Freedom Line Blog

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses “Climategate” and the costly agenda of global warming alarmists.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out. For those readers who don’t receive it in their e-mail inboxes or if you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, below is a summary of its contents:

Lee:  Does Barack Obama Even Comprehend “Climategate?”
Batkins:  Death, Taxes … and More Taxes
Senik:  Liberals, Despite All Evidence to the Contrary

Freedom Minute Video:  Climategate
Podcast:  The Weaknesses in Obama’s Foreign Policy – Interview with Troy Senik
Jester’s Courtroom:  Lawyer Wants Lights Out at Homeless Center

Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Quiz:  Question of the Week
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update, sign up here.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan seeks to destroy the fundamental principle that “[the] Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers”, judging by her brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Comstock.  The government’s brief demonstrates just how expansive she views federal power under the Constitution.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank in Washington, D.C., is challenging a federal criminal statute on the grounds that Congress acted without constitutional authority when it passed the law.

Cato and other challengers in Comstock argue that the federal government cannot use the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 §8 of the Constitution to justify any and all federal action.   The government, on the other hand, argues that the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause in §8 allow the government to enact a range of federal criminal statutes, even if such laws are typically the province of state power.

Of course, by the government’s logic, if the Commerce Clause works to authorize a broad array of criminal laws, then what can’t the government do?  Since the government deems almost any human action to “substantially affect interstate commerce,” then there is nothing that evades federal power.  For example, in this argument audio clip, the government claims federal power is virtually limitless.

The Supreme Court has (unfortunately) already held that growing excess wheat for private consumption falls within the Commerce Clause, and that growing marijuana for private consumption falls within the federal purview as well. (Justices Scalia and Kennedy sided with the government in the latter case.)

As the Cato Institute argued in its brief, “Neither the Necessary and Proper Clause nor the Commerce Clause is a permissible footing for the Act and, therefore, the Act is unconstitutional.  As this Court recognized almost 150 years ago, ‘[no] graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole,’ than the Government’s unconstitutional assertion of power against its own citizens.”

Elena Kagan, in the government’s reply brief, countered, “A commitment under Section 4248 [the act in question] is justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause in combination with whatever enumerated power or powers supported the federal prosecution and custody of the individual in the first instance.”

By June of next year, we’ll learn if the Court would prefer returning to “first principles.”  It could actually limit Congress’ expansive use of Article I § 8, or the justices could continue to allow unbridled federal action whenever the government deems it politically expedient.

Click here for the Cato brief.  For the government’s brief, click here.  For CFIF on the Constitution, click here.

The Wall Street Journal offers some penetrating analysis on the inevitably inverse relationship between government financing of “guns” and “butter.”  When tax receipts dwindle, appropriators often choose between funding social welfare programs (butter) and national defense (guns).  Unsurprisingly, the European welfare state provides a cautionary example.

The overlooked culprit here is the rise of the modern welfare state. Since World War II and especially from the 1960s, Europe has built elaborate domestic income-maintenance programs, with government-run health care, pensions and jobless benefits. These are hugely expensive, requiring high taxes and government spending that is a huge proportion of GDP.

The Europeans’ obsession with income stabilization through higher taxes means there is less economic growth and less money to spend.  These continental priorities mirror the massive increases in social spending enacted or proposed under President Obama – economic stimulus, health care “reform,” cap-and-trade and job creation. 

As the U.S. federal deficit balloons, politicians and bureaucrats will look for ways to balance the books.  And given the current Administration’s and Congress’  love affair with “butter,” unfortunately, they’ll likely look to slash spending on national defense while our nation is at war.

Remember when sub-prime mortgages had Congress demanding more accountability (i.e. oversight) of the housing industry? It seems like a lifetime ago that the spark igniting the current recession (derivatives of risky mortgage deals) was a priority on Congress’s to-do list. That was before health care, cap-and-trade, and Afghanistan moved it to the back burner. Apparently, the issue is still simmering because there’s news of an impending compromise between Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA). At issue is whether to head the yet-to-be-created “Consumer Financial Protection Agency” (CFPA) with a single director or board of commissioners.

And just what would be the CFPA’s mandate? Here’s a description from the L.A. Times:

To begin with, be aware that the agency’s powers and oversight would extend far beyond mortgages and real estate — into all credit cards, debit cards, consumer loans, payday loans, credit reporting agencies, debt collection, stored-value cards and even investment advisory and financial advisory services, to name only part of the list.

And this from CNN:

The consumer agency would be a brand new regulator whose chief concern is looking out for consumers. It would write rules aimed at ensuring that financial products like mortgages and credit cards are fair, more transparent and more easily understood.

Raise your hand if you remember the last time a government agency made a process, form, or program easier to understand. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if the new regulator is a single director or a board of commissioners. The most direct effect of creating yet another federal agency will be an increase in both taxes to fund it and transactions costs to comply with it. If Democrats really wanted to help consumers and taxpayers, they’d step back and let prosecutors and plaintiffs sue for fraud. After all, no court will enforce a contract that was signed under duress.

Then again, that’s not really the point, is it?

WSJ Editorial – Sarbanes-Oxley on Trial
New York Times – Many Doctors’ Groups Oppose Health Bill
The Hill – Senators Want to Force Congress into Public Plan
National Review Online – The GOP Purity Test

The Weekly Standard – ObamaCare’s Ugly Math
David Broder – Democrats Living Dangerously
Politico – Have the Greens Failed?
David Harsanyi – We-Don’t-Want-to-Talk-About-It-Gate

Federal Debt: $12.073 trillion

The U.S. Senate this afternoon voted 42-58 to reject an amendment, sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), that would have sent the Senate health care “reform” bill back to the chamber’s Finance Committee with instructions to strip out nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts.  In other words, 58 Senate Democrats reaffirmed their desire to cut Medicare by nearly a half trillion dollars.

Democrats Jim Webb and Ben Nelson voted with all Senate Republicans in favor of the amendment.

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement sent out immediately following the vote:

If anyone had any question about the Democrat plan to use Medicare as a piggy-bank to fund their new government programs, those doubts are now gone. 58 Democrats just voted to reject a common-sense proposal to protect senior’s health care from a half-trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare.  Only in Washington would anyone have the nerve to claim that such drastic cuts won’t harm the very program millions of seniors have paid into for years and now rely on.” 

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship (SBE) Council this week released its annual ranking of individual states by business friendliness, and the results aren’t surprising to anyone who understands the importance of lower taxes, less regulation and fewer labor burdens.

After noting the inhospitable business environment cultivated by the Obama White House and the Pelosi-Reid Congress at the national level, SBE Council chief economist Raymond Keating highlights the critical role played by individual states in fostering small business growth.  As Mr. Keating notes, “small businesses, of course, drive innovation, economic growth and job creation.  If we want to get our economy back on a solid, robust growth track, then we need pro-entrepreneur policies at the federal, state and local levels.”

The study incorporates some 36 government-related factors, including tax rates, regulatory costs, state government spending, property rights and energy costs.  And the results are not shocking.  Pro-growth states like Texas, Florida and South Dakota lead, whereas notoriously basket-case states like California and New York sink toward the bottom.

It’s often said that the states serve as policy test laboratories in our federal system, so here’s hoping that someone directing our national levels of government learn the simple lessons offered by the SBE Council’s latest report.

There were three people at the center of the federal government’s response to the economic meltdown during the latter months of 2008. President Obama still employs two. Tim Geithner got a promotion from heading the New York Federal Reserve to Treasury Secretary. Now Fed chief Ben Bernanke is up for rehire. And while the Senate Banking Committee had some heated words for the Fed’s handling of the worsening economic downturn, it offered “measured support” for the man responsible for handling the Fed. This, despite labeling the Fed itself as a “failed” regulator doing a “horrible job.”

And yet, Bernanke is widely expected to be confirmed for a second term. Coupled with Geithner’s tax evasion, one is left to wonder what could have possibly disqualified former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson from getting a plumb assignment in the Obama Administration.

Today President Obama hosts a “jobs summit” at the White House, and apparently he’s looking for ideas. Unfortunately, the folks in Congress have one in the shape of a second stimulus package – this time to be packaged and sold as a “jobs bill.” And just what’s in a “jobs bill”? Make work projects, short-term subsidies, and tax gimmicks all designed to give businesses an incentive to hire people they can’t afford without a government check. Like the first stimulus package, this kind of fix merely prolongs and deepens the problems facing businesses; namely uncertainty about the future.

If the president is truly interested in getting ideas about how to create more jobs, he should read John Stossel and meditate on this pearl of wisdom:

When government sets simple rules that everyone understands and then gets out of the way, free people create jobs.

Granted, we might lose some middle men. But until the tax system is simplified and the government stops intervening in the free market, people may get jobs, but they won’t have the kind of stability they – or their employers – need to get back to work.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me.  The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.

Clive Crook on the ClimateGate Global Warming Scandal.

Having never met a tax increase they didn’t like, Democrats voted to increase the Death Tax today.

Under current law, the Death Tax was set expire in 2010.  Now, starting in January, the tax could increase from 0% to 45%.  Not one Republican voted to increase the Death Tax, proving that the GOP still has some semblance of a fiscal spine.

All hope is not lost, however, as the Senate still has to take up the measure and pass the House version of the tax increase.  It must then go to President Obama’s desk for signing.

The final vote was 225 to 200 (218 needed for passage).

As the Senate continues to debate the future of health care in America, the California Medical Association handed the White House a blow today when it announced that it would oppose the current health care bill.

The California Medical Association has more than 35,000 physicians, the second largest state-based group in the nation.   Though the American Medical Association (AMA) is still supportive of the House version of “reform,” state medical associations in Texas, Florida and Georgia have all joined to oppose a government takeover of health care.

Their main objection is reimbursement rates under Medicare.  The Senate bill is set to slash physician reimbursement under Medicare by 40%, and as a result, most doctors would simply refuse to take Medicare patients.

As Dr. Dev GnanaDev noted, “If doctors can’t see you, the only choice you have is the emergency room, which is a very bad way to get healthcare.”

Let’s hope the AMA joins with California doctors to oppose the Senate bill.

The Hill – Democrats Look to Spend $300 Billion on ‘Jobs’
Politico – Democrats Push for Another Stimulus
Rep. Eric Cantor – A Real Jobs Plan
Breitbart – Representative Lobbies for Newspaper Bailout

WSJ Editorial – The New York Tax Revolt
Washington Examiner – Time to Corral ‘Sheriff Biden’
Rep. Bob Barr – The Chicago Gun Ban Challenge
WSJ – Weekly Jobless Claims Decline

Federal Debt: $12.069 trillion

Taxpayers are doing their part to defeat government-run health care by marching, calling Congress and urging others to get involved.

Senator Judd Gregg, someone with direct power to defeat ObamaCare, now has a legislative blueprint for stopping the Senate’s version of health care “reform.”

Among the highlights:

• “Hard” Quorum Calls – requires at least 51 Senators to be present in the Senate chamber for any substantive debate on health care.

• Reading of Amendments and Conference Reports in Entirety – with 2,000 pages to read, it would take days.

• Senate Points of Order – delays legislative business because the Senate is required to take two roll call votes to dispense with a point of order.

• Filibuster by Amendment – until Harry Reid invokes cloture, Senators may offer an unlimited number of amendments.

• Motion to Instruct Conferees – Senators may offer an unlimited number of motions to instruct the Senate’s conferees.

You can do your part to defeat government-run health care by calling 202-224-3121 and telling your Senators to vote “No” on the Senate bill.

Senator Max Baucus caught some of Joe Biden’s foot-in-mouth disease today when he admitted the Senate health care bill would cost $2.5 trillion, far more than what CBO estimated and propoents of the legislation have been touting.  Taxpayers should be thankful for Baucus’ loose lips.

The CBO cost estimate priced the Senate legislation at $848 billion, but that figure does not represent the full cost of the mandates on individuals and employers.  In addition, the bill masks the true cost of the legislation because it doesn’t begin to subsidize health care until 2014.

As Senator Baucus reveals, the true cost of the legislation over a 10-year period is much higher.

Just for a second … health care reform, whether you use a ten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, whenever you start at, so it is still either $1 trillion or it’s $2.5 trillion, depending on where you start…

This week Congress will vote on whether to increase the Death Tax from 0% to 45%.  That’s quite the tax hike for an economy with 10.2% unemployment.

Under current law, the Death Tax is set to expire in 2010, but under the misleading, “Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009,” Congress could give the gift of a 45% tax hike during this holiday season.

Only in Washington is a 45% tax hike called “Tax Relief.”

You can find the text of the legislation here, but you’ll notice in the bill that the tax threshold is not indexed for inflation.  As a result, in approximately 40 years, half of the U.S. will be hit with the Death Tax.  So much for only soaking the rich.

Call your representative at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote “No” on H.R. 4154.  Real tax relief means a 0% rate, not 45%.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website.

The Hill – Sen. Reid to Unveil New Public Option
Washington Post – President Makes Afghanistan His Own
Sen. Jeff Sessions – KSM in NYC is Bad for America
Markos Moulitsas – Democrats Face Intensity Gap

Stuart Rothenberg – The Dangerous Dozen House Seats for 2010
Politico – Republican Candidates Shun Climate Bill
WSJ Editorial – ObamaCare at Any Cost?
Washington Times – The War on Estate Taxes

Federal Debt: $12.065 trillion

Ever since Republicans lost hold of every major organ of the federal government, the MSM has been pushing a meme about how the right-wing wackos on talk radio represent a radical, uncompromising view of the world that will assure permanent minority status for the GOP. In virtually every instance, I’ve thought this analysis almost comically wrong. Until today.

The reality is that — whatever their intellectual shortcomings — the conservative talking heads usually do a pretty good job of keeping the GOP honest. Unfortunately, some of them seem to be totally abandoning that charge when it comes to President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan.

Rush Limbaugh had some relatively muted criticisms for Obama’s plan on his radio show this morning, but Sean Hannity was positively apoplectic on Fox tonight in the aftermath of the President’s speech at West Point.  Hannity hit Obama hard for “dithering” on the decision making process, shorting General McChrystal’s troop request, and not being “passionate” enough. His reaction was churlish and desperate.

The reality is that Obama (of whom I have little positive to say on virtually any other issue) is boldly choosing to alienate his own political base by embracing the kind of strategy that we know can work based on the Bush experience in Iraq.

Criticisms over the amount of troops are misguided. Obama already ordered a mini-surge earlier in the Spring; he seems to be making a serious effort to get NATO to supply the forces to make up the difference between new American deployments and Gen. McChrystal’s request; and, if the Bush experience is any indicator, the final number of new troops deployed will likely be higher than Obama’s initial estimate.  On top of all this, there’s a bizarre line of criticism that it was somehow inappropriate for Obama not to take McChrystal’s recommendation without a single alteration.  As Commanders-in-Chief, Presidents are not supposed to be  passive receptacles of their military advisors’ recommendations.  Effective wartime leaders push back and push back hard. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama got the decision right, but he certainly has the methodology down.

There are plenty of legitimate points of criticism. While Obama was right to enter into a serious deliberative process, the “dithering” claim has some merit — a quarter of a year is too long to leave the theater adrift. The focus on timetables for withdrawal is also a mistake and one that’s liable to get the President into hot water come 2012. His caveat about “conditons on the ground,” while welcome as a matter of strategic principle, only muddies the rhetorical waters further.

All that being said, Obama has made a courageous decision that will shape the rest of his presidency. It’s the right call for the nation. Pundits on the right should keep their powder dry.