Freedom Line Blog

The question whether President Barack Obama would make recess appointments over Republican objections has now been answered.

So, who needs Congress?  With President Obama issuing an executive order purporting to make law, and filling administrative vacancies through recess appointments, is there really a need for the legislative branch?  After a month where it became evident that the Obama Administration sees Congress as a bifurcated procedural process, it won’t be too surprising if after Republicans gain a majority the White House refuses to acknowledge the legislature’s presence.  If that happens, we may be headed for a government shut-down early next year when the GOP turns off the financial spigot.

Stay tuned.

Apparently, if it’s good for Obamacare, “deem and pass” might become the magic maneuver that saves every controversial bill bereft of a majority.  I mean, if voters will give members of Congress a pass on a monstrously unpopular health care bill, why not on immigration?  But if Democrats in Congress never vote on any major “reform” bill, then why, pray tell, do any of them need to be reelected?

It is argued that passing Obamacare with zero support from the opposing party will make Washington, D.C. a more partisan place.  Probably so.  But the real, lasting problem with the Democratic strategy of process-be-damned lawmaking is that it flips our national government’s legislative default rule on its head.

As President Obama has lamented, the US Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, which means that most of the language in the document is devoted to restraining the government to ensure the people’s freedom.  Though many hate the filibuster, it’s use relates back to fundamental premises like the separation of powers, and checks and balances.  All led to the conclusion that it should be very difficult for government to act.

Contrast that with the means used to propel Obamacare through Congress, like budget reconciliation and the “Slaughter Solution.”  There is no support  – either historically or constitutionally – for using these measures to grease the skids for substantive policy reform.  The legislative process as laid out in the Constitution is unrecognizable when it comes to Obamacare.  The Democrats who succumb to the temptation of voting for this bill, using these maneuvers, are doing much more than engaging in sharp legislative dealing.  They are irrevocably changing the rules of the game from one governed by laws, to one abused by politicians.

Well, this isn’t too surprising.  When asked by a reporter to grade herself on the past year’s performance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded that she’d give herself “an ‘A’ for effort.” No doubt the mother of five is the kind of helicopter parent demanding trophies for participation, and praise for people who deign to show up.  But if you can get an ‘A’ just for trying, what grade will the Speaker bestow on herself when and if the Democrats in Congress actually pass the health care “reform” bill?

If there were any lingering questions about this Administration’s stance on free speech, all doubt was removed last night when the White House issued this response:

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Right.  When did censorship become as popular as organic foods in this country?  Mr. President, you also failed to mention that this decision will be a huge boon for unions, major contributors to your campaign and the Democratic Party.  Citizens United is a victory for both the left and the right, a victory for anyone who is opposed to jailing someone over broadcasting a political position.

This Administration claims to be “liberal,” yet it also took the position that banning books that contained one line of advocacy was a felony.  What would have happened if McCain-Feingold were around in the 18th Century when the Federalist Papers were being printed with small business paper?  Locking people up for political speech is as American as burning books or jailing political enemies.  Why stop now, Mr. President?

The end of the world is still far off in the distance.  As former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith mentioned today, 28 states already allow corporate and “special interest” spending.  States like Oregon, Virginia and Utah are hardly known as bastions for corrupt political activity, even though they allow corporations to take a stance when issues are debated in the public circle.

Harsh critics of Free Speech claim that because corporations don’t vote that they shouldn’t be afforded basic First Amendment protections.  So, if the First Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations, perhaps they shouldn’t pay taxes?

The Supreme Court has already held that the Constitution, in most parts, applies to corporate entities.  Is the First Amendment inapplicable when the actor grows richer?  What about the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment?  Should corporations and other for-profit entities be denied due process of the law simply because they don’t vote?  I’m sure politicians would approve of that but thankfully they haven’t overturned the Fifth Amendment … yet.

Lacking voting rights is an argument for this decision, not against it.  Corporations and non-profits lack the right to vote and can’t even contribute directly to political parties unless they choose to form expensive political action committees (PAC).  Independent expenditures are one of the few ways businesses can influence legislation that has a direct impact on their existence.

Let’s also remember that 99% of corporations in the U.S. aren’t rich or powerful.  The language in McCain-Feingold was woefully overbroad and applied to every entity from General Electric to your local florist.

Americans should be rejoicing because the Administration and most politicians hate this decision.  That’s wonderful. Anything that upsets career politicians is normally good for the rest of the country.   Then again, Congress should be happy; their enemies are no longer hidden behind the veil of those evil 527 groups.

With the blackballing of Fox News, his appointment of Justice Sotomayor, who voted against free speech, and his response to Citizens United, President Obama has made clear what many suspected years ago.  The President is not a fan of free speech, that is unless he’s breaking campaign promises and drowning out his opponent with over $700 million in union-funded spending.  As much as his speech might have been repulsive to some, President Obama had every right to spend money spreading his views.

Maybe it’s not free speech to which the President is opposed; maybe it’s just a little healthy competition.

There are plenty of jokes about lawyers.  Entire websites are devoted to lampooning one of the most hated professions in America.  For example, when lawyers die, why don’t vultures eat them?  Even a vulture has taste. Ha!

Well, according to one lawyer who resides in the nation’s capital, the legal profession is dying.  Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Mark Greenbaum argues that the current legal environment is over-saturated with new attorneys, leading to the high unemployment rate for incoming bloodsuckers lawyers.

Greenbaum’s solution is to turn an already regulated market over to the federal government to limit the supply of lawyers entering the field.  For Greenbaum, only politicians can stop the bleeding for those poor souls.

Mr. Greenbaum’s treatise on nationalizing the supply of labor is yet another reason why lawyers shouldn’t run the show in Washington, D.C.  If economics teaches anything, it’s that the market determines supply and demand.  Granted, the legal industry is already highly regulated and massive federal subsidies allow for affordable interest free loans.  But, these distortions only enhance the desire for some students to be the next Perry Mason, or the next Jack Abramoff.

Unlike journalists, chefs, florists or most other professions one can imagine, the only barrier to success is the ability to generate capital, usually through the sale of goods or services.  In the U.S., everyone virtually has a constitutional right (though not explicitly) to practice any vocation.  The legal and medical worlds throw in a few hurdles like extra schooling, dues and passing state-approved exams.

If Mr. Greenbaum really wanted to control the supply of lawyers to ensure that unemployment remains low and wages continue to rise, he would advocate for less government involvement.  Let students pay what law school actually costs without massive subsidies from the federal government.  Let markets determine “acceptable” supplies of labor.  Once students realize that a law degree is no longer an easy path to millions, they’ll stop forking over $100,000 for three years of misery inside a law school classroom.  Trust me.

The markets are doing a fine job of determining my access to food, clothing, computers and fantasy baseball.   I wonder if Mr. Greenbaum, an attorney, would approve of state regulation of leather shoes, European cars or arrogance.

Strangely, Mr. Greenbaum probably wouldn’t have written this article five years ago when associate salaries were climbing, the unemployment rate was low and lawyers were still a reviled profession.  In the midst of a recession, however, all of a sudden the supply of lawyers must be controlled by committees on Capitol Hill.

Nonsense.  If it were that easy to right all wrongs in the world, why not have the federal government control the supply of all professions in the United States?  Wait, best to not give them any ideas.

By the way, how can you tell when a lawyer is lying?  His lips are moving.  (Does this joke apply to politicians as well?)

The ostentatious Representative Barney Frank from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts never shies away from reporters or combative political opponents.  He once said to a constituent at a town hall meeting, “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.  I have no interest in doing it.”

Now, amidst rumors that Democrats are planning to delay the swearing-in of Republican Scott Brown if he were to win the special election in Massachusetts, Frank issued yet another linguistic tour de force.

Representative Frank opined, “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve been asked in a long time.  That is insane, the suggestion could only come from a demented right wing source… That is conspiracy theory at its most contemptible.”  BAM!

Barney, you’re wrong.   ‘Conspiracies’ like this happen all the time in Washington’s political meat grinder.

Remember, Massachusetts Democrats changed the rules on filing Senate vacancies twice, once in 2004 when it would have aided Democrats, and again in 2009 to ensure a 60th Democratic Senator.

Remember, Representative Bill Owens (D-NY) was sworn in on a weekend so that Speaker Pelosi could secure his vote for health care reform.

Remember, Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) almost had his swearing-in delayed because Speaker Pelosi wanted to reduce the number of Republicans.  Pelosi ultimately decided to seat Buchanan so that his district would have representation.  After Buchanan’s election, however, one Democrat noted, “No one who’s in a disputed election like this should get too comfortable in the House of Representatives.”

Because Massachusetts can take its time with certification and because the Senate, under Article I §5, “shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,” then there is plenty of legitimate legal ground for Democrats to delay the ceremony.

However, since the public backlash against even the idea of a delay is so strong, it appears that the eventual winner will be sworn in the normal course, but “normal” might not occur until February if the Senator happens to have an “R” after his name.

Barney, you might be entertaining but you’re still crazy.

To give President Obama some credit, he knows how to get Congress in line.  Or,  perhaps Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know how to crack the whip on their members.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Congress voted with the President 96.7% of the time in which he had a clearly stated position.  This broke the 44-year old mark set by President Lyndon Johnson, according to the study.  Oddly, President Johnson also had a miserable fiscal record.

Of course, many Democrats who voted with President Obama in the past will attempt to run as far away from the President as possible when pitching their “achievements” to voters.   Luckily, Congress can’t hide from its voting record.  From cap-and-trade, to tax hikes, to pork-barrel stimulus spending, this Congress has been far worse than the previous band of tax-and-spend acolytes.

Luckily, voters will have a chance to voice their disapproval on November 2.

When asked to identify a leftist counterpart to the wit and wisdom of conservative commentator George Will, liberals commonly cite The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Frankly, that’s a bit like a D.C.-area baseball fan offering the Washington Nationals as a counterpart to the New York Yankees, as confirmed again by today’s commentary from Dionne.

In it, Dionne counsels a veritable suicide strategy for Democrats hoping to avoid a landslide defeat in November’s 2010 Congressional elections.  In the face of poll after poll demonstrating widespread public opposition to ObamaCare, Dionne advises Democrats to trumpet its virtues.  He apparently remains blissfully oblivious to the fact that the more people learn about ObamaCare, the less they like it.  Since Obama demanded legislation before the August Congressional recess, the public has swung from narrow approval to wide disapproval, yet he advises that Democrats tell them more?  Dionne subsequently argues, presumably with a straight face, that Democrats should utilize proposed carbon cap-and-tax legislation in their effort to gain electoral momentum.  As is the case with ObamaCare, however, Dionne’s recommendation flies in the face of public skepticism and opposition toward this costly bill that will raise utility costs for everyday consumers, cripple businesses struggling in a weak economy and surrender additional American sovereignty to United Nations-style climate regulation.

Those in the legal profession often advise against interrupting opposing attorneys who are dooming their own cases.  One suspects that Republicans are similarly in no hurry to interrupt Dionne’s advice to Democrats.

In the never ending succession of bad legislation coming out of Congress, the Democrats added another one to the list today.

By a 223-202 vote, the House passed the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.”  Twenty-seven Democrats joined every single Republican to oppose the legislation.

The bill is a hodgepodge of more regulations, higher taxes and new government.  After Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress thought it had effectively ended the debate over financial regulations.  For Congress, it’s never too late to re-regulate.

You can read the Congressional Research Service summary of the legislation here.

Here is the CBO’s cost estimate of the bill.

Proving that Congress can “walk and chew gum at the same time,” the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to ban NCAA Division I football from holding a “national championship” unless it’s the product of a playoff system. What!?

Sadly, during the voice vote there was only one enthusiastic “No” vote from John Barrow (D-GA).

Congress loves power, and this vote is a perfect example of how everything, no matter how trivial (sports), is supposedly under their domain.  ‘Mandating that everyone get health insurance?  We can do that.  Controlling all political speech?  We run this show!  Mandating how college football players spend their postseason?  Sure, we watch college football and we personally prefer a playoff system.’

Republicans and Democrats deserve equal criticism.  The legislation is actually sponsored by Republican Joe Barton (TX).  Of course, if Texas had gone to the national championship game last year, then some representative from Oklahoma would have cried foul and tried to change the system.

Today’s vote is just one example of the blind arrogance exhibited by our representatives on a daily basis.  Power is king on the Hill.

It seems that Congress is little different from high school social politics.  Everyone travels in cliques (known as caucuses); everyone wants to be popular (leader, chairman or even President) and there are plenty of scandals involving drugs and cheating.

I guess in this metaphor that makes voters the parents of Congress.  It’s a shame that throwing Congress out of office every two years is the only punishment voters can inflict upon their “honorable” representatives.  (At what point are we allowed to stop calling them honorable?)

You can read the bill, H.R. 390 “The College Football Playoff Act,” here.  Here is the markup information from today’s hearing.

‘Tis the season for consumer spending, and no collection of humanity does it better than the U.S. Congress. According to the Associated Press, here are a few of the itemized gifts being wrapped at taxpayers’ expense:

• Huge increase in foreign aid coupled with an 18 percent cut to a program that helps states with cost of incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants

• Reinstituting a needle exchange program in the District of Columbia

• Eliminating the D.C. voucher program that allows less fortunate students to attend prestigious schools

• Another $2.5 billion for high-speed rail programs added to the $8 billion provided in the stimulus package

Oh yeah; the omnibus spending bill is going to fund nine cabinet agencies whose fiscal year budgets began back on October 1st. As usual, timing is everything…

With all the attention devoted to health care reform this fall it is little wonder that the federalization of the college student loan system is getting scant notice. As the Wall Street Journal points out, there is a quiet takeover occurring of the student loan market that, if successful, would eliminate private lending companies from competing with the federal government’s alternative.

The typical tale of a free-speech controversy on campus involves administrators landing on some poor undergrad who violates political correctness. But in this story the administrators have been afraid to speak as the Department of Education pressured them to drop private lenders and embrace the department’s own Direct Lending (DL) program. The pending bill, which has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, would ban private lenders from making federally guaranteed loans after July 1, 2010.

Congress has already enacted regulations in recent years to discourage making loans without a federal guarantee. And many lenders have quit the business. Now the White House and Democrats like California Rep. George Miller want to go further and convert students from private loans largely backed by the taxpayer into government loans made and serviced by government and backed by the taxpayer. Think of this as a prelude to how Congress will rig the rules for any public option in health care.

Sound familiar? It gets worse. Even though the bill requiring a private loan be backed by a federal guarantee is not yet law, the Department of Education (DOE) is already contacting schools to make sure they are in compliance. Thankfully, there is still time to contact your senator while the upper chamber considers amending the House bill to allow private lenders to stay in business. If nothing else, tell them you support the free market, because it’s the only thing supporting Congress’ spending addiction.

No surprises here … the U.S. spends more money than it collects.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its monthly budget review and it’s not pretty.

Through the first two months of FY 2010, the federal deficit is already $292 billion.  For perspective (based on my shoddy math skills), if you placed that money ($1 bills) end-to-end, it would stretch from the Earth to the Moon 115 times (placed end-to-end the deficit is over 27 million miles and the distance from the Earth to the Moon is only 238,857 miles).

That’s a long sad debt train.  In addition, that debt train could also carry you to Venus, which is only 23.7 million miles from Earth (at its closest).

This would be a big deficit for a single year, but unfortunately the government has ten more months of taxing and spending left.  Year-to-date, this deficit figure is $11 billion more than the shortfall from last year.  Not good.

The deficit from the month of October alone was $176 billion.  The CBO projects another $115 billion deficit for December.

As the report noted, “Excluding outlays for the TARP and net cash infusions for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, spending in 2010 rose by $51 billion (or 10 percent).”

Sooner or later, 269 people (218 in the House and 51 in the Senate) will be elected to Congress who actually care about reducing spending and cutting the deficit.

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?

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.

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).

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%.

Apparently, consumers still like options and the technology that provides them.  Since late night host Jay Leno moved down the clock to the 10pm hour, NBC’s ratings have taken a substantial nosedive because people are recording his show on DVR while watching other shows when they air.  The problem for NBC doesn’t just stop at drops in air time viewers.  NBC’s advertisers are feeling the pinch because later viewings on DVR recordings make it possible to skip commercials.  The less people watch ads, the less companies will pay to air them, which means the less money networks like NBC will make to produce television shows.

Obviously, something must be done.  Simply put, it’s time for Congress to act because Jay Leno is too big (a chin) to fail.  Network television executives just need a little help from Big Brother in “equalizing” the market in their favor.  Think of it as “net neutrality” for broadcasters and advertisers.  Since the mantra around Washington right now is to do anything that increases consumption, it’s time to ban the DVR as an impediment to economic growth.

A few members of Congress took a financial hit this year due to the recession but according to Roll Call, the 50 Richest Members of Congress are still worth approximately $1.3 billion.

It pays to be a professional politician too, as 4 of the 5 richest members have “served” a combined 74 years in Congress. A freshmen politico, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), adds new money to the pile with a minimum net worth of $72 million.

You can click here for the list or click here for the story.