20 September 2013
It is the Job of the House of Representatives to Stop Excessive Spending and ObamaCare
The federal government is wholeheartedly engaged in excessive spending. Most of its spending is for purposes that are not consistent with the powers of the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to stop such spending. One of the most egregious examples of the government violating its enumerated power limits is ObamaCare.
The federal government has no enumerated power to either provide healthcare to Americans or to impose limits on the healthcare they are allowed to choose for themselves. This is so clear that the the only way that it could survive review by the big government Supreme Court was by five Justices pretending it was justified as a tax, despite the claims at the time of passage by its supporters that it was not a tax. As I have argued before, such passage of legislation on a fraudulent basis should be sufficient by itself to have a law nullified by the Court.
But most fundamentally, ObamaCare's primary premise is that the government owns every individual's body and mind. If it did not, it would not be in a position to dictate how individuals care for their bodies and minds. There are almost innumerable other grounds for rejecting ObamaCare as a tyrannical violation of individual rights as well.
The House of Representatives is required by the Constitution to originate tax or revenue bills. The passage of ObamaCare itself made a mockery of this requirement since that bill really originated in the Senate. This was a severe violation of the separation of powers. The House was chosen as the critical point of revenue bill origination because the power to tax was much feared by the Framers of the Constitution and they knew it to be feared by the People. They wanted the House which had the most rapid turn-over and could be most quickly punished for its misdeeds by the People to play the primary role in taxation.
Because the House must originate taxation bills, it should be especially concerned to limit spending. This is the only way, aside from running up the nation's debts, that it can avoid taxing the People at levels which will harm them and slow the growth of the economy. To avoid the onus of heavy taxation or irresponsible debt, the House must control spending. ObamaCare is a huge spending bill and it is also a bill which is substantially reducing the strength of the economy and increasing the burden of spending on households, thereby reducing their ability to pay taxes.
Yet despite these natural functions and responsibilities of the House of Representatives, we are being told by people such as Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, and Obama supporters that should the House of Representatives defund the ObamaCare train-wreck and should the Senate and the President then refuse to approve the spending bill sent to them by the House, that it is the House that has shutdown the government. According to them, it is the responsibility of the House to bow to the Senate and the President on spending and presumably on taxation no matter how irresponsible their spending is. These opponents of defunding ObamaCare are actually depriving the House of Representatives of its constitutional mandate to be the close guardian of government taxation and spending in the interests of the People.
ObamaCare supporters imply that a bill passed by some previous Congress is binding on future Congresses and all of its spending is also binding on those future Congresses until such time as a future Congress may repeal the entire law. This is nonsense. The American Principle is that government should be minimal and devoted to the protection of individual rights. If the house of Congress closest to the People, the House of Representatives, is taken out of the control of the Democrats and comes to be controlled by the Republicans in large part due to the People's anger over the passage of ObamaCare, it is the responsibility of that House to limit the damage of the rights-violating, spendthrift, and health care degrading bill. This is the process intended by the Framers of the Constitution. The natural and responsible way to do this is by reducing its funding or better yet by defunding it altogether.
The Senate and Obama are simply obstructionist when they require that every program they want be fully funded or they will shut down the entire government. They are failing their responsibility to provide those few functions of the government which are actually constitutionally required of it. ObamaCare is not actually even allowed by the Constitution, let alone required by it. Yet the media will insist that the House must bow to the power of the Senate and Obama to spend as much as they wish, no matter what the cost is to the People.
It is time for the People to insist upon the responsible use of their hard-earned tax dollars and upon limits on future debt increases. It is also time for them to insist in no uncertain terms that ObamaCare is damaging their ability to manage their own medical care and hence is a fundamental violation of the very right to live and of the right to pursue their own happiness.
The federal government has no enumerated power to either provide healthcare to Americans or to impose limits on the healthcare they are allowed to choose for themselves. This is so clear that the the only way that it could survive review by the big government Supreme Court was by five Justices pretending it was justified as a tax, despite the claims at the time of passage by its supporters that it was not a tax. As I have argued before, such passage of legislation on a fraudulent basis should be sufficient by itself to have a law nullified by the Court.
But most fundamentally, ObamaCare's primary premise is that the government owns every individual's body and mind. If it did not, it would not be in a position to dictate how individuals care for their bodies and minds. There are almost innumerable other grounds for rejecting ObamaCare as a tyrannical violation of individual rights as well.
The House of Representatives is required by the Constitution to originate tax or revenue bills. The passage of ObamaCare itself made a mockery of this requirement since that bill really originated in the Senate. This was a severe violation of the separation of powers. The House was chosen as the critical point of revenue bill origination because the power to tax was much feared by the Framers of the Constitution and they knew it to be feared by the People. They wanted the House which had the most rapid turn-over and could be most quickly punished for its misdeeds by the People to play the primary role in taxation.
Because the House must originate taxation bills, it should be especially concerned to limit spending. This is the only way, aside from running up the nation's debts, that it can avoid taxing the People at levels which will harm them and slow the growth of the economy. To avoid the onus of heavy taxation or irresponsible debt, the House must control spending. ObamaCare is a huge spending bill and it is also a bill which is substantially reducing the strength of the economy and increasing the burden of spending on households, thereby reducing their ability to pay taxes.
Yet despite these natural functions and responsibilities of the House of Representatives, we are being told by people such as Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, and Obama supporters that should the House of Representatives defund the ObamaCare train-wreck and should the Senate and the President then refuse to approve the spending bill sent to them by the House, that it is the House that has shutdown the government. According to them, it is the responsibility of the House to bow to the Senate and the President on spending and presumably on taxation no matter how irresponsible their spending is. These opponents of defunding ObamaCare are actually depriving the House of Representatives of its constitutional mandate to be the close guardian of government taxation and spending in the interests of the People.
ObamaCare supporters imply that a bill passed by some previous Congress is binding on future Congresses and all of its spending is also binding on those future Congresses until such time as a future Congress may repeal the entire law. This is nonsense. The American Principle is that government should be minimal and devoted to the protection of individual rights. If the house of Congress closest to the People, the House of Representatives, is taken out of the control of the Democrats and comes to be controlled by the Republicans in large part due to the People's anger over the passage of ObamaCare, it is the responsibility of that House to limit the damage of the rights-violating, spendthrift, and health care degrading bill. This is the process intended by the Framers of the Constitution. The natural and responsible way to do this is by reducing its funding or better yet by defunding it altogether.
The Senate and Obama are simply obstructionist when they require that every program they want be fully funded or they will shut down the entire government. They are failing their responsibility to provide those few functions of the government which are actually constitutionally required of it. ObamaCare is not actually even allowed by the Constitution, let alone required by it. Yet the media will insist that the House must bow to the power of the Senate and Obama to spend as much as they wish, no matter what the cost is to the People.
It is time for the People to insist upon the responsible use of their hard-earned tax dollars and upon limits on future debt increases. It is also time for them to insist in no uncertain terms that ObamaCare is damaging their ability to manage their own medical care and hence is a fundamental violation of the very right to live and of the right to pursue their own happiness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment