Dick Cheney - A true patriot; Mandated insurance unconstitutional; Pay 'czar' cuts pay - AGAIN - but not for Freddie

“But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America's enemies.” - Dick Cheney, 10/21/09, speech to Center for Security Policy   1) Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Say Where Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance (CNSNews.com) – Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would not say what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance--as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do.    Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that “nobody questions” Congress’ authority for such an action. Well, I do.  …"None of Congress' enumerated powers support an individual purchase mandate," said Rivkin. "We have made this case in considerable detail in our recent articles in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service, an entity that is usually deferential to Congress' prerogatives and prone to take an expansive view of congressional powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about the constitutionality of individual purchase mandates could only say that this is a 'novel question.'" .."This mandate can only be based upon a view that Congress can exercise general police powers, a view profoundly at odds with the Framers' vision of the federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers (emphasis mine)," he said. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55910 1a) Morning Bell: A Whole New Health Care Ball Game You have to read all the way to page A-25 in today’s New York Times to learn about it, but the Senate took its first floor vote on Obamacare yesterday and the White House lost. Big. The NYT reports: “Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.” As we reported on Monday and Tuesday, yesterday’s “doc fix” vote was part of a White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel strategy to smooth passage of President Barack Obama’s $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul by transferring a quarter of its cost into a separate, and completely unpaid for, bill. This transparently dishonest shell game was too much for honest Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden told the NYT: “On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it’s essential to show a commitment to real reform,” which includes fiscal responsibility. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/22/morning-bell-a-whole-new-health-care-ball-game/ 2) Treasury orders 90% salary cuts at bailout firms Top execs’ perks also in cross hairs WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will order companies that received huge government bailouts last year to slash the salaries of their top executives by an average of 90 percent and cut their total compensation in half, a person familiar with the decision said Wednesday. The cuts apply to the 25 highest paid executives at the seven companies that received the most assistance, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected. The Treasury is expected to announce the cuts within the next few days. Kenneth Feinberg, the special master at Treasury appointed to handle compensation issues as part of the government’s $700 billion financial bailout package, is making the pay decisions. The seven companies are Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial. It was unclear how much the executives would be allowed to make, or how that would be determined. See: http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/65420552.html More on this: Feinberg, who was named special master on compensation by the administration in June, has sole discretion to set compensation for the five top senior executives plus the next 20 highest-paid people at each of the seven companies (I‘m sure that‘s constitutional). For months, he has been meeting with officials at each of the firms to negotiate executive-pay arrangements. In August, each company submitted detailed compensation plans for their top earners. Under the Treasury Department's rules, Feinberg had 60 days to make a determination after receiving the pay plans. His decisions are binding. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102102719.html More on this: Of course the lesson here is that you cannot let the government even get its nose under the tent, or it will claim to own the whole tent — and the caravan and every oasis. Still, let’s hope these pay cuts aren’t in retaliation for the reported “reluctance” of many of these selfsame financial firms to donate to the Democrats’ war chest that the New York Times reported on just a couple of days ago. But of course that can’t be. Mr. Obama is above such pettiness.  Do note, however, that fully owned and operated government institutions are exempt from any such controls on their pay and bonuses: Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn’t have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP (emphasis mine).  Why is that?  All of which somehow reminds us that Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, got $250,000 from a very limited stint at Freddie Mac at the very time they were cooking their books so badly. Will he give any of that money back? Still, we would say that it serves these bank CEOs right for taking the money in the first place. Except that many of them were forced into doing so by the government. Nevertheless, just imagine how well the war against the terrorists would go if Mr. Obama would be as tough on the Taliban and Al Qaeda as he is on law abiding American executives. See: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-to-slash-bank-ceos-pay-90 2a) Obama Pay Czar Driving Execs to Go Galt? At Marginal Revolution George Mason University economics professor Alex Tabarrok comments on Obama administration’s pay czar Kenneth Feinberg’s decision to cut bailed out firm executive pay by an average of about 90 percent from last year: There is no way this will work as advertised. If the administration actually follows through, most of these executives will quit and get higher paying jobs elsewhere. Executives not directly affected by the pay cuts will also quit when they see their prospects for future salary gains have been cut. Chaos will be created at these firms as top people leave in droves. Will the administration then order people back to work? See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/22/obama-pay-czar-driving-execs-to-go-galt/ 3) Grassley Warns HHS Web Site May Be ‘Propaganda’ Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda. The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS. In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were 'underhanded tactics' and that these tactics 'are not worthy of our great democracy.'” …The page requires signatories to provide their name, zip code and e-mail address, and also asks for their mailing address and phone number, although that information is not labeled as required. In his letter, Grassley notes that HHS has recently issued new guidance to insurers that they must obtain permission from beneficiaries before sending out mailers critical of the reform efforts in Congress. “The use of the official HHS.gov Web site for activities that seem to be nothing more than government propaganda raises many serious questions,” Grassley wrote. See: http://www.rollcall.com/news/39730-1.html 4) Dems seek cover to boost debt limit The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion — and Democrats are looking for political cover.  Knowing they will face unyielding GOP attacks for voting to increase the eye-popping debt, Democrats are considering attaching a debt increase provision to a must-pass bill, possibly the Defense Department spending bill, according to Democratic and Republican sources.  Adding it to the defense bill would allow Democrats to argue that they voted for the measure to help troops in harm’s way — and downplay that their vote also expanded the limit for how much money the country can borrow. The strategy has not yet been finalized, aides and senators said. The House already approved a debt limit increase of $925 billion — above the $12.1 trillion ceiling Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus package last February — but Democrats may seek to increase the limit further so they don’t have to revisit the politically treacherous issue until after the 2010 midterm elections.  As of Tuesday, the debt stood at $11.95 trillion, staring at senators amid a roiling health care debate in which critics have seized on the potential costs of the overhaul. Unlike those of the House, the Senate’s rules do not allow it to automatically increase the debt with its adoption of the annual budget resolution. That puts senators in a tough position politically. And if the Senate balks at the increase, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the slow economic recovery could collapse, as investors around the world would sharply lose confidence in America’s abilities to meet its credit obligations. See: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=79AB8DBE-18FE-70B2-A8316002E29BE1FD 5) The Never Ending TARP Slush Fund This afternoon President Barack Obama announced that his administration would shift TARP’s $700 billion bailout fund away from big financial institutions and toward small businesses through small banks.Specifically, the Treasury Department will offer capital from TARP, at a 3% rate, to viable banks with less than $1 billion in assets. These small banks must first submit a plan explaining how the capital will allow them to increase lending to small businesses. But remember that TARP was originally sold to the American people as a way to protect the economy from the systemic risk posed by the collapse of firms that were too big to fail. Small businesses and small banks are by definition not too big to fail. First under the Bush administration and now under Obama, TARP has become a slush fund for pet political priorities. And as the New York Times reports, this time it is even being used to influence votes in Congress: “What is striking about the S.B.A. initiatives is not just the size of the increases but whom they appear meant to impress. The new loan limits closely track increases proposed by Olympia Snowe, the senator from Maine who is both the ranking Republican on the Senate Small Business Committee and possibly the only Republican considering voting for Democratic-led health care reform. …At least one observer was not surprised. ‘Who is the one senator they need on health care reform?’ a lobbyist who has followed the issue asked, rhetorically. ‘What number do you think they’re going to pick?’” The Obama administration has the authority to extend TARP until next October. But even members of his own party are growing tired of the lawlessness it has created. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) has called for TARP to be ended this December, telling USA Today: “We don’t even know where the money went.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/21/the-never-ending-tarp-slush-fund/ 6) A True Patriot Continues to Speak Out: Dick Cheney Re: Concerns About America's Foreign Policy Drift (Long but worth your time) Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country's word. So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith. It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that - with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion. …What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous "Reset" button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In the short of it, President Obama's cancellation of America's agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won't be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well. …Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about. I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work. …President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." End quote. Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America's armed forces. "I will give you a clear mission," he said, "defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That's my commitment to you." It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger. Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause. Recently, President Obama's advisors have decided that it's easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President's chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn't asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy. In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama's team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision - a good one, I think - and sent a commander into the field to implement it. Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity (emphasis mine). … And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage. ..In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program's legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country's name and in our country's cause. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings - and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them. …But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America's enemies (emphasis mine). And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11. …We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work - the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame. See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/22/concerns_about_americas_foreign_policy_drift.html More on this: "The White House has prepared more than a dozen contingency plans to help guide President-elect Barack Obama if an international crisis erupts in the opening days of his administration, part of an elaborate operation devised to smooth the first transition of power since Sept. 11, 2001. "The memorandums envision a variety of volatile possibilities... 'This is very unusual,' said Roger Cressey, a former Clinton White House counterterrorism official who was held over under Mr. Bush. 'We certainly did not do that,'" with the Clinton years. "'When the transition happened from Clinton to Bush, remember it was a totally different world. You had some documents given that gave them a flavor of where things were at. But now you've got two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a hot war against Al Qaeda.'" The media went out of its way, Gibbs, to point out how Bush was briefing Obama! It was "unprecedented."   See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102209/content/01125111.guest.html 7) FBI Tells Caller: Listen to Rush, Glenn Beck, and Talk Radio CALLER: I called Congress. Who do you talk to when the top people you can't trust? You know, I called the FBI, and you know what they told me? RUSH: No. CALLER: They said, "Watch Fox cable and listen to talk radio," and then I called another time -- RUSH: Wait a minute! Wait a minute. Wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up. You called the FBI? CALLER: Well, I wanted to find out what was going on with ACORN, the 14 states that they had arrested these people. RUSH: What FBI office did you call? CALLER: Los Angeles. RUSH: And they told you to listen to Fox News and talk radio? CALLER: Talk radio. RUSH: To find out what was going on? CALLER: Yes. And the next time I called you know what they said? RUSH: No. CALLER: Listen to talk radio and watch Glenn Beck. And they said, "We all watch Glenn Beck." RUSH: That's what they told you at the FBI? CALLER: Exactly. And so when I wanted to find out they said call the Justice Department, what was going on. Well if you can't trust the Justice Department, who do you talk to? Who do you talk to? You can't trust the top. I called John Boehner, because he's the one you can really talk to. I said, "You've got to tell them that Obama is going after the Internet and talk radio. They've gotta stop it." RUSH: And what did he say? CALLER: Well, I talked to the office. They said, "Yeah, we know what's going on," and when I called the FBI they said, "We know what's going on, but we can't do anything because the Secret Service will say they're in charge." This is what's going on right now. See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102209/content/01125114.guest.html