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.


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.)

House Alone Can Curb Government

“GOP likely to impede EPA efforts” — CQ staff,, 1-3-2011

FFS: Informative article examines some precedents for the House to use its enormous leverage to block programs through appropriation bills. But the article only suggests part of the power held by the House (see, e.g., James Madison, Federalist No. 58). Moreover, in the interest of “balance,” the article includes disparaging comments by some who oppose the aggressive use of this power (e.g., “mischievous policy sneak attacks”).

Congress: Just Vote the Constitution!

“[W]e are going to put an end to the notion that the American taxpayer exists to fund the Federal Government.” — presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, July 1980

Several decades ago, one committed constitutionalist in Congress insisted that two groups were to blame for the huge federal deficits — Republicans and Democrats, or if you will, liberals and [even most] conservatives. Indeed, the leadership of both parties has long carried the socialist ball.

Unfortunately, most voters fall for the publicized partisan wrestling matches and fail to recall that, at critical moments, socialism has advanced through bipartisan cooperation or with the party in the White House (whether Republican or Democrat) taking the lead. As an example, the December 8, 1970 Los Angeles Times extolled the approach of a major socialist steppingstone toward nationalization of health care, noting in passing blatant bipartisan support:

“Before the next presidential election, Congress probably will enact some kind of national health insurance for most Americans, financed by an increase in Social Security. That was the significance of the 13-2 vote Monday by which the Senate Finance Committee approved a plan that would insure almost all Americans under 65 against catastrophic medical costs….. When the roll was called, however, committee conservatives and liberals went on record in support of the legislation. Democrats voted for it 8 to 1 and Republicans 5 to 1.”

2010 Republican Copout 

With the November 2010 general election drawing near, Republican congressmen are looking to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. The newsletter of our local Republican congressmen carried the subtitle “Putting the Brakes on Spending….” Of course, a goal of merely putting the brakes on unconstitutional spending is purely defensive and, as Napoleon correctly stated, doomed to defeat.

The newsletter continued: “Historically, our federal spending has not averaged more than about 20 percent of our economy since World War II…. To help get our spending under control I recently co-sponsored legislation, H.J. Res. 79, that would amend the Constitution to ensure that spending by the federal government never exceeds 20 percent of our gross domestic product.”

H.J. Res. 79 currently boasts fifty of the House Republicans as cosponsors. Quite likely many of them are making similar claims to their constituents. To illustrate how Americans are being deceived, note how our local congressman opened his newsletter:

“Like many of you, I am extremely concerned about the long term impacts of Washington’s out-of-control spending….. Right now, Congress is budgeting for bankruptcy…. By the end of this decade, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates the public debt will grow to 90 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). In comparison, Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy with a public debt of 112 percent of GDP.”

In fact, many Americans are downright angry over Washington’s excessive spending. Unfortunately, too many expect that Republicans will seriously champion those concerns. They don’t understand that Republican Party leaders, beholden to the Establishment, have no intention of returning America to limited constitutional government. Consider:

• A simple majority of either house can halt unconstitutional spending virtually tomorrow, whenever it has the will to do so.

• By contrast, a proposal for a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, a requirement that generally stops these proposals, and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. In addition, H.J. Res. 79 gives the states up to ten years to ratify the measure. Moreover, the limitations of H.J. Res.79 would not go into effect until the fifth fiscal year following the required state ratification!

So much for any urgent concern about out-of-control spending. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Close examination of this Republican “initiative” exposes once again the deception that we have genuine opposition parties. For H.J. Res. 79 embraces the obnoxious idea, so prevalent in the Democratic Party, that the taxpayer does exist to fund the federal government. The Republican caveat: The taxpayer shouldn’t be asked to shoulder more than he can bear — ostensibly 20 percent of GDP.

As so often, Republicans accept the socialist principles espoused by the Democrats and merely argue over increases in the amount of socialism, or in this case the amount of unconstitutional spending. But the Constitution does not authorize federal spending at anywhere near the levels of recent decades. Indeed, unconstitutional spending since World War II has piled up an incredible $13 trillion National Debt (not counting unfunded government liabilities such as Social Security). To enshrine a norm of acceptableunconstitutional spending that has been killing the American dream is not leadership — it’s capitulation!

The American people are repeatedly being scammed and whipsawed by the two-party system, which entertains them with promises of addressing problems, while the internationalist socialist agenda advances inexorably, regardless of which Party dominates.

Constitution Not At Fault

In addition to the recent H.J. Res. 79 proposal to limit federal spending to 20 percent of the GDP, the wearisome Balanced Budget Amendment ploy is also alive and well. The most prominent BBA proposal, H.J. Res. 1, currently enjoys a whopping 179 cosponsors.

Unfortunately, this phony Republican posturing is not innocuous. When these misleading amendment proposals go nowhere, as expected, the Insiders employ phony conservative leaders to use the inaction in Congress as the pretext for the worst possible scenario — a state-mandated constitutional convention dominated by the Insiders.

The “amend the Constitution” route is simply the wrong approach to curbing spending. It implies that the Constitution is at fault. But the Constitution is not the problem. If Congress followed the Constitution now, federal spending and the federal government itself would be a small fraction of their current size. So how would creating another constitutional provision for Congress to ignore curtail spending. 

Instead of blaming the Constitution for continued, massive deficit spending, honest statesmen should recognize the serious structural damage done to our Republic by Congress in the early part of the last century. In 1913, Congress provided the means to fuel a huge unconstitutional bureaucracy with the Federal Reserve Act (creating a central bank to finance government debt by inflating the currency) and with the 16th Amendment (the income tax).

Even so, government didn’t dare use these two means aggressively until the American people could be convinced to look to government for help. And that required a crisis — the Great Depression. It was during the administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that socialism in America really got off the ground.

Rather than the Constitution, or even Congress, uninformed voters responding to false leadership are the root problem. They have simply allowed the Insiders to take the driver’s seat in Congress through Insider control of the leadership of the two parties.

For Americans to obtain serious action from Congress, they must wean congressmen and candidates away from the party leadership and force them to vote the Constitution or find another jobWe do not mean vote occasionally to limit spending, nor play at being a conservative by voting to reduce spending increases, nor pass the buck by supporting a constitutional amendment. We mean: Vote the Constitution.

Unrestrained Government Incompatible with Freedom

While the explosion in federal spending is no secret, Americans are still largely unaware that most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional. Or that even the genuinely constitutional functions are often perverted for destructive purposes.

In an August 13, 1800 letter, Thomas Jefferson championed the limited role for our federal government authorized by the Constitution: “The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations….. [O]ur general government may be reduced to a very simple organization and a very unexpensive one, a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.”

In a November 1802 letter while president, Thomas Jefferson further wrote: “If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

A chasm has opened up between the Founders’ vision of the federal role and what the leaders of both political parties espouse today.

FY 2011 Budget Proposal

The Obama administration’s $3.83 trillion FY 2011 budget proposal widens that chasm. On February 1st of this year, several cabinet-level departments held press conferences to unveil their portions of the budget. Other department heads issued statements trumpeting their leadership. 

Let’s look at some of the claims, starting with two of the newer departments — Education and Energy — both unconstitutional federal functions (a small, defense-related function of the DOE could easily be shifted elsewhere).

While campaigning for the presidency in 1980, Ronald Reagan promised to work to abolish these two departments. Once in office, however, his pledges were quickly forgotten. Those who understood the Insider grip on the presidency were not surprised. For the creation of these two departments were important hard-won Insider victories, and none of the Insiders’ lackeys in the White House would dare turn back the clock on these major socialist inroads.

Unfortunately, the bulk of voters were deceived regarding President Reagan’s commitment to roll back the size of the federal government. (Too few voters were told, for example, that in eight years as governor of California, Reagan more than doubled state spending. And most voters had bought into the Establishment-promoted image of Ronald Reagan as the great conservative leader, an image reinforced by his often outstanding conservative rhetoric.)

Continuing token Republican resistance has set the stage for the huge role for these departments that President Obama is now championing. At the February 1 press conference, Education Secretary Arne Duncan proudly announced:

“The [DOE] budget includes a 7.5 percent increase in discretionary spending for the Department of Education. It’s one of the largest increases ever proposed…. [The president’s budget] is investing heavily in education at every level from early childhood education to K to 12 reform to college access. It’s a cradle to career agenda.”

What a makeover of the role for our federal government! Even worse, behind the socialist pretense of serving the public thrives the real Insider agenda — consolidate power and destroy the potential of a strong middle class to block Insider plans.

Following in the footsteps of FDR, President Obama has seized the “opportunity” of a depressed economy to promote federal training and employment programs. The Duncan statement continues: “We have to educate our way to a better economy.”

Of course, the best way for government to help the unemployed would be to eliminate unconstitutional programs, stop the enormous deficits, and allow the private sector to flourish without the crushing burden of massive unconstitutional government.

Department of Energy

The Department of Energy was created as a cabinet-level department during the Jimmy Carter years, purportedly to end our dependence on foreign oil. However, along with the EPA, the Department of Energy has been an obstacle to serious domestic energy production, and our dependence on foreign oil is even greater today.

Here are the DOE’s first four “Strategic Objectives and High Priority Goals” as listed in its “Budget Overview”:

1. “Renewable energy: Double our electricity generation capacity from clean, renewable sources by 2012.” FFS: The federal government has no business or constitutional justification for designing and regulating America’s industrial growth. This non-solution diverts attention from the pressing need for government to allow private enterprise to develop major sources of energy.

2. “Electric vehicles: Support advanced battery manufacturing capacity to deploy 500,000 plug-in hybrids by 2015.” FSS: The federal government should not dictate the technological direction of our future, even if its motivations were pure, which they are not. Regulating Americans is the Insider goal, and creating scarcity and higher prices is the means.

3. “Energy efficiency: Accelerate an aggressive, self-sustaining home energy efficiency effort that will save energy and money for America’s families.” FFS: Americans should get angry. Why are we letting federal bureaucrats tell us what kind of weatherproofing is economically efficient for our homes? Or force us to use inferior, energy-efficient light bulbs containing “hazardous materials,” which government will insist on regulating?

4. “Nuclear: Provide technical and financial support to restart the American nuclear power industry.” FFS:Art Robinson’s May 2010 Access to Energy points to the “the great loss that America suffered with the federal government shutdown of U.S. nuclear power plant construction. This tragic and reprehensible policy continues today, except for a tiny government-controlled show-and-tell nuclear project recently announced for political purposes.”

Agriculture Department

In decades past, the Agriculture Department drew fire from constitutionalists primarily because of its price support policies and restrictions on farm production. However, the assumed mission of the Agriculture Department has expanded greatly. Secretary Tom Vilsack’s budget statement reflects the modern role:

“The challenges facing rural communities for decades have grown more acute, which is why the Obama administration is committed to new approaches to strengthen rural America. Rural Americans earn less than their urban counterparts, and are more likely to live in poverty. More rural Americans are over the age of 65, they have completed fewer years of school, and more than half of America’s rural communities are losing population…. This budget will assist rural communities create prosperity so they are self-sustaining, economically thriving, and growing in population.”

FFS: What a relief to have a government that can support America! Unfortunately, there is no limit to the number of taxpayer-financed programs bureaucrats can dream up.

In the OMB Summary we are told that the USDA budget also “Strengthens Nutrition Assistance and Promotes Healthy Eating”: “Funding supports 10 million participants in the WIC program, which is critical to the health of pregnant women, new mothers, and their infants.”

FFS: According to the collectivist/socialist line, the people cannot do anything successfully for themselves without the leadership and financial aid of (federal) government programs. What hogwash!!!

Department of Health and Human Services

In her opening remarks at the HHS press conference, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius boasted:  “We’re investing new funds in what I consider to be the backbone of the American health care system, community health centers….”

FFS: Does this mean that local communities no longer need to raise funds to build their own hospitals?

Sebelius continues: “On top of that, we have almost $1 billion in funding to strengthen and support our country’s health care workforce. We’re going to use the money to increase the capacity of nursing schools, help more low-income and minority students realize their dreams of becoming doctors, and ensure that America’s seniors can get care when they need it….

Our budget invests in the President’s Zero to Five Plan, a comprehensive strategy to make sure our kids get all the support they need during those years when we know their brains are doing most of their developing. It provides incentives and relief for parents to cover the cost of child care.”

There is no limit to government’s eagerness to help: “Often, [middle-class families are] also dealing with aging parents. Eighty percent of long-term care services are provided by family members, which is great for older Americans to be cared for by loved ones but can be financially and physically exhausting for the caregivers…. These [HHS] programs provide relief to family caregivers whether it’s … an adult day care center where they can drop a parent off for the day, or transportation to get the senior to the doctor or a store.”

We could go on and on, with department after department. But it should be apparent that what we have here is a Congress that refuses to uphold the Constitution. The result is a socialist monster that destroys our economic prosperity and lays the foundation for the extinction of liberty.

The Constitution does not need to be amended — it simply needs to be enforced.

Enforcing the Constitution

The Constitution will be enforced as soon as an informed public demands that Congress enforce it. But for the public to be truly informed, it must understand that a ruthless Conspiracy — the enemy of freedom — has a grip on the leadership of both political parties and that creating Big Brother government is the Conspiracy’s goal.

To build that understanding, new leadership that bypasses the controlled media is required. One of the objectives for a stronger Freedom First Society is to help the voting public develop intolerance for political compromise on the Constitution . In particular, the public needs to understand how far government has departed from the small list of specific functions authorized in the Constitution, many of which are enumerated in Article I, Section VIII.

Many more Americans must also understand the dangers that lie ahead if they do not organize under sound leadership to stop the Conspiracy from destroying our republic.

It will take organization to help the American people break the grip of the Insider-controlled party leadership on members of Congress and return genuine accountability to the voters. And it will also take organization to break through the Establishment’s managed news so that the public won’t be taken to the cleaners by politicians who give lip service to conservative principles, but follow the internationalist-socialist agenda, nonetheless.

The only realistic route to long-term economic health is to alter basic federal policy so that it conforms to the Constitution, and, in the process, break the the Conspiracy’s grip on government.

The American people can amply provide for their own wants and needs once they are able to retain the billions of dollars presently consumed by unconstitutional programs. And we can barely imagine what private enterprise will accomplish, if it doesn’t have to compete with the federal government for capital and cope with massive socialist regulation.

More than ever, it is time for America to budget for future prosperity by enforcing the Constitution.




Receive Alerts

Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.

This will close in 0 seconds