The Budget Control Act Of 2011 Violates Constitutional Order

Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson,FloydReports.com

 

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….

Read more.

Pelosi, Obama Hawaiian vacations end, but taxpayers left with the bill

Pelosi, Obama Hawaiian vacations end, but taxpayers left with the bill

Posted By admin On January 3, 2011 @ 9:53 pm In News | No Comments

BY MALIA ZIMMERMANNancy Pelosi’s final days as Speaker of the House were spent at the exotic Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka’upulehu in Kona on the island of Hawaii.

Read the rest of this entry »

The 100 Worst Cases of Government Waste in 2010

The 100 Worst Cases of Government Waste in 2010

December 30th, 2010

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

Although the United States is $13 trillion in debt, mandatory spending alone exceeds tax revenues, and the Congressional Budget Office is warning of a coming U.S. “fiscal crisis,” Congress felt no need to trim spending. The just-adjourned 111th Congress headed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi added more to the national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, has published his collection of the 100 most wasteful projects his colleagues deemed worthy of your hard-earned tax dollars this year. Among the most offensive, ridiculous, and startling examples of pork in the Year of our Lord 2010, he found:

  • Nearly $5,000 of stimulus money to hire goats to graze the weeds at Idaho’s Heyburn State Park;
  • $6 billion for ethanol subsidies, which raise food costs;
  • $177,000 for Ohio teachers to travel to China to learn about the Chinese “education” system;
  • $137,530 for a Dartmouth professor to develop “Layoff,” a video game that encourages its players to fire as many people as quickly as possible;
  • $700,000 for New Hampshire researchers to examine “greenhouse gas emission from organic dairies,” which are cause by “cow burps, among other things”;
  • $442,340 to study male prostitutes in Vietnam;
  • $823,000 to teach South African men how to wash their genitals after sex. (We reported this one earlier this year);
  • $55,000 to celebrate HIV Vaccine Awareness Day. Of course, there is no anti-AIDS vaccine, but the “observance is a day to recognize and thank” the professionals “who are working together to find” a cure

Read more.

Who is more unpopular than Obama?

Who is more unpopular than Obama?

Rick
Moran

 

As always, Gallup
has the answer:

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s favorable rating is down
seven percentage points since May to 29%, a new low for her since assuming the
top congressional post.

Pelosi’s ratings were 2-to-1 positive, 44% to
22%, when she first assumed the speakership in January 2007, but they became
closely divided by March of that year and remained so in November 2008. Views
became more negative than positive for the first time in the first half of 2009,
possibly because of Pelosi’s public stance against the CIA’s use of “enhanced
interrogation” of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay prison, and her dispute
with the CIA over whether she had been briefed on the matter. Spanning the
period these issues were in the news, her favorable rating fell from 42% to 32%.
Pelosi’s favorable rating recovered slightly in the first half of 2010 to 36%,
but it has since tumbled to the new low.
Independents in particular have become more negative about Pelosi, with her
favorability dwindling nine points among this group since May, to 21%. Nearly 6
in 10 independents (58%) now view her unfavorably, compared with 86% of
Republicans and 22% of Democrats.

With her own members running re-election ads trashing her, those numbers
aren’t surprising. There is little doubt that she will have a much easier time
managing things next January when her decimated caucus looks up from the
minority benches.

Feds accused of ‘colluding’ on ‘booze-gate’ explanations

Feds accused of ‘colluding’ on ‘booze-gate’ explanations

Members of Congress notified about legal requests for public information


Posted: July 02, 2010
11:25 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The Pentagon has been accused of coordinating with staff officials for members of Congress on what to release to the public under federal Freedom of Information Act demands for information about a “booze-gate” scandal in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent $101,000 in taxpayer money for “in-flight” services, including food and alcohol.

The charge comes from Judicial Watch, a government watchdog organization that frequently utilizes the federal law to obtain information about federal agency operations.

For example, the group previously discovered taxpayers shelled out $101,000 for “in-flight services” for Pelosi over a two-year period.

Get the “Throw The Bums Out!” magnetic bumper sticker here!

Now the organization is reporting that e-mails obtained from the government reveal the Pentagon was checking with and informing members of Congress of specific documents it was proposing to release under the federal law.

“Why is the Pentagon colluding with congressional offices on FOIA requests,” wondered Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There is absolutely no reason why politicians should have the ability to preview FOIA documents before they are released to the American people. These insider notification e-mails to Congress are inappropriate and should be stopped immediately.”

The public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption said the e-mails from the Department of Defense were to various other officials regarding congressional military travel.

“These ‘heads up’ e-mails involved FOIA requests filed by Judicial Watch, The Wall Street Journal, Congressional Quarterly and Roll Call, among other organizations, related to the use of military aircraft by a number of congressional members, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,” the Judicial Watch report said yesterday.

They provided “advanced notification” to members of Congress regarding which organizations were seeking information, when the documentation would be released, and “in many cases, the e-mails included the actual documents to be released as attachments,” Judicial Watch said.

“Moreover, the e-mails, primarily sent from the DOD’s Office of General Counsel also indicate that Pentagon staff contacted congressional offices by phone,” the report said.

For example, a Nov. 17, 2009, message to Wyndee Parker, national security adviser for Pelosi, concerned a Judicial Watch request. It advised that the agency was prepared to release the information but was “happy to discuss further.”

 

 

Judicial Watch reports there were cases in which the Pentagon provided “assurances” to congressional staffers whether or not the documents held “sensitive” information.

It reported, “For example, in a December 9, 2009, e-mail to Mark Lopez, Chief of Staff for Congressman Peter Visclosky (D-IN), the DOD staffer writes: ‘CQ appears to be trolling for something to write re: your boss. I do not see much here, but I don’t know the reporter’s agenda. There will be additional releases on this request. I will give you a heads up on those too.’”

Another e-mail to the House Foreign Affairs Committee a month before had said, “I don’t find any of the documents especially newsworthy, but wanted you to have them before they go out.”

The report said other e-mails from senior staff with the House Intelligence Committee “voiced objections to the Pentagon’s refusal to redact the names of congressional staffers from documents released and requested the opportunity to review redacted material before release.”

“It looks as if, in some cases, documents on military junkets were released to individual members of Congress months before they were released to the public,” the report said.

The watchdog group got the e-mails in its overall investigation of congressional military travel.

WND previously reported when a Florida congressman suggested Pelosi give up her military jet travel privilege. WND also has reported on the tabulation by Judicial Watch of Pelosi’s apparent excesses on her flights.

The California Democrat commutes across the continent in a jet provided by the military, a policy first  authorized for the House speaker following the 9/11 terror attacks.

For example, a receipt for “in-flight services” for the House speaker included a list that looked like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey and Corona beer.

That was only part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” for Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over a two-year period, the Judicial Watch report said.

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., later applauding Pelosi’s new House rules-change that bans all members of Congress from flying first class on the taxpayer’s dime, suggested that Pelosi, too, fly coach class.

Posey said the move would spare taxpayers the $28,000 it costs per flight for her personal military aircraft when she travels back and forth to her home in San Francisco.

Pelosi had been added to the Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her “sense of entitlement,” the group said.

WND also reported a year earlier Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and scheduling flights, as one would with an on-call taxi service.

“We have … folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc,” said one Department of Defense e-mail at the time.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi’s requests for aircraft.

“Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” it stated. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…”

The e-mail noted that the speaker’s office had “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”

Judicial Watch said the 2,000 pages of documentation it obtained showed Pelosi’s military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

Among the highlights revealed:

  • Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker’s family.
  • One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.
  • According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.

Pelosi: Unemployment benefits create jobs? If I hadn’t seen and heard it myself I would have never believed it.

Pelosi: Unemployment benefits create jobs?

Neil Braithwaite

If I hadn’t seen and heard it myself I would have never believed it. 

Nancy Pelosi telling America that unemployment benefits are “One of the biggest stimulus’s to our economy.”

Waite – it gets better.

Speaker Pelosi went on to say that unemployment benefits are actually “Job creating” and that unemployment benefits “Create jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

Let’s get this straight. When you lose your job and start collecting unemployment benefits, it stimulates the economy AND creates jobs?

So the logical conclusion is: the more people lose their jobs – the more jobs will be created – and the economy gets a big boost?

OK – I’m totally confident in Democrat leadership now.

 
Neil Braithwaite writes political commentary and satire.

Obama’s Dilemma: Heavy Leadership Responsibility – Light Leadership Aptitude

Of Thee I Sing 1776

Obama’s Dilemma: Heavy Leadership Responsibility – Light Leadership Aptitude

by Of Thee I Sing 1776

The president’s recent disappointing oval office speech elicited a chorus of criticism from across the political spectrum.  For some reason the speech seems to have put a spotlight on the president as a leader, whereas other misjudgments in which he was directly involved in making policy had not.  The oil spill, which was certainly no fault of Mr. Obama, seems to have finally caused the public and many of his cheerleaders among the pundits to focus on the president’s substance and not his style.  That has been the unspoken, elephant-in- the-room, concern throughout his presidency, his aptitude for leadership.  We are reminded of the lead-in lyrics to the signature song Ethel Merman belts out in Gypsy… Curtain up…light the lights…you either got it…or you ain’t.”

obamamirror-1

President Obama seems to have the curtain up, light the lights part down pat.  The dramatic campaign and convention stage sets, his world photo-op tours, his big oval-office backdrop to his little oval-office speech, and his ever-masterful use of the teleprompter have all produced a “strike-up-the-band” expectation whenever and wherever he appears. It’s the “you either got it, or you ain’t” part that seems finally to have focused the public on the president’s aptitude for leadership.

The befouling glob that threatens hundreds of miles of coast or, as Peggy Noonan put it recently so aptly in the Wall Street Journal, “the monster from under the sea,” seems to be a metaphor for the president’s inability to shape the world as he wants it to be.  Speeches are not a substitute for coherent policy.  The president, with the entire world watching his prime time speech, essentially punted.  He pulled from the presidential duck-and-cover arsenal the time-tested, yawn producer of presidents bereft of solutions to all manner of problems…the formation of a new blue-ribbon commission.  This was the cornerstone of his “battle plan” to face down the “siege” of big oil’s attack on our Gulf coast.

There is nothing more to be said about the quality of Mr. Obama’s oval-office speech debut.  It seems as if all the commentators from Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart on the left, to Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove on the right have already done that.  Besides, there is something much more revealing that is apparent here.  It isn’t about the delivery by the man who gave the speech; it is, rather, about the man who delivered the speech.  The disappointing oval-office moment was more than just a lack of writing skill by some wordsmith presidential speechwriter; it focused the attention of the American people on the man himself and on what they hoped just wasn’t so; an apparent lack of the leadership aptitude which a president must possess if he or she is to succeed.


The evidence of weak leadership skills was there before but it became shrouded in the president’s rock star image. The fact is that there was very little about Barack Obama’s pre-presidential career that suggested any real aptitude for leadership.  There was always plenty of “curtain up, light the lights” but the demonstration of leadership part was always a bit like a clock striking thirteen. That is to say, not quite reassuring.

His career as a legislator in Illinois, while always well hyped, was less than impressive.  His biggest legislative achievement in Illinois seems to be the nearly 130 times he chose to vote “present” rather than “yea” or “nay” on major bills.  And yes, we’ve heard or read the standard excuse for this apparent ambivalence.  “It’s the way things are often done in the Illinois Senate,” we’re told.  But since when has doing things the way they are done in Illinois met the definition of leadership anywhere outside of that state.

Besides, some of the “present” votes then state-Senator Obama chose to cast while in the Illinois legislature are quite revealing, if not troubling.  For example, in 1999 he was faced with a difficult vote, to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults. Understandably, many African-Americans were opposed to the bill.  On the other hand, Mr. Obama was trying to hone an image of a tough-on crime candidate. It was a difficult political call for him; so, he voted “present.”

According to the New York Times, on at least 36 occasions state-Senator Obama was either the only state senator to vote “present” or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.  Politically, the option to vote “present” provides a certain amount of cover. It is a way for the faint of heart, in effect, to say, “I don’t particularly like this bill, but I don’t want to take the political risk of taking a stand.”

The juvenile crime bill was to allow offenders as young as 15 to be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on, or near, schools. Both houses passed the measure handily. State-Senator Obama justified his “present” vote by opining there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime. Mr. Obama’s aides said he was more concerned about whether the bill would be effective rather than with its political consequences.  They did not explain, however, why he did not just vote “no”.

There were other “present” votes, in which part-time law-lecturer Obama, according to the New York Times, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions. Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote “yea” or “nay” on a bill that would allow certain victims of sex crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted “present” on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.

On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone “present” vote in a 58-to-0 vote.  When it appeared that this vote might become an issue in the presidential race Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill had passed 112-0-0 in the Illinois House and 58-0-1 in the state Senate.  Again, why didn’t he just vote, “no”?

In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were “present”, including Mr. Obama’s.  Mr. Obama’s campaign said he voted present to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together. He believed (hold on to your hat) the bill was rushed to the floor and that lawmakers were deprived of time to consider it.  Oddly, this hasn’t been a problem for the president with bills passed in the House and Senate of the United States.

The Times also reported that Mr. Obama was the sole “present” vote on a bill that easily passed the Illinois Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted “present” on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship, which ultimately did not pass the Illinois Senate.  In both of those cases, his campaign said (hold on to your hat again) he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.  This from, now, President Obama, who has gone on, arguably, to impose the greatest funded and unfunded mandates on local authorities in the nation’s history.

But enough of ancient history.  Fast forward to the centerpiece of his first year in office, health-care reform.  Many on the left, and even some on the right, suggest that this massive legislative “achievement” is proof that President Obama is a formidable leader. We beg to differ.  It may, indeed, prove that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority leader Harry Reid can effectively lead their party’s foot soldiers over any cliff they choose, but it really doesn’t say much about President Obama’s leadership aptitude.  Quite the opposite.   Apparently misreading the lessons of President Clinton’s terribly misdirected attempt at health-care reform, President Obama delegated the entire effort to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.  He sat by as they cobbled together (in his name) the horrific 2700-page health-care reform legislation that a substantial majority of the people consistently said they did not want and consistently continue to say they now want repealed and which a third of the states are now fighting to stop in federal court. Real leadership of the type he promised, but apparently cannot deliver, would have brought both sides together instead of putting the nation through some of the worst acrimony we can ever remember. 

The curtains up…light the lights first-day-in-office announcement that the prison housing terrorists at Guantanamo Bay would be closed within a year, was an early lesson that Ruffles and Flourishes without leadership aptitude is, well, just music.  The world apology tour for American foreign policy under the Bush Administration, the Cairo speech, the presidential outstretched hand to our adversaries and the long-lapsed ultimatum for a reciprocal handshake in return, the puzzling back of the hand treatment to Britain, our closest friend since the end of World War II, the insulting treatment of our friends such as South Korea, Columbia, Honduras, and Israel, and the skyrocketing spending and the attendant ever-mounting deficits all call into question the aptitude for leadership that prevails (or is absent) at the White House.

Les Gelb wrote of Obama, “He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion.  Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is.  They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn’t — and why.  This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have.”  Mr. Obama is beginning to look to more and more of the people who were dazzled by his meteoric rise and who were looking for the political equivalent of a messiah, as a growing disappointment.  It turns out that Mr. Obama cannot by his charm, his gift-of-gab, his oratorical skills and his considerable intelligence will into reality policies that the people won’t accept and that many across the political spectrum here and abroad seriously question.     

Which brings us full circle back to where we began… the growing fiasco that continues to assault the gulf coast.  “What could the President have done to avoid the blowout at the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform?” the Administration’s defenders indignantly ask.  Nothing.  But that is the wrong question.  The more telling question would be “what could the President have done to mitigate the damage?”  And the answer to that seems to be, “plenty.”

He had the authority to waive the ridiculous and long-outdated, protectionist Jones Act that would have allowed significant expertise and siphoning capacity to be on location in the Gulf weeks ago mitigating the damage that now seems unstoppable.  But, so as not to offend labor unions or domestic shipping interests, he turned down the offers.  He could have immediately authorized Governor Bobby Jindal to begin deploying barriers parallel to the gulf coast as the governor was begging for permission to do (and for which he was still begging last week).  He could, and should, have immediately designated the most operationally competent person he could find to take charge of containment operations and to report progress to him on a daily basis.

Instead, seven weeks into this debacle, when discussing why safety precautions were not in place, Mr. Obama assured the American people “that he wants to know why.”  Of course, the answer he will soon provide is quite predictable since we have heard it many times before.  The problem, we will be told, rests with the previous Administration.  Blaming Bush, or industry or political opposition seems to be his answer for every problem.  “I inherited this mess,” he often tells us. In short, the President is not providing the leadership one would expect from a chief executive running the country.  Instead, he has responded as one would expect from a chief executive running a think tank.

Enough curtain up…light the lights.  The curtain has been up and the lights have been lighted since January 20th, 2009.  Show us you got it, Mr. President. Not that you ain’t.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter 

Cancelled: There Will Be No Congressional Budget This Year

Cancelled: There Will Be No Congressional Budget This Year
***The Following Is An Important Fiscal Health Announcement***

Washington (Jun 22)In light of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) announcement this morning that House Democrats will not pass a budget this year – failing to fulfill what he has called “the most basic responsibility” of governing – the following important fiscal health warning has been issued:

THE BUDGET HAS BEEN

CANCELLED

WE REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 HAS BEEN CANCELLED DUE TO WASHINGTON DEMOCRATS’ OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING SPREE.

AN APOLOGY FOR THIS BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE FORTHCOMING AT THIS TIME.

BE ADVISED THAT THE FOLLOWING SERVICES WILL BE INTERRUPTED:

Imposing the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to create jobs and boost our economy

Reining in the out-of-control spending spree that is killing American jobs

Carrying out the “most basic responsibility of governing”

Stopping middle-class tax hikes that will sock family budgets at the worst possible time

Providing the leadership on jobs and the economy that Americans say is sorely lacking

Protecting our kids and grandkids from the enormous debt burden Washington has placed on them

We reserve the right to notify you of additional consequences that may arise in light of this budget failure, which is unprecedented in the modern era.  In the interim, please brace for more spending, more debt, more tax hikes, more broken promises.

For families and small businesses looking for a government that listens to the people it serves and respects their hard-earned money, House Republicans are offering better solutions to cut spending now and help small businesses put people back to work.

The Gospel According to Pelosi

The Gospel According to Pelosi

Ann Kane

Did Pope Benedict XVI give up his post as head of the Catholic Church, and make Nancy Pelosi the new pope?  By all indications from a speech on immigration reform she gave on May 6 at a progressive Catholic forum sponsored by Trinity Washington University and National Catholic Reporter — two of many liberal adjuncts to the American Catholic Church — she has taken on her new role as supreme pontifette with gusto.
In her sanctimonious manner, she commanded:
The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’ and I said, ‘I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your’ — whatever the communication is,” said Pelosi, who is Catholic, speaking at the Nation’s Catholic Community conference sponsored by Trinity Washington University and the National Catholic Reporter. [snip]
“The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels,” she said. [snip]
Pelosi said the church “has an important role to play” in teaching about dignity and respect, and “as a practical matter” it’s not possible to tell 12 million illegal immigrants to “go back to wherever you came from or go to jail.” 
Pro-choice Pelosi should be the last person the bishops turn to for advice.  Instead, the church leaders should be consulting their Shepherd in Chief over in Rome if they have difficulties in their dioceses. Immigration reform has been a hot button issue for the bishops in America since a large percentage of illegal aliens have Catholic roots.  
The strangest aspect of Pelosi’s instruction, however, is her desire to coalesce church and state.  For the past fifty years, pastors and bishops have been on guard about preaching politics from the pulpit in fear of jeopardizing their tax exempt status.
As recently as the 2008 elections, many Catholics rejected any clergy who spoke during a homily about why parishioners should choose one candidate over another.  Progressives inside the church cried foul whenever the church tried to step into the political arena.
Pelosi’s a clever woman.  She has a two-fold game plan going on here.  She makes it look like the government is softening its stance on that pesky separation of church and state issue, while she speaks in a commanding voice to church officials, thereby subordinating the church to the state.  In Marxist movements, the state must either do away with religion or control it; either way the bishops lose.

Pelosi: It’s Cheaper to Treat Teens for Drug Use Than Interdict Drugs at Border

Pelosi: It’s Cheaper to Treat Teens for Drug Use Than Interdict Drugs at Border
Thursday, May 06, 2010
By Edwin Mora


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
(CNSNews.com) - While pointing out that it is the responsibility of the federal government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said Thursday it is cheaper to treat teens for drug use than it is to interdict drugs being smuggled across the border.
 
CNSNews.com pointed out to the speaker at her weekly press briefing that a recent Justice Department report indicated that one in five U.S. teenagers used drugs last year, and then asked: “Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?”
 
“Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States,” said Pelosi. “That is what our responsibility is on this subject. The RAND Corporation a few years ago did a report that said it would be much less expensive for us to, through prevention first and foremost, but through treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, is the cheapest way to solve this problem.
 
“Incarceration is the next cheapest,” Pelosi continued. “It costs seven times more to incarcerate than to have treatment on demand. It costs 15 times more to interdict at the border. And it costs 25 times more with eradication of the cocoa leaf. This is an issue that it is very important to our country because of what it’s doing to our teenagers. That is the problem, what it is doing to our people.”
video below

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6UkU4znz

The RAND Corporation is a non-partisan, non-profit institution aimed at helping to “improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis.”

According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, “Nineteen percent of youth aged 12 to 17 report past year illicit drug use.” The assessment said that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) are now the predominant supplier of illegal drugs in the United States. “Law enforcement reporting and case initiation data show that Mexican DTOs control most of the wholesale cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine distribution in the United States, as well as much of the marijuana distribution,” said the assessment.

Pelosi did say it was the responsibility of the federal government to control the border, although she did not believe that would prevent illicit drug use by teens in the United States.

“Controlling our border is our responsibility,” she said. “So, whether you’re talking about stopping drugs from coming in or having a well-managed migration policy, we have a responsibility to secure our border. But I don’t know what you meant by ‘seal’ and I think sealing the border doesn’t do a whole lot to reduce demand in the United States. As I travel the country, I know that kids are on meth and they can make it in their bath tub.”
 
To solve the drug problem, she said, requires reducing demand. “Let’s secure our border for every reason that we have responsibility to do so,” she said, “but if it’s talk, if our purpose is to solve that problem, we must reduce demand and the best way to do that is through prevention and through treatment on demand.”

Last week, CNSNews.com similarly asked Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.), who represents a district that covers 300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, if he was committed to sealing the border against the inflow of illegal drugs. Rather than answer the question, Grijalva turned and walked away, eventually shouting back at the reporter that it was “punkish” to ask the question.
 
Transcript of Speaker Pelosi’s answer to CNSNews.com’s question on stopping illicit drug traffic across U.S.-Mexico border:
 
CNSNews.com: Madame Speaker, the Justice Department has reported that one in five teenagers used illicit drugs last year and that most of those drugs came across the border from Mexico. Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?
 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): “Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States. That is what our responsibility is on this subject. The RAND Corporation a few years ago did a report that said it would be much less expensive for us to, through prevention first and foremost, but through treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, is the cheapest way to solve this problem.

“Incarceration is the next cheapest. It costs seven times more to incarcerate than to have treatment on demand. It costs 15 times more to interdict at the border. And it costs 25 times more with eradication of the cocoa leaf. This is an issue that it is very important to our country because of what it’s doing to our teenagers. That is the problem, what it is doing to our people.
 
“Controlling our border is our responsibility. So, whether you’re talking about stopping drugs from coming in or having a well-managed migration policy, we have a responsibility to secure our border. But I don’t know what you meant by ‘seal’ and I think sealing the border doesn’t do a whole lot to reduce demand in the United States. As I travel the country, I know that kids are on meth and they can make it in their bath tub. So, again if the issue is predicated on your first premise, which is one in five teenagers in America has used drugs, is that the point?
 
CNSNews.com: “Yes.”
 
Pelosi: “Okay, so let’s, you know, let’s secure our border for every reason that we have responsibility to do so, but if it’s talk, if our purpose is to solve that problem, we must reduce demand and the best way to do that is through prevention and through treatment on demand.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers