House Democrat leaders are pushing for a Saturday vote on their sweeping health-care bill.

There are certain Democrats who MUST be called every day from now until the vote, which may be as early as Saturday now. Here’s the Target 92 list on the House side to all vulnerable and Blue Dog Democrats.  Blue Dogs are in blue. Here’s the .xls and .pdf versions.  Of note, the first 40 on the list are the Blue Dogs that signed the “deficit-neutral” letter mentioned above.  Everything you need to email their staff, write letters, make phone calls and send faxes, both to their district and Capitol Hill offices.

Keep calling out to the House and to the Senate in general. Of course, you can also reach them via the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. And of course, here is the CapWiz alert so you can contact your own members directly.

Top Ten Tax Increases Included in ObamaCare House Bill H.R. 3962

1. Small Business SURTAX (Sec.551, p. 336) – $460.5 Billion
2. Employment Mandate TAX* (Secs 511-512, p.308) – $135 Billion
3. Individual Mandate TAX* (Sec. 501, p.296) – $33 Billion
4. Medical Device TAX* (Sec.552, p. 339) – $20 Billion
5. $2,500 Annual Cap on FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325) – $13.3 Billion
6 Prohibition on Pre-Tax Purchases of Over-the-Counter Drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs* (Sec. 531, p.324) – $5 Billion
7. Tax on Health Insurance Policies to fund Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Sec. 1802, p.1162) – $2 Billion
8. 20% Penalty on certain HSA Distributions* (Sec. 533, p.326) – $1.3 Billion
9. Other Tax Hikes and Increase Compliance on U.S. Job Creators – $56.4 Billion
………> IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553, p.344) – $17.1 Billion
………> Delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules (Sec. 554, p. 345) – $26.1 Billion
………> Override U.S. treaties on certain payments by “insourcing” business (Sec. 561. p. 346) – $7.50 Billion
………> Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties (Sec.562, p.349) – $5.7 Billion
10. Other Revenue-Raising Provisions – $3 Billion

TOTAL TAX INCREASE . . . . . . . . . . $729.5 Billion

*[Violates President Obama's pledge to avoid tax increases on Americas earning less than $250,000]

Not surprisingly, Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and the complacent Republicans in Congress recently voted to extend and appropriate additional funds to Cash for Clunkers. The program is just another endless example of a temporary, short-term government solution to a problem that could be solved by the free market.

The late economist Milton Friedman, whose wife Rose sadly passed away earlier this week, used to say that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Generally this is true, but — despite the fact that Congress authorized an additional $2 billion in emergency funding for the bill two weeks ago — there are reports that the Cash for Clunkers program may already be out of cash yet again.

No problem, since the government has an unlimited source of revenue: namely, We the People. Another Friedman quote may be better fitting for this particular case: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand.”

Okay, so the Cash for Clunkers program is immensely popular — so why the criticism?

The program, administered by the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (you trust them, don’t you?), was created to help boost the auto industry while helping the environment.

Sounds good, right? Consumers who own a car with low fuel efficiency can receive $3,500 to $4,500 from the federal government if they buy a new car with higher fuel efficiency.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron explains several problems with the program, namely: 1) the program pays people to junk cars that still have economic value; 2) the program will cause an increase in driving; 3) Official government policy favors one industry (automobiles, in this case) at the expense of other industries. Miron concludes that Congress “should end the program, not expand it”.

Of course, the government solution does not come without inefficiencies. This article points out that many car dealerships are considering pulling out of the program because they are not receiving payments from the government. Many of the dealerships understandably need that money to pay their bills and meet their payroll. Surprise, surprise — the government is not responding to local car dealerships who are participating in its own program.

Finally, there is today’s headline in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: “Charities worry that car donations will go clunk” — which is very concerning.  Talk about a good way to stifle the market — let’s just put charities out of business altogether and have the government save us all.

The article highlights how very worthwhile endeavors such as Kidney Cars Program and the Rawhide Boys Ranch are now competing with the government. These private charities — along with scores of others — both use donated vehicles to raise funds for their programs.

This underscores Professor Miron’s point about the negative impact of the government coming to the rescue of one industry and impacting it to the detriment of other industries.

A program like Cash for Clunkers is simply not an appropriate role for a constitutionally limited government to administer in a free society.

Cash for Clunkers is a temporary solution that will soon go broke.

We’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for the politicians to — once again — rescue the overzealous program with the hard-earned dollars of cash-strapped American taxpayers.

by Terri McCormick

Regardless of political party or ideological persuasion, there are limited resources and outcomes possible with H.R. 3200 – “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″ — the bill currently pending in Congress. There is no doubt that the stakes are high for individuals and businesses. It is critical that citizens engage in the discussion and that ‘We the People’ read the bill and act accordingly.

“Politics as usual” bedtime stories, when combined with chicken cordon bleu in the home of large political contributors, does not for good health care policy make. What it makes is a rather redundant kettle of “Status Quo Soup” stirred with the spoon of insider politics.

As former Congressman Dick Armey (R-TX) recently commented, “President Obama made the mistake of not setting a more specific direction for the democrat dominated legislature in both houses to pursue health care reform.”

Who will pay for the Healthcare Reform Act?

The middle class – either those small business owners who gross $250,000 a year or wealthier Americans whose household incomes are over $1,000,000, according to Mr. Obama in a press conference on July 23, 2009. The gaping taxpayer hole for the “Reform Act” appears to be 1/3 of the total cost of $1.5 trillion dollars.

Who is the Health Care Act written for?

A July 21, 2009 headline in The Washington Post read “Industry Cash Flowed to Drafters of Reform”. As liberal protesters marched outside, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.

The July 21 story goes on to say: “Baucus’s fundraising prowess underscores the enduring political strength of the health care lobby, which led all other sectors in donations to federal candidates during the last election cycle and has shifted its giving to Democrats as the party has tightened its control of Congress.” In fact, “The [health care] sector gave nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of this year, when Democrats collected 60 percent of the $5.4 million donated by health care companies and their employees, the data show.”

Pay for Play politics does not yield solutions for Americans, but instead yields ‘deals’ for politicians.

What does the Health Care Reform Act do?

On page 16 of the 1,017 page document it clearly states, “In 5 years all private insurance plans must look like public plans.”

It is a government takeover of the private health care insurance industry. The private sector industry responsible for negotiating price on behalf of the patient will then be eliminated and a government-run “system” will replace it.

Does the Health Care Reform Act lower skyrocketing costs?

It would appear that government rationing is the answer being pursued, with the following examples:

1. Consider Elder Care. Instead of a goal to “age with dignity and independence” — which seems to be a shared common goal — under the bill in Congress, we will each be assigned to consultants who will review our case every five years to determine how grave a risk we will be to the federal health insurance system. When we become too high of a risk, the government will pull the plug. Or we will pay for the costs out of our own pocket (as if we haven’t paid enough in to the system already, right?).

2. Limits will be set to control costs for End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) of kidney disease, which many diabetics must face. The operative phrase is palliative care. It means treating the symptoms but not the underlying root cause of the disease. Give ‘em pain pills and let ‘em go die.

3. Congress has the ability to opt out of H.R. 3200 and they will still maintain their AIG-guaranteed pension and health care benefits.

4. TARP was distributed along party lines … so shouldn’t Americans be wary of health care being dispensed along party lines as well?

The notion of politicians and bureaucrats making health care decisions for the American people should have all of us concerned. But many Americans have been lulled to sleep, fat, dumb and happy that “the system is taking care of us.”

No need to read the 1,017 page document. Just trust the lobbyists and long-term politicians holding fundraisers throughout the negotiation process of the bill to get it right for all Americans.

For Hospitals, Clinics and Doctors

Is there an increased medicare reimbursement rate and guaranteed payment by the feds to hospitals and doctors who practice in federally approved clinics and hospitals? If not, the question then becomes ‘What happens when government bureaucrats hold all the insurance options?’

According to former Marine Veteran Carmen Russo, “The bottom line is that government will decide who lives and who dies. That’s what happens.”

Wouldn’t it be better if the Health Care Reform Act actually controlled health care costs?

Some suggestions:

Recommendations made on a Committee I chaired in the Wisconsin Legislature in 2002:

1. Create pools for prescription drugs, cooperative insurance pools, association pools nationwide and other insurance pools so that the free market has the opportunity to work. (Savings in Wisconsin’s first year alone was $40 million.)

2. Hold government bureaucracies and government-funded hospitals accountable by enforcing lean management controls on monies distributed on behalf of taxpayers. (Ever wondered why vertical impact machines were so expensive? You should – they are hammers!)

3. Get government out of the business of private business and into the role of ensuring a safety net for those Americans who need catastrophic care and government-secured insurance.

4. Never forget for a moment that the largest increases in health care costs are our individual choices that come with individual responsibility such as; our weight, exercise, smoking habits, and lifestyle choices.

We cannot regulate personal choices. But we can regulate government stupidity caused by incremental policy based on campaign contributions. The problem is both political parties have lost the public’s trust.

It is time to get behind candidates who we trust to change the way things are. We cannot hope and pray for change without action.

It is time to act!

__________________________________________________________________________

Terri McCormick is a former Wisconsin State Representative. While in the legislature, she Chaired the Health Care Cost Partnerships Committee.  She is currently working to establish an active Republican Liberty Caucus affiliate in Wisconsin.

© 2009 Terri McCormick
Reposted with permission.

The following article was published in The Atlanta Journal Constitution on Monday, July 20. It’s author is former Republican Congressman from Georgia Bob Barr. Mr. Barr is currently a member of the Libertarian Party.

Health care ‘Never Never Land’
by Bob Barr

In “Sicko,” iconoclastic filmmaker Michael Moore extols the virtue of health care in such liberal “paradises” as the United Kingdom and Cuba. Leaving his audience to wonder where he would choose to go for treatment if he were facing a life-threatening illness — the People’s Hospital in Havana or the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. — Moore exhibits the same Alice-in-Wonderland delusion that has settled over the Obama administration.

A majority of members of Congress, too, seem to believe that if only enough bureaucracy and taxpayer dollars are thrown at the health care “crisis,” then everyone in the country will have their every medical need met, when they want it, and at much reduced cost. Such a mind set turns Peter Pan’s Never Never Land into a reality show.

For starters, advocates of the House legislation might want to talk to governors of those states, like Massachusetts, that have already implemented “universal” coverage plans. Increasing program costs, coupled with decreased state revenues as a result of the economic downturn, are causing serious fiscal problems and are forcing those states to consider cutbacks in coverage.

However, witnessing the irrational, “gotta-do-this-now” push in our nation’s capitol to pass comprehensive health care “reform” within the next few weeks, it is obvious the proponents of Obama-care are not interested in anyone throwing the cold water of fiscal reality on their parade.

The House version of the legislation, unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week, includes substantial mandates on American businesses (including a severe, 8 percent payroll tax on any business that fails to offer health insurance coverage to its employees). Still, the Pollyannaish Pelosi claimed (with a straight face) it would “lower costs to businesses.” This is government logic at its finest — you lower the cost of doing business by raising taxes on those businesses.

Pelosi’s obvious inability to grasp even the most basic of economic concepts was further displayed when she claimed that the “costs to consumers,” too, would be lowered. Apparently, this would be accomplished by placing a new surtax on those American consumers whose income exceeded the levels deemed worthy by the legislators.

Analysts of the 1,000-plus page legislation calculate its 10-year cost to exceed $1 trillion. Other experts fear such a figure greatly underestimates its true cost. Even the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the government subsidy for health care coverage will amount to some $6,000 per person within the next decade, which figures to more than $1.8 trillion.

Pelosi’s bill would also create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. Such a scenario, of course, is never a fair “competition,” because the government “owner” can always print money, spend borrowed money indefinitely, operate without regard for cost-benefit analysis, and threaten legal sanctions for those who fail to comply. None of these remedies are available to businesses (except, of course, for the “new” General Motors).

The smoke-and-mirrors approach is evident also in the fact that high-income taxpayers, who would already be taxed in order to pay for the “universal” coverage for their less-well-off compatriots, would face escalating taxes if the government fails in the years ahead to achieve targeted “savings” in Medicaid and Medicare. In other words, the government will set “savings targets,” but if it fails to meet them, it is taxpayers who will pay the penalty, not those members of Congress or federal bureaucrats who decide how much to spend on the entitlement programs.

Other industries, including pharmaceuticals, will face increased taxes as well, in order to pay for this “reform.” The more successful drug makers will pay a higher percentage tax than their smaller, less successful colleagues. Once again, success in the business arena is punished in the government arena.

Truly, this bill is a monstrosity.

###

Bob Barr, an Atlanta attorney, is a former member of Congress and Libertarian presidential candidate.

According to an article from The Associated Press, “Guantanamo [is] a political win GOP needed.” The story is referencing the vote in the Senate that occurred earlier today. In a vote of 90 to 6, the Senate overwhelmingly opposed President Obama’s effort to close the prison that harbors accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Every Republican member of the Senate passed on the opportunity to recognize that terrorist combatants do have Constitutional rights and that protections of the Bill of Rights apply to all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S. regardless of where in the world that jurisdiction prevails.

As you know, one of Barack Obama’s first acts as president was to order the closing of the controversial prison for terrorist suspects within a year. Obama had campaigned on the issue, but Republicans pounced on what they correctly asserted to be a critical flaw: the lack of detailed plans for where the roughly 240 detainees would go if the Cuban prison were shut down.

On that point, the town of Hardin, Montana (pop. 3,400) has volunteered to house 40% of the detainees (about 100 of them) in a state prison facility that is vacant.

Greg Smith, Economic Development Director in Hardin, says that there are 464 beds in the facility and over 120 jobs could be created by moving those prisoners to Hardin.  With flat land, a state-of-the-art corrections facility, and a Mayor (and City Council) willing to house the suspects, all it would have taken was a simple Senate vote in favor of closing Gitmo.

That vote, however, would require Senators to have a backbone and LEAD the country — something foreign to them.  Only six Senators, all from the far left wing of the Democrat Party, had the courage to vote in favor of the funding to move the captives to U.S. soil.

Why should we house these accused terrorists in the U.S.? The fact is that housing them in Gitmo has denied the terrorist suspects their constitutional rights and there is simply no possibility that piecemeal changes in law could create a legal system at Guantanamo equal to the U.S. criminal justice or courts martial systems.

Additionally, the detentions of the terrorist suspects are only temporary expedients that apply only in the field of combat according to U.S. law. Since we’re not at war with Cuba, the legitimate idea of temporarily detaining combatants in a war zone does not apply.

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the abuses at Guantanamo Bay carried out at the beckon call of high-level government officials include widespread abuse:

• solitary confinement of detainees for periods exceeding a year;
• sleep deprivation of detainees for days, weeks, or months;
• exposure of detainees to prolonged temperature extremes;
• beatings of detainees;
• threats of transfer to a foreign country for torture;
• torture in foreign countries or at U.S. military bases abroad before transfer to Guantánamo;
• sexual harassment and rape or threat of rape against detainees;
• deprivation of medical treatment for serious conditions, or treatment granted only for “cooperating”; and
• “short-shackling,” where wrists and ankles are bound together and to the floor for hours or day.

I realize these suspects are accused of being terrorists and several of them were involved in the 911 attacks. I have tremendous sympathy for victims (and their families) of these accused terrorists and am quite convinced that the detainees at Gitmo are quite literally the scum of the earth.

That said, those accused of crimes in a nation governed by the rule of law are entitled to equal treatment under the law and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as well as protection from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives are entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment includes “… nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”.  Further, the Eighth Amendment guarantees freedom from “cruel and unusual punishment” by government.

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote that “[t]here are … four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is ‘cruel and unusual’.” They include:

- The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
- “A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
- “A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
- “A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”

The torture procedures that the Bush Administration, the Republicans in Congress, and the spineless Democrats who purport to be civil libertarians have gone along with violate constitutional protections and are clearly ‘cruel and unusual’ tactics under the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The types of torture that have been used against suspected terrorists also violate the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (both signed by the U.S.).

Moreover, the techniques are not effective. According to the U.S. Army Interrogation Field Manuel 34-52 (1992), “Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

And according to the Center for Constitutional Rights,

“If someone has information, they are just as likely, if not more so, to disclose the information after non-abusive interrogation tactics. Second, many who are interrogated do not have information to give. Third, whether or not a person has information, he or she will likely confess to anything to stop torture; thus the information obtained is never reliable.”

Quoth the AP article: “Republicans have searched mightily for a good political issue this year as their traditional three Gs — gays, guns and God — have lost some steam. Now a fourth G — Guantanamo Bay — is handing them big boost.”

The issue of Guantanamo may be giving Republicans a boost in popular support, but it is at the sacrifice of the U.S. Constitution and a respect for the rule of law.

Over the last eight years, the Bush Administration has systematically dismantled some of the most important rights and protections of the United States Constitution.

The time to stand up for the Constitution is NOW.  Americans oppose the Bush-Cheney torture policies and a free nation based on the rule of law requires more of its government and its elected officials.

As President Obama’s kids are settling in at Sidwell Friends, one of the best private schools in the nation, their father has signed a budget that takes away the opportunity for poor kids in Washington DC to attend schools like Sidwell Friends with the help of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which makes it possible for 1,700 kids a year — mostly African-Americans — to escape from the worst public school system in the country and attend a charter school or a private school which will give them a chance at a better future.

The Opportunity Scholarship Program is only four years old and has barely had a chance to prove itself, but it stands little chance of continuing when the federal funds backing it are eliminated from the budget by Democrat legislators eager to keep campaign contributions from the teachers unions flowing.

Teachers unions don’t like any kind of program which gives kids a chance to escape from government-run schools, and even this relatively modest voucher program is too much of a threat to be allowed to survive now that they have some clout. The funding was in the budget coming out of the last session, but has now been removed and is unlikely to be added back in with Democrats in control.

The program provides $7,500 vouchers to about 1,700 DC public school students chosen by lottery which they can then use to change schools, attend a charter school or attend an area private school. Every student who uses a voucher releases more money for other students who stay behind in public school because their voucher is underwritten by the federal government and is considerably less than the $14,400 per student spent by the DC public school system, which has the sad distinction of being the one of the most expensive and lowest performing school systems in the nation. DC ranks last in the nation in math and reading, 4th lowest in SAT scores and 6th worst in graduation rate,

Perhaps most important and almost always overlooked by those doing studies on voucher programs is how many graduates go to college and the quality of the colleges they end up attending. In the DC public school system only 59% of high school students even graduate. Of those only 36% have completed the coursework necessary to qualify them to go to a 4-year college degree program. Only 52.8% of those who take the SAT in DC go to college. Of those 86.2% attend in-state colleges which in the overwhelming majority of cases means that they attend the University of the District of Columbia which offers 4-year degrees but is basically comparable to a decent community college. That means that of entering freshmen only about a fifth will end up going to college and most of those will go to a second-rate institution.

In comparison, at the top private schools in DC like St. Albans, National Cathedral and Sidwell Friends virtually all of the students graduate and about 99% of those graduates go on to college and more than 25% of those graduates go to one of the top 10 colleges in the country — like Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Princeton and Stanford. So that means they send more graduates to the very best colleges in the world than even manage to get to college at all after graduating a public high-school in DC.

Now admittedly, the $7,500 which this program provides to students isn’t enough by itself to pay for a private school which costs $15,000 to $30,000 a year. But all of these private schools also have endowments for scholarships, some of them quite substantial and targeting kids from the poorer parts of DC. On average for every 3 students who come with a $7,500 voucher that’s another student who can attend one of these schools for free, so between vouchers and private endowments a lot more poor students can attend some of the best private schools in the nation than could have otherwise.

In addition, these vouchers can also be used at charter schools in DC, which have performance much closer to private schools than public schools. DC charter schools graduate 91% of their students, almost double the rate at DC public schools. 83% of those students attend college, close to three times the number of DC public school students going to college. As a group in 2007 DC charter school graduates received $11 million in college scholarship awards, a vital advantage when so many of them come from an underprivileged background.

High school graduation and the chance to go to college can make all the difference in the world for a poor kid from the inner city. It massively reduces the chance that they will be involved in crime, reduces their chance of using drugs, more than doubles their long-term earning potential and even raises up others in the community around them. It even substantially reduces their chance of a violent death. DC has a rate of violent crime which is three times the national average and its poor neighborhoods are among the poorest in the nation. Unemployment is high, drug use is widespread in the poor communities and for many there is no way out. Kids born into this environment are born doomed.

Access to better educational opportunities is the key to saving children from poverty and social disadvantage. A public school system which sends only a small fraction of its graduates to college and is rated third worst in the nation is not providing that opportunity, but for almost 2,000 students a year the Opportunity Scholarship Program did offer hope of a much better education and a very good chance at a degree from a good four-year college.

By taking this program away, Democrats in Congress are reminding us that they don’t really care about helping the most needy in our society. They just want to keep getting their votes, while pandering to the special interests for whom keeping the people poor and undereducated is politically advantageous.

For libertarians, it’s a basic law that group labels simply don’t do justice to the group the purport to brand. However, political profiling appears to be a growing trend among government bureaucrats since Mr. Obama took office.

The first recent example of profiling came in Missouri, when libertarians and constitutionalists were labeled in a government report as potentially violent militia members. As I reported last month, “the MIAC report highlights a growing and oft-overlooked phenomenon: government tracking and profiling of non-violent American citizens.”

A new report has been released, this time at the federal level. The Department of Homeland Security (which, in my estimation, never should have been created — the Department of Defense should take on the role of protecting Americans against attack) released a report indicating that there is a “fueling resurgence” of right-wing extremist groups that are seeking new recruits.

As an indicator of how silly the report is, DHS “has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,” DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban told Fox News.

This is just the latest example of why group labels fail. These two reports are attempting to label potential security threats, and in doing so have enraged an entire group of grassroots activists, talk-radio fans, and already-disenfranchised taxpayers.

Why is our government responsible for profiling American citizens, especially using a “group-based” model that fails to cite a single current example of what it is “reporting”?

If there was ever solid evidence that the Department of Homeland Security — a large bureaucracy that did not exist prior to 2003 — needs to be eliminated, this is it. Their report is a waste of paper.

According to Politico, Congressman Ron Paul calls on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal to fend off the growing piracy movement that has captivated national attention over the last weeks. Letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe, serve as official warrants from the government to allow privateers to seize or destroy enemies in exchange for bounty money.

Days after September 11, 2009, Dr. Paul introduced legislation allowing President Bush to permit private citizens to go after Osama bin Laden and other identified terrorists and put a bounty price on the heads of targets responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Contractors would also be required to post a play-by-the-rules bond and turn over any terrorists — and their seized property —to U.S. authorities.

According to Paul, “The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy … [and] once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”

The Who’s line is as true now as it was in 1971 and as true as the similar old French saying, “the more things change the more they stay the same.” The same idea is repeated again and again in folk wisdom from every culture, which suggests that it’s based on a shared element of human experience. Change is inevitable, but too often its results are only superficial.

In this case, the deja vu we’d rather not be experiencing all over again comes from the Obama Administration’s diligent efforts to out-do his much-reviled predecessor when it comes to shredding our constitutional rights in the interest of national security. Like President Bush, President Obama seems intent on focusing his efforts on rendering the Fourth Amendment utterly meaningless. You know that amendment. It reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It’s the Amendment that reminds government and other entities that we have an absolute right to privacy which they can’t just violate at a whim. It’s been under assault for years and eroded away more and more with each new governmental initiative to protect us from the latest bogeyman or from ourselves. The War on Drugs with its asset seizures and warrantless searches has been wearing away at our rights for more than 30 years, but nothing has done more harm than the War on Terror which took the cold-war era Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and expanded it into a blanket authorization to execute thousands of warrantless wiretaps against US citizens, often with very little justification and virtually no accountability.

FISA was already blatantly in violation of the Fourth Amendment before the Bush administration got hold of it. They took the blanket authorization for unlimited wiretapping which was implied in the legislation and ran with it, making it the justification for data mining and automated content scanning of telecommunications completely outside the scope of the technology available when FISA was written, but arguably authorized under the overly broad language of the law.

When challenged, they went to the compliant congress and got amendments to the FISA Act in 2008 which protected many of their practices and reduced the level of accountability in the act still further. The ACLU has launched a lawsuit over the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, but to date it remains in force, giving unprecedented power to the federal government to basically scan and listen to any telecommunications with no prior approval.

Although you might think that President Obama, riding in on his white horse last November, might be here to save us from the Bush administration’s assault on our rights, it turns out that when it comes to warrantless surveillance, they’re enthusiastic supporters of the program and are even willing to take the idea of complete lack of accountability for violating our privacy to a higher level. In a motion to dismiss the case Jewel v. NSA, the Obama Justice Department they reiterated the Bush-era argument that cases against FISA cannot even be brought because they “would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.”

Going even further than did Bush, they also argue that the idea of ’sovereign immunity’ makes the Department of Justice completely immune from any prosecution for violating the rights of citizens. Not only do we not have the protection of due process under the Fourth Amendment, but now we have no standing to sue and even if we do get a case in court the government is immune from any prosecution. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation interprets it, “Essentially, the Obama Administration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.” So we might as well lie back and take whatever they want to do to us, because those Fourth Amendment rights are just gone forever.

This is a strange and ironic change from candidate Obama who said he wanted more transparency in government, but perhaps even more ominous is the latest move from the administration to take complete control of the internet under the newly proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009 which follows an earlier act which would establish a “Cybersecurity Czar” to oversee internet security. This bill will give the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit internet traffic at any time “in the interest of national security,” a situation whose parameters are left undefined. What’s worse, it gives the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning (critical) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This is another attack on the Fourth Amendment, giving completely unaccountable federal officials total access to internet communications without any safeguards of the rights and privacy of citizens. There’s no requirement for a warrant, no need for probable cause, no liability for any harm done and not even any requirement for reporting or limitations on how these powers can be exercises.

This proposed act runs directly counter to the protections provided in the Fourth Amendment and also the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which was passed in the 1980s to reaffirm that privacy rights applied to internet communications. The act is supported by powerful congressional Democrats and by the Obama administration, so it stands a reasonably good chance of passing, and it’s just the first step in a comprehensive strategy to expand government control over the internet and what goes on there. The good news is that unlike FISA and its recent amendments, this bill has not yet passed into law and it’s possible that with enough public opposition it might be altered to include safeguards for the privacy rights of citizens while still addressing legitimate national security needs.

With FISA and the expansion of FISA under the Bush administration we saw too much of our liberty legislated away in the name of national security. It is now clear that the Obama administration wants to continue and expand on that trend. It has never seemed more believable that the future of universal surveillance and the elimination of personal privacy envisioned in George Orwell’s 1984 might become a reality. The Fourth Amendment was a powerful and definitive statement on privacy rights, but as things stand today it is almost as if it never existed. It is not being observed or enforced and seems to mean nothing to the bureaucrats of the security establishment or the current administration.

We may very well need protection from terrorists and malicious hackers and cyberwarfare, but safety from those threats has much less value if we lose our basic freedoms in the process.

It is fundamentally wrong to treat all citizens as criminals to catch the real criminals or to take away everyone’s privacy to expose hidden enemies. The emergence of new technology and new mediums of communication does not make our old-fashioned rights obsolete. We just have to find new ways to preserve and protect those rights within the new worlds which technology has opened up for us.

As we go forward, the preservation of our rights and protection of citizens from government as well as external threats, must be our highest priority.

All across the country on Tax Day, Republican Liberty Caucus members will be attending Tea Party Rallies to express dissent to Members of Congress and local officials and encourage sensible economic reforms that will enhance America’s struggling economy.

To see a listing of the Tea Parties in your state, click here. On February 27th, an estimated 30,000 Americans took to the street in 40+ cities across the country in the first nationwide “Tea Party” protest.

So why rally? What is the point? Several reasons: 1) There has not been ENOUGH dissent in this country and the “go along, get along” attitude has plagued us for many years; 2) folks are FINALLY starting to wake up, and public rallies engage average citizens in issues; 3) public officials pay attention to large groups of taxpayers; 4) it provides a coalition-building opportunity with like-minded groups; and 5) it allows the RLC to gain visibility.

The Tea Party movement has been organized to protest the Bailouts approved by Congress, the massive federal debt that continues to grow daily, and the increasing burden on average taxpayers. There is no better day to express your distrust of government than April 15 — Tax Day.

In conjunction with the Spirit of the Founders, RLC members are organizing and speaking at Taxpayer Tea Parties throughout the country. For example, in Melbourne, Florida, RLC East Central Florida Coordinator Matthew D. Nye has organized the Brevard Tea Party.

At its website, Nye features a video from a savvy young lady who discusses the relevance of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged to the current state of the economy. She says:

“The similarities [in Atlas Shrugged compared to] today are striking. In Atlas, we see a world crumbling under the weight of government interventions and regulations. The economy is ground to a halt. Each day, more and more businesses are shutting their doors. The government blames greed and the free market and frantically imposes more government control, but the crisis only deepens. Sound familiar?”

Atlas is currently the Amazon.com “Best Seller” in the fiction category, but it’s RLC member Nye who is educating taxpayers in Brevard County, Florida.

According to the newly chartered Republican Liberty Caucus of Alabama, “Quite a few RLC members are active in the planning of Tea Party rallies to be held across Alabama (and the nation) on April 15th.”  Similarly, RLC Tennessee Officers Gregg Juster, Bryan Haddock, and Joe Dumas are assisting with the Tea Party organizing in Chattanooga.

In Arizona, RLC member Tom Jenney will be a featured speaker, along with RLC State Representative Frank Antenori, at the Tucson Tea Party. Members of the RLC of Pima County, including organize Ken Rineer, are active participants in the Tucson Tea Party.

In northern Virginia, RLC Secretary Aaron Biterman will be addressing the crowd at the Tea Party in Reston, an outer-Beltway suburb of the nation’s capital. Biterman will be speaking about continuing the “Spirit of the Revolution” in 2009 and the importance of eliminating the federal income tax.

These are just some of the RLC members and activists who have taken an active role in the Tea Party Movement.  Look for a full report post-April 15.

In addition to attending your local Tea Party, the RLC is encouraging its members to take the following five steps to promote local Tea Parties:

• Make signs with legible slogans that send a clear message to the public and the media;
• Call local talk radio hosts to ask them to announce the location, date, and time of your local Tea Party on the air for a few days leading up to the protest;
• Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper announcing the rally;
• Write a press release and e-mail, mail and fax copies to the local TV stations, radio stations and newspapers; and
• Call the reporters that cover local events or politics and leave messages on their voice mail.