Bills

Bill Summary:   In addition to the above, the Global Food Security Act, provides the following:

(Sec. 6) To carry out the strategy, the President may provide assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prevent or address food shortages.

(Sec. 7) This section …. amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize the President to provide emergency food assistance (including funds, transfers, vouchers, and agricultural commodities) acquired through local or regional procurement to meet emergency food needs arising from manmade and natural disasters.” [Emphasis ours.]

Analysis: A charitable pretense is used to justify such unconstitutional assumption of responsibility. For further support, we are told that it is in the U.S. national security interest for the federal government to promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition.

Unfortunately, the humanitarian and national security pretenses are a smokescreen for subversive Internationalist designs. Ever since World War II, the U.S. State Department has worked to destabilize pro-Western regimes, while supporting socialist revolutions and dictators, precisely the opposite of what nations need to become economically self sufficient.

There are myriad examples of State’s subversive interventions, such as the efforts to oust the Shah of Iran, allowing the Ayatollah Khomeni to come to power, forcing Anastasio Somoza to abandon Nicaragua to the Communist Sandinistas, and even helping the Communist Mao TseTung take over China.

From the Congressional Record (7-5-16)

Rep. Ed Royce (R), CA-39: 

“The legislation before us is the product of more than 3 years of careful deliberation and inclusive negotiations.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D), NY-16:

“Mr. Speaker, nearly 800 million people around the world live without the certainty that their families will have enough to eat. When children don’t make it to the age of 5, half the time it is because of malnutrition….

“This bill places a special priority on foreign assistance programs that aim to reduce global poverty and hunger. It also authorizes a robust investment in the Obama administration’s signature Feed the Future initiative as well as other State Department and USAID efforts dealing with global hunger.”

Analysis: The betrayal in ESSA could have been foreseen by anyone familiar with the forces promoting federal control of education and their real “not open for public discussion” objective.

That objective is the same as that of the international socialists who hired Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto more than a century and a half ago — to achieve dominating control of the people. One important step on that path was for government to control the indoctrination of our youth.

While the Communist Manifesto called for “free education for all in [government] public schools,” socialists in America early recognized that to transform society they needed to control the teachers and the curriculum. They saw nationalizing education as an essential means to that control.

The socialists and their Establishment sponsors also realized that this revolution in control would have to be accomplished incrementally, using deceptive pretexts, such as how best to ensure a “quality education for all.” Masters of Deception summarizes much of their progress (see Chapter 12 “Organized Subversion at Home” and particularly Chapter 13 “Mobilizing the Attack Forces”).

As we wrote in our April 2009 Action Report: “The federal funding spigot for education first opened in 1958 with ‘the National Defense Education Act.’   The ‘crisis’ that drove through this revolution was the Soviet launch of Sputnik the year before…. Congressman Noah Mason of Illinois warned of the consequences at the time:

‘Federal Aid for Education is not a temporary program to meet an immediate emergency. It is an effort to put our whole educational system under Federal control and to keep it there forever.’”

Implementing ESSA

During the March 14, 2016 Senate debates over President Obama’s nomination of John B. King to replace Arne Duncan and implement the new law, one of ESSA’s opponents, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was given time to speak:

         One of the most serious flaws of the ESSA, and one of the primary reasons I voted against the bill, is that it reinforces the same K-12 model that has trapped so many kids in failing schools and confined America’s education system to a state of mediocrity for half a century. This is a model that concentrates authority over education decisions in the hands of Federal politicians and bureaucrats instead of parents, teachers, principals, and local school boards….

         The ESSA purports to reduce the Federal Government’s control over America’s classrooms by returning decision making authority to parents, educators, and local officials. For instance, there are several provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Education from controlling State education plans or coercing States into adopting Federal standards and testing regimes, but when you look at the fine print, you see that in most cases these prohibitions against Federal overreach contain no enforcement mechanisms ‑— only vague, aspirational statements encouraging the Secretary to limit his own powers.

         Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Education Committee and sponsor of the bill, responded to Senator Lee. His response demonstrates how Americans are regularly kept in the dark as to revolutionary forces and agendas driving our decline:

The reason we are voting today is because we need a U.S. Education Secretary confirmed by and accountable to the U.S. Senate so that the law to fix No Child Left Behind will be implemented the way Congress wrote it….

That law was passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85 to 12. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 359 to 64.

We achieved that result because, as Newsweek said, No Child Left Behind was a law everybody wanted fixed and fixing it was long overdue. Governors, teachers, superintendents, parents, Republicans, Democrats, and students all wanted No Child Left Behind fixed….

This new law is a dramatic change in direction for Federal education policy. In short, it reverses the trend toward what had become a national school board and restores to those closest to children the responsibility for their well-being and academic success.

The Wall Street Journal called the new Every Student Succeeds Act ”the largest devolution of federal control of schools from Washington back to the states in a quarter of a century.”…

The Senate Education Committee, which I chair … will hold at least six hearings to oversee implementation of the new law. All of those hearings will be bipartisan, as our hearings almost always are.

We already held the first hearing on February 23 with representatives of many of the groups who worked together to pass the law, and now they are working together to implement the law. They already formed a coalition made up of the National Governors Association, the School Superintendents Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Parent Teacher Association, with the support of the Chief State School Officers.

         At first glance, Senator Alexander cites impressive diverse support for ESSA. But on closer examination, that diversity falls apart. Bipartisan support generally just means that the leadership of both parties have combined to implement an Establishment program. Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are both Establishment media sources.

And the mentioned coalition includes groups at the forefront of the drive to nationalize education (such as the National Education Association) and many official-sounding private foundations created to guide, propagandize, and then represent government officials in support of the Establishment agenda. (See, for example, the video “Getting to the Core of Common Core” on YouTube.)

Analysis: The betrayal in ESSA could have been foreseen by anyone familiar with the forces promoting federal control of education and their real “not open for public discussion” objective.

That objective is the same as that of the international socialists who hired Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto more than a century and a half ago — to achieve dominating control of the people. One important step on that path was for government to control the indoctrination of our youth.

While the Communist Manifesto called for “free education for all in [government] public schools,” socialists in America early recognized that to transform society they needed to control the teachers and the curriculum. They saw nationalizing education as an essential means to that control.

The socialists and their Establishment sponsors also realized that this revolution in control would have to be accomplished incrementally, using deceptive pretexts, such as how best to ensure a “quality education for all.” Masters of Deception summarizes much of their progress (see Chapter 12 “Organized Subversion at Home” and particularly Chapter 13 “Mobilizing the Attack Forces”).

As we wrote in our April 2009 Action Report: “The federal funding spigot for education first opened in 1958 with ‘the National Defense Education Act.’   The ‘crisis’ that drove through this revolution was the Soviet launch of Sputnik the year before…. Congressman Noah Mason of Illinois warned of the consequences at the time:

‘Federal Aid for Education is not a temporary program to meet an immediate emergency. It is an effort to put our whole educational system under Federal control and to keep it there forever.’”

Implementing ESSA

During the March 14, 2016 Senate debates over President Obama’s nomination of John B. King to replace Arne Duncan and implement the new law, one of ESSA’s opponents, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was given time to speak:

         One of the most serious flaws of the ESSA, and one of the primary reasons I voted against the bill, is that it reinforces the same K-12 model that has trapped so many kids in failing schools and confined America’s education system to a state of mediocrity for half a century. This is a model that concentrates authority over education decisions in the hands of Federal politicians and bureaucrats instead of parents, teachers, principals, and local school boards….

         The ESSA purports to reduce the Federal Government’s control over America’s classrooms by returning decision making authority to parents, educators, and local officials. For instance, there are several provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Education from controlling State education plans or coercing States into adopting Federal standards and testing regimes, but when you look at the fine print, you see that in most cases these prohibitions against Federal overreach contain no enforcement mechanisms ‑— only vague, aspirational statements encouraging the Secretary to limit his own powers.

         Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Education Committee and sponsor of the bill, responded to Senator Lee. His response demonstrates how Americans are regularly kept in the dark as to revolutionary forces and agendas driving our decline:

The reason we are voting today is because we need a U.S. Education Secretary confirmed by and accountable to the U.S. Senate so that the law to fix No Child Left Behind will be implemented the way Congress wrote it….

That law was passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85 to 12. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 359 to 64.

We achieved that result because, as Newsweek said, No Child Left Behind was a law everybody wanted fixed and fixing it was long overdue. Governors, teachers, superintendents, parents, Republicans, Democrats, and students all wanted No Child Left Behind fixed….

This new law is a dramatic change in direction for Federal education policy. In short, it reverses the trend toward what had become a national school board and restores to those closest to children the responsibility for their well-being and academic success.

The Wall Street Journal called the new Every Student Succeeds Act ”the largest devolution of federal control of schools from Washington back to the states in a quarter of a century.”…

The Senate Education Committee, which I chair … will hold at least six hearings to oversee implementation of the new law. All of those hearings will be bipartisan, as our hearings almost always are.

We already held the first hearing on February 23 with representatives of many of the groups who worked together to pass the law, and now they are working together to implement the law. They already formed a coalition made up of the National Governors Association, the School Superintendents Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Parent Teacher Association, with the support of the Chief State School Officers.

         At first glance, Senator Alexander cites impressive diverse support for ESSA. But on closer examination, that diversity falls apart. Bipartisan support generally just means that the leadership of both parties have combined to implement an Establishment program. Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are both Establishment media sources.

And the mentioned coalition includes groups at the forefront of the drive to nationalize education (such as the National Education Association) and many official-sounding private foundations created to guide, propagandize, and then represent government officials in support of the Establishment agenda. (See, for example, the video “Getting to the Core of Common Core” on YouTube.)

Analysis: The betrayal in ESSA could have been foreseen by anyone familiar with the forces promoting federal control of education and their real “not open for public discussion” objective.

That objective is the same as that of the international socialists who hired Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto more than a century and a half ago — to achieve dominating control of the people. One important step on that path was for government to control the indoctrination of our youth.

While the Communist Manifesto called for “free education for all in [government] public schools,” socialists in America early recognized that to transform society they needed to control the teachers and the curriculum. They saw nationalizing education as an essential means to that control.

The socialists and their Establishment sponsors also realized that this revolution in control would have to be accomplished incrementally, using deceptive pretexts, such as how best to ensure a “quality education for all.” Masters of Deception summarizes much of their progress (see Chapter 12 “Organized Subversion at Home” and particularly Chapter 13 “Mobilizing the Attack Forces”).

As we wrote in our April 2009 Action Report: “The federal funding spigot for education first opened in 1958 with ‘the National Defense Education Act.’   The ‘crisis’ that drove through this revolution was the Soviet launch of Sputnik the year before…. Congressman Noah Mason of Illinois warned of the consequences at the time:

‘Federal Aid for Education is not a temporary program to meet an immediate emergency. It is an effort to put our whole educational system under Federal control and to keep it there forever.’”

Implementing ESSA

During the March 14, 2016 Senate debates over President Obama’s nomination of John B. King to replace Arne Duncan and implement the new law, one of ESSA’s opponents, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was given time to speak:

One of the most serious flaws of the ESSA, and one of the primary reasons I voted against the bill, is that it reinforces the same K-12 model that has trapped so many kids in failing schools and confined America’s education system to a state of mediocrity for half a century. This is a model that concentrates authority over education decisions in the hands of Federal politicians and bureaucrats instead of parents, teachers, principals, and local school boards….

The ESSA purports to reduce the Federal Government’s control over America’s classrooms by returning decision making authority to parents, educators, and local officials. For instance, there are several provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Education from controlling State education plans or coercing States into adopting Federal standards and testing regimes, but when you look at the fine print, you see that in most cases these prohibitions against Federal overreach contain no enforcement mechanisms ‑— only vague, aspirational statements encouraging the Secretary to limit his own powers.

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Education Committee and sponsor of the bill, responded to Senator Lee. His response demonstrates how Americans are regularly kept in the dark as to revolutionary forces and agendas driving our decline:

The reason we are voting today is because we need a U.S. Education Secretary confirmed by and accountable to the U.S. Senate so that the law to fix No Child Left Behind will be implemented the way Congress wrote it….

That law was passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85 to 12. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 359 to 64.

We achieved that result because, as Newsweek said, No Child Left Behind was a law everybody wanted fixed and fixing it was long overdue. Governors, teachers, superintendents, parents, Republicans, Democrats, and students all wanted No Child Left Behind fixed….

This new law is a dramatic change in direction for Federal education policy. In short, it reverses the trend toward what had become a national school board and restores to those closest to children the responsibility for their well-being and academic success.

The Wall Street Journal called the new Every Student Succeeds Act ”the largest devolution of federal control of schools from Washington back to the states in a quarter of a century.”…

The Senate Education Committee, which I chair … will hold at least six hearings to oversee implementation of the new law. All of those hearings will be bipartisan, as our hearings almost always are.

We already held the first hearing on February 23 with representatives of many of the groups who worked together to pass the law, and now they are working together to implement the law. They already formed a coalition made up of the National Governors Association, the School Superintendents Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Parent Teacher Association, with the support of the Chief State School Officers.

         At first glance, Senator Alexander cites impressive diverse support for ESSA. But on closer examination, that diversity falls apart. Bipartisan support generally just means that the leadership of both parties have combined to implement an Establishment program. Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are both Establishment media sources.

And the mentioned coalition includes groups at the forefront of the drive to nationalize education (such as the National Education Association) and many official-sounding private foundations created to guide, propagandize, and then represent government officials in support of the Establishment agenda. (See, for example, the video “Getting to the Core of Common Core” on YouTube.)

Analysis: The betrayal in ESSA could have been foreseen by anyone familiar with the forces promoting federal control of education and their real “not open for public discussion” objective.

That objective is the same as that of the international socialists who hired Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto more than a century and a half ago — to achieve dominating control of the people. One important step on that path was for government to control the indoctrination of our youth.

While the Communist Manifesto called for “free education for all in [government] public schools,” socialists in America early recognized that to transform society they needed to control the teachers and the curriculum. They saw nationalizing education as an essential means to that control.

The socialists and their Establishment sponsors also realized that this revolution in control would have to be accomplished incrementally, using deceptive pretexts, such as how best to ensure a “quality education for all.” Masters of Deception summarizes much of their progress (see Chapter 12 “Organized Subversion at Home” and particularly Chapter 13 “Mobilizing the Attack Forces”).

As we wrote in our April 2009 Action Report: “The federal funding spigot for education first opened in 1958 with ‘the National Defense Education Act.’   The ‘crisis’ that drove through this revolution was the Soviet launch of Sputnik the year before…. Congressman Noah Mason of Illinois warned of the consequences at the time:

‘Federal Aid for Education is not a temporary program to meet an immediate emergency. It is an effort to put our whole educational system under Federal control and to keep it there forever.’”

Implementing ESSA

During the March 14, 2016 Senate debates over President Obama’s nomination of John B. King to replace Arne Duncan and implement the new law, one of ESSA’s opponents, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was given time to speak:

One of the most serious flaws of the ESSA, and one of the primary reasons I voted against the bill, is that it reinforces the same K-12 model that has trapped so many kids in failing schools and confined America’s education system to a state of mediocrity for half a century. This is a model that concentrates authority over education decisions in the hands of Federal politicians and bureaucrats instead of parents, teachers, principals, and local school boards….

The ESSA purports to reduce the Federal Government’s control over America’s classrooms by returning decision making authority to parents, educators, and local officials. For instance, there are several provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Education from controlling State education plans or coercing States into adopting Federal standards and testing regimes, but when you look at the fine print, you see that in most cases these prohibitions against Federal overreach contain no enforcement mechanisms ‑— only vague, aspirational statements encouraging the Secretary to limit his own powers.

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Education Committee and sponsor of the bill, responded to Senator Lee. His response demonstrates how Americans are regularly kept in the dark as to revolutionary forces and agendas driving our decline:

The reason we are voting today is because we need a U.S. Education Secretary confirmed by and accountable to the U.S. Senate so that the law to fix No Child Left Behind will be implemented the way Congress wrote it….

That law was passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85 to 12. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 359 to 64.

We achieved that result because, as Newsweek said, No Child Left Behind was a law everybody wanted fixed and fixing it was long overdue. Governors, teachers, superintendents, parents, Republicans, Democrats, and students all wanted No Child Left Behind fixed….

This new law is a dramatic change in direction for Federal education policy. In short, it reverses the trend toward what had become a national school board and restores to those closest to children the responsibility for their well-being and academic success.

The Wall Street Journal called the new Every Student Succeeds Act ”the largest devolution of federal control of schools from Washington back to the states in a quarter of a century.”…

The Senate Education Committee, which I chair … will hold at least six hearings to oversee implementation of the new law. All of those hearings will be bipartisan, as our hearings almost always are.

We already held the first hearing on February 23 with representatives of many of the groups who worked together to pass the law, and now they are working together to implement the law. They already formed a coalition made up of the National Governors Association, the School Superintendents Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Parent Teacher Association, with the support of the Chief State School Officers.

         At first glance, Senator Alexander cites impressive diverse support for ESSA. But on closer examination, that diversity falls apart. Bipartisan support generally just means that the leadership of both parties have combined to implement an Establishment program. Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are both Establishment media sources.

And the mentioned coalition includes groups at the forefront of the drive to nationalize education (such as the National Education Association) and many official-sounding private foundations created to guide, propagandize, and then represent government officials in support of the Establishment agenda. (See, for example, the video “Getting to the Core of Common Core” on YouTube.)

Congressional Research Service Summary: [S.J. Res. 24] “Nullifies the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule published on October 23, 2015, that requires states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). (Those EGUs convert fossil fuel energy to electric energy.)”Analysis: S.J. 24 would block one unconstitutional action of the unconstitutional Environmental Protection agency to stifle America’s vital energy production.

The EPA and the president are pursuing a revolutionary agenda to seize federal control over a vital economic resource — energy — in the name of a massively orchestrated crusade, ostensibly to protect the environment. (See Masters of Deception, Chapter 8 Post Cold War pretexts re the history of and agenda behind the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.)

The “science” supporting the theory of “man-made global warming” has long been politicized by foundations supporting international regulation (i.e., world government). And the Establishment media has continued to retail the outrageously false statements of supporting politicians that the science is settled and that there is no credible scientific opposition.

Please see our reviews of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them by Steve Milloy and The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon with the subtitle: “The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud* *And those who are fearful to do so.”.

As another example, Dr. Arthur Robinson, editor of the Access to Energy newsletter, organized the Oregon Petition Project protesting the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming. As of 2008, the petition had been signed by over 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs! In particular, Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, endorsed the petition.

Unfortunately, lame political opposition emphasizes the cost on our economy of this attack rather than the demonstrable subversive agenda behind it.

Congressional Research Service Summary: [S.J. Res. 24] “Nullifies the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule published on October 23, 2015, that requires states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). (Those EGUs convert fossil fuel energy to electric energy.)”Analysis: S.J. 24 would block one unconstitutional action of the unconstitutional Environmental Protection agency to stifle America’s vital energy production.

The EPA and the president are pursuing a revolutionary agenda to seize federal control over a vital economic resource — energy — in the name of a massively orchestrated crusade, ostensibly to protect the environment.

The “science” supporting the theory of “man-made global warming” has long been politicized by foundations supporting international regulation (i.e., world government). And the Establishment media has continued to retail the outrageously false statements of supporting politicians that the science is settled and that there is no credible scientific opposition.

Please see our reviews of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them by Steve Milloy and The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon with the subtitle: “The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud* *And those who are fearful to do so.”.

Also see Masters of Deception, Chapter 8 Post Cold War pretexts re the history of and agenda behind the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.

As another example, Dr. Arthur Robinson, editor of the Access to Energy newsletter, organized the Oregon Petition Project protesting the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming. As of 2008, the petition had been signed by over 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs! In particular, Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, endorsed the petition.

Unfortunately, lame political opposition emphasizes the cost on our economy of this attack rather than the demonstrable subversive agenda behind it.

Bill Summary: Note: H.R. 2029 was introduced, and earlier considered in both the House and Senate, as “Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.”Through two House amendments, H.R. 2029 became the vehicle for The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. 

This massive legislation was filed early on the morning of 12-16-15. In the House, the two amendments were considered separately. The first amendment extended $650 billion worth of tax breaks and made $590 billion of them permanent. That amendment  was approved in House Roll Call 703 on 12-17-15.

The second amendment, approved in House Roll Call 705 earlier on the 18th, was a $1.15 trillion omnibus spending bill that funds the government through September 2016 (FY2016).

Analysis: This bipartisan, bicameral “compromise” for funding the government through the end of FY2016 was negotiated on December 16, just a few days prior to the end of the 1st session of the 114th Congress. To aid passage in the House, the measure was divided into two parts, the “Tax Extenders” package and the omnibus appropriations package.

The Tax Extenders package enjoyed overwhelming House GOP support (241 to 3) and significant support from Democrats (77 in favor, as opposed to 106 against). Passage of this GOP sweetener was deemed necessary to facilitate the adoption of the full package in the Senate. As we shall see, it was a poor exchange.

By contrast, passage of the omnibus spending bill was opposed by a significant block (95) of House Republicans but had overwhelming (166 to 18) Democratic support.

According to AP (12-16-15): “Democrats, despite their minority party status in Congress, exacted a steep price in the negotiations, thanks to Obama’s veto pen and Republicans’ need for their votes on the spending bill. ‘We may not be in the majority but we’re feeling that these goals are on track,’ boasted Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.”

One of most vociferous critics of the measure from the GOP side, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, argued:

This bill explains why Republican and Democratic voters are in open rebellion … they elect people that they believe are going to take action to protect their security, their jobs, their wages and what do they get? A bill that is worse than current law, goes in the opposite direction…. No wonder people are upset. This legislation represents a further disenfranchisement of the American voter. — Roll Call, 12-17-15.

A Poor Exchange

A routine congressional priority has been to extend a number of tax breaks that expired at the start of the year. Many of these tax breaks enjoy bipartisan support and would likely have been extended without being attached to the omnibus spending bill.

However, under the rules that drive the Congressional Budget Office, legislation, such as GOP proposed reform of the tax code, cannot use the replacement of temporary tax breaks as offsets in calculating the impact of the legislation on deficits.

So the big GOP promise with the “Tax Extenders” package is that, by making $590 billion in 22 tax breaks permanent, it would be easier to win passage of a future tax reform package. Of course, the important challenge is to reduce federal spending and on that Congress failed miserably. 

Prior backroom budget deal

At the end of October, outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a backroom budget deal that gave President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. (See Senate Vote 294.) The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 drew the unanimous support of House and Senate Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. Only a minority of Republicans in both chambers supported it.

The “budget deal” raised the sequester-imposed budget caps, providing new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 (and removed the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017). This allowed House and Senate appropriators to develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.

Following the enactment of the budget deal, we saw no suggestion that perhaps it would be better for the American people if the federal government didn’t spend to the new limits. Media reports had focused on the horrible plight of a spending-limited federal government, in particular GOP complaints over the previous cap on defense spending and liberal Democrat complaints over the companion cap on non-defense domestic spending.

South Carolina Representative Mark Sanford was one of the few House opponents allowed time to speak against the budget agreement. His assessment provided needed perspective:

As draconian as [the budget caps] are, they represent the only piece of financial restraint in Washington, D.C., that has encumbered this entity….

Therefore, I would remind everyone of what Admiral Mike Mullen said, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that the greatest threat to our civilization was the national debt. At the end of the day, this bill compounds it; and for that reason, I would respectfully encourage a “no.”

No “honeymoon” justified

Anticipating the favorable House omnibus spending vote, Washington’s Roll Call (“Ryan Gets High Marks for First Big Showdown,” 12-17-15) reminded us of the current political line:

John A. Boehner’s last days as speaker in October were spent, as he said, cleaning out the barn, or cutting legislative deals to help his successor, Paul D. Ryan, get off to a good start.

This meant that the Democrats would get the money they wanted, while the Republicans would get a few riders. Surprisingly, Roll Call candidly described the blatant “bipartisan” politics that are destroying America’s prosperity:

A budget deal crafted during Boehner’s final days in office will allow House Republicans to pass appropriations bills next year at levels that House Democrats can live with.

Following publication of the negotiated package the previous day, Ryan told reporters:

I don’t think this is the way government should work. This is not how appropriations should work…. We played the cards that we were dealt…. In divided government, you don’t get everything you want. This is a bipartisan compromise; this is a bicameral compromise.

Ryan promised that for FY 2017, the House would seek regular order, wherein the 12 appropriations subcommittees would do their work and have their work presented to the full House, getting away from the last-minute omnibus approach.

But these comments perpetuate two massive deceptions.

“Power of the Purse”

The first deception conceals the House’s (and even the Senate’s) true power of the purse. A “conservative” majority in either chamber can agree to fund what it feels is appropriate and merely abstain from funding anything deemed inappropriate. It does not have to compromise with socialists to perpetuate unconstitutional spending.

The “must compromise” deception conceals the proper strategy of funding with individual appropriations bills, making it difficult for a big-spending president to refuse to sign everything by claiming that one chamber is “shutting down” the government.

If the House truly needed more time to prepare the individual appropriations bills, why not offer another continuing resolution for a limited time? Why fund the federal government for the remaining nine months of FY 2016 at $1.15 trillion?

Serious spending cuts did not need to be postponed until FY 2017 to the further detriment of the country (deferring tough action to future Congresses has been a regular political ploy for decades). But with favorable press coverage the extended deal insulated politicians from pressure from concerned constituents when they run for reelection in November.

The essential standard — the U.S. Constitution

Regular order with individual appropriations bills is essential for a committed House to use its Power of the Purse to tame the federal monster.

But regular order is not enough. A second deception conceals the essential standard.

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutionally authorized role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Why is the Constitution ignored? The sad truth is that an increasing number of congressmen in both parties, particularly among the leadership, are simply beholden to Establishment influence and willing to implement its totalitarian agenda. With the media supporting the same agenda, they know that uninformed voters can be satisfied with fluff.

Virtually all votes on measures that would reverse the growth in federal power and threaten that agenda are mere posturing votes, intended to impress the voters, but not become law.   And when hard votes are needed to fuel the Establishment agenda, as with this $1.15 trillion omnibus appropriations bill, the leadership of the conservative posturing GOP finds the pretext for teeming up with liberal Democrats to betray America, allowing many of its own members to maintain a tough image back home. Only a scant majority (28 to 26) of the GOP voted for this bill.

Today, there are, unfortunately, few sitting representatives or senators who are demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. Even “conservative” politicians argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

In particular, the leaders of both parties behave as though the Constitution does not impose any restraints.

Socialist Democrats argue the insidious line that government programs are the solution to all kinds of disparities and inequities. Establishment Republicans, on the other hand, object to some of these programs as burdens on the economy. And both argue primarily over how much America can afford for the federal government to spend and whether our national debt and deficits are more of a danger than not moving forward with federal programs.

In short, the GOP leadership has managed to pacify many conservatives by appearing to be the voice of restraint.   But as Napoleon pointed out: “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.”

The federal monster cannot be tamed with defensive tinkering. Limited government requires respect for hard limits. Only the Constitution provides those limits. Congress must be made to obey the law (i.e., the Constitution).

Serious rollbacks of prior “socialist” usurpations requires a committed House with backbone supplied from a determined, informed electorate. As examples, the federal government has no authority to be involved in education, housing, and health care. (The latter intrusion required almost a century of socialist agitation to accomplish.)

Even though the will to roll back these socialist inroads does not exist in Congress today, responsible representatives must obey their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and not compromise on basic principle. They must set the example and lead the way for reinforcements.

Bill Summary: Note: H.R. 2029 was introduced, and earlier considered in both the House and Senate, as “Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.”Through two House amendments, H.R. 2029 became the vehicle for The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. 

This massive legislation was filed early on the morning of 12-16-15. In the House, the two amendments were considered separately. The first amendment extended $650 billion worth of tax breaks and made $590 billion of them permanent. That amendment was approved in House Roll Call 703 on 12-17-15.

The second amendment, approved in House Roll Call 705 earlier on the 18th, was a $1.15 trillion omnibus spending bill that funds the government through September 2016 (FY2016).

Analysis: This bipartisan, bicameral “compromise” for funding the government through the end of FY2016 was negotiated on December 16, just a few days prior to the end of the 1st session of the 114th Congress. To aid passage in the House, the measure was divided into two parts, the “Tax Extenders” package and the omnibus appropriations package.

The Tax Extenders package enjoyed overwhelming House GOP support (241 to 3) and significant support from Democrats (77 in favor, as opposed to 106 against). Passage of this GOP sweetener was deemed necessary to facilitate the adoption of the full package in the Senate. As we shall see, it was a poor exchange.

By contrast, passage of the omnibus spending bill was opposed by a significant block (95) of House Republicans but had overwhelming (166 to 18) Democratic support.

According to AP (12-16-15): “Democrats, despite their minority party status in Congress, exacted a steep price in the negotiations, thanks to Obama’s veto pen and Republicans’ need for their votes on the spending bill. ‘We may not be in the majority but we’re feeling that these goals are on track,’ boasted Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.”

One of most vociferous critics of the measure from the GOP side, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, argued:

This bill explains why Republican and Democratic voters are in open rebellion … they elect people that they believe are going to take action to protect their security, their jobs, their wages and what do they get? A bill that is worse than current law, goes in the opposite direction…. No wonder people are upset. This legislation represents a further disenfranchisement of the American voter. — Roll Call, 12-17-15.

A Poor Exchange

A routine congressional priority has been to extend a number of tax breaks that expired at the start of the year. Many of these tax breaks enjoy bipartisan support and would likely have been extended without being attached to the omnibus spending bill.

However, under the rules that drive the Congressional Budget Office, legislation, such as GOP proposed reform of the tax code, cannot use the replacement of temporary tax breaks as offsets in calculating the impact of the legislation on deficits.

So the big GOP promise with the “Tax Extenders” package is that, by making $590 billion in 22 tax breaks permanent, it would be easier to win passage of a future tax reform package. Of course, the important challenge is to reduce federal spending and on that Congress failed miserably. 

Prior backroom budget deal

At the end of October, outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a backroom budget deal that gave President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. (See Senate Vote 294.) The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 drew the unanimous support of House and Senate Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. Only a minority of Republicans in both chambers supported it.

The “budget deal” raised the sequester-imposed budget caps, providing new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 (and removed the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017). This allowed House and Senate appropriators to develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.

Following the enactment of the budget deal, we saw no suggestion that perhaps it would be better for the American people if the federal government didn’t spend to the new limits. Media reports had focused on the horrible plight of a spending-limited federal government, in particular GOP complaints over the previous cap on defense spending and liberal Democrat complaints over the companion cap on non-defense domestic spending.

South Carolina Representative Mark Sanford was one of the few House opponents allowed time to speak against the budget agreement. His assessment provided needed perspective:

As draconian as [the budget caps] are, they represent the only piece of financial restraint in Washington, D.C., that has encumbered this entity….

Therefore, I would remind everyone of what Admiral Mike Mullen said, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that the greatest threat to our civilization was the national debt. At the end of the day, this bill compounds it; and for that reason, I would respectfully encourage a “no.”

No “honeymoon” justified

Anticipating the favorable House omnibus spending vote, Washington’s Roll Call (“Ryan Gets High Marks for First Big Showdown,” 12-17-15) reminded us of the current political line:

John A. Boehner’s last days as speaker in October were spent, as he said, cleaning out the barn, or cutting legislative deals to help his successor, Paul D. Ryan, get off to a good start.

This meant that the Democrats would get the money they wanted, while the Republicans would get a few riders. Surprisingly, Roll Call candidly described the blatant “bipartisan” politics that are destroying America’s prosperity:

A budget deal crafted during Boehner’s final days in office will allow House Republicans to pass appropriations bills next year at levels that House Democrats can live with.

Following publication of the negotiated package the previous day, Ryan told reporters:

I don’t think this is the way government should work. This is not how appropriations should work…. We played the cards that we were dealt…. In divided government, you don’t get everything you want. This is a bipartisan compromise; this is a bicameral compromise.

Ryan promised that for FY 2017, the House would seek regular order, wherein the 12 appropriations subcommittees would do their work and have their work presented to the full House, getting away from the last-minute omnibus approach.

But these comments perpetuate two massive deceptions.

“Power of the Purse”

The first deception conceals the House’s (and even the Senate’s) true power of the purse. A “conservative” majority in either chamber can agree to fund what it feels is appropriate and merely abstain from funding anything deemed inappropriate. It does not have to compromise with socialists to perpetuate unconstitutional spending.

The “must compromise” deception conceals the proper strategy of funding with individual appropriations bills, making it difficult for a big-spending president to refuse to sign everything by claiming that one chamber is “shutting down” the government.

If the House truly needed more time to prepare the individual appropriations bills, why not offer another continuing resolution for a limited time? Why fund the federal government for the remaining nine months of FY 2016 at $1.15 trillion?

Serious spending cuts did not need to be postponed until FY 2017 to the further detriment of the country (deferring tough action to future Congresses has been a regular political ploy for decades). But with favorable press coverage the extended deal insulated politicians from pressure from concerned constituents when they run for reelection in November.

The essential standard — the U.S. Constitution

Regular order with individual appropriations bills is essential for a committed House to use its Power of the Purse to tame the federal monster.

But regular order is not enough. A second deception conceals the essential standard.

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutionally authorized role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Why is the Constitution ignored? The sad truth is that an increasing number of congressmen in both parties, particularly among the leadership, are simply beholden to Establishment influence and willing to implement its totalitarian agenda. With the media supporting the same agenda, they know that uninformed voters can be satisfied with fluff.

Virtually all votes on measures that would reverse the growth in federal power and threaten that agenda are mere posturing votes, intended to impress the voters, but not become law.   And when hard votes are needed to fuel the Establishment agenda, as with this $1.15 trillion omnibus appropriations bill, the leadership of the conservative posturing GOP finds the pretext for teeming up with liberal Democrats to betray America, allowing many of its own members to maintain a tough image back home. Only a scant majority (28 to 26) of the GOP voted for this bill.

Today, there are, unfortunately, few sitting representatives or senators who are demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. Even “conservative” politicians argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

In particular, the leaders of both parties behave as though the Constitution does not impose any restraints.

Socialist Democrats argue the insidious line that government programs are the solution to all kinds of disparities and inequities. Establishment Republicans, on the other hand, object to some of these programs as burdens on the economy. And both argue primarily over how much America can afford for the federal government to spend and whether our national debt and deficits are more of a danger than not moving forward with federal programs.

In short, the GOP leadership has managed to pacify many conservatives by appearing to be the voice of restraint.   But as Napoleon pointed out: “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.”

The federal monster cannot be tamed with defensive tinkering. Limited government requires respect for hard limits. Only the Constitution provides those limits. Congress must be made to obey the law (i.e., the Constitution).

Serious rollbacks of prior “socialist” usurpations requires a committed House with backbone supplied from a determined, informed electorate. As examples, the federal government has no authority to be involved in education, housing, and health care. (The latter intrusion required almost a century of socialist agitation to accomplish.)

Even though the will to roll back these socialist inroads does not exist in Congress today, responsible representatives must obey their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and not compromise on basic principle. They must set the example and lead the way for reinforcements.

Bill Summary: Note: H.R. 2029 was introduced, and earlier considered in both the House and Senate, as “Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.”Through two House amendments, specified in H.Res. 566, H.R. 2029 became the vehicle for The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015.

This massive legislation was filed early on the morning of 12-16-15. In the House, the two amendments were considered separately. The first amendment extended $650 billion worth of tax breaks and made $590 billion of them permanent. That amendment was approved in Roll Call 703 on 12-17-15.

The second amendment, the subject of this roll call, is a $1.15 trillion omnibus spending bill that funds the government through September 2016 (FY2016).

The Senate approved the resulting House amended H.R. 2029 later that day.

Analysis: This bipartisan, bicameral “compromise,” negotiated with the help of the new House Majority Leader, Paul Ryan, was divided into two parts to aid passage in the House.

The Tax Extenders package (Roll Call 703) enjoyed overwhelming GOP support (241 to 3) and significant support from Democrats (77 in favor, as opposed to 106 against). Passage of this GOP sweetener was deemed necessary to facilitate the adoption of the full package in the Senate. As we shall see, it was a poor exchange.

By contrast, passage of the omnibus spending bill, this roll call, was opposed by a significant block (95) of House Republicans but had overwhelming (166 to 18) Democratic support.

According to AP (12-16-15): “Democrats, despite their minority party status in Congress, exacted a steep price in the negotiations, thanks to Obama’s veto pen and Republicans’ need for their votes on the spending bill. ‘We may not be in the majority but we’re feeling that these goals are on track,’ boasted Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.”

Prior backroom budget deal

At the end of October, outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a backroom budget deal that gave President Obama and the big spenders everything they wanted. (See House Roll Call 579.) The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 drew the unanimous support of House and Senate Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi. Only a minority of Republicans in both chambers supported it.

The “budget deal” raised the sequester-imposed budget caps, providing new budget authority for FY 2016 and FY 2017 (and removed the limit on the National Debt through March 16, 2017). This allowed House and Senate appropriators to develop plans for increased spending following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on December 11.

Following the enactment of the budget deal, we could find no suggestion that perhaps it would be better for the American people if the federal government didn’t spend to the new limits. Media reports had focused on the horrible plight of a spending-limited federal government, in particular GOP complaints over the previous cap on defense spending and liberal Democrat complaints over the companion cap on non-defense domestic spending.

South Carolina Representative Mark Sanford was one of the few opponents allowed time to speak against the budget agreement. His assessment provided needed perspective:

As draconian as [the budget caps] are, they represent the only piece of financial restraint in Washington, D.C., that has encumbered this entity….

Therefore, I would remind everyone of what Admiral Mike Mullen said, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that the greatest threat to our civilization was the national debt. At the end of the day, this bill compounds it; and for that reason, I would respectfully encourage a “no.”

No “honeymoon” justified

Anticipating the favorable House omnibus spending vote, Washington’s Roll Call (“Ryan Gets High Marks for First Big Showdown,” 12-17-15) reminded us of the current political line:

John A. Boehner’s last days as speaker in October were spent, as he said, cleaning out the barn, or cutting legislative deals to help his successor, Paul D. Ryan, get off to a good start.

This meant that the Democrats would get the money they wanted, while the Republicans would get a few riders. Surprisingly, Roll Call candidly described the blatant “bipartisan” politics that are destroying America’s prosperity:

A budget deal crafted during Boehner’s final days in office will allow House Republicans to pass appropriations bills next year at levels that House Democrats can live with.

Following publication of the negotiated package the previous day, Ryan told reporters:

I don’t think this is the way government should work. This is not how appropriations should work…. We played the cards that we were dealt…. In divided government, you don’t get everything you want. This is a bipartisan compromise; this is a bicameral compromise.

Ryan promised that for FY 2017, the House would seek regular order, wherein the 12 appropriations subcommittees would do their work and have their work presented to the full House, getting away from the last-minute omnibus approach.

But these comments perpetuate two massive deceptions.

“Power of the Purse”

The first deception conceals the House’s true power of the purse. A “conservative” majority in either chamber can agree to fund what it feels is appropriate and merely abstain from funding anything deemed inappropriate. It does not have to compromise with socialists to perpetuate unconstitutional spending.

The “must compromise” deception conceals the proper strategy of funding with individual appropriations bills, making it difficult for a big-spending president to refuse to sign everything by claiming that one chamber is “shutting down” the government.

If the House truly needed more time to prepare the individual appropriations bills, why not offer another continuing resolution for a limited time? Why fund the federal government for the remaining nine months of FY 2016 at $1.15 trillion?

Serious spending cuts did not need to be postponed until FY 2017 to the further detriment of the country (deferring tough action to future Congresses has been a regular political ploy for decades). But with favorable press coverage the extended deal insulated politicians from pressure from concerned constituents when they run for reelection in November.

The essential standard — the U.S. Constitution

Regular order with individual appropriations bills is essential for a committed House to use its Power of the Purse to tame the federal monster.

But regular order is not enough. A second deception conceals the essential standard.

The real problem with federal spending is that there is insufficient will in Congress, driven by an informed electorate, to confine the Federal government to its constitutionally authorized role. Representatives and senators from both parties have accepted the unconstitutional usurpations of authority during the past century that have created the federal monster and reduced the authority of the States.

Why is the Constitution ignored? The sad truth is that an increasing number of congressmen in both parties, particularly among the leadership, are simply beholden to Establishment influence and willing to implement its totalitarian agenda. With the media supporting the same agenda, they know that uninformed voters can be satisfied with fluff.

Virtually all votes on measures that would reverse the growth in federal power and threaten that agenda are mere posturing votes, intended to impress the voters, but not become law.   And when hard votes are needed to fuel the Establishment agenda, as with this $1.15 trillion omnibus appropriations bill, the leadership of the conservative posturing GOP finds the pretext for teeming up with liberal Democrats to betray America, allowing 95 of its own members to maintain a tough image back home.

Today, there are, unfortunately, few sitting representatives or senators who are demanding that the Constitution (i.e., the law regulating government) be enforced. Even “conservative” politicians argue primarily over waste or what we can afford, not over the open-ended claim of federal authority to provide a never-ending array of services, welfare, and oppressive regulation.

In particular, the leaders of both parties behave as though the Constitution does not impose any restraints.

Socialist Democrats argue the insidious line that government programs are the solution to all kinds of disparities and inequities. Establishment Republicans, on the other hand, object to some of these programs as burdens on the economy. And both argue over how much America can afford for the federal government to spend and whether our national debt and deficits are more of a danger than not moving forward with federal programs.

In short, the GOP leadership has managed to pacify many conservatives by appearing to be the voice of restraint.   But as Napoleon pointed out: “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.”

The federal monster cannot be tamed with defensive tinkering. Limited government requires respect for hard limits. Only the Constitution provides those limits. Congress must be made to obey the law (i.e., the Constitution).

Serious rollbacks of prior “socialist” usurpations requires a committed House with backbone supplied from a determined, informed electorate. As examples, three areas where the federal government has no authority to be involved include: education, housing, and health care. (The latter intrusion required almost a century of socialist agitation to accomplish.)

Even though the will to roll back these socialist inroads does not exist in Congress today, responsible representatives must obey their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and not compromise on basic principle. They must set the example and lead the way for reinforcements.