PoliticalAction.com Blog

The statisticians have declared President Obama to be the winner for his re-election bid.

The electoral vote at 11:30 PM EST:

Electoral College Votes on Election Day 2012

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges”. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama’s “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President’s agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism – forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.

The latest battle in the healthcare war is being waged using a new strategy — the circumvention of the intent, spirit, and true definition of the legislative process by supplementing the already-passed Senate health care bill with a second bill to modify the Senate bill as per President Obama’s most recent health care proposal. Congressional Democrats propose that the House pass the Senate bill, then have both houses pass this second bill by means of the budget reconciliation process. The 1974 reconciliation method is the perfect vehicle to navigate around certain obstacles like a Republican filibuster. Besides, the budget reconciliation process only requires a 51-vote majority in the Senate and limits debate to 20 hours.

The President’s Proposal has had no official cost analysis completed but the White House estimates that the plan would cost about $950 billion over 10 years. The plan would extend coverage to more than 31 million Americans by 2019. And the excise tax to help pay for this latest unconstitutional, healthcare budget buster would be delayed for insurers and employers until 2018.

The role of federal regulators, czars and overseers would be expanded in order to review and block premium increases by private companies. The federal government would be able to supersede the authority of the states if it so chooses, which is another intrusion into what has historically and constitutionally been reserved to the states.

The broad language pertaining to abortion funding in the Senate version remains in the president’s version as government officials “believe they cannot make changes to the Senate language on abortion” when using budget reconciliation.

Nonetheless, passage of Obama’s personal plan for the nation’s health care may not be achieved as easily as originally planned, given the political climate and the resurgence of constitutional awareness.

This is a crucial issue at a crucial time and it is up to each and every one of us to relentlessly persevere in contacting our elected representatives to insist they vote “no” on any unconstitutional, government-run healthcare plan, no matter how many times it is presented and re-presented to us.

Send an email opposing Obama’s health care plan to your senators and representative. Click here for contact information for visiting, phoning, and faxing them. (Click here for how your senators voted on their health care bill on December 24. Click here for how your representative voted on the House health care bill on November 7.)

Thank you,

Your friends at The John Birch Society

From the Congressional Budget Office Director

This morning the Obama Administration released a description of its health care proposal, and CBO has already received several requests to provide a cost estimate for that proposal. We had not previously received the proposal, and we have just begun the process of reviewing it?a process that will take some time, given the complexity of the issues involved. Although the proposal reflects many elements that were included in the health care bills passed by the House and the Senate last year, it modifies many of those elements and also includes new ones. Moreover, preparing a cost estimate requires very detailed specifications of numerous provisions, and the materials that were released this morning do not provide sufficient detail on all of the provisions. Therefore, CBO cannot provide a cost estimate for the proposal without additional detail, and, even if such detail were provided, analyzing the proposal would be a time-consuming process that could not be completed this week.

WASHINGTON, DC – President Barack Obama today announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020. Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy. Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal
Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008
alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce
Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205
million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one
year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion
in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a
responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution
reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal. Examples of agency actions that are underway are available on the White House Council on Environmental Quality website and can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, setting measureable environmental performance goals for Federal Agencies. Each Federal Agency was required to submit a 2020 GHG pollution reduction target from its estimated 2008 baseline to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by January 4, 2010. The Federal target announced today is the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets.

Greenhouse gas emissions serve as a useful metric to measure the
effectiveness of agency energy and fuel efficiency efforts as well as
renewable energy investments. Agencies are already taking actions that will contribute towards achieving their targets, such as installing solar arrays at military installations, tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models.

As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency’s sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on
investment to the American taxpayer. To ensure accountability, annual
progress will be measured and reported online to the public.

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable. In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.

First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen. If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.

The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid. Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.

Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti. By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.

The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.

I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country – I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work. Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people. If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.

Hooray Jack! Where have you been all this time?

FOXNews.com

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.

C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open “all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings,” to televised coverage on his network.

“The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety,” he wrote.

In a Tuesday afternoon press conference on health legislation negotiations, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared to object to the premise behind the request.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience,” she said.

However, Republican leaders sided with C-SPAN’s calls for transparency.

“As House Republican leader, I can confidently state that all House Republicans strongly endorse your proposal and stand ready to work with you to make it a reality,” Minority Leader John Boehner wrote in response to the letter. “Hard-working families won’t stand for having the future of their health care decided behind closed doors. These secret deliberations are a breeding ground for more of the kickbacks, shady deals and special-interest provisions that have become business as usual in Washington.”

Democratic leaders could bypass the traditional conference committee process, in which lawmakers from both parties and chambers meet to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. Top Democrats in the House, Senate and White House were meeting Tuesday evening to figure out the final product in three-way talks before sending it back to both chambers for a final vote.

“We don’t even know yet whether there’s going to be a conference,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said responding to a question about the C-SPAN request. “It’s not clear whether or not that’s going to happen yet.”

This format would seem ideal for closed-door meetings, which congressional Democrats have used many times to figure out sensitive provisions in the health care bill — though President Obama pledged during the campaign to open up health care talks to C-SPAN’s cameras.

“That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are,” Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Asked about the request to Congress, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn’t seen the letter.

“I know the president is going to begin discussions today on health care to iron out differences between the House and Senate bills,” he said.

Lamb urged Congress in his letter to fling open the doors in the final stretch of the negotiations.

“President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system,” he wrote. “Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.”

Lamb said his network would use “the latest technology” to be “as unobtrusive as possible” during the talks.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech today, President Obama asserted:

“[T]he world must come together to confront climate change.”

President Obama will be attending the Copenhagen UN climate change conference on December 18 where he will be an active participant “as [in the words of ‘The White House Blog’ for Dec. 10] the global community, with the United States in a leading role, works towards securing the strongest possible outcome in Copenhagen.”

Lisa Jackson, United States EPA Administrator, is already in Copenhagen making promises to work with Congress to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

“We will work closely with our Congress to pass comprehensive clean energy reform through the U.S. Congress … and lowering U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by more than 80% below current levels by 2050.”

If you oppose U.S. participation in a new UN climate change agreement which would lead to a loss of U.S. sovereignty, costly “climate debt” payments to developing nations, economy-destroying caps on greenhouse gas emissions, and further empowerment of the UN as a world government, then contact your representative and senators and tell them to oppose any Copenhagen UN climate change agreement.

Thanks.

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Next week, Congress will vote on President Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going on almost a decade. There are first and second graders in this country who have never known an America at peace. To them, America is always at war.

President Obama inspired us in his run for President with his message of peace. He told Iowans about his courageous stance against the war in Iraq, “I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004 and 2005 and 2006.”

This is why Obama was elected: to bring peace and prosperity to our country.

Obama told the people in Illinois who elected him to the Senate, that “the consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly.”

He told us that we should “not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown.” These are the words of a man of peace, and I believe that we can remind the President that he can be that man of peace.

Help me remind the President of something very basic: Peace is good, and war is bad. I’ve set up a site at www.TiredOfWar.com where you can send the White House a message, written using his own words and some of your own, that peace is good.

We do not want to join a battle to occupy a foreign country indefinitely, no matter how much the military-industrial establishment may press for it. General Petraeus already said in May that Al Qaeda doesn’t even operate in Afghanistan any more, and President Karzai agreed.

But we do want to join the battles that President Obama told us about before he became President, the battles, he said, “against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.” Those are the battles that, “we willingly join.”

Click here to send your message to the White House now.

www.TiredOfWar.com

We will end these wars. It’s going to take time, but we will bring peace to America.

Mr. President, be the President that we voted for, the President that you promised to be. We agree with you that we should not “travel down this hellish path blindly.”  It is time to come home.

Regards,

Alan Grayson
Member of US Congress