Saturday, December 13, 2014

Sen. Ted Cruz had best year of any Republican in 2013, behind only the Pope and Obama as 'most influential person in the world,' per Rasmussen poll. Among Republicans Cruz was 2nd most influential person in world, Dec. 11-12, 2013 survey


12/15/2013, "Poll: Ted Cruz 3rd 'most influential' world leader, behind pope, Obama," Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard

"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has had the best year of any Republican and virtually anyone in the world, ranking third in Rasmussen Report’s new poll of the of the most influential” people in the world, behind Pope Francis and President Obama.

In the new poll, Cruz, who made headlines for trying to dismantle Obamacare, was the pick for the most influential of 11 percent. The pope was tops at 23 percent, Obama second at 21 percent.

Among Republicans, Cruz was second behind the pope, with 19 percent calling the freshman senator and Tea Party leader the world’s most influential leader. Just 9 percent of Republicans said the same thing of Obama.

Two other Republicans on Rasmussen’s list, House Speaker John Boehner and newly reelected New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, tied at 3 percent.

Rasmussen: Whom do you consider the most influential person in 2013?

23% Pope Francis
21% Barack Obama
11% Ted Cruz
8% Edward Snowden
4% Vladimir Putin
3% John Boehner
3% Chris Christie
2% Miley Cyrus
2% Kate Middleton
1% Angela Merkel
1% Malala Yousafzai
1% Kathleen Sebelius
0% Bashar Assad
0% Kanye West
0% Lebron James
0% George Zimmerman
12% Some other person
9% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."

=====================

Poll conducted Dec. 11-12, 2013:

12/15/13, "23% Name Pope Francis Most Influential, 21% Say Obama," RasmussenReports.com

"Time magazine named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year” last week, and nearly one-in-four Americans agrees with that pick.

Rasmussen Reports gave Americans a similar list of influential people worldwide, and 23% said Pope Francis was the most influential person in 2013. But the new national telephone survey finds that nearly as many (21%) felt President Obama was the most influential. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Eleven percent (11%) named Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who is one of the most prominent politicians aligned with the Tea Party movement. National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is seen as the most influential by eight percent (8%)....

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on December 11-12, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.... 

While 24% of Republicans say the Pope had the most influence, 19% believe that of Cruz....

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Likely Republican Voters have a favorable opinion of Cruz, including 30% who view the senator Very Favorably.  Among all voters, 31% view Cruz favorably, while 40% share an unfavorable opinion of him."...

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only."


======================================
===============================

Added: The GOP House has been able to defund ObamaCare since Jan. 2011, but Boehner has never allowed a standalone up or down vote to defund ObamaCare to come to the floor. Via its Constitutionally provided Power of the Purse the House can unilaterally defund any government spending without approval of Senate or White House. The GOP E has sought to nullify the power's existence, to persuade the public and its own members that the Senate and White House have to approve House funding decisions. Recently they've claimed this is the reason they can't defund Obama's executive amnesty:

11/24/14, "It’s Time To Exercise the Legislative “Veto”," David Corbin and Matt Parks, The Federalist 

"In our day of pseudo-law executive orders and claims of prosecutorial discretion, pseudo-treaty executive agreements, and a dormant Congressional power to declare war, presidents have seized the initiative in almost every area of policy-making. As a result, Congress must consciously and publicly reconceive its appropriation (and correlative defunding) power as not only policy-making, but policy-stopping.

To inactivate or deactivate programs and agencies with the power of the purse is legislative activity fully within its Constitutional authority. .

In quiet ways, of course, this is already done. As The Federalist’s Sean Davis writes:

Congress adds riders and prohibitions to appropriations bills all the time. Why? Because it can [“Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution”]:

‘No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law[.]‘

And from that power of the purse come the most powerful words in federal law: .

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for ______.”.

What has yet to happen, however, is for Congress to make the political case, in any kind of systematic or persuasive way, that defunding parts of the federal bureaucracy is not a precursor to a Congress-initiated government shutdown and default, the two horsemen of the Progressive fiscal apocalypse (see Prof. Epps), but a defensive mechanism needed to protect Congress from the “depredations” of the president.  .

Congressional Republicans, in other words, would improve their ability to respond to the president’s assaults if they spent more time talking about the need for a Constitutional course correction and less time making idle and often insincere threats
When the crisis point in the game of chicken comes, it is too late for a previously chest-thumping Congress, with all the rhetorical disadvantages of diffuse leadership and political division (not to mention a hostile press), to win the sympathy of the general public.

Unfortunately, the lesson Republicans have learned from their previous encounters with President Obama is that a “shutdown” must be avoided at all costs. But if not satisfying the president’s fiscal demands is tantamount to causing a shutdown, we’re back where we started on the immigration question: heads the president win; tails Republicans lose.
Madison wrote in Federalist 48: “It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” This is the state of affairs that President Obama has furthered and taken advantage of in his personal appropriation of legislative power on a host of issues. The One Hundred Fourteenth United States Congress would go down as the one of the finest and most dutifully active and vigilant if it were to employ its power of the purse to ensure that constitutional government of, by, and for the American people did not perish on its watch."
..  .
"David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and Matthew Parks an Assistant Professor of Politics at The King’s College, New York City." via Levin twitter

=====================

11/21/14, "Will Boehner's House Unilaterally Nullify Its Power of the Purse?" CNS News, Terence P. Jeffrey

"The Constitution is unambiguous about which branch of the federal government has the authority to make laws governing immigration and control all money spent from the Treasury. It is Congress.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

For President Obama to succeed in carrying out his plan to unilaterally change the status of illegal immigrants, two things must happen:

1) He must usurp the constitutional authority of Congress to make immigration laws, and

2) Congress must decline to use its constitutional power of the purse to stop him.

Now a third thing could happen: The Republican-controlled House, led by Speaker John Boehner, may not only decline to use its power of the purse to stop Obama from usurping authority over immigration laws, it may also try persuade the nation it does not actually have that power when it comes to immigration laws.

On Thursday, a New York Times blog published a statement from the House Appropriations Committee that suggested Congress had no control over the funding of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and that therefore the agency could "expand operations as under a new executive order" no matter what Congress said in a continuing resolution to fund the government.

I contacted the committee via email to confirm the statement published by the Times and to ask if the committee believes that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution applies to CIS.

The committee sent me verbatim exactly the same statement that had been published by the Times. It said:

"The primary agency for implementing the president's new immigration executive order is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on various immigration applications. Congress does not appropriate funds for any of its operations, including the issuance of immigration status or work permits, with the exception of the 'E-Verify' program. Therefore, the appropriations process cannot be used to 'de-fund' the agency. The agency has the ability to continue to collect and use fees to continue current operations, and to expand operations as under a new Executive Order, without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown."

Responding on background, an Appropriations Committee aide said in an email: "You could 'defund' the CIS, but it would take an authorization/change to underlying statute that impacts their use of fees. This is an authorization issue, not an appropriations issue."

"Even if such an authorization change were to be attached to an omnibus bill via a rider, the president would veto the bill, and the government would shut down," said the aide. "At that point, the CIS would still not be defunded and would continue to operate, given that it is fee-funded."


I followed up by sending the staffer a passage from Justice Joseph Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States." Story was named to the court by President James Madison, a leading Framer of the Constitution.

"The object is apparent upon the slightest examination," Story wrote about the Article 1, Section 9 power of the purse. "It is to secure regularity, punctuality, and fidelity, in the disbursements of the public money. As all the taxes raised from the people, as well as the revenues arising from other sources, are to be applied to the discharge of the expenses, and debts, and other engagements of the government, it is highly proper, that congress should possess the power to decide, how and when any money should be applied for these purposes. If it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure."


I asked: "Is it not a different thing to say the president would veto it than to say the committee does not have the power to stop the expenditure of funds on this? Also, does the committee reject Joseph Story's interpretation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 when he said that it applied to "all the taxes raised from the people, as well as the revenues arising from other sources"? ... Does the committee believe that fees collected by a federal agency and then drawn from the Treasury and spent are not covered by its power under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7?"

Speaking again on background, the committee aide responded via email: "As per the underlying statute, CIS is funded outside of appropriations. The fees are collected and spent according to the underlying authorization (The Immigration and Nationality Act), and are not subject to the appropriations process. Congress can indeed change CIS's ability to collect and spend fees, but it would require a change in the authorization."


Three observations:

1) If Obama spends "fees" collected into the Treasury by CIS to implement unilateral executive actions he is not acting on the "underlying authorization," he is defying it.

2) It does not matter whether the government brings money into the Treasury through a tax, a fee or selling debt to the People's Republic of China, the Constitution says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

3) It appears that Republican congressional leaders do not want to take any effective action to protect either the constitutional authority of Congress to make the immigration laws or the power of the purse that protects Americans against a president spending money from the Treasury "at his pleasure.""


=======================

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Richmond, the economist who defeated Eric Cantor, supports power of the purse to defund Obama executive order:

"Brat acknowledged that the agency is self-funded through immigration application fees, but that the appropriations committee voted in August to determine how the agency spends those fees."...

11/21/14, "Brat: 'Not one thin dime' for Obama's immigration plan," Richmond Times-Dispatch, by Allison Brophy Champion Culpeper Star-Exponent

"The 7th District's newly elected Congressman vowed via Twitter Thursday night that he supports, "Not one thin dime," to fund the proposed actions outlined by President Barack Obama to deal with the broken immigration system.

"I support using the power of the purse to defund Obama's amnesty," tweeted Rep. Dave Brat, R-Richmond, the economist, replacing Eric Cantor, who recently took office in Washington....

Brat said he would not vote to fund a program "that subverts the law or encourages tens of thousands more people to risk their lives illegally crossing our border." He said the U.S. House should "use its power of the purse" to defund in the current budget bill "Obama's illegal executive action."

"We must fund the rest of government with a short-term bill while, in a separate bill, defund the appropriations for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services programs that the president intends to use to carry out this act," Brat said.


The newly elected 7th District representative called the presidential action an "attempt to give amnesty to five million illegal aliens," saying it was unfair to others "waiting in line to become citizens the right way." Brat said the president's actions would encourage more children to attempt to illegally enter the U.S.

"In addition, crony insiders will now get the amnesty they lobbied for to provide a cheap supply of labor while millions of Americans remain unemployed," he said.

A statement Thursday from the House Appropriations Committee indicated that Congress could not use the budget appropriations process to cut funding for the president's proposed actions through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Brat acknowledged that the agency is self-funded through immigration application fees, but that the appropriations committee voted in August to determine how the agency spends those fees.

The committee said in its statement Thursday that the immigration services agency could continue to collect its fees, operate and expand operations under the president's new executive order "without needing legislative approval by the Appropriations Committee or the Congress, even under a continuing resolution or a government shutdown.""...


=====================

Boehner's pathetic flak at top of powerful House Rules Committee denies members the opportunity to even vote on defunding measures, lies and tells them the Senate would have to approve defunding, scolds them, accuses them of flirting with government "shutdown:"

 12/10/14, "Mulvaney Amendment to Defund Immigration Orders Won’t Get Floor Vote," PJ Media,  Bridget Johnson

"The House Rules Committee heard several proposals from House conservatives seeking to defund the program, and allowed a few hours of debate. In the end, none of the efforts made it out of committee.

“We are, whether we like it or not, on a timetable,” chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) stressed, noting that anything “extraneous” in the spending bill would kick it back to the Senate as the 113th Congress closes in on its final days.
.. 
Sessions also noted “we should have learned our lesson” about flirting with a government shutdown for things that won’t pass the current Senate or the president’s desk."...

=======================

Comment: Many who get to the Beltway can't resist the glittering rewards of lying and selling out the people who elected them. In the private sector, this kind of fraud can have immediate negative  consequences. The public sector is different.

.


No comments: