PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama commits legislative fraud


The Mad Crapper
03-09-2011, 05:21 PM
It no longer amazes me, the guy is an absolute scumbag, the republicans (most of them) are weak and pathetic, and the media covers the fraud and unconstitutional abuse of the American people. I pretty much give up. What more can he possibly do that will wake people up?

I gotta go to CNSNews to get a story on it... I guess the networks are covering Charlie Sheens sex life...


Republicans Expose 'Legislative Fraud' in ObamaCare
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
By Susan Jones


(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is blasting Democrats for "legislative fraud of the highest order." She says the Democrats' health care bill contains “baked-in” funding to be used for implementing Obamacare, which will make the law even more difficult to repeal.

She is demanding that Democrats give the money back.

Bachmann says $105 billion in government spending was broken up and "buried" in the enormous bill, which President Obama signed into law last March. The Congressional Research Service discovered the advance appropriations, which Bachmann is calling a “crime against democracy.”

“This is a bombshell – this just came out recently, that we found that this $105 billion was contained in Obamacare,” Bachmann said on Tuesday.

"This year alone, the provisions are already in place to spend $5 billion on Obamacare, and another $100 billion will be spent over the next eight years, even without any appropriating actions by Congress," Bachmann said.

She also noted that Sen. Harry Reid didn’t give senators time to read the bill before voting on it.

“More and more we are seeing what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said the bill would have to be passed in order for the American people to find out what was in it. The Obama Administration has already added about 6,000 pages of regulations to Obamacare, and this funding shows a clear intent to circumvent the appropriations process and make it much more difficult for future Congresses to repeal Obamacare.

"When it was passed, Democrats knew they would lose the gavel. But this funding ensures they will not lose their prized government takeover of health care because it’s already well-funded."

Bachmann, appearing on Fox News on Tuesday morning, said she and other lawmakers thought Congress would take up funding for Obamacare in separate legislation after the law passed.

“That’s what we thought,” she said. “That’s why it was so important that Republicans won in 2010 – so that we wouldn’t fund the implementation of Obamacare…Then we find out the Democrats went ahead, deceptively…no one knew that Harry Reid, Pelosi and Obama put the $105 billion in spending in the bill.”

She said the money to fund Obamacare is “baked into the bill.”

Bachmann is urging other lawmakers to join her in voting "no" on future continuing resolutions to fund the government, unless those spending bills contain specific language to defund ObamaCare and rescind the funding that already has been appropriated.

Bachman said Republicans have an opportunity when the government runs out of money on March 18:

“Our position is this: Obama, Pelosi and Reid should give that money back…We Republicans identified $61 billion in cuts off of the 2010 budget. We’re saying – ‘We’re working hard to get a few cuts? And you’ve already spent $105 billion and you didn’t tell us?’ Give that money back, then we’ll talk about the budget.”

Bachmann says defunding ObamaCare, along with defunding Planned Parenthood, must be non-negotiable planks in the Republicans’ budget negotiations.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/republicans-expose-legislative-fraud-oba

Bewbies
03-09-2011, 05:25 PM
About those $500B in Medicare cuts... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110304/pl_dailycaller/hhssecretarysebeliusadmitstodoublecountinginobamacarebudget)

The Mad Crapper
03-09-2011, 05:27 PM
About those $500B in Medicare cuts... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110304/pl_dailycaller/hhssecretarysebeliusadmitstodoublecountinginobamacarebudget)

Lies and deceit.

Obama is a hideous destructor and great deceiver.

Bwana
03-09-2011, 05:47 PM
:shake:

KC Dan
03-09-2011, 05:52 PM
“[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Nancy was right!

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5233-pelosi-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it

BucEyedPea
03-09-2011, 05:52 PM
“This is a bombshell – this just came out recently, that we found that this $105 billion was contained in Obamacare,” Bachmann said on Tuesday.

"This year alone, the provisions are already in place to spend $5 billion on Obamacare, and another $100 billion will be spent over the next eight years, even without any appropriating actions by Congress," Bachmann said.



This should be added to the court cases on this....or start another one. I mean there's no contrac when there's fraud. Meanwhile, impeach Obama for this crime.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2011, 06:19 PM
Republican resolution "only" calls for $61 billion in cuts---

It doesn't touch this $105 billion pelosi, reid and obama cooked into Obamacare.

Boehner sells us out.

Amnorix
03-10-2011, 08:21 PM
Legislators who voted against a bill, as I assume Bachmann did, have no real ability to argue that a fraud was committed upon them.

And those who vote in favor who didn't take time to read the legisltation and understand it -- what is their argument exactly? That they were wrong to trust the legislative leaders that they themselves had voted into their positions? That their failure to take the time to read and understand the law was someone else's fault?

No court is going to touch any of this stuff with a hundred foot pole. And I'm missing what high crime and misdemeanor Obama committed -- not that the right isn't quick to pull the impeachment card at the slightest thing, of course, so I'm hardly surprised.

banyon
03-10-2011, 11:45 PM
Oh, Michelle Bachmann claimed it? Well let's take it as gospel then no questions asked, right?

The fraud claim, as pointed out, is wholly unsubstantiated, particularly by the brainless set of mendicants cheerleading this thread.

Taco John
03-11-2011, 12:10 AM
Oh, Michelle Bachmann claimed it? Well let's take it as gospel then no questions asked, right?

The fraud claim, as pointed out, is wholly unsubstantiated, particularly by the brainless set of mendicants cheerleading this thread.

Kind of a disingenuous post considering what your predictable reaction will be if it turns out she's right.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 07:06 AM
Republicans ran their 2010 mid-term campaigns on chiefly the promise that the Democratic health care law would eventually be repealed, but in the meantime, de-funding the entire health care legislation would have to be a way to at least slow down the implementation of the law. H.R. 1 promised to accomplish the de-funding of Obamacare, but according to discoveries made by former Republican Oklahoma Congressman now a distinguish fellow at the Heritage Foundation Ernest Istook, the health care bill has a mandatory appropriation that would fund the legislation almost a decade into the future.

Mr. Istook’s testimony on Wednesday about the matter revealed disturbing hidden funding that will make the health care legislation have life:(bolding is mine)

The massive 2,700-page health care law is deliberately designed to make defunding and dismantlement difficult. Although original estimates reported that it created 159 new government agencies, the Congressional Research Service later concluded that the actual number of new agencies, boards, etc., “is currently unknowable,” because so many of them are empowered to spawn additional entities, just as weeds grow by sending out runners and seeds.

The complexity and confusion extends to the funding process created in that legislation.

The new law attempts to bypass the normal appropriations process, another feature that makes defunding more difficult. By making advance appropriations for tens of billions of dollars up to the year 2019, these provisions of Obamacare seek to remove spending decisions from the reach of the current Congress and from future Congresses and Presidents. Although Obamacare was not pitched to the public as a mandatory spending entitlement, the details of the legislation reveal an intent to block any future Congress from controlling Obamacare’s spending.

One largely unknown fact is that $6-billion or more was immediately appropriated in the new law and approximately $105-billion more was appropriated for FY2011 and beyond. That violates the typical Congressional process of appropriations. The normal process typically involves enacting authorization bills that authorize spending, and then follows those with separate legislation that actually appropriates the money. This enables those to be balanced with other spending decisions. The PPACA contained large authorizations for future appropriations as well as containing these actual appropriations. That made it quite different from most bills, even major legislation.

This funding also stayed below the radar screen because it was so often reported—inaccurately—that Congress had not passed any appropriations for the current fiscal year. Obviously, the last Congress chose to fund Obamacare even though they failed to pass any of the regular appropriations bills.

For those who support that new law, this may present no problem. But the process should nevertheless offend their sense of an open, well-publicized and orderly process. The funding of Obamacare is a major concern for those many Americans– including me–who consider the law unwise, unaffordable, and detrimental to affordable and quality health care.

To de-fund Obamacare, it is insufficient simply to deny future funding. Until the full law can be repealed, at least the existing and advance appropriations need to be rescinded, just as the House last month voted to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations to 123 federal programs. An effort to restrict use of the funds appropriated within Obamacare was thwarted because the House did not waive the same point of order (House Rule XXI) as it waived to allow de-funding those 123 other programs. This was most unfortunate.

To any who do not realize that over $105-billion has already been appropriated to fund Obamacare, I direct your attention to the February 10, 2011, revision of the Congressional Research Service’s paper, “Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),” CRS number R41301. It documents the specific provisions that I’m discussing and the magnitude of those advance appropriations.

Republican leadership appears to be vague about why Republicans did not bother to vote on rescinding the $105 billion dollar mandatory appropriation. Some argue that the fact the appropriation for the healthcare bill was mandatory and cannot be rescinded is not sitting well with conservatives, because as Mr. Istook points out in his testimony above, "The House last month voted to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations to 123 federal programs." All those appropriations were mandatory as well.

House Speaker John Boehner, Ohio Republican, believes rescinding of appropriations in the healthcare bill can be done through committee. He told me on Thursday afternoon, "We made it pretty clear that when we put Obamacare on the floor and the House passed the repeal of that bill. We’re going through regular order. I would expect that the committees of proper jurisdiction will bring forward the bill to eliminate mandatory spending that is involved in that bill."

Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, and Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, sent a letter to House GOP leadership on Thursday requesting that the health care appropriation be remove be removed:

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, and Chairman Rogers,

We very much appreciate your leadership in bringing H.R. 2 to the floor, which resulted in a unanimous Republican vote to repeal ObamaCare. This was an essential step in achieving our universal Republican goal to bring about the final, 100% repeal of this law. No strategy to accomplish this goal could succeed without this House vote.

From the moment legislation to repeal ObamaCare was first introduced, it has been widely discussed that a successful repeal strategy would center on first winning a Republican majority in the House, then holding a clean, up or down vote on repeal, and then prohibiting funding for the implementation or enforcement of ObamaCare. We must ensure that this strategy remains on track and on schedule.

The success of our effort to shut off funding for ObamaCare will hinge on the leverage points of this first session of the 112th Congress - namely the CR, which expires on March 18th, and the vote on raising the debt ceiling. We recognize the work to defund ObamaCare began with the inclusion of language in H.R. 1 to restrict annual appropriations from being used to implement the law. However, we also recognize that even this language, if enacted, leaves on the table $105.5 billion in automatically appropriated funds for the law's implementation. We cannot successfully defund ObamaCare without shutting off these automatically appropriated funds.

While some have argued that our defunding efforts in the CR should be limited only to those annual funds actually provided by the CR, we disagree. If we do not stand our ground on the CR, leverage it as the "must pass bill" that it is, and use it to stop the $105.5 billion in automatically appropriated funds, ObamaCare will be implemented on our watch, we will have conceded a significant amount of ground on this issue, and we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to regain the strategic advantage in future legislative vehicles.

Consequently, we ask that the following language, or more effective language, be added to the FY11 CR to cut off both the annual and automatic appropriations for ObamaCare's implementation: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this or any previous Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to carry out the provisions of Public Law 111-148, Public Law 111-152, or any amendment made by either such Public Law."

It is essential that the above language be included in the CR. We, the undersigned, will not vote in support of a continuing resolution that is void of this crucial funding prohibition.

Sincerely,

Steve King

Michele Bachmann

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/10/will-house-gop-rescind-obamacare-funding-appropria/

J Diddy
03-11-2011, 07:08 AM
Hmmm, didn't read what they voted on? If you want to call for impeachment how about impeaching those that did that?

patteeu
03-11-2011, 07:57 AM
This should be added to the court cases on this....or start another one. I mean there's no contrac when there's fraud. Meanwhile, impeach Obama for this crime.

There's no fraud of that type here. Every member of Congress had the ability to vote no if they didn't feel that they had adequate time to read the bill. There were just too many democrats who either didn't care or wouldn't have been opposed to this anyway. That's the legacy of the demonization of Bush and the Republican party in which so many conservatives like yourself were complicit.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 08:06 AM
This provides the Republicans with an opportunity for a referendum on ObamaCare if they think it's unpopular enough to put to the test. If it's important enough, they could propose a budget for the rest of this fiscal year that embraces the proposal made by Obama and the democrats (~$6 billion of cuts instead of the ~$60 billion proposed by Republicans) with an added provision that strips away this so-called hidden ObamaCare funding. Such a proposal would surely be blocked by the Senate or vetoed by the President, leading to a government shutdown situation. Republicans could make the case that they gave in to all the democrat demands and that the only sticking point was ObamaCare pre-funding. The people would be left to decide who to blame. Unfortunately, my guess is that Republicans would lose that showdown.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 08:09 AM
Hmmm, didn't read what they voted on? If you want to call for impeachment how about impeaching those that did that?

Good idea. Everyone who voted for ObamaCare without reading it, should be removed immediately.

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 08:13 AM
Unfortunately, my guess is that Republicans would lose that showdown.

Think you're right about that. Not sure it's an argument that most people would even understand.

If you're going to impose a shutdown, I'd do it over the general state of runaway deficits, and not over some squabble that many people would think is "just procedural" or whatever.

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 08:14 AM
Good idea. Everyone who voted for ObamaCare without reading it, should be removed immediately.


You guys don't seriously think that legislators themselves read all the stuff they vote on?

And not reading legislation gets into HOW exactly a legislator does his job. That's not a high crime and misdemeanor. And if it was, then every legislator in history would need to be impeached.

And you know it.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 08:22 AM
You guys don't seriously think that legislators themselves read all the stuff they vote on?

And not reading legislation gets into HOW exactly a legislator does his job. That's not a high crime and misdemeanor. And if it was, then every legislator in history would need to be impeached.

And you know it.

Of course. I still wouldn't mind at all if every legislator who voted for ObamaCare was removed immediately.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 09:19 AM
Of course. I still wouldn't mind at all if every legislator who voted for ObamaCare was removed immediately.

Well... quite a few were removed in the mid-term elections. Unfortanately, they were replaced by other politicians.

Jaric
03-11-2011, 09:32 AM
You guys don't seriously think that legislators themselves read all the stuff they vote on?Can you give me one good reason why this is an acceptable practice?

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 10:38 AM
Can you give me one good reason why this is an acceptable practice?

I didn't say it was. I would be interested in hearing just how many pages of legislation any given Congress passes per year, however.

The real answer here is that they generally have staff to comb through the weeds and give them summaries of what the items of legislation have and how they work. And that's partly because some of this stuff is amazingly complex and it makes no sense to have each and every legislator attempt to do this on their own.

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 10:46 AM
Let's take one example -- the US tax code -- just the part written by Congress -- is 3,387 pages long.

You're a freshman Congressman. The IRS has proposed a number of revisions to the tax code. They have drafted the proposed legislation that they hope you will pass. These are the experts at the IRS. The proposed legislation is 148 pages long, revises 111 different sections of the code and makes a number of non-structural, "clean up" type changes to provisions that are outdated or unworkable or dysfunctional for whatever reason. It is not designed to be any kind of major tax overhaul.

To understand this legislation, you would need ot look at all 111 different sections of the Code that are in teh law, AND look at all the cross-referenced sections to understand how they work together.

And this is what your'e going to do? Hell no. You refer it to some committee in Congress, which hands it off to their clerks and staff, which analyze it and let you know if what the IRS is suggesting is correct. They report back to you that it all seems fine. You then bring in the IRS guys to answer some questions on these changes. Their answers are all satisfactory. Guess what, you and every other Congressperson will vote to pass the legislation.

Welcome to 2011. In all seriousness, this stuff is waaaay too complicated and time consuming for any legislator to literally read and understand every page of legislation that he/she votes on.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 10:48 AM
I didn't say it was. I would be interested in hearing just how many pages of legislation any given Congress passes per year, however.

The real answer here is that they generally have staff to comb through the weeds and give them summaries of what the items of legislation have and how they work. And that's partly because some of this stuff is amazingly complex and it makes no sense to have each and every legislator attempt to do this on their own.

But Obama promised we, the public, would have five days to read any legislation over and that he would post it on the internet before signing any bill into law. He flat out lied.

And you can't seriously try to convince anybody who isn't already in the tank for Obama that he, Nancy and Reid didn't know full well that there would be a backlash in the mid-terms against D's, and cooking this pre-funding into the bill was a deviously calculated move by them.

This is fraud.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 10:54 AM
Let's take one example -- the US tax code -- just the part written by Congress -- is 3,387 pages long.

You're a freshman Congressman. The IRS has proposed a number of revisions to the tax code. They have drafted the proposed legislation that they hope you will pass. These are the experts at the IRS. The proposed legislation is 148 pages long, revises 111 different sections of the code and makes a number of non-structural, "clean up" type changes to provisions that are outdated or unworkable or dysfunctional for whatever reason. It is not designed to be any kind of major tax overhaul.

To understand this legislation, you would need ot look at all 111 different sections of the Code that are in teh law, AND look at all the cross-referenced sections to understand how they work together.

And this is what your'e going to do? Hell no. You refer it to some committee in Congress, which hands it off to their clerks and staff, which analyze it and let you know if what the IRS is suggesting is correct. They report back to you that it all seems fine. You then bring in the IRS guys to answer some questions on these changes. Their answers are all satisfactory. Guess what, you and every other Congressperson will vote to pass the legislation.

Welcome to 2011. In all seriousness, this stuff is waaaay too complicated and time consuming for any legislator to literally read and understand every page of legislation that he/she votes on.

It's also waaaay too complicated to be good law.

Otter
03-11-2011, 10:54 AM
Bachmann is urging other lawmakers to join her in voting "no" on future continuing resolutions to fund the government, unless those spending bills contain specific language to defund ObamaCare and rescind the funding that already has been appropriated.

Dig in your heels and make it happen. Give us a reason to believe.

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 10:57 AM
It's also waaaay too complicated to be good law.

That may well be true.

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 10:59 AM
But Obama promised we, the public, would have five days to read any legislation over and that he would post it on the internet before signing any bill into law. He flat out lied.

And you can't seriously try to convince anybody who isn't already in the tank for Obama that he, Nancy and Reid didn't know full well that there would be a backlash in the mid-terms against D's, and cooking this pre-funding into the bill was a deviously calculated move by them.

This is fraud.

I do agree that it may well be a calculated move by them. That doesn't make it fraud, however.

Jaric
03-11-2011, 12:48 PM
It's also waaaay too complicated to be good law.

Thank you for summing up the response I was going to write, this simply.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 02:07 PM
Dig in your heels and make it happen. Give us a reason to believe.

The budget (from last year into this one...) bill is all tied in to Obamacare so let's see if this has any teeth (I'm not holding my breath):

WASHINGTON – Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned on Friday that GOP senators will not vote to increase the government's borrowing limit unless President Barack Obama agrees to rein in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, laying down a high-stakes marker just weeks before the debt ceiling is reached.

In an interview with The Associated Press, McConnell complained that Obama has refused his offers — both public and private — to work on a bipartisan plan to tackle the nation's massive benefit programs, which threaten to overwhelm the budget in coming years.

"There will be no entitlement reform without President Obama," McConnell said. "It cannot be done without him, will not be done without him."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown_49

HonestChieffan
03-12-2011, 07:44 PM
Kind of a disingenuous post considering what your predictable reaction will be if it turns out she's right.

She is right. She did not discover the issue, a congressman from Iowa did I believe. And Banyons reaction will be to stay away until his next drive request that someone be banned.

orange
03-12-2011, 08:13 PM
She is right. She did not discover the issue, a congressman from Iowa did I believe. And Banyons reaction will be to stay away until his next drive request that someone be banned.

Iowa, eh? Wasn't that the state where the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired?

Rep. Michele Bachmann seemed to think she was in Massachusetts today as she delivered a speech to a group of conservatives in New Hampshire today. “You’re the state where the show was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord,” she told the crowd incorrectly, later making references to Plymouth Rock and calling New Hampshire the “first in the nation state.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7c3bS8gG6Q

Ooops, I meant New Hampshire, of course. ROFL

New Hampshire - where Plymouth Rock is.

Later, she told the crowd that New Hampshire had a responsibility to keep liberty alive, which they have done “very well for almost 20 generations from the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, and I’m sure the very first one came up to New Hampshire and said, ‘This is where I want to be.’”

Jaric
03-12-2011, 08:19 PM
Iowa, eh? Wasn't that the state where the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired?

Rep. Michele Bachmann seemed to think she was in Massachusetts today as she delivered a speech to a group of conservatives in New Hampshire today. “You’re the state where the show was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord,” she told the crowd incorrectly, later making references to Plymouth Rock and calling New Hampshire the “first in the nation state.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7c3bS8gG6Q

Ooops, I meant New Hampshire, of course. ROFL

New Hampshire - where Plymouth Rock is.

Later, she told the crowd that New Hampshire had a responsibility to keep liberty alive, which they have done “very well for almost 20 generations from the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, and I’m sure the very first one came up to New Hampshire and said, ‘This is where I want to be.’”

Be fair, it's hard to keep all 57 states together.

HonestChieffan
03-12-2011, 08:23 PM
Iowa, eh? Wasn't that the state where the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired?

Rep. Michele Bachmann seemed to think she was in Massachusetts today as she delivered a speech to a group of conservatives in New Hampshire today. “You’re the state where the show was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord,” she told the crowd incorrectly, later making references to Plymouth Rock and calling New Hampshire the “first in the nation state.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7c3bS8gG6Q

Ooops, I meant New Hampshire, of course. ROFL

New Hampshire - where Plymouth Rock is.

Later, she told the crowd that New Hampshire had a responsibility to keep liberty alive, which they have done “very well for almost 20 generations from the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, and I’m sure the very first one came up to New Hampshire and said, ‘This is where I want to be.’”

Not following you at all. The woman is not very bright but my comment was not related to anything she said in New Hampshire.

orange
03-12-2011, 08:35 PM
Not following you at all.

She's a dolt. She has no credibility. Capiche?


... Oh, and she's shameless, too.

http://home.comcast.net/~joecain1/politics/fighting_terrorists/images/cry_wolf.jpg

HonestChieffan
03-12-2011, 08:56 PM
She's a dolt. She has no credibility. Capiche?


... Oh, and she's shameless, too.

http://home.comcast.net/~joecain1/politics/fighting_terrorists/images/cry_wolf.jpg

Yes.

I guess you dont follow the topic well enough to understand my question.

That being the case she is a bit of a goof at times. But she has made some good observations as well. All in all she is not presidential material. She seems to have credibility with her district.