Freedom First Society

151/H. Con. Res. 112

Issue: H. Con. Res. 112, Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022.

Result: Passed in House 228 to 191, 12 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: A House budget resolution (to be completed by April 15th) is part of the established annual budget process. H. Con. Res. 112 is the resolution for fiscal year 2013, designed to bind Congress, serving as a blueprint for Committees developing the individual appropriations bills. It is not law and so does not require the President’s signature.

The House Committee on the Budget generally develops the resolution after Congress receives the President’s detailed budget request. The House (and Senate) budget resolutions do not create any new spending authority until appropriations bills are enacted.

Analysis: This budget resolution was prepared under the guidance of GOP Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and was commonly referred to as the “Ryan budget.” Once submitted to the full House, several amendments, in the nature of substitutes, were considered and rejected.

The much-hyped “Ryan Budget” proposed several revolutionary changes in dealing with the federal government’s ballooning fiscal crisis. Those changes were not expected to become law, but rather provide a platform for GOP campaigning — “The Path to Prosperity:
A Blueprint for American Renewal.” Particularly noteworthy were the income tax cut proposals, which included reducing the current six brackets down to two brackets of 10 percent and 25 percent. It would also reduce the corporate tax rate.

The general GOP intention was to keep federal revenue about the same as a share of the economy, counting on a boost in the economy from reducing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing spending over a decade. The budget’s impact on red ink was projected at $3.3 trillion over that period, far short of what it would take to balance the budget.

Opposition to the Ryan budget came from conservatives who wished much deeper immediate cuts than those specified in the previous August’s default-avoiding, debt-ceiling deal. Liberal Democrats termed anything below the agreed upon $1.047 August cap on non-defense discretionary spending “a breach of faith.” The Ryan budget gave conservatives a mere $19 billion reduction below that number, ensuring Democratic opposition.

None of the House Democrats supported the “Ryan budget” — we ignore those votes. However, we give kudos to the 10 Republicans who held out for more substantial immediate cuts in spending. They resisted the common ruse of shifting tough fiscal discipline to future years, when it seldom materializes.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

224/H.R. 2072

Issue: H.R. 2072 Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012.

Result: Passed in House 330 to 93, 8 not voting. Became Public Law 112-122 (signed by the President 5-30-11). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: Reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank until September 30, 2014. Raises the Bank’s lending limit from $100 billion to $140 billion over that period.

Analysis: The current charter for the bank, which ostensibly helps finance U.S. exports of goods and services, was set to expire May 31.

In March of 2011, Washington observers were forecasting a looming “battle” in Congress over the Export-Import Bank. The Bank was nearing its $100 billion lending limit, and the administration was pushing lawmakers to raise the cap and reauthorize the agency. That “battle” confirmed that political “leadership” won’t solve America’s problems.

A deeper look at the battle also puts the lie to many popular political images. According to a CQ [Congressional Quarterly] Today article:

“Senate Democrats are turning up the heat on Republicans to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor seeks to satisfy the credit financing agency’s business advocates and the more ideological, free-market elements in his caucus.” — “Ex-Im Bank Puts House GOP in a Tight Spot,” CQ Today 3-14-12

But opposition to the Ex-Im Bank should be based on much more than its violation of free-market economics. Indeed, any principled program to enforce the Constitution, protect freedom, or create prosperity must call for the “Bank’s” abolition.

Since 1934 the Ex-Im Bank has played a significant part in internationalist plans to redistribute the world’s wealth and build up America’s enemies (see Read more, below). And since Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) Insiders have dominated every presidential administration since World War II, presidential support for the Bank has not been an option. The Obama administration’s claim that reauthorizing the Bank will ensure a level playing field for U.S. businesses, at no cost to American taxpayers, does not reflect historical experience.

The network of CFR influence on behalf of the Ex-Im Bank has not been limited to the presidency. An overwhelmingly bi-partisan majority in both chambers of Congress approved the reauthorization.

Indeed, H.R. 2072 was introduced in the House by Republican Representative Gary Miller of California. Democrats supported the measure unanimously (with 7 not voting). In the Senate, Miller’s measure also received unanimous Democratic support (with the exception of 1 Democrat who did not vote).

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

In 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt created the Ex-Im Bank by executive order to underwrite trade with Joseph Stalin’s troubled regime. (In 1945 Congress established the Ex-Im Bank as an independent agency of the Executive branch.)

But it was not until 1972 that President Nixon opened the Ex-Im Bank’s financing spigot with the Soviets. Exposed Soviet spy-ring leader Victor Perlo, a former high official on the War Production Board, commented approvingly that the federal government was finally using the Export-Import Bank “for its original purpose of financing trade with socialist countries.”

Under President Nixon, the Ex-Im Bank became a cornerstone of Insider strategy for the deindustrialization of America, the international redistribution of wealth, and the development of Communist power. The Soviets would use Ex-Im bank credits to purchase equipment for their Kama River truck factory, designed to produce 150,000 heavy trucks per year (subsequently used to support the invasion of Afghanistan).

A division of the Pullman Company built the $2 billion plant. The Soviets supplied 10 percent of the financing. The other 90 percent was divided equally between the Export-Import Bank and David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan.

The importance of the Ex-Im Bank to Insider plans can be seen in Nixon’s appointment of William J. Casey (CFR) in 1974 to head up the Bank. CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State at the time, had recommended Casey for the job.

The previous year, Kissinger had also arranged Casey’s appointment as Under Secretary of State. National security expert Frank Capell slammed the assignment:

“Under State Department security of the [Otto] Otepka era, it is very doubtful that William Casey would have been granted clearance. His past known associations with Communists in Europe, his questionable financial dealings, and his pro-Soviet outlook would have raised many questions about the propriety of his holding a position as Undersecretary of State.”

Nevertheless, in 1980 Ronald Reagan tapped Casey to manage his successful campaign for the presidency, and, as president, Reagan appointed Casey to the post of Director of the CIA (see Chapter 11 in Masters of Deception). Further bringing the Reagan image into question, in 1966 Casey had run unsuccessfully for a New York congressional seat as a “Javits Republican.” (Senator Jacob Javits represented the far left-wing of the GOP.)

The programs of the Ex-Im Bank are ostensibly designed to encourage the foreign purchase of American goods. However, in the December 1997 issue of The Freeman, syndicated columnist Doug Bandow exposed the hype by demonstrating that the Ex-Im Bank “redistributes rather than creates jobs — after extracting an administrative charge.”

But aside from the economic tampering, Bandow noted that the Bank “has never found a government too brutal to subsidize.” Indeed, as The New American magazine reported in 2005:

“Since 1985, Communist China has become the largest Asian beneficiary of Ex-Im Bank loans and loan guarantees. Additional billions have been provided by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, all of which draw on U.S. taxpayer subsidies.”

Missed Opportunity

So what was the House Majority Leader’s response to the opportunity to remove this cornerstone of Insider plans? According to CQ:

“Cantor is proposing, among other things, that before any increase in the lending cap, the bank be required to submit a plan justifying the [proposed] $40 billion increase and assessing the risks it could pose. The Government Accountability Office would audit the plan.

“Cantor also would require the bank to notify Congress if it reaches certain default thresholds, and to put in place plans to reduce defaults by beneficiaries.”

Which confirms that political “defense” merely paves the way for our continued demise.

195/H.R. 4628

Issue: H.R. 4628 To extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans.

Result: Passed in House, 215 to 195, 22 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: Extends the 3.4% interest rate on Direct Stafford loans first disbursed to undergraduate students between July 1, 2011, and July 1, 2012, applicable to Direct Stafford loans first disbursed to undergraduate students between July 1, 2011, and July 1, 2013. Offsets the estimated $5.9 billion loss to the Treasury of the subsidy by eliminating an “Obamacare” public health and prevention fund.

Analysis: Federal aid to students for their college education is unconstitutional, pure and simple. A vote to continue this unconstitutional program cannot be justified by combining it with the repeal of a less entrenched unconstitutional feature of “Obamacare.”

We score only the Republicans on this roll call, as most Democrats voted against the measure for the wrong reason, merely objecting, with White House support, to the method of offsetting the expense. See roll call 451 (6-29-12) for the vote on the House-Senate compromise, which the president signed into law.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Noes and (bad vote) to the Ayes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

943/H.R. 3672

House Roll Call 943 (12-16-11) H.R. 3672 Making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes. Passed in House 351 to 67, 15 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-77 (signed by the President 12-23-11). [Democrat selected vote, too.]

Bill Summary: Provides $8.1 billion in disaster relief funding.

Analysis: Appropriations for FY2012 disaster relief were considered separately from the minibus and megabus. Many representatives found it politically more difficult to oppose the disaster aid compared to the megabus. Only 67 voted against the disaster aid, whereas 121 had opposed the megabus.

Commenting on an earlier House vote, the Establishment’s New York Times reported:

“Democrats and Republicans agree that [disaster] assistance is one of the government’s main responsibilities, but disagree over how much of the cost can be anticipated and how much, if any, should be offset.” [Emphasis added.] —“House Rebukes G.O.P. Leaders Over Spending,” New York Times, 9/21/11

If the Times is correct, then both parties agree that the Constitution is irrelevant. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid. At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood. In one of his most famous vetoes (1886), President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” on constitutional grounds (see the excerpt from his veto message below). The bill would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties.

In late 2011, the two major parties publicly disagreed over whether disaster relief appropriations should be subject to the cap laid out in the debt ceiling deal worked out between Boehner and President Barack Obama in August. In an immediately prior roll call (942), House Republicans voted 234 to 0 to offset disaster aid with a 1.83 percent cut to non-security spending. They were joined by 21 Democrats in passing the offset.

However, the offset vote was pure posturing as the offsets were included in a separate bill. The Democrat-controlled Senate agreed to the disaster aid, but refused the offsets, ergo the House effectively agreed to disaster relief funding with no offsets.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

On February 16, 1886, President Grover Cleveland delivered his veto message on the “Texas Seed Bill” to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.

Correcting the mess doesn’t necessarily mean going “cold turkey” on all unconstitutional spending. In some cases, it just means letting programs run their course and expire. But restoring constitutional government does means slashing the enormous borrowing, taxing, and spending of the federal government, so the states can acquire the revenue to do what the voters want their states to do and the voters have the means to provide private charity and “strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

941/H.R. 2055

House Roll Call 941 (12-16-11) H.R. 2055 Latest title: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. [Megabus] (Earlier title vehicle: Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies….) Conference report.

Bipartisan “megabus” passed 296 to 121, 16 not voting. Became Public Law 112-74 (signed by the President 12-23-11). [Democrat selected vote, too.]

Bill Summary: Funds the majority of the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year (ending September 2012). Provides for $915 billion in discretionary spending and $126 billion in military funding — maintaining the cap of $1.043 trillion laid out in the debt ceiling deal worked out between Boehner and President Barack Obama in August.

Analysis: This $1.043 trillion, business-as-usual “megabus” approved by bipartisan majorities should dispel any illusion that partisan politics might provide the answer to America’s economic crisis.

In November, Congress approved a “minibus” consisting of three of the 12 regular annual appropriations bills. The remaining bills were lumped into this megabus.

Lumping so many diverse programs together prevents a determined House, if there were one, from playing hardball with the President and Senate to begin defunding unconstitutional programs.

Nevertheless, it is encouraging that 86 House Republicans broke ranks with their Party’s leadership, joined by 35 Democrats, to vote against the megabus. One of those, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), stated:

“Aside from spending levels being simply too high, this is a 1,200-page bill that we’re voting on only a few hours after it was finalized. We’ll be discovering for months to come what’s actually in it. This is unacceptable. We promised to do better.”

The substantial resistance to the megabus undoubtedly reflects the fact that congressmen, worried about their re-election, do listen to their constituents. Moreover, they realize that most of their constituents, even if uninformed, are dead set against business as usual.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Yet business as usual is what we are getting. Within the minibus and megabus packages, for example, the following individual appropriations bills consist largely of unconstitutional “discretionary” spending: Agriculture ($19.8 Billion); Energy and Water ($32.0 Billion); Interior and Environment (most of $27.5 Billion); Labor, HHS, and Education ($139.2 Billion). Total: $218.5 Billion.

Then there are the “mixed” appropriation bills that contain significant constitutional spending along with massive unconstitutional spending: Transportation & HUD ($47.7 Billion); Commerce, Justice, Science ($50.2 Billion).

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) argued that the conference megabus represented a real cut in federal spending:

“After weeks of tough negotiations with our Senate counterparts — and several tenuous days this past week — we were able to complete a bipartisan, bicameral compromise that rolls back federal budgets, makes smart investments in programs people rely on, and implements policy changes that will bolster American business and our economy….

“As with any compromise, this bill isn’t perfect, but it represents the kind of responsible governing that will help move our country forward.” — “86 House Republicans Vote Against $1 Trillion-Plus Megabus Bill,” CNSNews.com 12-19-11.

We most definitely disagree. After including $10.4 billion in disaster aid not considered in the Budget Control Act cap, the Heritage Foundation calculates that “discretionary” spending actually went up a billion dollars compared to FY 2011.

And FY 2011 turned in a $1.3 trillion deficit. (Of course, a good share of that deficit is generated by shortfalls in revenue collected for “mandatory” multi-year programs, such as Medicare.)

Representative Jeff Flake also complained: “Whenever we come to an impasse, our leadership says, we canʼt shut the
government down. We havenʼt had the leverage in any negotiation weʼve gone into. Thatʼs whatʼs frustrating to me.

What Flake may not realize is that the fix is in. The leaders of both parties are committed to increasing the size and reach of the federal government. The partisan battles over small changes in spending levels serve to camouflage that fact.

What America needs is for Congress to use the Constitution as its yardstick to phase out and eliminate decades of unconstitutional programs. Much of the leverage for that course has to come from an informed constituency back home. However, more Congressmen who refuse to accept minibus and megabus packages as a substitute for the individual appropriations bills would be a healthy step in the right direction.

858/H.J. Res. 2

House Roll Call 858 (11-18-11) H.J. Res. 2 Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Failed in House 261 to 165, 8 not voting (2/3 required).

BBA Summary:

Prohibits outlays for a fiscal year (except those for repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) unless Congress, by a three-fifths roll-call vote of each chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over receipts.
Requires a three-fifths roll-call vote of each chamber to increase the public debt limit.
Directs the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress annually.
Authorizes waivers of these provisions when a declaration of war is in effect or under other specified circumstances involving military conflict.

Analysis: As part of the August deal to raise the debt ceiling (the Budget Control Act of 2011), the parties agreed that both houses of Congress would vote later that year on a joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment. The House did so with the above roll call on H.J. Res 2.

No one expected the resolution to garner the two-thirds majority in each chamber necessary for the proposal to be sent to the states for ratification. However, many politicians apparently thought that merely championing such a proposal (several BBA proposals were introduced in the 112th Congress) would impress voters as demonstrating fiscal leadership, even though proponents had to agree to raise the debt ceiling to get the opportunity to bring the BBA to a vote in both chambers.

Admittedly, the idea of amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is superficially appealing. It’s appeal rides on understandable public abhorrence of massive federal spending, deficits, and debt, which many voters recognize as the root cause of America’s economic woes, and the natural desire for a quick fix.

However, the notion that merely establishing a rule can substitute for informed oversight is pure fantasy. An ill-informed American public has not insisted that Congress enforce the Constitution we already have. Another measure to ignore, or worse yet, to misuse is not the answer. We certainly don’t want an amendment that can be used to force a tax increase to balance the budget.

According to the Los Angeles Times (11-18-11):

“Eliminating the annual deficit — now roughly $1.3 trillion — would require such drastic and painful cuts that some conservatives are convinced politicians would instead be inclined to raise taxes. Those advocates and lawmakers pushed Republican leaders to propose an amendment that included a strict spending cap and mandated a larger majority vote before Congress could raise new revenue.”

The proposals for a Balanced Budget Amendment are actually political copouts. The Constitution isn’t broke; it’s merely ignored. A majority of either house of Congress can balance the budget any time it has the political will to do so.

By contrast, it requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. The states are frequently allowed up to 10 years for three-quarters of them to ratify the amendment. In the meantime, we have business as usual.

Only 4 House Republicans voted against H.J. Res. 2. We give credit to the four, even though one of those — Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee — positioned himself as wanting a stronger amendment (H.J. Res. 1).

We don’t score the Democrats on this roll call, since most of the 161 Democrats who opposed H.J. Res. 2 undoubtedly did so for the wrong reason — they supported deficit spending.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Proposals for amending the Constitution to achieve a balanced budget serve as a dangerous distraction from the real problem — insufficient backbone in Congress to vote the Constitution

The above proposal requires the president to submit a balanced budget prior to the start of each fiscal year. Instead, why not include wording requiring the president to submit a constitutional budget and a provision requiring the Congress to vote only for constitutional programs?

Silly, isn’t it? How can we expect a constitutional amendment to enforce compliance by those who regularly refuse to abide by the Constitution’s clear provisions?

Some critics of the BBA praised the Constitution, while endorsing its violation. A few days after the vote, Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote:

“The craftsmanship of our forefathers at Philadelphia seems to come under attack every time modern politicians screw up. Rather than accepting responsibility for electing incompetent [it’s not incompetence] leaders, it is easier to blame the Constitution. If we could only come up with a formula by which public policy could be predetermined by constitutional amendments, we would be free to elect whatever scoundrels and incompetents we chose.” [Emphasis added.]

And Lilly seems to start on target. But before you begin to think constitutionalists have uncovered an ally, recognize that the Center for American Progress is a public policy research and advocacy organization “dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action.” [Emphasis added to website quote.]

The Center’s president and chief executive officer is John Podesta, who as chief of staff to Bill Clinton gave his name to “Project Podesta,” Clinton’s strategy for ruling by executive order as he neared the end of his second term.

Moreover, Lilly reveals his true colors as he cites examples in our nation’s history when balancing the budget would have been “terrible fiscal policy.” [Sure, there are times to borrow, but not the kind of borrowing — and monetizing the debt — permitted by the Federal Reserve’s control of our money.] Lilly further concludes: “America needs common sense, not simple-minded formulas, to restore sound fiscal policy.”

Not so. America needs to rid itself of a Conspiracy and force Congress to vote the Constitution. Truly sound fiscal policy does not include spending for unconstitutional programs. The solution to our nation’s economic woes is to get Congress to vote the Constitution! And that work starts back in the districts — building the organization to bypass the Establishment media and create an informed electorate.

857/H.R. 2112

House Roll Call 857 (11-17-11) H.R. 2112 “Minibus” package. Latest title: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012. (Uses bill number for Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA portion of the package.) (Minibus Conference Report.)

Passed in House 298 to 121, 14 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-55 (signed by the President 11-18-11).

Bill Summary: A $128 billion “minibus” package of three FY 2012 appropriations bills:

Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA (H.R. 2112);
Commerce, Justice and Science (H.R. 2596); and
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (S. 1596).

Analysis: While a “minibus” is an improvement over the last-minute omnibus appropriations bills used all too frequently to fund the federal government, it still falls way short of responsible control of the purse. H.R. 2112 (Agriculture) is the only appropriations measure in the package on which the entire House had voted (Roll Call 459, 6/16/2011). It passed the House solely with Republican support (217 to 19). Not a single House Democrat voted yea.

However, on October 12, the White House exposed the phony conservative image of the House GOP majority by strongly urging the Senate to pass H.R. 2112 (and the entire minibus package).

The above roll call was on the House-Senate conference report developed following passage of a Senate substitute on 11-1-11. Each of the three bills in this “minibus” was replete with unconstitutional programs and spending — business as usual.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

When pushing through the “minibus,” the reported plan of leaders in both parties was to group all of the remaining FY 2012 appropriations bills into one omnibus measure. (In fact, Congress did so in December and passed a “megabus” — the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 — see House Roll Call 941, 12-16-11, H.R. 2055).

According to CQ Today (11-16-11):

“The omnibus approach spares House Republican leaders from scheduling difficult spending votes that would divide their majority. And in the case of both the minibus and a future omnibus, GOP leaders are counting on votes for passage from Democrats, because many conservative GOP members are likely to oppose the measures.”

Well, that’s great! On with business as usual.

The best way for the House to exercise its authority over the purse and begin to phase out unconstitutional spending is to take up the appropriations bills individually or in even smaller pieces. Faced with many smaller trimmed bills, it will be politically more difficult for the senate and president to hold all essential programs hostage.

784/H.R. 2832

House Roll Call 784 (10-12-11) H.R. 2832 To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes [Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011]. On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment (Senate vote number 150, 9-7-11).

Passed in House 307 to 122, 4 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-40 (signed by the President 10-21-11). [Democrat selected vote, too.]

Bill Summary: Extends federal aid and retraining programs (trade adjustment assistance [TAA]) for workers whose jobs move overseas because of so-called free trade agreements.

Analysis: This measure continues an unconstitutional function of the federal government and uses the aid stick to subject states to federal regulations over state matters.

Moreover, recent free trade agreements are misleadingly named. They do not promote free trade, but heavily regulated trade, supervised by international and regional organizations (such as the WTO and the NAFTA tribunals) — an unconstitutional delegation of authority.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

745/H.R. 2608

Issue: H.R. 2608, Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Different bill “Small Business…” used to pass this CR) Question: On Concurring in Senate Amdt to House Amdt to Senate Amdt.

Result: Passed in House 352 to 66, 15 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-36 (signed by the President 10-5-11).

Bill Summary: A stopgap 45 day extension of all appropriations with a 1.5 percent haircut to non-defense spending.

Analysis: Representatives need to play hardball in their own House and with the other branches in curtailing massive unconstitutional spending. Extending the current spending level with only minor cuts is unsupportable, as there is no serious movement to curtail unconstitutional spending in the works.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

705/H.R. 2218

House Roll Call 705 (9-13-11) H.R. 2218 Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act.

Passed in House 365 to 54, 12 not voting, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Died in the Senate.

Bill Summary: Revises the federal government’s charter school grant program with the announced purpose of facilitating the expansion and establishment of more high quality charter schools. Establishes new procedures and guidelines for the awarding of grant money.

Analysis: This bipartisan measure reflects total acceptance of the federal government’s continued unconstitutional role in education. Proponents of that role argue that the federal government must take a lead role in improving the nation’s education system. Through the awarding of grant money they induce states and their school systems to accept the accompanying federal demands.

However, the reality is much different from the hype. In fact, this expanding federal control can be linked to many of the problems in education today.

The real agenda behind the increasing federal takeover of public education is hidden from public view under a smokescreen of false pretenses. Indeed, for more than a century the revolutionary drivers behind nationalizing education have sought federal control as the means to reshape society and indoctrinate our children into becoming submissive servants of the state.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Noes and (bad vote) to the Ayes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Among the 13 cosponsors of H.R. 2218 was Representative George Miller of California, one of the most radical Democrats in Congress. In 1994, Miller authored a notorious amendment to an education bill designed to stifle the nationwide revolt against government schools. Miller’s amendment, backed by the National Education Association, would have required state certification of all private and home-school teachers. A half-dozen years later, Miller and Republican John Boehner joined forces in promoting the disastrous “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.” A close ally of Nancy Pelosi, Miller held the chairmanship of the Education and Labor Committee from 2007 to 2011.

Among the 11 Republican cosponsors of H.R. 2218 could be found a number of representatives often touted as conservative. The list also included Wisconsin Representative Thomas E. Petri, a veteran member of the CFR.

Default title

Receive Alerts