by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
From CNS News:
“The federal government raked in a record of approximately $2,446,920,000,000 in tax revenues through the first nine months of fiscal 2015 (Oct. 1, 2014 through the end of June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.
That equaled approximately $16,451 for every person in the country who had either a full-time or part-time job in June.
It is also up about $178,156,270,000 in constant 2015 dollars from the $2,268,763,730,000 in revenue (in inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars) that the Treasury raked in during the first nine months of fiscal 2014.
Despite the record tax revenues of $2,446,920,000,000 in the first nine months of this fiscal year, the government spent $2,760,301,000,000 during those nine months, and, thus, ran up a deficit of $313,381,000,000 during the period.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total seasonally adjusted employment in the United States in June (including both full and part-time workers) was 148,739,000. That means that the federal tax haul so far this fiscal year has equaled $16,451 for every person in the United States with a job.”
There are three months left of the fiscal year. According to the US Debt Clock, today’s federal debt is is about $18,609,920,535,000. At the end of FY 2015 the total government debt in the United States, including federal, state, and local, is expected to be $21.694 trillion.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
I have written about disparate impact many times over the past couple of years. I was gravely concerned about Loretta Lynch’s nomination to be the next Attorney General because of the huge role she has played in civil asset forfeiture cases. Now that the disparate impact case has been decided by the Supreme Court, I am concerned that she will now take up the mantle of disparate impact, much in the way Thomas Perez, the Labor Secretary, has done (and don’t forget, Perez was the original front runner for the AG job).
Below is Loretta Lynch’s statement on the SCOTUS ruling regarding disparate impact — the last line says it all: “Bolstered by this important ruling, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act with every tool at its disposal – including challenges based on unfair and unacceptable discriminatory effects.”
Remember, disparate impact allows if a protected class of citizens has a statistically lesser representation with respect to a business (hiring, mortgages origination, etc) it may be implied that the business or offender has intentionally discriminated — because there is an adverse impact as a result. In other words, “offenders” can be sought after for violating the law, whether or not there was actual intent. Unfortunately, disparate impact thus puts the burden to show lack of discrimination on the accused offender, meaning he is guilty until proven innocent.
It looks like with this statement that the Department of Justice will begin to more actively pursue disparate impact cases.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Thursday, June 25, 2015
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communites Project Inc.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch released the following statement today after the Supreme Court ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.:
“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Fair Housing Act encompasses disparate impact claims, which are an essential tool for realizing the Act’s promise of fair and open access to housing opportunities for all Americans. While our nation has made tremendous progress since the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, disparate impact claims remain an all-too-necessary mechanism for rooting out discrimination in housing and lending. By recognizing that laws, policies and practices with unjustified discriminatory effects are inconsistent with the Fair Housing Act, today’s decision lends support to hardworking Americans who are attempting to find good housing opportunities for themselves and their families. Bolstered by this important ruling, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act with every tool at its disposal – including challenges based on unfair and unacceptable discriminatory effects.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
March 13, 2015, was the first day that the Daily Treasury Statements showed a closing limit at 18,112,975,000,000. This number has now been frozen for 4 straight months. The latest Treasury statement on July 13, 2015 also showed $18,112,975,000,000 at its closing. This repeating amount is a portion of the federal debt that is subject to a legal limitation, currently sitting about $25 million less than the legal debt limit allowed by Congress.
Every day since March 13th, the Daily Treasury Statement shows the debt starting and ending with the exact same amount — $18,112,975,000,000.
The same day that the debt amount ended in $18,112,975,000,000, the current Treasury Secretary, Jacob Lew, informed Congress via a letter that he was issuing a debt “suspension period.” His rationale was due to the fact that legislation passed in 2014 suspended the debt limit until March 15, 2015 — in two days time.
Therefore, Lew wrote, on March 16, “the outstanding debt of the United States will be at the statutory limit. In anticipation of reaching that date, Treasury has suspended until further notice the issue of State and Local Government Series securities, which count against the debt limit.” These securities are classified as public debt.
Without having the debt limit raised by an act of Congress, the Treasury Department announced an alternative solution. Lew would issue a “‘debt issuance suspension period’ with respect to investment of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and also suspend the daily reinvestment of Treasury securities held by the Government Securities Investment Fund and the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Thrift Savings Plan.”
The last time the Treasury enacted a debt suspension was two years ago for roughly 150 days until the statutory debt limit was resolved. As I wrote back in October 2013,
“Monday, October 14, 2013 marks 150 days since the Treasury Department’s listing of public debt has not moved. The most current Daily Treasury report(October 10) shows “Total Public Debt Subject to Limit $ 16,699,396,000,000; Statutory Debt Limit $16,699,421,000,000.”
The record for these two entries remained unchanged since May 17, 2013, the first time it recorded the public debt at $16,699,396,000,000.”
The debt limit was raised a short time later. Currently, we have not raised the debt limit yet, and probably will not do so until late fall. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, a stronger than expected tax season will give policymakers more time to haggle over an increase to the debt limit…An unexpected influx of revenue means that the nation is not expected to be at risk of a catastrophic default until November of December of 2015″
Then, as now, at some point, those transactions suspensions will have to be made up, along with continuing to pay on our obligations. In other words, the Administration is currently picking and choosing what parts of government to fund.
For those who are worried about our public debt, have no fear! The Treasury Department’s FAQ’s already have a solution. Did you know:
“There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:
You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188″
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
On Friday, Office of Personnel Management Director Katherine Archuleta resigned in disgrace after the magnitude of the recent government data breach was revealed. Of course, she should never have been hired in the first place; her prior job was a political director for the President’s reelection campaign, Obama for America.
So how does one avert blame from the White House for this catastrophic privacy breach? Why, blame Republicans of course. CNN stated that Archuleta had never been properly vetted, writing that “aides to Republican lawmakers who voted for her confirmation now acknowledge they didn’t pay enough attention to the importance of technology in the agency Archuleta was taking over.”
In case you missed the point the first time around, CNN also tweeted out a summary of their article on Archuleta, announcing that “Republicans acknowledge to @evanperez they didn’t properly vet Archuleta’s qualifications.”
Of course this is utterly absurd. Do you know how many Republican Senators voted for Archuleta’s confirmation? Only eight did, while 35 Republican Senators voted against her. But all the Democrat Senators voted for her confirmation — after being appointed by a Democrat President. Yet CNN apparently did not care to mention this or even reach out to any of the Democrats for comment on their failure to properly vet her background for this position. It doesn’t fit the playbook.
What’s worse, if those eight Republicans had voted against the nomination, they would have been branded partisan and obstructionist. Hearken back to 2013, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined forces with a national Hispanic coalition, the National Hispanic Leadership Coalition, warning against blocking the nomination on the eve of the vote. The leader of the Hispanic group, Hector Sanchez, went so far as to suggest the confirmation vote would be used in a Latino scorecard, saying, “it is important that Republicans understand the impact their actions can have because they cannot play political games on these kinds of issues that are so important.”
All that is clearly forgotten in an attempt to deflect any culpability from the Obama Administration. Who is playing “political games” now? It’s CNN’s determination that one or more of the eight Republicans who voted for her are indeed at fault for her incompetency and the massive privacy invasion. You can expect no less from CNN these days, as they are certainly the White House lapdog.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
From my friend, Michael Cannon:
It appears that Medicaid-expansion enrollees are going to cost states a lot more than they thought. According to a just-released “2014 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid” from the Department of Health and Human Services, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is costing significantly more than projected:
“In 2014, the average benefit costs of newly eligible adult enrollees are expected to have been substantially greater than those for non-newly eligible adult enrollees in the program. Newly eligible adults are estimated to have had average benefit costs of $5,517 in 2014, 19 percent greater than non-newly eligible adults’ average benefit costs of $4,650. These estimates are significantly different from those in previous reports, in which average benefit costs for newly eligible adults in 2014 were estimated to be 1 percent lower than those of non-newly eligible adults.”
So the Obama administration had projected newly eligible Medicaid enrollees would cost about $50 less than other Medicaid-enrolled adults, but they actually cost nearly $1,000 more. Nice.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
How is it not a complete conflict of interest to have a person working for the State Department oversee both the IRS scandal documents for the current Administration and now the Benghazi documents for an important Presidential candidate? Or, looked at it another way, how is it that a current State Department employee has complete oversight of the documents of a former Secretary of State embroiled in a State Department scandal? Where is the impartiality?
Unfortunately, this is the scenario that is playing out. Catherine Duval, a former lawyer who joined the State Department in August of last year, is in charge of the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails and documents pertaining to Benghazi to the House Select Committee investigation the scandal, the same woman who was in charge of releasing IRS documents and Lerner’s emails.
As Rep. Jim Jordan, who is involved in investigating both scandals, pointed out, “She was at the IRS when there was a preservation order and subpoena — and documents were destroyed. She is now at the State Department, where we were supposed to get [certain] information, and we know that some of the emails were not given.”
It was recently revealed at the end of June by the IRS watchdog that IRS employees had magnetically erased 422 backup tapes that would have contained copies of Lerner’s “lost” emails. Duval apparently discovered the missing Lerner emails in February 2014; “though she alerted IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and a friend she had in the administration to the problem, neither she nor other IRS officials told Congress until June.” As many as 24,000 messages were magnetically wiped on March 4, 2014.
Furthermore, “the IRS said its email backup tapes had been “recycled” under the standard policy, insisting no backup of the lost messages existed.
That turned out to be false: The IRS inspector general that summer located backup tapes of Lerner’s emails. And though Koskinen at the time vowed his top people were trying to find out if there was any recoverable data, IT employees overseeing the tapes told the IG that no top-level IRS employees had even asked if such copies existed.
Duval has testified that she did not know the email preservation tapes even existed, telling Oversight investigators the IT chiefs informed her there were no backup tapes — and she had no reason to question their expertise.”
Rep. Jordan further outlined the frustration with Duval’s management, suggesting a “common pattern”: “Duval hasn’t been clear about important details in the investigations. She knew there were important gaps in Lerner’s email records for months and did not tell Congress, Jordan said — just as State did not tell the Benghazi panel for months that Clinton had exclusively used her personal account for work.”
Now the same tactics are being employed with the Benghazi documents, deemed “slow-walking” requests from the investigation committees. A request from last November remains unfulfilled for Clinton’s Libya-related emails and correspondence of her top 10 advisors.
The State Department has pushed back, pointing to the fact that it has “given Benghazi investigators 300 emails from Clinton’s personal account, allowed 21 State witnesses to be questioned and given investigators 40,000 pages of additional documents”, while claiming diligence “to review and publish the 55,000 pages of emails we received from former Secretary Clinton according to [Freedom of Information Act] standards so they are available to the general public and the media.”
However, 60 new Clinton emails regarding Libya, which had not been given to the investigation panel by the State Department, were discovered in a roundabout way — via a subpoena to Clinton’s close friend Sidney Blumenthal. The State Department claimed that Clinton herself did not turn over 15 of the 60 undisclosed emails to the State Department, but the Benghazi Committee pointed to the other 45 which was in the hands of the State Department, yet not disclosed and released to the Committee — which makes one wonder if there are even more emails and documents.
Heads should have been rolling over how the IRS misconduct was handled. Instead, in typical Obama Administration fashion, they are instead anointed and appointed again to lead another despicable government scandal.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
During oral arguments of the Burwell v Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made the case that the “court should defer to the interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service, which said the tax credits apply nationwide.” When the Obamacare decision was announced, it is clear that SCOTUS did apply deference, which was absolutely the worst possible solution.
The idea of “deference” refers “ to “Chevron deference,” “a doctrine mostly unknown beyond the halls of the Capitol and the corridors of the Supreme Court. It refers to a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and it is one of the most widely cited cases in law. Boiled down, it says that when a law is ambiguous, judges should defer to the agency designated to implement it so long as the agency’s decision is reasonable.”
Given the current catastrophic state of the IRS, SCOTUS should have run from this idea as quickly as possible. The IRS has proven overwhelmingly in the last few years that no decision it makes is “reasonable” and therefore cannot be trusted as an unbiased, independent agency capable of carrying out a professional opinion on this or virtually any manner.
Even more unfortunately, not only did SCOTUS apply deference, which allowed the IRS rule to stand, it did so by taking expanding the concept of “Chevron Deference” even further in order to validate its decision. George Will, in a column written just after the Obamacare ruling was handed down, described how the decision now allows the executive branch to apply deference in situations that are not just ambiguous, but also “inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created.” This is not interpreting law — this is legislating.
Therefore, the actions of the IRS — that is, willy-nilly creating rules which expanded the scope of Obamacare beyond its text — were indeed endorsed and given political cover by Roberts and his majority as they applied Chevron Deference. Instead of sending Obamacare back to the legislature for clarification, the judicial branch decided to step in and interpret the law for the sake of alleviating “inconvenience”. But this is wrong. Convenience, ease, and expediency should never be a rationale for the judicial branch to go beyond the scope of deciding whether or not a law is constitutional, as they did here.
The judicial branch, with this decision, seemed to act more in harmony with the legislative and executive one, instead of serving as a check against the others. What’s more, “besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution. It would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.”
Will summed up the damage Roberts has done, which is likely to have lasting effects in the courts for years to come. Roberts goes “beyond “understanding” the plan; he adopts a legislator’s role in order to rescue the legislature’s plan from the consequences of the legislature’s dubious decisions. By blurring, to the point of erasure, constitutional boundaries, he damages all institutions, not least his court.”
How the Supreme Court uses and applies Chevron Deference in the coming years, in the way they did with this decision, will be especially interesting, given the expanded roles of many government agencies such as the EPA and FCC.
by | BLOG
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
