WALLACE: After our interview with both Romneys, we sat down alone with the governor. We talked about the campaign and how President Obama has dealt with the nation's problems since his re-election.
But we started with why anyone should listen to Mitt Romney.
WALLACE: Before we get to current events, what role do you see for yourself? What part do you want to play in the Republican Party? What role do you want to have in the national debate?
ROMNEY: Well, I recognize that I lost, so I'm not going to be the -- the leader of the Republican Party. Other people will take that -- that mantle.
But I want to have influence on getting our party into a position where we can be successful in solving the problems the country has.
WALLACE: You must know that there are a lot of people in the party who still blame you for losing the race they think that the Republicans could have won in 2012.
To a certain degree, when you hear about the rebranding, aren't people saying they want to distance the party from you?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, I recognize that as the guy who lost the election, I'm not in a position to tell everybody else how to win, all right? They're not going to listen and I don't have the credibility to do that anyway.
I look at what's happening right now, I wish I were there. It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done.
The president is the leader of the nation. The president brings people together, does the deals, does the trades, knocks the heads together. The president leads.
And -- and I don't see that kind of -- of leadership happening right now --
Asked Friday (3/1/2013) by CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin why President Obama can't simply refuse to let congressional leaders leave a room until they reach a deficit-reduction agreement, the president said he can't "force Congress to do the right thing...Jessica, I am not a dictator, I'm the president," he said
Michelle Obama reminded Oprah that Barack was not a 'Dictator' when her and Barack was interviewed by Oprah.
In ancient Rome during times of great exigency or imminent danger, it was customary for the Romans to appoint what they termed a 'Dictator' for a period of six Months. This 'Dictator' was a supreme executive who was given absolute and unlimited powers to save the state from the threat.
The powers of a Roman 'Dictator' were infinite, but only for six months and under very well defined conditions - not at all like what we call a dictator today.
This is the second time that I can recall that Obama has stated that he is NOT a dictator, which means a 'Dictatorship' is something that is on his mind or is being talked about in his presence.
What Obama and sycophants would like to see is a 'Roman Type Dictatorship' for the period remaining in his Presidency.
Not only has Barack Obama said at least twice that he is NOT a Dictator, he also said at least once that he is NOT Emperor of the United States.
February 14, 2013 (Google Hangout)
"This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency," said Obama. "The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."
Barack Obama
We must remember that Obama is a lawyer, which makes him a 'Wordsmith' (One who uses words skillfully.).
Emperor = The sovereign or supreme ruler of an empire: a title of dignity conventionally superior to that of king.
Notice how Obama states that a "Problem" he has "Struggled" with throughout his Presidency - is that he is ONLY the President and NOT the Emperor of the United States.
President Obama, like many leftist constitutional law professors, seems to have studied the Constitution for the same reasons a professional burglar studies locks and safes.
"The Democrats and liberal progressives have had a monopoly on running that city into the ground, into a bloody hellhole for upwards of a century now. If you look at the top echelon of strategists, the consliglieres, the people that run the Obama administration, these are the people who have failed Chicago youth and Chicago families.”
Michelle Malkin
America once dreamed of colonizing the Moon and putting a man on the planet Mars. Now it appears as though the United States has abandoned those dreams, in addition to those policies that create prosperity. Don't fret. Bill Whittle sees promise on the horizon, like the abundance of natural gas and promise of private sector space travel. Hear more.
Why is President Obama so skeptical about putting armed security in our schools? It's okay for his kids, but not ours? We want our fair share of security, too. NRA Stand And Fight.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution states:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
This is the "Power of the Purse" clause, which Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 makes clear is exclusively held by the House of Representatives:
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
Actually, there are two "powers of the purse" - to spend money or to deny its being spent. For the US Federal Government to spend any money, one single dime on anything, three things need to happen in this order:
an Appropriation must be authorized and passed by the House,
such Appropriation must then be passed by the Senate (any differences in the House and Senate versions must be reconciled via joint agreement and passage), and finally
be signed into Law by the President.
To deny the federal government the authority to spend any money, one single dime on any program or activity, only one thing needs to happen: the House does not pass an Appropriation for it. Period. Neither the Senate, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court, nor any federal agency secretary or bureaucrat, has the constitutional authority to spend one single dime by themselves, without a majority of the House giving it to them. That is the power of the purse.
There is, however, a problem - a legal problem, not just a psychological one, such as Congressistas being spendaholics or too cowardly to refuse the begging of various constituencies for handouts.
This problem is epitomized by the Senate Republicans' inability to force Harry Reid to pass an annual budget, even though there is a law requiring the Senate to do so. Thanks to Reid's blocking all attempts, the Senate hasn't passed a budget since April, 2009, which clearly violates federal law - the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
So how come Reid can't be prosecuted? Why can't the Senate Pubs take legal action against him? As Byron York explains, "the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 doesn't have an enforcement mechanism. Lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget each year by April 15, but there's no provision to punish them, or even slightly inconvenience them, if they don't."
So we arrive at what may well be the single most important question to ask in America today.
Given that the current President of the United States seems determined to bypass the House's appropriation authority and spend gigantic sums on whatever programs he wants or enforcing whatever Executive Orders he issues, is there an enforcement mechanism for his violating the power of the purse clauses in the Constitution?
The answer is yes. There is a federal law that specifically codifies the power of the purse clauses, and provides specific punishment for their violation by any "officer or employee of the United States government."
This punishment is "suspension from duty without pay or removal from office," and up to two years in federal prison.
This Federal law is: The Antideficiency Act. The original version was enacted into law in 1884. Although revised occasionally since to make its meaning clear in terms of "modern" language, its purpose remains: to be the enforcement mechanism implementing Article I, Sections 7 & 9. It was last revised during the Reagan presidency, and is codified as Title 31 of the United States Code (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342, 1349, and 1350).
1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not-
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;
(B) involve either government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law;
§1342 specifies that the "unless authorized by law" exception in 1341 (1)(B) applies only to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property," which does "not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office."
"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."
There is a lot of brave talk coming from Capitol Hill Republicans on forcing a government shutdown by not raising the debt ceiling until Zero agrees to major spending cuts. Zero is riposting with threats to raise the ceiling unilaterally, invoking Section 4 of the 14th Amendment - "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned."
On Sunday (1/06), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) demolished this argument in a handful of words.
In addition, Zero's bureaucratic goons have issued a blizzard of new rules and regs, while he himself threatens to issue a blizzard of Executive Orders for "gun-control" in overt violation of the 2nd Amendment.
In other words, Zero plainly intends to spend whatever money he wants, debt ceiling or no, Congressional appropriation or no. If and when he does so, he needs to be prosecuted in violation of the Antideficiency Act.
And criminally prosecuted, for he will have, per §1350, knowingly and willfully violated it. Note, however, that §1349 only requires violation of the act (without the knowing/willful qualifier) for the perpetrator to be suspended and removed from office.
Eric Holder, as the most corrupt and dishonest Attorney General in US history, will of course not prosecute Zero - he will act as his defense attorney. But the House as a whole, individual senators and congressfolk, conservative legal foundations et al, may initiate law suits against the president.
There are 30 Republican Governors now. If a number of them banded together, with their States suing Zero for violation of the Antideficiency Act, then, under the Original Jurisdiction clause of the Constitution - Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" - the case must go directly to the Supremes, bypassing all lower courts.
So we don't even need lily-livered Congress Pubs, just Pub Governors, a number of whom do have the moxy.
Granted, since Chief Justice Roberts has become Obama's poodle, the SCOTUS may not find the president guilty. Nonetheless, prosecution of the president under the Antideficiency Act is a far easier way to remove him from office than impeachment.
Impeachment of Obama would be a high bar for the House, and verdict of guilty in a subsequent trial by the Dem-controlled Senate an impossibility. So the only possible way to remove him from office is via Antideficiency Act violations. Further, such violations can put him in jail.
In sum:
*The Constitution explicitly states that the President and the Executive Branch can only spend money first appropriated by the House.
*The enforcement mechanism for violation of this Constitutional provision is the Antideficiency Act, under which the president may be personally prosecuted as an officer of the United States government, and if found guilty, may be removed from office and imprisoned for up to two years.
*Our current president has indicated his intention to blatantly, knowingly and willfully violate the Antideficiency Act.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republican leaders in the House and Senate to publicly announce and repeatedly state their intention to seek the criminal prosecution of President Barack Hussein Obama should he violate the Antideficiency Act, in response to the House's refusal to 1) raise the debt ceiling, 2) pass a Continuing Resolution in lieu of a Federal Budget, or 3) provide funding for the implementation of Presidential Executive Orders, particularly those regarding gun-control.
Republican Governors and conservative legal foundations should then join in support.
We have the Constitution and the specific federal law to put an end to the Tyranny of Zero. It's time to go on offense. Mr. Obama must be given a choice: obey the Antideficiency Act or be thrown out of office and go to jail.
The Barack Hussein Obama Regime has indicated it plans to further shred the Constitution, in violation of BHO's oath of office, that it will bypass Congress to further infringe upon the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Barack Obama has proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that he has NO problem solving skills and in fact his solutions are ALWAYS worse than the problem he is trying to solve.
Vice President Joe Biden, whose gun violence task force is scheduled to meet with representatives of the NRA and Walmart today, raised some eyebrows Wednesday by expressing the possibility that President Obama could implement some gun control measures using an executive order.
Fox and Friends talked to Michelle Malkin this morning about Biden’s remarks and the gun control issue overall. They also touched on the subject of the czars appointed by President Obama when he first took office and where some of them are now.
Malkin made the point that the Obama administration has not hesitated to use executive orders to implement policies over the last four years – specifically on the environment and immigration – so “why the heck” wouldn’t he try to do it with gun control?
“I don’t see why anyone would dismiss the kind of extreme measures that people have contemplated in the past (on gun control). What’s most dangerous is the way that they couch their rhetoric in what seems to be moderation. Right? Now they’re talking about ‘gun safety’ instead of ‘gun control’ and when they harp about ‘assault weapons’ or ‘ammunition,’ what they’re really talking about – and we’ve had this kind of candor before from the gun grabbers – is talking about the kind of handguns that ordinary Americans use to protect themselves,” said Malkin.
On executive privilege, what did Obama know and when did he know it? Rep. Gowdy: ‘Obama is either part of it or he’s not’; Update: ‘cannot be invoked at all if purpose is to shield wrongdoing’.
Charles Krauthammer is an American Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician. His column is syndicated to more than 275 newspapers and media outlets.
Barack Obama thinks the American citizenry are too ignorant to understand his brilliance.
Barack Obama and his followers and supporters think he is NEVER wrong, about anything, and the American people are NEVER correct unless they agree with Barack Obama?
"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
President Barack Obama
If ever there was a conversation that should scare the bejeezus out of every American, the one transmitted on an open mike between Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev is the one.
Caught in a conversation asking Medvedev to ask newly ‘elected’ Russian president Vladimir Putin to give him more “space” on the issue of missile defense, Obama assured the outgoing Russian President that as a lame duck, after the next election he’ll have “more flexibility.”
According to Carol E. Lee of the Wall Street Journal:
U.S. President Barack Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday that his re-election campaign has tied his hands in resolving differences with Russia over U.S. plans for a missile-defense system in Europe, and suggested an agreement would be more likely after November.
Jake Tapper, Senior White House correspondent for ABC News, reported that the exchange went like this:
President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”
President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”
President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
In other words, Obama believes that if he is reelected the brakes will be off and he can sell American and European national security down the river by making our allies and ourselves more vulnerable than ever before to an attack from any nation with a missile and a bad attitude.
Obama needs “space?” Medvedev understands? What are “all these issues,” including flexibility on missile defense, that a man who’s supposed to be protecting America is seeking reassurance about?
The understanding that is needed here is not on the part of Medvedev but on the part of the American people. Every thinking person should seize upon that verbal transmission Barack Obama gave to messenger boy Medvedev to deliver to Vladimir Putin and use it as motivation to ensure that Mr. Flexibility/Barack Obama’s last election already took place.
President Obama may lack chops in many areas—job creation, growing the economy, managing the cost of fuel and food—but, he is a master at political strategy and excels in the art of misdirection.
Obama has used controversies such as the birth-control/insurance mandate in February to divert attention away from a Bureau of Labor Statistics’ report which showed that there are approximately 16 million unemployed Americans, 30% of whom have been unemployed for over two years. And, Obama’s recent defense of his so-called energy policy seems intended to distract Americans from the fact that gas prices are rising even as the economy groans under the Administration’s spending spree causing $1.3 trillion dollars annually in deficits along with a ballooning of the public debt to $15.5 trillion dollars.
It is nothing short of breathtaking that Team Obama continues to pile on more debt, continues the false promises to supporters that continued government subsidies and entitlements can be maintained, and delays any honest reform. And most startling of all, as our nation moves ever closer to a Greece-style default, Barack Obama employs his considerable political skills to masquerade his disastrous economic policies to try and fool American voters.
Americans might be used to politicians spinning reality to help them get re-elected, but we have rarely seen as sophisticated a public relations campaign as that which has now mobilized the full federal government.
Many Americans may be unaware that federal agencies have robust public relations departments comprised of both career federal employees and supplemented by one or more outside public relations’ firms. These PR employees and contractors do more than just manage federal agencies’ websites, they also orchestrate elaborate public relations’ strategies designed to highlight political appointees’ supposed accomplishments and promote the illusion of positive advances in the Obama Administration’s plans.
Taxpayer costs exceed $1 billion. Worse yet, Team Obama seems intent on pouring even more taxpayer resources into official government propaganda.
Consider that even in an era of supposedly tight federal spending levels, and even with Congressional pressure growing to eliminate wasteful and redundant programs, business is good within the world of government’s Public Affairs.
Federal agencies have been hiring even more Public Affairs and media experts, even as they face hiring freezes in other departments. Within many Federal Agencies, expensive “buy-out” policies are being implemented to reduce the bloated bureaucracy. Yet, within the Public Affairs’ divisions of the federal government, the hiring goes on and on.
Ever wonder why government agencies are spending so much on advertising and public affairs?
Public Affairs officers have been elevated to senior positions within federal agencies. Agencies are spending billions of dollars on advertising, telling other agencies and “spinning” Americans on their “good news stories”, and what a great job they are doing with the taxpayer dollars.
Government trade magazines feature large, online and in-print advertisements from federal agencies, and, in return, those trade magazines and newspapers feature puff pieces on agency executives.
Federal agencies are also mandated to sell their goods and services to one another. Yet, many agencies spend millions of dollars, annually, in conferences, in commercial publications and in promotional materials and tschotkes to market one another.
Of course, these agencies also spend millions of dollars to market the “successes” of the agencies’ leaders, often paving the way for prestigious, revolving-door, jobs after leaving office, such as the recent Jake Siewert (counselor and former press secretary) transition from Obama Administration official to Goldman Sachs executive.
Never before has a president marshaled so many public relations pieces in an orchestrated propaganda campaign, seemingly designed solely to effect his reelection. The public funds which the Obama Administration is spending on public relations is a misuse of taxpayer money and congress ought to get tough with the Administration.
Of course, these expenditures are not easily identified since they show up in a variety of places under various line items in an agency’s budget. These expenditures tend to be buried in the PC&B (Payroll, Compensation and Benefits) budget lines, or are buried in other “contractor” costs and ODC (Other Direct Costs) lines in the agencies’ budgets.
A carefully worded request from congress, itemizing queries for costs for web site development, website “presence”, online “subscription” services and contractor paid “promotional” costs and conference fees would also reveal that the widespread PR efforts of the Obama Administration runs into the billions of dollars.
A recent news report analyzed the stupendous effort the Obama presidential campaign is investing in online marketing efforts utilizing personal data collected via internet sites and mobile devices. But, when combined with the phenomenal growth in the ‘spin” people and resources employed in federal agencies, it becomes clear that Obama is managing, below the surface of public attention, to mobilize enormous assets within the federal government to support his campaign re-election strategy.
It is also important to remember that Team Obama is not bound, as other businesses are, by the same “truth in advertising” laws, designed to protect consumers. Nor is Team Obama required to “substantiate its claims”. So, instead they spend lots of time in self-serving puffery, telling Americans how wonderful the Obama Administration is and what a great job they are doing.
How much better for all of us if Obama would spend time tackling the real and pressing problems of the day—unemployment, rising deficits, rising energy prices, reduced trade and reduced manufacturing growth.
The sad part of all of this is that, given the choice, the Obama Administration has shown they would rather spend their time (along with a healthy dose of taxpayer money) spinning the story rather than solving the problems that Obama was elected to solve.
Obama has told us he has studied Abraham Lincoln and is familiar with Lincoln’s wisdom that “you can fool some of the people, all of the time”. Pity that the president’s Lincoln scholarship ended prematurely and he did understand the rest of Lincoln’s wisdom, that “You can’t fool all the people all the time”.
Barack Obama often seems annoyed by the limitations of his office these days, especially with a Congress that occasionally disagrees with him.
So rather than let something silly like the co-equal branches of government get in the way, the President has chosen instead to harness the mantra “We Can’t Wait!” (do an online search with the mantra and his name), and then impose his controls over our economy by executive mandates.
With an unending supply of programs to stimulate everything from domestic tourism to farm production, President Obama has huge chunks of the American economy firmly within his grasp. 4 years ago this kind of government control seemed like a good idea to some, but who still thinks that way now?
I remember back in the fall of 2008 when I attended an Obama campaign “meet up” at a bar. It was in Phoenix, Arizona – the home of Mr. Obama’s opponent at that time, John McCain, and home to a brutal real estate crash - and a mortgage lender friend told me “you gotta come meet these people. They’re young, hip, smart, lots of MBA’s and lawyers, and they’re all supporting Obama.”
What I observed as I mingled with the young, hip, smart people was that they liked to talk about how young and hip and smart they believed Barack Obama to be. They’re confidence in this one man was unending, while specific details about economic and public policy concerns weren’t discussed much.
“Why did so many banks and borrowers agree to ARM loans in the first place?” I asked one of the hipsters, trying to engage a discussion about how bad government policy can incentivize bad consumer behavior. “Obama will implement a program to stop the foreclosures” was all the answer I could get.
“Why do healthcare insurers continue to raise their rates?” I asked another hipster, hoping we could talk about the ways in which government policy prevents competition among insurance companies. “Obama has a plan to expand coverage and reduce premiums” I was told. End of discussion.
That was in 2008. Now, after nearly three and a half years of President Obama’s all-seeing and all-knowing wisdom forcing private companies and individuals to do what he wants them to do, we should pause and ask ourselves: does more government control over our economy produce more prosperity for us all?”
The President and his supporters like to pretend that anything short of Obama’s controls over the economy is tantamount to no government regulation at all. “We can’t go back” the President has said, suggesting that before he became our ruler, banks and insurance companies and oil corporations were completely unregulated.
This, of course, is false. Our economy is heavily regulated, and while some regulations are necessary and helpful, others are not. Federal law, for example, forbids health insurance providers from competing with each other across state lines; it forbids oil corporations from developing petroleum energy throughout much of the U.S.; and federal banking policy – much of which emanated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – incentivized reckless borrowing and lending during the last decade.
But one of the most costly and destructive realities of the Obama economy is the incalculable amount of taxpayer money that is being spent, and ultimately wasted, on things that benefit only the President and his supporters. Take for example, the President’s signature healthcare reform law (“Obamacare” if you will).
Early in his term, President Obama sold his plan with glowing promises. “If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor,” the President told us, and “this will bend the healthcare cost curve downward.”
Yet just last week, President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius reluctantly admitted in a Senate hearing that the funding mechanisms for government provide healthcare are collapsing, the costs of administering Obamacare are spiraling out of control, and since the law came in to existence the price of private insurance has skyrocketed, causing a few million Americans to lose their coverage. Obamacare has been horrible for everyday Americans, yet Mr. Obama enjoys the status of being the President to finally “reform” healthcare, and some 1600 other people enjoy the new government employment positions that the programs have necessitated.
A similar scenario has unfolded with the President’s “green energy” efforts. Consider that since taking office in January of 2009, President Obama provided General Motors with more bailout funds (beyond the amounts that President Bush had handed-over to them in 2008); forced the resignation of former General Motors C.E.O. Rick Wagoner and handpicked his successor; mandated that G.M. step up production of the hybrid electric Chevy Volt; then offered government-funded subsidies to get people to buy the cars.
Despite all this, the Volt has sold so poorly that G.M. has called a five week production hiatus to allow “excess inventories” to get bought. Once again, everyday Americans suffer the consequences of government control and planning, yet President Obama wears the “green” badge with pride.
The President’s mandates and controls are still hampering private businesses, while future generations of tax revenue are being spent on his selfish pleasures. We desperately need of relief from his stranglehold – and we can only wait so long.
Austin Hill Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".
He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio. He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM, and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.
Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California. NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
The sustained assault against our religious freedom must come to an end. Newt is a stalwart defender of religious liberty and has a detailed plan to stand up to radical judges who would try to purge religious expression from the public square.
The Obama Administration's FY2013 federal budget is inherently dishonest and is a reelection scheme that masquerades as a budget. Take a close look, and you will see that the Obama Administration’s approach has veered far away from mere incompetence and political expediency.
President Obama, it would seem, has crossed into new territory and his Administration, unhappy with the constitutional constraints on Executive authority to direct spending, is now openly violating the Constitution.
The highest law of the land constricts Team Obama’s ability to spend taxpayer money on pet projects that have never been part of any appropriation bill. However, the Obama Administration routinely spends money that has never been appropriated and routinely exceeds the spending limits set by even this spendthrift Congress.
A recent example can be found at Health and Human Services (HHS). Auditors discovered that the agency has routinely spent taxpayer money on projects that were not appropriated by Congress. Of course, the Obama’s Administration is violating the Constitution when it takes these actions. The Anti-Deficiency Act compels large fines and possible jail time for individuals within the Administration that are caught spending money that has never been appropriated.
ADA is intended to ensure that Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 9, Clause 7 (the "power of the purse"), which provides that "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law" is implemented and respected. Our Founders, wisely, understood the dangers of giving a President the power to direct public spending in an unrestricted manner independent of any congressional review.
When you peel back the curtain on the Obama Administration, it seems clear that constitutional restrictions were never seen as anything other than a speed bump as they blindly motored on directing taxpayer funds to pet projects, and exceeding overall congressional appropriations.
The HHS Audit report is a sad, but fascinating, report of error piled upon error-for the past three years. One damning statement from the accountants concerns a $500 million dollar discrepancy (yes-- half a billion dollars of taxpayer money is unaccounted for in just one line item of several billion dollars-worth of instances of missing funds).
The outside accountants responsible for the HHS audit explain that HHS did not "ensure that the legal accrual is recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States nor did CMS [HHS agency] follow its own stated policy".
In other words, HHS just seemed to have done whatever the heck they wanted with the funds, spending whatever they wanted regardless of the instructions from congress.
Even more damning is the report’s discussion of the inadequacies of the HHS internal accounting systems which are apparently ill-equipped to handle the existing HHS accounting, much less the more rigorous demands of Obamacare-related accounting.
HHS Secretary Sibelius received this report in November of 2011, but the discrepancies and missing funds had been known about a year earlier.
Consider--at the same time that the Secretary and the President were attacking anyone expressing concerns that Obamacare would be too costly and confusing, it’s likely that some of the HHS funds were improperly used to influence the debate and promote the acceptance of Obamacare. Put another way, HHS used taxpayer money to lobby Congress.
Clearly, the Obama Administration and Secretary Sibelius had to know that the government was already anti-deficiency (billions in debt) on multiple line items. But, Sibelius and Obama continued promoting Obamacare because they don’t seem to care about legalities, but rather advancing their extreme agenda.
Team Obama is ducking and dodging these revelations, hoping that few will understand the significance. For what Americans are seeing are the budgetary lies and fraud that do our nation great harm.
First, there's HHS’ missing billions of dollars (which are not accounted for, nor repaid, in the FY20123 budget either)—that’s an obvious fraud. But there is also the vast violation of trust by Sibelius and Obama, who have been colossally dishonest in their dealings with congress and with the American people.
Another example is the FY13 budget for the Small Business Administration (SBA), which Obama has asked Congress to make a permanent Cabinet level agency. Rather than controlling costs, Obama has done a smoke-and-mirrors with the numbers, by hiding standard expenses as off-balance sheet items.
Americans know the dangers of off-balance sheet accounting shenanigans. But, the Obama Administration is hoping that few members of congress, and even fewer Americans, are familiar with the specifics of some of less publicized line items proposed and won’t notice when expenses go missing.
The only problem with Obama’s bold and improper scheme is that agencies are not supposed to spend money that congress hasn't allocated. So, for example, the SBA's disingenuous representation that it will not be requiring any fund to cover Disaster Loans in FY 2013 (which begins in October 2012—hurricaine season), when for the past several years, the SBA has consistently required at least a $100 Million dollars to cover its needs in this area, is extremely troubling.
If SBA made this smoke-and-mirrors decision, then the SBA is being dishonest in its representation to OMB (Office of Management and Budget), which means that the OBM is being dishonest in its representation to EOP (Executive Office of the President,) which means that the President is being dishonest when he submits these figures to congress.
What Americans are seeing is fraud and lies compounded upon more fraud and lies-- and all done, seemingly without a qualm, to advance left wing ideologies and maintain the deception.
Obama has put congress in a difficult situation. Congress cannot have an honest discussion, or even an honest disagreement, about changes that should or should not be made, or funds that should or should not be spent, because of the sheer illegality of many of the line items in the Obama Administration's FY13 budget proposal.
When the Obama Administration submitted its FY13 budget to congress, ignoring runaway entitlement spending, faking “spending cuts”, and once again depending upon another $1 trillion in borrowings to pay for fads and dodgy ambitions, the fraud continues.
Lurita Doan
Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.
Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities. NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
WALLACE: After our interview with both Romneys, we sat down alone with the governor. We talked about the campaign and how President Obama has dealt with the nation's problems since his re-election.
