Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, March 17, 2010


Happy St. Paddy's Day, my friends...!!!

Not that you've ever needed an excuse... but today, especially, if you feel the need for a stiff drink while perusing today's newsbites....

SLAINTE...!!!
Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/constitutional_law_101

The resistance of our governing system to passing [Obamacare] is so powerful that it has driven Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairwoman of the Rules Committee Louise Slaughter - at least for the moment - to actually publicly consider violating the constitutional process for enacting laws.

Under their announced scheme, instead of following the constitutional voting process:

The House first votes for the despised Senate bill, then after that is signed into law by the president and the Senate passes the popular amendments that the House wants, the House votes for that second Senate bill of amendments, which, the President then signs into law; under the proposed scheme, the Senate bill would be "deemed" to have passed the House and become law without a presidential signature.

Then the Senate would pass the House-demanded amendments, and the House members would then cast only one vote - for the amendments they like, rather than the underlying Senate bill they hate.

Thus (so Pelosi's theory holds) politically protecting House members, who could say they never actually voted for the publicly despised Senate bill.

Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before a bill becomes law, (1) "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it"; and, (2) "in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

It is those two provisions of the Constitution that would be evaded: 1) the House vote, with the names and votes of the individual members publicly published, and 2) the president's signature.

The Supreme Court has only recently emphasized that those procedures must be followed precisely. In Clinton v. New York City, 1998...Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion: "The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became 'Public Law 105-33' after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may 'become a law.'" Article I, Section 7. And: "The procedures governing the enactment of statutes set forth in the text of Article I were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the power to enact statutes may only 'be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.'

Some have argued that the "Gephardt Rule" (House Rule XXVII) - in which a similar "self-executing rule" "deemed" the House to have voted on a new debt ceiling, is valid precedent.

Wrong.

That rule was for a joint resolution - not a bill.

A joint resolution is a guide to the House. It is not a bill under the Constitution and has no force of law. Because a president has nothing to do with a resolution, a self-executing rule is valid for a resolution, but not for a bill.

March 17, 2010 at 12:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_rep_bachus_demands_hearing_on_lehman_report_says_fed_sec_may_have_turned_a_blind.html

A Republican lawmaker requested a congressional hearing on a bankruptcy examiner's report on Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., saying the findings cast doubts on the Federal Reserve's supervisory role.

Representative Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said the report highlighted regulators' failure to act on evidence of accounting gimmicks used to hide Lehman's insolvency.

"Either the SEC and the New York Federal Reserve failed to discover the ongoing accounting fraud at Lehman, or they turned a blind eye to the ongoing fraud," Bachus said in a letter to the committee's chairman, Barney Frank, requesting a hearing.

The 2,200-page Lehman report, from a court-appointed examiner, found that the investment banking firm used a gimmick, known as "Repo 105," for the sole purpose of manipulating its books, contributing to its demise. The report also found that Lehman had been insolvent for weeks before it filed for bankruptcy in September 2008.

Bachus...said the hearing should include testimony from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, and former Lehman Chief Executive Dick Fuld.

March 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVn9wrhB-3SF-Svo9kZyXd4bHRLAD9EG84VO0

Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print. Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say.

(*SNORT*)

* NICE OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TO REPORT THIS... ON MARCH 17, 2010.

(*SMIRK*)

If cost controls work as advertised...

(*ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING*)

...annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people.

* IN OTHER WORDS, THE COSTS ARE THE COSTS, ONLY OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS PLAN TO WORK THE PRINTING PRESSES OVERTIME "CREATING" CASH "RESOURCES" TO GO ALONG WITH THE MONEY THEY PLAN TO BORROW FROM CHINA AND ELSEWHERE TO FINANCE THE ENDLESS DEFICIT SPENDING AND STEADILY INCREASING NATIONAL DEBT.

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.

* YA THINK...?!?!

(*SMIRK*)

* THE REMAINDER OF THE ARTICLE EXPANDS UPON OBAMA'S LI... er... "MISSTATEMENTS." (FOLLOW THE LINK PROVIDED.)

March 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://nrcc.org/blog/blogitem.aspx?id=261

[The headline reads...]

Code Red Moves Cardoza and Costa to “Yes” Votes on Gov’t Healthcare Takeover After Water Deal

Is this Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama’s Bill Down the American People’s Throats?

As a vote approaches on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare, Code Red is now considering two supposedly “undecided” California Democrats, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, to now be “yes” votes.

The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared. Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement:

“Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.”(“Interior Announces Increased Water Supply Allocations in California,” U.S. Department of Interior news release, 3/16/10)

* OBAMA, PELOSI, AND REID ARE MISUSING THEIR POWERS TO ACHIEVE PARTISAN AIMS. NOW OF COURSE THIS ISN'T UNUSUAL AS A TACTIC, BUT AS WITH THE "LOUISIANA PURCHASE" AND THE "CORNHUSKER KICKBACK," THE SCALE OF THE BRIB... er... "CARROTS" IS ABOVE AND BEYOND ANYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN BEFORE IN SCALE.

* THE OTHER THING IS... THE WATER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLOWING TO CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY ALL ALONG; IT WAS OBAMA'S OWN POLICIES - SUPPORTED BY PELOSI AND REID - WHICH CREATED THE MANMADE DROUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

March 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/17/bankrupting_of_the_united_states_bonds_98386.html

In January the U.S. Treasurer, Rosie Rios, traveled to Dallas to join local officials at the construction site of a new convention hotel being built with money raised through Build America Bonds. The purpose was to celebrate the success of the so-called BABs, which are federally-subsidized bonds created by the 2009 stimulus package.

Of course, what no one at the Dallas "celebration" pointed out is that the $388 million in BABs that the city floated with federal aid were necessary because no private developer would cough up the money for the risky project.

This is what passes for success in Washington these days, where apparently any level and manner of publicly subsidized debt for any kind of dubious project is considered a home run.

[Oh... by the way...] Wall Street firms have been getting [fat fees] for underwriting BABs.

These bonds are enabling our already overburdened states and cities, which heaped on debt at a record pace in recent years including back when they were running budget surpluses, to pile it still higher, even as their budgets now groan under bulging debt payments. Moreover, at a time when private firms are scrambling for investment, BABs just further the misallocation of resources already characteristic of municipal finance by luring money away from private investment and into grand (and often misguided) government building schemes that can't attract private capital.

BABs...give a direct subsidy from Washington to states and cities, which use it to issue bonds that feature attractively high interest rates. The bonds appeal to a whole new class of investor which can't benefit from the tax-free nature of munis, such as big pension funds or overseas buyers. So far, cities and states have heaped on some $64 billion in new debt thanks to BABs, and now the Obama administration has proposed making this "temporary" component of the 2009 stimulus program permanent, at least for the next 10 years.

[T]he mentality that sees BABs as a grand success is symptomatic of what's wrong in Washington right now. Since 2000, state and local debt outstanding has grown 60% after adjusting for inflation to $2.3 trillion, a faster rate of debt accumulation than American households took on over the same period (and we know how that worked out).

* To be continued...

March 17, 2010 at 9:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

In California, the cost of servicing state debt has increased 143% in 10 years to $6 billion and is projected to increase to about $10 billion in several years.

New York State's outstanding debt has soared to a whopping $120 billion, according to a local watchdog group, the Citizens Budget Commission, which estimates that within just four years the cost of serving that debt will consume 10% of the state's budget.

[M]unicipalities have pumped money into "state capitalist" projects like subsidized convention centers and hotels, arenas and sports stadiums which often have little economic impact beyond the short-term construction jobs they produce.

States and municipalities have also used debt for some of the most egregious fiscal practices, like floating bonds to finance pension obligations and make pension funds seem more fully funded then they actually are.

[T]he new bonds are often just enabling dysfunctional state and local fiscal practices to continue. For instance, among the so-called BAB ‘success' stories touted by the Obama administration in January was $750 million in borrowing by New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority for investments in Gotham's subway system. Congressman Charlie Rangel and the Treasury Department's chief economist showed up at an MTA construction site to ‘celebrate' that success. But as my colleagues Nicole Gelinas and E.J. McMahon pointed out last month, the MTA is in grave financial peril and could bring down all of New York State finances, in part because state legislators have absconded with taxes designed to support the transit agency and forced the MTA to issue debt to finance more and more of its capital needs.

It's a process that's happening around the country as fewer and fewer essential projects get built on a pay-as-you-go basis with tax dollars and more and more are constructed with borrowing, a pattern that's unsustainable.

BABs also provide yet another taxpayer-subsidized incentive for investors to divert capital that might otherwise be channeled into private initiatives. A study in the early 1990s by economist Peter Fortune published in the New England Economic Review estimated the social cost of tax-free munis was billions of dollars in lost private sector output in the U.S. economy because of dollars diverted from private investment. I imagine the cost is far higher now, and BABs will increase it even more because they provide yet another type of investor with the incentive to snap up subsidized government debt with money that might otherwise be invested in stocks or corporate bonds or private equity.

But apparently this isn't a problem in today's Washington, where no amount of debt seems worrisome, and where the best investment is apparently investment in government. This is how Washington now defines success.

March 17, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Rodak said...

the Senate bill would be "deemed" to have passed the House and become law without a presidential signature.

A tactic used by the GOP over a hundred times in recent history. If one side is stonewalling, the other side must out-maneuver them. It's chess.

March 19, 2010 at 7:45 AM
Rodak said...

By getting bogged down in controversy over process, everybody loses sight of the substance of the matter--which is to help those Americans who find themselves ill and unable to afford the best treatment.
If the whorish, amoral, greed-driven Conservative contingent would just shrivel up and blow away, this could get done.
But the face of America is too ugly to look at.

March 19, 2010 at 7:48 AM
William R. Barker said...

Rob,

I know you either don't understand or simply don't care, but real Americans respect the Rule of Law and demand our elected and appointed officials abide by the Constitution.

As to what Republicans have done "hundreds of times," once again you're swallowing the Dem Party line hook and sinker.

You're too lazy (and perhaps not intellectually capable - I keep going back and forth about that question) to do your own research and to actually be able to separate fact from fiction... but such is the case with most folks.

In any case... that nonsense you just spouted... that's what it is - nonsense. Re-read the first newsbite posted.

(*SIGH*)

BILL

P.S. - Even though you're apparently incapable of absorbing what you're reading, I congratulate you for going through the motions. Who knows... perhaps at one point the dam of preconceptions in your mind will burst under the force of all the facts and analysis I present and all of a sudden you'll just... "get it."

Where there's life there's hope!

March 20, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)