This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie
As the world now knows, Mitt Romney is not for “getting rid of all” of the president’s signature healthcare reform. And, according to Jack Kenny of the New American Magazine, if he gets to preserve all the features of the Affordable Care Act that he likes, there may not be much replacing to do.
Kenney continues – Romney, who described himself in the Meet the Press interview as someone “as conservative as the Constitution,” has yet to explain where in the Constitution he finds the power delegated to Congress to prescribe the terms of insurance policies and to mandate whom insurance companies must cover. The clause (Article I, Section 8) that authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes” is a delegation of power to regularize the rules of trade, not to dictate the content of the goods or services that may be traded. The primary aim was to prevent states from levying their own imposts or tariffs on foreign imports or upon goods shipped from one state to another, as occurred under the Articles of Confederation. That concern was well described in the December 5, 1787 edition of the Massachusetts Centinel:
“For if one State makes a law to prohibit foreign goods of any kind, or to draw a revenue, from any imposition upon such goods, another State is sure to take the advantage, and to admit such goods free of costs. By this means it is well known how the trade of Massachusetts is gone to Connecticut, and that for want of a revenue, our own State taxes are increased.”
Romney has defended the Massachusetts healthcare reform, while insisting that he opposes a “one size fits all” solution to healthcare problems for the entire country. But by preserving essential features of ObamaCare, he would ensure that healthcare would remain a federal program indefinitely, if not forever.
According to Tad DeHaven of the CATO Institute, America’s massive food stamps growth has bipartisan roots. Republicans are jumping on the news that participation in the food stamps program hit a new record of 46.7 million individuals in June (about one in seven Americans). In a sluggish economy, an increase in food stamps participation is to be expected. Thus, it’s fair to hold up the increase in food stamps usage as being emblematic of the Obama administration’s failed economic policies. In addition, the president’s 2009 “stimulus” bill increased benefits and eligibility.
What Republicans don’t want to acknowledge is the role they played in expanding the food stamps program before President Obama ever took office. The 2002 farm bill—passed by a Republican-controlled House and signed by Republican President George W. Bush—expanded the food stamps program. As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page correctly noted yesterday, “The food-stamp boom began with the George W. Bush Republicans, who expanded benefits in the appalling 2002 farm bill.”
The 2008 farm bill further expanded the program. However, on this the Journal lets the GOP off the hook when it says “But the supercharger was a 2008 bill out of the Pelosi Congress that goosed eligibility and rebranded the program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to reduce the stigma of being on the dole.” Although Bush vetoed that farm bill (he didn’t cite the increase for food stamps in his veto message), congressional Republicans were instrumental in enabling the “Pelosi Congress” to override it. In the House, 99 (out of 195) Republicans joined most Democrats in voting to override the veto. In the Senate, only 12 Republicans voted to sustain Bush’s veto.
The Obama administration certainly deserves to be heavily criticized for the growth in government dependency. But attacks from Republicans (such as Newt Gingrich calling President Obama the “food stamps president”) have been too disingenuous. Yes, Republicans are now calling for the food stamps program to be cut, but given their culpability in its growth—and the fact that it’s an election year—it’s hard to view their sudden discovery of religion as anything more than standard politics.
Harold pease reports that President Barack Obama will assume control of U.S. communications should he feel that national security and/or emergency preparedness issues are present as per his executive order of July 6, 2012. There was no consultation with Congress whose constitutional right is to make all law (Art. I, Sec. I). Although not defined, control of all communication presumably meant everything including the Internet as per Section 5 of the Order, although not specifically named. All such was placed under the authority of the White House.
In light of the National Defense Authorization Act that allows the military to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and ship them to be detained indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay Prison without right of a judge, trial, or Bill of Rights protection this is especially serious. Add his National Defense Resource Preparedness Executive Order of March 16, 2012, which allows the Executive Branch of government to confiscate all food, water, fuel and etc. if they define a situation, or location, as a national emergency—again by the office of president alone – and you have the makings of an executive dictatorship.