Vote on Extending Homebuyer Credit Delayed Over TARP

Vote on Extending Homebuyer Credit Delayed Over TARP; Bloomberg.Com

The U.S. Senate won’t vote until next week at the earliest on proposals to extend both an $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers and unemployment benefits for the nation’s jobless. The administration endorses an extension.

Senate action was delayed by a Republican demand that a vote be allowed on an amendment to end the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program at the end of this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, balked yesterday at the demand by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. Reid also took procedural steps to end debate and schedule Senate action on extending the homebuyer tax credit and the unemployment benefits.

“I think the first-time home-buyer credit is a great example of funding that’s helped to stabilize the housing market and should be extended,” Jared Bernstein, chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden, said on Bloomberg television. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner gave his support yesterday.

Lawmakers announced plans earlier this week to attach the tax-credit proposal to a pending bill on the unemployment benefits. The $8,000 tax credit, enacted earlier this year as part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package, is set to expire at the end of November.

Comment: Hey, can someone run down to the hardware store and get these guys some more shovels. They're really making great progress digging themselves (and us) into that hole.

Senate Confirms Surgeon General

Senate Confirms Surgeon General; The New York Times

After much agitation earlier in the day, the Senate voted to confirm Dr. Regina Benjamin as the nation’s surgeon general on Thursday night amid a national emergency over the swine flu outbreak.

Comment: It was a very chilling moment when US Protection Services whisked Doctor Regina through the massive piles of dead bodies stacked like cord wood on her way to the Capital. As she sat in the Senate gallery awaiting her confirmation, the incredible load of the national health emergency weighed heavily upon her having just learned that her favorite goldfish surrendered to the menacing H1N1 virus.

...amid a national emergency over the swine flu outbreak...the horror...the horror...

Senate panel passes Iran sanctions

Senate panel passes Iran sanctions; JTA

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee passed an Iran sanctions bill by a unanimous vote.

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009 passed Thursday includes the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which would strengthen the U.S. president's authority to sanction companies that help Iran import or produce refined petroleum. That is seen as potentially having a large impact on Iran's economy because the country imports up to 40 percent of its refined petroleum. Similar legislation was passed Wednesday by the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Commitee.

It also includes portions of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, legislation passed by the House earlier this month that protects from lawsuits state and local pension funds who want to divest from Iran. In addition, it would ban all imports from Iran, strengthen export controls to stop the diversion of sensitive technology to Iran through third countries and mandate that the president file a report every six months on sanctionable activities.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations both issued statements applauding passage of the bill in the committees. Both bills face further deliberation before full house votes.

"This comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation will reinforce American diplomacy should Iran continue to defy the international community and five U.N. Security Council resolutions by continuing to enrich uranium, refuse unfettered nuclear inspections and cover up the extent of its nuclear program," AIPAC said in a statement. "The law would force Tehran to confront a real choice: continue its illicit nuclear program and risk economic ruin or suspend the program and open the door to relief from sanctions."

Comment: This should have some very positive outcomes, like backing Iran further into a corner, thus uniting their country, and keeping our most productive men engaged with a new phase of the endless war.

A unanimous vote equates to a bunch of sheep lacking the intellect to think on their own. Not one US Senator voted against this...it's time to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Ex-senator Brooke gets gold medal of Congress

Ex-senator Brooke gets gold medal of Congress; The Boston Globe

Comment: The Gold Medal of Congress is one additional opportunity for the oligarchs to glorify their self-importance.

A Senate Naysayer, Spoiling for Health Care Fight

A Senate Naysayer, Spoiling for Health Care Fight; The New York Times

Senator Tom Coburn’s office is the rare Capitol Hill work space without a “me wall” — the display of photographs of a lawmaker standing beside presidents, foreign leaders and other dignitaries, all illustrating How Big a Deal he is.

Instead, hanging above Mr. Coburn’s desk is a large framed print of the word “no.” It was a tribute from a liberal voter in New York thanking Mr. Coburn, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma, for his efforts at thwarting expensive legislation.

Known as Dr. No, Mr. Coburn, a family practice physician, views legislative battle less in terms of Republicans versus Democrats than as a matter of yes versus no. He sees himself as a one-man treatment center helping Congress beat its bipartisan addiction to misguided spending.

“I’ve always considered myself an opposition within the opposition,” said Mr. Coburn, whose willingness to block, delay or neuter bills through an array of procedural measures has made him an effective nuisance during his five years in the Senate.

As the health care overhaul heads to the Senate floor, Mr. Coburn is preparing for what he considers a career pinnacle of havoc. Enacting the proposal, he says, would be catastrophic, and so if precedent holds, he will try to hinder it with every annoying tool in his arsenal: filing amendments (he has done that 508 times since joining the Senate, second only to John McCain’s 542 in that period), undertaking filibusters and objecting strenuously.

Read the whole article here.

Rand Paul’s October 24 Lexington, Kentucky Question and Answer Session.

Part 3 – Rand Paul’s October 24 Lexington, Kentucky Question and Answer Session; Blue Bluegrass

Q: Good afternoon Dr. Paul. My question concerns your thoughts on the 17th Amendment, and there’s some movement out there to have it repealed.

A: There have been some people talking about the 17th Amendment. I don’t know if there’s a great groundswell. The 17th Amendment was having U.S. senators elected directly as opposed to being appointed by state legislators. It’s not an issue that really motivates me that much as far as running for office or talking about it. Some people say it would be better if they were still appointed or elected by the state legislators. The only downside I see to that is somebody like myself who is an outsider – if you pick the top 50 Republicans in the state, they’re probably going to vote for the insider who they think –well, this guy may not believe in anything, he may be a moderate ex-Democrat – (laughter) I’m not speaking of anyone in particular – but if it were left up to these insiders, they’re going to make their choice based on that, and I’m afraid if it were up to the state legislature, you would continue to have insiders and not having the outsiders having a chance. I’m not thinking that strongly we should repeal the 17th Amendment. Some conservative writers – Mark Levin and his book Liberty and Tyranny talks about repealing the 17th Amendment. So I’m not really opposing the idea either but it just doesn’t excite me too much.

Comment: Here I have to disagree with Dr. Rand Paul. Insiders are a fact of life, and those that were elected to the US Senate prior to 1913 and those that would be elected if the 17th was repealed, surely were and would be insiders. But insiders to the state, not outsiders as is presently half the US Senate. They would at least represent their state and the intent of the state legislative body, as they did in the past, where as research has demonstrated they haven't since 1913, actaully furthering the aims of special interest over the citizenry.

The idea of repealing the 17th is for the states to regain their rightful place within the Federal Government. This is contrary to Dr. Rand Paul's belief and intent that mavericks should go to Congress to clean it up. Unfortunately the senior Dr. Paul, whom I am a great admirer and supporter of, has been fighting a long and difficult fight, and in that city one man is not going to make a huge difference. The difference he has made has been outside of Congress, not in.

However, there are many of us that believe the only way to get real change in Congress is restore the Constitution and the framework of our governmental structure back to the way the founders intended, which means a republican form centered on the rights of the states balanced against the rights of the people; and where the majority of federal power resides in Congress, not the White House or Supreme Court. This is about the rightful place of the states within our government. And remember, it is the states that grant authority to the federal government, as it is the people that grant authority to the states. Governmental authority is not a top down trickle.

Continuing popular elections only allows for greater control of the citizenry by the federal government and furthers the march toward this social/fascist state the oligarchs are creating...something Dr. Ron Paul knows very well, and I hope Rand as well.

Just a reminder that our government is not a “Democracy”, it is a “Constitutional Republic”.

From a recent commenter, ITookTheRedPill, on Michelle Malkin's weblog originating from a discussion about the social/fascist health care bill being jammed through Congress by the Left:

Just a reminder that our government is not a “Democracy”, it is a “Constitutional Republic”.

The only part of our government that the Constitution explicitly established as a representative Democracy is the House of Representatives. It is the only part of our government where you can’t be appointed to the position, and MUST be elected by the people. We’ve had Senators, and even one President (Ford) who were appointed, and not elected.

The rules of the house are that of a Democracy: majority rules. And we have seen what has happened ever since the Democratic Socialists won a majority in 2006 and Pelosi became Speaker. The abuses we have seen in the House reveal how easily a pure Democracy can be overtaken by a small majority and then driven into the ground.

Our Founders were brilliant (and I believe divinely inspired) to make Senators elected by the State legislatures and not the general populace. I think the 17th Amendment was a HUGE mistake, and should be repealed, just as the 18th Amendment was.

Our Founders were brilliant (and I believe divinely inspired) to make the President and Vice-President elected by the Electoral College and not the general populace. I think it is a huge mistake for the individual states to select Electoral College Electors by popular vote for a particular candidate pair.

The Democratic Socialists hate our Constitutional Republic. They seek every means possible to turn our Republic into a pure Democracy, because they know they can take more power, faster, if we ignore the Constitution and the “rule of law” and only head “the will of the voters” and allow “the rule of the majority” (a.k.a. “mob rule”) to dominate.

Which brings me to this 1,900 page “Health Care” bill. Republicans, alone, are powerless to stop this in the House, because the minority has no power in the House. It will only be with the help of “Blue Dog” Democrats that the Republicans will have any hope of gaining a majority of votes in the House to stop this bill there.

Assuming this passes in the House, we move to the Senate. Thank God our Senate is not a “Democracy”. But, of course, Harry Reid wants to use the “reconciliation” process to turn it into one! Which brings me to my final question… what would it take for Republican Senators to force that the entire bill be read out loud before it is voted upon? To the best of my knowledge, bills are supposed to be read out loud, and it is only by suspending the rules (which unfortunately is the norm, rather than the exception) that bills are voted upon without having been read out loud.

Comment: No, our Senate is not a "Democracy," it is an Oligarchy, where each Senate views him or herself as Commander in Chief. But friend, I would not put too much hope in the Republicans of the US Senate. They do not represent their states nor constituents, only special interest group.

The Opt Out

The Early Word: The Opt Out; The New York Times

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on Monday that the health care bill he plans to bring to the Senate floor will include a government-run insurance option that allows individual states to remove themselves from the plan.

But even with that decision made, the tricky work is far from complete for Mr. Reid. As The Times’s Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn report, Senate aides say the public option plus an opt out is several votes shy of the magic number of 60. And, to complicate the issue even further, every member of the Democratic caucus may be needed to reach that total, as the 40 Republicans in the chamber seem united in their opposition to the proposal. (Even Olympia Snowe, the Republican from Maine, expressed her disappointment with it.)

Still, liberal Democrats in the Senate and progressive advocacy groups hailed Mr. Reid for deciding on an approach whose inclusion in the Senate bill seemed a long shot until fairly recently.

As Mr. Pear and Mr. Herszenhorn also note, “should Mr. Reid prevail, both houses of Congress would be poised to act on bills including a government-run plan to compete with private insurers in selling health coverage to consumers. The House is still weighing the details of its approach, but Democratic leaders have made clear they will include a government plan in their version of the bill.”

Comment: It has all the making to derail Tea Party fringe supporters. But you know only a few states would elect to opt out, and once they get a taste of the crack they'll be hooked...like education, farm, police state (homeland) security, and WIC subsidies, and the list goes on. But in the end those states that don't opt out will pay; they will surely pay.

Baucus Has 'Serious Reservations' With Senate Climate Bill

Baucus Has 'Serious Reservations' With Senate Climate Bill; The New York Times

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said today that he has "serious reservations" about a major global warming bill and warned fellow Democrats to water down the measure in hopes of getting it through the Senate.

Comment: Really, let's talk about US sovereignty first.

Disaster Known as the 17th Amendment

From the commenter "upstateNYerMdwst" in Lieberman to Filibuster — And What’s Obama Going to Do?

I think this is yet more proof that corporations “elect” the Senators, not the people. Maybe we do the actual physical work of electing, but most of the Senators care only about those who donated to their campaign. Yet another reason why I strongly support repealing that disaster known as the 17th Amendment. Then there would once again be no campaigns for Senators, and the Senators would actually represent the State and their people, and be directly accountable to the State legislature, instead of corporations, unions, or other “groups”. Of course, the chances of this ever happening are pretty much zip :(.

Comment: Alone I think the commenter is right, but with a package of reforms meant to return sovereignty to the states I am inclined to believe (hope) repealing the 17th would be part of the whole package.

The Only Option

The public option has always been designed to become your only option.



Hat tip: Verum Serum

Senate to Extend Home Credit to Unqualified

Nelson Says Senate to Extend, Reduce Homebuyer Credit; Bloomberg.Com

Senate leaders are negotiating to extend and gradually reduce an $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers through 2010, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said.

“We should be able to extend that later this week,” Nelson, a Democrat, told reporters traveling today with President Barack Obama on Air Force One to a speech in Jacksonville, Florida.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, both Democrats, may seek to add the homebuyers extension to legislation extending unemployment benefits that may be debated as early as this week, according to Regan Lachapelle, an aide to Reid.

Lawmakers are under pressure from real estate agents, mortgage brokers and homebuilders to extend the $8,000 credit before it expires Nov. 30.

Baucus and Reid made a proposal last week to Senate Republicans that would extend the homebuyer credit through 2010, Lachapelle said. First-time homebuyers who close before April 1 would get the full $8,000, and the credit’s value would be reduced by $2,000 in each successive quarter until expiring at the end of the year.

Comment: More of the same baloney, more of the same playbook.

Do think it's time for change? Do you think it's time to end the oligarchs rein?

Yes it's time to repeal the 17th Amendment folks.

Senate Climate Bill Expands Government

Senate Climate Bill's Farming, Wildlife Provisions Disappoint Conservation Coalition; The New York Times

Despite pressure from conservation and agriculture groups, Senate Democrats made few changes to natural resource and farming provisions in the climate and energy bill they unveiled Friday.

The bill from Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) includes the same percentage of emission allocations for domestic wildlife and natural resource protection as the House version, far less than environmental groups had hoped. ...

And more government...

The Senate bill also would create a National Climate Change Adaptation Program within an existing interagency effort, the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Separately, the bill would require the development of an overarching federal policy on natural resources adaptation to possible effects of climate change, including ocean acidification, drought, flooding and wildfire. Federal resource agencies and states also would have to develop their own individual plans.

The bill also would establish a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center within the U.S. Geological Survey and a National Climate Service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ...

Comment: If your Senator represented your state rather than the special interests, as they currently do, do you think this BS (climate change) would be even considered?

Dodd Seeks to Freeze Credit-Card Rates

Dodd Seeks to Freeze Credit-Card Rates; The Wall Street Journal

A top Senate Democrat moved Monday to impose an immediate freeze on credit-card interest rates, as congressional Democrats continued pushing to rein in financial-sector practices.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who heads the Senate Banking Committee, introduced a measure that would freeze rates on existing card balances until February, when tough new rules for the industry are slated to go into effect. ...

The measure is part of a populist push by Mr. Dodd, a fifth-term senator facing a tough re-election battle against former Republican U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons next year. Mr. Dodd's ties to the financial-services industry and his receipt of a home loan from former Countrywide Financial Corp. have hurt his standing with voters.

Comment: Political gain from Senator Dodd, what a surprise. Maybe while he freezing rates, he could make it possible for elemenetry age children eligible for credit, that might get him some votes from the soccer moms.

Hopefully Americans will turn away from credit cards and return to cash, even if the US Dollar is as weak is it currently is.

Rand Paul Has Been A Kentuckian Longer Than Trey Grayson Has Been A Republican

Biden 'Following Cheney'

What has emerged after nine months in office, Mr. Baumgartner and others agreed, is a powerful version of the vice presidency that bears its most striking, if unlikely, resemblance to the one that immediately preceded it - that of Republican Dick Cheney.

In short order, Mr. Biden has, like Mr. Cheney, turned the office into a central hub for a dizzying array of political and policy decisions, ranging from advising President Obama on Iraq and his Supreme Court pick to helping devise strategy on the economic recovery, on relations with Russia and, most recently, on the approach to war in Afghanistan.

Call it "Cheney Lite" - a vice presidency that has retained much of the power, while so far escaping the role of lightning rod for partisan critics and avoiding any whiff of ambiguity about who is really running the country. Much like the man who came before him, Mr. Biden has dipped repeatedly into a deep reserve of Washington experience to help the president push his policies.

"I would say that Dick Cheney and Joe Biden have brought the vice presidency to a new level," said Les Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a close friend of Mr. Biden. "It's unusual for vice presidents to play as big a role as Cheney did for Bush, or that Biden is playing for Obama."

Biden, of course, called Dick Cheney "one of the most dangerous vice presidents we've had." And now he's following in his footsteps.

Rule number one: politicians lie. If a politician is talking, s/he's lying.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would give us one branch of the legislature without ridiculous political posturing, and make it more difficult for lying politicians to centralize power.

Homebuyer Credit Fraud

John Stossel on the new Consumer Protection Agency:



Hat tip: Minnesota Chris

Senate Environment Committee Take's Up Global Warming Bill

Obama: 'Cynical claims' attacking energy bill; AP

President Barack Obama said Friday that opponents of his energy bill are disputing the evidence of global warming in a cynical ploy to undermine efforts to curb pollution and steer the nation to greener energy sources.

Obama said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."...


Next week, the Senate environment committee will take up its version of a global warming bill. The legislation would cut greenhouse gases by about 80 percent by 2050 — as the president called for in his campaign — and require more domestic energy to come from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. The House passed a similar bill in June.

The two business groups to which Obama alluded oppose reducing emissions by allowing companies to buy and sell permits to pollute, a system known as cap and trade.

With work still to be done on health care and deep divisions in Congress over the best approach to climate change, the chances the Senate will pass a climate bill by the end of the year are slim. That means U.S. negotiators are likely to not have firm targets set before 192 nations gather in Copenhagen, Denmark, to hammer out a new treaty to slow global warming.

Comment: Anyone with lick of sense knows none of the methods the leftist environmentalists are cramming down our throats will work. The simple answer to a robust energy solution is three fold: 1. improve the coal burning plants so the emissions are cleaned; with the huge coal reserves this country has we should have reduced our oil dependency in the 1980s by at least 60 percent: 2. engage a massive effort to go nuclear, this is the best long term solution and the cleanest; 3. remove the regulatory impediments that thwart energy development and stream line the process for innovation. Anything other than that is nothing more than a waste of time, money and resources. Yet we have the no-minds in the US Senate pandering to this BS.

And speaking of BS and pandering, this cap and trade is completely BS. Business groups buying and selling permits to pollute...are we so stupid that we can't see the absurdity of the whole thing? And this absurdity leads into this plan surrounding the Copenhagen agreement that will usher in this cap and trade crap all the while turning over complete sovereignty to this global "business group." There's no doubt these are same knuckleheads that caused the global banking crisis. Again who will usher all this in, the US Senate, who are charged by the US Constitution to reject or ratify treaties. But they won't be there rejecting the disastrous treaty Obama is signing us on to whilst protecting the individual states; no they will ratify it and bringing huge profits and power (outside the bounds of democratic government like the non Federal Reserve) to the special interest "business groups" that will assuredly gain from this mess.

Want to know what our business and energy future looks like? Take a look at the history of the Federal Reserve and our economy since WWII and that will provide a glimpse. And remember it was a small cabal in the US Senate who colluded with a few bankers in 1913 that gave us the Federal Reserve Act without the majority of the citizenry even knowing what was taking place.

Folks, strangely enough with the global banking manipulation, cap and trade, government mandated and run health care, and not to forget the unending war, it seems as if the US Senate is molding the United States strangely into this amalgamated socialist-fascist state...but that's just one man's take.

$1.4 Trillion Deficit

Nick Gillespie:



Debt and taxes are how the government grows itself. The explosion of government growth after the 17th Amendment was passed demonstrates how the Senate limited it before, and was unable to limit it afterward.

Repeal the 17th Amendment so that the Senate can once again put limits on the federal government. That's the best way to restore sanity to this nation.

Hat tip:Reason TV

Obama to Give Senate Climate Bill a Push With MIT Speech

Obama to Give Senate Climate Bill a Push With MIT Speech; The New York Times

President Obama will try to push the Senate climate bill forward Friday with an energy-themed speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, just days before the start of a marathon series of hearings featuring testimony from top administration officials.

The White House said Obama's remarks covering "American leadership in clean energy" will dovetail with the Senate's effort to place a first-ever economywide cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

Comment: I forget which chapter number "Climate Change" is in The Grand Book of Colossal Manufactured Events Intended to Expand Government, Part I, written by Horace Oligarch, Suicide Press, 1913; but one would think the more often used "Financial Catastrophic Banking Failure" chapter 1 would be a little easier to put into effect. Yet the chapter 5 'Pandemic Influenza" is working well with the H1N1 Hong Kong Pekineses Swine Flu than expected. Or maybe we could have the oil companies cut back on oil production right before winter to make it seem as though there is a shortage of oil...

Or we could relearn what liberty and freedom mean.

U.S. senator envies Canada's H1N1 vaccines

U.S. senator envies Canada's H1N1 vaccines; CBC News

A U.S. senator looked longingly at Canada's H1N1 vaccine supply Wednesday, as Americans rushed to get vaccinated against the swine flu virus and some places ran short of doses.

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, attributed the U.S. shortage in part to countries such as Canada, where H1N1 vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline faced pressure from Ottawa to "fill Canadian needs" for the vaccine before supplying the United States.

Lieberman told the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee he was "not blaming Canada."

Canada's response is understandable, he said, but it highlights how the U.S. urgently needs to expand its own manufacturing capacity for vaccines.

Comment: Really; the US urgently needs to expand its own manufacturing for vaccines. Boy, if these jokers aren't always on the look out for the next big calamity to expand government (and let's be real, this has all the makings of a manufactured event).

Well as soon as the federal government takes over the entire health care system, to include the manufacturing portion, Mr. Lieberman and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee should have no problem keeping America safe from all those nasty little viruses as well as Al Kaeda.

Stossel on Beck: Socialized Health Care

It's good to see that John Stossel is going to keep up the great work he does advancing individual freedom.

Hat tip: Minnesota Chris

The Wall Street Journal Defends the Predator State

The Wall Street Journal Defends the Predator State: Robert P. Murphy: Mises Daily

Who's the Predator — the Government or Corporations?

Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank starts his piece with the angle that everyone on Capitol Hill took his advice to read James K. Galbraith's book The Predator State, which concerns the capture of government agencies by corporate special interests. Frank then expresses dismay that many Republican politicians have apparently misunderstood his advice:

During a debate last week over two Democratic proposals for a healthcare bill featuring a "public option" — a government-run alternative to private health insurance — [Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley] announced he opposed the idea because, as he put it, "Government is not a fair competitor.… It's a predator."

The word "predator" seems to have become something of a Republican talking point. Mr. Grassley's colleague from South Dakota, John Thune, went on the record in July to warn that, when government goes into business, it "becomes not a competitor but a predator."

Have these two august men of the right secretly become fans of Mr. Galbraith, one of our leading liberal economists?

If so, they need to go back over "The Predator State" a second time. Although they have snapped up Mr. Galbraith's catchy title, they have misunderstood his message.

Hmm, that's interesting. Even hardcore-progressive activists smell a rat in the emerging healthcare "reform" bills, and accuse Obama of being a "charming liar" by selling out to "Big Pharma" and other villains.

What we have in Washington is the worst of both worlds: the government is greatly expanding its role in healthcare, and is at the same time redistributing billions from regular Americans into the pockets of politically connected corporations.[1] (The same thing is playing out with cap-and-trade legislation, as I explained recently on Fox Business.)

Granted, Republican congressmen — with one notable exception — aren't actually proponents of a truly free market. They typically oppose only certain types of corporate welfare, while generously supporting other types (such as military contracts). Even so, Senators Grassley and Thune are perfectly correct when they claim that a "government option" in health insurance would not be true competition, but instead act as a predator on the market. Unfortunately, Thomas Frank has no grasp of even basic economics and ends up writing sentences that would embarrass USA Today, let alone the Wall Street Journal:

What makes government predatory, Mr. Grassley seems to believe, is its public-mindedness. Were government to offer health insurance to everybody without the industry's many devices for excluding risky individuals, some seem to fear, it might be able to offer consumers a price too fair for the profit-minded sector to match.

This is a curious reversal for a movement that ordinarily celebrates Darwinian struggle and the destruction of the weak by the strong. Just think of the conservative caricatures that must be inverted for this argument to work: All those soft liberal bureaucrats? Ferocious man-eaters. The welfare state? Law of the jungle.

No, Mr. Frank, what makes government predatory is that it steals its resources from unwilling taxpayers. In contrast, insurance companies (at least until Obama's mandate goes through) can't force people to send them checks. A government enterprise can put any private analog out of business if the politicians are willing to throw enough money into it.

Read the rest here.

Comment: Remember this is being crafted in the Senate...time to repeal the 17th folks before we are bankrupted completely.

On another note, I had some internet problems and couldn't post for the last few days; my apologies to the readers.

The Value-Added Tax

Dan Mitchell, of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, explains everything you need to know about the VAT. Making the tax system more complex allows politicians to hide the true tax burden. We need to keep the tax system simple so that its burden can be more easily measured.

Awesome Video: The Story of Spending

Video by BankruptingPA

Hat tip: educational rEVOLution

Update: Hot Air reports that gigantic deficits are messing up Obama's grandiose government expansions. Aww.

Should Uncle Sam control Net in a crisis?

Should Uncle Sam control Net in a crisis? AP

There is no kill switch for the Internet, no secret on-off button in an Oval Office drawer.

Yet when a Senate committee was exploring ways to secure computer networks, a provision to give the president the power to shut down Internet traffic to compromised Web sites in an emergency set off alarms.

Corporate leaders and privacy advocates quickly objected, saying the government must not seize control of the Internet.

Lawmakers dropped it, but the debate rages on. How much control should federal authorities have over the Web in a crisis? How much should be left to the private sector? It does own and operate at least 80 percent of the Internet and argues it can do a better job.

"We need to prepare for that digital disaster," said Melissa Hathaway, the former White House cybersecurity adviser. "We need a system to identify, isolate and respond to cyberattacks at the speed of light."

So far, at least 18 bills have been introduced as Congress works to give federal authorities the power to protect the country in the event of a massive cyberattack. Lawmakers do not want to violate personal and corporate privacy or squelch innovation. All involved acknowledge it isn't going to be easy.

Millions of times a day, hackers, cybercriminals and mercenaries working for governments and private entities are scanning the Internet, looking to defraud, disrupt or even destroy.

Eight years ago, the government ordered planes out of the sky in the hours after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. Could or should the president have the same power over the Internet in a digital disaster?

If hackers take over a nuclear plant's control system, should the president order the computer networks shut down? If there's a terrorist attack, should the government knock users off other computer networks to ensure that critical systems stay online? And should the government be able to dictate who companies can hire and what they must do to secure the networks that affect Americans' daily life?

Government officials say the U.S. must improve efforts to share information about cyberthreats with private industry. They also want companies to ensure they are using secure software and hiring qualified workers to run critical systems.

Much like the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, cybersecurity has attracted the interest of a number of House and Senate committees, all hoping to get a piece of the oversight power:

• Bills in the House Homeland Security Committee would protect the electricity grid and require the department to secure its networks.

• The Senate Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee is writing legislation aimed largely at federal agencies.

• The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is working on a bill that promotes public awareness and technical education, raises the planned White House cyber adviser to a cabinet-level position and calls for professional cyberstandards. An early draft would have given the president the power to shut down compromised federal or critical networks in an emergency.

Comment: I think the new motto for the US Senate should be, we won't stop taking the money until every bit of freedom is extinguished. All contrived scare tactics meant to fleece America of it's tax dollars by contractors and freedom by the oligarchs.

Health care legislation back behind closed doors

Health care legislation back behind closed doors; AP

Health care talks slip back behind closed doors Wednesday as Senate leaders start trying to merge two very different bills into a new version that can get the 60 votes needed to guarantee its passage. ...

Comment: So much for transparency.

Meet Lindsey Graham, the Next GOP Maverick on Climate Change

Meet Lindsey Graham, the Next GOP Maverick on Climate Change; New York Times

Graham's desire to trade energy provisions for his support on a major climate bill has won him audiences with leading Senate Democrats and the Obama ...

Comment: Let me provide a warning; the article above is three pages of nauseous nonsense...unless of course you are a statist; then you'll enjoy the article.

A Century of Sickness: The Abominations of 1913 and How the 10th Amendment Movement Can Beat Back Leviathan

A Century of Sickness: The Abominations of 1913 and How the 10th Amendment Movement Can Beat Back Leviathan; Small Business Against Big Government

Many of the problems we have with the Federal Government today can be traced back to a critical year. That year was 1913, the year in which the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified and the Federal Reserve Act was passed, which set up the Federal Reserve Bank.

Of course, the seeds of the Statist Revolution of 1913 were sown earlier, but that was the year that the bad seeds took permanent root, where the Federal Government finally removed all semblance of being balanced by the states, and spawned the monstrosity we have today.

The 16th Amendment allowed Congress to directly levy an income tax on U.S. citizens without apportioning it among the states. Prior to this, Congress’s authority to levy an income tax was limited and could only levy direct taxes on the states (as determined by census counts). There is some dispute over how much this affected the balance of power between the states and the federal government, but its passage was (at least) symbolic and represented a key time when the Federal Government determined to increasingly tax incomes, and when – because of this assertion of its power to directly tax – it felt more able to take on debt.

The 17th Amendment allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators so that rather than having state legislatures elect senators – ensuring that the senators would be answerable to the states – they were elected by popular vote, nationalizing the elections and bringing national special interests into the funding of senatorial campaigns. In effect, it created a structural and incentive problem that shifted power away from the states and since that time the states have become more and more subservient satellites to a hegemonic national force.

Read the rest here.

Vote set for health overhaul in Senate committee

Vote set for health overhaul in Senate committee; AP

The pivotal Senate Finance Committee was poised to approve sweeping legislation Tuesday requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance and ushering in a host of other changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion medical system.

Much work would lie ahead before a bill could arrive on Obama's desk, but action by the Finance Committee would mark a significant advance, capping numerous delays as Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., held marathon negotiating sessions — ultimately unsuccessful — aimed at producing a bipartisan bill.

Note: Bold font used by blogger.

Comment: The only people that won't have to buy this crap is Congress!

Folks this is plain socialism. But ask yourself why are republicans working produce a bipartisan bill when clearly 90 percent or better of the rank and file republicans are against this? Because these people who occupy the seats in the US Senate are not our representatives, but are the self-appointed oligarchs that will impose their will upon the plebeians at the behest of the special interests. The is the result of the 17th Amendment.

Wake up America the oligarchs are about to intercourse this country. The founders never ever intended anything like this health debacle to be imposed upon the people -and don't give me that crap that if they had our medical advances they would too - nor would they ever have allowed for the federal government to exercise the power it does today.

This is tyranny people. Do you understand they are creating a law that will force, legally force us ultimately at the end of a gun, you and me to buy mandatory medical insurance? In the end they will take over the whole medical sector just like the former Soviet Union.

This kind of abuse of power was fully known by all the founders, which is precisely why the houses in Congress were divided between the people and the states...and why the majority of power was to reside in Congress and not the Executive Branch.

The States must have their rightful place in the federal government; the time is now to repeal the 17th Amendment. Time is growing very short...tyranny is breathing down upon our neck. Wake up America!

Is Bill Moyers a Propagandist or Just Bad at Research

In Washington, the Revolving Door Is Hazardous to Your Health: The Huffington Post

It has been said before the best propaganda always contains a kernel of truth and so it is with Bill Moyers' writing...

If you've been watching the Senate Finance Committee's markup sessions, maybe you've noticed a woman sitting behind Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Her name is Liz Fowler.

Fowler used to work for Wellpoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was its vice president of public policy. Baucus' office failed to mention this in the press release announcing her appointment as senior counsel in February 2008, even though it went on at length about her expertise in "health care policy."

Now she's working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want -- higher profits-- and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.

A veteran of the revolving door, Fowler had a previous stint working for Senator Baucus -- before her time at Wellpoint. But wait, there's more. The person who was Baucus top health advisor before he brought back Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. And why did she leave the staff of the committee? To go to work -- surprise -- at a firm representing the same company for which Liz Fowler worked -- Wellpoint. As a lobbyist.

That was a spot-on interpretation, which could describe the entire US Senate; but now for the deception:

Not that we should be surprised. A century ago, muckraking journalists reported that large corporations and other wealthy interests virtually owned the United States Senate -- using bribery, fraud and sometimes blackmail to get their way. Jokes were made about "the Senator from Union Pacific" or "the Senator from Standard Oil."

One reporter in particular was out to break their grip. His name was David Graham Phillips. One day in 1906, readers of Cosmopolitan Magazine opened its March issue to discover the first of nine articles by Phillips titled, "The Treason of the Senate."

He wrote, "Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous: interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people, of the educated into sycophants, of the masses toward serfdom."

The public outrage provoked by Phillips and other muckrakers contributed to the ratification of the 17th amendment to the Constitution, providing for the direct popular election of senators, who until then were elected by easily bought-off state legislators.

Of course, like water seeking its own level, big money finds its way around every obstacle, and was soon up to its old tricks, filling the pockets of sympathetic and grateful politicians.

Today, none dare call it treason. So why not call it what it is -- a friendly takeover of government, a leveraged buyout of democracy.

Comment: I could give Mr. Moyers the benefit of doubt and say his concluding paragraphs resulted from poor research, but knowing Mr. Moyers one knows better (Gulf of Tonkin Incident). Moyers is a statist who has been advocating the expansion of central government, but hid behind the banner of “more democracy.” The fact is, as the founders knew, one can’t have more democracy and not have more government tyranny.

There were no muckrakers and there was certainly far less corruption in Washington City and US Senate prior to 1913. What Moyer describes is the propaganda put forward by the mainstream media who supported the real special interests who conducted the first bloodless takeover in 1913, and who swindled the US citizenry last year in the banking bailout, Wall Street.

Folks, the scholarship just doesn’t support the lie. But the ignorant American public continues to believe the propaganda put forward by the “progressives” in 1913 as well as they do today.

We’ll continue to have the same Max Baucus’ and Liz Fowlers if the US Citizenry doesn’t learn the truth; and it’s all about limited powers, decentralization of government, diffusion of power, limited democracy and real republicanism. The founders got it right in 1787; the public got it wrong in 1913.

The only way restoration can be achieved so that Max Baucus and Liz Fowler are sent packing is to repeal the 17th Amendment and restoring the rightful place of the state within the Federal Government. The clock is ticking and there isn't much time; folks Baucus, Fowler and Moyers are winning.

EDITORIAL: America's Internet Police

Note: After reading the article below, I had to post it and go slightly off topic mainly because this effects bloggers and their fundamental 1st Amendment right. The stupidity never stops coming out of Washington.

EDITORIAL: America's Internet police; The Washington Times

The FTC gets ready to investigate bloggers

You may have won $10 million dollars!!! Or not, but the same federal agency that can't stop those dishonest sweepstakes mailings wants the right to supervise everything bloggers, Facebookers, tweeters and practically anyone else writes on the Internet starting in December. You see, bad, bad regular people may write something nice about puppy kibble after nefarious corporate goons pay them off with a free bag of dog food. Consumers must be protected from such trickery.

The plans of the Federal Trade Commission don't bother us newspaper folks none because we're exempt. Our book reviewers can keep right on taking free books, and our music reviewers can wallow in a torrent of freebie music downloads until their iPods explode. But if you readers do the same thing and fail to disclose the full details of your "financial relationship" with a "marketer" before you tweet, both you and the book publisher may have broken the law, resulting in fines of more than $10,000.

The rules are arcane, but their essence is simple. If a regular person says something online that an FTC official finds fishy, the agency can investigate. To do that, the rules say, feds will have to check out individuals' finances, examine what they've received in the mail and review what they've posted on the Internet for evidence of corporate taint.

Obvious civil liberties concerns aside, the FTC leadership must be delusional. Even Google tracks only a small fraction of the torrent of new posts, comments, videos, podcasts and other online chatter added to the Internet every day. Now a bunch of Washington bureaucrats think they are going to become the police in a neighborhood so big no one can measure it. Perhaps the company that did the last complete inventory of sand on public beaches will be available to help.

Which brings up that irritating relic of 1791: the First Amendment. How is the FTC going to define the difference between unregulated journalists at real media companies and the bloggers who need federal supervision? Journalists get fired and start blogs. Bloggers get hired by media companies. Bloggers join together and start their own media companies. Bloggers appear on TV and write for the dead-tree editions of newspapers. Media companies buy blogs. Media companies launch blogs. Such a vast gray area is an opportunity for plenty of mischief.

Indeed, it is exactly on this gray area that the FTC says it will focus. The more commercial, popular, long-standing and successful a blogger or tweeter is, the more likely he will fall under the new rules. In other words, the more like the mainstream media an online person is, the more likely the FTC will want to regulate him. That makes perfect sense.

If the four FTC commissioners who voted for this fiasco had any sense, they would skip the inevitable lawsuits and go back to their real jobs.

Republican Rob Portman raised $1.7 million for his U.S. Senate campaign

GOP Senate candidate Rob Portman trounces Democrats in quarterly fund raising; Cleveland Plain Dealer.Com

Republican Rob Portman raised $1.7 million for his U.S. Senate campaign during the second quarter of 2009 -- more money than both his Democratic rivals combined.

"I'm very pleased with it," Portman said at Washington, D.C. press conference. "We had a great response from all corners of the state."

Portman, a former Cincinnati-area congressman who held two Cabinet posts under President George W. Bush, ended the quarter with $4.3 million in the bank. About $1.4 million of that was left over from the war chest he accumulated in the House of Representatives. He's raised $3.4 million during the election cycle.

Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, one of two Democrats seeking the Senate seat to be vacated by George Voinovich's retirement, raised more than $900,000 in the quarter, bringing his fund-raising total to $1.9 million. Fisher has about $1.48 million left in the bank.

His competition in the Democratic primary, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, raised $228,000 in the second quarter, slightly more than the first quarter total of $207,000. ...

UPDATE: 5:15 p.m.
Portman faces a primary challenge from Northeast Ohio car dealer Tom Ganley who officially launched his campaign July 1. Ganley raised $103,600, campaign spokesman Jeff Longstreth said.

About Portman's money, he offered this in a statement:

"Washington insiders and the political establishment don't like Tom Ganley and that's obvious by this filing," he said. "The good news is he doesn't need their money and won't owe them anything once he gets to the US Senate."

Comment: Mr. Ganley is incorrect concerning one thing; he does need their money, because the special interest and political parties have created the situation we have today where astronomical amounts of monies are spent on senatorial campaigns. The proponents of 17th Amendment said corruption and insider advantage would be removed with the amendment's passage; well it hasn't and has gotten worst.

Folks, step away from the left-right paradigm, this is not about democrat verses republican; it is about a process that has been corrupted by the two main political parties to their advantage and fueled through the deep pockets of special interest. But here Mr Ganley is correct: Portman, if elected, will owe some groups quite a bit in return for the money they gave him.

Do you want to end this? Then get on board with the repeal the 17th movement. Write your state and local officials and tell them you want the 17th Amendment repealed and the rightful place of the States restored within the framework of the Federal Government. Tell them you want to stop special interest groups and political parties from perverting our system of government. But I have to tell you time is growing short, as the statists are gaining greater control of our government. Very soon it will be too late.

Senate passes $636 billion defense spending bill

Senate passes $636 billion defense spending bill; Reuters

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved $636 billion to fund military operations for the fiscal year that started on October 1, $3.9 billion less than requested by the Obama administration. ...

Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare

Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare; The Hill

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. Under current law, legal immigrants have to wait five years after obtaining citizenship or legal residency before they may sign up for Medicaid. That waiting period would not apply to receiving tax credits or purchasing insurance through the exchange created by the legislation, however.

But the would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill "remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification," Grassley said. "Frankly, I'm very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment," he said.

But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. "The way I see the amendment, it's a solution without a problem," Bingaman said.

Comment: It looks like Rep. Joe Wilson was right. On another note, I would point out to Senator Bingaman this whole health care debate is a bad solution without a problem.

Choose Your Own Senate Health Care Adventure

Choose Your Own Senate Health Care Adventure; Open Congress.Com

Now that the committees in the Senate have finished their work on the health care legislation, the process moves behind the scenes to negotiations between the White House and the Democratic leadership. The negotiators have already begun making decisions about what will be included in the final bill that will come to the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

This is one of the most important stages in Congress’ health care reform process, but it’s happening in complete secrecy. The negotiations are basically an informal process of arm twisting and deal making that are taking place in closed-door discussions beyond the public’s view. The only chances we’ll get to see in will be from anonymous “inside sources” and prepared statements from the people involved. For one of the most important parts of the most contentious national policy debate in recent history, that’s not good enough.

Below, I’ve put together a table showing the major differences between the bill approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the bill as amended (soon to be approved) by the Finance Committee that are being ironed out by the negotiators. It’s not meant to be comprehensive – it only covers the areas of health care reform that were addressed by both committees. Financing and Medicare provisions, for example, which fall solely under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, are not included.

Click here for the table and the rest of the article.

Comment: The majority of US citizens are against this legislation, and if the state legislators really knew what was in this bill and how it is going to effect their budgets, they would be up and arms over it too. But it's being debated and created in secret. Why is something so good for the US being created in secret?

The federal government and the statists are cramming this down our throats. Yet most of us have been conditioned to except this sort of thing and do nothing about it. Folks we have to wake up; our country is on the brink of economic ruin and the oligarchs continue to squeeze what's left of our very livelihood through this agenda, and let's not forget the cap and trade crap.

We have to stop them, and the first step is to take back the powers from these silly 100 who are using it to help a select few profit; and make no mistake about it, while many will lose their wealth though this legislation, primarily the doctors, many will become very rich (those on the industry and insurance side). We must repeal the 17th Amendment before it's too late. Economic ruin is right around the corner; we need to wake up.

Reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act: Ensuring Tyranny

“Reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act: Ensuring Liberty and Security;” Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator Feingold: 'Sneak-and-peek' searches being used for regular crimes.
"The Justice Department made 763 requests for "sneak-and-peek" warrants in 2008, but only three of those had to with terrorism investigations, Sen. Russ Feingold told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday" Continued.




The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing entitled "Reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act: Ensuring Liberty and Security" on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

By order of the Chairman

September 18, 2009

Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
on

"Reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act: Ensuring Liberty and Security"

Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226
10:00 a.m.

Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions

Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers’ Intentions; By John W. Truslow III; Special to Roll Call

Over the past nine months, much ink has been spilled on these pages and elsewhere over the process of filling vacant seats in the Senate. As columnist Norman Ornstein documented in Roll Call on Sept. 23, during this period there have been six seats vacated by death, retirement, election to higher office and appointment to the Cabinet.

Much of the commentary has focused on how the vacancies are filled and how fast the replacement occurs. Those who desire a quick and inexpensive process tend to favor gubernatorial appointment of Senators, while those who insist on a more democratic and deliberate route prefer special elections. Not discussed is any acknowledgement that these two alternatives are (in the parlance of our times) “a false choice” posed by the 17th Amendment. In fact there is a third, more elegant option conceived by the framers of the U.S. Constitution that could be considered.

Prior to 1913, Members of the Senate were chosen by state legislatures to be the agents of those governments in Washington, D.C., much like ambassadors today at the United Nations. The framers’ legislative design was subtle, but ingenious: While a Member of the House would represent the interests of the people as citizens, a Senator would represent the very different interests of the people’s sovereign state governments. This structure embodied the original meaning of the term “separation of powers.” The legislature would domicile two distinct powers (the people and the states) to compete bill by bill for the direction and scope of the federal government.

Representatives to the House, with only two short years to prove their worth to constituents, would demand governmental activity at any cost. Envoys to the Senate, the voices of state legislatures primarily interested in keeping political power closest to where the people live, would limit the federal government’s growth. The framers gave the Senate functions different from that of the House, such as the confirmation of judges and Cabinet appointees, presuming that the emissaries of the states would approve only of those nominees possessing a view of government not precluding the states from first providing for their own citizens’ needs. In this way, the Senate was guarding the constitutional henhouse.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment and the popular elections of Senators turned the henhouse over to the hound dog. While current representatives to the House and Senate have different (though overlapping) geographic constituencies, they have extraordinarily similar interests: the properly intemperate and unfiltered will of the people, and the special interest groups that fuel campaigns. There is no longer the competition of disparate interests the framers believed was required to keep the federal government responsive, yet moderate in tone and scope.

The 17th Amendment was proposed and ratified primarily on the strength of these two arguments: 1. The selection of Senators by legislatures was irredeemably corrupt. Some Senators were accused of “buying” their seats from state legislatures, either through cash payments or through loyal service to party machines. 2. “The will of the people” is best expressed through popular elections.

Consider these arguments in turn.

First, if the primary purpose of the 17th was to eradicate corruption from Senatorial selection, it failed brilliantly at doing so. Far too many contemporary examples exist to suggest otherwise. Corruption will always be a part of politics and must be dealt with aggressively, but altering the foundational structure of the Constitution in order to wave a hand at corruption was profoundly misguided.

Second, the purpose of the Constitution is to establish a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but the framers did not intend to make the federal government an instrument of mob rule. The long history of failed civilizations taught them that democracy has practical limits, and those limits include a majority’s tendency to disregard minority views and financial bankruptcy.

The Senate was designed to serve the people, but not as a democratic body. Some have suggested that this was because the framers — as elitists — distrusted the people. There is little evidence to back this up. The framers each came from states where almost every feature of the state government — from the governor to the local magistrate — was democratically determined, and the framers made the will of the people well-represented in the House. It certainly was not the case that after fighting a war of independence from titled privilege, they wanted to secure a place for an aristocracy they all despised, as is suggested by others. The framers made the Senate a non-democratic body because they believed that when democracy’s limits are reached, citizens lose their liberty and governments go broke.

So what are the implications of the 17th on the 2009 vacancies? Consider Massachusetts. Without the 17th Amendment, the democratically elected Massachusetts Legislature could have met on the day following Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D) death and selected his replacement at very little cost to the taxpayers of Massachusetts. The new (Democratic) Senator would be charged with representing the interests of the state government, including that government’s inclinations toward health insurance reform. In the course of the health care debate in the Senate, if the state Legislature came to believe that the financial burdens of national reform would affect the people of Massachusetts disproportionately — and thus unduly diminish the resources of Massachusetts — then the new Senator would be advised to advocate for a more just distribution of those costs. The Senator from Massachusetts would almost certainly vote against any provision (in any bill) designating unfunded mandates to the states. If the state of Massachusetts determined that the state government could provide better, more efficient managed health care than the federal government to the benefit of its citizens, it would have an immediate, significant voice in the Senate with which to say so. Without the 17th, the people of Massachusetts win.

By repealing the 17th, the nation would restore a meaningful part of the framers’ original design for federalism. The responsibility for the quick and just selection of Senators becomes that of a democratic body in each state, providing a meaningful check against hot-headed, confrontational government. It worked well for more than 120 years. What is the harm in reconsidering the framers’ original plan?

Comment: John provides an excellent argument for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, especially for those of us that champion the cause and can easily apply it in the public square. Great article.

Another Senator won’t read the health care bill

Another Senator won’t read the health care bill; Wellsy's World

Thomas Carper, Democratic Senator from Delaware and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told CNS News that he doesn’t expect to read the actual language of his committee’s health care bill because it’s too “arcane” and “confusing.” Here’s what else he had to say:

I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life.

…When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue–including people who have served on this committee for decades–what he was talking about. So, legislative language is so arcane, so confusing, refers to other parts of the code—‘and after the first syllable insert the word X’–and it’s just, it really doesn’t make much sense.

…So the idea of reading the plain English version: Yeah, I’ll probably do that. The idea of reading the legislative language: It’s just anyone who says that they can do that and actually get much out of it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

…They might say that they’re reading it. They might say that they’re understanding it. But that would probably be the triumph of man’s hope over experience. It’s hard stuff to understand.

…I think if people had the chance to read that they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language. It’s just hard to decipher what it really means.

There’s a lot of stuff there, but the admission is simply staggering. The continued idea that it’s perfectly acceptable to be absolutely clueless about the actual language of the bill is both a sad commentary on the state of our legislature and a frightening concept if one considers who holds the actual power. Is it the publicly accountable Senators who vote on it or the faceless lawyers and bureaucrats who write the real language of the bill?

Read the rest here.

Comment: The article points to a belief I have had for quite a while that our US Senators are nothing more than front-men for special interest groups. I'm sure one or two actually read the summaries provided to them, but as we have seen with laws such as The Patriot Act and Warner Defense Act of 2007, just to name two incredibly important examples, our legislators don't read the bills they vote for.

In fairness one can question whether repealing the 17th Amendment would curbed this; well the truth of the matter is that it wouldn't. Human nature is human nature no matter how one gets to office, we all recognize this. But the one aspect that I am certain of, with a repeal of the 17th our state legislators would not put up for very long a senator that would carelessly harm their respective state through laziness, incompetence, or any other deficiency, especially in this era of rapid communication.

Folks, the only way we can stop this problem in midst the rapidly expanding central government and deficient legislators is to return to the wisdom provided by the founders and the rightful power to the states. The states must have representation in the federal government as the founders laid out, and this means repealing the 17th Amendment.

Khazei raises $1 million for Senate bid

Khazei raises $1 million for Senate bid; Boston Globe

Alan Khazei has already raised more than $1 million in his Democratic bid for US Senate, demonstrating a week into his campaign that the City Year cofounder may be a formidable fund-raiser.

The quick windfall indicates that the lesser known Khazei may be able to compete with more established politicians such as Attorney General Martha Coakley, who announced on Wednesday that she had raised more than $2 million in the first month of her campaign.

"I have been humbled and overwhelmed by the outpouring of financial support in response to our campaign of Big Citizenship and empowering people," Khazei said in a statement issued by his campaign, which noted that he had not taken "a dime of PAC and lobbyist money."

It was not immediately clear how much of the $1 million had been raised since Khazei launched his campaign on Sept. 24 and how much had came from commitments made before he entered the race. The special election to fill the vacancy left by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy is Jan. 19, with a primary on Dec. 8. ...

Comment: Once again we see the fruits of the 17th Amendment, the supposed fix to prevent the greedy insiders from gaining (buying) their way into power. This is the reality of progressive democracy...oligarchic influence.

Now is the time to restore the rightful place of the states. Now is the time to restore the balance of power in Congress and the Federal Government. Now is the time to repeal the 17th Amendment.

ESPN columnist takes shot at Sen. LeMieux

ESPN columnist takes shot at Sen. LeMieux; Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Gregg Easterbrook writes Tuesday Morning Quarterback for ESPN.com. The weekly column is a must-read for wonky fans of the NFL, touching on matters as varied as black holes, global warming and the questionable need to punt by fraidy-cat coaches.

Easterbrook noted this week that six current U.S. Senators have been appointed rather than elected. To illustrate the point, the column has a picture of Florida Sen. George LeMieux with a pensive look on his face. The cutline to the photo: “He’s trying hard to think of a reason he should be an unelected senator.” LeMieux was appointed to the Senate by his close friend, Gov. Charlie Crist, whom LeMieux had served as chief of staff and campaign manager.

Here are Easterbrook’s thoughts on the spate of unelected senators:

“Originally, United States senators were chosen by a state’s legislature; popular election to the Senate did not commence until the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913. The point of the 17th Amendment was to stop political insiders from gaining free admission to the Senate, ensuring members of the upper chamber were chosen by the public.

“The amendment also allowed governors to appoint senators to hold open seats until an election could be organized. With Paul Kirk just named as interim occupant of Kennedy’s seat, there are now six unelected members of the Senate — the others are Michael Bennet of Colorado, Roland Burris of Illinois, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Edward Kaufman of Delaware and George LeMieux of Florida — with a seventh unelected senator in prospect if Kay Hutchison of Texas wins her race to become that state’s governor.

“How can the Senate be legitimate with so many unelected members? The whole point of the 17th Amendment is that it is offensive to democracy to grant political insiders who were never elected the power to lord it over the people. Unelected senators don’t even have to be confirmed, like judges or justices: They’re just insiders granted power.”

Comment: The same old debate; keeping the perceived "insiders" out of government. The fact is that it is always the said insider that has, one, the resources needed to politic, and two, the interest and necessity to be involved. The common citizen doesn't. This why in my humble opinion universal suffrage is wrong, where as I believe only those persons who own private property (land) should have the right to vote; they have a vested interest in protecting their property and will ensure the government does as well. I know many find this antiquated, but it's my belief.

Anyway I digress...a lone commenter on the blog, Tom Edmondson, had a great response to the writers lack of knowledge concerning the issues surrounding the 17th Amendment:

The founders of the Federal government, in the Constitution amending the Articles of Confederation, made Two Senators to be appointed by the legislatures of the states. The House represents the state’s citizens and the Senate protected the state’s rights in national competition. The two best debaters and oraters were selected; There was no expensive election campaign. Another ‘check and balance’ to protect the rights of the individual from the majority in it’s various forms. In order to begin to re-inforce Constitutional rights, the 17th Amendment should be repealed. 100 years ago during a similar ‘progressive’ President’s tenure (Woodrow Wilson), the US adopted three of the 10 planks of the Marxist Manifesto. A personal graduated income tax (16th); Direct election of Senators (a move towards democracy[majority rule] by eliminating state’s rights protection)17th Amendment; and the creation of a privately owned Federal banking system to regulate the US Currency. Join Campaign for Liberty and End The Fed..

Excellent response!

The Constitution Works for Everyone (Video)

Awesome video by Josh Eboch



Watch it, rate it, favorite it, and share it. This is the simplest explanation I've seen put on video of how the federal system is supposed to work.

U.S. Senators Vote to 'Encourage' Healthy Behavior

U.S. senators vote to encourage healthy behavior; Reuters

The Senate Finance Committee voted for an amendment offered by Republican Senator John Ensign and Democrat Thomas Carper that would allow health plans to provide financial incentives for people to quit smoking, exercise more and engage in other healthy activities.

"I believe that the key to achieving savings is to provide rewards for people who engage in healthy behaviors," Ensign argued. The measure passed on a 18-4 vote despite concerns expressed by some Democrats as well as committee Chairman Max Baucus that it could raise insurance premiums for people who do not participate in wellness programs. ...

Comment: Sure...the federal government "encouraging" health behavior...how about legislating behavior. Freedom is not under threat from terrorists or foreign armies, but legislators!