California Boycotting Arizona?

As you may have seen recently, Los Angeles city councilman Tony Cardenas wants the city of Los Angeles to stop doing official business with the state of Arizona over their recent stance on illegal immigration!

My question is... where is Congress on this? While I am hardly one to call for Congress to step in on anything, this is their job! The so-called Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to justify everything from the regulation and control of anything that crosses state lines in trade (such as guns) to the new Healthcare Reform Bill. Over the course of time and as a result of Supreme Court decisions, the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause has grown further and further from the original intention.

"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

That middle part (the Interstate Commerce Clause) says that Congress has the specific and enumerated power to regulate commerce between the states. Regulation is not the same as control, but that is how it has been interpreted. Regulation means to keep something regular. One state, or even city, boycotting another is anything but regular. This, I feel, Congress does have the responsibility to keep regular.

Healthcare Part 6/6

Already 20 states' Attorneys General (weird word, I know) have filed lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Labor in response to this legislation. 30 states have proposed state constitutional amendments to counter this legislation.

Idaho is actually calling for a Twenty-Eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide that "Congress shall make no law requiring citizens of the United States to enroll in, participate in or secure health care insurance or to penalize any citizen who declines to purchase or participate in any health care insurance."

And 16 states have enacted or proposed legislative bills blocking the legislation.

Proponents of this bill would argue that this is no different than having to purchase car insurance, but it's different for so many reasons.

First of all, car insurance is mandated by states. As the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, any rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or the People. Secondly, you don’t have to purchase car insurance; you only have to purchase car insurance if you drive a car around. However, with health insurance, the only qualifier for being regulated by the government is that you be breathing. If you don’t have health insurance, the government will impose upon you a tax (read: fee); a tax which is prohibited by the Constitution and the 16th amendment. And in fact, this bill will create 16,000 jobs for new IRS agents.

The Federal government has overstepped its bounds, ignoring the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights and drastically distorting the use, once again, of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The states involved in the lawsuits or legislation are right in both their authority to do so and the obligation to their citizens to do so.

As citizens, you should speak up at the ballot box in November!

Healthcare Part 5/6

According to Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), her state pays 70% of all costs associated with Medicare in the state. While this is the only state I have figures for, it is to be assumed that all states pay similar rates (it’s based on state GDP).

With the addition of yet another entitlement program, stacking on top of the costs for various Medi-programs in the states, what will the states have to do to accommodate this? They have already, and will continue to, cut funding for Higher Education and everything else that is state funded. This will force Universities and Colleges to raise prices.

If you're a college student or are supporting a college student, this immediately affects you. Even without this bill, Northwest Missouri State University (where I go) will be forced to raise Housing costs 3% next year and Meal Plan cost 5% due to rising costs and lowered funding.

Because of this bill, this trend will continue.

Healthcare Part 4/6

Another thing that must be taken into account when discussing yet another entitlement bill and the CBO score resulting from it is the history surrounding other programs' projected costs.

So, let's start with Medicare. In 1965, Medicare was supposed to cost only $12 billion a year in 1990. Actual spending for the 1990 fiscal budget year was $110 billion. That's a little over 9 times off.

In 1987, the new Medicaid DSH program was projected to cost less than $1 billion by 1992. Actual costs for that year were $17 billion! That's off by a factor of over 17.

In 1988, the Medicaid Home Care Benefit was supposed to cost $4 billion for the year of 1993. Actual cost for that year were $10 billion. That's off by a factor of 2.5 - their best performance.

And on to the last example - the Medicare Catastrophic Care Benefit. This one is even better. It was voted on, passed and signed into law. But... it was actually repealed before it could go into effect due to the CBO having to double it's cost estimate over night. They had not gotten all of the information (in this case, the projected costs for medication) when they made their first estimate!

Bottom line is, as Rudolph Penner said, "Any CBO estimate involving human behavior and social programs is very hard to figure."

Costs will go up, and Congress' response will be to throw more money at it, instead of pulling the plug while they can.

Healthcare Part 3/6

So, what will this do to our deficit?

Well, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit will be reduced by $138 billion over the course of the next 10 years, and nearly a trillion dollars over the next 20 years.

That sounds like a great thing, right? Yeah! Except.. it's a fallacy. With the assumptions they had to make about the bill, even they have said that their number's need to be taken with a grain of salt. As former CBO Director Rudolph Penner said, "Any CBO estimate involving human behavior and social programs is very hard to figure."

Assumptions aside for a second, just the time frame for this estimation throws it into question. We're talking about 10-20 years into the future. You have no idea what congress will choose to do (or add) in the meantime, and you have no idea what conditions will be like in 20 years.

Now on to the assumptions. In the current bill (the one the CBO scored), you have this so-called "Cadillac Tax", which taxes high end insurance plans. First of all, it's not set to kick in until 2018 (accounting for 12 years of the trillion) - if it stays in. The labor unions have balked at the idea, so it may end up being scrapped, raising the price of the bill. But the CBO has to score what it has in front of it. It can't make assumptions about what congress will end up doing. It can't operate under the assumption that congress will scrap it's own legislation.

The bill also includes cuts to the Medicare and Medicaid programs of $500 billion. Also included in the bill are 21% pay cuts to doctors. These are not likely to go through. In fact, there is likely to be a separate "Doctor Fix" bill that will compensate doctors so they can keep taking Medicare and Medicaid (originally cut from this bill).

Even after all of this, most benefits don't kick in until 2014 - but don't worry, taxes kick in immediately. 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefits.

Healthcare Part 2/6

You'll be able to stay on your parent's health insurance until you're 26!

Of course, this is a moot point. First of all, if you're still mooching off your parents when you're 26, you have more than health insurance issues to worry about. Secondly, most insurance companies already let kids stay on their parent's insurance until their mid 20's - as long as the kid is in school.

In this bill is also a complete takeover of student loans. Now, most college students already probably get loans from the government, but this completely removes the option for you to get a student loan from a bank. After all, they'd be able to offer you a lower interest rate. The government will be borrowing the money at about 2%. But, they'll be loaning you the money at 6%. The difference is being used to pay for this bill, even though that will account for a fraction of the cost.

Healthcare Part 1/6

Alright, I'll dive right into it. Healthcare reform! Passed by a slim margin in the House (needed 216 votes, had 219), due to Congressman Bart Stupak's flip-flop on abortion issues (yes, he got Executive Order 13535. See previous posts for an understanding of how useless that is.)

Whether you agree or disagree with this bill, one thing is apparent - it has nothing to do with Healthcare. The only thing it does is put more people on health insurance at the expense of the taxpayers. It does nothing to lower the cost of healthcare, or improve the quality thereof.

But how will this affect you? I do not confess a complete understanding of the bill, as I haven't had time to read it, but I'll do my best.

A number that the proponents of this bill like to quote - a lot - is the number of "uninsured Americans". Besides the fact that this number changes a lot (recently, it's been 30 million; on the campaign trail, it was 46 million), where does it come from? Is it accurate? I'll contend that it is not, for a couple reasons.

First of all, the number comes from the Census Bureau, who conducts surveys every so often to guess at the number. The biggest problem with this number is that it includes illegal aliens! The Department of Homeland Security estimates that there are currently 11.6 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.

Another large part of this number (more than half) are actually in the 18-34 age range - many of whom can afford health insurance, but have relatively few medical problems and have opted against getting insurance.

According to Sally Pipes, CEO of Pacific Research Institute, "as many as 12 million uninsured Americans are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program--but they haven't signed up."

As admitted by the Census Bureau, there are people reporting that they are uninsured for the year, when they are only uninsured for a couple of months between jobs. "[T]he estimate of the number of people without health insurance," according to the report, "more closely approximates the number of people who are uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year."

As such, the number of people that go without insurance (whilst wanting it and being unable to pay for it), is hard to pin. But it is clear that this number of 30 million is a myth.

Executive Order 13088, 13536

This kind of freaked me out, so let me share it with you.

As I said in an earlier post, Executive Orders do have power - we fought a war in Kosovo from 1998-99 on Executive Orders issued by Clinton.

How did that start? If you look in the timeline provided in the link above, in June of 1998, Clinton issued Executive Order 13088 - "Blocking Property of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and the Republic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic of Serbia in Response to the Situation in Kosovo."

Well, as I was researching Executive Orders for my previous posts, I came across the April 12, 2010 Executive Order 13536 signed by President Obama. This order does the same thing - "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Conflict in Somalia."

Obama's is, admittedly, more detailed and direct. And I will also fully admit that I haven't looked deeper into this - blocking property may be something that the President does by E.O. all the time. Somehow, I doubt it.

As mentioned before, Clinton's E.O. 13088 was the start of an Executive Order driven war in Kosovo. While I wouldn't bet on the outcome of this one, with the recent attacks on Navy ships by Somali pirates, I wouldn't be surprised by anything.

Executive Orders - Part 7/7

In summation, frankly, Franklin ignored the Constitution and the limits of his office. While other Presidents have also abused their power, none to such a degree. Executive Orders have been the vehicle for this abuse, and the Supreme Court should step in.

Executive Orders - Part 6/7

This abuse of power by Roosevelt led to the 22nd Amendment, limiting Presidents to two terms.

Still, most of these Executive Orders were issued because of the war, right? No, over 2,000 of these orders were issued prior to September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, leading to the subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and Great Britain. Over 3,000 were issued before December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and we entered into the fray.

Executive Orders - Part 5/7 Continued

To further support my claim, let me continue.

- In 1942, the Japanese-American internment camps here in the United States were set up. Not as an act of Congress, but with an Executive Order. Executive Order 9066, to be precise. Along with the War Relocation Authority, created with Executive Order 9102, the Federal Government incarcerated and herded private citizens that had been accused of no wrongdoing. This, Janeane Garofalo, was racism straight up.

Yes, there were Germans and Italians (even some German Jews) interned as well. But they were just a small fraction of those interned. Many of the Japanese were full American citizens. 62% were 2nd or 3rd generation American citizens. The rest were 1st generation immigrants.

There were about 133,000 people interned for the duration of the war, and some were held for several years beyond the end of the war.

Executive Orders - Part 5/7 Continued

As I've said in my last installment, Franklin Roosevelt's abuse of power here in the United States rivaled that of Hitler's in Germany. (I'm not saying Roosevelt was a crazy Jew-hater. Just that he abused his power.) As evidence, allow me to provide the following Executive Orders issued by him during his tenure.

- In 1933, with Executive Order 6102, he prohibited the "hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates" by private citizens. This required U.S. citizens to deliver all but about 5 oz. of the gold they had to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.57 per troy ounce. This had to be done by May 9, 1933, or you would face prosecution under the "Trading With the Enemy Act", punishable by fines up to $10,000 (That's $167,408 today) and/or 10 years in prison. Personal gold ownership was illegal until 1974, when Congress legalized it.

More to come...

Executive Orders - Part 5/7

Many presidents have used and abused Executive Orders. But none can compete with FDR.

Most Presidents issue anywhere from 300-600 Executive Orders over the course of 8 years. Roosevelt issued a whopping 3,466 over the course of his presidency. Yes, he had 12 years in the White House, but nonetheless, allow me to break that down for you.

3,466/12 = 288.8 issued per year.
288.8/52 = 5.5 issued per week.

Unequivocally, it was an abuse of power that rivals that of Hitler's. I know. Crazy, right? Well... let me give you a couple of examples of the unconstitutionality of some of his Executive Orders.

To be continued!

Executive Orders - Part 4/7

So, what has the Supreme Court done about executive orders? What has Congress done to limit the power of the President? There is a little.

On April 8, 1952, President Harry S. Truman's, with Executive Order 10340, ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to "take possession of and operate the plants and facilities of certain steel companies." As the U.S. was in the middle of the Korean War, steel demand was high. Coupled with the unions threatening to go on strike and Congress unwilling to step in, Truman issued E.O. 10340 to seize the steel companies and prevent a work stoppage.

Making it's way through the courts in rapid succession, the case found it's way to the Supreme Court, beginning oral arguments on May 12th, 1952. Taking less than a month in testimonies and deliberations, the case was decided on June 2, 1952 by a 6-3 vote. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black said that held that "the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress."

The Executive Order was ruled invalid, as it attempted to make law and enact policies without the explicit permission of Congress. In fact, it was in defiance of Congress, as "In its consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, Congress refused to authorize governmental seizures of property as a method of preventing work stoppages and settling labor disputes." Since then, Presidents have been clear to state under what authority they're acting.

(Note: there is so much more to this case and the details before and after. To read more, read the Wikipedia article, or the case information at FindLaw.

Executive Orders - Part 3/7 Continued

All of this leads me to the conclusion that the Emancipation Proclamation was, in effect, an economic sanction on the Confederacy. It was designed to cause slave riots in those states, allowing the Union to gain the upper hand and crippling their economies. In fact, in January 1862, Representative Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, argued that total war against the rebellion should include emancipation of slaves, saying that emancipation would ruin the rebel economy by forcing the loss of enslaved labor.

Even with the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was not outlawed. After all of this (and there is so much more on this topic), allow me to say that the Emancipation Proclamation was a useless scrap of paper, and 20th century black intellectuals such as W.E.B. DuBois would agree. The 13th Amendment freed the slaves and outlawed slavery, and I applaud the Congress that ratified it, not Abraham Lincoln.

Executive Orders - Part 3/7 Continued

The Emancipation Proclamation actually consisted of two Executive Orders. The first one, dated September 22, 1862, freed all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second one, issued January 1, 1863, named 10 specific states where it would apply. However, like I said, it's aim was not to free the slaves. It was an ultimatum to the Confederacy. That becomes quite clear when you look at who it did not "free". It did not free slaves in any states that did not declare secession from the Union - among them the border slave states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware. It also did not include Tennessee, which had mostly returned to Union control by that point. Virginia was included in the targeted states, but it specifically exempted the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia. It also specifically exempted areas in Louisiana that were under Union control.

Executive Orders - Part 3/7

When you talk about Executive Orders, it's necessary to talk about the most famous one of all - the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now, my first point is a little controversial, but let's face it: Abraham Lincoln freed no one with the Emancipation Proclamation. It was useless for a couple of reasons. First of all, it was an Executive Order and as I've said before, cannot make law or policy. Secondly, it only freed slaves in the Confederate states. But, this was after the Confederate states had already seceded from the Union. Lincoln and the Union had no control over them. Thirdly, it was an ultimatum in response to the Confederate states seceding from the Union. It only went into effect if the Confederate states did not return to the Union by January 1, 1863.

Executive Orders - Part 2/7

How did Executive Orders start, where did they come from you ask? Well, executive orders have been issued since 1789, but until 1907, they went mostly undocumented and unannounced.

In 1907, the Department of State (now the State Department) issued a numbering scheme for Executive Orders, retroactively starting with an Executive Order issued by Lincoln in 1862 entitled "An Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana".

It is from this document that they get their name. They don't appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a vague grant of "Executive Power" outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. There is also, in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, a directive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

Nonetheless, to date there have been 13,537 Executive Orders issued.

Executive Orders - Part 1/7

Nearly everyone has heard of executive orders, but what are they? An executive order is an order issued by the president. While they are usually used to direct the executive branch in performing their duties, they have been used for a whole host of things. Executive orders do not have the force of law. They do not make law, they do not trump law and they can't enact policy.

That being said, they do have power. In 1998-99, Clinton waged a war in Kosovo, using executive orders and presidential decrees in doing so as part of the Serbian-Albanian conflict with NATO forces. [see this]

But the bottom line is, it's a memo for the executive branch and has been allowed to run unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branches on whose toes it steps.

Double Standard

I've mentioned before that there seems to be a complete disregard for the rights afforded to us by the Constitution to speak out against the government - that is, if it's a democrat in office. If a democrat is in office, then any dissent is downright seditious. This first video here illustrates that viewpoint.



What has been said by those that disagree with Obama's policies pale in comparison to what was said, and is continually said about Bush. I agree wholly with what Hillary Clinton said in 2003:



I just don't agree with this double standard.

Useless Gesture

So, Obama recently came out saying that even in the event of a chemical or biological attack on U.S. soil, we would not retaliate with nuclear weapons. This is useless for a couple of reasons:

First, nukes are not a peacekeeping weapon. We would NEVER use nuclear weapons as part of a preemptive strike. Nukes have only ever been used during wartime in WWII, as everyone knows. They were not used lightly, and they were only used to end the war.

Second, it has always been known and understood that nukes are the last resort. But to completely take them off of the table is foolish at best, and quite possibly dangerous. This handcuffs the leadership of the future if we were to be attacked.

Thirdly, it's all political. After a great deal of political backlash over the 'Health Care Reform' Bill, the President feels that it's time to pat himself on the back over an issue that everyone agrees on: No one wants to see nuclear weapons used, especially when you take into account the inevitable civilian casualties.