow Money on the credit of the United States." As two of America's leading constitutionalists, St. George Tucker and Joseph Story, observed, the power to borrow money is "inseparably connected" with that of "raising a revenue." Thus, from the founding of the American republic through 1917, Congress -- vested with the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts," -- kept a tight rein on borrowing, and authorized each individual debt issuance separately.

To provide more flexibility to finance the United States involvement in World War I, Congress established an aggregate limit, or ceiling, on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. This gave birth to the congressional practice of setting a limit on all federal debt. While Congress no longer approved each individual debt issuance, it determined the upper limit above which borrowing was not permitted. Thus, on February 12, 2010, Congress set a debt ceiling of $14.294 trillion, which President Obama signed into law.

However, a different approach was used when BCA 2011 was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Title III of the Act reads the "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process." Under this title Congress has transferred to the President the power to "determine" that the debt ceiling is too low, and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments," subject only to congressional "disapproval." For the first time in American history the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States has been disconnected from the power to raise revenue. What St. George Tucker and Joseph Story stated were inseparable powers have now by statute been separated.

Under the new process established by this bill, if the President determines, no later than December 31, 2011, that the nation's debt is within $100 billion of the existing debt limit and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the debt limit automatically increases. The President need only to certify to Congress that he has made the required determination. Once the President acts, the Secretary of the Treasury may borrow $900 billion "subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted" by Congress.

But this is not all. Title III also provides that if Congress fails to disapprove the debt ceiling increase in the amount of $900 billion, the President may again certify to Congress that he has determined that the debt subject to the new ceiling is within $100 billion and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments. So the Secretary of Treasury is authorized to borrow another $1.2 trillion. Indeed, the Secretary may borrow even more -- up to $1.5 trillion if a proposed balanced budget amendment has been submitted to the states for ratification. As was true of the first round of ceiling raising and borrowing, the President and Secretary of the Treasury are constrained only by the possibility of a congressional resolution of disapproval which, itself, is subject to veto by the President.

By giving the President the authority to increase the debt ceiling and to determine that borrowing is necessary to meet the nation's commitments, this bill turns the legislative process on its head. According to Article I, Section 7, before an act can become a law, it must first be passed as a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus, any action taken to authorize the borrowing of money on the credit of the United States - whether such action is a formal bill or a vote or resolution -- must be initiated by Congress and, then, presented to the President for his veto or signature. This bill creates what it calls a "Debt Ceiling Disapproval Process" whereby the constitutional process is reversed. Instead of Congress's initiating the decision to borrow money, the President has the initiative. Congress is relegated to the role of having to disapprove the President's decision to lift the debt ceiling and authorize the Secretary of Treasury to do what the Constitution says only Congress may do -- borrow money on the credit of the United States.

Instead of constitutional order, in which Congress presents a law authorizing the borrowing of money to the President to sign or veto, the President presents to the Congress his determination that more money is to be borrowed, subject to the acquiescence or veto of Congress.

Second, the joint select committee on deficit reduction provision undermines the constitutionally established bicameral legislative process.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 establishes a joint select committee of 12 members, six from the House and six from the Senate. Three of the six House members are appointed by the Speaker of the House and three are appointed by the House minority leader. Three of the six Senate members are appointed by the majority leader and three by the leader of the minority.

Title IV of the Budget Control Act vests in that joint select committee the power to draft legislation to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.

Here, members of Congress yield their individual legislative duties and responsibilities to a "Super Congress" selected not by the people -- but by Republican and Democrat leaders.

How many of these Congressmen and Senators campaigned on the platform that they would be elected, get sworn in, and then obediently surrender the power their constituents vested in them to the very same Republican and Democrat leaders who have created the problems they were sent here to solve?

To facilitate passage of the joint committee's legislative proposals, Section 402 contains a number of procedural rules designed to expedite consideration of the joint committee recommendations. Generally, the rules require action by both houses no later than December 23, 2011, on a joint committee recommendation that must be submitted no later than December 9, 2011. Additionally, the section prohibits amendments to the proposed legislation and prescribes severe limits on the time for debate. In short the procedural rules dictate unity of action of a majority of each house to accelerate adoption of the deficit reductions recommended by the joint committee within a two-week period of time.

The Constitutional order is quite different. Article I, Section 1 vests the legislative power in a bicameral Congress composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The members of each body are elected in two very different manners. Each senator is elected by the vote of the people of an entire state, and each state has the same number of senators regardless of population. The members of the House are elected by the people in congressional districts divided into districts, each state being guaranteed at least one representative and the others allocated according to population.

The composition of each house then is deliberately designed by the Constitution to represent vastly different majorities. And for good reason. As the Supreme Court observed in I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 949 (1983), "by providing that no law could take effect without the prescribed majority of the Members of both Houses, the Framers reemphasized their belief ... that legislation should not be enacted unless it has been carefully and fully considered by the Nation's elected officials."

The Budget Control Act of 2011 departs from that commitment vesting incredible power in the joint committee, virtually guaranteeing that deficit reduction legislation will be "carefully and fully considered," if at all, only by 6 of 100 elected senators and 6 of 435 elected representatives.

These are not matters of constitutional form without meaning -- the process was considered central to the founders.

In the debates on the need for a bicameral legislature, James Wilson warned: "Is there a danger of a Legislative despotism? Theory & practice both proclaim it. If the legislative authority be not restrained, there can be neither liberty nor stability; and it can only be restrained by dividing it within itself, into distinct and independent branches."

Even the last defender of monarchy among the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned that to "accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty [would] entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived."

Thus, as the Supreme Court noted in Chadha, James Madison "point[ed] up the need to divide and disperse power in order to protect liberty": "In republican government, legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and the common dependence on society will admit." The Federalist, No. 51 (emphasis added).

The Budget Control Act of 2011 does just the opposite. Instead of ensuring action by two "distinctive bodies," to be "exercised only after opportunity for full debate in separate settings," the Act truncates the deliberative process by shortening debate, excluding amendments, and commanding uniformity. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 951.

Expedition was never the principal object of the legislative process created by the founders. The object was to preserve limitations on the power of government in order to protect the liberties of the people. Liberties can be lost when bad precedents are set in the atmosphere of crisis -- and crises can, and often are, manufactured. Precedents established can be hard to overturn. Rights lost can be hard to regain.
The 74-page Budget Control Act of 2011 was not written over the weekend. Yet it was posted on the House Rules Committee website with no fanfare, only hours before it was to be voted upon, breaking the pledge of the House Republicans to provide at least 72-hours advance public notice.

Contrived crisis, appeals to fear, emergency litigation, and suspension of Constitutional order -- these are the indicia of abuse of power, leading to tyranny.

*****************

Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding Dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at wjo@mindspring.com or Olsonlaw@twitter.com

Orginally published on www.americanthinker.com