"It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws." - Dick Cheney
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." - Bill Clinton
Subject: The Worst of All Worlds
Why did nearly half the Democrats in the House vote for the "FISA Amendments Act" that's now pending in the Senate, when most of them had opposed warrantless spying and telecom immunity before? The answer is that they were bribed, using your tax dollars.
So much for the "anti-war message" sent by the American people in the 2006 elections!
This sort of "compromise" brings us the worst of all worlds. It's the kind of world expressed in the views of Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton above. Politicians of both parties get annoyed when gadflies start talking about the Constitution and America's proud traditions of individual rights, liberty, and the rule of law. To them, "laws" and "rights" are just bargaining chips to use in passing their spending bills.
The current course they're plotting will lead to economic collapse, fiscal bankruptcy, an Orwellian Big Brother police state, and a faltering, over-extended military empire. Who knows what kind of chaos or despotism will follow.
But the people don't have to wait for things to fall apart. Instead, we can put massive, persistent, resistance-numbing pressure on Congress. Apply the pressure, and members of Congress will bend, and then they will flip-flop. They will have to, if they want to keep their jobs.
In your comments on all of these messages tell them you're proud we're a nation of laws, not men. Tell them OSTA and RTBA will help restore liberty by making it more difficult to sweep aside Constitutional rights in legislative horse trading.
Also, please consider joining the "Read the Bills Act Coalition." When you add "Read the Bills Act Coalition" button, banner, or tower ad on your website, we'll link to it from our blog and announce it in a Downsizer-Dispatch like this one, reaching almost 23,500 subscribers. To learn more, click here.
This week we welcome two new members to the Coalition:
Finally, in the last two weeks of June the House passed 44 bills totaling 969 pages, while the Senate passed 34 bills and 269 pages of legislation. A list of bills is available below my signature at the Downsize DC blog version of this Dispatch.
Two economists, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, agreed that many of the steps Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt took to end the Great Depression only made it worse. Also, that their expanded Presidential powers, new bureaucracies, and curbs on economic freedom had long-term disastrous consequences both morally and economically. Both Friedman and Rothbard promoted the downsize DC message for several decades, and remain admired by many for their work.
But the funny thing is, they disagreed about what actually caused the Great Depression in the first place. Friedman thought the Federal Reserve was too deflationary; Rothbard thought it was too inflationary and that the Fed itself should be abolished.
They disagreed about the causes, but agreed that FDR's "cure" was worse than the disease.
Likewise, we don't have to agree on everything in order to agree that DC must be downsized. We often get mail from supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement disputing some of our assumptions, such as that we were attacked by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.
But here's a question for 9/11 Truthers: what if there was nothing fishy about the attacks? What if it was indeed true that Islamic terrorists planned and executed the whole thing?
Would the War on Terror then be justified? Would it be justified if we had a smarter, more trustworthy President?
We at DownsizeDC.org say no, and that is the basis of our "I am not afraid" campaign. Regardless of the causes behind 9/11, the government's cure - destroying a thousand-year Western tradition of individual liberty - is worse than the terror threat itself.
We saw something similar with the War on Iraq: after-the-fact finger-pointing. The Administration claimed that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction and had links to Al Qaeda. When both claims were demonstrated to be false, the question turned to who in the Administration lied about what. But the following points were missed:
- The Administration did make "claims" before the war, but never did provide much in the way of evidence; - Congress had an obligation to insist upon evidence; - Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why such evidence provided a justification for war; - Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why an invasion, and not less extreme measures or diplomacy, was necessary; - Congress had a Constitutional responsibility to declare war, and violated the Constitution by "delegating" that power to the President to start a war when and if he deemed it necessary.
What if U.S. troops invaded, discovered nuclear warheads, and found Saddam playing tennis with Osama bin Laden? Unfortunately, many war critics would have been silenced, and the war would have been seen as a "triumph" for Bush.
But this would have been a "post-hoc" justification for the war, where the end result excuses an illegal act. And it would have been unnecessary to invade illegally, had Bush actually provided evidence and Congress actually declared war.
We may disagree on what the "real motives" of the Administration were in invading Iraq. But whether or not their intentions were good, good intentions do not justify by-passing the Constitution.
Likewise, even if the "official account of 9/11 is true and there was no government conspiracy, and even if the Administration has only "good intentions" in keeping Americans safe, these do not justify shredding the Bill of Rights.
Regardless of what you believe about conspiracies and criminality within the government, we hope that you will join us in refusing to be afraid. Regardless of how it started, the War on Terror as it is presently waged must come to an end. We may disagree about causes, but we can agree to oppose government "cures."
"It would be unconstitutional for Congress to create a statute stating that it was a crime to engage in conduct forbidden by the AMA, or by particular HCBPs, or by the health care industry as a whole. This is because neither the AMA, nor the HCBPs, nor the health care industry more generally are governmental entities, and Congress does not have the power to delegate law-making authority outside of the government." - DEFENDANTS JOINT MEMORANDUM, United States v. Stephen J. vs. Linda K. Schneider
Should the American Medical Association (AMA) have the power to write laws? Some bureaucrats think they already do.
DownsizeDC.org proposed the "Write the Laws Act" (WTLA) to prevent unelected bureaucrats from writing regulations that have the force of law. Only elected representatives should have that power. We believe there should be "no legislation without representation."
Sadly, we've just learned that the problem WTLA seeks to fix is even worse than we thought. Unelected bureaucrats in the Justice Department have now taken to treating the standards of a private organization, the AMA, as if they had the force of law.
A doctor in Kansas is facing twenty years to life for failing to conform to the standards of the American Medical Association.
Dr. Stephen J. Schneider and his wife, nurse Linda K. Schneider, are charged with illegally distributing prescription drugs, along with several counts of related fraud and illegal monetary transactions.
Did the Schneiders sell illegal drugs? No. They simply prescribed FDA-approved medications to people in pain. Now they face years in prison simply because the Justice Department disagrees with their medical judgments.
That's bad enough, but there's more . . .
While the Schneiders are charged with violating the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Schneiders didn't actually violate any specific provision in it. Instead, the Justice Department accuses the Schneiders of violating . . .
The policies of the Health Care Benefit Providers (HCBP's) whom they billed -- if true, then the HCBP's should sue the Schneiders in civil court.
Kansas state law -- if true, then Kansas should prosecute them, not the federal government.
"Industry principles" -- but those "principles" aren't encoded in federal law, and if the Schneiders violated them, they should instead be investigated by medical licensing boards.
The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code book, a "privately written, trademarked and copyrighted publication of a commercial affiliate of the American Medical Association."
It's important to recognize that Justice Department bureaucrats want to imprison the Schneiders because they disagree with the Schneider's medical judgments, NOT because the Schneider's broke the law. Mere bureaucrats are treating the guidelines of private organizations as if they were laws. Like a six year-old in a playground game, the bureaucrats are "making it up as they go along."
This prosecution threatens all doctors -- and their patients, including you.
The Schneider's case, and others like it, will encourage doctors to let their patients suffer in agony rather than risk a prison sentence. But . . .
Under WTLA the Schneider's case would be dismissed, because the couple isn't being accused of violating any law enacted by Congress. According to the WTLA, this would constitute a complete defense.
Thomas More is right: if the Devil breaks the law he should be prosecuted, but not before then. The same should go for doctors and everyone else. This is a fundamental principle of free society. Our constitution says that the only valid laws are those enacted by Congress, not those written by unelected bureaucrats or lifted from the guidelines of private organizations by tyrannical prosecutors.
Tell your Representative and Senators to introduce the "Write the Laws Act." In your personal comments, tell them about the Schneider case and how the Justice Department is treating AMA rules as if they had the force of law. Tell them the WTLA would prevent such a legal travesty from ever occurring again. You can send your message here.
Thank you for being a a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
Media notice: Tune-in to hear Jim Babka on the Jerry Hughes show today. Details below my signature.
Quote of the Day:
"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." - Frank Zappa
Subject: Unrelated bills rolled into one
H.R. 2642 was introduced in June, 2007 to finance military construction and Veterans Affairs. Since then, Congress has added 230 pages of amendments to what was once a 50-page bill. Among the additions is the "Iraq Supplemental" to fund the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
H.R. 2642 is bad, but it could have been worse . . .
Two weeks ago, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to add a 100-page amendment granting amnesty to over a million illegal immigrant farm workers. However, Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez raised a point of order against the amendment, and Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to remove it.
Perhaps they remembered the backlash when Congress added the REAL ID Act to the Iraq Supplemental in 2005. Perhaps they're feeling pressure to pass the One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA) and know that adding an unpopular amnesty bill into the Iraq Supplemental would only intensify calls to pass OSTA.
In any case, H.R. 2642 still contains numerous unrelated provisions:
"Emergency" funds for the FBI, BAFTE, DEA, Bureau of Prisons, and many other federal agencies
Additional funds for Katrina recovery and other disaster relief
A waiver of certain sanctions against North Korea
A study on the effect of the minimum wage on the Northern Mariana Islands
A law against unemployment insurance fraud
A requirement for states to implement an "asset verification program" for individuals seeking medical assistance
And dozens of other provisions unrelated to Defense or Veterans Affairs.
Congress normally passes several short, one-subject bills every week, so why couldn't they have voted on the above provisions as separate bills too? Possible answers include . . .
1. The provisions couldn't pass if voted on separately 2. Congress didn't want to give them due consideration
Sadly, all these unrelated provisions add up. According to Washington Watch, H.R. 2642 is going to cost the average American family almost $1,700.
Tell Congress they were right to pull amnesty out of the Iraq Supplemental. But tell them they shouldn't throw so many unrelated laws and spending programs into one bill. Tell them this undermines America's faith in Congress and is costly to taxpayers. Tell them to strip H.R. 2642 down to one subject, or vote against it. And tell them to pass Downsize DC's One Subject At A Time Act. You can do so here.
Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.
Thank-you for being a DC Downsizer.
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
P.S. Friday afternoon appearance on Straight Talk with Jerry Hughes . . .
Downsize DC President Jim Babka's hour-long appearance begins at 3:05 PM Eastern time (2:05 PM Central, 1:05 PM Mountain, 12:05 PM Pacific). To listen online go to "http://www.accentradionetwork.com/chooseplayer.htm"
They'll be talking about the Real ID Act and who knows what else. But it'll be even better if you call and participate.
The toll-free call-in number: 1-866-222-2368 Or use email: Jerry at AccentRadio dot com
* As always, regarding media appearances, schedule changes or cancellations can happen without warning.
In a truly free market, there is no restriction, imposed cost, or arbitrary subsidy on peaceful and honest enterprise. The U.S.A. has never in its history had a truly free market. - Economist Fred Foldvary
Subject: Real Regulation
In a true free market (something we've never had) businesses have a clear incentive to provide safety, so they won't lose customers and employees to their competitors. More importantly . . .
In a true free market businesses are legally liable for the safety of their products, services, and work-places. To limit this liability businesses seek insurance. The insurance providers then do oversight to limit their own risk of loss by making sure that products, services, and work-places, are in fact safe.
This free-market approach to safety regulation is what funds the existence -- even in our current un-free market -- of something like Underwriter's Laboratory (UL). UL tests product safety in order to protect insurers from losses. The result is increased safety for you.
The other approach to safety is one driven by top-down regulations and inspections provided by unaccountable bureaucrats and paid for with tax dollars. The problem with this system is that it greatly muddies the water as to whom is actually liable for safety failures.
If Underwriter's Laboratory makes a mistake, it pays a big price, out of its own pocket. But if, for instance, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) makes a mistake, it doesn't pay any price at all.
In the year 2000 it was discovered that . . .
Between 1,800 and 2,000 mechanics were falsely certified by St. George Aviation in the late 1990's.
Eight years later, the FAA has found and re-tested only 700 of these mechanics, and most of these received only partial tests.
The failure rate was 36% among those re-tested.
This rate suggests there may be 400 or more unqualified mechanics still working in the airline industry, and the FAA is doing almost nothing about it. Source: Cybercast News Service
When will the FAA pay a price for this failure? Probably never. As a coercion-enforced monopoly the government rarely has to pay any price for failure. Instead, the FAA may get a larger budget so, supposedly, it can do better in the future. Worse still . . .
If an airline wants to protect itself against FAA incompetence it will have to pay extra for insurance and underwriting oversight, while still submitting to the FAA's regulations and inspectors. This is a cost most airline's can't afford, so we end up with only the FAA's incompetent and unaccountable "protections."
Meanwhile, businesses have an incentive to game the system, using their political clout to gain favorable treatment from government regulators and government-imposed limits on their liability.
So-called government regulation is a fraud. We need less fake regulation by government, and more Real Regulation by the free market. DownsizeDC.org has a proposal that will give you exactly that. It's called the "Write the Laws Act" (WTLA).
WTLA would reduce the burden of incompetent government regulations while making businesses more accountable to their customers.
The WTLA strips unelected bureaucracies such as the FAA of their law-making powers, and restores to Congress the full responsibility for all rule making, in keeping with the Constitution's separation of powers.
Congress won't have the time or knowledge to create complicated regulations, so there will be fewer of them, and those that do exist may work better. Instead, businesses will be legally liable for their failures, and regulated by insurance underwriting.
This would reduce the cost you pay for ineffective government regulations, while also making you safer.
To learn more about the Write the Laws Act, click here.
Use your personal comments to tell Congress that the FAA's mishandling of the flight mechanics testing scandal is evidence that bureaucrats are incapable of keeping the people safe. Tell them that only a free market, legal liability, and insurance underwriting, can hold businesses accountable and keep consumers safe. Tell them you have more faith in groups like Underwriters Laboratory than you do in government regulators like the FAA.
But it is YOUR life that is affected by THEIR mistakes. Members of Congress break the laws they pass, violate their own voting rules, and can't even keep track of bills they actually pass. Congress can't even run Congress. When they try to run our lives as well, taxes and prices increase while our freedoms disappear.
Congress would accomplish more by doing less. The fewer "solutions" they impose, the more freedom we'll have to run our lives as we see fit. And if Congress governed itself better, the people would trust it more.
By requiring bills to be read before a quorum in Congress, the legislative process will slow down. Urgent, national priorities will be addressed, but Congress won't have time for pet projects and pork.
The final amended bill passed by both the House and Senate would be the bill the President signs or vetoes. It would also be the same version posted on the Internet for seven days before Congress votes. If pages are missing from a bill, it would be caught before passage, not after.
Tell Congress it needs to accomplish more by attempting less. Tell them the people would be better off with fewer laws and subsidies, and that the Read the Bills Act is a good way to accomplish this. Use one or more of the examples above in your personal comments. You can send your message here.
We also invite you to join the Read the Bills Act Coalition, where you help spread the word about the RTBA. In return we'll link to your site on our blog and announce it to over 23,000 subscribers in a future issue of the Downsizer-Dispatch. Instructions for joining the coalition are here.
This week, we welcome one new member to the Coalition:
Every time we use the word "democracy" we get complaints about our choice of words. We're told that in the United States, we live in a republic, not a democracy, and that we should educate ourselves about what the Founders thought about democracy. This complaint was common yesterday, in the response to yesterday's Dangerous Democracy post.
But whatever one might think about democracy in theory and practice, we believe it's a much more precise description of our system of government than is "republic." And "representative democracy," the term we often used yesterday, is even more precise.
It's true that we live in a republic. Other famous republics include ancient Rome and the Confederacy. But what does that really mean? After all, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia are both monarchies, but the differences between these countries are far more significant than the similarities. "Republic" and "monarchy" work as categories, but they don't describe much in substance.
One of Merriam-Webster's definitions of a republic is "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." That does describe the American form of government, but it doesn't say who the "body of citizens" is. Is it only people of a certain religion or skin color? Is it only property owners? Is it everybody?
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Representative Democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives.The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.
It is clear that the Founders intended that we have a republican form of government. It's true that they didn't intend that everyone have the right to vote. But the simple fact is, the Constitution has been amended to make our form of government more democratic:
all citizens 18 and up have the right to vote, regardless of race, color, or sex;
Not just Representatives, but even U.S. Senators are elected by the people;
Electors in the Electoral College are chosen by the people, and Presidents are indirectly chosen by the people.
We therefore conclude that our system of government is a "democracy" according to its most commonly-used and -understood definition. Using the word doesn't mean we favor unchecked mob rule - as yesterday's Dispatch indicates, we believe democracy must be checked by the separation of powers, and that government must be limited in size, scope, and power. But we won't back down from calling our form of government what it is: a democracy.
In 2005 Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska championed a $10 million earmark for a highway interchange. The earmark appeared in an 835-page transportation bill called SAFETEA-LU. Rep. Young was the man behind Alaska's infamous $233 million "Bridge to Nowhere," so this sounds like nothing unusual for him, except that . . .
The project wasn't in Alaska, but as far away as possible, in the Florida district of Republican Rep. Connie Mack.
Mack and other local Republicans opposed the project. There were environmental concerns and higher priorities.
But they were told that they had to accept the project or risk losing future federal funds.
This earmark wasn't even in the 835-page bill passed by the House and Senate.
The original earmark (#462) was for widening I-75, not for an interchange.
After the bill passed, but before President Bush signed it, someone changed it to an interchange project.
This was done during the "enrollment"process when punctuation and other technical corrections are made.
But this was clearly a substantive change, not a "technical correction."
Incredibly, no one noticed the change for two years! Finally . . .
In August, 2007, a former Department of Labor official, Darla Latourneau, reported that the interchange didn't appear in the original bill passed by the House and Senate.
The Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization voted to return the money, asking that it be used for its original purpose.
That change was included this year in H.R. 1195, which passed both the House and Senate.
H.R. 1195 also includes a provision for the Justice Department to investigate the alteration of the earmark.
Little investigation is actually needed. Don Young's staff has admitted that they made the change, but no member of the House has filed an ethics complaint. Without a complaint, the House ethics committee can't investigate.
Have other House members done something similar? Is it common practice? Could this be why no one has complained to the ethics committee?
If Rep. Mack had read SAFETEA-LU, as RTBA would require, he could have caught and corrected Young's change.
If SAFETEA-LU had been posted on the Internet seven days before passage, as RTBA requires, the Lee County government could have found which earmarks were for them, and asked for a correction immediately.
And if RTBA were the law its very unlikely we would have 835-page appropriations bills where things can get buried. Bills would be shorter, and probably fewer. Congress would have to prioritize. They would do less and spend less. There would be fewer earmarks. Perhaps only Florida taxpayers would determine which projects were best for them. And the Committee chairs in Congress would have less ability to buy and sell favors.
Demand that your Representative and your two Senators introduce the Read the Bills Act. Use your personal comments to mention the above example of why RTBA is needed. Also ask your Representative to file a complaint with the ethics committee, demanding an investigation of Rep. Young. You can send your message here.
You can also spread the word about the Read the Bills Act by joining the RTBA Coalition. Add an RTBA Coalition button, banner, or web-ad to your website or blog. In return, we'll announce your membership in a future Dispatch, reaching nearly 22,000 subscribers. You'll also be listed on our blog. Details are here.
This week we welcome three new members to the Coalition:
Finally, last week the House passed nine bills amounting to 299 pages, while the Senate passed one 4 -page bill. The list of bills is found below my signature in DownsizeDC.org's blog post of this Dispatch.
Sincerely,
James Wilson Assstant to the President DownsizeDC.org
Last week, the Presidents of Mexico and the U.S. met with the Prime Minister of Canada to work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The SPP is a working relationship between bureaucrats in all three countries to promote greater uniformity in economic and security matters. Here are two of the SPP's goals, from the SPP's own website:
Safe Food & Products: Strengthen cooperation to better identify, assess and manage unsafe food and products before they enter North America, and collaborate to promote the compatibility of our related regulatory and inspection regimes;
Energy and Environment: Develop projects under the newly signed Agreement on Science and Technology; and cooperate on moving new technologies to the marketplace, auto fuel efficiency and energy efficiency standards ;
What's the goal here? Simply, if something is manufactured in Mexico or Canada, it won't have to be inspected when entering the United States. In addition, if something is imported into Mexico or Canada, their inspections will be "good enough" and the goods can be trucked into the United States with no further inspections.
The SPP isn't government by the people, for the people, but rather government by bureaucrats, for Big Business. It seeks to harmonize regulations in the three countries to make it easier for the largest companies to do business. Whether or not these new regulations will benefit the people is beside the point. Whether or not these regulations would be good for small business is beside the point.
To preserve national sovereigny and representative government, we must put an end to the SPP. While we're at it, we must put an end to all cozy relationships between Big Business and bureaucratic regulators. DownsizeDC.org's Write the Laws Act (WTLA) will accomplish this. Under the WTLA, any law or regulation must be written by Congress itself, not by unelected bureaucrats. Regulatory agencies, instead of crafting policy, will be confined to investigating and prosecuting laws and regulations written and passed by Congress. The WTLA will put an end to the SPP because it will strip the Executive Branch of the power to implement its recommendations and regulations. You can learn more about the Write the Laws Act here.
And please tell Congress to pass the Write the Laws Act. In your comments, tell them you oppose the SPP. Tell them you don't believe that bureaucrats working in concert with foreign counterparts and Big Business should be making policy. Tell them Congress should write every law and regulation. You can do so here.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
"Join Downsize DC, that marvelous organization building a non-partisan army to force our representatives, regardless of party, to actually represent us."
The bill, with the pretentious title Telecommunications Restructuring Act, passed with little or no debate.
The bill was bipartisan. Co-sponsors were from both parties.
The beneficiaries of the bill are large telecoms, who can afford to purchase the currently free, unlicensed spectrum, which will be auctioned off.
There is a "phase-out" transition period, which is why the bill slipped under the radar of major media and activist groups.
Harsh penalties are imposed, and the bill would apply not just to network users, but ham radio operators and microwave oven users. It is unclear whether this was intentional.
The bill was debated on CNBC, where one of the bill's sponsors clearly didn't know what he was talking about.
Only two members of Congress, Ron Paul and Ted Kennedy, opposed the bill.
Presidential candidates Obama, Clinton, and McCain didn't have the guts to show up to vote.
The good news is, it was an April Fool's joke. There were hints throughout the article. The bill numbers weren't in the proper format, and the procedures for passing the bill were unusual. But the article had all the hallmarks of a good April Fool's joke. A headline like "Scientists Declare Moon is Made of Green Cheese" is too stupid to be believed, but any story about how Congress will wreck or complicate our lives is all-too believable.
That's because members of Congress don't read or debate most of the bills they pass. For instance, last week the House passed 15 bills, but only two were actually debated. Congress also doesn't give the people a chance to provide their opinions before bills come to their final vote. Thousands of bills are introduced in Congress each year, and referred to a committee. Even activist organizations such as DownsizeDC.org can't keep track of every bill that moves out of committee for a vote.
But if bills, including amendments, were placed on a calendar and posted on the Internet for seven days before passage, the public would be able to object and pressure Congress when a bill spends too much, infringes on our liberties, or sacrifices our interests for those of Big Business. This is why DownsizeDC.org wrote the Read the Bills Act (RTBA).
The RTBA requires each member of Congress who plans to vote yes on a bill to have read it, or heard it read, before voting for it. It also requires that . . .
All bills must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote
Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill
Congress will not be able to waive these provisions
The Read the Bills Act requires sponsors in both the House and Senate. Please tell your own Rep. and Senators to introduce the RTBA. You can even refer to the April Fool's article above and tell them Congress wouldn't be the target of that kind of satire if the RTBA was passed. You can do so here.
We also invite you to join the Read the Bills Act Coalition. By joining the Coalition, visitors of your website will be just one click away from learning about the RTBA. We will, in turn, add you to our roll at the Downsize DC blog and mention your site in a Downsizer-Dispatch, reaching 22,000 subscribers. Click here for details.
And to place an RTBA Coalition button, banner, or web-ad to your site, click here.
Last week, the Senate passed on 40-page bill and the House passed 15 bills totaling 227 pages. You can learn about the bills below my signature in the original version of the post at Downsize DC.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
Sincerely,
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
“In the republic’s early days the kind of intrusive, detailed rules so prevalent today simply didn’t exist. In the years since, the creep of new regulations has resulted in an unwieldy mass of expensive rules that attempt to control things which would have shocked the Founding Fathers.” - Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr.
Subject: The Cost of Everything Else
In 2007, over 53% of the federal budget went to mandatory entitlements and welfare spending, and 20% to the Department of Defense. About 9% went to interest payments on the national debt. And just 18% went to Everything Else, from the FDA to Homeland Security to foreign aid. Source: Congressional Budget Office
To clean up America's fiscal mess, we will have to think about entitlement reform and a new, more efficient national security strategy. Steep budget cuts for Everything Else will help, but only a little. There's a better reason to cut Everything Else: these departments and programs tend to do more harm than good. A lot more.
Here are just a few examples. Ethanol subsidies increase the price of food. Non-violent drug offenders waste away in federal prison when they could be in the workforce. Public education has deteriorated greatly as the federal government has assumed more and more control. And then there's the cost of regulation . . .
As Clyde Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote last year, federal regulations cost the economy $1.14 trillion in 2006. That is more than what individuals paid in income taxes that year. It was more than total corporate profits. And it cost the federal government just $41 billion to administer and police the regulatory state. Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute
That is to say, for every $1 the federal government spends writing and enforcing regulations, it destroys $25 that could have been generated in the economy. The cost of regulatory compliance hurts small businesses especially, destroys competition, and drives up prices.
But the worst part is, "we the people" generally have no say. In 2006, 321 bills were passed by Congress and signed into law, whereas unelected bureaucrats in regulatory agencies issued 3,718 final rules and added almost 75,000 pages to the Federal Register.
The Constitution requires that Congress, not executive branch agencies, make the laws. If the people's representatives in Congress can't or won't sweat the details of writing complicated regulations, then why should the people have to sweat the details of complying with them?. If Congress had to write all laws and regulations, only the most necessary would pass, and the number of unnecessary and burdensome regulations will drop dramatically. To restore the Constitutional Separation of Powers, increase the freedom of the people, and revive the economy, DownsizeDC.org has introduced the Write the Laws Act.
Please tell your Representative and Senators to pass the Write the Laws Act. Tell them that legislation by executive branch agencies is unconstitutional. And point out that the cost of regulations is taking away a trillion dollars from the economy. You can do so here.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
Sincerely,
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
Media Alert: Jim Babka will be on Straight Talk with Jerry Hughes at 3 PM Eastern today. See below the signature for details on how you can listen.
Subject: Don't even know what they're voting for
Last week the Senate passed the Conference Report of the 137-page Intelligence Authorization Act (H.R. 2082). The big media story about the bill is its ban on waterboarding, which will apparently prompt a Presidential veto.
If so, President Bush would veto the bill for the worst possible reason, but it may give Congress a fresh start. The problem with H.R. 2082 is that it could just as well be called the Don't Read the Bill Act. Or maybe, the Not Really a Bill Act.
You see, the bill authorizes funding for the federal government's various intelligence agencies, but it doesn't tell us the amount that will be spent. That's "classified information." Of course, we don't expect an itemized list of the cost of every intelligence operation, but the people - and apparently, most members of Congress - aren't even allowed to know the total cost of the bill. If there is a "national security" reason to keep that information classified, then "national security" can be the excuse to justify all kinds of corruption and abuses of power.
Why can't Congress even know the total amount they're spending on our behalf? Whose money is it, anyway?
And why would any self-respecting member of Congress permit this to happen?
Probably because this is their standard operating procedure. They normally don't know what's in the bills they pass. As long as government grows, they're happy. As long as they can say they're "protecting America" by passing bloated, secret intelligence bills, they can't be bothered with the details.
Congress has a responsibility to make sure Americans are protected, but they also have a responsibility to make sure Americans aren't looted.
If the Read the Bills Act (RTBA) was part of our political culture, Congress would be too ashamed to pass bills like H.R. 2082. They would insist that an appropriations bill would at least mention the amount of money appropriated. Under the RTBA, Congress will be more accountable to the people, which means they will insist that the Executive Branch be made more accountable to Congress. Not only will Congress have a more thorough knowledge of the bills they pass, but the people will know seven days in advance when a vote will be taken to let their voices be heard.
To learn more about the Read the Bills Act, click here.
And please tell your Representative and Senators that they disgrace Congress and betray the trust of the people when they authorize spending without knowing how much they're going to spend, like they did with the Intelligence Authorization Act. Also, please tell them to introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act.
There are ways you can help spread the word about the Read the Bills Act and DownsizeDC.org through your blog or website. You can join the Read the Bills Coalition. Advertise the RTBA and we will link to you on our site. And if you have a MySpace or FaceBook page, you can add us as friends. You can learn more about the Read the Bills Act Coalition here.
As part of our campaign for the Read the Bills Act, we monitor how many bills, and how many pages of legislation, Congress passes. In the first two weeks of February, the House passed 15 bills amounting to 858 pages. The Senate passed nine bills amounting to 260 pages. You can read descriptions of the bills at the bottom of the post here.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
Sincerely,
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
Last week, the House passed the "College Opportunity and Affordibility Act of 2007." It's a very expensive bill; according to Washington Watch, it would cost the average American family $865. A title like that makes one think the bill is about financial aid to college students. But because federal student aid is popular, ideologues and social engineers in Congress and the Dept. of Education loaded the bill with unrelated programs. The act runs to a whopping 792 pages.
The summary of the bill (H.R. 4137) at thomas.loc.gov lists 35 major provisions. About a dozen have nothing to do with student aid. They create grant programs - but not direct aid to students - pertaining to rural areas, minorities, the disabled, elementary and secondary education, campus safety, and the environment. In addition, there are about half a dozen provisions of questionable relevance to the title of the bill.
This is one way government grows. It is fun to point out gross pork-barrel spending, like "bridges to nowhere." But just as expensive are grant programs, each costing hundreds of millions, sprinkled in 800-page bills. These add to the federal government's budget commitments without addressing a way to pay for them.
The core issue - re-authorizing and refining the federal programs pertaining to student aid applications - would have made for a long and expensive bill already. Adding unrelated programs only made it longer and more confusing. It also increased the likelihood that provisions which wouldn't have passed by themselves would sail through - perhaps unnoticed and unread. Indeed, this bill passed 354-58.
Federal student aid is one subject. Improving colleges and universities is another subject. And improving K-12 education is yet another subject. We want Congress to address one subject at a time, and that's why DownsizeDC.org is proposing the One Subject At a Time Act (OSTA).
OSTA requires that each bill that comes to a vote be about one subject, and one subject only, which will be expressed in its title. It will prevent Congress from packaging unpopular legislation into a popular or much-needed bill. It will actually save time by discouraging members of Congress from proposing amendments that don't pertain to the subject of the bill. And it could save taxpayer dollars by removing costly, hidden provisions from bills.
Please tell Congress that you resent unrelated subjects in the same bill. Tell them that the unrelated programs in H.R. 4137 should have been dealt with separately. Tell them to pass the One Subject at a Time Act.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer
James Wilson Assistant to the President DownsizeDC.org
A rich person, acting alone, can spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate, without government interference. But the government will interfere plenty if two, or more, less wealthy people cooperate to match what the rich person spends.
Individuals who cooperate to express opinions about candidates have to consult lawyers and accountants, file reports with the government, and potentially face large fines. They will also be limited to contributions of $5,000 each, while the rich person, acting alone, bears none of these burdens, and can spend millions.
When it comes to political campaigns, one rich person has more rights than an infinite number of poor people.
The federal government has a special gang it uses to control the right of people to cooperate to express opinions about candidates. It's called the Federal Election Commission -- FEC for short.
Roids
I believe steroids should be legal, but have no problem with Major League Baseball banning them. If people want a league that permits performance-enhancing drugs, they should be free to start one. I just think baseball field dimensions are too small for people with super-human strength, and I don't want young men to risk their health in order to compete professionally at a high level. I think Barry Bonds proved that great players who take performance enhancers become literally too good, and in any case I prefer baseball games with more emphasis on ball contact and less on swinging for the fences.
This is important. Please, please, please, forward this message far and wide.
Quote of the Day:
"Should we wander [from the essential principles of our government] in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." - Thomas Jefferson, upon repealing the "Alien and Sedition Acts"
Subject: Support Ron Paul's "American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007"
This is what we've been waiting for. Please forward this message far and wide. Make sure everyone knows about it. The "American Freedom Agenda Act" is a bill . . .
The full text of this bill can be found on our Background page for this campaign. This legislation will . . .
Repeal the "Military Commissions Act of 2007" and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
Restore the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States
Give Congress standing in court to challenge the President's use of "signing statements" as a means to avoid executing the nation's laws
Make it illegal for government agents to kidnap people and send them abroad to be tortured by foreign governments
Provide legal protection to journalists who expose wrong-doing by the Federal government
Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions
This one simple 3-page bill will . . .
Restore basic Constitutional protections
Empower Americans to support human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the world at large, free from the stink of hypocrisy
Protect Americans and American soldiers from blowback by foreign powers in retaliation for our government's transgression of America's most hallowed principles
Next, forward this message to friends and ask them to do the same. We need to flood Congress from all directions, and keep doing it until they bring this bill to a vote and pass it.
This bill has trans-partisan support. It comes from Ron Paul. It's what we've been asking for. Let's support this bill with everything we've got.
State, county, and municipal governments were not intended to be administrative districts of a powerful national government. They are supposed to be self-governing and accountable to the people.
We don't see that today. Where the federal government does not have direct control, it provides grants to state and local governments. And the grants come with strings attached. To receive the money, governments must comply with federal requirements.
Two recent episodes of the crime drama "The Closer" illustrate this. In the first, a Los Angeles Police Department homicide unit must undergo WMD training, spending the entire day in HazMat suits while they're trying to investigate a murder. They had to do this in order for the Department to receive federal funds. In the second, a Homeland Security auditor was murdered. One LADP accountant did not mourn her death, saying that he spent most of his time complying with federal requirements even though federal dollars funded just a tiny portion of their budget. Federal funding = more bureaucracy.
When the chains around me no longer ground me
and my soul can sail away to a better life, That'll be the Day!
And when the silence is broken and words unspoken
can finally have their say, then we'll all sing out, That'll be the Day! -
The Partridge Family
