Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
US Constitution Art 1 section 7
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
Obama "Very Interested" In Raising Taxes Through Executive Action
Conn Carroll | Mar 02, 2015
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is "very interested" in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action.
"The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans," Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
"Now I don't want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of," Earnest continued. "But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally," Earnest finished.
Sanders sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Friday identifying a number of executive actions he believes the IRS could take, without any input from Congress, that would close loopholes currently used by corporations. In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue, but that same calculation has change in other federal agencies since Obama became president.
Obama's preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike that would fund liberal infrastructure projects like mass transit. But if Congress fails to do as Obama wishes, just as Congress has failed to pass the immigration reforms that Obama prefers, Obama could take actions unilaterally instead. This past November, for example, Obama gave work permits, Social Security Numbers, and drivers licenses to approximately 4 million illegal immigrants.
Those immigration actions, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/03/02/obama-very-interested-in-raising-taxes-through-executive-action-n1964629
Farmers To Face Fines Or Prison Sentences For Selling Food Directly To Customers
Posted by JB Bardot
Written by David Gumpert
This would seem to embody the USDA’s advisory, “Know your farmer, know your food,” right? Not exactly.
For the USDA and its sister food regulator, the FDA, there’s a problem: many of the farmers are distributing the food via private contracts like herd shares and leasing arrangements, which fall outside the regulatory system of state and local retail licenses and inspections that govern public food sales.
In response, federal and state regulators are seeking legal sanctions against farmers in Maine, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and California, among others. These sanctions include injunctions, fines, and even prison sentences.
Food sold by unlicensed and uninspected farmers is potentially dangerous say the regulators, since it can carry pathogens like salmonella, campylobacter, and E.coli O157:H7, leading to mild or even serious illness.
Most recently, Wisconsin’s attorney general appointed a special prosecutor to file criminal misdemeanor charges against an Amish farmer for alleged failure to have retail and dairy licenses, and the proceedings turned into a high-profile jury trial in late May that highlighted the depth of conflict: following five days of intense proceedings, the 12-person jury acquitted the farmer, Vernon Hershberger, on all the licensing charges, while convicting him of violating a 2010 holding order on his food, which he had publicly admitted.
See Also: Obamacare Secrets Revealed: Why Unions, Liberals & Abortion Clinics Love It!
Why are hard-working normally law-abiding farmers aligning with urban and suburban consumers to flaunt well-established food safety regulations and statutes? Why are parents, who want only the best for their children, seeking out food that regulators say could be dangerous? And, why are regulators and prosecutors feeling so threatened by this trend?
Members of these private food groups often buy from local farmers because they want food from animals that are treated humanely, allowed to roam on pasture, and not treated with antibiotics. “I really want food that is full of nutrients and the animals to be happy and content,” says Jenny DeLoney, a Madison, WI, mother of three young children who buys from Hershberger.
To these individuals, many of whom are parents, safety means not only food free of pathogens, but food free of pesticides, antibiotic residues, and excessive processing. It means food created the old-fashioned way—from animals allowed to eat grass instead of feed made from genetically modified (GMO) grains—and sold the old-fashioned way, privately by the farmer to the consumer, who is free to visit the farm and see the animals.
Many of these consumers have viewed the secretly-made videos of downer cows being prodded into slaughterhouses and chickens so crammed into coops they can barely breathe.
These consumers are clearly interpreting “safety” differently than the regulators. Some of these consumers are going further than claiming contract rights—they are pushing their towns and cities to legitimize private farmer-consumer arrangements.
In Maine, residents of ten coastal towns have approved so-called “food sovereignty” ordinances that legalize unregulated food sales; towns in other states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, and as far away as Santa Cruz, CA, have passed similar ordinances.
The new legal offensive isn’t going over well with regulators anywhere. Aside from the Hershberger action in Wisconsin, and a similar one in Minnesota, Maine’s Department of Agriculture filed suit against a two-cow farmer, Dan Brown, in one of the food-sovereignty towns, Blue Hill, seeking fines and, in effect, to invalidate all the Maine ordinances.
In April, a state court ruled against the farmer, and in effect against the towns; sentencing is due within several weeks, and the case could well be appealed.
The jury in the criminal misdemeanor case of Minnesota farmer Alvin Schlangen last September acquitted him of all charges after several hours of deliberation. But the regulators’ push against privately-distributed food continues unabated.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has moved forward with a local prosecutor in Schlangen’s rural county, pressing similar criminal charges as the ones he was acquitted of in Minneapolis. He is scheduled to go on trial again in August. And in Wisconsin, prosecutors sought, unsuccessfully, to have Vernon Hershberger jailed for allegedly violating his jail terms since charges were filed in late 2011.
At its heart, this is a struggle over a steady erosion of confidence in the integrity of our industrial food system, which has been hit by disturbing disclosures seemingly on a weekly basis. In just the last few weeks, for example, we have seen shrimp, cookies, and veggie burgers recalled by the FDA for being sold with undeclared ingredients.
Also in recent weeks, members of Congress and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control have escalated warnings about the growing danger of antibiotic resistant pathogens emerging from farm animals, which consume about 80 percent of all antibiotics in the U.S. The Atlantic reported last summer that medical specialists are seeing a spike in women with urinary tract infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria, likely transmitted by chicken meat.
This erosion in the confidence of the food system carries serious implications. It financially threatens large corporations if long-established food brands come under prolonged and severe public questioning.
It threatens economic performance if foods deemed “safe” become scarcer, and thus more expensive. And it is potentially explosive politically if too many people lose confidence in the professionalism of the food regulators who are supposed to be protecting us from tainted food, and encourages folks to exit the public food system for private solutions like the consumers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, and elsewhere.
Just look at the vituperative corporate response to recent consumer-led campaigns to label foods with genetically-modified ingredients.
As more consumers become intent on making the final decisions on what foods they are going to feed themselves and their families, and regulators become just as intent on asserting what they see as their authority over inspecting and licensing all food, ugly scenarios of agitated citizens battling government authorities over access to food staples seem likely to proliferate.
It’s an unfortunate recipe for a new kind of rights movement centered on the most basic acts—what we choose to eat.
http://www.jbbardot.com/farmers-to-face-fines-or-prison-sentences-for-selling-food-directly-to-customers/
I've always been of the opinion that both parties bow to the same masters. What the masters want they get no matter which party has control of congress or 1600 Penn Ave. The old adage "follow the money" I think is appropriate.
.........al
gm arizona, that one hit the nail right square on the head. Nice find.
.......al
House approves DHS funding bill, ending immigration standoff
The wimps caved, what did we elect these people for? I am asking my repub rep and senator why I should vote repub again. Probably won't get an answer from either.
.....al
WATCH: White House Just Hinted Obama’s Next Executive Action Could Be A Huge Money Grab
The same sort of unilateral move Obama made on immigration...
Norvell Rose — March 3, 2015
In another shot at the Constitution, congressional authority and the rule of law, President Obama is reportedly considering using executive action to unilaterally raise taxes.
Considering the words of White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Obama intends to try to implement his agenda, not by working with Congress, but by wielding his pen — to execute vetoes as well as implement executive orders.
According to an article in Forbes, the president may try to trespass on ground that, up until now, has been held by a co-equal branch of the federal government, the Congress — making and/or changing tax law, specifically, corporate taxes.
The Forbes article notes that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — an Independent with strong Socialist leanings who generally caucuses with the Democrats — wrote a letter to the Obama administration suggesting the president could close corporate tax loopholes on his own, without getting congressional permission.
Sen. Sanders appears to have opened a veritable barn door for the President to act more broadly than is customary.
Although the actions recommended by Sen. Sanders target corporations, it is worth noting that the tax hikes included in the President’s budget are numerous.
As The Blaze notes in its coverage of the possible Obama executive action on taxes: “Obama wants Congress to pass corporate tax reform, but Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has said the proposal would not go anywhere.”
By clicking on the video above, you can watch the White House spokesman tell reporters that Obama is “very interested” in exploring the extraordinary tax change as well as all sorts of other executive actions. And as you watch, you might see that Josh Earnest’s facial expression seems to reveal a certain glee at the prospect of his boss continuing to act with what one might call unfettered, unilateral abandon.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-white-house-just-hinted-obamas-next-executive-action-could-be-a-huge-money-grab/#XL0ITS7L2zBAfOte.99
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Has A Dire Warning For Judge Standing In Obama’s Way
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen ordered federal agencies to cease implementing Obama's amnesty plan.
An attorney for Sheriff Joe Arpaio made a filing with the federal judge who ordered the halting of President Obama’s executive amnesty, asking that a hearing be held on Obama’s refusal to comply with the court’s order.
The attorney, Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, stated to the judge in the filing:
“Several reports indicate that the executive branch under the Obama administration has not complied with this court’s temporary injunction, but continues full-speed to implement a grant of amnesty and related benefits to approximately 5 million citizens of foreign countries who are illegally in the United States under the defendants’ November 20, 2014, executive action programs implemented by several memoranda issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson.”
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen ordered federal agencies to cease implementing Obama’s amnesty plan; but, since then, Obama has warned that “one federal judge” will not stand in his way toward implementing amnesty.
Obama, according to the Washington Times, “told a Miami crowd that he will move ahead with his executive action on immigration and vowed that his administration will become even more aggressive in the weeks and months to come.”
Klayman noted in the filing: “The Obama administration is continuing to signal not only its disagreement with the court’s order, which is its right, but beyond that its non-compliance with the court’s order.”
He went on to write:
“In short,” Klayman told the court, “President Obama’s defiant pledge in Miami, Florida, on February 25, 2015, to move forward aggressively with implementation of his deferred action amnesty by executive over-reach … more than suggests that the Obama administration is continuing to implement the executive action amnesty in defiance of the court’s temporary injunction.
“Given the strong reports that DHS is continuing to implement the programs that the court enjoined, the court should issue an order to show cause and call for clarification and assurance from the defendants that they are and will comply with the court’s temporary injunction, and if not take immediate remedial actions to [ensure] that the order is being complied with.”
Klayman also noted that Obama is threatening “consequences” to federal employees who obey the federal judge’s ruling to cease implementation of his amnesty.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/sheriff-joe-arpaio-now-warning-federal-judge-obama/#27Pr46uIcUMekTZU.99
Sad to say, for thousands of years elders were treated with dignity and respect in most cultures and much valued for their guidance and wisdom. Shamefully many are now just relegated to nursing homes. Much is lost.
......al
I have to wonder how many of those on that list will be trying to grub money from Jewish/American PACs come next election time. Historically Jewish Americans have been ardent supporters of democrats. Could there be a change in the wind?
....al
, he and the Senate jamoke are major disappointments..
That may well qualify for the understatement of the year.
......al
Treasury won't explain decision to make $3 billion in Obamacare payments
Thanks to basserdan
By Philip Klein
February 26, 2015 | 6:11 am
VIDEO here
The U.S. Treasury Department has rebuffed a request by House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R- Wis., to explain $3 billion in payments that were made to health insurers even though Congress never authorized the spending through annual appropriations.
At issue are payments to insurers known as cost-sharing subsidies. These payments come about because President Obama’s healthcare law forces insurers to limit out-of-pocket costs for certain low income individuals by capping consumer expenses, such as deductibles and co-payments, in insurance policies. In exchange for capping these charges, insurers are supposed to receive compensation.
What’s tricky is that Congress never authorized any money to make such payments to insurers in its annual appropriations, but the Department of Health and Human Services, with the cooperation of the U.S. Treasury, made them anyway.
Health and Human Services spending on these cost-sharing payments is one of the issues named in House Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against the Obama administration's executive actions on Obamacare.
In a Feb. 3 letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Ryan, along with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., asked for “a full explanation for, and all documents relating to” the administration’s decision to make the cost-sharing payments without congressional authorization.
In response, on Wednesday, the Treasury Department sent a letter to Ryan largely describing the program, without offering a detailed explanation of the decision to make the payments. The letter revealed that $2.997 billion in such payments had been made in 2014, but didn't elaborate on where the money came from. Over the next decade, cost-sharing payments to insurers are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost taxpayers nearly $150 billion.
Instead of detailing the basis for making the payments without appropriations, Treasury officials cited the ongoing House GOP litigation, and referred Ryan to the Department of Justice.
In a brief filed on Jan. 26, DOJ lawyers wrote that the Boehner lawsuit was incorrect in saying that the payments required annual appropriation. “The cost sharing reduction payments are being made as part of a mandatory payment program that Congress has fully appropriated,” the brief read.
But this argument is undercut by the administration’s own previous budget request.
For fiscal year 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the division of Health and Human Services that implements the program), asked Congress for an annual appropriation of $4 billion to finance the cost-sharing payments that year and another $1.4 billion “advance appropriation” for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, “to permit CMS to reimburse issuers …”
In making the request, CMS was in effect acknowledging that it needed congressional appropriations to make the payments. But when Congress rejected the request, the administration went ahead and made the payments anyway.
The argument that annual appropriations are required to make payments is also backed up by a report from the Congressional Research Service, which has differentiated between the tax credit subsidies that Obamacare provides to individuals to help them purchase insurance, and the cost-sharing payments to insurers.
In a July 2013 letter to then Sen. Tom Coburn, Congressional Research Service wrote that, “unlike the refundable tax credits, these [cost-sharing] payments to the health plans do not appear to be funded through a permanent appropriation. Instead, it appears from the President’s FY2014 budget that funds for these payments are intended to be made available through annual appropriations.”
Ryan’s letter to Lew and the Treasury Department’s response can be read below:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/treasury-wont-explain-decision-to-make-3-billion-in-obamacare-payments/article/2560739
Hi Ayock- nope, it was strictly satire not intended to promote any kind of interaction. Yes I enjoy satire, especially political satire as there is more fodder there than anywhere else. You gotta have humor in life.
........al
I have to share this one
Burglar Stabs NJ Homeowner With Screwdriver: Police
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Burglar-Stabs-New-Jersey-Homeowner-Screwdriver-294766031.html
This is my wife's brother. Short video at the link.
Her comment- "Don't piss off Gerry"
.........al
Now as for your disappointment with Obama join the club
Admissions like that will certainly go a long way towards civility and mutual understanding and learning. You may not want it but I give you much credit for that statement.
.........al
I can only guess but you took that class also. Wasn't it given at the university of my ideologies are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong?
semantics 101 for the uninformed
I distrust it because Obama is pushing it.
is the same as
I am not for it because Obama is for it.
Thanks to prof soxfan for the lesson
Hello Ayock- Scott Walker is scary. I kinda put him in the same category as Sarah Palin- not someone you want with their trigger finger on the nuke button.
And did you know that we as in the USA were selling oil to Nazi Germany almost during the whole war? IG Farben was probably the first real multi national corporation, based in Frankfurt Germany. It was procuring oil for the German war machine through a maze of subsidiaries based all over the globe. After the fall of Nazi Germany it took the allies over 2 years to dismantle IG Farben as the tentacles went everywhere including right here. Just an interesting historic factoid, not something you read in your every day history book.
basserdan- than brought a lot of moisture to my eyes. Been there done that too many times. Thanks(in a good way) for sharing.
.......al
I thought "distrust" was kind of a key word in the sentence. Turns out that from more I have read and some good info provided by arizona1 the new regs might even be good for us. There are rumors floating around that the gov't will use these new regs to censor the internet. I take them with a grain of salt but will be vigilant. It doesn't mean my trust in Obama has been restored
..........al
Soxfan- perhaps to clear it up a bit for you
This is the quote from my post-
I distrust it because Obama is pushing it. The past 6 years have told me that if the liar in chief(remember Obamacare) is for it it can't be good.
It is still my unwavering opinion. People lie all the time, not everyone of course, but more than a few. I just really find it hard to forgive the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, the most powerful leader in the world, for telling bold faced lies to we the people. You speak of respect. I find it hard to believe you still trust and respect Obama after that. You must be a real hard core democrat. You are free to disagree of course.
Somehow you have taken this to-
You actually state you are not for something because Obama is for it.
If I have made that statement I can't recall it nor find it. Perhaps you can find it for me.
I'd like to see Sen Elizabeth Warren make a run for the WH - not in 2016, but her day will come.
Hi Peg, I've become a big fan of her myself. I think she is probably the only one in DC that really is for we the people. I hope she continues on her current path and not bow to the pressures of politics.
........al
Hello nlightn- I have to agree with your assessment on the tea party. It may have started out with the best intentions but has morphed into something else. I am given to understand that many that started out being tea baggers have left the group because of what it has become. I have wondered what if the tea party broke from the repubs to form a 3rd political party. Would it be so bad? Many questions no answers. Many parliamentary forms of gov't function with more than 2 parties and they seem to function reasonably well. Coalitions form to get things done. What we now have in DC is 2 parties neither of which is willing to compromise on their respective positions and neither has enough power to overwhelm the other. Perhaps that is a good thing. We all know about absolute power corrupting.
.........al
Oh if you understood the separation of powers within the Constitution you would understand that it is the executive branch the implements the law so what he is doing is perfectly constitutional.
So what should be done when he ignores the laws?
I understand full well separation of powers. The three branches are co equal. When one branch goes rogue the others should be able to counter it in some way. The house of representatives must think the executive has gone rogue with his pen and phone so they cut the funding for it. He can find a way to deal with our representatives or he can take his ball and bat and go home and not fund DHS and let we the people decide who to support. That's what elections do and have done. Hence the current issue.
the repeal of the glass steagall played a big part
The revolving door between regulator and industry also. That should be real easy to fix in a bipartisan way but no one wants to do anything about it.
Eric Holder- "to big to jail". I'll bet Elizabeth Warren would find a way to deal with the problem of to big to fail or jail. She has not only been sidelined by the repubs, her own party has been against her.
Nope, not familiar with him. IMHO Rand Paul would have a much better chance than Ted Cruz. But neither would beat Hillary. I've called every presidential election correctly(that's prior to the election not after, LOL) since Carter beat Ford. I didn't necessarily vote for the victor. I can't see anyone in the repub party currently showing any interest that will beat Hillary in 2016.
Maybe he was referring to the Dems as well as repubs
The House as it stands cannot govern effectively as they have a bunch of tea party loons running it.
Maybe so, but these are the people we elected to represent us. They are doing what the people elected them to do, otherwise their opponents would be there. The tea party loons are representative of people that have become disgusted with business as usual in DC. I don't think anyone can argue that business as usual was not working well for we the people. It was and is an outlet for frustration. Also it seems to me the repubs are having a harder time dealing with the tea party than the dems.
"it's like living in a world of crazy people". You know, that's what a lot of people say about dems also. It all depends on one's ideology.
Hi arizona- I have no doubt big business is out for themselves at our expense. I liked what I saw there too.
We have immigration laws on the books. They are not being enforced by the executive branch as per the constitution. Reforms may be necessary but it will take negotiations between differing ideologies, not my way or the highway.
As I have asked another poster- what happens when a conservative repub gets into 1600 Penn Ave and starts using his pen and phone to nullify what he(she) doesn't like? Will you be so willing to defend that abuse of authority then?
If you understand how laws are actually made and understand the differences in the house and the senate you would realize who is unwilling to deal and who is not.
Deals are done all the time in DC. Riders are attached to bills all the time even when they have nothing to do with the main piece of legislation. I'm seeing party politics at work here. Pass the house bill and let Obama veto it. Let him explain to the American people why his immigration dictates are more important than funding the DHS.
Then pass it and let him veto it. Senate dems are taking from Reid's playbook to shelter Obama from making the hard choices. That's politics. But nothing says the repubs have to play along. That's politics too.
Didn't the house repubs call for a conference committee to iron out the differences and the dems in the house rejected it?
So he didn't lie? What would you call it? "you can keep your doctor PERIOD" "You can keep your current insurance PERIOD". People lie all the time as we both know. But when it comes from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I'd think it was far more serious. Just like Bush2 and WMD. No credibility there either.
Ayock- did you read this? We're all still learning the details.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=111279824
You're right . I should just consider the source and ignore him(her). When one resorts to name calling they have already lost credibility and the argument.
In the celebrated "GOOD OL DAYS" - politicians of all stripes were dealmakers
From what I've been reading the senate dems are not willing to make any kind of deal. So stubbornness is rife on both sides of the aisle. The house holds the purse strings and are our direct representatives like it or not. They passed the funding bill and senate dems are holding it hostage because they don't like it. Seems pretty simple.
Take the chill pill. Your BP must be sky rocketing.