The Freedom Bulletin

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Ron Paul took a break from the campaign trail this week to introduce and speak on the House floor about a piece of legislation to repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This provision allows the government to indefinitely detain, without trial, people who allegedly “substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” President Obama wrote in a signing statement that he would not use this law against U.S. citizens, but the bill’s vague language makes it possible that it could indeed be used against U.S. citizens one day.

Paul said that Section 1021 “provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil, apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely … Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our constitution to support such outrageous legislation.”

Thank you Congressman Paul for fighting for liberty both on in the presidential campaign and in Congress!

To my surprise and sadness, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) announced today that he will not be running for re-election in 2012. Paul wants to focus all his attention on his presidential campaign, and also cited an unfavorable redistricting plan. No matter the outcome of the 2012 election, Congress will be losing its bravest advocate for liberty and individual rights.

More reporting and reactions from the The Facts, Daily Paul, and Humble Libertarian.

Finally, Chuckduck764 at the Daily Paul expressed his thanks to Congressman Paul better than I could in this wonderful blog post. Thank you, Dr. Paul, and hopefully you’ll be moving on from the House to the White House!

The new members of Congress were sworn in today, including the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH). Before she handed over the gavel, former speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) gave a fairly classy speech, in which she complimented Boehner and congratulated him and the new Republican majority. Boehner’s speech (below), although not the most exciting I’ve ever heard, was short, sweet, and straightforward.

The representatives will read the Constitution aloud tomorrow, which I think is pretty cool.

Also, some of my favorite politicians were on the news to weigh in with their ideas for the new Congress:

Ron and Rand Paul discussed the national debt in a great interview with George Stephanopoulos of Good Morning America.

The father-son duo were also on Anderson Cooper 360 on Monday.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) talked about spending and the health non-reform bill on the Dylan Ratigan Show.

I hope that this new Republican majority can get some good things done!

More coverage of today’s events from the usual sources: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and AP.

Congress seems like it’s actually been getting some things done lately. In addition to the Senate repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell today, both houses recently passed, and President Obama signed, a compromise bill to both cut taxes and extend unemployment benefits. While anything that involves tax cuts is a good thing, it’s disturbing that neither Congress or Obama is taking any serious measures to reduce our national debt.

Here are the main points of the tax deal:

• The “Bush tax cuts” will be extended for 2 years.
• Unemployment benefits will be extended for 13 months.
• Workers who make $106,800 or less will pay 4.2% of their wages to Social Security instead of 6.2%.
• The estate tax will continue, but at a lower level.

The bill has some of what Republicans want (lower taxes) and some of what Democrats want (free stuff for people), but anyone with common sense can see that these are not a good combination when it comes to long-term financial success. As W.E. Messamore explains, cutting taxes without cutting spending will eventually result in higher taxes in the future. Compromise is often a good thing, but compromises between Republicans and Democrats have resulted in more spending without more taxes, and therefore a national debt of $13 trillion and counting. I’m no supporter of raising taxes – which I think are way too high to begin with – so I think that the just way to pay down the national debt would be to leave taxes as they are and significantly cut spending. Politicians need to be brave enough to make the unpopular choices that will put our country on the right financial path.

For the first time since current budget rules were enacted in 1974, Congress will not pass a budget blueprint this year. “It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit-reduction plan, which is expected in December,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Instead, Congress plans to pass a “budget enforcement resolution,” which only concerns next year’s budget instead of planning for the next five to ten years, as a budget blueprint would.

I don’t know about you, but to me, this doesn’t look like a good sign for fiscal responsibility. Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) seems to agree.

President Obama and the Democrats are kicking it into high gear in their attempt to buy/coerce/bribe their way into getting the votes they need to force their “health care reform” bill on America. Among other things this bill would force everyone to buy health insurance. If you believe in liberty and free markets, please help stop this bill! Check out Code Red, a site put out by the National Republican Congressional Committee to keep up to date with the latest goings on and opportunities to take action.

Also please, please contact your Congressman and tell him or her to vote no on this bill! If everyone does this, then Congressmen will realize they won’t get re-elected if they insist on taking away even more of our liberty, and they might just chance their minds (or decide to vote no if they’re undecided, or be even more certain if they already plan to vote no).

Right now 22 Democrats plan to vote no on the bill. We need 38! Please make a difference in the fight against statism and paternalism. All it takes is one call or email to your Congressman!

In a USA today column, Nancy Pelosi called opponents of Obama’s health insurance reform plan “un-American.” She writes:

“These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

Pelosi, of course, is referring to the protesters at the Democrats’ health reform town halls. It seems like she’s fine with protesters whose political views match her own – according to Fox News she once said about anti-war protesters:

“It’s always exciting. This is democracy in action. I’m energized by it, frankly.”

I’ve noticed a lot of health-protester-bashing in the past few days. A letter to the editor in today’s Boston Globe said the following:

“As a teacher of 31 years, I have learned how to quickly recognize a bully, and how not to be intimidated by one. We have fought wars in order to stop the bullies of the world. Now they are in our own backyard. We are not just talking about healthcare, but the very foundation of our free society.”

Right. So the Democrats, who control the presidency and both houses of Congress, are the victims, and people who dare to voice unpopular views are the bullies? Funny, I thought bullies were people who gang up on others and force them into doing things they don’t want to do. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what the Democrats are doing. The protesters are bravely standing up to bullies. To label them as bullies themselves is preposterous.

Another preposterous thing that this letter writer says is that the Democrats’ plan is “a healthcare system that would benefit everyone.” The Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for more health services for the poor. This clearly doesn’t benefit the people who will be paying those taxes. The Democrats also want an individual mandate – in other words, everyone will be required to have health insurance. This certainly doesn’t benefit people who would rather pay for their health procedures individually than buy insurance.

Earlier, the Globe ran an article entitled “Foes’ decibels replace debate on healthcare.” I object to the implication that loudly protesting the Democrats’ plan prevents debate. I get the point that the protests could be a little more civil, but yelling is a lot closer to debate than blindly accepting everything Obama says.

Additionally, Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson recently bashed Republicans for not agreeing to everything Obama says. He writes…

“The Senate voted 60 to 37 to extend the (cash for clunkers) program, with 33 Republicans voting against it. This was worse than the 31 Republicans who voted against Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. And, of course, the Republicans have declared war against meaningful healthcare reform, despite the fact that the nation has 46 million uninsured people, one of the greatest travesties in the developed world.”

First of all, I’m not sure why voting against something is always “worse” than voting for it. Why doesn’t Jackson use the word “better”? Second, I wouldn’t call Obama’s health reform plan “meaningful.” None of the laws under consideration in Congress would significantly change anything for the better about the health system (except requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who applies; that’s a slight improvement). Health insurance will remain ridiculously expensive, complex, and confusing, only there will be more taxes to provide it to poor people, and everyone will be forced to buy it. Third, Jackson thinks that people being uninsured is “one of the greatest travesties in the developed world”? Not having insurance isn’t a travesty – it’s a good thing! People should be free to choose whether they would rather buy insurance or pay for each health service individually. I can think of many far greater travesties – the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, the fact that you can’t get a gun without going through tons of paperwork and fees, machines that show the naked bodies of everyone at airports, and the progressive income tax system are just as few examples. And then Jackson concludes by saying…

“In 2008, the nation said Nay to the party of Nay. It is rapidly coming time for Obama to do the same.”

I don’t really see why he criticizes the GOP for saying no to things. When the issue in question is whether or not to raise taxes and force everyone to buy insurance, I think “nay” is a pretty good response. Angry protests are also a pretty good response. What does Jackson want the Republicans to do, automatically agree with everything the Democrats do? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having two parties?