Debt Ceiling back again!!!

Congress acted prior to the flip of the calendar to avert the "Fiscal Cliff" by raising the top nominal tax rate on those making over $450,000 while extending a plethora of "tax cuts" for everyone else. In addition Congress did not extend the payroll tax holiday which took money out of the depleted SSN kitty. Over the past few days we witnessed history with the swearing in of our President as it was a peaceful transition of power. Also, MLK was celebrated and Roe v. Wade had it's 40th anniversary.

Today, the House of Representatives will vote on raising the Debt Ceiling to ensure the United States can pay its debt for the next three months. The GOP lead House also put in a provision that if the Senate cannot pass a budget then the payroll of both houses of Congress would be held in escrow and if they are unable to establish a budget by the end of the 2014 budget year Congress still get's paid. Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.325:

Some see the extension of the Debt Ceiling with the caveat of the no pay clause as a gimmic by the GOP. While Congress should give back their pay and not get paid going forward until a budget is passed, it is really just a gimmic by the GOP because the no pay pledge is really just a deferral of payroll. That being said, others claim that the United States is Constitutionally obligated to pay all debts incurred by the Government. Actually under Article 1 Section 8 the Constitution reads:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Can someone please help me understand where it states that Congress is Constitutionally obligated to pay all debts? I see that Congress has the power to pay the Debts but I don't read that as it is obligated to pay the Debts.

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

Since taking office, President Obama has not signed nor has Congress passed a single budget. It is the Constitutional duty for the Senate to pass a budget which only needs 51 votes to do. President Obama has routinely complained that Republicans in Congress have obstructed his abilities to get things done despite having nearly two years of control of both the House and the Senate.

Yesterday President Obama's budget was put to the test again and again it failed to garner just 1 vote in either chamber of Congress. Why might this be? And how can Democrats continue to say that Republicans are obstructing passage of crucial legislation? Soon we will need, Democrats will argue, to raise the debt ceiling. Which begs the question - Why have one if all we do is vote to raise it again? Gov. Brown of California is facing a $16 Billion short fall this year. Is the US Dollar going to be the next Euro to crumble? I as a Minnesotan do not  feel that my or any other Minnesotan's taxpayer dollars should go to bailout California. Sounds a lot like Greece to me!

House to read US Constitution makes history!

Tomorrow marks the first day of the new Republican lead House of Representatives and history will be made. For the first time in our history the entire United States Constitution will be read on the House floor. In addition to being read, a new rule will be put into place that will require all bills contain a statement by the author of the bill that cites the constitutional authority "to enact the proposed law". Now, the rule does sound a bit redundant since the oath all members of Congress take is to uphold the Constitution thus it would make sense that all bills written would already follow this unwritten rule.

Tea Party members of Congress are the catalyst behind the rule change and the reading of the Constitution tomorrow. I wonder how many of those elected to Congress have themselves read the Constitution. Kevin Gutzman, history professor at Western Connecticut State University, sees the reading as "entirely cosmetic" and believes, "This is the way the establishment handles grassroots movements. They humor people who are not expert or not fully cognizant. And then once they've humored them and those people go away, it's right back to business as usual. It looks like this will be business as usual – except for the half-hour or however long it takes to read the Constitution out loud" (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/112756494.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUvDEhiaE3miUsZ). Professor Gutzman may be correct because we have already seen the Republicans, during the lame duck session, cave on UE benefit extensions and START Treaty.

Akhil Reed Amar suggested, "Heck, I'll do them one better. Why only once in January? Why not once every week?" Mr. Amar is a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School. I agree with Amar that perhaps the Constitution needs to be read more often and possibly even debated a bit to make all aware. Has Congress and the rest of the Federal Government moved itself away from the Constitution? Or is this merely "cosmetic" with no real grit? I will be doing my civic duty when I am sworn in at Hamburg City Council member tomorrow and will be attending a two-day crash course on municipal governance later in the month.

Why are we skirting the Conference Committee for health care reform?

Yesterday President Obama went on the offensive for a final push on Democrats plan for health care reform at Arcadia University near Philadelphia. The speech was fiery and brought back memories of the type of speeches Obama gave during his election. The goal set by Obama is to have a reform bill on his desk prior to the Easter break. While we all can agree that reform is required in the health care industry to bring down costs and reduce premiums. President Obama has it right when he said, "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government. The insurance companies continue to ration health care…That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable" (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2).

I do not think anyone, Republican or Democrat, will disagree with the assessment by Obama. Even though Obama appears to think differently when he said, "You had 10 years. What were you doing?" That is a great question but should not be the reason to forge forward with the Senate's version of reform. A few weeks back leaders from both parties sat down for a six-hour chat to come to a common ground on health care reform. Now the current Senate bill does not contain the items the Republicans spoke of during the summit. The message yesterday by Obama was the first time he was clear about the process to follow moving forward to achieve reform. Obama wants the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill as is then after Obama signs the bill they will go back and "fix" the bill.

Why not use the process established to reconcile bills that pass Congress when language is different? The Conference Committee is supposed to convene when the bills differ and then re-introduced for both chambers of Congress to pass. Instead of this process the Obama administration wants to end run the process because they lost their filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate. Obama claims that his administration is doing what is best for America; yet Americans are voicing opposition to the bill through the election in Massachusetts and polling data too. If the reform is strong enough and is bipartisan the filibuster threat in the Senate by Republicans will be for not. Sen. Brown (R-Mass) has already proven that he will not play partisan politics.

I agree with President Obama that the status quo cannot be sustained. At the same time, I cannot support the use of reconciliation to pass legislation that will impact America like health care nor can I support the House of Representatives passing the Senate bill as is in hopes that a separate package of changes will be introduced and passed. The arrogance of our elected Representatives to think that Americans do not see what is going on is staggering. Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified it has been treaded on. We need to stand up to our two-party system and demand more from our elected officials. President Obama, I agree with you reform is needed, please do not follow the path of passage you profess rather allow the Conference Committee to make the changes and have both chambers of Congress vote on it. What is wrong with following this approach?

To Walk or Not To Walk: Underwater Homeowner’s dilemma

House owners around the United States are struggling with a mortgage entered into with the hope that the housing boom of 2001 to 2005 would continue to drive up prices. Reality is very different. The "subprime" lending practices by mortgage companies and banks launched a wave of foreclosures in recent years. The tide of foreclosure rates has not yet been stopped. Confusion over regulation oversight of the "subprime" derivatives only exacerbated the problem and raises concerns that government officials are asleep at the switch. As the boom in "subprime" lending took off, some in Congress were voicing concern of the practices and financial stability of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. The true nature of Freddie and Fanny were blinded by the increase of home ownership among the low and middle class voting pool. Several prominent liberal leaders in Congress, namely Rep. Frank (D-Ma), promoted the idea that solvency of Freddie and Fanny is rock solid.

Over the past two years the reality of Freddie and Fanny solvency is contrary as the Federal Government had to bailout the program and recues the banking industry to a perceived financial meltdown. Why are these politicians allowed to stay in their seats? Why is there not more outrage from the constituents? Now many Americans are realizing that they are upside down on the mortgages and scrambling to balance mortgage payments with job loss and general downturn in the Economy. Brent White, law professor at the University of Arizona, has written a paper, "Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis", states that "Homeowners should be walking away in droves, but they aren't. And it's not because the financial costs of foreclosure outweigh the benefits."

White asserts that homeowners are not walking away because of the moral obligation one has. I agree with White that many see a stigma behind a bankruptcy or a foreclosure but one of the most successful businessmen in the United States, Donald Trump, and uses bankruptcy like the normal citizen uses their credit or debit card. Then again, what signal or example does a responsible parent give to their offspring by folding up the tents? A program currently exists that is attempting to encourage mortgage companies to assist borrowers to refinance their current mortgages. The $75 billion Treasury program allots $1,000 initially to Mortgage Company then an additional $1,000 annually for the next three years. The program was a result of the $700 billion financial bailout program.

Today, President Obama is expected to announce expansion of this program that would include delaying payment until the loan modifications are made permanent. Once again the public is turning to Government for the answer. While a select number of mortgage companies participated in predatory lending practice the vast majority of homeowners were fully aware of the contract being entered into or at least should have been. Forget the moral dilemma of walking away for a moment and imagine what our economy will look like if just 15% of homeowners walked away. The taxpayer that did not get themselves upside down or buy the big house will be on the hook.

That being said, let's return to the moral dilemma of walking away. Is the stigma of a foreclosure the motivating factor why homeowners are not walking away from their homes? What lessons are parents who walk or don't walk displaying for their children?

House passes health care reform over the weekend.

Well we made it back from the woods with meat in the locker and our lives intact. While the viewing of deer was rare, the use of the rifle when needed was not. At 7:47 a.m. on Sunday the woods saw a young buck meet their maker with one shot from 50 yards away. Just a few hours before the rain moved. With a successful hunt under the belt, I was saddened to hear that Pelosi's health care bill passed by two votes over the weekend. Let's hope the Senate is a bit wiser and properly vets their bill to ensure that we do not see additional taxes and increases to our deficit. Here is a link to H.R. 3962 to read it for yourself: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Here is what the Left points out (http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml):

Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers' choices.

• If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
  
• For individuals who aren't currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will play on a level playing field with private insurers, spurring additional competition.
  
• This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care. Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.
  

Giving Americans peace of mind. The legislation will ensure that Americans have portable, secure health care coverage – so that they won't lose care if their employer drops their plan or they lose their job.

• Every American who receives coverage through the Exchange will have a plan that includes standardized, comprehensive and quality health care benefits.
  
• It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
  
• The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care, and cap out-of-pocket expenses to protects every American from bankruptcy.
  

Improving quality of care for every American. The legislation will ensure that Americans of all ages, from young children to retirees have access to greater quality of care by focusing on prevention, wellness, and strengthening programs that work.

• Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
  
• Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
  
• Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
  
• Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
  

Ensuring shared responsibility. The bill will ensure that individuals, employers, and the federal government share responsibility for a quality and affordable health care system.

• Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
  
• All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
  
• The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.
  

Protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. The legislation will put the interests of consumers first, protect them from problems in getting and keeping health care coverage, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

• Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
  
• Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
  
• Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
  
• Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  

Reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit. It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.

• Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors' benefits in any way – and  revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
  
• The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
  
• Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent annually.
  

Here is what the Right says (email for Rep. John Kline):

The Pelosi health care bill will cost at least $1.3 trillion and includes $730 billion in new taxes and $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.

For nearly four months, Americans have voiced their overwhelming concerns with a government takeover of health care, yet majority leadership in Congress recklessly plugged its ears today and rammed through a health care bill that leads to new government mandates, bureaucratic red tape, and stifling tax increases. What passed today fails to even come close to the commonsense, bipartisan reform the American people need and deserve.

The consequences of the Pelosi health care bill include:

• Americans who like their employer-provided health care will lose it.
  
• Seniors who depend upon Medicare coverage – especially Medicare Advantage – will lose it.
  
• Taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for massive new entitlement spending.
  
• Small businesses will be taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.
  
• Employers will face new state court liability.
  
• Federal bureaucrats will determine what health care coverage is "acceptable."
  
• Millions of Americans will be pushed into a new, government-run plan modeled on broken government entitlement programs.
  
• Millions more Americans will be forced into a broken Medicaid system.
  
• Government-run health care will continue to underpay hospitals, making it difficult for patients to get care and driving up costs in the rest of the system.
  
• Junk lawsuits will persist in promoting defensive medicine and passing higher costs on to patients.
  

 

Obviously the true answer is somewhere in the middle. Even though the President is pushing the Senate to move forward this year, there are some poison pills in the House version of health care reform that will slow it process through the Senate; namely abortion. I look forward to getting caught up to hear more spin from all sides of the health care debate; especially the benefit that AARP will receive even though they saw a membership drive to leave AARP take place on Friday.

As an aside, I am in process of getting caught up with all the new information on the shooting at Fort Hood.

New House Health Care Reform Bill Unveiled: Get informed!!!!!

Today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled a new health care package (http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf) that will cost $894 billion. The new house bill is roughly 500 pages longer and $300 billion less than the original House bill. My knee jerk reaction is to ask Speaker Pelosi to go back and craft a bill that is another 1500 pages longer so it will cost $0. All kidding aside the House Bill does cover more people than the current Senate bill; 36M to 29M people. To assist cover some of the cost will be 5.4% surtax on income, thus bringing the IRS into your health care, on individuals earning more than $500K and couples making more than $1M. Although the House bill does contain a public option, it is not based on Medicare rates. Instead the Government will have to negotiate with hospital, clinics and doctors to establish rates.

On the surface this makes sense but it begs the question: How can the government be referee and player at the same time? White House Speaker Robert Gibbs told reporters, "You've seen people say that this is going to drive policies up in price. I don't think that – I think whenever you're adding more choices through greater competition into the health care system, you're driving down costs. That's what the president wants to see. That's a big aim in health care reform, and I think that's what we're working toward" (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/house-democrats-unveil-health-care-bill-public-option/Story?id=8946527&page=2). While I agree with Gibbs that adding more choices will drive down costs through greater competition, but that requires more than one choice. Adding just a public option is not the plural form of additional choice that Gibbs, the White House, and Democrats are pushing. We need more than one choice to drive down costs.

That being said, it does not mean that some things are good in the bill. The elimination of pre-existing conditions and caps on benefits is a good step to make health insurance portable. The House bill does contain a mandate on all Americans have coverage with the belief that it will stem uninsured patients but the penalty for not having health insurance does not deter one from going without. There is another way Congress can achieve the insurance mandate without creating uproar.

The other way is through Medical Savings Programs that replace Medicare and Medicaid for those under 55 years of age. All that needs to be done is to divert all the money deducted from ones paycheck currently for Medicare and Medicaid to a medical savings account (MSA). The MSA would be established and Congress will not be able to touch it, as they did with SSN, then as one required health coverage the money would be there. If one decided to use the MSA as their sole insurance coverage and to pay out of pocket one could. By making all medical records electronic, it would be easy enough for health care providers to collect for MSA's through automatic deductions.

I encourage everyone to read the House bill. I have posted the link above. I know I will. Be informed, make your own decision, and then inform your Congress representative on how you feel about the bill. Also, let's discuss it here and other places to make sure all aspects of the bill are properly vetted before passing the bill.

Health Care: American Holocaust?

Just a few weeks ago Capitol Hill was abuzz with the censure of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for his outburst of "You Lie" during President Obama's address to the joint session of Congress. Rep. Wilson apologized to the president but that was not good enough for House Speaker Pelosi or the rest of the Democrats on Capitol Hill. During the month of August a lot was made of the uproars that took place at various town hall meetings. Both cases were bastardized by the media and looked upon as right-wing hate rhetoric of the president and not helpful in pushing the health care reform debate forward. Enter Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL).

Rep. Grayson stood on the floor of the House of Representatives for two minutes and twenty-seven seconds debating health care reform. While giving his two cents on the health care reform topic, Rep. Grayson explained the Republican health care plan. In a serious of placards, Rep. Grayson claimed Republicans plan is, on placards, "1. Don't get sick, 2. If you get sick…, 3. Die Quickly." Rep. Grayson claims that Republicans feel that "If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want to you to do; if you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die Quickly. That's right; the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

Now how does what Rep. Grayson said on the House floor any different than Rep. Wilson's outburst? None. Neither commentary moves the debate forward. The sad thing is that Democrats do not need 1 Republican vote to achieve overhaul of the health care system. Republican leadership has asked for Rep. Grayson to apologize and threatened to introduce a resolution to censure Rep. Grayson. Now, Rep. Grayson had an opportunity to apologize for his rhetoric and worthless commentary on the health care reform debate. Instead of apologizing for his lack of civility on the House floor, Rep. Grayson retorted with, "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."

WHAT!!!! Health care reform or lack thereof, is representative of the holocaust that took place during World War II? After bashing the Tea Party goers and those that showed up at town hall meetings for comparisons made between Hitler and Obama, the Democrat leadership is going to remain silent on Rep. Grayson's comparison of health care and the holocaust. Leadership has evaporated at our nation's Capitol. I thought it was evident by the two people put forth by the major parties during the Presidential election but now I am convinced that leaders in Washington fear not the general public. For their sake I hope they go back and read books on the downfall of Rome before the mob revolts. Then again with mainstream media firmly in the back pocket of the Democrats, nothing may come of it.

Cap and Trade: Ponzi Scheme

While President Obama is in Italy, one of his goals was to build upon the Cap and Trade notion to curb emissions. Major push back came from India, China, and other developing countries that see high-carbon emission energy sources as a requirement to assist in creating economic development in their countries. Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his article G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change on the The Huffington Post:

“For all its "green" aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme. Here are a few of the bill's egregious flaws:

• It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
• It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious "offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market demand.
• Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."
• It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro notes, "businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies makes economic sense," thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical decisions fall short.”

I agree with Dr. Hansen that “Cap and Trade” is a Ponzi scheme being played out in Congress. The day that the House of Representatives discussed the bill it was comical to watch the wheeling and dealing being done on the House floor to gain the votes needed to pass. Also, there were about 300 pages of change that passed the Rules Committee at the wee hours of the morning on the day the bill came to the House floor. Representatives on the House floor all but admitted that they had not seen nor read the 300 pages. An official copy wasn’t even put together until the debate was nearly done.

If Congress and Obama’s administration are serious about reducing “Green House” gasses than scrap the Cap and Trade notion. There will need to be a transition period from fossil fuel to renewable energy. So let’s plan for that. Phase out coal, natural gas, and oil over the next 15 years.

Over the next 15 years as the fossil fuels are phased out, America opens up our country for oil exploration and place tariffs on foreign oil and natural gas. Wind and solar are not the only uses of power that needs to be explored. During the 15 year phase out, America can build nuclear power plants and remove the executive order put in place by President Carter that prohibits the re-using of spent rods in nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is reliable and safer than 20 years ago. Nuclear power creates jobs and builds communities. As I wrote in Obama short sighted on summer job program posted June 8th, nuclear power plants creates between 1,400 and 1,800 jobs while establishing between 400 to 700 permanent jobs which are “36 percent more than average salaries in the local area (per NEI).” The Cap and Trade bill does not account for nuclear power in the 1500 pages of legislation. President Obama and Congress scrap the bill and replace with a program that includes and pushes nuclear power. As we phase out the coal plant, we can build nuclear power plants across the street.

Senate Save America!!!

After Fridays House of Representatives vote on Climate Control Bill which passed 219-212. A group of reporters conducted an interview of President Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and White House coordinator of energy Carol Browner. President Obama stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/politics/29climate-text.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics), in regards to the passing of the bill, “I think this was an extraordinary first step.” While I watched the debate on the House floor on Friday, deals were being cut on the House floor for future consideration and even leaving an open line in the bill if were to pass to insert a place for an earmark for a Florida research center on hurricanes.

The bill that passed was written to emulate Spain’s efforts to create “Green Jobs” while controlling carbon emissions. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, PhD, published a report on Spain’s outcomes of their “green” jobs initiatives called Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources. http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf In the Executive Summary, the “study’s results demonstrate how such “green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.”

President Obama, and others in Congress, touts the Climate Control Bill as a job creation bill. Yes, it will create jobs in the new “green” sector. The bigger question is will the bill have a net positive in jobs. According to Dr. Alvarez’s study, Spain has seen “9 jobs lost for every 4 created” in the energy industry while leading to an additional “2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created” elsewhere in the economy.

Many on the House floor on Friday argued that it “taxes” Americans. Now there is not straight out tax on consumers but there is on the producers of energy through the permits they will need to purchase. In every business model I have seen, not one has it where the company will absorb the price of purchasing carbon permits. The cost will passed along to the consumer in rate hikes. Some companies are already trying to get ahead of the curve by raising rates now.

While everyone agrees that America’s dependence on foreign oil promotes security risks to the future of the United States, the question is Congress prepared to pass a net-job loss bill that will drive up energy costs (total amount is up for discussion) and drive industry to countries, China or India, that do not have the same emission standards. Now to help level the playing field the Climate Control Bill does provide for tariffs of goods from countries that do not meet the new U.S. standards.

During the group reporter interview on Sunday with President Obama, a reporter asked, “One of the provisions that got added very late to this bill that senators had expressed some reservations about was the one that puts tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t have these sorts of restrictions. What do you think of that revision and would you like to see the Senate strip it out?”

President Obama responded by saying, “At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there. “ One of the Obama’s campaign promises was to keep jobs in the United States and penalize companies that ship jobs overseas. An argument against the Climate Change Bill was that companies will move their factories to countries with lower energy costs.

This argument is echoed in Dr. Alvarez’s study as Spain saw several companies, Ferroatlantica and Grupo Celsa, move parts of their operations to other countries. The two mentioned went to France where nuclear power is the prime energy source. While America will see an increase in “green jobs” mainly because the industry doesn’t really exists. The trouble, as demonstrated by Dr. Alvarez’s study, is the net is a job loss and increases costs to lower and middle class.

AIG Outrage: Appropriate or Misguided?

American International Group (AIG) has been front and center over their contractual obligation to pay executive bonuses. President Obama questioned the merits of AIG paying executives a bonus due to questionable lending practices of AIG and the TARP funds accepted. President Obama was not alone in calling in question the payment of AIG executive bonuses. CEO Edward Liddy was brought before a Congressional hearing this past week to explain the bonuses paid to AIG executives and asked for the executive names. To CEO Liddy’s credit he refused to give names out of fear of the safety of the executives and their families. Since CEO Liddy’s appearance several executives have agreed to pay back their bonuses. Executive vice president at AIG’s financial products division saw Jake DeSantis resign and profess that he will donate $742,000 of after tax bonus money will be donated to charity in an Op-Ed column in the New York Times.

DeSantis and others executives at AIG were not obligated to pay back the bonus they contractually agreed to. The fact that many executives at AIG are “willingly giving” back the bonus money at the point of public outrage begs the question where was Congress oversight. Sen. Dodd had originally added a provision to the “Stimulus” Bill that would have prevented, proactively, the issuance of bonuses for companies taking bailout assistance. Sen. Dodd removed the language and why/who asked for the provision to be removed is still an unanswered question.

Why is the outrage not directed at Congress who passed a “Stimulus” Bill without holding a single committee hearing or taking the time to read the bill?

The House of Representative passed, 328 to 93, a measure that would levy a 90% tax on the bonuses for any company receiving more than $5B from TARP. Many contractual questions, ethical, moral, and common sense questions are raised by AIG actions. A bigger question looms.

Does the United States Government posses the ability to pass legislation of this nature?

According to Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting bill of attainder and ex post facto laws. A bill of attainder is any legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trail per www.techlawjournal.com. Encarta.msn.com defines Ex Post Facto law as a law enacted or decreed after an act has been committed that may be illegal as a result of the new law but was not illegal at the time it was committed.

The measure passed by the House of Representatives, mentioned above, is a bill of attainder. Where is the outcry against the 328 House members that failed to live up their oath to uphold the US Constitution?