Freedom First Society

House Leadership in 2017

In 2012, Freedom First Society reviewed a hot new book, Young Guns — A New Generation of Conservative Leaders, by the three founders of the Young Guns Program: GOP “rising stars” Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan.

In our review of Young Guns, we pointed out serious deficiencies in the program championed by these three Republicans, who misleadingly claimed to support the principles of our nation’s Founders.

As the 115th Congress convenes in January of 2017, Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has been re-elected as the Speaker of the House and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) continues to serve as House Majority Leader, having filled that position following the upset defeat of their mutual colleague, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, in 2014.

To better understand those holding the reins of power in the House today, we urge visitors to read our 2012 Review and share a link to this page with friends and associates.

No Omnibus in the Lame Duck

The September 28th House “debates” over a last-minute continuing resolution to fund the federal government until December 9 (after the November election) were again misleading. They mislead Americans as to the House’s true power over the purse — IF it had the will to use it.

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.”

Rather than asserting this power, however, the debates claimed that the House needed to work cooperatively with the Senate and the President, while perpetuating the false notion that all parties are sincerely interested in the good of the country.

House Debates (from Congressional Record)

Leading the majority (Republican) debate in the House, Rep. Tom Cole argued:

“Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am always disappointed when we are forced to consider continuing resolutions, especially given the work this House has done in the appropriations process this fiscal year.

“For 2 years in a row, the House Appropriations Committee was able to complete all 12 appropriations bills–and complete them before the August recess. In addition, this House passed five appropriations bills. Unfortunately, just as in years past, Senate Democrats prevented consideration of many appropriations bills on the floor of that body. This leads us to the unfortunate situation of having to put forward a short-term CR to fund the government through December 9….

“I think it is worth pointing out that you can’t have regular order in the House if you don’t have regular order in the Senate. The real reason we are here is because the Senate has refused consistently to take up appropriations bills that have been passed by this House. At some point, you simply quit passing the bills because the Senate isn’t going to deal with you.” [Emphasis added.]

We would ask, why must the House bear the blame for a government shutdown if the House has done its job? Why not insist that the Senate (and the President), as a minimum, accept the five appropriations bills as the House passed them or bear responsibility for shutting down just that portion of the government?

Actually, the CR package included one of the least controversial of the 12 regular appropriations bills, funding its programs for the entire fiscal year 2017. Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers pointed out:

“[T]he package contains the full-year Military Construction-VA bill for FY17, which was conferenced by the House and Senate and passed by the House already in June [H.R. 2577, Roll Call 342, H.R. 2577]…. It is important to note that, once the President signs this bill into law, it will be the first time since 2009 that an individual appropriations bill has been conferenced with the Senate and enacted before the September 30 fiscal year deadline.”

Lame Duck Appropriations

When the Congress resumes in the Lame Duck after the election, the leadership of both parties will lobby for either an omnibus appropriations bill, funding the government through September 30, 2017 for the other 11 areas, or for kicking the ball to the next Congress with another short-term continuing resolution. True constitutionalist should not support either option.

While the four appropriations bills passed by the House and not taken up by the Senate may not have been worthy of support individually, constitutionalists in the House should not allow a new CR or omnibus to include those areas. A House that asserts its dominance in appropriations is a necessary base from which to roll back unconstitutional government. And in a world dominated by a hostile Establishment media, that requires regular order.

So, as a minimum, constitutionalists should refuse to vote for any omnibus appropriations bill that includes those four. And best, insist on 11 separate votes.

A Troubling Example

Many Americans wonder why our federal government keeps working against our interests and how it can be brought under control. An important step in the solution is to understand what Washington is doing — no easy task, as we shall see.

The “Electrify Africa” act is a prime example of what Congress is doing that it should not. The Act would set development priorities for foreign nations and subsidize that development (through loans and loan guarantees).

In the previous (113th) Congress, the House passed this unconstitutional foreign meddling as H.R. 2548 on May 8, 2014 (see our scorecard, 113th Congress, Session 2, roll call 208). Only 1 Democrat opposed the measure, whereas Republicans were fairly evenly split —106 in favor to 116 against. Fortunately, the Senate didn’t pick up the authorization measure, and it died — that year.

However, a similar version, S. 2152, was brought up in the Senate late last year and passed on a voice vote. Then on February 1 of this year, the House suspended the rules (2/3 vote required) to pass S. 2152, again on a voice vote. Not a single representative demanded a recorded vote. The president signed the measure into law a week later.

During the February 1 House debates (actually self-aggrandizing campaign statements, masquerading as debate) on the Electrify Africa Act, the legislation’s leading Democrat advocate, Pennsylvania’s Brendan F. Boyle, undoubtedly reassured conservative voters when he stated: “This legislation puts into law President Obama’s 2013 Power Africa initiative.”

Pretext vs. Reality

Those U.S. representatives arguing in favor of the measure spoke forcefully regarding how the Act would address the terrible electricity shortage that is holding back Sub-Saharan Africa economically. The lead Republican advocate in the House, Representative Ed Royce of California, stated:

“[T]oday 600 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa — that is 70 percent of the population— do not have access to reliable electricity….

“Why do we want to help increase energy access to the continent? Well, to create jobs and to improve lives in both Africa and America. It is no secret that Africa has great potential as a trading partner and could help create jobs here in the U.S.”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Yet we see several major problems. First the U.S. Constitution does not authorize foreign aid. Our government has neither responsibility nor authority to advance the welfare of other nations with taxpayer dollars, particularly when our nation is seriously in debt.

Second, private enterprise and foreign capital should be eager to make such investments as long as the regimes in those nations are stable and respectful of foreign investment.

However, here is the crux of our concern: Supporting socialist regimes may help build Internationalist control, but it is no way to help a people economically.

Ever since World War II, the Internationalist-controlled U.S. State Department has established a long, consistent track record of supporting socialist, even Communist regimes (e.g., Red China, and initially Fidel Castro), and undermining pro-Western regimes (e.g., backing the Sandanistas in Nicaragua against Anastasio Somoza and working to oust the Shah of Iran, replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini).

As informed skeptics, we have to regard the humanitarian arguments as insincere pretexts to support a power-grabbing agenda.

The techniques employed in collectivist strategy are not new. Nineteenth-century French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote that governments seek to increase their power by “creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory” — that is, by using government resources to exacerbate problems which can then be used to justify statist “solutions.”

The same strategy has damaged our economy. Government programs have provided both the carrot and the stick to drive heavy industry and manufacturing abroad. And collectivists would have us believe that more government programs are the solution to restoring our economic health.

For more on the solution, please see our “Congress Is the Key!” menu item.

The Power of the Purse

“Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Congress has a duty to decide how money should be spent and can’t see how Obama would be able to say Republicans were shutting down the government when they were offering to fund all of it except for Planned Parenthood.” — Roll Call (9-10-15)

Senator Sessions points to an important strategy regarding how Congress should be using its power of the purse in today’s political climate, a climate dominated by an Establishment media that supports big government. Washington’s Roll Call continued by quoting Sessions directly:

There is no reason whatsoever we should fund Planned Parenthood. If you acquiesce and acknowledge the president is correct then Congress has no power whatsoever over the purse.… I just don’t see how that’s a losing issue. I think the president would look awful. He’s going to veto the Defense bill? He’s going to veto all these other bills? …We don’t need to be hiding under the table.

Sessions was referring to the president’s threat to veto any bill that would defund Planned Parenthood. And the Establishment media, the GOP leadership, and liberal politicians have created the impression that the only alternative to an unpopular government shutdown is a negotiated compromise or caving in to liberal demands.

A month earlier, liberal New York Senator Charles Schumer, the Number 3 Democrat, had made just such a claim — that liberal programs must be regarded as untouchable:

“You cannot hold the entire government hostage to make your ideological point and try to get your ideological way, and so Republicans are knowingly putting us on a path to shut down the government if they pursue this reckless strategy. And let me just say, it’s not just on this issue, they have four or five others. Any of them will be a path to shutdown and shutdown will fall on their shoulders. If they try to take hostages. If they try to add extraneous riders and say you have to keep those riders … they’re headed for a government shutdown,” Schumer said. “We hope they are not. We hope they’ve learned their lessons.” — Roll Call (8-4-15), “McConnell Says No Shutdowns as September Agenda Takes Shape”

However, Sessions was correctly pointing out that the Congress really holds the upper hand. It merely needs to use its power of the purse correctly, which it has not.

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.

Of course, the politics are more complicated today than in Madison’s time. Now many Americans depend on various federal programs and most Americans depend on the Establishment-controlled media for their information. In 2013, that media put the blame on a House unwilling to compromise, as responsible for shutting the government down, and the House backed down.

But the House had long ago forfeited the leverage Madison spoke about by regularly passing last-minute omnibus appropriations bills allowing the Senate or President to refuse the entire package as unacceptable. Instead, what a determined branch must do is insist that the other branches deal with the 12 individual appropriations bills. Even continuing resolutions, should they really become necessary and advantageous, should target only specific areas of appropriation.

Indeed, Sessions’ argument regarding how a determined Congress could defund Planned Parenthood needs to be heralded and applied to roll back a host of unconstitutional programs and agencies.

Of course, effective use of this power presumes that the House of Representatives has the backbone to roll back an out-of-control federal government, using the Constitution as its guide. Ultimately, that kind of backbone has to come from an informed public back home

Realistically, there is insufficient will in Congress today, even among Republicans, to roll back and eliminate unconstitutional programs and departments or to even defund many clearly subversive programs such as Planned Parenthood. To support that conclusion requires an understanding of the Establishment forces that dominate the leadership of both parties and the political environment that regularly drives the actions of most congressmen.

The Right Thing to Do

Nevertheless, Americans who want to see real change in Washington need to understand the right way for Congress to leverage its power over the purse in today’s adverse political climate. They must then insist that their congressman set the example even if he or she stands alone.

As a start, that means rejecting any omnibus appropriations bills.

Next, congressmen need to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution (and its limits) by supporting only individual appropriations bills designed to restore constitutional government.

That does not mean every supportable bill must go cold turkey on all unconstitutional spending. What it does means is that any appropriations bill deserving support must be part of a serious plan to roll back or eliminate unconstitutional spending and programs.

Many unconstitutional programs should be curtailed immediately. Let America enjoy and be encouraged by the benefits of early relief from their burden. Still other programs may need to be phased out over a few years to reduce disruptive hardships and to honor prior government commitments. But that action must be initiated immediately, not deferred to future Congresses.

In short, we need to reject the widespread notion that congressmen must compromise on vital principle, such as their oath to uphold the Constitution, in order to cut the best deal possible. That rationalization just keeps America on a route to disaster.

To be sure, more congressmen setting the right example means, for the present, that the GOP leadership will continue to build its majority with liberal support. The opening Roll Call report concluded: “[P]retty much every major budget deal since Republicans took back the House has required the votes of at least some of Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s flock.”

But those congressmen who set the right example also help drive the real solution — more congressmen marching to the drumbeat of the Constitution supported and pressured by informed constituents.

There is no constitutional justification for the Department of Housing and Urban Development ushered in by President Johnson, for a Department of Education, or for a Department of Health and Human Services — to cite just a few examples of where the Federal government has been allowed to exceed its authority.

America cannot survive with congressmen who accept these prior socialist inroads and destructive decisions as irreversible and work only to prevent the next socialist usurpation. As Napoleon correctly observed: “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.”

No, the real solution must come from building an informed electorate that will demand that Congress use its power of the purse to restore the federal government to its constitutionally authorized limits. In the face of media misdirection, building that informed electorate is no easy task.

But it can be done by an organized minority of Americans following a sound plan and leadership, such as Freedom First Society offers. And with the mess we’re in, there is simply no easy way out.

Sleeping Off National Debt

Every time the subjects of quantitative easing, debauching currency, and gross domestic product enter a conversation, most Americans’ eyes seem to get a sleepy haze over them as they check-out of the conversation. “Don’t think about it. It’ll just get you upset.” In other words,“I’m taking an Ambien. Wake me up when the fiscal crisis is over.” As if the $17 trillion debt and all its nightmarish consequences will float away to la-la land if they sleep long enough.Sleeping away daunting fiscal problems was attempted by Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle 200 years ago. In the famous short story, Rip escapes to the woods to avoid his wife nagging about the farm’s struggling finances. He imbibes some strange liquor and falls asleep. When he opens his eyes again, he is shocked to discover his dog is gone, his rifle is rusted, and he has a long beard. Back in the village his wife has died and the portrait of King George III has been replaced by General George Washington. Rip’s world has changed dramatically.We are also living in a changing era as America’s position in the global market shifts and outside countries keep our fiscal moves under close scrutiny.In a best case scenario, economists estimate that, in ten years, if interest rates don’t raise and there are no wars or recessions and depressions, we will pile on an additional $7.2 trillion to our already whopping national debt. This will put us close to $25 trillion in the red with a crippling $799 billion a year payment in interest alone.Left unchecked, by 2020, 92 cents of every federal tax dollar will be needed just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. If these are the optimistic calculations for our near future, the realistic reckonings should keep Americans awake pacing the floors at night.

In the corporate world, there will be nearly a $500 billion trade deficit this year, compared to the 1980s when it was $300 billion. This means we are spending $500 billion more on products made outside of the United States than what we are exporting out to other countries. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, at 39.2%, which further discourages corporations to remain on U.S. soil and has contributed to the loss of nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs from 2001-2010.

With Russia and the Middle East in major headlines, it’s interesting to compare the World Bank statistics. Russia’s debt-to-GDP ratio, a calculation used by investors to determine if a country can pay back its debt, is only 13.41% with $509 billion in reserves. Iraq’s is 31.34% with $77 billion in reserves. America has $448 billion in reserves, but this is hardly impressive when coupled with a deplorable debt-to-GDP ratio of 101.53% and a $17.8 trillion debt bill. China has an impressive $3.88 trillion in total reserves and is also the biggest foreign buyer of U.S. Treasuries by holding over $1 trillion of our debt.

As hard as the numbers have been to swallow over the years, we cannot just get bored of the “money talk,” close our eyes, and wake up when it’s over. Rip Van Winkle was lucky that, after 20 years, the only things he missed were the death of his nagging wife and the American Revolution. If we were to wake up after 20 years of denial and unbalanced budgets, instead of seeing George Washington’s picture over Rip’s favorite mantel, it could very well be Xi Jinping, China’s paramount communist leader, and you’d have to pay for your beer with the new world currency.

I suggest we either accept the inevitable pains associated with legitimately fixing our borrowed prosperity now, or plan on sleeping for at least another 100 years. We’d all best wake up and hide the sleeping pills!

_________________________________________________________________

Ashley R. Smith is a freelance writer and columnist who has volunteered for various charitable and Americanist causes, including providing regional leadership to mentor teens. As a mother of six children she resides in Colorado, holds a black belt in women’s self-defense, and a degree from Brigham Young University.

Liberate Our Economy from Unconstitutional Government

On April 15th, the House approved the GOP’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget resolution. Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan extolled the plan in the Wall Street Journal (“The GOP Path to Prosperity,” 4-5-11): “Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.” [Over ten years, compared to the deficits in President Obama’s budget!]

But Ryan’s “super-aggressive” plan merely “hopes” to get deficits down into the $400 billion range and not for at least six years! Typically, politicians seek to deceive the public with budgets that push the real discipline off to future Congresses, which inevitably repeat the ruse.

Moreover, Ryan’s suggestion that spending be limited to a specific share of America’s GDP accepts a very dangerous socialist vision of open-ended federal authority. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do whatever it claims will advance the social condition — as along as America can afford it. And since mushrooming unconstitutional spending during the postwar period built the foundation for our current troubles, we certainly don’t want that level enshrined as a standard.

What happened to the Constitution as a restraint? Although Ryan proposes to eliminate Obama’s grossly unpopular health care takeover, his proposal leaves decades of unconstitutional programs and departments intact, which sap our nation’s vitality. Ryan’s proposed “spending caps” will not prevent those programs from expanding once the voters tire of watching or demagogues generate some new spending pretext, such as another war. “Leadership” that throws in the towel to socialist gains can never restore America to prosperity and preserve our freedom.

America needs leadership in Congress now that will target all of the unconstitutional departments and programs that have sprung up since the New Deal.

59 Conservative Republicans Buck Party Leadership

Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 H.R. 1473 Roll Call 268 Final Results.

FFS: On Friday April 8th, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Barak Obama worked out a compromise agreement on appropriations for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. The last-minute agreement prevented a government “shutdown.”

According to Monday’s CQ Briefing: “The spending cuts will be $18 billion from mandatory programs and $20 billion from discretionary programs — although $12 billion of that had already been enacted in the last three short-term CRs [Continuing Resolutions].”

Early reports heralded the “compromise” as a victory for smaller government. However, other reports, including one from the Congressional Budget Office, soon questioned the reality of the cuts. The Washington Post (4-14-2011) noted: “A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

On closer examination, some cuts appear to be legitimate, while many others are accounting gimmicks that will not show up as actual deficit reductions. Nevertheless, it was a lot of stir about little and massive unconstitutional government is still alive and well.

Good news, however, followed the “compromise”: Not all the House GOP “conservatives” went along with it (see above roll call #268). According to Roll Call: “Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was forced to rely on 81 House Democrats to push through a six-month spending measure Thursday over the objections of his right flank — a stark political reality that could hurt him in future battles…. [Although a majority of GOP voted for it], the overall level of defections was significant and deeper than many senior aides expected.” (“Boehner Turns to Democrats to Pass CR After 59 GOP Defections,” 4-14-11)

54 Conservative Republicans Buck Party Leadership

H.J. Res. 48, Roll Call 179

In mid-March, 54 House Republicans rebuffed their party leadership and refused to support another continuing resolution (the sixth this year funding FY 2011) that included only minor spending cuts and no policy riders.

Although the CR passed the House, 271 to 158 (see roll call 179, above), and later the Senate and was signed by the president, it is encouraging to see so many House Republicans refusing to go along. Note: The list of Democrats (italics in the roll call) opposing the measure is not as informative, because many voted ‘no’ claiming the cuts were too deep.

CQ Roll Call Daily Briefing (3-16-2011) commented on the vote:

The 54 Republicans (including a quarter of the freshmen) who voted against the three-week measure can be counted on to vote against almost any spending deal that’s negotiated between Congress and Obama. If they didn’t like cutting $6 billion over three weeks, they’re surely not going to like a final bill that almost certainly will promise reductions at a shallower depth — and that has very little chance of including both of the policy riders (defunding the health care law and Planned Parenthood) they say are required to win their support.

FFS recommends that constituents compliment their representative if he or she voted ‘no’ on the above roll call for the right reason and insist their representative refuse in the future to fund programs not authorized by the Constitution. (See our Congress: Just Vote the Constitution! campaign.)

Effects of Government Shutdown Exaggerated

“Psst. No shutdown during a ‘government shutdown‘” — Yahoo! News, 2-24-2011

George W. Bush Fueled the Housing Bubble (historical)

“President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month” (June 18, 2002)

FFS: “We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems,” said President Bush in July 2002. [Regardless of constitutional limits on the federal role, we might add.] It is essential we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder.” (See above link to full text).

Building on the socialist mortgage programs and lending institutions created under previous administrations, President Bush launched massive new unconstitutional federal loan subsidies. He also encouraged the easy credit policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who tied their fortunes to uncontrolled immigration. Supported by Fed easy-money policies, the stage was set for the housing bubble, whose collapse helped bring on today’s “Great Recession.”

House Debates (from Congressional Record)

Lame Duck Appropriations

Default title

Receive Alerts