Obama’s Absurd Double Standard on Defense Spending

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week we learned that the Obama administration has requested $2.6 billion in emergency funding for Louisiana flood relief. While the specifics of the Louisiana flood relief request should be thoughtfully considered, the very nature of this request highlights the Obama administration’s absurd double standard on budget issues.

Back in July, President Barack Obama announced that he had decided to keep more troops in Afghanistan at the end of 2016 than he had previously planned, and more than he had proposed funding in his fiscal year 2017 Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. While the decision to keep more troops in Afghanistan was a step in the right direction, it immediately raised the question of how to pay for these forces.

The day after Obama’s announcement, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter suggested that the Department of Defense might need to submit a supplemental funding request to cover the costs of the increased Afghanistan mission. This supplemental request would be categorized as “emergency spending,” just like the Louisiana flooding request.

And here’s where politics enters the picture. While Obama has now submitted an emergency funding request for Louisiana by itself, he has so far, two months after announcing his policy change, refused to submit an emergency funding request for the mission in Afghanistan without pairing it with unrelated domestic spending requests.

A White House Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman publicly admitted that any funding request for Afghanistan would not be considered by itself because “any increase in funding must be shared equally between defense and nondefense.”

Some in Congress were understandably upset by this. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called it “extortion,” saying:

If the president believes that sending thousands more young Americans into war is in the national security interest of the United States, he should support the additional funding required to support those warfighters. Full stop. No caveats, no qualifications, and no strings attached.

It would seem this “extortion” only goes one way. According to the Obama administration, if the military needs increased funding to succeed in a mission, that funding increase has to be paired with unrelated domestic funding. But if additional domestic spending is needed, it apparently does not need to be paired with increased defense spending, as we witnessed with the recent Louisiana funding request.

As commander in chief, the president should take a more strategic view of the nation’s needs.

Ever since the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Obama administration has successfully fought to preserve a dollar-for-dollar link between defense and nondefense discretionary spending levels. According to Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress, every dollar added to the defense budget must be matched with a dollar added to the domestic budget.

This is an absurd, nonsensical way of budgeting that only survives in Washington. Threats to U.S. vital interests are rising and the U.S. military has been dramatically weakened under major budget cuts over the last five years, but any increase in the defense budget has to be matched with nondefense budget increases? This makes no sense.

Think about it in the context of a family budget. If one spouse wants to invest in a better, more expensive home security system due to increased crime in the neighborhood, will the other spouse refuse to agree to this funding increase without a dollar-for-dollar increase in funding toward a new car or an upgraded cable TV package? Of course not.

If threats are rising, and your security system needs to be improved, you will tighten your belt in other areas to pay for this increase. Only in Washington can a politician get away with holding a security funding increase hostage for completely unrelated domestic spending increases.

While the details of the Louisiana flooding relief request can be debated, the request shows that the Obama administration is only committed to the “dollar-for-dollar” principle when it results in growing domestic spending. When security spending is on the table, it is happy to use it as political leverage for its own priorities. Defense and nondefense should not be linked. What some call the “firewall” between defense and nondefense should be broken, and every dollar spent should be considered on its own merits.

This crazy suicide pact on spending needs to end. Afghanistan funding and other security needs should be considered on their own merits, and the defense budget overall should be increased in response to growing threats and a shrinking, weaker U.S. military. The American people deserve a reasonable budget process, not one that involves hostage-taking and extortion, or using the military as leverage for domestic agendas. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Absurd Double Standard on Defense Spending” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No, the Constitution Isn’t Outdated

/0 Comments/in , /by

Time tests quality, and the fact that our Founders’ creation has outlasted so many other regimes signifies their skill and prescience.

But for others, such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Constitution’s age is a mark against it. Asked in a 2012 interview whether Egypt’s new government should look to other constitutions for guidance, Ginsburg replied, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.”

She added that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms might also be a good place to start, as it is “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution. … It dates from 1982.”

More recently, this summer, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote in an op-ed for Slate that he “[sees] absolutely no value to … studying the Constitution.” His reasoning: “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”

Time tests quality, and the fact that our Founders’ creation has outlasted so many other regimes signifies their skill and prescience.

The left frequently claims that political science, like the natural sciences, is continuously advancing. Accordingly, a competently crafted constitution written in the early 1980s must almost certainly be better than a constitution written in the late 1780s. After all, the framers of Canada’s charter had the benefit of nearly two centuries of societal developments that our Founders could not have foreseen.

As Richard Stengel, former president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, wrote in a splashy 2011 article in Time magazine:

Here are a few things the Framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.

Stengel’s list is instructive as it gives the reader a sense of the changes liberals think our Constitution does not adequately account for. Take for instance: “airplanes, the atom, the internal combustion engine, and antibiotics.” These all represent technological or scientific innovations unknown to the Founders that, purportedly, have some relevance to structuring a government.

Some scientific and technological changes do require that we think carefully about the Founders’ intent when they were writing the Constitution. For instance, new technologies allow police to peer into homes without physically entering them, intercept an email or a text message, or track your car from their computer back at the precinct. Whether these things constitute a search or seizure of citizens’ “houses, papers, and effects” under the Fourth Amendment is an important question the Founders do not answer for us directly.

But by no means are we merely left to guess how the Constitution speaks to these modern conditions. Through the Founders’ own writings contained in the Federalist Papers, notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and correspondence, thoughtful judges and legal scholars get a clear sense of the spirit behind the words on the page.

Given the Founders’ concern that government would use warrantless searches to harass and condemn political dissidents, it is hard to imagine James Madison or Alexander Hamilton would approve of warrantless wiretaps, drone flyovers, and email dragnets conducted by federal agencies.

Other items on Stengel’s list—sexting, miniskirts, and Lady Gaga—belong to another category of societal development liberals often refer to when questioning our Constitution’s continued relevance: shifting social norms.

What they typically forget is our Constitution was never meant to address every new cultural development nor freeze American society in place as it existed at the turn of the 18th century. The Founders knew that the societal concerns and policy questions particular to their time would eventually be resolved and new issues would arise to take their place.

While the Constitution was not meant to steer the development of American culture in every sense, the Founders did think a free society demanded certain qualities of character among the citizenry: habits of self-governance, respect for the rights of others, and reverence for the law. But within those brackets is allowed some latitude for culture to develop organically and locally without the heavy hand of government at the helm.

While the Founders took special care to ensure the Constitution’s foundation could survive new developments in technology and society, the durability of the document owes as much to what the Founders knew about human nature and worked into our foundational text as it does what they recognized they could not foresee and left to future generations.

Our Founders believed government must be strictly restrained because those attracted to political power rarely restrain themselves. The Founders knew even the power of the majority should not be total, since infringements of individual liberty authorized by 150 million voters are often no more just than those authorized by a single ruler.

As Madison writes in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

When men and women sprout wings and halos, or seraphim and cherubim descend from the heavens to run our government, then it might be time to question the continued utility of our Constitution. But as long as human nature remains subject to the same failings the Founders wisely identified, we should be skeptical of liberal doctrines that allow the powerful to interpret the extent of their own power and protect only those individual liberties a bare majority approves of.

As yet, the heavens have not parted, and human nature is still as fallible as it was 229 years ago. Thankfully, our nation was blessed with a generation of men who had insight to perceive the essential character of man vis-à-vis government and the wisdom to craft institutions rooted in those unchanging realities. (For more from the author of “No, the Constitution Isn’t Outdated” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Colleges’ War on Free Speech Continues

/0 Comments/in , /by

The University of Chicago’s president, Robert J. Zimmer, wrote a Wall Street Journal article, titled “Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education.” In it, he wrote:

Free speech is at risk at the very institution where it should be assured: the university. Invited speakers are disinvited because a segment of a university community deems them offensive, while other orators are shouted down for similar reasons. Demands are made to eliminate readings that might make some students uncomfortable. Individuals are forced to apologize for expressing views that conflict with prevailing perceptions. In many cases, these efforts have been supported by university administrators.

Sharing the president’s vision, the University of Chicago’s dean of students, John Ellison, sent a letter to freshmen students that read, in part:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Those are hardly the sentiments of dishonest and spineless administrators at other colleges. At DePaul University, a visit by conservative journalist Milo Yiannopoulos was disrupted by student activists. School security refused to restore order and later banned Yiannopoulos from returning.

Conservative Ben Shapiro was invited by Young America’s Foundation to California State University-Los Angeles to deliver a speech titled “When Diversity Becomes a Problem.”

University President William Covino wrote an email that read, “After careful consideration, I have decided that it will be best for our campus community if we reschedule Ben Shapiro’s appearance for a later date, so that we can arrange for him to appear as part of a group of speakers with differing viewpoints on diversity. Such an event will better represent our university’s dedication to the free exchange of ideas.”

But note that the university invited leftists such as Cornel West, Angela Davis, and Tim Wise without feeling a need for differing viewpoints.

Sociologist Barry Glassner is the president of Lewis & Clark College. Morton Schapiro is the president of and a professor of economics at Northwestern University.

Schapiro wrote in The Washington Post: “I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort.”

Both presidents, in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, said campus protests are a “sign of progress” toward diversity and inclusion and are “noble” methods of change, as opposed to the opining of “pundits and politicians … from gated communities and segregated offices.” They added, “Students are coming of age in a time of political, social and economic turbulence unseen in a generation.”

Many college administrators have generalized contempt for American values. Here’s just a bit of the evidence. A reporter from Project Veritas covertly recorded an administrator at Vassar College following through on her request to shred the Constitution.

Carol Lasser, professor of history and director of gender, sexuality, and feminist studies at Oberlin College, said that “the Constitution is an oppressive document” because it intentionally makes change a slow process. Wendy Kozol, chair of comparative American studies at Oberlin, agreed, saying, “the Constitution in everyday life causes people pain,” and added that she rarely discusses the Constitution in class and that when she does, she tends to focus on specific amendments.

The University of Michigan and Case Western Reserve University have announced safe spaces to protect students from unwelcome opinions. University of California-Santa Barbara students want trigger warnings for all classes and the right to be excused from any lessons that might “trigger” them.

The courage shown by University of Chicago administrators is relatively rare. The academic tyranny seen on many college campuses reflects a dereliction of duty by those who are charged with the ultimate control—the boards of trustees.

Trustees have the power to fire a president and his key administrators for yielding to campus tyrants. College administrators buy into today’s nonsense because they lack backbone and are cowards. Worse yet, they may see merit in safe spaces, trigger warnings, and student disruption of speakers with uncomfortable ideas. (For more from the author of “Colleges’ War on Free Speech Continues” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

False Alarm: House GOP Caved on Impeaching IRS Commissioner After Mere Hours

/0 Comments/in , /by

The House GOP caved on demanding a vote to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Late Wednesday night, Politico reported:

“House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte have reached a tentative compromise to postpone a vote to impeach the IRS commissioner, sources familiar with the talks told POLITICO.

“Under the terms of the emerging deal, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen would testify before the Judiciary panel next Wednesday, and any impeachment vote would likely be postponed until after the November election rather than take place on Thursday, the sources said.”

In the late afternoon Wednesday, Freedom Caucus Reps. Jim Jordan, R-OH (A, 94%), Mark Meadows, R-N.C. (A, 93%), and Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan. (A, 91%) spoke to reporters about their effort to impeach IRS commissioner John Koskinen for lying to Congress and destroying 24,000 emails relating to Lois Lerner’s targeting of conservative groups.

Jordan stated that the group was “strong on every count” against Koskinen, who was brought on as IRS Commissioner in the wake of the political targeting scandal in 2013. Koskinen was under three preservation orders and two subpoenas while the IRS destroyed 24,000 emails and 422 backup records with evidence that the IRS targeted conservative groups.

Jordan told reporters that the impeachment measure has been on the table for a year, but Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. (D, 66%), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has been reluctant to proceed with impeachment hearings. House GOP leadership has also been reluctant to go forward with impeachment before an election, despite the fact that the IRS continued to cover up the political targeting of conservative groups under Koskinen.

With the inaction from Goodlatte and House GOP leadership, Reps. John Fleming, R-La. (B, 86%) and Huelskamp introduced a privileged resolution to impeach Koskinen on Tuesday, meaning the House must hold a vote within 48 hours unless the resolution is withdrawn.

On late Wednesday afternoon, when the Freedom Caucus members met with reporters to discuss the resolution, they expected a vote to happen the next morning. Less than five hours later though, they reached an agreement with House leadership, negotiated by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. (B, 87%), to hold off on the privileged resolution until the lame-duck session —when it’s more politically expedient for moderate GOP members, and to have Koskinen testify under oath in front of the Judiciary Committee.

Jordan, Meadows, and Huelskamp agreed on Wednesday that in a case like Koskinen’s, where it is clear that the First Amendment rights of Americans were trampled on in an overreach of bureaucratic power and then covered up, it is proper and necessary that the House invokes impeachment. The Founding Fathers clearly thought that impeachment power should be used by Congress to keep abuse of power in check, which is why impeachment is mentioned in “The Federalist Papers” 58 times.

Instead of properly utilizing the power constitutionally granted to it, Congress has become the most ineffectual branch of government in the past few decades — well, maybe 14 decades. As George Will pointed out in National Review, it’s been 140 years since the House impeached a member of the executive branch. When Congress is ineffectual, the executive and judicial branches become more and more powerful, which is why, in 2016, we have a near-unaccountable president and activist judges.

As Rep. Huelskamp said of House Republicans yesterday, “How can you look someone in the eye and tell them you’re the backstop of the constitution, and you’re not willing to vote on this?” (For more from the author of “False Alarm: House GOP Caved on Impeaching IRS Commissioner After Mere Hours” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Just Had a Monster Polling Day

/0 Comments/in , /by

The first wave of polling after Hillary Clinton’s literal collapse over the weekend has started to be released. It’s a Trump rout. In the 11 polls released today, Trump leads seven and tied in two. Voters are reacting to their gut instincts after Clinton was caught lying about her health and giving Trump higher levels of support.

Here’s a quick snapshot of the recent polling as aggregated by RealClearPolitics.

big-polling-day-favors-trump

In that polling are some state jumps. The most significant being in Ohio and Iowa. Polls in both of those states have shown large gains for Trump versus prior polling.

The words “SHOCK POLL” are probably the most overused in the political commentary business. But what just got released in Iowa fits that bill. A Monmouth poll released today in Iowa shows Trump with an eight-point lead. This is a jump from its previous poll. The poll was taken from Monday, September 12 to Wednesday, September 14, 2016.

There have been three polls released in Ohio over the past two days. Trump leads in all of them. All of them were taken, at least in part, after Hillary’s collapse over the weekend. CNN/ORC and Bloomberg both show Trump with a five-point lead, and Suffolk shows the lead at three points. Clinton leads in only one poll of the state taken in September. That CBS/YouGov poll is looking more and more like an outlier.

Hillary Clinton’s comments calling half of Trump’s supporter “deplorables,” and her being caught lying about her health have combined to move the needle in Trump’s favor. What seemed like a sure thing for a Clinton win just three short weeks ago is now a competitive race. If the election were held today, it is anyone’s guess who would win. (For more from the author of “Trump Just Had a Monster Polling Day” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message

/0 Comments/in , /by

A pro-abortion group wrongly calling itself “Catholic” is once again drawing fire from those who actually adhere to the church’s 2,000-year-old, immutable teachings on life.

This week, the group “Catholics for Choice” ran full-page, color newspaper ads in multiple states where Catholics form a significant voting bloc. One such ad that ran in the Chicago Tribune carries the heading “Abortion in Good Faith,” featuring an elderly woman named Linda saying, “It is because of my Catholic faith, not in spite of it, that I support women who make conscience-based decisions to have an abortion.”

The ad is in direct contradiction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” and that the “teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable,” and that every willed abortion “gravely contrary to the moral law.” The ad goes on to call taxpayer-funded abortions a “social justice issue.”

Catholic bishops across America have taken issue with the group’s grossly errant statement and message, especially when it comes to portraying itself as a Catholic organization.

“Despite what is implied by its name, Catholics for Choice is not a member-oriented organization and has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church,” reads a statement from the Texas Catholic Conference, a statewide association of the Roman Catholic dioceses in Texas, in response to similar ads run in the Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, and San Antonio Express-News. “Instead, it is financed by grants from a few secular organizations pushing a pro-abortion agenda. It seldom ventures beyond Washington to Texas, unless it is to buy expensive, full-page ads when it serves their pro-abortion agenda.”

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, issued a statement, calling the misleading ad offensive.

“The biggest falsehood in these advertisements is the statement that ‘as a Catholic’ a person can respect and support a decision to kill an unborn person,” reads another statement from Bishop Steven J. Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in Houston. “The insinuation that Catholic faith can lead a person to sanction something which is always and everywhere a moral evil is fraudulent, deceitful, and simply wrong.”

This is not the first time “‘Catholics’ for Choice” has clashed with bishops over a media campaign. Last year, the group took out another full-page, color advertisement on The Washington Post’s daily Express tabloid in June smearing the National Bishops Conference “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign, which seeks to defend and uphold religious liberty against a host of secular attacks.

The ad depicts a cartoonish caricature of a Catholic bishop pointing to the reader (a la Uncle Sam), saying “We want YOU to help us discriminate.”

Ethics & Public Policy Center fellow Stephen White called the ad “old-timey anti-Catholicism” in response, saying “the folks at the Washington Post (who ok’d this travesty) and at Catholics for Choice could do with some prayers.” (For more from the author of “‘Catholics for Choice’ Isn’t Catholic and Neither Is Its Disgusting Message” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here! The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Our Summer Intern Biff Spackle scoops the world with the latest Hillary banner ads, to be unveiled any minute now.

160915-hillary-banner-ads

(For more from the author of “The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here! The New Hillary Banner Ads Are Here!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Reasons to Expect an Absolute Nightmare This December

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By all appearances, Republicans will suffer some serious losses in the upcoming election. The House may remain in GOP hands, but the Republican majority is expected to shrink. The Senate, on the other hand, is tilting towards Democratic control.

If the Republicans Party loses its majorities, the GOP’s ability to lead conservatives in Congress will have lasted a measly two years. During that time, they have accomplished little. However, the time for Republicans to adopt something — hell, anything — remotely conservative, is now. There are only a few opportunities available, but perhaps none is as important as the upcoming spending bill, known as the Continuing Resolution (CR).

In a matter of days, 2016 spending authorization will expire, and it will soon become evident whether Republicans are prepared to fight for conservative principles — or relent to Obama. Unfortunately, in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 42%) has already expressed interest in caving to Democrat demands by passing a short-term CR into December. House conservatives, on the other hand, want to lock in conservative spending priorities for a longer term, or at least for the next nine months.

McConnell knows that this December represents a lame-duck session of Congress. Lame-duck sessions are dangerous times for Congress. As my former colleague, Andy Koenig, noted in the Wall Street Journal,

Dozens of lawmakers on Capitol Hill will retire after November’s election, some voluntarily, some not. But many of them, on both sides of the aisle, are demanding a last chance to pass their preferred policies – in a lame-duck session, this time without interference from pesky voters.

Yes, those pesky voters mean YOU. While we should be clinging to one last chance to sway conservative policy in the CR, we must simultaneously fear the speed at which McConnell is so ready to allow liberals the last word. Here’s what has us concerned.

More Spending

Lame-duck spending bills are synonymous with more spending.

During the 2012 lame duck, Congress passed the “fiscal cliff” budget deal, which increased spending by $47 billion. The same scenario played out the following December, in 2013. Republicans again relented to Democrat demands for additional spending, agreeing to reverse austerity measures passed in the Budget Control Act (a 2011 conservative bill that was designed to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over a decade). The 2013 lame-duck spending bill, however, increased spending for two years; a $45 billion increase for 2014 and an $18 billion increase for 2015.

There was more of the same this past December. Congressional Republicans agreed to increase spending by $80 billion; $50 billion of which was tacked on to this year; the other was designed for next year.

If Congress is consistent at all, it’s in their desire to increase spending during December; particularly during a lame duck. Senator McConnell’s interest in jamming through a spending bill during the lame duck indicates that we should expect more of the same.

Union Bailout

Last week, thousands of unionized coal miners from the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) protested around the U.S. Capitol. Their demonstrations were meant to pressure Congress into providing a bailout for their broken pension and healthcare system. Those miners, in particular, expect Congress to write a check for nearly $490 million — per year.

That amount will cover just a fraction of the short-fall each year. In total, the miners’ pension fund is short nearly six billion in promised benefits. And pleas from the unions are starting to find sympathy among politicians. In July, The USA today reported bipartisan support for Congressional action, especially from Ohio’s Senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (F, 11%) and Republican, Rob Portman, R-Ohio (F, 49%).

The dangerous precedent Congress will set by bailing out this one constituency could lead to one of the world’s largest bailouts. As I wrote last week, unions in total (not just miners) across America have underfunded pension funds totaling more than $600 billion. Furthermore, there are other private, non-unionized plans that need $760 billion in order to fulfill pension promises — or more than $1.3 trillion.

Will Congress offer bailouts for some Americans and not others? Unlikely. Therefore, December could be the start of a multi-trillion dollar pension bailouts.

Obamacare Bailout

Last Friday, the Obama Administration released a discreet memo to every health insurer effectively offering an additional Obamacare bailout. The bailout is related to Obamacare’s risk corridors, created to help insurance companies initially transition into the exchanges. Companies with large profits were asked to deposit part of those gains with the government in order to help other insurance companies that were operating at a loss.

As you can imagine, this plan only works if the insurance companies are actually making money. As Chris Jacobs writes at National Review, “As with most things Obamacare, risk corridors haven’t turned out quite like the administration promised. In 2014, insurers paid in a total of $362 million into the risk-corridor program – but requested $2.87 billion in disbursements.”

Without the necessary funds to bailout all the insurance companies, the Obama administration attempted instead to use taxpayer dollars — a move that turned out to be illegal. It was actually Congress, shockingly enough, that stepped in to prevent Obama from using any funds for this purpose.

Yet, sure enough, Obama found a loophole. The administration has since been sending public notices that insurers are permitted to sue the United States government. Yes, you read that right — “Please sue me.” That letter, sent out in November 2015, signified that all unpaid risk corridor charges were “an obligation of the United States Government for which full payment is required.”

Therefore, instead of complying with the Congressional prohibition on bailouts, the Obama administration has instead encouraged insurance companies to litigate their case before a court; a procedure that would allow the Obama administration to pay the insurance companies from another taxpayer fund, the Judgement Fund of the Treasury; a fund that is used to pay out claims against the U.S.

Absent any action from Congress, Republicans could end up bailing out Obamacare. By doing nothing, Obama will continue to pay-off the insurance companies through the Judgement Fund, blatantly ignoring the intention of Congress.

Previous spending bills have been used to stop Obamacare bailouts; in this instance, Congress can once again prohibit insurance companies receiving payment from the Judgement Fund.

In the end, Congress may proactively bailout out the insurance companies — or do nothing, and accomplish the same end. But just remember, the health care lobby is massive, not to mention wealthy — and there will be many members leaving Congress who would like new employment.

Unneeded Emergency Funding

Flooding and severe storms wreaked havoc on Louisiana last month. In total, 20 parishes were declared a major disaster; at least 60,000 homes were damaged. The governor of the state is expecting damages could exceed $8.4 billion. Of course, that is a preliminary estimate — and everyone is hoping the federal government will pick up the tab.

At first glance, there appears to be enough money in existing federal coffers to help Louisiana. According to Roll Call, FEMA’s emergency fund has $5.3 billion available in its Disaster Relief Fund, not to mention another $7.4 billion that was appropriated this year. In total, the federal government has more than $12 billion available, more than enough to assist Louisiana.

Yet, that isn’t stopping Republican members of Congress from asking for more! In fact, Republican Senators David Vitter, R-La. (D, 69%) and Bill Cassidy, R-La. (F, 50%) along with House Republican Whip, Steve Scalise, R-La. (D, 64%) and the rest of the Louisiana delegation, sent President Obama a letter requesting more emergency funding, “With Congress considering appropriation bills to fund the federal government, it is crucial that a Louisiana supplemental disaster funding component be included as part of the funding bill.”

Congress has long been known to use emergency funding as an excuse to increase spending, even when it’s not particularly needed. Might we see more of this in the lame duck?

Zika Funding

Controversy has surrounded Zika since early summer when the first confirmed cases showed up in Florida. In late June, Congress departed for a summer break without consensus on Zika funding. Despite the government having access to $590 million, left over from Ebola fuding, both parties want at least an additional $1 billion. Republicans requested $1.1 billion, while Democrats demanded $1.9 billion. However, Democrats want more than simply an extra $800 million – they wanted that additional cash to get funneled to Planned Parenthood. That request left the two parties in stalemate.

Until today, that is. According to press reports, it appears Mitch McConnell is willing to relent in order to get a deal done on Zika. That means that in addition to the $550 million the federal government already sends to Planned Parenthood, they may now qualify for more federal money — this, let me remind you, is under a Republican Congress.

To clarify, this agreement may get done before the new fiscal year. But if Republicans and Democrats can’t settle the Zika debate in its entirety — or if the virus gets any worse, we should all prepare to see this issue addressed further in the lame duck.

Conclusion

Republicans spent years working to regain the House, and fought even longer to recapture the Senate. The opportunities that Republican gained by taking control of Congress were endless. Yet few, if any, truly conservative goals were accomplished. Instead, this Republican moment will be remembered for higher spending, larger debts, and bigger deficits. They have one more chance to make a name for themselves — this time by avoiding a complete sell out during this year’s lame duck. (For more from the author of “5 Reasons to Expect an Absolute Nightmare This December” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Nature of Upside-Down Alaska Politics

/0 Comments/in , /by

Donkeys, Elephants, and Rinos! Fitting names for the zoo like behavior of many in Alaska’s political environment where Democrats are running as Independents and Democrats claim they are running as conservatives, leaving Alaskan’s confused with their heads spinning as they try to make sense of it all. This mix-up likely stems from politicians and candidates not adhering to political party platforms which adds to the confusion regarding the definition of a libertarian.

What is a Libertarian? A Democrat, a Republican, a conservative or a liberal? How do you get to the truth and to the core of a candidate in order to understand who they “really” are? Many vote R or D out of tradition without understanding what their respective candidates actually stand for.

In order to understand our form of government and the division of parties we must begin with Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It states “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” It is my belief that in order to maintain and strengthen our freedoms, individual civil liberties and success we must sustain our Republican form of government. And, over time, it has become overwhelmingly apparent that this is best done through the implementation of Libertarian principles.

As I reflect upon my own upbringing, I have always been fiercely independent and self-determined with an eager desire to venture out into the world to pursue my own interests. Probably not that much different from most people. In many ways I attribute my internal compass to my Alaska Native Aleut heritage and the influences of my parents and grandparents who instilled their deep cultural Alaska Native roots in me.

Something I began to understand much better in my 20s was that a lot of people across all demographics shared many of the same feelings and beliefs. Naively I wondered if they were Aleut descendants too? Silly, I know. But, it became evident that we are naturally Libertarians, seeking to be free, independent, and respecting the freedoms of others. Being a Libertarian has always been natural for me. Being a Libertarian is being grounded in simple principles of liberty, personal freedom, individual responsibility, self-determination, and self-reliance, kindness, peace, and the utmost respect for life.

Let me correctly define what a Libertarian is in order to give clarity and correct stereotypes that have been made by non-libertarians about our philosophy.

First, there is a big difference between political party affiliation and philosophical beliefs. Just because one registers as a republican does not make them conservative. Take a look at the voting records of our elected officials and you’ll see what I mean. Republicans often self-ascribe as conservatives when many actually aren’t. Many that identify as conservatives often read parts of the Libertarian platform and comment, “that sure sounds conservative.” In fact many conservative principles are actually derived from Libertarian principles not the other way around.

Political party affiliation allows you to be a part of a group. Party registration is simply an association. And, when you consider that this is done completely outside of the authority of the parties, there are limited controls and standards applied to membership. Within that association however you will have many flavors of philosophical perspectives. The primary political affiliations include Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian. Political Ideologies may include but are not limited to Liberal, progressive, conservative, moderate and Libertarian. Libertarians are the only political party that describes its philosophy and the name of the party with the same term and this sometimes causes some confusion.

Libertarians believe in the idea of individual liberty, limited government, free market economics, constitutional government, adhering to the strict enumerated powers of government, self-reliance, the rule of law, and peace. These are just the tip of the iceberg.
Libertarians strongly believe in the rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution protecting life, liberty, and property. Libertarians defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful, doesn’t encroach upon the freedom of others and encourages the diversity that freedom brings.

Libertarianism is often misunderstood and incorrectly defined by people on the right and left. Libertarians are not some hybrid of republicans and democrats. Libertarians are not a concocted half-breed of political ideologies and dogma. Libertarianism, plainly stated, is the counterpoint to both the liberal and conservative perspectives.

Democrats and Republicans love to define, wrongly of course, what a Libertarian is, who we are and what we believe. This is done to diminish our influence and ideological strength as a strategy, drawing Libertarians into their parties, for self-aggrandizement. Almost always, republicans, democrats, and the media purposely or ignorantly wrongly state the Alaska Libertarian platform, policies and positions. This leads to some libertarians to in fact themselves misunderstand true libertarian principles.

I refuse to stand idly by while those with deceptive political intentions try to define who we are and what we believe.

Myth VS. Truth about Libertarians:

MYTH #1:
Libertarians are pro-abortion. (We are not. That is a liberal Democrat position)

– We stand with the Declaration of Independence that proclaims that humanity is endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life.“

MYTH #2:
Libertarians are Pro Same Sex Marriage (We are not. That is a liberal democrat position)

– We believe that it is an improper role of government to “grant” permission and charge a fee for a licenses to marry anyone.

MYTH #3:
Libertarians are Pacifists (We are not. Pacifists are Pacifists and not libertarians.)

– We believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and stand with the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, often referred to as the War Powers Act, that a declaration of war is the authority of the Congress, not the President.

MYTH #4:
Libertarians are Anarchists (We are not. Anarchists are Anarchists and not libertarians.)

– We believe in the constitutional form of republican government that is laid out in Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution. We believe in limited, defined, government.

MYTH #5:
Libertarians promote drug use through legalization. (We do not. This is a liberal democrat position.)

– Legalization is advocacy for access through permission from government with a fee or tax levied. This is not liberty, it is permission.

MYTH #6:
Libertarians pursue legalization of…

– We support the Declaration of Independence that demands that government does not over regulate. A prominent grievance by our Founding Fathers to King George was that “He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their Substance.” Our nation was founded on the principle that government, in most cases, ought to leave us alone.

In Conclusion, the Alaska Libertarian Party differs from the National Libertarian Party platform in two distinct ways. Alaska does not address abortion or personal relationships. In addition some semantic word changes exist which are slightly modified to meet the needs of our unique lifestyle and cultures in Alaska. Additionally, Alaskan Libertarian candidates are free to define their degree of national integrity or “border control.”

Government should be a last resort not a first resource!

__________________________________________

thumbnail_img_1369Terrence Shanigan is the first Alaska native to be elected as Chair to a major recognized Party in Alaska. The Alaska Libertarian Party is proud of this distinction. He is a veteran, retired Alaska State Trooper, Alaska Native Aleut, former President of the Native tribe of Kanatak and Tribal Judge.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Tough Phoenix Sheriff May Have New Foe: George Soros

/0 Comments/in , /by

Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America who could face criminal charges for ignoring a judge’s order to stop targeting Latinos in anti-immigration roundups, may now have a new foe as he seeks re-election – George Soros, the billionaire liberal hedge fund tycoon.

The Republican sheriff already was battered politically and support for him had been slipping when a group linked to Soros mounted an anti-Arpaio attack in an attempt to weaken his bid for a seventh straight term.

The group started sending fliers to Phoenix-area voters two weeks ago, and a mailing last week accuses Arpaio of separating a mother from her child because of an unpaid traffic ticket, botching hundreds of sex crimes investigations and scaring immigrants so much that that they don’t report crime. (Read more from “Tough Phoenix Sheriff May Have New Foe: George Soros” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.