Read The Bill Before Voting, Congress!

One good thing about all those AIG bonuses that caused such a major stir earlier this year was that it highlighted the fact the most (if not all) members of Congress don't even read the bills they are voting on.

In the Stimulus package was an amendment (known as the Dodd Amendment) that allowed the AIG bonuses to be specifically exempted from any regulation. When Barack Obama put the presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Later, when the AIG bonuses became public, many of those who vote "Yea" on this measure became indignant that such bonuses would be paid out by a firm that took bailout money.

So, if those people had simply read the bill, or at least demanded a chance to see what was being inserted into the bill at 4:00 a.m., they would have known what they were voting for and wouldn't have ended up looking like the fools they are. Well, that's my theory anyway.

Now, with socialized health care on the horizon, it is once again looking like the Dem leadership is going to force a vote before the legislation can be thoroughly read and understood by those voting on it.

From the Washington Times:

President Obama is pushing Congress to pass health care legislation that could nationalize as much as 10 percent of the economy. Most members of Congress will vote on this bill with no idea what's in it. Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, disparaged lawmakers for even pretending to read the laws they pass. "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,' " he said last week at the National Press Club. "What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill?"

The good, Mr. Conyers, is that Senators and Representatives will know exactly what they are voting for if they happen to be voting "Yea." Knowing what is in legislation will save Congress from being embarrassed (as in the above AIG example) and save the American people for having to admit that their Congress is a remake of the Keystone Kops.

More:

Mr. Conyers might think it's an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation, but it is the most fundamental responsibility of elected representatives to know and understand laws and how they will affect the lives of their constituents. That is especially the case with such a gargantuan bill. The House version creates 53 new federal bureaucracies with everything from a Health Choices Administration to a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund to a Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Thirty-three entitlement programs are created or expanded. The notion is put to rest that government might cooperate with doctors and patients to work out what is best for providing care. The health care bill uses the assertive word "shall" 1,683 times. These passages are government mandates that force doctors, consumers and others in the health care profession to do what Congress orders. The word "penalty" is used 156 times for those who don't follow orders. "Tax" is referred to 172 times.

This legislation is so sweeping and so draconian that if it fails to produce as advertised (and I am betting it will spectacularly fail to do so), members of Congress who voted "Yea" are going to run and hide behind the tired and lame excuse that they "didn't know what was in the bill."

It happened with the AIG bonuses. It will happen with the socialized medicine bill.

You can access the original editorial on-line here:

Read The Bill, Congressmen
Washington Times
July 29, 2009

Letters To Jim Webb And Mark Warner Concerning Retroactive Taxing Of Bonuses

Here are copies of the letters I emailed to Senators Webb and Warner concerning the retroactive taxes Congress wants to impose on the bonuses to be paid to employees of AIG.

Feel free to copy and paste this message and send it to your own Senators:

[Senator], I am writing you to ask you to vote "Nay" on the upcoming bill that would impose retroactive taxes on bonuses paid out to AIG employees. Whether those bonuses are right or wrong, good or bad, is immaterial to my concern here. I am concerned about the integrity of the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 which clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attander or Ex Post Facto law shall be passed." HR1586 which passed the House yesterday falls, by definition, under that clause in two ways. First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (e.g. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional. Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law. This too makes this legislation unconstitutional. Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional. Anyone who would willingly violate a single provision of the Constitution would most certainly be willing to violate any other provision. Please do not be such a person. Please vote "Nay" on the Senate version of HR1586 and preserve the integrity of the Constitution. Thank you.

As I wrote earlier, if this becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, the Republic will be in grave danger.

House Of Representatives Votes Congress A Power It Never Had And Should Not Ever Have

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees.

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed." You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional.

If this bill becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, then it sets a precedent that Congress can legislate retroactive laws and put through Bills of Attainder. For example, if Congress decided that they wanted to raise the income tax rate for 2007 to 50% and collect back taxes from everyone, they can point to this piece of legislation and say that they now have the power to do so and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.

I recommend that you send emails or make phone calls to your Senators and ask them to vote "nay" on this bill and to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Wall Street Journal agrees with me:

A Smoot-Hawley Moment?
Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
March 23, 2009

Tax The AIG Bonuses? Only If You Want To Violate The Constitution.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed."

I'm sure we all remember this from our 4th grade history lessons. That's where I learned that "Ex Post Facto" means "After the Fact."

But, apparently, the Democrats and other members of Congress are not as well versed as I am about what is written in the Constitution.

First, we know that the Democrats in Congress voted to approve of a stimulus package that contained the Dodd Amendment which explicitly exempted the bonuses that AIG would pay out to its employees. Then, President Obama signed that legislation into law. This means that those bonuses were made perfectly legal according to the current Congress and the current President.

Now, they want to pass legislation that retroactively repeals that amendment.

According to the Fox News:

Senate and House lawmakers have returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money. Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money. "Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses. He said the legislation would be proposed by Wednesday and subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent. He also said lawmakers would soon work with the administration to complete a Wall Street accountability bill.

This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned as an "Ex Post Facto" law.

This legislation must not even be considered. Those who will be considering it or supporting it will be in violation of their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So, what would you choose? Irrational emotionalism over something that the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Democrat President approved of, or would you choose to support the explicit admonitions of the U.S. Constitution?

I choose the latter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble To Undo Protections They Approved
FoxNews.com
March 17, 2009

AIG Bonus Furor: Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Made The Bonuses Possible

Don't you just love it when a Senator steps on his/her own foot and trips him/herself up? I do. That's why I am blogging about Senator Chris Dodd and his hypocrisy about bonuses being paid out by American International Group (AIG).

While Congress was working on the porkulus/spendulus bill, Sen. Dodd added an amendment that I am pretty sure he wishes nobody remembered.

According to Fox Business:

That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax. The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.

So, the Democrats (and a few ignorant Republicans) are all up in arms about bonuses being paid out in strict accordance with a law that they themselves passed!

Can you say CHUTZPAH?

Here are the rules of the Dodd amendment:

Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009. For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).

Now, why would Sen. Dodd have done something like this? Perhaps OpenSecrets.org can provide us with the answer:



Note that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the two top recipients of money from AIG.

Now, people have known for over a year that these bonuses were coming out and a Democrat Senator introduced an amendment to make sure that those bonuses were legal. Why is their such a furor going on over all of it?

It is a distraction from other things, that's why. It turns out that AIG was used as a launderer to spread money around to other banks. Someone doesn't want us investigating that so they blow the bonus issue way out of proportion to try and make it into some type of scandal.

As for the outrage, I wonder why there was no outrage when public funds were used to shore up UAW retirement accounts?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries To Undo Bonus Protections He Put In
Rich Edson
Fox Business
March 17, 2009

Divest From The Failures And America's New Credo: Qua Mei? (Where's Mine?)

It's going to happen. Wall Street is going to get bailed out at a cost of $700 billion to the taxpayer. It makes me sick to think that Congress, with their ultra-low approval rating, is going to saddle more bills on us and that those bills are going to be passed along to our children and grandchildren.

Well, we voted for change in 2006 when the Democrats took over and now we are really getting that change. It just isn't the change that the Dems promised us.

On the way into work today, I heard a caller on a morning talk show suggest something that we should all look into. He offered that we should all pull whatever money we have out of the banks being bailed out and invest it instead in a bank or institution that operates on more sensible business practices. That sounds like a very good idea. We need a list of all the banks that will be partaking of this bailout so that we'll know which ones to pull our money out of.

You may ask: "Why pull your money out if they are getting bailed out?" Because they will get right back into the same trouble as they will continue to operate under the same bad business principles that got them here in the first place. Remember the Chryler bailout back in the early 80's? I do.

Here are some that I know of:

• American International Group (AIG)


• Goldman Sachs Group Inc.


• Merrill Lynch & Co.


• Deutsche Bank AG


• Morgan Stanley

We, as a people, should not in the least bit tolerate having these institutions around if they are simply going to suck money out of us every ten or fifteen years. Since the government won't get rid of them, we need to do something.

I have already called my investment broker and asked him to look into which of my investments are held by the above institutions. When he finds them, he will pull me out of them and reinvest the money more sensible institutions.

I recommend that you all do the same.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, let me share with you some more reasons why we should divest from these failing lenders.

D.F. Krause from North Star Writer's Group has penned an open letter to Congress in which he asks "Where's mine?" Along the way, he notes some of the more ludicrous bailouts that are taking place with Congressional support.

From his column:

I also see that Congress wants to loan $25 billion to the Big Three automakers. Gosh, why don’t they just borrow the money from banks? Oh. Right. I forgot. Their credit ratings are garbage and no bank in its right mind would loan them money – especially when they’re so busy doing all these subprime mortgage deals! I guess banks aren’t very smart, but even they know better than to loan money to GM, Ford and Chrysler.

The only time I ever hear the words "bank" and "smart" in the same sentence is when the banks are being criticized, and rightly so.

Remember when you bailed out Chrysler 30 years ago? Now they want money again. What a surprise! And how did they talk you into that one? By promising that at least this time they won’t bring Lee Iacocca with them?

That line may have been written sarcastically, but it is absolutely true. Bailing out businesses that practice bad habits will lead to more bailouts in the future. Those businesses should have been allowed to fail.

Wall Street invested billions in bad mortgages. GM, Ford and Chrysler wasted billions and made crappy cars no one wants.

Where does it all end? Right at the foot of the American taxpayer.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Qua Mei? America’s New Credo: ‘Where’s Mine?’
D.F. Krause
North Star Writer's Group
September 29, 2008

Financial Meltdown: Where Does The Buck Stop?

That's a good question. Where does it stop? And what can we do to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again?

Well, we need to find out where this all started and how. Without doing so, all the debate will be meaningless and the current efforts at a bailout will simply result in more crises down the line.

So, where did it start? Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman and an economist with the Foundation for Economic Education has the answer to this. According to Cybercast News Service:

“The biggest culprit, I think, is the implicit guarantee the government has always issued to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Richman said. “Something like 80% of the mortgages these days are held or backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,” he said, and “they get special treatment from the government like no other lender gets.”

Okay, there was a big bailout of these two earlier this year. What do they have to do with anything and why?

“[T]he financial industry is regulated all over the place.” In Richman’s analysis, it is precisely the government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie that is “short-circuiting” the market.” ... Providing context, Richman said government policy laid the foundation of this crisis more than 30 years ago when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This law forced banks to loan money to low-income borrowers as a way to ensure that financial institutions would “meet the credit needs of the local community.” Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

Now we are getting to the meat of the problem. Government had been forcing lending institutions to make high-risk loans and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been buying up those loans. When the defaults on these loans began to pile up, the collapse of Freddie and Fannie happened and the need for the bailout soon followed.

Further, it wasn't that banks wanted to make (or even encouraged the making of) these loans. They were forced to.

The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.” This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.

The problem is that the government's policy of requiring private institutions to make these bad loans is still in place. The failures of Freddie and Fannie and the bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns are just symptoms. The disease of government intervention is still on the books.

One of the conditions for enacting a bailout should be to remove the ridiculous high-risk loan requirements put in place by the Carter and Clinton Administrations.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Financial Meltdown: Where Does The Buck Stop?
Matt Cover
CNSNews.com
September 22, 2008