Bills

Bill Summary: H.R. 2577 is one of 12 annual appropriations bills. If approved by the Senate and the president, it would appropriate $17.2 billion in discretionary spending to the Department of Transportation and $42 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Fiscal Year 2016.Analysis:  This appropriations bill continues to fund substantial unconstitutional functions authorized by previous Congresses. In the debates on the floor of the House and in the amendments introduced we can find no objection to this continued constitutional abuse, only an argument over how much to spend.

In his opening remarks championing H.R. 2577, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Diaz-Balart, argued that the bill prioritized spending up to the limit of the previously enacted sequester (Budget Control Act) spending caps and the allocation of the House appropriations committee:

“Mr. Chairman, I think this is a balanced bill with the allocation that has been given to us by the chairman. The Department of Transportation is funded at $17.2 billion in budget authority and $70.6 billion in total budgetary resources to ensure, Mr. Chairman, the safe and effective transportation of goods and people in America.

“The Department of Housing and Urban Development is funded at $42 billion to provide housing opportunities and assistance to the most vulnerable in both cities and rural areas across our great Nation….

“I would like to remind my colleagues that if you are going to be voting against this bill, you are voting against the commercial airspace system and our air traffic controllers and control system; against housing programs for the most vulnerable, including the elderly and families; and frankly, you would also be voting against community development block grants that are vital to the cities and counties that we all represent.” [Emphasis added.]

         Representative David Price (D-NC) controlled the debates for the dissenting Democrats. Rep. Price also served on the appropriations subcommittee that produced this bill:

“Mr. Chairman, as we begin consideration of H.R. 2577, the fiscal year 2016 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, I want to start by thanking our chairman, Chairman Diaz-Balart, for the hard work he has put in on this bill….

“He was dealt an impossible hand in the Republican budget and an allocation that is simply unworkable…

“Mr. Chairman, the programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee are critical to our Nation’s economic and social well-being: providing necessary funding to improve housing and transportation options, creating infrastructure jobs for hardworking American families, and ensuring safe and adequate transportation networks for goods, commuters, and travelers. But our Nation’s transportation and housing systems face daunting challenges, and on almost every count, this bill falls short.

“The President requested a robust increase for this bill for fiscal 2016, calling on Congress to provide the critical investments necessary to accelerate and sustain economic growth. Unfortunately, the bill before us would not even begin to address our infrastructure needs.”

Here we single out the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a clear-cut example of a federal usurpation that demands to be reversed, not accepted.

Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]

The Cabinet-level Housing and Urban Development Department was created in 1965 under the umbrella of President Johnson’s Great Society program, a massive program of federal spending that would greatly encourage state and individual dependence on Washington. It’s assault on constitutional restraints was even more damaging. In the years since, neither major party has been willing to call for a reversal of this federal overreach.

For example, HUD would provide funds for urban renewal of cities and open the door for federal rent assistance to low-income families.  When the Department of Housing and Urban Development was created, the Arizona Republic protested:

“Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government any control over urban affairs….

“Scarcely a week passes but some city or county department head goes from Phoenix to Washington to get the answer to a problem which, a few years ago, would have been solved in city hall or the court house.”

Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party leader, declared that he did not need to run for president in 1964, because Lyndon Johnson was carrying out his program. Regarding the Johnson “War on Poverty” program, Thomas declared: “I ought to rejoice and I do. I rub my eyes in amazement and surprise. His war on poverty is a Socialistic approach and may be the major issue of the 1964 campaign.”

Constitutional Authority Statement.

Congress typically uses misleading boiler plate language to give the appearance members are adhering to the Constitution. A current House rule (Clause 7(c) of Rule XII) requires that each bill or joint resolution introduced must be accompanied by a statement citing the constitutional authorization for such action.   This game allows representatives to give the impression that their measures respect the Constitution.

The reality, however, is that most of our representatives are using phony boiler plate justifications that permit business as usual in support of a massive unconstitutional bureaucracy, while hoping that uninformed voters won’t catch on.

The constitutional authority statement accompanying this appropriations bill serves as a good example of the subterfuge.   The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) used the identical language here as the sponsor of the previous year’s appropriations bill (H.R. 4745), Rep. Tom Latham (IA-03):

“The principal constitutional authority for this legislation is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United States (the appropriation power), which states:

‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .’”

Citing this clause as justification is not only absurd, it’s intentionally deceptive.   The above procedural clause merely insists that federal money can only be spent when supported by an enacted appropriations bill. It does not say that Congress is authorized to appropriate money for anything it chooses, which would mean no constitutional restraint at all.

The limited areas authorized by the Constitution for federal spending are spelled out in section 8 of article I.   The sponsor’s authority statement continues by citing just the opening clause of that section:

“In addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the spending power) provides:

‘The Congress shall have the Power … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….’

“Together, these specific constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of the purse, granting Congress the authority to appropriate funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set forth terms and conditions governing their use.” [Emphasis added.]

Incredible! The bill’s sponsor claims that the Constitution gives Congress the power to spend money as it wishes. But such an unlimited grant of authority would negate the very purpose of a Constitution.

Instead, the rest of section 8 lists the specific purposes for which federal spending is allowed. Although Congress may determine which of those purposes a particular appropriations bill supports, the Constitution does not allow Congress to invent new purposes without a Constitutional amendment.

House Power of the Purse

In The Federalist, No. 58, Father of the Constitution James Madison explained the awesome unused power of the purse, which the Constitution assigns to the House of Representatives:

“The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument [for] finally reducing … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

Even in modern times, a House majority truly determined to enforce the Constitution and phase out unconstitutional departments and programs could do so.

Of course, such a determined House majority does not yet exist, and, in the face of a big-government promoting Establishment media, the necessary backbone has to come from an informed public back home.

Nevertheless, each representative needs to honor his or her oath to uphold the Constitution and, by not compromising on that oath, set the example for future reinforcements to follow.

Since most of the Democrats who voted against this bill clearly did so because they wanted to spend more, we do not score the Democrats on this roll call.

Bill Summary: H.R. 1295, which had originally been introduced as a measure to amend the IRS code, was amended in the Senate (the day before) on voice vote to address trade issues, including, most significantly, an extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance.This amended H.R. 1295, passed here by the House and sent to the president, consisted of several titles, including:

• TITLE I–EXTENSION OF AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
• TITLE II–EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES
• TITLE III–EXTENSION OF PREFERENTIAL DUTY TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR HAITI
• TITLE IV–EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
• TITLE V–IMPROVEMENTS TO ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAWS

Background:  Trade Adjustment Assistance was established during the Kennedy administration as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.   Kennedy argued: “When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government.”

The current program is designed to provide relief in four areas impacted by trade agreements: workers, firms, farmers, and communities.

Analysis: Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) has strong support among Democratic liberals. However, on June 12, many House liberals combined with conservatives to sink TAA when it was tied to Trade Promotion Authority.   The liberal strategy was to vote against TAA as a way to block giving President Obama Trade Promotion Authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, opposed by major unions.

It should have been no surprise that the strategy failed to block TPA for a trade pact of major importance to the Internationalist agenda. House leaders quickly brought up TPA again (see House Roll Call 374, 6-18-15) when it was not tied directly to TAA, and it passed both the House and Senate. However, to get support for that vote, GOP leaders assured liberals that TAA would also get another chance and support (hence this Roll Call):

“‘We are committed to ensuring both … get votes in the House and Senate and are sent to the president for signature,’ House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a joint statement issued Wednesday in an attempt to reassure pro-trade Democrats whose votes will be needed.” [Emphasis added.] — “Bipartisan rescue bid for Obama’s trade agenda,” AP (6-18-15)

Compromise for What?

Of course, Federal welfare, and so TAA, is unconstitutional. However, it would be one thing to agree to a temporary extension of TAA, if liberal support (for TPA) were necessary to reduce major constitutional intrusions elsewhere permanently or to truly benefit America.   However, the trade pact is far worse than TAA. Its proclaimed benefit is a tragic deception.

As explained in detail in our analysis of House Roll Call 374, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is part of a deceptive Internationalist power grab that would make our nation increasingly subordinate to a system of regional trade blocs.

The strategy has been to portray these pacts as “free trade,” which conservatives would support. In fact, they are designed to undermine the independence of nations and evolve into Internationalist-controlled political unions, following the pattern in Europe, as steppingstones to world government. This hidden objective has nothing to do with removing trade barriers.

Consider, for example, NAFTA. The NAFTA treaty, combined with side agreements, set up more than 30 new international committees to decide issues previously the responsibility of the individual national legislatures.

Following an earlier successful vote in the Senate on Trade Promotion Authority, Washington’s Roll Call (5-14-15) stated that Senator Ron “Wyden, the lead Democratic negotiator on the bill and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, said [the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal] would improve enforcement of worker protections and environmental protections across the globe, including upgrading enforcement in existing trade pacts like NAFTA.” [Emphasis added.]

Bill Summary: H.R. 1295, which had originally been introduced as a measure to amend the IRS code, was amended in the Senate (the day before) on voice vote to address trade issues, including, most significantly, an extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance.This amended H.R. 1295, passed here by the House and sent to the president, consisted of several titles, including:

• TITLE I–EXTENSION OF AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
• TITLE II–EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES
• TITLE III–EXTENSION OF PREFERENTIAL DUTY TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR HAITI
• TITLE IV–EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
• TITLE V–IMPROVEMENTS TO ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAWS

Background:  Trade Adjustment Assistance was established during the Kennedy administration as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.   Kennedy argued: “When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government.”

The current program is designed to provide relief in four areas impacted by trade agreements: workers, firms, farmers, and communities.

Analysis: Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) has strong support among Democratic liberals. However, on June 12, many House liberals combined with conservatives to sink TAA when it was tied to Trade Promotion Authority.   The liberal strategy was to vote against TAA as a way to block giving President Obama Trade Promotion Authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, opposed by major unions.

It should have been no surprise that the strategy failed to block TPA for a trade pact of major importance to the Internationalist agenda. House leaders quickly brought up TPA again (see House Roll Call 374, 6-18-15) when it was not tied directly to TAA, and it passed both the House and Senate. However, to get support for that vote, GOP leaders assured liberals that TAA would also get another chance and support (hence this Roll Call):

“‘We are committed to ensuring both … get votes in the House and Senate and are sent to the president for signature,’ House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a joint statement issued Wednesday in an attempt to reassure pro-trade Democrats whose votes will be needed.” [Emphasis added.] — “Bipartisan rescue bid for Obama’s trade agenda,” AP (6-18-15)

Compromise for What?

Of course, Federal welfare, and so TAA, is unconstitutional. However, it would be one thing to agree to a temporary extension of TAA, if liberal support (for TPA) were necessary to reduce major constitutional intrusions elsewhere permanently or to truly benefit America.   However, the trade pact is far worse than TAA. Its proclaimed benefit is a tragic deception.

As explained in detail in our analysis of House Roll Call 374, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is part of a deceptive Internationalist power grab that would make our nation increasingly subordinate to a system of regional trade blocs.

The strategy has been to portray these pacts as “free trade,” which conservatives would support. In fact, they are designed to undermine the independence of nations and evolve into Internationalist-controlled political unions, following the pattern in Europe, as steppingstones to world government. This hidden objective has nothing to do with removing trade barriers.

Consider, for example, NAFTA. The NAFTA treaty, combined with side agreements, set up more than 30 new international committees to decide issues previously the responsibility of the individual national legislatures.

Following an earlier successful vote in the Senate on Trade Promotion Authority, Washington’s Roll Call (5-14-15) stated that Senator Ron “Wyden, the lead Democratic negotiator on the bill and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, said [the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal] would improve enforcement of worker protections and environmental protections across the globe, including upgrading enforcement in existing trade pacts like NAFTA.” [Emphasis added.]

Bill Summary: The Senate had earlier (6-4-15) passed H.R. 2146 as the “Defending Public Safety Employees’ Retirement Act, but this time around it had become a vehicle for the much more significant Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). H.R. 2146 would now, when signed into law, provide the president with Trade Promotion Authority, primarily in conjunction with the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).TPA requires Congress to vote up or down on any negotiated agreement after the president submits the package (including implementing legislation). No amendments are allowed.

Background: After a coalition of liberal Democrats and GOP conservatives in the House was able to scuttle Trade Promotion Authority when it was tied to the vote on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the House Leadership decided to bring TPA up again for a new vote by attaching it as an amendment to the less controversial H.R. 2146.

Analysis: Trade Promotion Authority, originally known as “fast track,” is an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of law-making responsibility to the president. TPA violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.

However, much worse than the constitutional violation in “fast track” itself is the violation by the actual agreements fast track was developed to facilitate. These agreements unconstitutionally surrender sovereign U.S. power to international authorities, such as the World Trade Organization and NAFTA tribunals, having no public accountability.

Following an earlier successful vote in the Senate on TPP, Washington’s Roll Call (5-14-15) stated that Senator Ron “Wyden, the lead Democratic negotiator on the bill and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, said [the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal] would improve enforcement of worker protections and environmental protections across the globe, including upgrading enforcement in existing trade pacts like NAFTA.” [Emphasis added.]

Indeed, fast track is a key component of the Internationalist scheme to tie our nation to a system of regional trade blocs as a steppingstone to regional government, such as the European Union.   This hidden objective has nothing to do with removing trade barriers.

The deceptions used to create the European Union provide a good model for what Americans are now being told. In the case of the European Union, Internationalists promoted its precursor Common Market as a mere trade agreement, when, in fact, they intended it from the beginning as a foot in the door toward political union. [See, for example, the revelations in The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union, by British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (a former research director for an agency of the European Parliament).

With regard to the NAFTA treaty, for example, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger boasted (see column in July 18, 1993 Los Angeles Times):

“[NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system….”

The NAFTA treaty, combined with side agreements, set up more than 30 new international committees to decide issues previously the responsibility of the individual national legislatures.

The Fall 1991 issue of [the Council on Foreign Relations’] Foreign Affairs revealed that the Insiders were well aware that NAFTA was following in the EU’s footsteps:

“The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures. After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority.”

GOP Leadership Support

The Internationalists have minimized public opposition to these deceptive power grabs by enlisting Establishment Republicans masking as conservatives to tout the ostensible economic benefits:

“Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, hailed the measure as ‘the most important bill that will pass the Senate this year,’ and one that will prove to be an aid to the economy.” — “Republican-led US Congress hands Obama major win on trade,” AP (6-24-15)

President Obama’s Support

President Obama’s vigorous support for advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite the vehement opposition of most of his own party, confirms the Internationalist Establishment grip on the presidency (regardless of what party occupies the White House). Obama is a left-wing radical only so long as that agenda supports the goals of his Establishment bosses. (See Don Fotheringham’s The President Makers.)

For many decades, when political leaders or the media tout “bipartisanship,” it generally means that the leadership of the two parties have combined in a deception against America’s interest. Following the Senate vote to approve TPA, White House spokesman Josh Earnest noted:

“We have Republican majorities in Congress working closely with Democratic minorities in Congress to build bipartisan support for legislation that then arrives on the desk of a Democratic president.”

And he applauded the cooperation as an example of how policy should be made “in an era of divided government.” — AP (6-24-15)

Opposition to TPA by Liberal Democrats allows the negotiated measure to pass as conservative, reassuring the public that nothing serious is amiss. The opposition also provides the internationalists an excuse to increase the immediate authority of the new meddling institutions in the final agreement, ostensibly to address liberal concerns.

We do not score the Democrats on this one, since most voted the right way (nay) for the wrong reason.

Bill Summary:  For this vote, the House leadership appended Trade Promotion Authority as a separate title to the unrelated, but less controversial H.R. 2146, “Defending Public Safety Employees’ Retirement Act,” which had recently come back from the Senate.This maneuver allowed the leadership to bring Trade Promotion Authority to a second House vote, while escaping an earlier House rule directly tying TPA to approval of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

H.R. 2146 would now, if enacted into law, provides the president with Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), primarily in conjunction with the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). TPA requires Congress to vote up or down on any negotiated agreement after the president submits the package (including implementing legislation). No amendments are allowed.

Analysis:  Trade Promotion Authority, originally known as “fast track,” is an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of law-making responsibility to the president.  TPA violates the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Even leftist Representatives Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) and George Miller (CA-11) objected to the fast track delegation of congressional authority. In a November 2013 letter to President Obama signed by 151 Democrats (3/4 of the caucus) opposing fast track for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the two representatives complained about “the continued lack of adequate congressional consultation in many areas of the proposed pact that deeply implicates Congress’ constitutional and domestic policy authorities.”

Out of character, the letter pointed to constitutional separation of powers issues:

“Given our concerns, we will oppose  ‘Fast Track’ Trade Promotion Authority or any other mechanism delegating Congress’ constitutional authority over trade policy that continues to exclude us from having a meaningful role in the formative stages of trade agreements and throughout negotiating and approval processes.”

However, much worse than the constitutional violation in “fast track” itself is the violation by the actual agreements fast track was developed to facilitate. These agreements unconstitutionally surrender sovereign U.S. power to international authorities, such as the World Trade Organization and NAFTA tribunals, having no public accountability.

Following an earlier successful vote in the Senate on TPP, Washington’s Roll Call (5-14-15) stated that Senator Ron “Wyden, the lead Democratic negotiator on the bill and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, said [the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal] would improve enforcement of worker protections and environmental protections across the globe, including upgrading enforcement in existing trade pacts like NAFTA.” [Emphasis added.]

Indeed, fast track is a key component of the Internationalist scheme to tie our nation to a system of regional trade blocs as a steppingstone to regional government, such as the European Union.   This hidden objective has nothing to do with removing trade barriers.

The deceptions used to create the European Union provide a good model for what Americans are now being told. In the case of the European Union, Internationalists promoted its precursor Common Market as a mere trade agreement, when, in fact, they intended it from the beginning as a foot in the door toward political union. [See, for example, the revelations in The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union, by British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (a former research director for an agency of the European Parliament).

With regard to the NAFTA treaty, for example, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger boasted (see column in July 18, 1993 Los Angeles Times):

“[NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system….”

The NAFTA treaty, combined with side agreements, set up more than 30 new international committees to decide issues previously the responsibility of the individual national legislatures.

The Fall 1991 issue of [the Council on Foreign Relations’] Foreign Affairs revealed that the Insiders were well aware that NAFTA was following in the EU’s footsteps:

“The creation of trinational dispute-resolution mechanisms and rule-making bodies on border and environmental issues may also be embryonic forms of more comprehensive structures. After all, international organizations and agreements like GATT and NAFTA by definition minimize assertions of sovereignty in favor of a joint rule-making authority.”

GOP Leadership Support

The Internationalists have minimized public opposition to these deceptive power grabs by enlisting “conservatives” to tout the ostensible economic benefits.

On May 22 Rush Limbaugh, provided a small speed bump in the deception, by questioning the eagerness of Republicans to give President Obama Trade Promotion Authority:

“[T]he Republicans are providing the necessary push to get it passed, which kind of bothers me. Since it’s an Obama deal, the odds are it isn’t good. Since it’s an Obama deal, the odds are the United States is gonna take it in the shorts, as we have on so much of the Obama agenda, both domestic and foreign policy.”

Undoubtedly many Americans have also found this GOP eagerness strange. But what Rush wasn’t willing to tell his audience is that the Internationalist Establishment has a grip on the presidency (regardless of what party occupies the White House), the leadership of both parties, and on the major media that has cast Limbaugh as a popular conservative voice.

Opposition by Liberal Democrats allows the negotiated measure to pass as conservative, reassuring the public that nothing serious is amiss. The opposition also provides the internationalists an excuse to increase the immediate authority of the new meddling institutions, ostensibly to address liberal concerns.

Bill Summary: H.R. 1105 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the federal estate tax and the generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax. It would also lower the top gift tax rate to 35 percent.Background and Analysis: In 1916, the Woodrow Wilson administration pushed through the Revenue Act of 1916, which upped the income tax rates and introduced the modern estate tax.

The estate tax is the epitome of Marxist class warfare and wealth redistribution. It has no place in America.

The congressional debates over the estate tax (and media reports) conveniently failed to mention the influence of Marxist socialist inroads during the last century. Those inroads saddled our nation with several destructive programs and policies that have been sabotaging the American middle class and the American dream.

The Woodrow Wilson administrations (1913–1921) gave us the estate tax (tax on inherited wealth), the graduated income tax, and the inflationary federal reserve. Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House, had revealed his political agenda in a boring novel, published in the Fall of 1912, just as Wilson was elected president.

In Philip Dru: Administrator, House mapped out a subversive plan for socialist revolution in America. Through his fictional Philip Dru, House would champion “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx” with a “spiritual leavening.” Because of the novel’s political dynamite, B.W. Huebsch published the book anonymously.

It is well to recall the first three planks of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

(1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

(2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

(3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Little known is the background to the Manifesto. Marx was commissioned to write it by the League of the Just, subsequently renamed the Communist League. Contrary to its image, the Manifesto’s program was not the enemy of the super rich.

Indeed, when the progressive income and inheritance taxes went into effect in this country, the truly super rich escaped the taxation by transferring their wealth to tax-exempt foundations (e.g., the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations).

Instead, those taxes have served to prevent competition from below, making it difficult for newcomers to accumulate wealth.

Bush-era Tax Cuts

In 2001, tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration called for the gradual elimination of the estate tax — accomplished in 2010. But that legislation included a sunset provision, and Congress reinstated a temporary estate tax a year later. On January 1, 2013, Congress made the estate tax permanent at 40 percent for estates in excess of $5 million.

In early 2010, Investor’s Business Daily welcomed the tax’s temporary demise, “A Good Year to Die” (1/4/2010):

“Once dubbed the ‘Paris Hilton’ tax, the levy is supposed to target the inherited wealth of the super-rich who really didn’t earn it or don’t really need so much of it. Or so we’re told. But at some point, even inherited wealth was created and taxed in its creation. The death tax is double taxation, and just because you can’t take it with you doesn’t mean the government should take it from you or your heirs.” [Emphasis added.]
The 2010 IBD article also noted: “The death tax accounts for around 1% of federal receipts on average. But tax avoidance efforts and compliance costs in term of time and money cost the economy much more than that.”

         The day before the House vote on H.R. 1105, Heritage Action echoed the IBD assessment: “The revenue generated by the death tax is dwarfed by its drain on the economy and the amount of effort and preparation that goes into paying (and using high-priced lawyers and accountants to avoid) the tax.”

Democrat Objections

The House proposal to repeal the estate tax was met with Democratic charges that the GOP was in the pocket of the rich. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) managed the Democratic opposition during the floor debate:

“Today’s vote to repeal the estate tax is just the Republicans’ last attempt to tilt the U.S. Tax Code in favor of their ultrawealthy campaign donors….

“Repealing the estate tax will surely sow the seeds of a permanent aristocracy in this country.” [Emphasis added.]

We strongly disagree with Mr. McDermott that repeal of the estate tax merely helps the rich. The July 30, 2001 issue of The New American said it well:

“[T]he truth is that this tax traditionally has put poor people out of work by liquidating family farms and small privately owned businesses that are asset ‘rich’ but cash poor. No other tax contributes more to the trend toward the amalgamation of business into huge corporate empires than the death tax; the only way many small businesses and farms can stay in operation after the death of the owner is either through incorporation or through the sale of the private firm to a large corporation.”

During the floor debate, Mrs. Kristi Noem (R-SD) provided a stirring personal example of the impact of this tax:

“On March 10 of 1994, my dad was killed in an accident on our family farm. I was taking college classes at the time. I was 21 years old, and I ended up coming home with my family and trying to figure out how we were going to get by without him after this tragedy hit our family.

“All I could hear during that point in time were the words that my dad had said to me for many years. It wasn’t very long after he was killed that we got a bill in the mail from the IRS that said we owed them money because we had a tragedy happen to our family.

“One of the things my dad had always said to me is, ‘Kristi, don’t ever sell land, because God isn’t making any more land.’

“But that was really our only option. We could either sell land that had been in our family for generations, or we could take out a loan. So I chose to take out a loan, but it took us 10 years to pay off that loan to pay the Federal Government those death taxes….

“A lot of the conversation today has been about that the rich need to pay more. Well, the rich will avoid this tax. They have the resources to do that. But it hits families like mine harder than ever. The rich certainly are not going to pay the burden of this tax.”

So one is right to question the uncharacteristically generous arguments of the super rich for maintaining the estate tax. When the issue came before Congress in 2001, one of the organizations defending the estate tax was “Responsible Wealth” — “a network of business leaders, investors, and inheritors in the richest 5% of wealth and/or income in the U.S. who believe that growing inequality is not in their best interest, nor in the best interest of society.”

Among those who have appeared on the roster of Responsible Wealth have been billionaire George Soros, David Rockefeller Jr., Steven C. Rockefeller, left-wing economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and television producer-leftist activist Norman Lear. At one time, information on the Responsible Wealth website claimed: “repealing the estate tax would undermine meritocracy and promote an aristocracy of wealth.” [Emphasis added.]

Unexpected GOP Opposition

Surprisingly, three GOP representatives voted against the repeal. At least 2 of the three have previously called for repeal of the estate tax. So why did they oppose it this time?

Rep. Walter Jones, who has supported past repeal efforts, said he opposed the measure this time, because the repeal was not tied to any offsetting reduction in spending and he wasn’t willing to support a measure that would add to America’s huge deficit problem.

While we generally find Walter Jones on the right side of most issues, we disagree with his reasoning on this one (we don’t score the GOP on this roll call anyway — see below).

Given the perverse nature of this double tax, designed to hold down the middle class, we think any congressman is remiss in not seizing an opportunity to support repeal.

Although both unconstitutional spending and current tax rates should be cut, it is not always practical to insist that they be tied together [in fact, the House should use its power over the purse independently to curtail spending]. A good question to ask: If there were no estate tax, should a conservative constitutionalist vote to create one in order to reduce the deficit? The “no” answer should be clear.

Moreover, the claim that repealing the “death tax” will add $269 Billion to the deficit over 10 years is likely erroneous.  Unleashing America’s entrepreneurial spirit and reducing the federal disincentive for private investment will positively impact the economy and federal revenues.

A September 23, 2014 study by the Heritage Foundation, “The Economic and Fiscal Effects of Eliminating the Federal Death Tax” confirmed that assessment:

“While the death tax applies to relatively few Americans and raises only tiny amounts of revenue for the federal government, it imposes substantial costs on the American economy in terms of lost jobs and reduced growth rates. It has been devastating to family businesses and the communities in which they operate. The Heritage Foundation estimates that eliminating the federal estate tax (and related gift taxes) would boost U.S. economic growth by more than $46 billion over the next 10 years and generate an average of 18,000 private-sector jobs annually. Eliminating the federal death tax would create economic opportunities for American families and free up financial assets for private-sector investment and income growth.”

In an editorial for USA Today (“‘Death Tax’ Punishes Success,” 4-16-15): House sponsor Kevin Brady (R-TX) argued:

“Since its creation as a temporary tax in 1916 to help fund World War I, the death tax has robbed $1.1 trillion in capital from the U.S. economy. The Tax Foundation estimates that eliminating the death tax will create 139,000 new jobs and increase paychecks by 0.7%. The death tax generates so little in taxes — a mere two days of federal spending each year. Because it encourages tax shelters rather than investment and saving, many say more federal revenue would be generated by killing it than keeping it.”

Republican Posturing

Unfortunately, this House vote was not a real opportunity for repeal, as supporters are unlikely to overcome the 60 vote hurdle in the Senate required to overcome a filibuster to proceed. And, even if it did pass the Senate, the measure faces a certain, promised veto by the President.

The House vote on estate tax repeal was clearly timed to coincide with the April income tax filing deadline so as to capitalize on voter frustration over taxes. Unfortunately, many of the votes in both chambers are designed purely to impress voters with no prospect of affecting policy.

So we don’t score the Republicans for their posturing vote. Nevertheless, we do give credit to those seven Democrats who broke with their party leadership to oppose this destructive and unjust tax.

Resolution Summary:  Establishes the congressional budget for the federal government for FY2016 and sets forth budgetary levels for FY2017-FY2025.  Guides the 12 appropriations committees. Sets forth rules for budget enforcement in both chambers.Analysis:   In several critical ways this budget resolution is a sham calculated to deceive voters.

The budget would ostensibly slash spending on education, infrastructure, and other domestic programs by $5.3 trillion over 10 years with no tax increases. “But most of the prescribed cuts will be ignored, as the new budget plan does not instruct congressional committees to implement them.” —Reuters, 5-5-15

Why 10 years?

GOP proponents hailed this resolution as putting us on a path to balancing the budget, not tomorrow, but in 10 years. However, as experience shows, deferring the tough decisions to future Congresses doesn’t work. What’s needed is backbone now.

Missing:  The Constitution!

The proper source for backbone in curtailing federal spending is the Constitution.   Unconstitutional programs must be eliminated or responsibly phased out.

Most of what the federal government does today is not authorized by the Constitution. That includes federal involvement in health care and education.

In the so-called political debate, there is an appalling lack of reference to what the Constitution authorizes and does not authorize. Instead, the arguments center on how to finance our bloated federal government in a “sustainable” way (e.g., trimming waste and rooting out fraud). The potentially explosive resurgence of American economic health will never occur if we are satisfied merely to navigate the edge of bankruptcy.

Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, led the pro-resolution forces in the Senate debate over the budget resolution as it had been modified by a House-Senate conference committee.   Mr. Enzi:

“Even as we take in record revenues and taxes, our Nation is still unable to live within its means….

“To provide a clearer picture of how dire our Nation’s fiscal outlook is, if we were forced to balance the budget in 1 year, we would have to eliminate most of our defense spending, most of our highway spending, and most of our education spending. This drastic 50-percent cut would be needed because of our consistent overspending and our interest payments, which are set to explode.

“What are the two best ways to make a difference?

“First, Congress should look at the more than 260 programs whose authorization — the right to spend money — has expired….

“Now, there is a second way. The other way we can balance the budget is to grow the economy…. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that … if we were to increase the private sector growth by 1 percent, that would provide an additional $300 billion in additional tax revenue every year. I think that could balance the budget.”

 As is so typical of GOP leadership, Enzi accepts prior unconstitutional socialist inroads, such as Medicare, enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress under President Johnson, and the federal Department of Education. Enzi makes no reference to the source of real backbone given us by our Founding Fathers — the Constitution.

As originally ratified by the States, the Constitution empowers the federal government to act only in a very few specific areas, such as national defense (see, e.g., Article I, Section 8).

A Balanced-budget Amendment

Another dangerous scam in S. Con. Res. 11, calculated to deceive conservatives, is the decades-old proposal for a balanced-budget amendment (BBA).   Section 6101 “POLICY STATEMENT ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT” states:

“It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that Congress should pass, and send to the States for their approval, a joint resolution amending the Constitution of the United States to require an annual balanced Federal budget.”

There are several things wrong with a BBA.   First, the proposal implies that the Constitution, rather than Congress, is at fault for unconstitutional spending. Next, even with sufficient support (a two-thirds vote in both chambers is required), most amendments require many years for ratification. Most proposals also include exemptions from balancing the budget in times of crisis. And, of course, there is a phase-in period of several years.

By contrast, a mere majority in a determined House of Representatives, given sufficient informed public support, could start eliminating unconstitutional spending tomorrow, using its power of the purse.

The bottom line: The BBA proposals, requiring a 2/3 vote in both chambers, are a deceptive substitution for serious action. Indeed, Senator Enzi indirectly admits that the purpose of the proposal is show:

“This budget also calls on Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That point is especially important because we must show taxpayers that Congress is committed to a balanced budget and not to overspending, so we can make our government more effective.” [Emphasis added.]

Even more serious, the BBA proposals are a dangerous substitute for real action.   Several groups, using the pretext that Congress won’t act to give us a BBA, are again calling on states to apply for a constitutional convention under Article V. Ignoring the opinions of many constitutional experts, these Article V convention proponents maintain that the states can limit a state-initiated convention to specific purposes. In reality, the whole Constitution it thrown up for grabs.

Repeal of ObamaCare

The budget resolution also makes it possible for a simple majority (not the normal 60 votes to permit consideration) in the Senate to pass a bill repealing ObamaCare. This “achievement” merely means that the GOP can pass another statement of opposition to ObamaCare that will be vetoed by the President.

But while the deficiencies in ObamaCare are regularly debated, particularly on Fox News, the prior socialist inroad in allowing the government to control the health care of seniors (Medicare) is accepted. Although everyone acknowledges that the exploding cost of Medicare is a problem, GOP leaders accept this intrusion, calling for reform, rather than working to phase out this improper function of the federal government:

“(b) Policy On Medicare Reform.—In the House of Representatives, it is the policy of this concurrent resolution to preserve the program for those in or near retirement and strengthen Medicare for future beneficiaries.”

Universal Coverage

In 2010, a recently elected President Obama, used the pretext of fighting the economic burden of recession, to push through a major advance in the socialist agenda — federally managed universal health care coverage.

Even though the GOP leadership has repeatedly decried the law (finding 6 in the budget resolution declares: “The President’s health care law is unaffordable, intrusive, overreaching, destructive, and unworkable”), the GOP-passed resolution still accepts ObamaCare’s unconstitutional expansion in federal responsibility.

The GOP now views the federal government as having responsibility to ensure universal coverage (even though GOP policy claims to oppose nationalization, at least temporarily):

(b) Policy On Promoting Real Health Care Reform.—

In the House of Representatives, it is the policy of this concurrent resolution that the President’s health care law should be fully repealed and real health care reform promoted in accordance with the following principles:

(2) AFFORDABILITY.—Real reform should be centered on ensuring that all Americans, no matter their age, income, or health status, have the ability to afford health care coverage. The health care delivery structure should be improved, and individuals should not be priced out of the health insurance market due to pre-existing conditions, but nationalized health care is not only unnecessary to accomplish this [it’s also a dangerous, unconstitutional power grab], it undermines the goal. Individuals should be allowed [by government] to join together voluntarily to pool risk through mechanisms such as Individual Membership Associations and Small Employer Membership Associations. [Emphasis and bracketed comments added.] 

Democratic Opposition

Of course, the GOP refusal, continued with this resolution, to not raise taxes or close supposed “tax loopholes” raised the opposition of Democrats wedded to socialist rhetoric. (All House and Senate Democrats voted against the resolution.)

Implicit in that rhetoric is the dangerous idea that it’s government’s job to achieve prosperity for the poor and middle class by managing the distribution of wealth. A recent House-passed measure to repeal the Federal Estate tax drew particular criticism. And so we don’t give credit to the Democrats for their opposition (i.e., we don’t score them on this one).

However, strong partisan wrestling matches merely obscure the fact that the dominant forces in both parties are leading America to disaster.

Resolution Summary: Establishes the congressional budget for the federal government for FY2016 and sets forth budgetary levels for FY2017-FY2025.  Guides the 12 appropriations committees. Sets forth rules for budget enforcement in both chambers.Analysis:   In several critical ways this budget resolution is a sham calculated to deceive voters.

Managing the House floor debate for proponents of the resolution, Tom Price (R-Georgia) argued:

“What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a budget that balances within 10 years without raising taxes and reduces spending over $5 trillion over that period of time, which will not only get Washington’s fiscal house in order, but pave the way for stronger economic growth, more jobs, and more opportunity.

However, as Reuters reported following the May 5th Senate vote:

“But most of the prescribed cuts will be ignored, as the new budget plan does not instruct congressional committees to implement them.”

Why 10 years?

GOP proponents hailed this resolution as putting us on a path to balancing the budget, not tomorrow, but in 10 years. However, as experience shows, deferring the tough decisions to future Congresses doesn’t work. What’s needed is backbone now.

Missing:  The Constitution!

The proper source for backbone in curtailing federal spending is the Constitution.   Unconstitutional programs must be eliminated or responsibly phased out.

Most of what the federal government does today is not authorized by the Constitution. That includes federal involvement in health care and education.   As originally ratified by the States, the Constitution empowers the federal government to act only in a very few specific areas, such as national defense (see, e.g., Article I, Section 8).

In the so-called political debate, there is an appalling lack of reference to what the Constitution authorizes and does not authorize. Instead, the arguments center on how to finance our bloated federal government in a “sustainable” way (e.g., trimming waste and rooting out fraud). The potentially explosive resurgence of American economic health will never occur if we are satisfied merely to navigate the edge of bankruptcy.

What Won’t Work

In the debates, several GOP Representatives spoke eloquently about the seriousness of our unsustainable financial path. One of those was Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif):

“Our Nation’s debt has literally doubled in 8 years, now exceeding the size of our entire economy. That debt requires us to make interest payments of $230 billion this year. That is nearly $2,000 from an average family’s taxes just to rent the money that we have already spent.

“On our current path, that burden will triple within a decade, eclipsing our entire defense budget. Medicare and Social Security will collapse just a few years after that. Time is not our ally, and the future is not a pleasant place if we continue just a few more years down the road that we have been on.”

We don’t dispute Mr. McClintock’s analysis. What we do dispute, however, is that budget proposals, such as this one, are progress. Just the opposite is the case.

Any benefits likely to be derived from the proposed budget course are more than offset by the prolonged damage caused by continuing to mislead the American people. We cannot continue down the road that relies on comfortable partisan steps to avoid financial ruin, let alone bring prosperity. And we can ill afford another 10 years to learn the lesson.

Unless driven by an informed electorate to adhere to the strict limits of the Constitution, there is no way that Congress will or can contain the federal monster. This is true because our political leaders and, most certainly, the Establishment media won’t even discuss the source of the pressure to expand federal spending. And that pressure will continue until it is understood by more Americans.

The revolutionary forces, influence, and agendas responsible for the explosion in federal programs since World War II have not had America’s best interests at heart.   The polite assumption that poor judgment, liberal ideology, or even recklessness are responsible for our fiscal mess cannot provide a workable foundation for the kind of corrective action needed.

No, there is more at work here than misguided, but good intentions. Indeed, the explosive growth in government has occurred precisely because some men of influence see it as the way to use government, not to serve the people, but to control the people. And they have used massive deception and organization to accomplish that goal.

Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyoming), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, led the advocates in the Senate debate over the budget resolution.   Mr. Enzi argued a purely defensive approach to reigning in government spending that ignores the powerful forces pushing for more government:

“What are the two best ways to make a difference?

 “First, Congress should look at the more than 260 programs whose authorization — the right to spend money — has expired….

  “Now, there is a second way. The other way we can balance the budget is to grow the economy…. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that … if we were to increase the private sector growth by 1 percent, that would provide an additional $300 billion in additional tax revenue every year. I think that could balance the budget.”

 We have no argument with targeting programs whose authorization has expired. But many more unconstitutional programs and even departments must be abolished by curtailing appropriations.   Increased revenue is not an ally in that war. Indeed, proponents of more government will view such revenue as justification for more spending.

As is so typical of GOP leadership, Enzi accepts prior unconstitutional socialist inroads, such as Medicare, enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress under President Johnson, and the equally unconstitutional federal Department of Education. However, as Napoleon Bonaparte once correctly observed: “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.”

A Balanced-budget Amendment

Another dangerous scam in S. Con. Res. 11, calculated to deceive conservatives, is the decades-old proposal for a balanced-budget amendment (BBA).   Section 6101 “POLICY STATEMENT ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT” states:

“It is the policy of this concurrent resolution that Congress should pass, and send to the States for their approval, a joint resolution amending the Constitution of the United States to require an annual balanced Federal budget.”

         There are several things wrong with a BBA.   First, the proposal implies that the Constitution, rather than Congress, is at fault for unconstitutional spending. Next, even with sufficient support (a two-thirds vote in both chambers is required), most amendments require many years for ratification. Most proposals also include exemptions from balancing the budget in times of crisis. And, of course, there is a phase-in period of several years.

By contrast, a mere majority in a determined House of Representatives, given sufficient informed public support, could start eliminating unconstitutional spending tomorrow, using its power of the purse.

The bottom line: The BBA proposals, requiring a 2/3 vote in both chambers, are a deceptive substitution for serious action. Indeed, Senator Enzi indirectly admits that the purpose of the proposal is show:

“This budget also calls on Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That point is especially important because we must show taxpayers that Congress is committed to a balanced budget and not to overspending, so we can make our government more effective.” [Emphasis added.]

Even more serious, the BBA proposals are a dangerous substitute for real action.   Several groups, using the pretext that Congress won’t act to give us a BBA, are again calling on states to apply for a constitutional convention under Article V. Ignoring the opinions of many constitutional experts, these Article V convention proponents maintain that the states can limit a state-initiated convention to specific purposes. In reality, the whole Constitution it thrown up for grabs.

Repeal of ObamaCare

The budget resolution also makes it possible for a simple majority (not the normal 60 votes to permit consideration) in the Senate to pass a bill repealing ObamaCare. This “achievement” merely means that the GOP can pass another statement of opposition to ObamaCare that will be vetoed by the President.

But while the deficiencies in ObamaCare are regularly debated, particularly on Fox News, the prior socialist inroad in allowing the government to control the health care of seniors (Medicare) is accepted. Although everyone acknowledges that the exploding cost of Medicare is a problem, GOP leaders accept this intrusion, calling for reform, rather than working to phase out this improper function of the federal government:

“(b) Policy On Medicare Reform.—In the House of Representatives, it is the policy of this concurrent resolution to preserve the program for those in or near retirement and strengthen Medicare for future beneficiaries.”

Universal Coverage

In 2010, a recently elected President Obama, used the pretext of fighting the economic burden of recession, to push through a major advance in the socialist agenda — federally managed universal health care coverage.

Even though the GOP leadership has repeatedly decried the law (finding 6 in the budget resolution declares: “The President’s health care law is unaffordable, intrusive, overreaching, destructive, and unworkable”), the GOP-passed resolution still accepts ObamaCare’s unconstitutional expansion in federal responsibility.

The GOP now views the federal government as having responsibility to ensure universal coverage (even though GOP policy claims to oppose nationalization, at least temporarily):

(b) Policy On Promoting Real Health Care Reform.—

In the House of Representatives, it is the policy of this concurrent resolution that the President’s health care law should be fully repealed and real health care reform promoted in accordance with the following principles:

(2) AFFORDABILITY.—Real reform should be centered on ensuring that all Americans, no matter their age, income, or health status, have the ability to afford health care coverage. The health care delivery structure should be improved, and individuals should not be priced out of the health insurance market due to pre-existing conditions, but nationalized health care is not only unnecessary to accomplish this [it’s also a dangerous, unconstitutional power grab], it undermines the goal. Individuals should be allowed [by government] to join together voluntarily to pool risk through mechanisms such as Individual Membership Associations and Small Employer Membership Associations. [Emphasis and bracketed comments added.]

Democratic Opposition

Of course, the GOP refusal, continued with this resolution, to not raise taxes or close supposed “tax loopholes” raised the opposition of Democrats wedded to socialist rhetoric. (All House and Senate Democrats voted against the resolution.)

Implicit in that rhetoric is the dangerous idea that it’s government’s job to achieve prosperity for the poor and middle class by managing the distribution of wealth. A recent House-passed measure to repeal the Federal Estate tax drew particular criticism. And so we don’t give credit to the Democrats for their opposition (i.e., we don’t score them on this one).

However, strong partisan wrestling matches merely obscure the fact that the dominant forces in both parties are leading America to disaster. 

Bill Summary: H. R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, is a complex measure (the engrossed bill ran to 95 pages that referred to many other pages of existing law).The following excerpts taken from the greatly simplified Congressional Research Summary (CRS) of the measure, as introduced, provide a foundation for the analysis that follows: (although H.R. 2 was not amended in either the House or Senate, later CRS summaries were greatly expanded):

“Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIP) system under which eligible professionals (including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists) shall receive annual payment increases or decreases based on their performance….

“Requires the Secretary to: (1) draft a plan for development of quality measures to assess professionals, including non-patient-facing professionals….

“Declares it a national objective to achieve widespread exchange of health information through interoperable certified electronic health records technology nationwide by December 31, 2018….

“Amends SSAct title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) to extend: (1) abstinence education; (2) personal responsibility education program; (3) family-to-family health information centers; and (4) maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs.

“Amends SSAct title XXI (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) (CHIP) to extend the CHIP program through FY2017….

“Extends through FY2015 the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the financial impact of H.R. 2. From the CBO summary:

“Over the 2015–2025 period, CBO estimates, enacting H.R. 2 would increase both direct spending (by about $145 billion) and revenues (by about $4 billion), resulting in a $141 billion increase in federal budget deficits (see table on page 2). Although the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues, it would waive the pay-as-you-go procedures that otherwise apply.”

Analysis: The passage of H.R. 2, with overwhelming support in both parties, was heralded in the media as a great example of bipartisanship. Americans are supposed to be reassured, because both parties found common ground.   When political adversaries agree, there shouldn’t be anything to worry about, right? Wrong!

Bipartisanship Today

Bipartisanship on significant matters today generally means that the leaders of the two parties have combined to slip a subversive socialist power grab over on the American people under false colors. It also means that the leadership figures the deception is strong enough so that the people won’t catch on.

In her endorsement of H.R. 2 on the House floor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued:

“This package includes many important victories for low-income seniors, children, and families. There are many reasons to support this bill, four of which I would like to point out:

“We are strengthening the quality of care for many older Americans with additional funding for initiatives that help low-income seniors pay their Medicare part B premiums.

“We have added almost $750 million for training more urgently needed nurses and physicians.

“We have secured the health care of poor children with a 2-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program at the same rates set by the Affordable Care Act….

“Lastly, we have secured critical funding for community health centers over the next 2 years, expanding a vital investment in underserved communities.

“I am proud to rise in support of this historic, bipartisan package. It represents bold, necessary progress for our country. And it is not just about enabling our seniors to see their doctors, which was the original purpose of the bill. It is about how we can increase performance and lower cost; it is about value, not volume of service; it is about quality, not quantity of procedures; and this legislation is transformative in how it rewards the value, not the volume. So I am proud to support it….

“It was my privilege to work with the Speaker in a bipartisan way on this legislation. I hope it will be a model of things to come.”

In turn, House Speaker John Boehner praised Pelosi for “her indispensable leadership in helping tackle these challenging issues.”

Any federal involvement in the health care business is flatly unconstitutional and for good reason. America did not become a beacon of hope to the world because of paternalistic government, but because government got out of the way and let the people produce and keep the fruits of their labors.

The debate over health care further illustrates that even the most “conservative” politicians regularly deceive the American public by keeping the debate focused on symptoms, while ignoring the revolutionary socialist agenda driving the nationalization of healthcare. Conservative opponents of the liberal/socialist agenda regularly debate the false pretext of humanitarianism advanced by proponents of the government take over.

In so doing, they ignore the real driver of the power grab — elites who see federal control of health care as a route for controlling people by making them dependent on the federal government for essential services.   Ignoring this deceptive socialist strategy in order to make socialism more efficient does not help America return to a path to greater prosperity and freedom.

H.R. 2 is actually another significant step forward on the path to complete nationalization of health care.  In 1965, following extensive lobbying by radical union boss Walter Reuther and the (Fabian Socialist) Americans for Democratic Action, President Johnson was finally able to overcome decades of constitutional objections and public opposition to this power grab and saddle America with Medicare and Medicaid.

President Johnson was only able to do so by playing on emotion following the assassination of President Kennedy and arguing that this is what the young president has wanted. The American health care system does need reform — the real reform of getting the federal government out of the system.

The “Doc-fix” Pretext

Healthcare costs skyrocketed as soon as the Medicare bureaucracy was established. Huge paperwork expense became associated with even the simplest of treatments. And federal intrusion further entrenched the third-party payer system, which undermines natural cost control.

In his outstanding 1993 exposé Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis, Dr. Edward Annis, past president of the American Medical Association and a leader in blocking the federal takeover for many years, described the reason health care costs skyrocketed:

“All of the current problems in the medical marketplace — hyperinflation, millions of uninsured Americans, excessive administrative costs — carry a “MADE IN WASHINGTON” label. Yet the truth remains hidden to most Americans….

“Finagle all they will, bureaucrats and entrepreneurs will never overcome the problem of excessive cost without correcting the basic flaw: the system of third-party payers, whether government or corporate. There is no more efficient or effective method of delivering health care than the private doctor serving the patient who pays directly for the service provided.”

In 1997, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Part of that plan revised the formula for reimbursing physicians who treated Medicare patients with something called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) System. Essentially Congress was trying to control rising costs by blaming doctors. Naturally, many doctors threatened to quit treating Medicare patients. Congress has responded to its created “crisis” 17 times by delaying the SGR temporarily — the so-called “doc fix.”

Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIPS) system

The new system to be phased in following the enactment of H.R. 2 is being heralded by Republicans, Democrats, and especially President Obama, as a permanent “doc fix.”

However, the pretext of fixing a flawed plan for reimbursement of doctors obscures a further advance in federal control. In reality, the new law provides the Medicare bureaucracy with great new financial power over health care providers by tying reimbursement level to performance in implementing its wishes. Instead of being accountable to patients, health care providers must increasingly view the feds as their bosses.

And concurrently, the enormous Medicare cost burden on society is merely shifted where it is less visible.

Look at the Text!

Although everyone knows that the federal bureaucracy is huge, that fact really doesn’t come home until one looks at the enormous scope and variety of the federal undertaking today.

We urge readers to peruse the text of H.R 2 and see for themselves the complexity of federal regulation. We think many will be astonished at what our lawmakers attempt to understand and what the billing department of a doctor’s office must be trained to understand.

Keep in mind there are many hundreds of similar unconstitutional programs and overreaches in the federal budget.   Overseeing such a monster responsibly exceeds the ability of Congress, even when subdivided into a dozen appropriations subcommittees.

The solution: a much better informed electorate must force Congress to cut back the federal government to constitutionally authorized limits.

Bill Summary: H. R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, is a complex measure (the engrossed bill ran to 95 pages that referred to many other pages of existing law).The following excerpts taken from the greatly simplified Congressional Research Summary (CRS) of the measure, as introduced, provide a foundation for the analysis that follows: (although H.R. 2 was not amended in either the House or Senate, later CRS summaries were greatly expanded):

“Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIP) system under which eligible professionals (including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists) shall receive annual payment increases or decreases based on their performance….

“Requires the Secretary to: (1) draft a plan for development of quality measures to assess professionals, including non-patient-facing professionals….

“Declares it a national objective to achieve widespread exchange of health information through interoperable certified electronic health records technology nationwide by December 31, 2018….

“Amends SSAct title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) to extend: (1) abstinence education; (2) personal responsibility education program; (3) family-to-family health information centers; and (4) maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs.

“Amends SSAct title XXI (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) (CHIP) to extend the CHIP program through FY2017….

“Extends through FY2015 the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the financial impact of H.R. 2. From the CBO summary:

“Over the 2015–2025 period, CBO estimates, enacting H.R. 2 would increase both direct spending (by about $145 billion) and revenues (by about $4 billion), resulting in a $141 billion increase in federal budget deficits (see table on page 2). Although the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues, it would waive the pay-as-you-go procedures that otherwise apply.”

Analysis: The passage of H.R. 2, with overwhelming support in both parties, was heralded in the media as a great example of bipartisanship. Americans are supposed to be reassured, because both parties found common ground.   When political adversaries agree, there shouldn’t be anything to worry about, right? Wrong!

Bipartisanship Today

Bipartisanship on significant matters today generally means that the leaders of the two parties have combined to slip a subversive socialist power grab over on the American people under false colors. It also means that the leadership figures the deception is strong enough so that the people won’t catch on.

In her endorsement of H.R. 2 on the House floor, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued:

“This package includes many important victories for low-income seniors, children, and families. There are many reasons to support this bill, four of which I would like to point out:

“We are strengthening the quality of care for many older Americans with additional funding for initiatives that help low-income seniors pay their Medicare part B premiums.

“We have added almost $750 million for training more urgently needed nurses and physicians.

“We have secured the health care of poor children with a 2-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program at the same rates set by the Affordable Care Act….

“Lastly, we have secured critical funding for community health centers over the next 2 years, expanding a vital investment in underserved communities.

“I am proud to rise in support of this historic, bipartisan package. It represents bold, necessary progress for our country. And it is not just about enabling our seniors to see their doctors, which was the original purpose of the bill. It is about how we can increase performance and lower cost; it is about value, not volume of service; it is about quality, not quantity of procedures; and this legislation is transformative in how it rewards the value, not the volume. So I am proud to support it….

“It was my privilege to work with the Speaker in a bipartisan way on this legislation. I hope it will be a model of things to come.”

In turn, House Speaker John Boehner praised Pelosi for “her indispensable leadership in helping tackle these challenging issues.”

Any federal involvement in the health care business is flatly unconstitutional and for good reason. America did not become a beacon of hope to the world because of paternalistic government, but because government got out of the way and let the people produce and keep the fruits of their labors.

The debate over health care further illustrates that even the most “conservative” politicians regularly deceive the American public by keeping the debate focused on symptoms, while ignoring the revolutionary socialist agenda driving the nationalization of healthcare. Conservative opponents of the liberal/socialist agenda regularly debate the false pretext of humanitarianism advanced by proponents of the government take over.

In so doing, they ignore the real driver of the power grab — elites who see federal control of health care as a route for controlling people by making them dependent on the federal government for essential services.   Ignoring this deceptive socialist strategy in order to make socialism more efficient does not help America return to a path to greater prosperity and freedom.

H.R. 2 is actually another significant step forward on the path to complete nationalization of health care.  In 1965, following extensive lobbying by radical union boss Walter Reuther and the (Fabian Socialist) Americans for Democratic Action, President Johnson was finally able to overcome decades of constitutional objections and public opposition to this power grab and saddle America with Medicare and Medicaid.

President Johnson was only able to do so by playing on emotion following the assassination of President Kennedy and arguing that this is what the young president has wanted. The American health care system does need reform — the real reform of getting the federal government out of the system.

The “Doc-fix” Pretext

Healthcare costs skyrocketed as soon as the Medicare bureaucracy was established. Huge paperwork expense became associated with even the simplest of treatments. And federal intrusion further entrenched the third-party payer system, which undermines natural cost control.

In his outstanding 1993 exposé Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis, Dr. Edward Annis, past president of the American Medical Association and a leader in blocking the federal takeover for many years, described the reason health care costs skyrocketed:

“All of the current problems in the medical marketplace — hyperinflation, millions of uninsured Americans, excessive administrative costs — carry a “MADE IN WASHINGTON” label. Yet the truth remains hidden to most Americans….

“Finagle all they will, bureaucrats and entrepreneurs will never overcome the problem of excessive cost without correcting the basic flaw: the system of third-party payers, whether government or corporate. There is no more efficient or effective method of delivering health care than the private doctor serving the patient who pays directly for the service provided.”

In 1997, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Part of that plan revised the formula for reimbursing physicians who treated Medicare patients with something called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) System. Essentially Congress was trying to control rising costs by blaming doctors. Naturally, many doctors threatened to quit treating Medicare patients. Congress has responded to its created “crisis” 17 times by delaying the SGR temporarily — the so-called “doc fix.”

Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIPS) system

The new system to be phased in following the enactment of H.R. 2 is being heralded by Republicans, Democrats, and especially President Obama, as a permanent “doc fix.”

However, the pretext of fixing a flawed plan for reimbursement of doctors obscures a further advance in federal control. In reality, the new law provides the Medicare bureaucracy with great new financial power over health care providers by tying reimbursement level to performance in implementing its wishes. Instead of being accountable to patients, health care providers must increasingly view the feds as their bosses.

And concurrently, the enormous Medicare cost burden on society is merely shifted where it is less visible.

Look at the Text!

Although everyone knows that the federal bureaucracy is huge, that fact really doesn’t come home until one looks at the enormous scope and variety of the federal undertaking today.

We urge readers to peruse the text of H.R 2 and see for themselves the complexity of federal regulation. We think many will be astonished at what our lawmakers attempt to understand and what the billing department of a doctor’s office must be trained to understand.

Keep in mind there are many hundreds of similar unconstitutional programs and overreaches in the federal budget.   Overseeing such a monster responsibly exceeds the ability of Congress, even when subdivided into a dozen appropriations subcommittees.

The solution: a much better informed electorate must force Congress to cut back the federal government to constitutionally authorized limits.