I attended a Constitution dinner last week . There was a wonderful speaker there who made me realize what a wonderful thing it was to live in a country like ours. He explained all the hardships the founders had in just getting a quorum I felt great sitting there among people who I thought were like minded. The gentleman across from me taught history to high school seniors. I remarked to him that I was quite concerned that the Obama Administration was stepping all over our constitution. I gave him the example of Elizabeth Warren being appointed as special advisor to the White House. I went on to say that Mr. Becker's appointment to Medicaid was another example of appointing an office without the advice and consent of the Senate. As soon as I heard his reply which was lengthy I knew he was a " liberal" teaching our children about the Constitution.
The Senate should vote on all senior appointments within 60 days. But the president should give it a chance to vote.
Robert Gibbs explained, Ms Warren has been appointed "to lead" a team of about 30 or 40 people at The Department of Treasury working in standing up the new Consumer Finance protection Bureau. A transformation is happening in America. The dignified Constitution emphasizes Senate confirmation of cabinet officers, but effective power is increasingly exercised by presidential assistants. Despite Mr. Obama's campaign against the excesses of the Bush White House, he is now making his own contribution to the ongoing construction of an imperial presidency.
The Senate should change the rules to require an up or down vote on all executive branch appointments within 60 days. In exchange the president should sign legislation to require Senate approval of all Senior White House appointments. By reaching this agreement, the president regains the powers to govern effectively and the Senate regains it's authority to approve all major appointments. Regardless of their location in the executive branch.
In the coming few years let's hope our new elected officials will have the common sense to give up their petty privileges on the existing system and thereby strengthen our one last hope. Our Constitution.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Elizabeth lll
The White House isn't afraid to poke a stick in the eye of it's critics. How else do to explain President Obamas decision Friday to put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while avoiding Senate confirmation and, for that matter any political supervision.
The chutzpah here is something to behold. The pride of Harvard Law School. Ms Warren is a hero to the political left for proposing a new bureaucracy to micromanage the services that banks can offer consumers. A president with more political and constitutional scruple would have nominated someone else. Mr. Obamas choice is to appoint her anyway and dare the Senate to do something about it. Mr. Obama has appointed her an "Assistant" to him and a special advisor to Timothy Geithner. The president emphasized that Ms. Warren will enjoy "direct Access" to him and said she would oversee all aspects of the creation of the new agency, including staffing and policy planning. For all intents and purposes, Ms. Warren will be Treasure Secretary for all consumer lending.
We would have thought a Harvard Law professor would object to the extra-legality of this arrangement but, then, this is also the crew that gave us Obama Care via budget reconciliation and put Donald Berwick in charge of Medicare without a single debate. Remind us again why the Tea Party critique of Obama government is crazy.
The new bureau has independent rule-making authority and can grant itself $646 million. It will draw this money from the operations of the fed, so there won't be any messy intrusions of congressional appropriators
and will therefore receive limited congressional over-site. Ms. Warren's bureau will dictate how credit is allocated throughout the American economy-by banks and financial firms, and also by many small businesses that extend credit to consumers.
In a Blog posting Friday on the White House Web site, Ms. Warren made her intentions clear enough. "President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American." Given the economic growth and jobless figures, maybe we we should start calling this the "leveling" administration.
Ms. Warren was a vociferous opponent of allowing regulators charged with the maintaining the safety and soundness of banks to control this new bureau. No matter how destructive it's new rules may be they can only be rescinded by a two-thirds vote of the Administration's new Financial Stability Oversight Counsel. And the bureau will now be staffed and shaped by an "assistant" with no obligation to appear before the senate.
The possibility that an appointed official could hold significant authority is why the framers wrote the senate into the process of approving the president's senior hires. Article ll, Section 2 of the Constitution says the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint...Officers of the United states." Article ll Section 2 also says "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone."
but Congress explicitly did not view the head of the financial consumer bureau as an inferior officer. On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both houses stating that the director shall be appointed by the president , by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We have here another end-run around the Constitution niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So, a bureau inside an agency that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup.
The chutzpah here is something to behold. The pride of Harvard Law School. Ms Warren is a hero to the political left for proposing a new bureaucracy to micromanage the services that banks can offer consumers. A president with more political and constitutional scruple would have nominated someone else. Mr. Obamas choice is to appoint her anyway and dare the Senate to do something about it. Mr. Obama has appointed her an "Assistant" to him and a special advisor to Timothy Geithner. The president emphasized that Ms. Warren will enjoy "direct Access" to him and said she would oversee all aspects of the creation of the new agency, including staffing and policy planning. For all intents and purposes, Ms. Warren will be Treasure Secretary for all consumer lending.
We would have thought a Harvard Law professor would object to the extra-legality of this arrangement but, then, this is also the crew that gave us Obama Care via budget reconciliation and put Donald Berwick in charge of Medicare without a single debate. Remind us again why the Tea Party critique of Obama government is crazy.
The new bureau has independent rule-making authority and can grant itself $646 million. It will draw this money from the operations of the fed, so there won't be any messy intrusions of congressional appropriators
and will therefore receive limited congressional over-site. Ms. Warren's bureau will dictate how credit is allocated throughout the American economy-by banks and financial firms, and also by many small businesses that extend credit to consumers.
In a Blog posting Friday on the White House Web site, Ms. Warren made her intentions clear enough. "President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American." Given the economic growth and jobless figures, maybe we we should start calling this the "leveling" administration.
Ms. Warren was a vociferous opponent of allowing regulators charged with the maintaining the safety and soundness of banks to control this new bureau. No matter how destructive it's new rules may be they can only be rescinded by a two-thirds vote of the Administration's new Financial Stability Oversight Counsel. And the bureau will now be staffed and shaped by an "assistant" with no obligation to appear before the senate.
The possibility that an appointed official could hold significant authority is why the framers wrote the senate into the process of approving the president's senior hires. Article ll, Section 2 of the Constitution says the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint...Officers of the United states." Article ll Section 2 also says "Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone."
but Congress explicitly did not view the head of the financial consumer bureau as an inferior officer. On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both houses stating that the director shall be appointed by the president , by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
We have here another end-run around the Constitution niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So, a bureau inside an agency that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
CATO Institute's New Book gives a guide to Limit Government
Education Subsidies
Education is a state, local and private matter-and that's where the constitution left it. Federal K-12 education programs have cost American taxpayers $1.8 trillion since 1965 without noticeably improving outcomes.Eliminating them would save $40 billion dollars.
Farm Subsidies
Far from "saving the family farm," federal agricultural subsidies are environmentally destructive corporate welfare,
with more than 70% of aid going to the largest 10% of agribusinesses.Zeroing out farm welfare will save,
$25 billion annually.
Military Overreach
The Constitution envisions a U.S. Military that "provides for the common defense" of the United States, not one that serve's as the worlds policeman and nation builder. By withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we could save at least $125 billion next year.
Transportation Programs
The Federal Government has no business funding the state and local projects that make up the bulk of federal transportation spending. Federal involvement results in pork-barrel spending, excess bureaucracy, and costly one-size fits all regulations. Moving funding for activities such as highways to the states and air traffic control to the private sector would spur innovation while also saving $85 billion a year.
Housing Subsidies
Federal interference in housing markets has done enormous damage to our cities and the economy at large. H.U.D. subsidies have concentrated poverty and fed urban blight, while Fannie Mae and Freddie mac stoked the financial crisis by putting millions of people into homes they couldn't afford. Getting Government out of the housing business will save $45 billion annually.
Federal Worker Pay
Federal workers enjoy far greater job security than their private sector counterparts- and far better total compensation: an average of $120,000 in wages and benefits. Cut federal compensation by 10% and save
$20 billion annually.
Energy Subsidies
The 30 year legacy of federal energy subsidies is replete with corporate cronyism and failed "investments"
entrepreneurs with their own capitol have incentives to develop viable alternative energy sources. Ending federal energy subsidies would save more than a $ 1 trillion dollars in the next decade.
Government Run Health Care
Medicare and Medicaid are driving the explosion in federal debt. The 2010 health care law should be repealed, but the same level of Medicaid cost savings can be realized by moving to a consumer driven health plan through vouchers, which would protect the elderly from government rationing. Medicaid should be converted to a fixed block grant to save money and encourage state innovation. Total savings would be:
a $ 1 trillion dollars over the next decade.
Drug War
Since the start of the federal War on Drugs in the 1970's We've spent hundreds of billions on a futile crusade that's done little to curb drug use and much to impair our civil liberties. In fact, A Cato study showed that Portugal's decriminalization of drugs actually lowered drug-related problems. Returning drug policy to the states would save at least: $15 billion annually.
Social Security
As the baby boom generation retires, our largest entitlement program lurches toward crisis. Social Security should be phased out as a mandatory program and an alternative voluntary system of private accounts, providing for ownership and inheritability, should be offered. Current obligations can be reduced by tying annual benefit growth to price inflation rather than wage growth, saving: $50 billion annually.
The Cato Institute has a new book entitled " The Struggle to Limit Government". Everyone who pays taxes and every elected official should read this book. Our future depends on " Limiting Government Spending!"
Education is a state, local and private matter-and that's where the constitution left it. Federal K-12 education programs have cost American taxpayers $1.8 trillion since 1965 without noticeably improving outcomes.Eliminating them would save $40 billion dollars.
Farm Subsidies
Far from "saving the family farm," federal agricultural subsidies are environmentally destructive corporate welfare,
with more than 70% of aid going to the largest 10% of agribusinesses.Zeroing out farm welfare will save,
$25 billion annually.
Military Overreach
The Constitution envisions a U.S. Military that "provides for the common defense" of the United States, not one that serve's as the worlds policeman and nation builder. By withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, we could save at least $125 billion next year.
Transportation Programs
The Federal Government has no business funding the state and local projects that make up the bulk of federal transportation spending. Federal involvement results in pork-barrel spending, excess bureaucracy, and costly one-size fits all regulations. Moving funding for activities such as highways to the states and air traffic control to the private sector would spur innovation while also saving $85 billion a year.
Housing Subsidies
Federal interference in housing markets has done enormous damage to our cities and the economy at large. H.U.D. subsidies have concentrated poverty and fed urban blight, while Fannie Mae and Freddie mac stoked the financial crisis by putting millions of people into homes they couldn't afford. Getting Government out of the housing business will save $45 billion annually.
Federal Worker Pay
Federal workers enjoy far greater job security than their private sector counterparts- and far better total compensation: an average of $120,000 in wages and benefits. Cut federal compensation by 10% and save
$20 billion annually.
Energy Subsidies
The 30 year legacy of federal energy subsidies is replete with corporate cronyism and failed "investments"
entrepreneurs with their own capitol have incentives to develop viable alternative energy sources. Ending federal energy subsidies would save more than a $ 1 trillion dollars in the next decade.
Government Run Health Care
Medicare and Medicaid are driving the explosion in federal debt. The 2010 health care law should be repealed, but the same level of Medicaid cost savings can be realized by moving to a consumer driven health plan through vouchers, which would protect the elderly from government rationing. Medicaid should be converted to a fixed block grant to save money and encourage state innovation. Total savings would be:
a $ 1 trillion dollars over the next decade.
Drug War
Since the start of the federal War on Drugs in the 1970's We've spent hundreds of billions on a futile crusade that's done little to curb drug use and much to impair our civil liberties. In fact, A Cato study showed that Portugal's decriminalization of drugs actually lowered drug-related problems. Returning drug policy to the states would save at least: $15 billion annually.
Social Security
As the baby boom generation retires, our largest entitlement program lurches toward crisis. Social Security should be phased out as a mandatory program and an alternative voluntary system of private accounts, providing for ownership and inheritability, should be offered. Current obligations can be reduced by tying annual benefit growth to price inflation rather than wage growth, saving: $50 billion annually.
The Cato Institute has a new book entitled " The Struggle to Limit Government". Everyone who pays taxes and every elected official should read this book. Our future depends on " Limiting Government Spending!"
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
One Of The Most Important Reasons Why We must Win In Nov.
Labor Unions, Teachers Unions, Policemen, firemen and Nurses unions will all pull out the stops to elect their Democrats this Nov. Why? Because these people plus all government workers have a pension and health care the average American would die for. (and probably will). When you can retire then collect a pension paying you more that you made while teaching and you have in addition a Cadillac health plan you have a pension to die for. The problem is these outrageous pensions are breaking the states. There is simply not enough revenue to maintain this extravagance. In addition to this States and municipalities across the country are one event away from bankruptcy. The result of years of piling up spending commitments no matter the revenue base.
The next stop is Washington where Barney Frank has a proposal to provide a federal guarantee for local debt. This is why I entitled this blog the way I did.
Look for this to be a priority if Democrats hold the House and Senate this year as they seek to reward public unions for saving the day with their campaign cash of over $100 million.
Putting the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for city debt would only provide local politicians with another excuse to avoid the cutbacks, furloughs and reforms necessary to balance their ledgers. Whatever its short-term pain, bankruptcy is the only disicipline that will break the addiction.
The next stop is Washington where Barney Frank has a proposal to provide a federal guarantee for local debt. This is why I entitled this blog the way I did.
Look for this to be a priority if Democrats hold the House and Senate this year as they seek to reward public unions for saving the day with their campaign cash of over $100 million.
Putting the U.S. taxpayers on the hook for city debt would only provide local politicians with another excuse to avoid the cutbacks, furloughs and reforms necessary to balance their ledgers. Whatever its short-term pain, bankruptcy is the only disicipline that will break the addiction.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Obama Tries The Back Door If He Can't Get In The Front Door
When I was running a group of Department stores I used this pitch to help de-certify the unions. " You think by going union you will be protected from management." Let's say,"You are fired for a reason that you think is unfair and you don't have a union to protect you. The NLRB a government body is there to look after your interests and make sure you are treated fairly. Management, you and a NLRB member sit down and hear your case. The final decision is made by the NLRB. You pay no dues and your job is saved.(If the employer was wrong). Now assume you belonged to a union and the same thing happened. The meeting would be the same except one more party would be there (your union representative) the results would be the same, but, you would be paying dues.
Now, what happens if a SIEU member (Strongest most powerful union ) becomes the head of the government s National Labor Relations Board? Well, it has happened and Obama gave him this position after Senate Democrats refused to confirm him to the NLRB. Now, as a top lawyer for the SEIU Mr. Becker has suggested that the NLRB has the legal authority to impose card check-which eliminates secret ballots in union elections-without the approval of congress. And lo, at the end of August the NLRB dropped the bombshell, when, in a 3-2 decision, it decided to re-visit it's important 2007 Dana Corp. ruling.
Card check is a top labor priority because it allows a workplace to be organized if 50% of workers at the site sign a union card. Without a national law, unions have tried to persuade individual businesses to allow card check rather than secret ballots, and some have gone along.
When a workplace is organized after a secret ballot, workers are barred from a vote to "decertify" the union until after the the first negotiated contract expires. In it's Dana decision, however, the NLRB recognized that card check was an inferior substitute to secret ballots. It therefore held that when a company recognized a union via a card check, workers had the right to force an immediate secret vote on whether they really wanted to join that union.
The dana ruling is about protecting workers from union harassment. and if card check is as popular as unions claim, labor leaders should have no problem letting workers vote to ratify or reject a card check process. As NLRB member Peter Schaumber a Bush appointee, noted in his dissent to the NLRB decision to revisit the case, the dana ruling has in no way chilled the current card check process.
Since dana was decided, unions have been recognized via card check in 1,111 cases. The ruling has merely provided over site. In 54 of these cases, workers have demanded and received a vote on organization; In 15 of those elections workers voted against the union. This Dana reversal raises more questions about Mr. Beckers ethical standards. The labor lawyer has already refused to recuse himself from cases involving the SEIU, his former employer. Now, it turns out he has filed a brief for the AFL-CIO in the original dana case, arguing that there is no essential difference between card check and secret ballots and calling dana style protections "bad labor relations policy". Mr.Becker is clearly biased against dana and by any reasonable standard should not be able to rule on it.
Now that Mr. Obama went around the back door of congress to appoint his Mr. Becker it's time for Congress to investigate Mr. Becker's conflict of interest and turn the sensible dana decision into a statute that Mr. Obama's appointees can't override!
Now, what happens if a SIEU member (Strongest most powerful union ) becomes the head of the government s National Labor Relations Board? Well, it has happened and Obama gave him this position after Senate Democrats refused to confirm him to the NLRB. Now, as a top lawyer for the SEIU Mr. Becker has suggested that the NLRB has the legal authority to impose card check-which eliminates secret ballots in union elections-without the approval of congress. And lo, at the end of August the NLRB dropped the bombshell, when, in a 3-2 decision, it decided to re-visit it's important 2007 Dana Corp. ruling.
Card check is a top labor priority because it allows a workplace to be organized if 50% of workers at the site sign a union card. Without a national law, unions have tried to persuade individual businesses to allow card check rather than secret ballots, and some have gone along.
When a workplace is organized after a secret ballot, workers are barred from a vote to "decertify" the union until after the the first negotiated contract expires. In it's Dana decision, however, the NLRB recognized that card check was an inferior substitute to secret ballots. It therefore held that when a company recognized a union via a card check, workers had the right to force an immediate secret vote on whether they really wanted to join that union.
The dana ruling is about protecting workers from union harassment. and if card check is as popular as unions claim, labor leaders should have no problem letting workers vote to ratify or reject a card check process. As NLRB member Peter Schaumber a Bush appointee, noted in his dissent to the NLRB decision to revisit the case, the dana ruling has in no way chilled the current card check process.
Since dana was decided, unions have been recognized via card check in 1,111 cases. The ruling has merely provided over site. In 54 of these cases, workers have demanded and received a vote on organization; In 15 of those elections workers voted against the union. This Dana reversal raises more questions about Mr. Beckers ethical standards. The labor lawyer has already refused to recuse himself from cases involving the SEIU, his former employer. Now, it turns out he has filed a brief for the AFL-CIO in the original dana case, arguing that there is no essential difference between card check and secret ballots and calling dana style protections "bad labor relations policy". Mr.Becker is clearly biased against dana and by any reasonable standard should not be able to rule on it.
Now that Mr. Obama went around the back door of congress to appoint his Mr. Becker it's time for Congress to investigate Mr. Becker's conflict of interest and turn the sensible dana decision into a statute that Mr. Obama's appointees can't override!
Monday, September 13, 2010
Government Hit List Is Being Developed
As a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs-President Obama said "We knew that" at his press conference Friday in response to a question about rising health spending.
That wasn't how he sold the plan,but, anyway, that's a truism. Heres another: The White House was always going to blame insurance companies for any cost increases, even when it's own policies cause them.
Witness Kathleen Sibelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group-a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to Obama Care and warned them that:"There would be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caraces.
What Ms. Sibelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. Obama Care includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents plan until they are 26 and "free" preventive care (IE, no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers.) The tone of Ms. Sibelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.
The Administration estimated that these regulations should increase all premiums by 1% to 2% on average. That isn't what insurers are finding in practice in the local, price sensitive individual and small business insurance markets, where coverage is typically less comprehensive to hold down costs.
For some current policies in some states, the one-year increase jumps as much as 9%,
Obama Care gives Ms. Sibelius's regulators the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes, which will mean whatever they decide it will mean later this fall. She promised to keep a list of insurer's "with a record of unjustified rate increases" and then to bar them from Obama Care's subsidized "exchanges" when they come on line in 2014. In other words, insurers must except price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now.
Democrats built this system and now they own it politically. The least they could do is to take credit for it's consequences. It seems to me that the Obama Administration is hell bent on driving all of these people out of business so he can have his single payer plan which he has always wanted.
That wasn't how he sold the plan,but, anyway, that's a truism. Heres another: The White House was always going to blame insurance companies for any cost increases, even when it's own policies cause them.
Witness Kathleen Sibelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group-a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to Obama Care and warned them that:"There would be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caraces.
What Ms. Sibelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. Obama Care includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents plan until they are 26 and "free" preventive care (IE, no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers.) The tone of Ms. Sibelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.
The Administration estimated that these regulations should increase all premiums by 1% to 2% on average. That isn't what insurers are finding in practice in the local, price sensitive individual and small business insurance markets, where coverage is typically less comprehensive to hold down costs.
For some current policies in some states, the one-year increase jumps as much as 9%,
Obama Care gives Ms. Sibelius's regulators the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes, which will mean whatever they decide it will mean later this fall. She promised to keep a list of insurer's "with a record of unjustified rate increases" and then to bar them from Obama Care's subsidized "exchanges" when they come on line in 2014. In other words, insurers must except price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now.
Democrats built this system and now they own it politically. The least they could do is to take credit for it's consequences. It seems to me that the Obama Administration is hell bent on driving all of these people out of business so he can have his single payer plan which he has always wanted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)