by: Matt Welch

This weekend's Wall Street Journal, in the course of sketching out the fiscal contours of Stimulus II, makes that claim. Excerpt:

Remember how $200 billion in federal stimulus cash was supposed to save the states from fiscal calamity? Well, hold on to your paychecks, because a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future.

The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ten states have a deficit, relative to the size of their expenditures, as bleak as that of near-bankrupt California. The Golden State starts the year another $6 billion in arrears despite a large income and sales tax hike last year. New York is literally down to its last dollar. Revenues are down, to be sure, but in several ways the stimulus has also made things worse.

How's that? Read on:

First, in most state capitals the stimulus enticed state lawmakers to spend on new programs rather than adjusting to lean times. They added health and welfare benefits and child care programs. Now they have to pay for those additions with their own state's money.

A few governors, such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas, had the foresight to turn down their share of the $7 billion for unemployment insurance, realizing that once the federal funds run out, benefits would be unpayable. "One of the smartest decisions we made," says Mr. Daniels. Many governors now probably wish they had done the same.

Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

The upshot?

This is the opposite of what the White House and Congress claimed when they said the stimulus funds would prevent economically harmful state tax increases. In 2009, 10 states raised income or sales taxes, and another 15 introduced new fees on everything from beer to cellphone ringers to hunting and fishing. The states pocketed the federal money and raised taxes anyway.

Now, in an election year, Congress wants to pass another $100 billion aid package for ailing states to sustain the mess the first stimulus helped to create.

by Russel D. Longcore, DumpDC

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

Jefferson wrote that the People had a duty to “throw off” a despotic government.

“Throw off.”

That sounds to me like a somewhat unfriendly separation. It doesn’t sound particularly cordial. It also makes me think that the throwee ain’t exactly thrilled about getting thrown off and might take exception to the decision of the throwers.

The quote above is only once sentence from the Declaration of Independence. But it is one of the most seminal thoughts and principles of the document. Let’s take it apart and consider its words, their meanings, and the consequences.

“…A long train of abuses and usurpations…” In 1776 that was the caprice of King George III as he and his Parliament created laws that affected the colonies in ways that did not affect any other Englishmen. Those laws included the Stamp Act, various taxes and tariffs, prohibitions on imports and exports, more and more taxes, Redcoats patrolling American streets, the suspension of habeas corpus, and requiring those charged with crimes to travel back to England for trial.

Today, Washington has ignored the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, and has done so for over a hundred years.

It violates the First Amendment. There are plenty of laws that abridge free speech, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.

It violates the Second Amendment by enacting laws and regulations infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, simultaneously destroying the militia and making citizens less safe and states less secure.

It violates the Fourth Amendment through internet surveillance, airport searches and warrantless searches.

It violates the Fifth Amendment by rendition of American citizens without due process and IRS double jeopardy prosecutions. You also are compelled to be a witness against yourself every time you sign your tax return.

It violates the Sixth Amendment as no one gets a speedy trial.

It violates the Seventh Amendment when it does not protect the right to jury trial, but allows judges or administrative bodies to adjudicate cases.

It violates the Eighth Amendment as excessive bails and fines are imposed regularly.

It violates the Ninth Amendment as it ignores certain rights retained by the People.

It violates the Tenth Amendment by accruing to itself powers not delegated to it, and others reserved to the States and the People.

Need I go on? There are seventeen more Amendments.

“…pursuing invariably the same object…” What was that object? The object was to milk the maximum revenue from the colonies as possible. England had won the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 and were heavily saddled with war debt. So the more taxes and tariffs that King George laid on the colonies, the more the colonists rebelled. Then, the King made still more laws to bring the rebels to heel.

Washington’s object today is much the same. It has a crushing war debt as well as a crushing domestic debt load. Then add the mind-boggling financial liabilities, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and the total comprises nearly 1000% more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of the USA. Then consider the ramifications of laws like The Patriot Act.

“…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism…” To evince is to show clearly. Colonists could see clearly that King George’s taxes and laws, designed only for the colonies, were a design to reduce their rights as free Englishmen and confiscate their wealth without due process.

Today’s long train of abuses and usurpations coming from Washington evince a design to accomplish the same objects by turning the Constitution on its head. The Federal Government of the USA started with very limited roles and clear restrictions. Washington’s design has been to acknowledge no restrictions on its power and to accomplish anything it desires.

“…it is their right, it is their duty…” American citizens may have rights that they do not exercise. But that is different than duty. Many Americans consider that military service is a duty, and there is nothing in the Constitution that states anything of the sort. But find me a person who argues with the content of the Declaration of Independence. If you run into a person who is against secession, show them the Declaration and see what they do with fulfilling their duty.

“…to throw off such government…” The process of state nullification does not throw off government. It merely attempts to control the actions of the government, and to nullify its unconstitutional laws while staying a part of the whole. Throwing off such government can only mean secession, which is the act of withdrawing formally from the United States of America.

“…and to provide new guards for their future security.” To explain this, we return to the Declaration for another quote: “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

For the People to provide new guards for their future security can only mean to institute new government. That precludes and omits any continuing relationship with the old government.

That means secession.

State secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to overcome the absolute despotism and criminal tyranny pouring out of Washington, DC.

by: Michael F. Cannon

The Hill’s Congress Blog asks, “Will the Senate pass a health care reform bill before it adjourns for the year?”

I answer:

It’s not looking good – nor should it.

The Reid bill becomes less popular with each passing day.  (So too does President Obama’s handling of health care.)

CBS News is reporting that Reid wants to hold a vote before Christmas because he doesn’t want senators to go home and hear from their constituents.

Reid has been systematically suppressing a complete cost estimate of his bill.

Reid’s manager’s amendment will make unknown, countless, and dramatic changes to that 2,074-page bill – and Reid wants to vote on it before anyone knows what those changes are.

Even Max Baucus admits that not a single senator understands the Reid bill.

Our federalist system, the separation of powers, our bicameral national legislature, six-year terms for Senators, staggered Senate elections, and the Senate’s procedural rules all exist precisely to prevent what Reid is trying to do: ram a sweeping piece of legislation through Congress without due consideration.

by: Ilya Shapiro

That’s the title of a Wall Street Journal article detailing the latest idiocy to come out of our immigration system.  It seems that if you’re a musician trying to get a visa to perform in the United States, you have to prove to some bureaucrat’s satisfaction that your music either is “culturally unique” or has “achieved international recognition and acclaim.”  (Query: Does the Department of Homeland Security now require immigration caseworkers to have degrees in musicology or fine arts?)

The article chronicles the various travails of performers who are either so innovative — perish the thought! — as to not fit into an easily defined cultural category or haven’t yet reached U2-like levels of popularity. 

Reads one denial: “The evidence repeatedly suggests the group performs a hybrid or fusion style of music … [which] cannot be considered culturally unique to one particular country, nation, society, class, ethnicity, religion, tribe or other group of persons.”

Reads another: “Being internationally acclaimed is not equivalent to performing on stages overseas.”

You can’t make this stuff up!  It reminds me of my own immigration plight – which ended happily earlier this year — whereby I shot myself in the foot by, among other ridiculous things, getting my education in the United States instead of acquiring legal expertise abroad (at lesser institutions, making myself less valuable to the U.S. legal market).

I’ve heard some talk that Congress will take up immigration reform after it finishes with health care, though I can’t imagine that happening in an election year.  In any event, I’ve long believed that our immigration non-policy is the worst part of the U.S. government (which should say something, coming from someone at Cato).

by: Peter Suderman

The New York Times' health-care blog has a long post going over the fuzzy numbers House Democrats have used to make their recently released, 1,990-page health-care bill more palatable. The post covers a lot of the same territory as I did last Friday: It's only $900 billion if you look at the net rather than the gross; the score doesn't account for the doctors' Medicare "fix"; the bill increases Medicaid costs for states by $34 billion (which isn't counted in the score). And, the post adds, it's not clear that the bill "bends the cost curve," in other words, that it reduces the rate of rise in health-care spending. 

The post ends, however, with a response from Florida Democrat Alan Grayson, who takes issue with the idea that Democrats should be talking about budgeting or cost-curves at all:

Representative Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, who has earned himself a reputation recently as a rabble-rouser, said that Democrats had done themselves a disservice by focusing on economic arguments.  “We have wasted so much time talking about bending the cost curve, people have no idea what that means,” Mr. Grayson said. “Why would you want to bend a curve? It’s already bent.” So Mr. Grayson is focusing on another number — the 44,789 Americans that he says die every year for lack of insurance. “The messaging was just wrong, and now it’s right,” Mr. Grayson said. “We are saving people’s lives and saving money. That’s what really matters.”
Now, some may think it's useful for a Democrat to be adopting an aggressive, moralistic tone on health-care reform, but the problem is that at least half of Grayson's primary claim just isn't true. 

Let's leave aside for a moment Grayson's blustery claim that the bill will save lives (which is impossible to verify: even if you accept his lives-lost statistic, there's no way to account for long-term future losses due to reduced medical R&D); his idea that the bill will save money is just wrong, at least by the traditional definition in which "saving money" means "spending less." Even if you take the CBO at its word that reform will cut the deficit (a sketchy claim that even the CBO seems to know is unlikely) cutting the deficit isn't the same as spending less. It's entirely possible to cut the deficit and yet still spend more. 

It's true that the reform bills, as written, produce some savings by cutting certain types of Medicare expenditures. But that money is then repurposed to help pay for subsidies so that lower-income people can buy insurance. And that money only pays for some of the new expenditures in the bill. The rest comes from either a surtax on expensive insurance plans (in the Senate plan) or a new tax on couples who earn more than a million dollars a year and individuals who earn more than $500,000 a year (the House plan). Either way, what these bills do isn't save money. Instead, they spend more, but also bring in more revenue through new taxes, theoretically resulting in a lower deficit over the long haul.

via email- author unknown

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, Then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW s l o w l y, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ... during the Carter Administration?

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency ... the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready??

It was very simple ... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate. The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977. TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW, IT'S 2009 -- 32 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?"

Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

HELLOOO ! Anybody Home?

by Thomas Craig

I hope you are all watching the opening grand-standings... I mean statements for the Judge Sotomayor hearings.  It has been chock full of delicious sound bites from both parties, and an incredible insight into the misguided understanding of liberals as to the purpose of the judicial system.  The fundamentals of the argument over this woman are that liberals believe that justice should NOT in fact be blind, but consider the ethnicity and background of a person when deciding a verdict (not their criminal record, or lack thereof, but their level of poverty as if it is less serious for a poor person to kill someone than if a rich person does).  This leads me to the first quote of the day by Sen. Sessions (R-AL)...

"When there is empathy toward one, is it not prejudice toward another?"  There are many factors that a Judge may consider when rendering a verdict or a punishment, empathy based on race or social/financial standing is not one of them.

"I would trust that all members of this committee here today will reject the efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups that sought to create a caricature of Judge Sotomayor while belittling her record and achievements, her intelligence. ... Let no one demean this extraordinary woman." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., committee
It's called "democracy" and it is perfectly acceptable for anyone to question Judge Sotomayor much like it was acceptable for Democrats to question Chief Justice Roberts when he was nominated.  If Judge Sotomayor can not handle the inquiries, perhaps she cannot handle the position. (Personally I think she can handle it because she is too excited to impose her social agenda on the country to let a few pesky inquiries bother her.)

"The Supreme Court is meant to be a legal institution, not a political one. But some individuals and groups don't see it that way. They see the Supreme Court as ground zero for their political and social battles. They want justices to implement their political and social agenda through the judicial process." — Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Now more than ever we must work to reform our Party and bring balance to the Government.  If we fail in doing so, America will enter an unprecedented era.

"We cannot simply brush aside her extra-judicial statements. Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority — the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from — to paraphrase President Obama — deciding cases based on her heartfelt views." — Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
The Democrats feel that we should all ignore the statements made by Judge Sotomayor (much like we should ignore VP Biden's statements).  I wonder how they would feel if her statements supported the 2nd Amendment or a past speech revealed she was pro-life?  Liberals claim that a Judge always uses his/her personal experiences and feelings when on the bench.  In that case, We the People, deserve to have as much insight into this woman's experiences and feelings to ascertain the direction that our highest court will progress.  Here are a few more quotes from today's hearings...

"There must be a vigorous debate about the kind of judge America needs, because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. Must judges set aside, or may judges consider, their personal feelings in deciding cases? Is judicial impartiality a duty or an option?" — Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"So I do not believe that Supreme Court justices are merely umpires calling balls and strikes. Rather, I believe that they make the decisions of individuals who bring to the court their own experiences and philosophies. ... So I believe you, too, will bring your experiences and philosophy to this highest court. And I believe that will do only one thing and that is strengthen this high institution of our great country." — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.