The Weiner Component #156 – Fear & the Economic Situation

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Starting slowly, probably around the 1970s, the process of splitting real estate loans into a few parts began, and then, with the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1981, the concept took off on a refined bases, with each real estate mortgage being broken into innumerable parts and having each piece put into a different hedge fund and sold as a safe investment. It was considered safe because any single or few losses on any one of these hedge funds would be so small that it wouldn’t be noticeable and would not really affect the amount of the dividend.

 

Two things occurred from the 1980s on: one was the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency of the United States and the imposition of a total Free Market Economy and the other was an incessant need in the general society for a much greater cash flow.  We were in a period where there was not enough money available to serve the overall needs of the population.  More cash was needed for the economy to function.

 

The agency of Federal Government that was supposed to be keeping track of this problem and monetarily serving the needs of the nation was the Federal Reserve.  It’s Chairman from 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan, like the President believed in a totally Free Market that would automatically adjust itself.  Consequently he and the FED did nothing to alleviate the problem. 

 

This in turn left the need prevalent and either purposefully or inadvertently it was picked up by the banks which were also deregulated by the Reagan administration.  They, at first, gradually and then, with ever increasing speed, using real estate as their base, picked up the speed of creating new value or money throughout the society.  This was to continue through late 2008 when the banks had far     exceeded the amount of money needed for the society to properly function and the Great Real Estate Crash occurred.

 

What happened was that the banks, by their lending policies from the 1980s until late 2008, over 28 years, created trillions of dollars of additional value based upon the public housing industry within the United States.  In addition deregulation also allowed them to freely invest their deposits into the agencies or funds that directly serviced this expansion.

 

By 2007 most bankers were aware that property values had far exceeded a sane level and that a crash was probable.  But by 2007 most of the bankers had been making high commissions on the property market for most, if not all, of their banking careers; they were in denial that conditions could ever change. 

 

The Real Estate Market crashed or the Real Estate Bubble burst in late 2008 under President George W. Bush.  Virtually overnight the economy of the United States went into an instant depression.  There was suddenly mass unemployment, many people owed more on their homes than they were then worth.  Some people just walked away from their homes, others stayed, the hedge funds, which many or the deregulated banks had also invested in, collapsed from non-payment on mortgages.  Bush and his Treasury Secretary bailed out some of the banks; then his term ended and Barack Obama became the next President of the United States.

                        ********************************

Barack Obama would spend his eight years in office dealing with this mess.  For his first two years he had a Democratic Congress and their full support.  From 2011 on the House of Representatives gained a Republican majority and thereafter passed no legislation that dealt with the economic emergency.  In fact they passed economizing laws that actually increased the disaster.  President Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, using Creative Monetary Policy were able to change the depression into a recession.  The country is still dealing with this problem that the House of Representatives refused to deal with.

 

Conditions have improved.  Unemployment is now at about 5%, a long way from the initial 12½%  The Republicans still have done nothing to improve conditions, instead they have actually worsened them.  They are a great political party for complaining and blaming.  But what they are blaming President Obama for, is mainly for what they, themselves, have not done, passing fiscal laws creating jobs and upgrading the infrastructure.

                 *****************************

In 2008, the year of the Real Estate Crash, the Gross Domestic Product   was at 800 trillion dollars.  In 2009 it dropped to 700 trillion dollars.  By 2010 it was slightly above where it had been the year before.  By 2015 it was in the area of 17.95 trillion dollars.

 

Keep in mind that the GDP refers to the market value of all goods and services produced within the country during the fiscal year.  Interestingly the United States is now ranking first in the world’s GDP level.  That makes it, even now with 5% unemployment, the world’s richest nation.

 

If, as we’ve seen in the GDP, the overall wealth within the United States was continually increasing by 2010 above the 2008 Real Estate Crash level then why was the U.S. up to 12 ½% unemployment?  The answer, of course, comes into the area of spending priorities mostly by the United States Government and the overall population.

 

Congress, from 2011 on, with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, was on an economizing bilge. The country underwent and is continuing to undergo Sequestration, spending cuts across the board in virtually every area.  The President, on the other hand, particularly in 2009 and 2010 underwent expansive spending programs to avoid a depression greater than that of 1929.  Basically what started from 2011 on was a redistribution of income, with gradually more and more money going to the upper echelon of society and less and less being available for the middle and lower classes, these amounts increasing yearly.

 

In 2009 and 2010 the Obama Administration spent inordinate amounts of money extending unemployment benefits, saving the American banking and auto industries, among other things.  From 2011 on gradually most of these programs ended and government began a struggle between the House of Representatives and the President.  In 2013 we had both Sequestration and a shutdown of the Federal Government from October 1 through October 16, 2013, for 15 days.  The shutdown was over the issue of government funding for Planned Parenthood in the 2014 funding bill.  The Republican House of Representatives attempted to force its will upon the President and the Democratic led Senate.  The President and Democratic Senate would not cooperate with the Republican led House of Representatives.  In many cases Congress has refused, or through different Republican disagreements, has been unable to act.

 

The positive movement that had occurred in the economy, turning a potential Great Depression into a Great slow-moving Recession came about through Creative Monetary Policy, government spending policy, by the Federal Reserve with the compliance of the President.  In essence it’s been a battle between the President and the Republican House of Representatives, with the administration slowly winning since national unemployment is today in the area of 5%.

                  *****************************

The question that arises: if the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) today is greater than it was in the period prior to the 2008 Real Estate Crash then why is the middle class in the United States continually shrinking and why are more and more people continually having a harder and harder time economically surviving?  The answer to that questions is that the National Income is like a balloon filled with helium, slowly and continually rising and becoming part of the incomes of the top few percentile, the upper 5 or so percent of the population.

 

In essence the rich are getting richer and everyone else has less money.  It would seem that the society is geared so that the rich pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes than everyone else does.  For example: Donald J. Trump, who is running for the presidency in 2016 as the Republican candidate, has refused to show his tax returns for any prior year.  Trump claims to have over ten billion dollars.  The probability is that he is not showing his income taxes because he doesn’t pay any of these taxes.  Being in real estate he would have endless write-offs and building depreciations.

 

But it isn’t just people in real estate who have these tax advantages, it’s anyone who earns over $464,850.  The income tax system is graduated up to that point; that is the more one earns, the higher a percentage of his/her income he/she pays in taxes.  Anyone earning over $464,850 pays the same rate as those earning that amount.  A person earning a million dollars or 25 million a year pay the same percentage of the incomes as the person earning the above figure.

 

While the number of individuals is not large compared to the overall population of 350 million people, yet the taxation system is rigged in favor of the very rich.  The more they earn over $464,850 the smaller a percentage of their income do they pay in taxes.

 

This change or decrease in taxes was brought about during the last five years of the Obama administration.  The Republicans actually lowered taxes for the very rich.  The Democrats were forced to go along with this in order to pass other similar required legislation.

 

The Republican argument for this action is that the rich need more money because they are the ones who invest in new industry.  Without them there would be no growth in the economy.

 

This argument that has been endlessly repeated over the years sounds wonderful.  But it is a myth.  It has never happened.  The rich invest their surplus incomes in old established industries that pay a set reasonable income or they, like Mitt Romney, bank some of it overseas where somehow they pay no taxes on the interest received.

 

Taxes are geared so the less an individual earns the higher a percentage of his/her income is paid in taxes.

 

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.  Yet its unequal taxation system taxes the poor and middle class far more than the wealthy, they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.  It also has an underclass that is so poor they live in the streets and even though these people pay no income tax they also pay a higher percentage of their incomes in other taxes than the rich.  The national distribution of income is today a farce.  Someone like Warren Buffet has remarked that it’s a strange situation where he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.

                            ****************************

In 2016, the year of the next Presidential Election, this created a strange phenomenon within both political parties within the nation.  Currently there is a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress.  Very little if any needed legislation is being passed.  This situation has existed since 2011 when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.  In both major political parties there are large numbers of people who are totally frustrated with their Federal Government.  Many of whom are not overly well educated or generally too busy with their lives to follow what is actually happening in Washington D.C.  Their knowledge of the government is what they’re told by the news media, which can be tilted to the right or the left by which channel they are watching.  This doesn’t really answer their questions or needs. 

 

What exists today are large segments of the population which are looking for easy answers to what seems impossible questions or problems.  They want a simplistic solution which, in essence, is a return to a past which never existed.  They want a simplistic solution to their economic problems, to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States and allow people to earn more money so they will no longer be economically stressed out.  Whether this is real or not is beside the point; there is a strong desire among many for a simplistic change within the society.

 

For the Republicans the person who will do this is Donald J. Trump.  He claims that he will force the companies that have moved their manufacturing overseas or to Mexico to bring these jobs back to the U.S.  In addition he will get rid of all illegal foreigners in the U.S. and lessen competition so that there will be jobs available for everyone who wants to work.  He will also make the U.S. safer by not allowing alien radicals to migrate to the U.S. and keep Mexicans out of the country by building a wall between the United States and Mexico.  And so on.  He will bring us to a golden age that never existed in the U.S.

 

In essence Trump is feeding on all the basic prejudices and fears that seem to still exist in this country.  He is opposed to Mexicans, Hispanics, Muslims, Syrians, Blacks, Women having a right to deal with their own bodies, and the list goes on.  Trump has promised to take us all to-never-never land if he becomes president.  He seems to open up all the hidden prejudices in a large percentage of his followers.  He has also increased bullying among the children of his followers.

 

For the Democrats there is Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist.  Over a year ago he changed his party registration from an Independent Socialist who always caucused with the Democratic Party to a Democrat.  Sanders now calls himself a Democratic Socialist.  This has enabled him to run as a Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2016.

 

I strongly suspect that Bernie Sanders initially expected to run as a protest candidate with no chance of winning.  However he inadvertently tapped into the younger generation of voter; those who had been too young to vote in prior Presidential Elections.  To these people and the others who have joined them he offers a utopian future. Free education from pre-school through college and free medical coverage for everyone.  He supports abortion rights and a more liberal drug policy.  He believes in gun control, immigration reform, LGBT rights, expanding social security, and tax reform.  Among other things he has stated: “We need to get big money out of politics and restore our democracy,” and “Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity.”

 

He has also brought large numbers of Independents and some older Democrats to his cause.  His campaign took off like a rocket shooting upward and Bernie could almost taste victory.  But he never quite caught up with his competition, Hillary Clinton. 

 

He is promising a new society with benefits for everyone.  And all this will be paid for by the rich who have up to this point exploited their position in society.  The image is wonderful but the reality doesn’t exist.

 

I suspect that the majority of the population agrees with most of if not all of Senator Bernie Sander’s goals.  But they would have to be paid for if they were to be put into laws.  And his solution to this is rather naïve.  He says he would put a tax on Wall Street’s excess profits.  Traditionally in United States history, going as far back as the Revolutionary War from 1776 on the practice has been to make someone else pay for what you want.  The Southern planters owed millions to English merchants which they never paid after the Revolutionary War.  Afterwards Daniel Shay, a Revolutionary War veteran, led Shay’s Rebellion where the inland farmers refused to pay taxes that were brought into being by the Tidewater merchants in the coastal cities.  In recent years there was an attempt on the California side of Lake Tahoe to tax the Time Share facilities to pay for the public schools in the region; it failed.  It’s always nice to get someone else to pay for what is needed or wanted but generally it doesn’t work.

 

The term Wall Street is an abstraction; it has no specific meaning.  Are they talking about the banks or the large commercial corporations, or any company that sells stock?  An excess tax on the sale or purchase of stock or company profits would bring about economic disaster.  A tax on profits already exists, increasing it could destroy incentive.  Senator Bernie Sanders funding solution sounds just but it is nonsense.

 

Hillary Clinton is much more pragmatic.  The very existence of Senator Bernie Sanders has pushed her farther to the left in her own position.  She may be able to achieve many of Bernie’s goals which he should be able to get into the 2016 Democratic Platform. 

 

Sanders, on the other hand, as President would face endless frustration, even if he were to get Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, which is a low probability.  In all likelihood the House of Representatives will retain its Republican majority.  And even if Senator Bernie Sanders were to get an all Democratic Congress he would still have trouble both passing and funding his program.

                             ******************************

In the early 1800s England began the Industrial Revolution in the cotton industry.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which allowed the cotton plant to be quickly separated from it many seeds.  Machinery was developed for spinning the cotton plant into thread and machinery was also invented for weaving the thread into cotton cloth.  Overnight spinners and weavers became obsolete, their occupation ceased to exist.  Some became luddites, breaking into factories and destroying the new machines in an attempt to bring back the past when they had a functioning occupation.

  

 Even if Trump, by some strange miracle, were to get elected the probability is that the results of the 2016 Presidential Election would leave a number of people totally dissatisfied  with the changes that don’t seem to be happening,  You can’t bring back the past, real or otherwise. 

 

Can conditions be improved?  Jobs are available in the United States.  The problem is that they require training and mobility.  It now requires a trained skilled employee for the jobs that pay a decent wage.  For those who refuse to undergo any training or move to where these jobs exist there are public sector occupations that do not pay much but that take almost no skills to do.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

English: Seal of the President of the United States Español: Escudo del Presidente de los Estados Unidos Македонски: Печат на Претседателот на Соединетите Американски Држави. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

.

The Weiner Component #145 – The 2016 1.145 Trillion Dollar Funding Bill & the Republican Party

Official portrait of United States House Speak...

Official portrait of United States House Speaker (R-Ohio). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In October of 2015, John Boehner, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives resigned from the House, effective the end of November.  His problem was getting what he considered necessary legislation through the House of Representatives without a government shutdown.  His immediate problem was extending the debt limit, which was then over 18 trillion dollars.  Not extending it would shut down the Federal Government as it would stop all government expenditures beyond a certain point that had almost been reached.

 

The extreme right of the Republican Party wanted to defund Planned Parenthood in return for extending the Debt Limit.  President Barack Obama had stated that if this measure were tied to the bill he would veto it.  By resigning, effective a month later, Boehner removed the House of Representatives from formulating the necessary bill.  The Republican majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, proposed a short term bill extending the Debt Limit until early December which the Senate and later the House passed.  The President commented that he would not again sign a short term bill.  The final version of the bill was passed early in December raising the Debt Limit for a period of two years.

 

The next major initial problem of the House of Representatives was finding a new Speaker.  Kevin McCarthy, the House Whip, was in line for a short period of time but he didn’t have the votes.  Eventually Paul Ryan, after initially refusing, ended up being the individual who could muster enough votes to be made the new Speaker.  He accepted after setting special conditions.

 

The next important bill was one to fund the Federal Government.  It had to be passed by December 11, 2015 if the government were not to be shut down for not legally having funds to keep operating.

**********************************

Generally, every year Congress has to pass a Bill in order to fund the U.S. Government for the oncoming year or it cannot legally pay its bills.  This Bill has to originate in the House of Representatives which, according to the Constitution, initially begins all money bills.  All that is needed is a one sentence law stating that the Federal Government shall be funded for one or more years.  Since 2011, when the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, they have used that Bill as leverage or blackmail to obtain other things that they had wanted by adding endless amendments to the Bill, many at the very last moment.

 

For example on Thursday, 12/11/14, the House of Representatives passed, what was essentially but not really a 1,603 page bipartisan 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill that will allowed the Federal Government to continue to function until September 30, 2015, the end of the fiscal year.  The bill adhered to strict caps negotiated earlier between the White House and the deficit-conscious Republicans.  It is also salted through with GOP proposals which were actually Christmas giveaways to individuals and companies and have nothing to do with the spending budget.  The bill should have been passed months earlier but it was convenient for the GOP to keep it hanging as a potential form of blackmail against President Barack Obama until the last possible moment when it had to be passed or its absence would cause a government shutdown.

****************************

When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California he had a line-item veto over all bills passed by the State Legislature.  He could veto any section or group of sections that he thought was or were inappropriate and sign the document for the rest of the bill to become law.  But as President of the United States he could either sign a bill, veto it, or do nothing for ten days and allow it to become law.  Reagan was not too happy with this limitation but he had to accept it.  It would require an amendment to the Constitution to change this practice.

 

Not only does every bill have to be passed by both the House and Senate but both versions have to be identical.  If a word or punctuation is different, then the two versions are not the same.  Actually what happens is that the bill goes to a Committee of Congressmen dealing with that particular subject, they discuss the bill, usually modify it, and then send it to the legislative house to which they belong with their recommendations.  If it is passed then that version goes to the other legislative body, where it follows the same procedure.  In practically all cases the two versions are at least slightly different.  At that point the bill goes to a Conference Committee made up of members of the two Houses, where a final version is then hammered out.  This goes back to both Houses of Congress and it then has to be voted upon and repassed by the two Houses.  If the bill passes it then goes to the President.  After he signs it the bill becomes law.  This process generally takes at least a number of days.

 

The 1.1 Trillion Dollar Spending Bill was passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday, December 11, 2014.  The Congress was slated to end its session on Friday, December 12th.  This meant that the bill had to be accepted exactly as it was if the government was not to shut down the following week when it ran out of money.  In fact a short a short extension was also passed in case a few more days were needed to pass the bill.

 

Keep in mind that according to the Constitution only the House of Representatives can initiate a money bill since initially they were the only group directly elected by the People, the Senate was originally elected by the State Legislatures. The Founders felt that taxes should be authorized by the direct Representatives of the People so that the People are, in a sense, taxing themselves.

 

Also note that there are no rules about what a bill is supposed to contain.  It can deal with one subject or any number of subjects.  This finance bill dealt with innumerable subjects, most of which had nothing to do with financing the government.

 

Because of the catastrophe caused by a government shutdown President Obama urged the Democratic controlled Senate to pass the bill even though it had numerous amendments that were harmful to individuals or groups within the country.

 

One of these amendments cancelled parts of the Dodd- Frank Act that had been passed in 2010 as a reform measure after the 2008 Bank-caused Real Estate Collapse, to avoid such occurrences in the future and to keep banks from exploiting their depositors and the taxpayers.  Presumably the lobbyists for Citibank wrote the measure and it was secretly inserted the night before the bill came up for a vote in the House of Representatives.  The insertion rolls back regulations that limit banks from using federal deposit insurance to cover high-risk financial investments.  There had been no notice given or debate on this Amendment.  Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House strongly opposed this insertion as did Senator Elizabeth Warren who called upon the Democratic majority in the Senate to oppose the entire bill if this Amendment was left in.

 

Another interesting Amendment was trading land with an Indian tribe.  A sacred mountain containing a burial ground was to be traded for another piece of land.  The sacred mountain was wanted by a company for a copper mine.

 

Another last minute Amendment dealt with campaign finance, it was extended for individuals. It went from contributions of $32,400 to $324,000.  Republicans got a 60 million dollar cut at the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) reducing their workforce to the level they had been at in 1989.

 

Not all Republicans in the House supported the bill. Many of the Tea Party members wanted to defund President Obama’s immigration executive order.  This issue was left out of the House bill.

 

In both the House and Senate the bill required the votes of both Democrats and Republicans to pass.  In the House 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats voted for the bill.  139 Democrats and 67 Republicans were against the spending bill.  In the Senate there were 31 Democrats, 24 Republicans, and 1 Independent who voted for the bill and 21 Democrats, 18 Republicans, and 1 Independent who were against it.  In both Houses of Congress it required the votes of both major political parties in order to pass.

 

Interestingly the far right and the far left both opposed this bill, both for different reasons.  On the far right, Ted Cruz wanted a section added that would limit or eradicate President Obama’s executive order dealing with illegal immigrants whose children had been born in the United States.  And on the far left, the Congressmen wanted to remove many of the giveaways that had nothing to do with the spending bill.

 

Cruz, in a procedural vote extended the Senatorial Session into the weekend.  He did not get his Amendment to the bill passed.  Harry Reed, the majority leader in the Senate, used the additional time to get a large number of Obama appointees approved beginning with the Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, who had been opposed by the NRA because he had suggested earlier that guns were a disease since they killed a large number of people.  By the end of the session, Tuesday, December 15th, the Senate had approved a total of 69 controversial presidential appointments.

 

The Senate passed the Spending Bill on Saturday and President Obama quietly signed it on Tuesday.  Congress adjourned around midnight of Tuesday, December 16th and the new Congress, which would have Republican majorities in both Houses, met in January of the next year, after the holidays.

 

It is interesting to note that all that is required for the government to keep functioning is a one sentence bill that states that the Federal Government shall be properly funded for the fiscal year.  The 1,603 page bill detailing all the expenditures over the fiscal year was ridiculous.  In this bill every item that was to be funded had to be mentioned in detail.  For example: Vice President, Joe Biden’s and other top officials in the government’s salaries were frozen.  There was no automatic raise for them that was put into law several years earlier but the members of Congress  got their cost of living raise, raising their pay to over $140,000 each.

 

What happened originally was that several years earlier Congress had voted itself a raise.  The press got hold of the news and published it.  People were indignant over Congress giving itself an increase in salary when everyone else was hurting financially.  There was a protest and the increase was rescinded.  Thereafter Congress quietly passed a law making pay increases for Congress and government officials automatic.  From then on there was no protest or even public knowledge that this was occurring.  In 2014 Congress has voted through its 1,603 page bill not to freeze its own salary but to do so to the Vice President and other high government officials in the Administration.  How petty could they get?

**************************************

In December of 2015 the Federal Government funding situation was far different from what it had been a year earlier.  For one thing there was a major Presidential Election coming up in a little less than a year.  A government shutdown at this point could have dire consequences for the Republicans in the election if they were blamed for it.  Also the people had had enough of the shenanigans that the Republican House of Representatives had pulled since 2011 when they took control of the House of Representatives.  The President and the Democrats in both Houses of Congress were not about to go along with what the Republicans had pulled the preceding year. And they would need Congressional Democratic votes to pass any spending bill in both Houses of Congress.

 

The 2015 omnibus bill, 2,200 pages long, incorporated legislation from twelve subcommittees and was the work of nearly a year.  There had been months of negotiations between the two major parties.  The bill passed in the House with 316 positive votes to 113 negative ones.  150 Republicans supported the measure and 95 opposed it.  50 members did not vote.  Among the Democrats, 166 voted for the legislation, 18 voted against it.

 

On both extremes there were Congressmen who thought the bill did not go far enough or that it went too far in the wrong direction.  Many conservatives felt it overspent, didn’t go far enough blocking abortions and Syrian refugees from coming to the U.S.  Liberals felt that the bill did nothing to address the debt crisis in Puerto Rico, did not positively enough effect environmental concerns, and that it lifted a 40 year ban on exporting domestic oil export.

 

The bill funds the United States Government through September of 2016, nine months.  The probability is that another bill will be easily passed at that time to fund the government at least until the end of 2016.  The country will be too close to the 2016 Presidential Election for any games to be tried at that time.

 

But if a Democrat wins the 2016 Presidential Election and the Republicans retain control of the House of Representatives, the December 2016 Government Financing Bill should prove very interesting.  Who the next President will be will not be known until the November 2016 Presidential Election is over.

*******************************

This omnibus bill will be noted for what it left out, rather than for what it included.  There is no mention of Planned Parenthood or of the Syrian refugee crisis; nor of numerous other things that were important to both political parties.  Speaker Ryan promised the Democrats that the House would deal with the Puerto Rico Debt Crisis in March; that brought a number of Democrats into line to support the bill.  Ryan also spread-out the decision making process so that many members of Congress felt that they owned parts of the bill.

********************************

Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, was asked why the Democrats hadn’t pushed harder.  Her answer was, “I don’t think they would have passed it.”  The implications are that both the Democrats and the Republicans had each gone as far as they could in working out this compromise piece of legislation.  As a result of the negotiations neither side could claim victory or defeat.  Both had squeezed the other side as hard as they could.  President Obama praised the Republicans for doing what Congress has done so well in the past, compromising to the point of hammering out a bill both sides could live with.

 

The Democrats considered the permanent reauthorization of the 9/11 Health legislation a major win.  As a result of the 9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City a large number of the rescuers had breathed in toxic dust and, those who had not since died from resulting cancer and other maladies, still had expensive medical needs.  Reauthorizing this medical coverage would help a large number of people.  Lifting the 40 year ban on oil drilled in the U.S. being sold outside it continental borders was called by Ryan a big win.  Republicans also were able to block proposed bans on weapon purchases by people on federal terrorist lists and also federally funded research on gun violence.

 

Perhaps the most important thing that the bill did was to do away with the automatic Sequester cuts for 2015.  These cuts, which would have automatically gone into effect early in 2016, would have seriously hurt government efficiency for both defense and non-defense programs, across the board.  The military budget was actually increased above what it had been the prior year.  And this was also true for a number of other programs.  The White House was touting tax breaks for the wind and solar programs.  In all there were $680 billion in tax cuts for both businesses and individuals.  But sequestration is still there and will automatically come into being at the end of 2016 unless new legislation is passed then to stop or end it.

**********************************

Does this legislation denote a new feeling of friendliness between the two political parties?  I think not.  What it demonstrates is a wide division between both Democrats and Republicans.  It took nearly a year to come up with this 2,200 page detailed bill and make it acceptable to both political parties.  Neither party was strong enough to push any of this legislation through on its own; it required a joint effort to pass it.

 

If anything it denotes the great distance between our political parties.  Speaker Ryan has recently commented that the House will soon take up defunding Obamacare. That will mean that this bill will have been passed over 50 times without once being taken up in the Senate.  Considering that the House will officially only meet for 110 days in 2016 that is spending a lot of time upon a bill that will go nowhere.  Ryan stated that, outside of the increasing number of people signing up for the service, the bill is a failure.  Interestingly outside of his statement he offered no evidence other than his word.

****************************

The December 11th deadline for this bill to pass was extended one week to Friday, December 18.  Directly after the bill was passed in the House of Representatives it was sent to the Senate where it was passed.  From there it was sent to the President, who signed it with positive remarks for the compromise legislation.  Obviously the Government shutdown was avoided.

***************************

It should be noted that on Wednesday, December 6th the    House of Representatives, under Speaker Paul Ryan’s leadership, passed a bill for the 62d time defunding Obamacare and stripping Planned Parenthood of Federal Funding.  The bill was passed in the Senate last year through a special provision that avoided a filibuster in the Senate and was sent to the President for the first time.  On Friday, December 8, two days later, it was vetoed by the President, who stated that the Affordable Health Care Act had helped millions of Americans who couldn’t otherwise afford Health Care.  Republicans do not have the votes to override the veto.  Still they claimed victory, claiming that they had passed a repeal bill and that they are keeping a promise to voters in an election year.  They stated that they are capable of repealing the law if a Republican wins in the November election.  I wonder if that’s true if Donald Trump were to become the next president.

 

Of course they would still have to keep control of both Houses of Congress.  2016 promises to be a colorful year in Congress.  We may go beyond gridlock.  This should be particularly true with the House working a three day week and taking a four day weekend and all holidays.

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Weiner Component #140C – Congress & the National Debt

National-Debt-GDP

National-Debt-GDP (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The National or Public Debt is money that the United States has borrowed above what it collects in taxes and which, with taxes, it uses to operate the country.

 

The high current level of the National Debt was brought about by the three last Republican Presidents: Ronald Reagan and the two Bush presidents, father and son.  The majority of the balance came about by policies and wars by these three men.  Prior to Reagan assuming office the National Debt, which had existed since the inception of this nation, was under one trillion dollars.

 

Republican led economizing actions toward the Public or National Debt have been penny wise and dollar stupid; particularly since the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011.  Since this period their economizing policies have actually exacerbated both the unemployment situation and lowered the overall economic health of the United States, actually keeping the GDP (Gross National Product) considerably lower than it could or should have been.    Their tactics of forcing their agenda through by refusing to enact necessary legislation unless their economizing bills were also passed have cost the government millions, if not billions.  This is particularly true with bills funding the Federal Government or raising the nation’s debt limit that they mostly caused to be as high as it is.  In fact we are just passed a point in time when the government once again needed to have the debt limit raised above the 18.1 trillion limit or cause financial crises by not allowing the Treasury to have enough funds to pay the continuing costs of running the Federal Government.

 

Fortunately this was one of the final acts of the retiring Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner.  He, with the majority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, and with President Obama worked out a compromise bill through a telephone conference.  They raised the National Debt so that it will not have to be adjusted for two years and also funded the military properly for the oncoming year.  This was done in both Houses of Congress with Democratic help.

 

The conservative Congress presumably wants to or was attempting to use this as a bargaining/blackmailing tool to force the President to cut discretionary spending, which already has been and will again be automatically cut by the sequester at the beginning of the New Year.

************************

The National Debt, all 18.1 trillion of it, consists of two categories, Public and Private Debt.  The Federal Government owns through its assorted agencies probably, at least, 50% of its own debt.  It could be a lot higher than that.

 

Question: Can an entity owe itself money?  Can any individual or entity owe itself money and legally charge itself interest on these funds?  Apparently only the Federal Government can and does do this.

 

But is it real?  Since money has no intrinsic value the Federal Government could print any amount it wishes.  There is absolutely nothing behind the dollar but the word of the National Government.  There are, of course, reasons why it doesn’t but the Federal Reserve can and does occasionally increase the amount of money in circulation in the National Cash Flow.

 

Of course if any agency like Social Security, which has been showing a profit since 1983 when it was last adjusted and is currently owed about three trillion dollars, were to need any of its additional funds or some of the monies owed to it, that would create problems since the monies has been and are continuing to be spent, both the principle and the interest, and Social Security is given book credit for all these amounts.

 

This process is also true for a large number of government funds that run a surplus; the excess money is freely added to the general fund.  The major exception to this practice would be the Federal Reserve which will and has used debt funds to make adjustments in the National Cash Flow, adding money when there is a shortage during periods of deflation or recession and taking funds out of the National Cash Flow during periods of increasing inflation when there is too much money available in the flow.

 

The rest of the Public or National Debt is private, borrowed on a short or long term basis, from individuals, countries, and other entities.  The major foreign holder of American debt is China, (whether its individuals, companies, or the government itself is another question), holding about 3 trillion dollars’ worth of this loan paper.  Japan is next holding a little less.  The third, I believe, is India.  Companies and individuals hold this mortgage paper.  The FED has sales of it going on all the time, selling short to long term bonds.

 

In addition people buy EE bonds as gifts and as a form of savings.  These bonds function over a 5 year period and their cost is less than the face value of the bond which is the value after 5 years.  They make nice gift for youngsters in that they cost less than their face value and if they are held over 5 years pay additional interest.  I bonds tend to cost more and generally pay a higher rate of interest.  Here the interest is added on to the bond.  There are no state or local taxes on these bonds.

 

How real is the Public or National Debt if the Federal Government owns a large percentage of its own debt?  An interesting question and different economists have different conclusions or interpretations of this fact.

************************

Alan Greenspan, a conservative economist, was appointed Federal Reserve Chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987 and served until January of 2006.  He held that the Free Market was essential in making economic decisions.  Reagan and his advisors followed the same principle.  They deregulated the banking industry and allowed them to move freely forward.

 

Greenspan served for almost 20 years as Chairman, the second longest tenure of any chairman in the FED and was looked upon by many members of Congress almost as a seer who could foretell the economic future.  Unfortunately Greenspan, even with all the information provided by the Federal Reserve’s constant monitoring of the economy missed the major change that occurred during his term as Chairman.  That was the need for rapid monetary expansion by a rapidly growing economy.  Instead of the FED increasing the money supply in a sane fashion it was left to the unregulated banks to expand the amount of currency in circulation.  This was done slowly at first and then gathered speed like a free moving vehicle rushing downhill.  By 2007 the signs of eminent economic collapse were present.  But they were faced with denial by a generation of bankers who had known only rising real estate values.  The Real Estate Crash came in late 2008 when the entire real estate market disintegrated overnight.  So much for economic awareness by the experts!

*****************************

First, what is the real National Debt?  Is it just the Private Debt or is it both, the Public and the Private Debt?  The American dollar today is still considered one of the most prized currencies in the world.  The FED has never had any trouble selling its bonds both domestically and to foreign investors.   Most other nations rank their currencies to the value of the dollar.  Some economic theories or beliefs seem to occasionally be in a process of change.  Finally the United States does not seem to be even near the point of going bankrupt.

 

We are moving into economic areas where it would seem new laws of economics seem to be about to be discovered.  Money, in terms of Macroeconomics, is related to the system of taxation but not dependent upon it.  Money, to the state, is a tool utilized to enhance productivity and the levels of national consumption and standards of living for the entire population.

 

The determining factor of how much money should be in circulation is or should be determined by the level of inflation or deflation that exists in the nation.  A high rate of inflation determines that not enough goods and services are being produced. People are bidding up the price of everything.  A rapid drop in prices indicates that too much goods and services are available and there is not enough cash in the general society to purchase them.  One of the main jobs of the Federal Reserve is to maintain a balance between these two forces. For this process the 12 Federal Reserve Banks are supposed to constantly monitor their areas of responsibility.

 

This was not done properly by the FED from the 1970s through 2008 and the Real Estate Collapse was brought about by the deregulated irresponsible banking industry that created excess trillions of dollars that were added to the National Cash Flow.  If the increased cash needed for the economic growth for this period had gradually been added to the national economy by the Federal Reserve there would never have been the 2008 Real Estate Disaster.  The FED, under Alan Greenspan, allowed the Free Market or unregulated Capitalism to bring about economic disaster.

****************************

Many economists believe that as long as the Public Debt does not exceed the Gross National Product (GDP), which is all the goods and services produced in the nation in one fiscal year, the country is safe.  The GDP is estimated to be 17,419 trillion dollars for 2015, the Debt Limit has to be raised beyond 18.1 trillion dollars.  The estimated growth in the GDP between 2014 and 2015 is estimated to be 651 billion dollars.

 

There have been times in the past, usually during major wars or economic emergencies like the Great Depression, when government spending has exceeded the value of the GDP.   These have lasted for short periods of time.  Once it regularly exceeds that level there is, according to some economists, a serious problem.

 

Also as we move toward the middle of the current century the retired population and those needing more continual medical treatment will increase significantly raising the costs of Social Security and Medicare.  Both of these programs will take a larger and larger percentage of discretionary spending continually bringing up the Federal Government’s costs.  Presumably the costs will increase far above the GDP.  At this point, according to some economists, the ever growing National Debt could cause continual economic harm to the country.

***************************

If we accept this premise as accurate there are certain known variables that have not been factored into this premise.  There may also be other unknown variables that could come up.

 

The first major factor to consider is time.  Most of these future projections are based upon the present; that is, given a future of a decade or two or more, if everything remains exactly the same except for what is being discussed, then the projection will happen.  Generally no one can accurately project all the changes that will come about ten or more years from now.  On that basis any prediction is flawed.

 

Think of your own lives.  What was your world like ten or more years ago?  Could you even imagine being where you are now?  Could you imagine the world as it is now?  I recently found myself standing in a supermarket checkout line looking at a display of chocolate bars.  They were on sale, 4 for five dollars.  For no reason I said aloud, “What happened to the 5 cent bars of chocolate?”  The person in front of me, who was being checked out, start to muse aloud about how, as a child, how much candy he could buy then for a quarter.  He was in his mid-fifties.  Values or prices have changed considerably since then.  Money has decreased in value.  That is one variable that no one really projected.

 

Social Security was last fixed or its premiums were raised in 1983 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  It has had since then and currently still has a surplus.  Presumably sometime well past the middle of this century it will begin using this surplus and toward the end of this century will have used it out and have to be readjusted, if this is not done earlier.  Medicare was separated from social security in the late 1980s.  From that time on it was funded by an additional payroll tax paid by, like social security, both by employees and employers.  Both or either of these funds can be again increased or fixed.

 

What many economists are projecting into the future is what will happen if the present becomes the future.  Essentially with no other changes in the future except the increase in the elderly population they are predicting what will happen.  They are not taking any other variabilities into consideration.  The probability of the projection coming true as stated is very low, probably well under 25%.

 

In the last few years the amount of money, as a percentage of taxes collected, has been significantly decreasing but so has the cost of running the Federal Government.  We could possibly in Barak Obama’s last year as president actually have a slight surplus decreasing the National or Public Debt.  This did occur during Clinton’s last year as President.

*******************************

Will the Federal Government raise the National Debt further toward the end of this century?  We still haven’t defined what is the real National Debt or, for that matter, the reality of the National Debt as a factor in the operation of this nation in terms of Macroeconomics.  We are moving forward in time with assorted future projections by assorted economists, some of these forecasts contradicting other forecasts.

 

Has Congress even begun to study this problem?  Most of what I have heard from Republican Congressmen has been doom and gloom, the country is headed for bankruptcy unless we cut down Federal spending.  Yet the Republican headed Congress can spend well over 4 and 1/2 million dollars holding numerous standing committee hearings trying to tear down or blame Hillary Rodham Clinton for what happened in Benghazi, Libya while Clinton was Secretary of State.  And this same Republican Congress earlier wasted over a billion dollars shutting down the Federal Government by refusing to fund it.  Some of the potential Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential Elections seem to want to massively expand the war against ISIS.  They seem to have a problem dealing with the real world!

English: The holders of the United States nati...

English: The holders of the United States national debt as of December 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Weiner Component #139A – The Republicans & Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood volunteers help bring the f...

Planned Parenthood volunteers help bring the fight for health insurance reform to the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879)

Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The big issue that was supposed to come up on Wednesday, September 30th 2015, in the House of Representatives was for the Republican majority to refuse to fund the Treasury of the United States if the Government Funding Bill did continue to fund Planned Parenthood.  President Obama categorically stated that he would veto any such bill that did not fund Planned Parenthood.  With Speaker Boehner’s oncoming retirement this did not happen.  A bill was passed in the Senate extending funding of the U.S. Government through December of 2015.  This bill was passed the next day in the House of Representatives.  President Oboma stated after signing the bill into law that in the future he would also veto any stopgap measures and that he wanted a reasonable spending bill going over at least two years.

 

The Republicans have given the impression that all this organization, Planned Parenthood, does is to perform abortions.  In fact watching on TV part of the Fourth Investigative Hearing by a Congressional Select Committee one got the impression that that is all many of the Republicans of the Standing Committee believe or understand and their major goal in life is to end the existence of this group.

****************************

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is usually referred to as simply Planned Parenthood.  It is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services mostly to women and children, and also to some males.  The organization is an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Organization and its largest member.  PPFA has its roots in Brooklyn, New York, where Margaret Sanger, her sister, and a friend opened the first birth control clinic in 1916 in the United States.  These women founded the American Birth Control League in 1921.  It changed its name to Planned Parenthood in 1942 and has since grown to about 85 independent affiliates and 820 clinics in the U.S.  Planned Parenthood provides services to well over three million people in the country per year and also support services to over one million people outside of the United States.

 

Its motto is “Care no matter what.”  Its budget in the fiscal year of 2008- 2009 was $1.04 billion; now it would be higher.  Since 1970 Planned Parenthood has received federal funding.   President Richard M. Nixon signed into law the Family Planning and Population Research Act, Title X that provided family planning services, including contraception and family planning information.  This law had bipartisan support from both liberals and conservatives who saw it as both a means of people extending control over their lives and as a way to keep people off welfare.  President Nixon stated that “No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.”  The current members of the Republican Party in Congress do not agree with this.

 

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health services in the nation.  It medically focuses upon breast and cervical cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and abortion.  It performs about 3,000 abortions (3% of its services) annually among the over three million people it serves.  Throughout its history PPFA has experienced support, controversy, protests, and violent attacks.  It is basically a low-income women’s health facility.  Without it there would be nothing for the poor.

 

While the U.S. Government’s contribution to this organization is less than 50% of its yearly budget it is still a considerable amount.  Approximately two-thirds of its revenue is spent providing health services; non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up about 16%; management expenses; fundraising and international family planning programs are spent on the balance.

 

In 1992 the organization created a separate political action nonpartisan committee called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  Its purpose was to maintain reproductive health rights and support like-minded political candidates.  This adjunct is funded separately, mostly by contributions.  In the 2012 election cycle the committee gained prominence based upon its effectiveness of spending on candidates.

 

Between the years 1978 to 1992, when Faye Wattleton was president, Planned Parenthood grew to become the seventh largest charity in the nation, providing services to four million clients each year through its 170 affiliates whose activities were spread across the 50 states.  From 1996 to 2006 Gloria Feldt led PPFA.  She organized the political action committee and launched a far reaching electoral effort which serves as the nonpartisan advocacy arm of PPFA.  In February of 2006 Cecile Richards, the daughter of former Texas governor, Ann Richards (1991-1994), became president of the organization, a position she holds today.

 

It is interesting to note that currently they serve over five million clients a year, 26% of which are teenagers under the age of 19.  According to PPFA, 75% of their clients have income at or below 150% of the poverty level.  The services they provide include contraceptives (birth control); long-acting reversible contraception; emergency contraception, screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; comprehensive sexual education, menopause treatments, vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions.  In the year 2009 they provided 4,009,549 contraceptive services, 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services, 1,810,811 cancer related services, 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal services, 332,278 abortion services, and 76,977 other services, for a total of 11,383,900 services.  Without Planned Parenthood the majority of these people would not have any medical services.

 

Planned Parenthood has been the center in the abortion debate in the United States for decades.  It has been the major target of the pro-life activists.  Some members of Congress, mainly Republicans, have attempted since the 1980s to defund the organization.  This almost led to a government shutdown in 2011.  Planned Parenthood has consistently maintained that federal funds received by them are not used to fund abortion services, but pro-life activists have argued that the federal funding frees up other resources that are, in turn, used to provide abortions.

 

In answer to the preceding argument the current president of the organization has stated that Planned Parenthood’s family planning services reduces the need for abortions.  An article by Megan Crepeau in the Chicago Tribune stated that, because of its birth control and family planning services Planned Parenthood could be “characterized as America’s largest abortion preventer.”

 

Intermittently, largely by the use of so-called undercover videos, pro-life advocates have tried to prove that PPFA does not follow state or federal laws.  A 2005 review by the Bush administration’s Department of Health and Human Services “yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest.”

 

In July and August of 2015 the anti-abortion organization, The Center for Medical Progress, released a number of highly edited videos that were secretly recorded by hired actors who discussed acquiring tissue samples from aborted fetuses with supposed Planned Parenthood officials.  The Center for Medical Progress founder, David Daleiden alleged the videos provide evidence of criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts.  Planned Parenthood condemned these as false accusations, stating that all donations are made “with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards,” and “there is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”

 

These videos and allegations attracted widespread media coverage nationwide as well as calls for investigation by Republican members of Congress.    On September18, 2015 the House of Representatives passed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood.  On September 24, 2015 the Senate blocked a plan that would have denied federal funding for Planned Parenthood.  Several states, generally with Republican governors and legislatures, canceled contracts and funding for Planned Parenthood following the videos.  Interestingly the anti-abortion providers of the video have never testified under oath about the reliability of the videos.

 

All of this was shortly before the Debt limit was reached by the Treasury of the United States.  Congress would have to raise it or the Federal Government would legally run out of money to operate.  Congress threatened to pass such a bill only if Planned Parenthood’s funding were removed from it.  President Obama stated that he would veto any such bill.  Late in September the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, resigned both the Speakership and his seat in the House, effective October 31, 2015.  The Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, passed a bill, with massive Democratic support, that extended the Debt Limit through December of 2015.  It was passed in the House the next day, again with massive Democratic support.  After signing the bill President Obama stated that in December he would also veto another short term spending bill.

*********************************

Carley Fiorina the ex-CEO of Hewlett Packard and the failed Senate election of 2010, who seems to be emerging as a Republican candidate among an ever decreasing host of male candidates, seems to be basing her campaign upon an edited and re-edited TV tape that shows a live fetus being born and then cut up and presumably being sold by Planned Parenthood for experimentation.  She very dramatically described this tape during the second 2015 Presidential Debate.  When asked about this days later on a news broadcast she refused to back away from her statement.  When Carley became CEO of Hewlett Packard she asked the employees to take a wage cut so no one would have to be fired.  After achieving this she later cut 30,000 jobs, sending many of them overseas.  I suspect that her facts in this case are based upon the same level as her actions at Hewlett Packard.

*********************************

Since the Republican Party achieved a majority in the House of Representatives in 2011 and in the Senate in 2014 they have been investigating Planned Parenthood looking for a reason to defund and or do away with that organization.  Currently PPFA is getting about 450 million dollars a year from the Federal Government.

 

In recent years there have been four Congressional Hearing and these have been held by different Congressional groups.  The number and hostility of these Hearings have increased recently after the release of so-called edited videos demonstrating the supposed callousness of the process presumably by Planned Parenthood personnel.  Other than for reasons of being verbally attacked Planned Parenthood people are not invited to these Hearings.   One example would be by the Judicial Committee, where four anti-abortion personnel testified about the evils of abortions.

 

Well into 2015 a number of highly edited videos have been released supposedly showing Planned Parenthood staff discussing the sale of tissue from aborted fetuses.  According to PPFA these highly edited tapes are false representation of the organization.  A hand-full of clinics, with the permission of the woman having the abortion, donate tissue for scientific research.  They charge no fee, but do recoup their costs in providing the tissue.  Donating the fetal tissue for research purposes is completely legal and scientifically valuable.

 

It appears that rational explanations and actual evidence have no effect upon anti-abortion activists and conservative members of Congress (Republicans).  They are vigorously continuing their attack.  Ted Cruz (R-Texas), for example, one of many Republican candidates for the 2016 presidency, called PPFA an “ongoing criminal enterprise.”  Considering that he called the Harvard Law School staff a bunch of communists we can easily equate the value of his statement.  It must be wonderful or meaningless to be able to make statement that have no relevance to the real world!

***********************************

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 Cecile Richards, the current President of PPFA, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for over four hours, defending her group’s work.  This was the fourth Hearing by a Congressional Committee and its goal using the tapes and other so-called evidence was supposed to wipe out Planned Parenthood.  The Hearing was at times highly dramatic with the Republican members generally being highly abusive to the woman who had taken an initial oath to tell only the truth.

The irony here is that this investigative body is supposed to be dedicated to upholding congressional standards.  The Republicans all attacked Cecile Richards and the Democrats both defended her and verbally attacked the Republicans.  Interestingly a pair of new surveys indicated that Republican criticism had served to increase support for Planned Parenthood.  Its ranking afterwards in surveys made it more popular than the GOP.

 

The Hearing’s chairman, Republican Jason Chaffetz went after Planned Parenthood for what he contended were reductions in cancer screenings and breast examinations.  He alleged that it spent heavily on six-figure executive salaries, travel expenses, extensive parties with celebrities and political activities.  He accused Richards of earning $500,000 a year.

 

The committee’s ranking Democrat, Elijah E. Cummings (D-Maryland) verbally attacked David Daleiden, the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, who had issued the anti PPAF videos.  Cummings called the videos a campaign of “deceit.”

Daleiden was not invited to testify before the committee.  He has not testified under oath before any Congressional Committee.  Chaffetz stated that he had attempted to subpoena the full unedited videos, but litigation in California had prevented their release.  Richards called the videos offensive and untrue.

 

During the Hearing, which was an attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood, the issue of how much Cecile Richards earns was loudly brought up.  She was accused of earning well over a half million dollars a years.  Richards stated that she earned $520,000 a year under a recent three year contract.  One could almost hear a note of jealousy in the voice of some of the legislators who only earn $170,000 per year as their base compensation package.

 

Responding to this late, when her turn came to ask question or make statements Representative Carol Mahoney (D-N.Y.) stated, “In my entire time I’ve been in Congress I’ve never seen a witness beaten up and questioned about their salary” –and especially a woman, “I find it totally inappropriate and discriminatory.”

 

Perhaps the highpoint of the Hearing came toward the end when Chaffetz put up a chart which presumably showed Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screenings going down over time while the number of abortions radically increased.  Richards stated that she had not seen the chart before.  Chaffetz stated that the chart came from PPFA.  Richards said she would deny the numbers because she’d never seen them.  Then one of her staff leaned over to whisper in her ear.  She interrupted Chaffetz, “Excuse me, my lawyer is informing me that the source of this is actually Americans United for Life, which is an antiabortion group.  So, I would check your source.”  Chaffetz then stated, “Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that.”  His so-called moment of triumph had passed.

 

If one looked carefully at the chart, then upon one side in small print the source was given, Americans United for Life.  This committee not only presented highly edited video tapes without proving their validity it was also willing to use false data in an attempt to prove its point.  As a group representing the Congress of the United States in a search for truth they left a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

 

It would seem as Cecile Richards later said that 40 odd years after Roe v Wade the issue of women’s reproductive rights is still central to US electoral politics.  And it would also seem that this is one of the most important items that the 2016 Presidential Election is about.