• Home
  • Department of Justice: 44 Years without Congress’ Re-Authorization

Department of Justice: 44 Years without Congress’ Re-Authorization

William L. Kovacs

June 2023

Department of Justice: 44 Years without Congress’ Re-Authorization

In 1998, Henry Hyde, then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, noted, “Authorization [the congressional reauthorization process to renew laws] is the process by which Congress creates, amends, and extends programs in response to national needs. Authorization is perhaps the most important oversight tool that a committee can employ…” Most laws are authorized for 3 -5 years and need reauthorization at the end of that time period.

Chairman Hyde’s efforts were the last serious attempt by Congress to comprehensively reauthorize the statutory authority of the Department of Justice. Regrettably, the overall activities of the Department of Justice were last formally reauthorized by Congress in 1979.

In light of this background and the recent Horowitz and Durham reports, the American people should not wonder why the Department of Justice and its FBI act as a crime syndicate. DOJ has not been supervised or questioned by Congress in almost a half-century. It has been given whatever it requested; its indolence has been tolerated.  Now it is an uncontrollable plague on the nation that initiates false investigations of its enemies and hides real criminal activity from the public.

The reauthorization process for laws and Executive agencies is hard work. It requires a complete review, approval, amendment, or repeal of every statute within the jurisdiction of the agency being examined. Unfortunately, Congress flaunts its own rules requiring it to reauthorize expired laws. House of Representatives Rule XXI provides that “[A]n appropriation may not be reported in a general appropriation bill…for an expenditure not previously authorized by law…” Compliance with this rule would seem to ensure Departments like DOJ could not be funded without being reauthorized. Congress gets around this rule by waiving it. Chairman Hyde describes this waiver process as “The de facto ceding of the authorization power to appropriators.” Hyde concludes such a process diminishes the role of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

As far back as  2002, Senator Grassley, in a letter to DOJ, described the agency as one that encroached [interfered] on many of the essential investigations of other federal agencies. He also noted there was a two-tiered system of justice, with the senior officials prosecuting one way and the rank and file another way. The Senator concluded that the DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation shows “a contempt for any public or private entity that dares to question its motives or performance.”

While a few DOJ programs, e.g., violence against women and the FISA activities, were reauthorized by Congress, the overall reauthorization of the DOJ as an Executive agency has escaped oversight for 44 years. It should be noted that under FISA, the DOJ and FBI filed false affidavits with the court, proving even a reauthorization review cannot catch professional fraudsters.

In its 2023 Budget request, DOJ requests $6.2 billion for literally hundreds of programs that have not been reviewed by Congress in decades. It also filed a 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. Goal 1 of its Strategic Plan is to “Uphold the Rule of Law.” It will achieve this goal by protecting the country’s Democratic institutions and promoting good government. These commitments are made while it refuses to comply with congressional information requests, hides information to protect Hunter Biden, refuses to allow Congress to examine bank records, invents the Russian collusion scandal to tarnish a sitting president and raids the home of a former president for possessing classified documents while giving the sitting president weeks to gather documents. This is the DOJ/FBI “rule of law.”

If any agency in the U.S. government is in need of oversight, it is DOJ. It is the duty of Congress to undertake the full reauthorization process, including:

http://gregorydowling.com/about/ A review of every program from litigation to community policing to state and local grants. Any program that cannot justify that it has accomplished the intent of the statute creating it or failed to protect the rule of law should be immediately defunded.

Oak Creek A review of all alleged criminal activity by the DOJ and FBI so the committee can assess the honesty or criminality of the organization. To achieve this goal, the DOJ and FBI leaders for the past decade should be granted Use Immunity so they testify honestly, without fear of incriminating themselves. Only by granting such immunity will a criminal testify to the truth. Otherwise, the agencies will again assert many objections to answering questions. The granting of Use Immunity opened the flood of testimony in the Watergate hearings, it is time to grant it again so Congress can reform the DOJ and FBI.

The difficult policy questions should be asked. Should the billions for Community-based programs be converted to block grants to state and local governments? Does an organization like the FBI that refuses to cooperate with Congress deserve billions of dollars for a flashy new building? Has Congress transferred too many new programs to DOJ/FBI, such as counterterrorism, counterintelligence, weapons of mass destruction deterrence, and cyber security? Should all of these programs be transferred to other agencies to preserve the rule of law?

What would a restructuring of the DOJ and FBI look like? This is the obvious question. Unfortunately, there is no obvious answer. Rather than protecting Democracy, these massive agencies are a threat to Democracy. Congress needs to determine what it wants the DOJ/FBI to do. Are they just law enforcement agencies as prior to 9/11, or are they to be the master of the law enforcement circus as they are now?

Next, Congress needs to determine – what is working at DOJ/FBI that needs to be preserved. What is broken but can be fixed to work? What is so corrupt it is harmful and must be eliminated due to its harm to Democracy? The reauthorization process gives Congress the opportunity to answer these essential questions needed to preserve our Democracy.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

  • Home
  • Use Immunity: Congress Can Find Truth by Forgoing Punishment

Use Immunity: Congress Can Find Truth by Forgoing Punishment

William L. Kovacs

May 2023

Use Immunity: Congress Can Find Truth by Forgoing Punishment

As investigations of the Biden administration and related activities proceed in the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the FBI are not cooperating with the Committees.  These agencies will not even produce a specifically identified, unclassified Form FD-1023 that is a record of a payment scheme involving then vice president Biden and a foreign national. Moreover, the special counsel’s investigation of Hunter’s taxes and foreign business dealings has been listless since starting in 2018. The Committees can continue attempting to squeeze information out of a stone wall or answer the existential question – what is more critical to the nation, the truth about the government’s actions or punishment for its criminal activities?

If punishment is the desire, Congress, as the legislative branch, can’t impose it. If Congress exposes the corruption, DOJ will not prosecute it, as evidenced by the Horowitz and Durham reports of government corruption.

Since the DOJ and FBI are impeding the congressional investigations, the only viable option left for the Committees is to secure the testimony of all relevant witnesses by granting “use immunity” to the Biden family, Hunter’s business associates, and the past and present leadership of the DOJ and FBI. Congress has this power under 18 U.S.C. sec 2005.

Once receiving use immunity, the witnesses can testify free of prosecution for any testimony concerning their criminal activity. A refusal to answer subjects the witness to Contempt of Congress and could result in imprisonment.

Congress has the sole discretion to grant use immunity. Moreover, neither the DOJ nor the courts can interfere with the grant of it. Title 18 USC sec. 6005 authorizes either House of Congress to grant use immunity once an individual refuses to give testimony or provide other information based on his privilege against self-incrimination.

Historically, Congress is reluctant to grant use immunity since it usually results in an inability of the DOJ to prosecute criminals. DOJ describes the dilemma:

Congress may now be forced to choose between granting immunity to exercise its oversight and investigative functions and forgoing a grant of immunity to allow the prosecution of key witnesses.

In the present situation, however, Congress is not facing a dilemma since DOJ is unwilling to prosecute any of the involved parties.

In the Watergate trials, like today, the DOJ refused to cooperate with Congress. The US Senate sought to grant use immunity to witnesses. DOJ asserted it, and the court has the power to block the grant of immunity. Chief Judge Sirica upheld the Senate’s power, writing:

Immunity is the fixed price which the government must pay to obtain certain kinds of information, and only the government [Congress] can determine how much information it wants to ‘buy’ in light of the fixed price.

Obtaining an immunity order from the district court is straightforward. In this instance, a duly authorized representative of the House of Representatives or the Committee seeking the testimony shall request a court order to require a witness to give testimony. The House or the concerned Committee must give ten days’ notice of the request to the Attorney General.

The district court must grant the congressional request if it finds:

  1. In the case of a proceeding before either House of Congress, the request was approved by a majority vote of the members present, or
  2. In the case of a proceeding before a committee, the request for such an order was approved by two-thirds of the members of the Committee; and
  3. That the Attorney General was given ten days’ notice. The Attorney General can request another twenty days to “insulate from the immunity grant any incriminating data already in his files prior to the witness’s testimony.”

Once these conditions are met, the statute is mandatory. “The court shall” issue the order. Chief Judge Sirica held section 6005 casts the role of the court as ministerial, and the Attorney General is deprived of his normal discretion concerning the granting of immunity.

Judge Sirica concluded: “[There is a] power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” Quoting President Wilson, he notes the informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

The American people are owed the truth about corruption in their government. The House of Representatives has the power to obtain the truth. What is more important to the nation, truth or the false hope of punishment?

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • 2023 Polls Show American Institutions Are Wrestling with Pigs

2023 Polls Show American Institutions Are Wrestling with Pigs

William L. Kovacs

May 2023

2023 Polls Show American Institutions Are Wrestling with Pigs

On May 10, 2023, a Rasmussen survey found 62% of voters do not believe the government spends money wisely. Only 25% believe the government is careful in how it spends taxpayer money. A recent Gallup poll comparing trust in our institutions between 2021 and 2022 found that Americans lost trust in every institution. Trust in the president suffered the greatest loss, 15%. The U.S. Supreme Court was next with an 11% loss of trust. Big business, tv news, and Congress had the lowest levels of trust, 14%, 11%, and 7%, respectively.  Gallup has been measuring the level of trust in American institutions since 1973, and these findings are its lowest levels of trust.

Gallup found only two institutions, small businesses, and the military, having the trust of a majority of Americans.

In January 2023, the political research group, More in Common released its poll on the most common emotions of voters about politics after the 2022 mid-term elections.  It found the five most common feelings about politics in America are frustration (74%), and disappointment (71%). Exhaustion (61%), disgust (57%), and anger (53%).

These 2023 survey results track other recent results:

  • Pew Research Center finds only two in ten Americans believe they can trust the government in Washington to the what is right “just about 2% of the time and 19% most of the time. Trust in government is down from 75% in 1958.
  • Gallup finds only 7% of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress, down 5% in just one year.
  • Rasmussen finds 59% of likely voters believe members of Congress care more about what the media thinks is more important than what the voters think.
  • Gallup finds only 14% of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the criminal justice system.
  • Gallup finds only 16% of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers.
  • Rasmussen finds 58% of voters agree media is the “Enemy of the People.”
  • A survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found the U.S. ranks last of 46 nations in media trust, at 29% trust.
  • A Gallup Poll finds 84% of Americans believe media is to blame for our political divide.
  • A Public Agenda/USA Today/Ipsos poll found 90% of Americans “…are sick and tired of being so divided.”
  • Gallup finds only 37% of Americans have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in religious institutions.
  • Only 37% of likely voters think the country is heading in the right direction.
  • Pew Research Center finds within states; there is almost complete division over policy matters between rural and urban areas.
  • Pew Research Center finds two-thirds of Americans are “worn out” by the amount of political news.

The Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service Civility Survey found voters across all demographics believe “…political, racial and class divisions are getting worse.” At the same time, 80% of voters want both parties to find “compromise and common ground”; however, 67% believe the U.S. is two-thirds of the way to the edge of a civil war.

Is there a message in these polls?

One insight from the Georgetown survey is key to understanding why Americans think as they do. It found “a strong correlation between where people get information and how they view key issues and figures.” For example, Fox News viewers have a favorable/unfavorable rating of 17/78 for Black Lives Matter. Non-Fox viewers, however, have a 59/35 favorable/unfavorable rating. Dr. Anthony Fauci has a favorable/unfavorable rating of 20/69 among Fox viewers and a 64/27 favorable/unfavorable rating among non-Fox viewers. The news channel one watches is now the message.

A February 2023 Gallup/Knight Foundation poll confirms Americans do not trust the media or at least the media watched by those they disagree with. Only 26% of Americans have a positive view of the media. 50% of Americans believe the national media intends to mislead, and only 26% of Americans believe the media works in the public interest.

A May 2023 AP poll finds three-quarters of Americans believe the media increases polarization in the nation.

The polling is overwhelming that Americans do not trust their institutions. A strong underlying reason for their distrust is media bias. The media uses its vast resources to intentionally divide the nation to achieve the agenda of the political party it supports. The media no longer delivers the news and needed information; instead, it is an active participant in politics.

A synthesis of the many polls would conclude the American people want their government to work together on matters impacting their day-to-day lives but are willing to accept conflict on non-bread-and-butter social issues. Unfortunately, due to the symbiotic relationship between media and politicians, there can never be compromise since both groups believe they have too much to gain from polarization. The result is constant conflict and the inability of the government to work for the people it is to serve. The American people are smart; they recognize this fact.  62% of voters “say neither of the two major parties adequately represents them.

Congress, the federal government, and the media are adversarial to citizens. Politicians and the media set the policy. Citizens are merely commodities that pay taxes so the politicians and the media can live well on their money.

Without trust in institutions, it is difficult for average Americans to believe in America. With American losing trust in every major institution, the advice from George Bernard Shaw brilliantly captures today’s sentiment, “Never wrestle with a pig because you’ll get dirty and the pig likes it.” Except for small businesses and the military, Americans believe all institutions are wrestling with pigs.

If citizens sincerely believe what they tell the pollsters, why don’t they use their votes to change the system? If institutions want to be trusted, why don’t they serve the purposes they were established for? If the media wants to be trusted, why doesn’t it report the news accurately and fairly and let its bias come out on the opinion pages? All leads to the existential question – does anyone care about the future of the United States?

  • Home
  • Biden’s “Rule of Law” Administered by a Team of Criminals

Biden’s “Rule of Law” Administered by a Team of Criminals

William L. Kovacs

April 2023

Biden’s “Rule of Law” Administered by a Team of Criminals

The United States, for centuries touted itself as a Rule of Law society. Citizens believe we are all equal before the law, including government officials. This concept is described as “the law is the king,” “no man is above the law,” or “we are a government of laws, not men.”

Unfortunately, the rule of law is neither a rule nor a law. It is a myth. The Biden administration exposes the myth by its every action. The most recent example is the IRS whistleblower who got tired of trying to bring the truth about Hunter Biden’s foreign payments and tax cheating to the top Justice Department (“DOJ”) officials. It appears the DOJ refused to speak with the whistleblowers, however, after listening to a top DOJ official perjure himself before Congress, the whistleblower brought evidence of the DOJ corruption to Congress.

There is the Secretary of Homeland Security, contrary to thousands of hours of video evidence and testimony by border patrol agents and media outlets, who tells Congress the southern border is closed and secure.

The most disturbing corruption, however, is the damage done to the integrity of the U.S. election system by the Biden campaign and its “patriotic CIA officials.” It now appears the letter signed by the fifty-one high-level U.S. security officials was false when sent. It was a lie to the American people in order to influence the 2020 presidential election. While Trump lost the election by receiving fewer votes than Biden, Trump was right that election crimes cost him the election. The crimes were revealed by former CIA acting chief Mike Morrell. He admitted that the letter signed by the “51 intel experts” claiming the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation was the real misinformation. Morrell organized the signatures on the false letter to help Biden win the 2020 presidential election.  Morrell hoped he would get the top CIA position. Unfortunately, Biden’s patronage was rewarded to Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, for initiating the letter.

The Biden administration’s list of lies, deceptions, and direct interference with criminal investigations prove there is no rule of law in the U.S. The federal government is operating as a criminal syndicate.

Most concerning, however, is other than the undefined, vague limits placed on the government by the Constitution or laws passed by Congress, there is scant mention of how our legal system applies to the operation of government when it acts illegally, even tyrannically. The fact is the federal government is not held accountable other than occasionally being voted out of office. It operates for its own benefit. The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects those running government from being subjected to citizens seeking recourse against it for unlawful actions or even crimes.

As with the rule of law, Sovereign immunity is not written into our Constitution. It is merely a doctrine that was not even recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until 90 years after the ratification of our Constitution. While the Supreme Court protects federal power by applying the doctrine, it struggles to articulate any constitutional foundation for its use. The doctrine currently holds that the federal government cannot be sued without its consent. It bars all lawsuits against the federal government or its officers unless Congress enacts a law that clearly expresses its intent to lift the bar.

With absolute immunity from suit, unless otherwise legislated, there are few mechanisms to hold the United States government accountable for its illegal actions. The government waives some civil immunity in matters for small claims on its purse, such as torts, and breaches of contract. It sets out specific mechanisms so citizens believe they can secure monetary relief against illegal government actions. The Government Accountability Office, however, notes the waiver of sovereign immunity is not enough to assume the victim will be paid. Specifically, there can be no payment without a congressional appropriation.

Since the government is immune from liability without its consent, the only control over the Executive branch is another branch of government that checks the powers of an abusive branch. When all branches of our government are controlled by one party, the Biden administration proves, there is no rule of law since there is no viable check on abusive power.

When at least one part of the government is controlled by the opposition party, there is at least a slim chance of discovering a little of the government’s illegal activity. Unfortunately, unless the President agrees to hold the federal government accountable for crimes or Congress is able to check the powers of the abusive Executive officials, most likely through impeachment, there are no other mechanisms for holding the federal government accountable for its crimes.

The House of Representatives can always impeach an Executive that acts illegally; however, removing a corrupt Executive is unlikely since it requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Unless the President’s party votes to convict, the Executive remains in office, and the criminality can continue unchecked.

Certainly, citizens can speak out, protest, demonstrate, and complain about government corruption.  In the end, however, citizens will be ignored if the government wants to ignore them. Or arrested if the government wants them arrested, as illustrated by the FBI sending twenty heavily armed FBI agents, with weapons drawn, supported by a fleet of armored vehicles, to arrest a pro-life activist at his home in a small Pennsylvania town while playing with his seven children in the front yard. The crime was not disclosed by the FBI, but press reports suggest the person was arrested for pushing a man who was verbally harassing one of his young children. State authorities refused to prosecute the alleged “crime.” The person claiming to be pushed filed a criminal complaint in state court but failed to show up at trial. The case was dismissed.

Dismissing one case is fruitless if the FBI continues to target as domestic terrorists, objectional groups like pro-life advocates, Catholics attending Latin mass, and parents who speak out at school board meetings.

The only power “We the people” have to control corruption in the federal government is our right to vote. It is extraordinarily powerful. By electing a Republican House of Representatives, Americans are witnessing the exposure of corruption by those who lead the nation. Unfortunately, exposing corruption has its limits since the Biden administration determines who is a criminal and who it will prosecute.

The stakes in the 2024 election are very high. If the Biden administration and the Democratic Senate are not voted out of office, the corruption of the Biden administration will continue unchecked until at least 2029.  Who knows what the state of the Republic will be after eight years of unchecked corruption?

 

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Rule of Law: Federal Government Master, Citizens Servants

Rule of Law: Federal Government Master, Citizens Servants

William L. Kovacs

April 2023

Rule of Law: Federal Government Master, Citizens Servants

The U.S. is in its 118th Congress, and the nation, for the first time in its history, appears weak to the world, divided at home and in unmanageable debt. If the U.S. is to reclaim its standing as an extraordinary nation, every citizen needs to reflect on how the federal government changed the Constitution. The federal government is now the master, and its citizens are the servants. Citizens have exchanged positions with the government by electing Congresses that are unwilling to act as an institutional check on the President. The result, the rule of law is what the President determines is the law.

Moreover, since the founding of the Republic, the Supreme Court has been aggressively complicit in this power grab. It has approved almost every law expanding federal power and protecting the federal government’s abuse of power. The expansion of federal authority has created a legal system that exempts the government from the laws it imposes on citizens.

The rule of law is not a rule or a law.

Citizens believe we live in a rule-of-law society, and we are all equal before the law, including government officials. This concept is described in many ways, such as “the law is the king,” “no man is above the law,” or “we are a government of laws, not men.”

We are taught these concepts, so we believe our government will be fair to us. Moreover, if our government breaks the law, it will receive the same treatment under our legal system as any lawbreaker. A very comforting concept to the naïve. The “rule of law” is not a law of any kind. It is not part of our Constitution, and it has no binding effect on anything. It is merely a clever phrase or, more appropriately, a fable repeated to make the government sound fair and accountable while persuading citizens to obey its every command.

Other than the undefined, vague limits placed on the government by the Constitution or laws passed by Congress, there is scant mention of how our legal system applies to the operation of government when it acts illegally, even tyrannically. The fact is the federal government is not held accountable other than occasionally being voted out of office. It operates for its own benefit. The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity protects those running government from being subjected to citizens seeking recourse against it for unlawful actions or even crimes.

Sovereign immunity is not written into our Constitution.

Sovereign immunity is not written into our Constitution. It is merely a doctrine that was not even recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court until 90 years after the ratification of our Constitution. While the Supreme Court protects federal power by applying the doctrine, it struggles to articulate any constitutional or statutory foundation for its use. The doctrine currently holds that the federal government cannot be sued without its consent. It bars all lawsuits against the federal government or its officers unless Congress enacts a law that clearly expresses its intent to lift the bar.

With absolute immunity from suit, unless otherwise legislated, there are few mechanisms to hold the United States government accountable for its illegal actions. The government waives its civil immunity in matters for small claims on its purse, such as torts, breaches of contract, copyright violations, tax disputes,  and violations of civil rights when government officials are acting under the color of law. By establishing the Court of Federal Claims and the Judgment Fund, the government sets out specific mechanisms for citizens to seek monetary damages or injunctive relief against the government. The Government Accountability Office, however, notes the waiver of sovereign immunity is not enough to assume the victim will be paid. Specifically, there can be no payment without a congressional appropriation.

Since the government is immune from civil and criminal liability, the only control of the federal government is another branch checking the powers of an abusive branch. When the respective branches of our government protect each other, the federal government is the master of the nation and its citizens the servants.

Examples of the federal government’s abuse of law.

The corruption of the U.S. legal system through the assertion of sovereign immunity is clearly illustrated when the Executive issues illegal orders and the president’s party in Congress has sufficient votes to block all checks on Executive power. In this circumstance, the Executive is literally free to violate the law with impunity as Congress protects Executive overreach. President Biden proves this point daily by refusing to enforce immigration laws. Such avoidance fosters open illegal immigration and drug and sex trafficking into the country.

Another example is the President’s son. Based on the information on his son’s personal laptop, the President is very likely personally compromised and has perhaps compromised the national security of the nation due to direct dealing with nations hostile to the U.S. Yet, the Department of Justice protects the president and his son by refusing to prosecute massive wrongdoing that would put the average citizen in prison for years. Due to the Executive’s control over who is prosecuted, the government is free to do whatever it wants, and citizens have no legal mechanism to restrain it.

A Navy officer took photographs of a nuclear submarine he worked on and was imprisoned for improperly handling national security secrets. During the same time period, a presidential candidate of the same party as the sitting President maintained an illegal secret server in her home. The unprotected server illegally received classified security information, which placed our nation’s secrets at risk of being obtained by foreign governments. The candidate was never prosecuted.

Congress issues a subpoena to the DOJ for information on its false filings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The DOJ refused to provide Congress with the documents to avoid embarrassment and likely the acknowledgment of its criminal activity. By refusing to provide such information, the constitutional checks on the other branches of government are rendered meaningless by the Executive branch.

The FBI regularly demanded Twitter, a private company,  ban what it deemed misinformation on its site, notwithstanding the fact that it was the FBI spreading the misinformation. While these actions are a violation of the First Amendment rights of citizens and perhaps direct election interference, the Executive will never prosecute itself or its corrupt agents carrying out his demands.

The most recent is the Trump series of prosecutions. No matter how negative one may think of Trump, prosecutions based on “Get Trump” are, as Professor Dershowitz asserts, a very significant threat to civil liberties, due process, and the constitutional rule of law.

Without an Independent Congress, there is no power to check an abusive Executive or even a tyrant.

Unless the President of the U.S. agrees to hold the federal government accountable for crimes or Congress is able to check the powers of the abusive Executive, most likely through impeachment, there are no other mechanisms for holding the federal government accountable for its crimes. The House of Representatives can always impeach an Executive that acts illegally; however, removing the Executive is unlikely since it requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Unless the President’s party votes to convict, the Executive remains in office, no matter the criminality of the conduct.

Certainly, citizens, we can speak out, protest, demonstrate, sometimes complain at government meetings, or send nasty letters to our elected officials. In the end, however, they will be ignored if the government wants to ignore them. Or arrested if the government wants them arrested, as illustrated by the FBI’s efforts to intimidate parents seeking answers from the Loudoun County School Board that covered up the actions of a sexual predator who assaulted a student in their school.

Citizens could emulate the peaceful resistance or nationwide strikes that Mahatma Gandhi led in India. Unfortunately, if peaceful resistance is undertaken, it is likely, the federal government will use the tactics of the British Empire by brutally attacking citizens. A recent incident supports this proposition. In a small Pennsylvania town, twenty heavily armed FBI agents, with weapons drawn, supported by a fleet of armored vehicles, arrested a pro-life activist at his home while playing with his seven children in the front yard. The crime was not disclosed by the FBI, but press reports suggest the person was arrested for pushing a man who was verbally harassing one of his young children. State authorities refused to prosecute the alleged “crime.” The person claiming to be pushed filed a criminal complaint in state court but failed to show up at trial. The case was dismissed. The FBI, however, targets certain groups, like pro-life advocates, Catholics attending Latin mass,  and parents who speak out at school board meetings, asserting them to be domestic terrorists, yet, leftist radicals who burn down cities are never prosecuted. The federal government views these arsonists as exercising free speech rights.

The only power “We the people” have is our vote for Congress.

The only power “We the people” have to control the federal government is our power to vote for members of Congress. We do not vote for the President; that is done by the Electoral College and a convoluted quilt of state voting laws and state Secretaries of State. All federal judges are appointed, as are the millions of nameless bureaucrats that make laws every day by regulating almost every aspect of society.

Our right to vote for members of Congress is extraordinarily powerful. It is a legal mechanism for a peaceful revolution. Citizens have the power to vote out the entire House of Representatives every two years and all elected officials over six years. To restrain the federal government, citizens must elect a Congress that is a trustee of the Constitution and a fiduciary to the institution in which they serve. Only by electing a Congress that is willing to check the powers of the other branches can Congress protect citizens. Until “We the people” elect a Congress that checks Executive power and judicial super legislating, we are accepting that –the federal government is our master, and we are its servants.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

  • Home
  • Congress: An Institution in Need of Political Rehab

Congress: An Institution in Need of Political Rehab

William L. Kovacs

March 2023

Congress: An Institution in Need of Political Rehab

The 118Th Congress has been in session for several months and again proves it is as irrelevant as it has been for the last few decades. It argues over the debt ceiling but does not identify specific spending cuts to negotiate with the administration. The Biden administration still routinely stiff-arms Congress by refusing to provide substantive information on national security matters such as the infamous “Chinese weather balloon” that toured the nation taking photographs of military installations. Witnesses refuse to provide Congress the information it needs at hearings, but Congress never withholds money from non-cooperating agencies.

Congress holds a public approval rating of 21%.

To reclaim its dignity, members of Congress must understand and implement their constitutional duties as the nation’s primary lawmakers and budget managers. Similar to Alcoholics Anonymous, members of Congress need to go through a “psychic change” that results in a mental, emotional, and spiritual shift in its perception of how to spend and delegate power.

Fortunately, political rehabilitation is only a three-step plan.

Step 1: Members of Congress must admit that uncontrolled spending has made the nation unmanageable.

Congress has one power that no other branch of government can interfere with – it is the power to spend or not spend money. The Constitution is clear, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law….”

Congress has failed to control spending for decades. It cannot even follow its own rules and pass the twelve appropriations bills by the October 1 start of the fiscal year. The last time Congress passed all twelve appropriations as separate bills was in 1996. Generally, Congress keeps the government running with 4000-page Continuing Resolutions or Omnibus appropriations that fund the government by denying legislators insufficient time to read the text of what they are voting on.

The historical view of congressional power is that Congress appropriates money by passing a bill in the House and Senate and sending it to the president for the usual signature. Under this approach, the federal government grows in cost, size, and mandates.

But Congress does not have to be a Spendaholic. A majority of one House of Congress can shrink the federal government by refusing to pass an appropriations bill. Reducing the size of the government, its bloated budgets, and massive debt is as easy as “Just saying no!”

Step 2. Congress must believe the Constitution is a greater power than the President, and by following the Constitution, it can restore sanity to governing.

Nothing in our Constitution can be more explicit in intent than “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.  By granting emergency powers to the Executive, Congress authorizes the Executive broad authority to act in lieu of Congress. Once presidents hold such power, they are unlikely to relinquish it easily.

Historically, emergency powers were limited to wartime and natural disasters. Today, however, Congress authorizes non-war-time presidents the right to exercise war-time emergency powers to control citizens in a domestic setting. The Covid pandemic highlights how emergency powers can be used by a president to rule without Congress.

Biden has aggressively relied on emergency public health powers to enact new laws, mandating the 84 million Americans subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act to be vaccinated or tested weekly. He even tried to forgive $600 billion of student loan debt, a clear exercise of congressional appropriating power.

There are ninety-six laws passed by Congress authorizing the President to use so-called “national emergency powers” with nothing more than the signature on an emergency proclamation.

Other presidential emergency powers authorized by Congress include the ability to control airports, industrial facilities, and our communications system. The authority most used is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). It authorizes the president to invoke emergency powers relating to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or the economy, including financial and commercial transactions. Sanctions can be imposed on individuals as well as countries, including the freezing of bank accounts and the seizure of assets. The IEEPA has been invoked 55 times.

Step 3. Every member of Congress must make a searching and fearless moral decision to solemnly guard its power to declare war.

The United States is in perpetual war; Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Viet Nam, and Syria, to name a few. Yet, Congress never declares war as required by our Constitution. While the president is the commander-in-chief of the armies, only Congress has the power… “To declare War.” By allowing the nation to fight many undeclared wars, Congress abdicates this sacred constitutional duty of determining when to send the nation to war.

As a nation, we are 234 years from the ratification of the Constitution. Within this time period, the U.S. has been at war for 138 years. Only five wars, totaling 32 years of war, were fought under a congressional declaration of war – the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and World Wars I and II.

While in political rehab, Congress must reflect upon its lack of character, courage, and moral strength by abdicating its responsibility for deciding when the nation goes to war.

If Congress is to obey and defend the Constitution, it must acknowledge its flaws, gain control of spending, reclaim all emergency powers granted to the president, and transform itself into the primary lawmaker of the nation. This transformation will require moral strength, but Congress will be restored to glory if it successfully re-claims its constitutional duties.

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Federal Spending Diet Book

The Federal Spending Diet Book

William L. Kovacs

February 2023

The Federal Spending Diet Book

It’s time for Congress and the president to shed their thirty-five-year delusion that the federal government can manage the nation’s finances.  In Fiscal Year 2022, the United States collected $4.8 trillion in revenue and spent $6.32 trillion. Our federal government spent $1.47 trillion more in 2022  than taxpayers gave it to spend. The federal government is $31.4 trillion overspent. That is more money than the $25.46 trillion GDP of the nation. In human terms, the federal government is a fat, bloated organization that cannot manage the nation. It needs to go on a diet, a spending diet. It needs to read “The Federal Spending Diet Book” for serious ways to cut spending.

The Federal Spending Diet Book

Reducing federal spending is about responsible governance, not Republican or Democrat power. There are relatively commonsense efforts to reduce the debt. If “[The] journey of a thousand miles begins with one step,” our federal government needs to start walking.

 Chapter 1. Do not fund laws that have not been authorized. The easiest set of budget cuts would be to refrain from funding laws that Congress has not authorized. “In FY 2021 appropriations, the Congressional Budget Office identified 1,068 authorizations of appropriations, stemming from 274 laws, tolling $432 billion, that expired before the beginning of the fiscal year 2022.” Since House Rules prohibit such appropriations, it should be an easy savings of almost one-half trillion dollars.

Chapter 2. Review and vote on every expenditure of the Judgment Fund. The Judgment Fund is the mother of all slush funds. It is a permanent, indefinite, and unlimited congressional appropriation continuously available to pay money judgments entered against the United States and settlements of cases in or likely to be in litigation with the United States. It is an indefinite appropriation, so secret that Congress no longer even debates what the amounts are for. The amounts are appropriated, no matter what the amount. The Department of the Treasury just pays the claims upon the receipt of the paperwork. This is the fund that President Obama used to deliver $1.7 billion in cash to Iran as a bribe to sign the Iran nuclear deal. Why should our government officials have billions in a secret fund to cover up illegal activity? Having Congress approve each judgment and settlement as it did before 1956, the U.S. could save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Chapter 3. Enact a fair, simple tax code that raises money to operate the government rather than legislating personal behavior. Another easy way to reduce the deficit it to get rid of the 8-million-word tax code and replace it with the 1913- four-page Form 1040. Few deductions and low rates, but requiring everyone to pay some tax, including the wealthiest. Another benefit of this simple approach is it captures a greater amount of tax owed by closing the Tax Gap.  The IRS defines the tax gap as the difference between true taxes owed for a given tax year and the amount that is paid. The gap is caused by the under-reporting of income, non-filing, and tax evasion. While the exact amount is unknown, the IRS estimates it to range from $574 to $700 billion annually. A complex tax code invites under-reporting and manipulation, whereas failing to pay taxes in a simple system subjects one to tax fraud or tax evasion charges.

Chapter 4. Follow and implement GAO’s Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Congress mandates GAO to perform a GAAP analysis of federal spending and assets and provide recommendations to ensure the financial reporting by an agency is transparent and consistent. Every member of Congress should read these reports on how our money is managed and should implement its findings.  One specific GAO recommendation is for the federal government to address the government-wide improper payments, estimated to be $175 billion.

Chapter 5. Government must operate only for a public purpose. The issue of Congress giving away our money to private entities has been debated since the founding of the Republic. Opponents of giveaways argue taxpayer money can only be spent on matters enumerated in the Constitution. The government asserts it can spend taxpayer money on anything that promotes the general welfare. Continuing this debate is irrelevant since the courts have made it clear legislatures determine what the general welfare is. To address the excesses of gifts to private individuals, Congress should stop giving money to private parties, including tax credits for fancy automobiles, horse racing, NASCAR, and short-line railroads, and finally eliminate carried interest.

Chapter 6. Members of Congress and the President should imagine their conference tables are merely kitchen tables that invite a family discussion over finances. The amount of information available to Congress for making smart debt reduction decisions is overwhelming. It is time Congress puts these materials to use. A simple way to approach this task would be for each congressional committee to rank each program within its jurisdiction in order of priority.  The budget and appropriation committees would work with the authorizing committees to ensure the highest-priority programs receive priority funding. The appropriation committees would work down the list until the revenue raised by taxes is expended. At that point, Congress would have to cease spending money on programs for which there is no longer any revenue, e.g., studies of shrimp on a treadmill, or admit to the taxpayers it wants to borrow money to fund programs of lesser value. This kitchen-table process of spending only up to revenues received could save hundreds of billions of wasted dollars.  

Chapter 7. Re-constitute the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non-Essential Federal Expenditures, which existed from 1941 to 1974. This committee was established after World War II to recommend ways to reduce a massive federal budget.  Its goal was to identify non-essential spending. While the committee was only a study committee, requiring its recommendations to be submitted to authorizing and appropriation committees, it had a major impact on budgeting in government. With the inability of Congress to control spending or the states to force a Balanced Budget amendment to the Constitution, an alternative would be to create a similar committee to make recommendations to Congress but require its recommendations be voted on by Congress. This process creates accountability.

Chapter 8. Enact a Base Realignment and Closure Commission (“BRAC”) that applies to general appropriations. Due to political pressure to locate the military bases in numerous congressional districts, the U.S. constructed an excess of bases but could not close unneeded ones. To address the situation, Congress established BRAC, giving the Commission power to identify unnecessary bases and to send recommendations to Congress. The key to BRAC’s recommendations to Congress is that they became law unless Congress passed a Resolution of Disapproval and the President signed it. Using the BRAC structure, Congress could apply the same concept to all recommended reductions as a means of reducing political support for unneeded programs.

Chapter 9. Establish a Budget & Waste Reduction Director in every agency to identify unnecessary expenditures. Federal agencies have recycling and permit streamlining directors to help implement certain laws. Due to massive budget deficits, there should be a similar position to identify ways an agency can eliminate unneeded programs. The person should report directly to the head of the agency. All reports must be addressed by the head of the agency, and reasons for “No Action” must be publicly justified. Each director would recommend a 10% reduction in agency expenditures. Give the director a big bonus for meeting the target.

Chapter 10. The federal government needs to seriously re-think the massive subsidies it gives to private parties to buy green products. In the recently enacted “Inflation Reduction Act,” Congress authorized $370 billion in new tax credits for corporations and individuals if they purchase green energy products or build green energy facilities. The tax credits are to boost sales of electric vehicles, the installation of rooftop solar panels, the development of solar power systems, heat pumps, water heaters, space heating, electric stoves, circuit breaker boxes, additional home insulation, and exterior windows, to name a few private beneficiaries. This is in addition to federal regulations imposing energy efficiency requirements on at least sixty products and $577 billion in tax credits and grants for green energy projects since 2004.

The IRA was passed only a week after Congress authorized $280 billion to incentivize the semiconductor industry to build plants in the U.S. The semiconductor industry is a very profitable $573 billion industry that is expected to grow to $1.4 trillion by 2029 due to high demand for its products.

Starting a diet requires acknowledgment of being overweight and the desire to lose weight. The same is true with overspending. It cannot continue for the health of the nation. If overspending continues, the long-term consequences will be extremely harmful to the nation, especially future generations. While not every step in the diet book needs to be followed, if, however, the federal government implements four or five goals, it is guaranteed to reduce spending by a trillion dollars.

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Reforming the Administrative State Doesn’t Require a New Law

Reforming the Administrative State Doesn’t Require a New Law

William L. Kovacs

January 2023

Reforming the Administrative State Doesn’t Require a New Law

For decades there have been concerns about the federal government’s growing power, size, and cost. Nothing, however, has been done to address it. It just expands. Why? Is it an uncontrollable deep state, an unmanageable bureaucracy, or just too complex? While a solution is always available, the federal government benefits significantly from the Administrative State. It opposes change.

The term Administrative State describes the power of Executive branch agencies to create, adjudicate and enforce their own rules. Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 (“APA”) to exert control over the administrative state by establishing procedures for federal agencies to make and enforce regulations.

Congress has been unable to substantively amend the APA in the 76 years since its enactment, notwithstanding that the federal courts have expanded agency power by granting deference to agency interpretations of the law. Judicial deference is a critical component of the Executive’s regulatory power. Applying it diminishes the lawmaking power of Congress by tipping the scales in favor of Executive branch interpretations.

Today, the administrative state is a massive collection of unelected federal officials, except the president, that has issued 212,271 rules since 1976. Its regulatory tenacles control almost every aspect of society, from the food we eat to the health information given to us. Regulatory costs are estimated at $1.9 trillion in 2021.

Can the administrative state be reformed?

The 115th Congress made a serious attempt to reform the APA, and by implication, the administrative state, through the Regulatory Accountability Act (“RAA”). The RAA sought to reform the rulemaking process to ensure final rules were based on sound facts and law. The House passed the RAA. The Senate voted it out of committee; however, Senate leadership refused to bring it to the floor. This effort was Congress’ first and last serious attempt to reform the administrative state.

Congress has shown either a lack of interest or an inability to control federal agencies. Sensing out-of-control Executive power, courts are starting to reign in the administrative state’s power.

Less than a month ago, the Ohio Supreme Court, in TWISM Enterprises v. Board for Registering Professional Engineers, rejected “[A]all forms of mandatory deference.” The case involved a rule that independent contractors could not be in charge of engineering projects since they were not full-time company employees. The Ohio Engineering Board received judicial deference for its interpretation from the lower courts. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, finding there was no statutory language precluding independent contractors from serving as full-time managers of an engineering firm. It held the principle of separation of powers precludes any mandatory deference to agency regulations that interpret a statute. Under the principle of separation of powers, only courts can interpret the law, not agencies. Deference to agencies produces “systematically biased judgments” that permit the executive branch “to say what the law means,” a clear intrusion into judicial authority.

The Ohio court also noted, “Roughly half the states in the Union review agency interpretations de novo.”

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in WVA v. EPA, reviewed an EPA rule that relied upon section 111 of the Clean Air Act to regulate the types and amounts of energy that could be carried on the electricity grid. Before EPA’s “new found authority,” it applied section 111 only to specific energy sources at specific locations.

Like the Ohio court, the Supreme Court examined the power Congress granted the agency. It concluded Congress did not grant the agency the authority to set emission caps based on shifting the percentage generation of fuels that could be used. It described EPA’s attempt to assume “unheralded” regulatory power as a “transformative expansion in [its]regulatory authority” over the American economy.

Recognizing that agencies use “vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used statute[s]” to create new law,” it announced the “Major Questions Doctrine, requiring agencies to point to “clear congressional authorization” when issuing expansive rules.

The uncontrolled growth of the administrative state results from the Executive constantly seeking more power, courts that, until recently, fostered the expansion of executive power, and a Congress that is irrelevant by failing to provide aggressive oversight of agency actions and spending. If the courts continue to restrain the expansion of agency power, reform of the administrative state can be accomplished without new legislation.

All that is needed is for each branch of government to uphold the constitutional principle of separation of powers by constantly checking the powers of competing branches. Unfortunately, new legislation is the proverbial fix when government fails to follow its constitutional responsibilities.

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president for regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This article was first published in TheHill.com

 

 

 

  • Home
  • #Freedom20 Rule Changes Make All in Congress Equal

#Freedom20 Rule Changes Make All in Congress Equal

William L. Kovacs

January 2023

#Freedom20 Rule Changes Make All in Congress Equal

With the drama of electing Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House and approving new rules for the operation of the House, it is time to make Congress work. Thanks to the courage of twenty members of the Freedom Caucus (“# Freedom 20”), the overall effect of the new rules is the restoration of the most fundamental constitutional right of elected representatives, the right of all members to participate, on an equal basis, in the legislative process.

The rights of all members to fully function as legislators had been taken away by Speaker Pelosi, who legislated in small, secret groups. She knew knowledge was “power.” She used her power to manipulate the legislative process by bringing multi-thousand-page bills to the floor without giving members the ability to read the proposed law or the right to offer amendments. Pelosi treated backbenchers as lemons.

Now, as the hard work of legislating begins. Conservatives should never forget  “No plan ever survives contact with the enemy.” This point is critical since real conservatives have fought excessive spending and increasing national debt for decades, but their efforts have many times been thwarted by Republicans who spend just as much, or more, than Democrats. Based on fiscal year spending, Republicans are bigger spenders than Democrats.

The necessity of member participation. Since every member of Congress is elected by a congressional district of similar size, the average number being 761,169 people, each member should have similar rights to represent the legislative needs of their districts in Congress. Those rights include the right to know what they are voting on and to offer amendments to change bad legislation.

Through a combination of Rules changes and commitments from the Speaker, members will have 72 hours to read legislation before they must vote on it. And, if the legislation is only on one subject, it will be more understandable to them and the American people. All legislators will have the right to offer amendments to cut spending as opposed to being forced to endlessly increase it.  Additionally, special interest riders will need a two-thirds vote for approval. There were 7,200 legislative riders in the $1.7 trillion Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Putting conservatives on the Rules Committee makes them part of the legislative process.  The #Freedom 20 secured the Speakers’ commitment to appoint three real conservatives to the House Rules Committee. If honored, it will give conservatives real input on what is debated on the floor of the House. If the Speaker does not keep his promises, any member can move to remove him.

 Every member of the House is now responsible for addressing the national debt. Now the #Freedom 20 and every member of Congress can run the government for the people, not the special interests. That will be an extremely difficult task. Jimmy Carter left office in 1980 with a $997 billion national debt. Today after four Republican and three Democrat presidents, the national debt is $31 trillion. As the great philosopher Pogo (a comic strip character) stated, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

Congress must recognize it created this spending and debt problem. Congress is responsible for addressing it. That said, the #Freedom 20 needs to convince many more members of the House and likely most of the Senate to attend “Spenders Anonymous.” Already, Republicans are on cable tv objecting to cuts in the military. If one department can be left off the table, all departments will be left off the table.

Since a point of order is merely the opening act, conservatives need to do the hard work of proving to spenders the need for budget cuts and debt reductions. Soon the #Freedom 20 will find that a “Point of Order” is great theater but is easily dismissed by a majority of spenders. For over two decades, the Congressional Budget Office identified hundreds of billions of dollars in congressional funding for thousands of expired authorizations stemming from hundreds of expired laws. All points of order were overruled.

In its last report, the CBO identified $461 billion in congressional funding for 1,118 expired authorizations stemming from 442 expired laws. House Rule XVI already prohibits such appropriations; however, the House merely voted to wave the rule and fund the expired programs.

Now, however, with the empowerment of all members and a rule that requires all committees to review expired programs, each Republican member of the House should agree to review five expired laws to determine whether they should be reauthorized, amended, or let lapse and report their recommendations to the committee chair. Such a review would analyze the entire list of 1118 expired laws that are being funded. It is a chance to immediately save almost one-half trillion dollars.

The #Freedom 20 also secured the right to offer a “Balance Budget Amendment” and a Constitutional proposal to impose term limits on members of Congress. These are two significant issues that most members of Congress would like to ignore. Most members of Congress want their privileged positions for life. Without accountability, however, members of Congress are free to do as they choose and still be reelected. Over 90% of incumbents are reelected, a percentage similar to the reelection rate for the Russian Duma.

There is some camouflage in the new rules. The select committees do not have subpoena power, which must be approved by the chairman of the relevant standing committee. The select committees, however, can waive the 5-minute rule on questioning witnesses, a huge benefit in seeking the truth. They can also make legislative recommendations.  Unfortunately, these select committees will have less investigative power than the Democrats’ infamous “January 6th” select committee.

 The real dark and cold reality facing the #Freedom 20 is the Senate. The Senate cares little about members of the “lower” House. The Constitution created the Senate to represent states, not people. Notwithstanding the XVII Amendment, Senators view themselves as closer to deity status than commoners in Congress. Even Republican Senators,  want to distribute taxpayer money to special interests. Eighteen Senators supported the Democrats’ passage of the most recent 4000-page, $1.7 trillion Omnibus Appropriations Act.

The House needs to find leverage that makes the Senate take it seriously. This standoff brings us to the very brutal part of politics. In the final analysis, the #Freedom 20, or the House in general, has only two ways to leverage its power. The House can refuse to increase the debt limit unless it receives concessions. This tactic forces the Senate to confront the debt reality, but it puts every member of the #Freedom 20 at risk of causing an economic calamity. Democrats and many Republican Senators will run to the cameras to call the House members crazy, insurrectionists or anarchists.

The second option is simply to refuse to appropriate money for items of concern to the Senate or the administration until debt concessions are made. The is no provision of the Constitution or any law that requires any member of the House to appropriate money. This approach will require waiting for the next round of appropriations.  A possible first step would be to refuse to appropriate money to fund a federal agency important to the big spenders. My nomination would be the Department of Education. It is the most important agency to Democrats and is owned by their biggest donors, teachers’ unions. Democrats will make concessions to save that Department for the unions.  House Republicans should be able to agree on defunding an agency they never wanted.

As the 118th Congress unfolds, the American public will discover if the #Freedom 20 and Republican House have crossed the Rubicon or whether they are merely taking a siesta on its banks.

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Yes, Virginia, The Federal Government is the Real Santa Claus

Yes, Virginia, The Federal Government is the Real Santa Claus

William L. Kovacs

December 2022

Yes, Virginia, The Federal Government is the Real Santa Claus

The Christmas season is a time of giving. Young children sit on Santa’s knee and provide him with a list of presents for under the tree. While it’s rewarding to see children happy with gifts, there is a dark downside to their expectations. Children grow up to be businessmen and women or social activists, and at Christmas time, they still expect presents. Now, however, they want, and usually receive, presents worth billions of dollars from the real Santa Claus, the federal government.

2022 is no exception. Since 1991, Congress has failed to pass its twelve appropriations bills. To avoid public failure, Congress takes the easy route. It bundles all spending into the proverbial secret Santa grab bag called an Omnibus appropriation bill. The corporatists and social advocates, like children opening presents, must wait to find out what they got until they can read the new law. The timing is usually the end of the year before Congress goes home for Christmas.

While Republicans claim they want to stop the next giveaway, they want their share of gifts even more. For this year’s share, several Republicans will likely help the Democrat business community keep their prize gifts, favorable tax treatment for research and development, and carried interest. The social activists want billions of dollars of higher childcare tax credits. The final deal is always more spending, never less.

Since the beginning of the republic, there has been a debate over the scope of Congress’s power to spend our money and then tax us to generate more money for Congress to spend. James Madison argued Congress could only spend on the items enumerated in the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton argued the Constitution’s Spending clause is independent of the enumerated powers, thus allowing Congress to tax and spend as it deems necessary. The only limitation – spending must be for the general welfare, and Congress is the only institution that determines the general welfare.

Continuing to debate the limits of Congressional spending is a waste of time. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Congress can spend on whatever it wants as long as it promotes the general welfare.

Such a broad interpretation of Congress’ ability to tax and spend has resulted in a massive expansion of government and a $31 plus trillion national debt.  The growth of the national debt will likely force posterity into involuntary servitude to the federal government. Most troubling is that the general welfare has morphed from building canals, bridges, and highways to make the U.S. an economic superpower into trillions of dollars of gifts to special interests and friends. These gifts to private entities come in the form of grants, tax credits, low rates, loan forgiveness, and paycheck protection plans.

Below are a few of the thousands of congressional gifts to private parties.

Suspending  $20 billion of student loan payments for two years and now seeking $600 billion more in student loan forgiveness based on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities Act of 2003, an act that addresses national welfare emergencies.

$ 721 billion was given in grants to states as a bribe to manage federal programs enacted outside the constitutional authority of Congress to legislate.

Forgiving tens of billions of dollars of federal Paycheck Protection Program loans made to organizations controlled by the elite rich such as Paul Pelosi (husband of the Speaker of the House); Khloe Kardashian, Tom Brady and Reese Witherspoon, Forbes Media, Ruth Chris Steakhouse, The Washington Times, and more than a few members of Congress.

$16 billion was given in farm aid to offset losses suffered by farmers on tariffs imposed on products sold to China. The top 10% of farmers receive 70% of the subsidies. This top 10% includes insurance companies, multinational corporations, and corporate farms.

Flood insurance subsidies are given to insure high-end housing in flood-prone areas, i.e., beachfront properties. This insurance program is potentially liable for $1.3 trillion in flood claims while only collecting $3.5 billion in annual premiums. The program already has $25 billion in losses taxpayers will have to pay.

The $330 billion prescription drug industry received $64 billion in federal research funding, along with immunity for any harm their drugs may cause.

Most recently, through the falsely named “Inflation Reduction Act,” Congress authorized $370 in new tax credits for corporations and individuals if they acquire green energy products or build green energy facilities. These tax credits are in addition to federal regulations imposing energy efficiency requirements on at least sixty products and $577 billion in tax credits and grants for green energy projects since 2004. The tax credits are to boost corporate sales of electric vehicles, the installation of rooftop solar panels, the development of solar power systems, heat pumps, water heaters, space heating, electric stoves, circuit breaker boxes, additional home insulation, and exterior windows, to name a few beneficiaries.

A week before the passage of the IRA, Congress authorized $280 billion to incentivize the semiconductor industry to build plants in the U.S. and invest in new research. The $ 573 billion semiconductor industry is expected to grow to $1.4 trillion by 2029 due to high product demand.

With a $31 trillion-plus national debt, citizens need to appreciate that every taxpayer owes $247,882 as their portion of the debt.

Christmas gifts to children are rewarding when parents see happiness in their eyes. Unfortunately, as some of these children grow up, they still expect gifts from the real Santa Claus, the federal government. The federal government likes playing Santa but never considers the immutable fact that the only money the federal government has is what it takes from taxpayers. The federal Santa game is simple. The federal government sees the glimmer in the eyes of its friends when they find out about the billion-dollar gifts they received for doing nothing. This tradition is the true meaning of a Washington, DC, Christmas.

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

This article was first published in The Thinking Conservative.