Tired Of The Tax

2011-02-10T11:17:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day: "Courage is grace under pressure.” — Ernest Hemingway
We predicted it before the election. The new Republicans will be like the old Republicans.
Consider the mounting evidence . . .
* GOP leaders are proposing only $68 billion in spending cuts, even though the deficit is $1.4 trillion.
* They're also violating the promises they made about following new procedures.
EXAMPLE: GOP leaders rushed the Patriot Act extension to the floor on Tuesday, without warning, hearings, deliberation, debate, OR READING, in spite of their so-called "Read the Bill" rule!
In other words, it was just like the old days. So don't be surprised by the result . . .
The Patriot Act was defeated.
That sounds exciting, but it isn't. Here's why . . .
All that happened was that a handful of new Republicans joined with the Democrats to give the GOP leadership a slap in the face. But this move was purely tactical, NOT principled. Most of the "new" Republicans still voted for the extension, even though the Patriot Act violates the Constitution.
Please be clear about this . . . New Republican does NOT mean Different Republican. This is why we must sadly predict the following . . .
We're going to lose on the Patriot Act extension.
* President Obama wants to retain the Patriot Act's powers, so the Democrats will fall in line to give him that on the next vote,
* And many of the Republicans who voted no on Tuesday will switch their vote to yes next time.
In other words, our Tuesday victory was only temporary, because . . .
Fear is the orthodox American position.
And we believe we must challenge this fear with a powerful heresy.
We hope that you will take the time to give our heresy careful consideration, and perhaps join with us in shouting to the world . . .
"I Am Not Afraid!"
Here's the argument . . .
Terrorists aim to cause fear, and by feeling fear we've given them what they want.
But this also means that we can win the war on terror instantly, simply by NOT being afraid.
This will defeat the terrorists' intentions immediately, and completely.
Our new-found courage will also correspond to reality, because fearing the terrorists is like a cat fearing a mouse. All the terrorists in the world amount to no more than an anemic mosquito on the snout of a whale. The fact is . . .
There are more murders by American criminals each year than have been committed by terrorists in the past two decades. But we don't trash the Constitution because of it, as we have in the face of terrorism.
This statistical truth makes it very clear that Americans have VASTLY OVERREACTED to the terrorist threat, and the politicians have encouraged and exploited our cowardice to expand the power of The State.
If Ernest Hemingway had the right definition of courage — “grace under pressure” — then our country has shown little grace in the face of not much pressure. To us, the official “War on Terror” amounts to one giant national cringe.
We can do better, with less effort and more grace.
There is really only one way to win a war on terrorism. Stop being afraid!
Achieving this victory does not require large armies, invasions, illegal spying, torture, detention camps, Kangaroo courts, or multi-billion dollar Congressional appropriations. Neither does it require us to shred the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Conventions. All it requires is a little backbone. And a little common sense.
The minute the first politician proposed the first imposition on the Bill of Rights, the first call to invade Iraq, or the first request for large new bureaucracies to fight the anemic mosquito, the terrorists won, and we lost.
And they've been winning, and we've been losing, ever since.
Can we stop being afraid?
Can you?
Here's what it means to not be afraid . . .
Here's what it means to fight a real war on terror . . .
And here's what it means to win that war, instantly . . .
It means that you do not participate in the public hysteria when terrorists attack, but instead react proportionally, placing the terrorist act in its proper place in the vast scheme of crimes, accidents, disease, natural disaster, and generic tragedy that is man's lot on earth.
It means that you do not permit the politicians to feel terror on your behalf. It means that you discourage them from fomenting and exploiting hysteria to expand their own power at the expense of traditional American principles.
It means that you declare your lack of fear to the politicians, and recruit others to adopt your war winning strategy of not being afraid. You can do this by sending Downsize DC's "I Am Not Afraid" declaration to Congress. It reads . . .

“I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid.”

I send this declaration to Congress on a regular basis, to remind them that some of us are not afraid. I did so again this morning, and added, in my personal comments, a request that they repeal the Patriot Act.
I feel strongly that we must continue to withdraw our consent for the bad things Congress does until finally they submit to obey the Constitution. If we do NOT do this, then we are sanctioning their crimes through our submissive silence.
You can send your "I Am Not Afraid" declaration to Congress using Downsize DC's Educate the Powerful System, through the "I Am Not Afraid" campaign on the "Our Heresies" page: http://portal.mxlogic.com/redir/?kXCzBZBxMszsSDsQsLIETud7bVIDeqR4IODSrz_8lcgF8kZ2T00s-qSm26O8MFwUsrLObzVEVv7ccef6XCPVkCnlS6Avy2AaC8kAauxrw09JeZSkPqapEV7cLK8IICShNIgxmpfUCy0b_7W5Azh02ivCy0iSDCy0g8Xa59Cy0n_oCV-7PM76SjqdPqtPhO-OztVYsrCE4q
Perry Willis
Vice President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Robin Williams "The Plan"

2011-01-28T07:22:00.001-08:00

Robin Williams "The Plan"

2011-01-28T07:21:00.001-08:00

Emanuel Back On Ballot?

2011-01-25T11:29:00.001-08:00

Ill. court issues stay; Rahm back on the ballot

From NBC's John Yang
The Illinois Supreme Court has just issued a stay of the appeals court's order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the ballot and directing the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to restore his name to the ballot.
This is a strong indication that the court will accept the case and, perhaps, of which way the justices are leaning.
*** UPDATE *** NBC's Pete Williams has more:
Less than 24 hours after an Illinois appeals court bumped Rahm Emanuel off the ballot for Chicago's election for mayor, the state's supreme court put that ruling on hold and ordered the city to include his name on any ballots being printed.
"The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago," the Supreme Court said in a one-page, unsigned order.
The court said it acted after receiving legal briefs from Emanuel and from his legal opponents who claimed he was unqualified because he did not meet residency requirements of state law. Today's order left unresolved whether the state's high court would take up the entire case on a speeded-up basis, but the order gave Emanuel the rapid relief he was seeking -- to keep his name on the ballot

Downsizer Dispatch: Repeal Obamacare

2011-01-24T08:53:00.001-08:00

Quote of the Day: "Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim." -- Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) 1st Baron Macaulay, British historian

The House voted to repeal Obamacare last week. Good!

Now let's pressure the Senate to do the same. Specifically . . .

Ask your Senators to publicly request that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hold a vote on Obamacare repeal. Here's why . . .

Reid wants to end the Senate filibuster, and pass legislation with simple majorities. We think this is a mistake. The filibuster kills more bad bills than good. But . . .

If Reid really believes in simple majority rule he can "walk his talk" by holding a vote on Obamacare repeal. One of two things will be happen if he does this . . .

1. Not enough Democrats will vote for repeal to provide a majority. In this case, Reid has nothing to worry about. His Statist healthcare scam will remain in place. Or . . .

2. Some Democrats will join with the Republicans to repeal Obamacare. Senator Reid would be a hypocrite to object. After all, he supposedly favors simple majority rule.

Good things could happen if you can convince your Senators to make Reid bow to this logic.

Democratic Senators may fear to flout the public yet again. Some of them might actually vote for repeal.

Would the President then veto the repeal? Probably. But let's make him face that decision. More importantly . . .

Pressing for repeal will also increase the support for dismantling Obamacare a piece at a time, either by amending the law, or by de-funding parts of it.

Write your Senators now using our campaign to restore consumer controlled healthcare.

The hard-wired portion of the letter reads . . .

True healthcare reform requires less government involvement, not more.

I added the following, which you may borrow from or copy for your own personal comments . . .

Please ask Senator Reid for an up-or-down vote on repealing Obamacare. Please do this publicly so Senator Reid will have to respond publicly. Both supporters and opponents of Obamacare should want such a vote. All Senators should want their supporters to know where they stand on this issue. In addition . . .

Please point out to Senator Reid that he has been advocating simple majority rule by calling for an end to the filibuster in the Senate. Given this, he will be a hypocrite if he doesn't act quickly to hold an up-or-down vote on repealing Obamacare. Please make this a public issue. Please make Senator Reid respond to it publicly.
END LETTER

You can send your letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.
And check out the new educational articles at the Downsize DC Foundation.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Tax Payers Pick Up $160 Million Legal Tab

2011-01-24T07:20:00.000-08:00

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

updated 1/24/2011 4:30:53 AM ET

Since the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, taxpayers have spent more than $160 million defending the mortgage finance companies and their former top executives in civil lawsuits accusing them of fraud.

The cost was a closely guarded secret until last week, when the companies and their regulator produced an accounting at the request of Congress.

The bulk of those expenditures — $132 million — went to defend Fannie Mae and its officials in various securities suits and government investigations into accounting irregularities that occurred years before the subprime lending crisis erupted. The legal payments show no sign of abating.

Related content

Documents reviewed by The New York Times indicate that taxpayers have paid $24.2 million to law firms defending three of Fannie’s former top executives: Franklin D. Raines, its former chief executive; Timothy Howard, its former chief financial officer; and Leanne Spencer, the former controller.

Late last year, Randy Neugebauer, Republican of Texas and now chairman of the oversight subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, requested the figures from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. It is the regulator charged with overseeing the mortgage finance companies and acts as their conservator, trying to preserve the company’s assets on behalf of taxpayers.

“One of the things I feel very strongly about is we need to be doing everything we can to minimize any further exposure to the taxpayers associated with these companies,” Mr. Neugebauer said in an interview last week.

It is typical for corporations to cover such fees unless an executive is found to be at fault. In this case, if the former executives are found liable, the government can try to recoup the costs, but that could prove challenging.

Mounting losses Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government in September 2008, their losses stemming from bad loans have mounted, totaling about $150 billion in a recent reckoning. Because the financial regulatory overhaul passed last summer did not address how to resolve Fannie and Freddie, Congress is expected to take up that complex matter this year.

In the coming weeks, the Treasury Department is expected to publish a report outlining the administration’s recommendations regarding the future of the companies.

Well before the credit crisis compelled the government to rescue Fannie and Freddie, accounting irregularities had engulfed both companies. Shareholders of Fannie and Freddie sued to recover stock losses incurred after the improprieties came to light.

Freddie’s problems arose in 2003 when it disclosed that it had understated its income from 2000 to 2002; the company revised its results by an additional $5 billion. In 2004, Fannie was found to have overstated its results for the preceding six years; conceding that its accounting was improper, it reduced its past earnings by $6.3 billion.

Mr. Raines retired in December 2004 and Mr. Howard resigned at the same time. Ms. Spencer left her position as controller in early 2005. The following year, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, then the company’s regulator, published an in-depth report on the company’s accounting practices, accusing Fannie’s top executives of taking actions to manipulate profits and generate $115 million in improper bonuses.

The office sued Mr. Raines, Mr. Howard and Ms. Spencer in 2006, seeking $100 million in fines and $115 million in restitution. In 2008, the three former executives settled with the regulator, returning $31.4 million in compensation. Without admitting or denying the regulator’s allegations, Mr. Raines paid $24.7 million and Mr. Howard paid $6.4 million; Ms. Spencer returned $275,000.

Fannie Mae also settled a fraud suit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission without admitting or denying the allegations; the company paid $400 million in penalties.

Lawyers for the three former Fannie executives did not respond to requests for comment. A company spokeswoman did not return a phone call or e-mail seeking comment.

In addition to the $160 million in taxpayer money, Fannie and Freddie themselves spent millions of dollars to defend former executives and directors before the government takeover. Freddie Mac had spent a total of $27.8 million. The expenses are significantly larger at Fannie Mae.

Legal costs incurred by Mr. Raines, Mr. Howard and Ms. Spencer in the roughly four and a half years prior to the government takeover totaled almost $63 million. The total incurred before the bailout by other high-level executives and board members was around $12 million, while an additional $18 million covered fees for lawyers for Fannie Mae officials below the level of executive vice president. Many of these individuals are provided lawyers because they are witnesses in the matters.

Employment contracts and company by-laws usually protect, or indemnify, executives and directors against liabilities, including legal fees associated with defending against such suits.

After the government moved to back Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Housing Finance Agency agreed to continue paying to defend the executives, with the taxpayers covering the costs.

But indemnification does not apply across the board. As is the case with many companies, Fannie Mae’s by-laws detail actions that bar indemnification for officers and directors. They include a person’s breach of the duty of loyalty to the company or its stockholders, actions taken that are not in good faith or intentional misconduct.

Richard S. Carnell, an associate professor at Fordham University Law School who was an assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial institutions during the 1990s, questions why Mr. Raines, Mr. Howard and others, given their conduct detailed in the Housing Enterprise Oversight report, are being held harmless by the government and receiving payment of legal bills as a result.

“Their duty of loyalty required them to put shareholders’ interests ahead of their own personal interests,” Mr. Carnell said. “Had they cared about the shareholders, they would not have staked Fannie’s reputation on dubious accounting. They defied their duty of loyalty and served themselves. At a moral level, they don’t deserve indemnification, much less payment of such princely sums.” J. DeMarco, the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said: “I understand the frustration regarding the advancement of certain legal fees associated with ongoing litigation involving Fannie Mae and certain former employees. It is my responsibility to follow applicable federal and state law. Consequently, on the advice of counsel, I have concluded that the advancement of such fees is in the best interest of the conservatorship.”

If the former executives are found liable, they would be obligated to repay the government. But lawyers familiar with such disputes said it would be difficult to get individuals to repay sums as large as these. Lawyers for Mr. Raines, for example, have received almost $38 million so far, while Ms. Spencer’s bills exceed $31 million.

These individuals could bring further litigation to avoid repaying this money, legal specialists said.

Although the figures are not broken down by case, the largest costs are being generated by a lawsuit centering on accounting improprieties that erupted at Fannie Mae in 2004. This suit, a shareholder class action brought by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, is being heard in federal court in Washington. Although it has been going on for six years, the judge has not yet set a trial date. Depositions are still being taken in the case, suggesting that it has much further to go with many more fees to be paid.

This article, headlined " Mortgage Giants Leave Legal Bills to the Taxpayers," first appeared in The New York Times.

Message From The Downsizer Dispatch

2011-01-21T08:26:00.001-08:00

Quote of the Day: "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." -- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) American writer
Should you be forced, at the point of a tax-collector's gun, to fund . . .
* political candidates you dislike?
* the communication of political beliefs you oppose?
If not, then I hope you'll join us in paying for a legal brief to the Supreme Court that will oppose tax-funded political campaigns.
DC Downsizers have already had a dramatic impact on the Supreme Court by funding previous legal briefs.
Our attorneys pioneered the argument that the "Freedom of the PRESS" (rather than speech) is the primary reason to reject campaign finance laws. We have repeatedly asserted to the Court, on your behalf, that you have the same right to spend money on political communications that the New York Times and the major networks do.
This way of thinking has begun to have an influence on Court decisions, including the famous Citizens United case. In other words . . .
These legal briefs give you a powerful tool for influencing an entire branch of government, where you only have to convince five minds to accept your position in order to win a major victory that will change the way The State operates.
Our position is simple. Politicians must NOT violate your First Amendment rights under the excuse that this will somehow reduce their desire to hand-out special interest favors using your money. Instead, if we compel the politicians to obey the 9th and 10th Amendments, they will have no favors to confer. It really is that simple. By comparison . . .
The idea of tax funding for political campaigns is just another part of a rotten campaign-finance-scheme, by which the politicians seek to protect their positions by reducing political competition. Tax-funding for political campaigns is really another way to make sure that challengers NEVER have more money than incumbents, because challengers have a greater need for money than incumbents do.
Tax-funded campaigns are just a scam.
In order for this project to be successful, we will need some generous patrons. When combined with the support of others, a $2,000 contribution would nearly seal the deal. Absent that, we're looking for a few $1,000 or $500 supporters.
These amounts are out of the range of most folks reading this message, and we cannot achieve our goal with them alone. We need dozens of other individuals joining them, with amounts varying from $10 to $300 -- EVERY contribution will make a difference.
That's why ANYONE who makes an electronic donation to this project, starting today through Wednesday (1/26) at midnight, will receive a copy of the brief, in .pdf format, via the email address they provide with their contribution.

This is a project of the Downsize DC Foundation. Therefore, your contribution for this purpose is tax deductible.
If you believe in voluntary funding for political campaigns, rather than coerced, State-controlled funding, then please make a contribution to fund a brief to the Supreme Court supporting your views.
Thank you for making this work possible,
Jim Babka
President

Safety Or Money Grab? What's Your Opinion?

2011-01-21T05:33:00.000-08:00

         Here of late, their has been a lot of discussion concerning red light and speeding cameras being used as a source of revenue for local municipalities. Here, In Knoxville, TN, 13 cameras located throughout the city generated $3.1 million in fines in 2010. The city government received $1.1million of these revenues and the company that owns the equipment and network received $2 million.
      Funny thing is, that the citation that are issued for these infraction do not go on your driving record nor do any points, against your license get imposed. The payment of these fines is not even enforced by local law enforcement.
      Is this just another tactical money grab and added tax or do they actually promote a safer driving environment? Let me know what you think!

I'm tired of the tax!

Tennessee Dem, Steve Cohen, stands by his Nazi remark!

2011-01-20T11:15:00.001-08:00

A Tennessee Democrat is defending his comparison of Republican health care arguments to Nazi propaganda.
Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis made the remarks earlier this week as House lawmaker debated repealing the new health care law. Cohen, who is Jewish, said Republicans are repeating lies and spreading false information, much like Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels did about Jews before the Holocaust.
He specifically criticized the GOP talking point that the health care bill was a government takeover, which he noted has been widely debunked.
“Just like Goebbels, you say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually people believe it,” Cohen said on the House floor. “The Germans said enough about the Jews and the people believed it and you had the Holocaust.”
In a statement released today, Cohen said he never called Republicans Nazis and insisted he was referencing only their messaging tactics. He said critics and the media are taking his comments out of context.
“I regret that anyone in the Jewish community, my Republican colleagues or anyone else was offended by the portrayal of my comments,” he said. “My comments were not directed toward any group or people but at the false message and, specifically, the method by which it has been delivered.”
Cohen’s comments come as leaders of both parties have called on politicians to temper their rhetoric in the wake of the recent shooting in Arizona, which left six dead and injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
The newly formed bipartisan group No Labels, which is seeking to find common ground between Republicans and Democrats, was among the groups condemning the comparison, calling it a “toxic analogy.”
“Using an inflammatory Nazi analogy on the House floor to characterize the policy statements of your opponents does nothing to advance the health care debate and does plenty to widen the political divide,” the group said in a statement.

Obama Care Repeal Vote Today!!!!

2011-01-19T12:40:00.000-08:00

ObamaCare Repeal Within Hours of Vote

By Nan Swift on Jan 19, 2011

For those waiting anxiously at home, the latest intel from the Hill says that a vote on the full repeal of ObamaCare should come in the next few hours, between 5:15 ad 5:30 - hopefully!
If you fit the above description or any inbetween involving anxiousness and waiting (at home or otherwise), please take five minutes to call some of our top key legislators. We don't want to leave any "maybe" votes on the table and these are all legislators who really should be voting "Yes" on H.R. 2.
Have some more time to spare? Urge your friends and family to make a phone call. And be sure to check our issue developments page for the latest news and commentary about the ObamaCare repeal.

Haslam Points To The Positives

2011-01-06T05:34:00.000-08:00

Gov.-elect Bill Haslam gives farewell address as Knoxville mayor

Previous 1 of 12 Next

Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam turned emotional Wednesday in a farewell speech to city employees, City Council members and citizens, declaring, 'I have really loved being mayor of Knoxville.'

'It's a great job in a great city working with great people,' Haslam said in his 13-minute speech at the City County Building.
'There is a new sense of pride in our city and confidence in our great potential.'
Haslam will resign as mayor Monday and be inaugurated as governor Jan. 15.
He mentioned as accomplishments during his time in office since 2003 the construction of the multimillion-dollar transit center, the Regal Riviera Stadium 8 downtown, opening of the nearby S&W Cafeteria and revitalization of the Tennessee Theatre.
He said challenges facing the next mayor include improving the slow progress of the South Waterfront Development project, which has been a victim of the economy, controversies over the Knoxville-Knox County Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness and the increasing costs of the city's pension plan.
He said he's a strong believer in permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless.
'It is essential that we continue to search out and implement methods to prevent and address the day-to-day challenges homelessness presents, and we must not let homelessness become an issue that divides us and appeals to the worst of our impulses,' the mayor said.
Already, there is a strong contingent of Knoxvillians opposing permanent supportive housing.
'It's been seven years since I was sworn into office on Market Square on a really cold December day,' Haslam said to a packed audience. 'I could not have told you at that time exactly what this administration would accomplish. However, I was sure of two things I hoped would change. Knoxville had carried a chip on her shoulder for way too long. We compared ourselves to other cities, always wishing we could be more like somewhere else.
'Secondly, we spent way too much time arguing about stupid stuff. There is nothing wrong with good arguments. They should be about stuff that matters.'
Haslam got emotional at the end of his speech as he expressed his 'heartfelt appreciation' to those in the audience
'for making this experience incredibly rewarding,' adding, 'Being mayor really is the best job I've ever had.'
Haslam, who since the election has gained security detail, said after his speech that he talks with outgoing Gov. Phil Bredesen every two to three days about important things in the governor's office, including the key positions Haslam must appoint.
Rebecca Ferrar may be reached at 865-342-6357.

112th Congress

2011-01-04T19:40:00.000-08:00

    So, the 112th congress gets sworn in and take their seats tomorrow. Can this freshman class really make a difference. Did they get the message on November 2nd that the voting public was sick and tired of politics as usual? Let's hope so,.
      The Republicans have set a date of January 12th to vote on the repeal of Obamacare on the house floor. as futile as this effort may be, it will possibly send a message to the left that the people have spoken and representation for the voters has finally landed where it belongs.
    Why is this an effort in futility? Simply stated, the republicans can, and probably will get this vote through the House. However, without majority control of the Senate, it will be hard to gain enough Democratic votes to pass. Even if it does, somehow, happen to slip through a Senate vote, Our illustrious Commander In Chief will surely veto it and.... without a super-majority vote of 67% the Congress cannot over-ride the veto.
     It will send a message to the White House of what to expect over the next two years, but yet, it will never have enough teeth to be viable.

I'm Tired Of The Tax

Uderstanding Congressional Trickery

2010-12-13T10:24:00.001-08:00

Quotes of the Day:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- attributed to Edmund Burke
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do the wrong thing." -- Michael Cloud
The so-called food safety bill passed. It took corrupt procedural tricks to do it.
We told you last week that the Senate made a mistake when they passed their version of the Food Safety Bill (S.510). Under the Constitution only the House can introduce revenue measures. The Senate trampled on this prerogative, and the House leadership wouldn't stand for it.
Because of this . . .
We thought the so-called food safety bill was dead, and that we had won. Not so. Instead, we lost. Badly.
I'll tell you how this happened, and what we can do about it. You'll need to be motivated, smart, and intuitive to understand what's been done to you, and that there IS a way to defeat these bastards.
So . . .
The "food safety" bill did NOT die as it should have because House leaders used what I'll call a "Dead Shell Bill" to trick their way past their Constitutional and procedural problems. This "Dead Shell Bill," HR 3082, was . . .
* Dead in the sense that it was a numbered bill that was never going to reach a final vote.
* An empty Shell because the Congressional leadership removed its original contents.
In other words, the House leadership took a bill that hadn't reached final passage, but that had already jumped through a bunch of procedural hoops, deleted all its contents, and then poured new, unrelated content into it. In this particular case . . .
The Dead Shell Bill was something called the "Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act." Back in November of 2009 this defense bill was amended by the Senate and then sent back to the House. The Senate even appointed conferees to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions, but the House NEVER responded to the Senate's action. So the bill was just laying around dead, until . . .
House leaders picked it up and emptied it of its contents. They did this because . . .
New bills must go through a committee, while a Dead Shell Bill has the virtue of already having passed out of committee. This set up the next move . . .
The House leadership created a Special Rule to pass the Dead Shell Bill immediately, instead of starting over with a normal, parliamentary review procedure. The Special Rule is H. Res. 1755. House leaders hurriedly passed this Special Rule by a single vote.
Now, with the new Special Rule in hand Congressional leaders . . .
* Took the "food safety" bill that we've been fighting against and combined it with other unrelated, but sure-to-pass issues.
* They then poured all of this new content into the Dead Shell Bill -- the one that had once been a military appropriations bill.
* They also slapped a new title on the Dead Shell Bill, one so broad that it described none of the current contents.
Next came passage under the Special Rule. Here's how that worked . . .
1. HR 3082 would be considered "in order" immediately. That means it wasn't going to be assigned to a committee. It also meant that NO normal procedural measures would occur.
2. Reading was waived, of course.
3. No "points of order" would be permitted.
4. Only 40 minutes was provided for debate.
5. Amendments to the bill were not in order. The debate was strictly on final passage.
This Special Rule procedure moved race-car fast. There was no time for public comment. The Democrats had already heard enough from the likes of you, thank you very much.
* On Thursday afternoon, the Special Rule was introduced and considered read. 50 minutes later, it was passed.
* Then Congress passed the Dead Shell Bill by six votes, just 2 hours and 22 minutes after installing the Special Rule.
All of this is ironic, because outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised you back in 2006 that if you gave her party the majority they would . . .
* "Drain the swamp"
* Enact ethics reforms.
* Stop the practice of using your tax dollars to buy votes in Congress (earmarks and other forms of tax-funded bribery)
* End the Republican practice of last-second surprises -- bills crammed down our throat in the last hours before every recess -- the most infamous of which was the Medicare Prescription Drug bill.
Nancy Pelosi promised you, in a campaign document titled, "A New Direction for America," that . . .
* Procedural rules would be made available no later than 10 PM the night before a vote (page 24), not 50 minutes before.
* You would get at least 24 hours notice of a scheduled vote upon the final written version of a bill (page 24)
As you can see, this week -- the last month of Pelosi's Speakership -- those "Page 24" pledges were thrown out the window.
So here's what we need to do to change things. Please contemplate the fact that . . .
* The Read the Bills Act would've stopped the Special Rule process
* The One Subject at a Time would've blocked the use of the Dead Shell Bill scheme
* A bigger army would've been a huge impediment to this whole corrupt process
What happened is infuriating. Many people on "our side" will be content to whine and complain about it. That's all they'll do. Others will blame it only on the Democrats while ignoring the fact that the Democratic leadership was using old Republican plays to do what they did. Still others will say that it's all hopeless, that we always lose so what's the point?
All of this is baloney. DownsizeDC.org has proposed a realistic strategy to stop ALL of the things Congress just did.
The Read the Bills Act would've required . . .
* Publication of the entire bill online for 7 days so you could read it
* A public scheduling of the vote on the online calendar 7 days in advance so you would have time to comment
* A full, verbatim reading of the bill
This last point is sooo important. Sitting through the out-loud reading of the bloated Dead Shell Bill would have been too time-consuming for this lame-duck Congress. They never would have -- wait for it -- sat still for it! Instead, they would have passed the buck to the next Congress, which might well have ended the matter, permanently, because the new Congress will have its own agenda.
But it gets better. Our One Subject at a Time Act would also have constrained the Congress from . . .
* Expanding the FDA with new regulatory powers, with 4,000 additional agents to swarm our farms and gardens
* Inserting broad, new FDA powers into something called the "Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010"
* Changing the name of that Dead Shell Bill to something as non-descriptive as the "Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011."
Finally, in conjunction with RTBA and OSTA, having a vast army of opposition, including your Downsize DC Army, would've cowed the Congress, as we have on so many other occasions. After all, the Special Rule that facilitated this craven process, passed by just one vote!
And so I conclude . . .
All that is necessary for the triumph of legislative evil is for good men to . . .
* do nothing
* do the wrong thing
* give nothing to DownsizeDC.org, which is doing the right things consistently.
We informed you last week that there was remaining legal review, updates, and presentation details for our Downsize DC Agenda bills. THIS WORK MUST BE DONE BEFORE THESE BILLS ARE INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS BY OUR NEW CONGRESSIONAL ALLIES. The response to our appeal was decent, and we're grateful. But frankly, more is needed.
I confess that I don't understand why EVERYONE who claims they want smaller government isn't working for the passage of our other Downsize DC Agenda bills. We must complete the legal work on these bills. To complete our legal expenses, we could really use a $1,500 donor, right now.
And to pay for our ongoing budgeted expenses we also need scores of donors who can give $500 or $50, $250 or $25, $100 or $10, and everything in between.
Most important of all, we have to think about a stronger and growing response to the coming 112th Congress. We need the bigger Downsize DC Army. Even if you're hopeful and optimistic about the incoming Republicans (I'm still skeptical), we must maintain our vigilance and increase our pressure. That's why monthly pledges are so crucial.
Please consider starting a monthly pledge of $3, $5, or $8. Our average pledge exceeds $15. Many pledgers give $25 or $35 per month. And one even gives $250 each month. Please consider investing in this way.
We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, and PayPal.
To all who fought the Food Safety bill every step of the way, "Thank You!" We've lost one battle, and only for now. The fight continues. We can use this anger to fuel us, or defeat us. Which will it be for you?
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

5 ways spending cuts directly affect you!

2010-12-07T20:34:00.000-08:00

According to politicians, if you don't increase spending this year by as much as you did last year, you are "cutting" spending. For instance . . .
* If you spent $1,000 on the holidays in 2008
* And spent $1,200 in 2009 (an increase of 20%)
* And will spend $1,320 in 2010 (an increase of 10%)
. . . politicians might claim you've slashed your holiday budget in 2010!
You see this thinking in the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.Their so-called spending "cuts" would balloon the federal budget from $3.5 trillion today to $5 trillion by 2020.
We believe restoring America's fiscal health and prosperity requires real spending CUTS. We give 5 Reasons in the letter below.If you agree, please tell Congress to get to work through DownsizeDC.org's Cut Federal Spending campaign
You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

The bi-partisan Fiscal Responsibility Commission's report has serious flaws . . .
* It's not ambitious enough, anticipating red ink for a decade; we should balance the budget sooner
* It raises taxes
* It doesn't make real CUTS in spending, only cuts in the rate of increase http://portal.mxlogic.com/redir/?1jKqenSm71OdPqtPhO-OztUQsLCM0lJDkLIOVYy7NCmU03B9OffbMHcLjUOGTgLF2HsOZCVPB0ynEJY49g8UrLP33abObObOpKVI-l9BRtxF7UwF2Fy592DEmU02rhh7cc6QkPhOyepuhsodIzzrVEw0niR3h0cbv12k29Ew4CVQd402Offd40PYftBcQg0uHpKvxYY1NJASyOrjKqenSkrLfzzp5Pr
You should instead CUT government spending back to Clinton-era levels. Here are five very good reasons why...
1. Less government borrowing will mean more money for investment and job creation
2. Eliminating wasteful and unconstitutional agencies and subsidies will allow for greater innovation in local government and the private sector
3. We won't need job-killing tax hikes
4. Confidence in the dollar would be restored and inflation would be curbed
5. We would see a balanced budget sooner, sparing the people from trillion-dollar interest payments
Drastic spending cuts led to economic booms in New Zealand in the 1980's, Canada in the 1990's, and here in the U.S. after World War II. http://portal.mxlogic.com/redir/?2DsQsLIIe3ArCQXCzBZB6XNEVvdw0U_JaMVvdzoD8PZcjKzv4rUyDAFBXr0KjRprU5OvNYTvC66knAnAnAPtPpYGjbGX3ifN1i5j4ai5fgJM04SyyeoodEFCzB4sOYyUMrp76TPh00KBG6y0om-24E4jh09dPEq805Auuq81DUuXapEw0ZmPs_3VU3zr1J5ASDsQsLIETuv76ZX0djYM5
It can happen again. This is an historic opportunity. Cut spending to restore prosperity!

The Lame Duck Continues To Limp!

2010-12-02T19:41:00.000-08:00

     And so, the saga continues. Once again, today, the House attempts to continue the train-wreck of our countries economy. Will they ever get it?
      Today's agenda consisted of voting on the extension of the Bush era tax cuts and the Democratically controlled House of Representatives passed through a bill extending the cuts for ONLY the middle class.
    Even though, the bill still has to survive a Senate vote, small business owners, nation wide, continue to wonder what their future holds and why our legislative body does not understand that raising taxes on them will prolong our economic valley. Have you ever been offered a job by a poor man?

"I'm Tired Of the Tax"

Bumper stickers are now available at Amazon.com

2010-12-02T11:42:00.000-08:00

Good news! Our line of "Tired Of The Tax" bumper stickers are now available for purchase at Amazon.com. Show the world that you're tired of the tax!

Congress Got It Wrong, Again!

2010-12-01T20:13:00.000-08:00

     Apparently this lame duck needs to be put out of it's misery. Today, during the first day back from the holiday break, Congress voted against banning earmarks from proposed legislation. Evidently, they didn't get the message that voters sent them on November 2nd.
      I realize that earmark spending (pork) is a very small piece of the governments financial pie. However, if our Legislators cannot agree to control their spending on these small, pet issues, how can they be trusted to control and cut spending on the larger ones? The arrogance of our congressional leaders has, apparently grown to the point that they really don't care what their constituency wants and they continue to ignore our requests as their employers
      It looks like we'll have a lot more Senators and Representatives looking for jobs in 2012. Write your congressmen, voice your opinion, and put them out of office.

"I'm Tired Of The Tax"

The Most Important Website For Taxpayers!

2010-12-01T05:21:00.000-08:00

      As Taxpayers, the most important tool in our tool box is the following web site. www.nwyc.com
This week, Congress will be voting on two very important pieces of legislation that will directly impact our taxes.
     The first is whether, or not, to and to what extent to extend the Bush era tax cuts. As taxpayers, this is a "No Brainer". We have to let our Congressmen know that these cuts need to be permanently instated at all tax rate levels.
      The second, and just as important, is whether, or not, to extend federal unemployment benefits. Again, this is a "No Brainer". We have already extended these benefits to 99 weeks. We can't afford to keep dumping money into the entitlement pit and expect it to fix anything. Let our Congressmen know that we will not support this extension.
       By now, we all know that more taxation, at any level, is counterproductive to the health of our economy. Use the most powerful tool in your box, write your Congressional Leaders and tell the that we are "Tired Of The Tax".

When in doubt, refer to the Owner's Manual!

2010-11-29T09:26:00.000-08:00

      When a dashboard light comes on in our car, or you have a question concerning it's care and maintenance, those of us, who are responsible, pull out the owner's manual for guidance. We don't ignore these indicators, we don't ignore the maintenance schedule and we don't ignore things that are not operating correctly.
       So, why is it that our government, in light of all of the warnings and indicators, refuses to refer to the Owner's Manual? Yes, we do have an Owner's Manual for operating this country correctly. A manual drafted by our Founding Fathers to be used as a guide to properly operate the greatest country in the world. It's Called " The Constitution Of The United States Of America.
       As of late, our, so-called, government leaders have ignored the guidelines of the country's Owner's Manual. Instead, they have payed no attention to the indicators, refused to keep up with the maintenance, and added expensive, yet pricey aftermarket accessories which have has devalued the worth of our country.
       It's time to get back to the basic maintenance schedule and refer to the Owner's Manual!

"I'm Tired Of The Tax"

10 Free Bumper Stickers!

2010-11-22T12:00:00.000-08:00

The first 10 people that forward their name and mailing address to me at jwaliga@charter.net will recieve a FREE "Tired Of The Tax" bumper sticker. Do it NOW. There are only 10 to give away!!
Good Luck!

This Is Priceless!

2010-11-22T05:12:00.000-08:00

YOU Need To Get Involved

2010-11-20T08:44:00.000-08:00

      How many of you, and be honest with yourself, feel that you are actively involved in politics? I'm not talking about watching Hannity or O'Reilly every day and complaining about the country's current situation to your family and friends. I'm talking about being involved.
     Not only is it our right to be active participants in our local, state and federal governments, it's our responsibility! We are all, as constituents, employers of our government leaders. They work for us. We, as tax payers, are their employers! So, get off your ass, quit complaining and get involved!
      You can start by attending your respective city council meetings and county commission meetings. Educate yourself as to what is going on in your own local government. Get to know your city and count representatives and what they are all about. Then, contact them about your wants, needs and concerns as their employer.
      Volunteer for campaign committee for your respective state and federal congressional leaders. This is of the utmost importance. Go door to door, during campaign season, and talk to your neighbors, and fellow constituents about what they expect from the leaders that you support. Relay this information to the person that you're representing and help them to better serve their voter base.
      Write to your congressmen on a regular basis and encourage others to do the same. Our leaders, as good, or bad, as they may be, are not mind readers. They won't know what you expect from them, as constituents, if you don't tell them. Express your opinion and concerns by contacting their local offices and/or utilizing the tools at www.nwyc.com . Let them know what is expected of them as their employer.
      Get involved now! It's your responsibility!

"I'm Tired Of The Tax"

GOP Adopts Earmark Ban

2010-11-19T07:54:00.000-08:00

Following in the foosteps of their Senate counterparts, House Republicans unaimously adopted an earmark ban for the 112th Congress. Representative-elect Sean Duffy (WI) offered the ban, which was praised by GOP leadership. Rep. Jeff Flake (AZ), who has been arguably most vocal House Republcan speaking out against earmarks in years passed, was especially excited.
“Earmarks have become symbolic of congressional excess,” said Flake. “We’re not going to be able to balance the budget and reduce the debt by simply eliminating earmarks, but it’s a huge signal to taxpayers that Republicans are serious about getting the federal government back on solid fiscal ground.”
Representative-elect Duffy published an op/ed on the subject today in Politico, entitled "Listen to the people on banning earmarks." In the piece, he emphasizes the GOP's commitment to changing the way Washingtond does business.
House Republican Leader John Boehner, elected yesterday as the next Speaker of hte House, said, "We hope President Obama will follow through on his support for an earmark ban by pressing Democratic leaders to join House and Senate Republicans in taking this critical step to restore public trust.”
This is a positive first step as we move into the next Republican majority.

Conservative Views Joke Submissions

2010-11-14T11:49:00.000-08:00

     Everyone need a little laughter to get them through the hard times! here's your chance to make the world laugh! Use the "Conservative Views Joke Submission" forum by clicking on our forum discussions link on the left sidebar.
      When we receive enough submissions, we will compile them and publish the "Conservative Views Joke Book" to make available here and at Amazon for the world to enjoy.
      Thank you in advance for your submission. Now, Start Joking!

The Counterproductivity of Taxation

2010-11-14T08:02:00.000-08:00

     OK, sometimes I feel like no one is paying attention! Why can't our legislators understand that, with every one's personal finances being saturated with taxes, every additional dollar that the people are taxed with is counterproductive to our nations fiscal well being.
     At this point, every dollar that the government removes from our pocket is one more dollar that can't be spent and put back into the economy. One more item that can't be purchased to generate jobs and sales tax revenues, one more house that can't be built to generate jobs and property tax revenues, and one more corporate expansion that can't be built to generate jobs and business tax revenues.
     It's not rocket science people! With a national work force of over 150 million people if each one of these productive members of society had their taxes eased by just $5 per day, an additional $274 billion dollars would be available, each year to fuel our economy, create jobs, and allow our Free Market Enterprise system to work as it was meant to.
     Yes, taxation is counterproductive to our fiscal well being. Need another example? Take a look at the State of California. It is one of the most highly taxed states in our nation. likewise, it has one of the highest unemployment rates, the highest ratio of foreclosures and the biggest debt and budget deficit of any other state. Good job Arnold!
       Quit taxing and let the economy do what it is meant to do. Support itself!

"I'm Tired Of The Tax"