A question for the Obama apologists

[spence]

Sowell's piece is disturbing on two fronts. While certainly spending is used to hamper legislation I'm not aware of it being used to eliminate legislation that's backed by law.

Secondly, his remarks that incoming tax revenues can pay off interest is silly. If the government has no money to continue operations it will still impact our credit because we can't fund other obligations.

As for Cruz's behavior being principled I'm not sure how that can be said with a strait face. This entire showdown is a marketing event.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sowell's piece is disturbing on two fronts. While certainly spending is used to hamper legislation I'm not aware of it being used to eliminate legislation that's backed by law.

Eliminating or adding to spending for legislation are opposite sides of the same coin. Sowell refers to this coin of manipulative funding as "legislation by appropriation, and refers to a long history of it, e.g. riders attached to bills.

That you are not aware of the elimination side of the coin is irrelevant to its legality. As Sowell says, spending is authorized by the House of Representatives. That was specifically and strongly inserted into the Constitution for a definite purpose. As Madison says in The Federalist #58:

"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can
propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word, hold the purse . . . This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

The House CAN REFUSE what is necessary for support of legislation. If this were the first time such a refusal has occurred (I don't know if it is) and that is why you are not aware of such, is irrelevant. If no changes, constitutional or unconstitutional, were ever to have a first time, they would not exist and we would live under the Constitution as written. Obviously, that is not the case. Many first times of something new have occurred. If you don't like this one, others do, and they may not like changes that you do. That is the consequence of change. So beware of progressive "change." You may not like what you get.

Furthermore, Obama himself has subverted laws by not enforcing them. The House can do it by withholding funds--constitutionally. The President does it unconstitutionally by not enforcing or executing, as required by the Constitution, laws passed by Congress. Obama decided not to deport illegal aliens who had only violated immigration laws; he authorized waivers from the No Child Left Behind Law; he waived the main tenet of the Clinton Welfare Reform Law which required that recipients work or prepare to do so, and he has granted various waivers from Obamacare.

Secondly, his remarks that incoming tax revenues can pay off interest is silly. If the government has no money to continue operations it will still impact our credit because we can't fund other obligations.

He didn't say that incoming revenues were only enough to pay off interest. He just mentioned it as an example. There is plenty of money left over after the interest is paid. If there is not enough to fund the entire scope of gvt., there obviously would have to be cutbacks. That's called budgeting. Spending within your means. There are various ways it could, and should, be done. For example" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreyd...an-increase/2/

As for Cruz's behavior being principled I'm not sure how that can be said with a strait face. This entire showdown is a marketing event.

-spence

Another drive-by opinion. Cruz is going against a majority of his party and against the main stream media and against the presidential bully pulpit. He is being ridiculed by the know-it-alls and "smart" people who are concerned with "strategies" and pooh pooh his so-called lack of a "long term strategy." Such a marketing event!

[scottw]

yes...the "smart" people who used every trick and maneuver possible to get this trash passed, funny how everything is "Living and Breathing" and subject to change except the schemes that they set in stone for us to toil under for the rest of our lives only to be ridiculed or investigated if we complain....

Spence complains like a criminal that was caught and whining that the authorities didn't play fair when they arrested him....

this administration and the leadership that is pushing the agenda that he supports are the most dishonest and loathsome in our history, they are not bound by any rules or sense of decency

provoke
condsescend
mock and ridicule
pretend that you stand above it all
nauseating



"Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance.
Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.."