Author Topic: As Despotic as They Need to Be.  (Read 1421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
As Despotic as They Need to Be.
« on: February 26, 2010, 08:01:07 PM »
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/as_despotic_as_they_need_to_be_1.html

Quote
To fully appreciate the significance of the Democrats' plan, we must first recognize that the health care bill should require the long and difficult ratification of a constitutional amendment. The amendment process, however, was corrupted in the 1930s.

Under heavy pressure from President Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court decided in FDR's favor in the landmark case Wickard v. Fillburn. The SCOTUS decision allowed the federal government to stop a man from growing wheat on his own land to feed to his own livestock. In citing the Interstate Commerce clause, the court effectively justified any government intervention into the economy without the previously requisite constitutional amendment.

The Wickard decision crippled the bulwark that stood between Americans and tyrannical government encroachment. Obama and the Democrats now propose to further weaken the controls on federal powers through the fraudulent use of the reconciliation process (a system designed to advance budget cuts, not sweeping policy changes). The move would allow the health care bill's wholesale societal transformation to become law with a simple majority in both congressional chambers.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline Dirty Sanchez

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: As Despotic as They Need to Be.
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2010, 09:30:19 PM »
Why are republicans such fascists in wanting big brother watching everything?  I mean, come on.

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14212
    • View Profile
Re: As Despotic as They Need to Be.
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2010, 09:34:55 PM »
farmers feed livestock with wheat?

Offline Dirty Sanchez

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: As Despotic as They Need to Be.
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2010, 09:39:25 PM »
farmers feed livestock with wheat?

Wheat has a seed, that we eat.

It has a stem, which cattle eat.

 :powerespect:

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16333
    • View Profile
Re: As Despotic as They Need to Be.
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2010, 02:07:37 PM »
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/as_despotic_as_they_need_to_be_1.html

Quote
To fully appreciate the significance of the Democrats' plan, we must first recognize that the health care bill should require the long and difficult ratification of a constitutional amendment. The amendment process, however, was corrupted in the 1930s.

Under heavy pressure from President Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court decided in FDR's favor in the landmark case Wickard v. Fillburn. The SCOTUS decision allowed the federal government to stop a man from growing wheat on his own land to feed to his own livestock. In citing the Interstate Commerce clause, the court effectively justified any government intervention into the economy without the previously requisite constitutional amendment.

The Wickard decision crippled the bulwark that stood between Americans and tyrannical government encroachment. Obama and the Democrats now propose to further weaken the controls on federal powers through the fraudulent use of the reconciliation process (a system designed to advance budget cuts, not sweeping policy changes). The move would allow the health care bill's wholesale societal transformation to become law with a simple majority in both congressional chambers.

Reconciliation has been used for health care before.
@bentren

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: As Despotic as They Need to Be.
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2010, 04:09:21 PM »
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/as_despotic_as_they_need_to_be_1.html

Quote
To fully appreciate the significance of the Democrats' plan, we must first recognize that the health care bill should require the long and difficult ratification of a constitutional amendment. The amendment process, however, was corrupted in the 1930s.

Under heavy pressure from President Franklin Roosevelt, the Supreme Court decided in FDR's favor in the landmark case Wickard v. Fillburn. The SCOTUS decision allowed the federal government to stop a man from growing wheat on his own land to feed to his own livestock. In citing the Interstate Commerce clause, the court effectively justified any government intervention into the economy without the previously requisite constitutional amendment.

The Wickard decision crippled the bulwark that stood between Americans and tyrannical government encroachment. Obama and the Democrats now propose to further weaken the controls on federal powers through the fraudulent use of the reconciliation process (a system designed to advance budget cuts, not sweeping policy changes). The move would allow the health care bill's wholesale societal transformation to become law with a simple majority in both congressional chambers.

Reconciliation has been used for health care before.

And not one of those has ever involved wholesale, sweeping, fundamental changes to the way the economy works.

Reconciliation is just another example of a government passing something that leads to unintended consequences.

I hate to use wiki as a source, but it generally sums it up pretty well:


Reconciliation is one of the most important developments to emerge from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. (See Pub.L. 93-344, § 310; 88 Stat. 297; 2 U.S.C. § 641.) Reconciliation developed into an important procedure for implementing the policy decisions and assumptions embraced in a budget resolution, in a way that was unforeseen when the Budget Act was written. Under the original design of the Budget Act, reconciliation had a fairly narrow purpose. It was expected to be used together with the second resolution adopted in the fall, and was to apply to a single fiscal year and be directed primarily at spending and revenue legislation acted on between the adoption of the first and second budget resolutions. But Congress has used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been utilized nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate,one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose, namely the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some healthcare type reforms.

The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.


Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of improving the government's fiscal position (reducing deficits or increasing surpluses), the language of the 1974 act referred only to "changes" in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases. In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would substantially worsen the government's fiscal position: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. This act was passed when the Government was expected to run large surpluses: it was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. A similar situation happened in 2000, when the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000, which was also vetoed by Clinton. At the time the use of the reconciliation procedure to pass such bills was controversial.[3]

During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.