On 5/13/14, the Washington Post unfortunately repeats a claim touted by Eric Cantor as an alleged example of what a great job he's done:
"Cantor has argued repeatedly to repeal the health-care law."...
This claim is an insult and deflects attention from the only relevant fact regarding House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and ObamaCare: Cantor has never "argued repeatedly" to defund ObamaCare. The House has been free to defund ObamaCare unilaterally since January 2011. To flippantly mislead people about such damaging legislation is bad enough. Worse is that the GOP House of which Eric Cantor is Majority Leader could've stopped ObamaCare in January 2011 and every day since but has chosen not to hold a standalone up or down vote on defunding.
The 54 alleged "repeal" votes in the House were GOP charades and a waste of time. Everyone knows the House isn't able to unilaterally 'repeal' legislation. So-called "repeal" votes Cantor references may have required legislative changes and other matters the House isn't able to decide unilaterally. None of the votes Cantor references were standalone, up or down bills to defund O'Care because since January 2011 the House has never held a standalone up or down vote to defund ObamaCare.
The power of the purse is reserved to the House alone--should it choose to exercise that power, eg., withhold ObamaCare spending. Neither the Senate nor the White House has the power to reverse House decisions to withhold money.
House Majority leader Cantor could even insist on a standalone, up or down vote to defund today. Instead Cantor mocks all Americans by constantly whining about his sham "repeal" votes.
Perhaps Cantor tried and failed to influence Boehner to hold a standalone up or down vote to defund. If so, he proved he's an ineffective leader.
Then there's the matter that ObamaCare is a tax.
ObamaCare has never been approved as a tax by the House. John Roberts said it was legal as a tax, but he didn't amend the Constitution, Article I, Section 7. "Only the House may introduce a bill that involves taxes." John Boehner has never allowed a vote to approve O'Care as a tax:
"When the United States Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare in 2012, Chief Justice Roberts stance on Obamacare coincides with the intent of the U.S. Constitution, explained by Pease, and the powers between the House and Senate.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Obamacare cannot be implemented and is not considered the law of the land....
"Because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax,” said Atkinson....
The intent of the Founding Fathers was to give the people, through their House of Representatives, the power collectively to say no to any proposed federal tax."..
============================
Some have claimed ObamaCare can't be defunded because it's "mandatory spending," but no such thing exists:
9/26/13, Republican Senator Ron Johnson:
.
"Eventually, if you're going to defund Obamacare, you're going to have to pass a (repeal) bill because Obamacare is permanent law. It's part of that mandatory spending. And you have to pass a bill through the Senate and have the president sign it into law." (end of article)
In Nov. 2010 the GOP House was given a lot of extra people to make it easy for them to defund ObamaCare. It became clear right away they had no intention of doing so.
====================
Sources:
=====================
5/13/14, "" Washington Post, by
===============================
Following are two citations re: House of Representatives' unilateral power of the purse, Dr. Angelo Codevilla and Dr. Harold Pease:
Dr. Angelo Codevilla specifically cites ObamaCare and the GOP House: "Obamacare has existed strictly at the sufferance of the House leadership since that majority took office in January 2011:"
.
===================
1. Professor Emeritus Dr. Angelo M. Codevilla:
"John Boehner and his chosen band" have opted not "to use the constitutional power they have to refuse to appropriate money for Obamacare":
9/17/13, "The Obama-Boehner Project," Angelo M. Codevilla, libertylawsite.org
"The Republican Party owes its majority in the House of Representatives – and John Boehner his speakership thereof – to the American people’s dislike of Obamacare. Because the US Constitution is explicit that the US government may expend only funds appropriated by Congress, Obamacare has existed strictly at the sufferance of the House leadership since that majority took office in January 2011. But John Boehner and his chosen band have thwarted the majority of Republican congressmen’s desire to use the constitutional power they have to refuse to appropriate money for Obamacare."...
"Angelo M. Codevilla: Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. He served as a U.S. Senate Staff member dealing with oversight of the intelligence services. His book Peace Among Ourselves and With All Nations is forthcoming from Hoover Institution Press."
======================
====================
2. Dr. Harold Pease, Professor of Political Science and History, Taft College:
The House can unilaterally defund ObamaCare via a standalone bill:
10/2/13, “Obamacare can be defunded without Senate approval,“ Examiner, Christopher Collins
"Dr. Harold Pease, an expert on the United States Constitution stated that the authority in dealing with Obamacare funding belongs to the U.S. House, not the U.S. Senate and that the House is doing this all wrong.
Pease said, “Everything hinged upon funding which was given exclusively to the House of Representatives, the only power that they alone had.”
Pease went on to say, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives.”...
If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House."...
=====================
=====================
About the 6/28/12 Supreme Court ObamaCare ruling:
7/5/12, "What the Supreme Court ruled on health care 'tax'," CNN, Josh Levs
"The high court overturned a unanimous decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the mandate did not impose a tax....
The court emphasized that it was not weighing in on whether the mandate is a good idea.
"Because the
Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to
pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the decision said."
.
.
================================
The House of Representatives power to defund, and there's no such thing as "mandatory spending:"
8/30/13, "Founders made defunding 'the most complete and effectual weapon'," Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott, Executive Editor
"It's not often that I've had the opportunity or inclination to take up my pen in recent months, owing to the Washington Examiner's transformation earlier this year from daily print newspaper to online media. I do so now only out of concern about a persistent myth that is heard daily in the Obamacare debate.
That myth is that Congress cannot repeal or otherwise change "mandatory spending," and therefore Obamacare cannot be defunded via a continuing resolution, as proposed by Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
People on all sides of the "defund, delay or repeal Obamacare" issue have solid arguments, and this column isn't about whether one or the other side ought to prevail in that discussion.
What this column most certainly is about, however, is that the Congress can repeal, increase, reduce or otherwise modify any "mandatory spending" measure at any time. In fact, James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," made it clear in Federalist #58 that the Founders specifically gave the House of Representatives the power of the purse with the expectation that it would on occasion use that power to stop unwise acts by the Senate or either of the other two branches.
I was reminded of this today by J. Christian Adams, who briefly alludes to Madison in a Washington Times column. Madison's observations about the House of Representatives make it absolutely clear that there is no such thing as "mandatory spending" that cannot be changed as Congress, and in particular at the insistence of the lower chamber.
First, Madison points to the superiority of the House over the Senate with regard to funding issues, noting that "notwithstanding the equal authority which will subsist between the two houses on all legislative subjects except the originating of money bills" and praising the "continual triumph of the British House of Commons over the other branches of the government whenever the engine of a money bill has been employed."
In other words, the prospect of the House standing firm and refusing to fund something favored by the Senate and the president was understood by the Founders to be a very real possibility because they had seen just such a conflict stretching over many decades in Parliament.
But Madison didn't just acknowledge the similarity of fiscal power between the House of Representatives and the House of Commons, he praised the singular exercise of the power of the purse as "the most complete and effectual weapon" available under the Constitution to any of the three branches of the federal government.
Madison's point here bears serious, deliberative study by anybody who has an interest in the Obamacare debate:
"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government. They, in a word, hold the power of the purse — that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitition, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seemed to wish, all of the overgrown perogatives of the other branches of the government.
"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and saluatory measure."
From his glowing description of how the House of Commons expanded its power as a result of its exercise of the power of the purse, Madison clearly anticipated that the House of Representatives would use its power of the purse to similar effect. And not merely on occasion but regularly and over a long period of time.
So were Madison here to advise us, he would say that not only can Congress do whatever it chooses to do with funding for any federal activity, Obamacare not excepted, the House of Representatives can, if it chooses to stand firm, properly refuse to fund any federal activity because that is exactly what the Founders expected the House of Representatives to do.
And one more observation: It is well to remember that the U.S. Constitution established a legislative supremacy federal government. The three branches are co-equal only as long as Congress chooses to allow them to be. And it is to the House of Representatives that the Constitution gives "the most complete and effectual weapon"
in any contest with any other part of the government.
Some folks don't like it that way, but that's the way it is.
"Mark Tapscott is executive editor of The Washington Examiner."
==================================
==================================
FactCheck.org says Eric Cantor mislabels his opponent David Brat when he claims Brat is a "liberal college professor:"
5/4/14, "Cantor Mislabels Opponent," FactCheck.org
"An ad from House Republican Leader Eric Cantor falsely implies his Republican challenger advised Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine on taxes.
Cantor brands tea party-backed Dave Brat a “liberal college professor” because he served on the Governor’s Advisory Board of Economists “while Kaine tried to raise our taxes.” But the board provided professional economic forecasts, not advice on tax policy.
Brat, a lifelong Republican who chairs the department of economics and business at Randolph-Macon College, is far behind in the fundraising battle for the Republican primary in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District. Records show Brat has raised just under $90,000. As of the end of March, Cantor had more than $2 million cash on hand. But Cantor is taking Brat’s challenge seriously enough to air this attack ad.
Here’s the text of the ad, called “Advisor”:
"Narrator: College professor David Brat is running against our conservative congressman Eric Cantor. But Brat worked on Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine’s Council of Economic Advisors while Kaine tried to raise our taxes by over $1 billion on cars, insurance and income. Now, liberal David Brat is running for Congress as a Republican. Liberal college professor? Tim Kaine adviser? Republican? Come on professor, you’ve got to be kidding."
The ad takes two independently accurate claims — that Brat served on Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine’s Advisory Board of Economists and that Kaine proposed to raise taxes — but links them in a misleading way to conclude that Brat is a “liberal.” The Governor’s Advisory Board of Economists, now called the Joint Advisory Board of Economists (JABE), is a group made up of professional economists charged with providing national and state economic forecasts. It does not advise on policy decisions about taxes.
It’s true, as a Cantor campaign website noted, that Brat was originally appointed to the board by Kaine in 2006. But Brat continued to serve on the board under Kaine’s Republican successor, Gov. Bob McDonnell, as well. That’s not unusual. Many JABE members have served under multiple governors, both Republicans and Democrats.
It’s also true that in 2009, then-Gov. Kaine proposed a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes to address a projected budget shortfall. Specifically, Kaine called for a 1 percent increase in the state income tax to offset the proposed elimination of the local car tax. The GOP-dominated House of Delegates rejected Kaine’s plan.
Ray Allen Jr., a political adviser to Cantor, told us the ad makes two factual claims, and that ”no one is disputing the actual facts.” At least not separately.
Strung together, however, the ad implies that Brat advised Kaine on taxes, and that’s not the case. The board’s old name — the Governor’s Advisory Board of Economists — may contribute to the confusion. While the name may suggest the board provides the governor with sweeping economic advice, the board’s mission is actually very narrow: to provide forecasts of national and state economic growth. According to Virginia Code, JABE is charged with providing economic forecasts based on “economic assumptions and technical econometric methodology.”
Those projections are then reviewed by the Advisory Council on Revenue Estimates, which is chaired by the governor and populated by other legislators and private sector employees appointed by the governor. That board settles on a revenue projection, and the governor subsequently proposes a budget based on that projection.
Finance Secretary Ric Brown told our fact-checking colleagues at PolitiFact Virginia that the board on which Brat served was “part of an overall process that does feed into the revenue process and policy changes.” But he said the board does not make tax recommendations.
Roy Webb, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond who has served on JABE for five Virginia governors (including Republicans and Democrats), said it is a “nonpartisan group that has a narrow interest on a very technical subject: to forecast the economic activity so that it can be used for the state’s budget. In that sense, it is very straightforward. Is the economy going to be weak or is it going to be strong? It could be seen as a basic feature of good government. It makes it harder for any administration to come up with a budget based on some crazy forecast.”
Webb said Brat’s work on the board did not betray any partisan leanings, as the work is nonpartisan. But Brat’s comments outside of their meetings, made it “clear that he’s distinctly right of center,” Webb said. “But how does that affect making the case for a strong or weak economy?”
More important, Webb said, the board has no advisory role regarding tax policy whatsoever.
That may be, the Cantor campaign says, but Brat never publicly objected when Kaine proposed tax increases or even when Kaine was appointed by President Obama to chair the Democratic National Committee.
Brat “never resigned,” said Allen, the Cantor adviser. “He never made a peep.”
Brat told us he would have been against tax increases — “I’m on the Republican side of the agenda” — but those kinds of political opinions have no place in his role on JABE.
“That’s not an issue that belongs in the conversation,” Brat said. “I wasn’t an elected official to represent anybody. That’s not part of what we did.”...
McDonnell spokesman Jeff Caldwell told Watchdog.org...that isn’t the role of JABE.
“The advisory board is not used to review policy decisions and has never been consulted for policy decisions,” Caldwell told Watchdog.org for its March 8, 2013, story....
“I know Brat a little bit and he always portrayed himself to me as very conservative,” Rahn said.
We asked the Cantor campaign for other back-up for its claim that Brat is a “liberal college professor.” Allen said it is a long campaign (the primary is on June 10), but he provided no other evidence besides the fact that Brat served on JABE under Kaine.
Since 2005, Brat has been a special legislative assistant to Virginia State Sen. Walter Stosch, a Republican Senate leader. In 2013, Brat was appointed by McDonnell, a Republican, to serve on the Board of Accountancy. And despite an image in the ad of Kaine wearing a “Go Dave!” button, Sen. Kaine’s press office assures us Kaine is not supporting Brat.
Brat said he tries to not reveal his political leanings in his job as a professor, though he allows that his research has tended to focus on the ideas of Milton Friedman, a proponent of free market economics and minimal government intervention who served as an adviser to President Ronald Reagan.
Three of Brat’s colleagues in the department of economics and business at Randolph-Macon College scoffed at the characterization of Brat as a “liberal college professor.”
“Many collegiate faculty are branded as being ‘liberals,’ by stereotype,” George S. Lowry, professor of business at Randolph-Macon College, told us via email. “In my opinion, David Brat most certainly does not fit this stereotype. The campaign ad is not an accurate description.”
Added Barry Pfitzner, a professor of economics at Randolph-Macon College, via email: “In my experience (his office is next to mine and has been for years), that label, for Dave, could not be more inaccurate.”
“Dave Brat is not a liberal college professor,” said Paul Sikkar, a CPA in the department, via email.
“He is often bumping heads with his constituents with his conservative views. The Cantor ad regarding Dave Brat is flat out wrong.”
– Robert Farley"
==========================
No comments:
Post a Comment