Tag Archives: Dick Durbin

Durbin Thinks the Gov’t Has Profits to Spend

In a perfect example of Progressive thinking, Sen. Dick Durbin (P-IL), has taken issue with the idea of lawmakers and congressional staff having to be subjected to the mandates of Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare. As people like Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid throw around rhetoric like “hostage,” “extortion,” “legislative arson,” etc., they are – at the very same time – carving out incredible perks for themselves and their staffs, paid for them on the backs of the taxpayers, while creating a super-privileged class.

Since the US Supreme Court, under the direction of SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, over-stepped their function in literally re-framing the
law as a tax — even as Progressive lawmakers debating the law stated without doubt that is was not a tax, it is fair to assume that this “tax” is covered by the authority of Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, which mandates all taxes, “… shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Specifically:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

Before the rhetorically challenged chime in, an “impost” is, by definition, a “tax.” But I am getting off track on the issue of tax inequity…\

In attempting to create – or, to be more accurate, further the privilege of the elitist political class, Mr. Durbin has suggested that government be treated on an even plane at the private sector.

The Washington Times reports:

“‘If Obamacare is going to force Americans all over this country to lose their employer-provided health insurance, be forced onto the exchange with no subsidies, then the men and women who serve in this body should feel that pain exactly the same,’ said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who on Tuesday staged a filibuster to block the chamber floor and draw attention to his fight to defund the health law.

“Sen. Richard J. Durbin (P-IL), though, said if members of Congress lost their taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, would Mr. Cruz want all workers to be stripped of support from their companies.

“‘You better think twice about this. If you want to stop the employer contribution to health insurance, that is the headline for tomorrow,’ Mr. Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, said.”

When Sen. “Dickie” Durbin (P-IL), took to the floor during Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX), elongated floor speech to advance this ridiculous notion, he tried to slough off the underwriting of Congress’s health insurance, making a subsidy of 72% sound like Congressmen and their staffs were shouldering some sort of burden. Then he equated it to what large corporations do for their employees.

Note to Mr. Durbin: Corporations make profits out of which they pay for the benefits they provide their employees, or at least they used to before Obamacare, which is making them abandon their employees.

The Federal Government doesn’t make a product by which to create a “profit.” Government “profits” are taxes extracted from taxpayers. So, because government doesn’t create profits they can’t use those profits to pay for your health insurance benefits, or those of your staffs.

That said, there should be no federal health insurance benefits with the advent of Obamacare. All federal – all – should be in the Obamacare exchanges; each and every federal employee – union or not, regardless of branch – should be forced onto the exchanges.

Suddenly Obamacare doesn’t sound so hot, eh, Mr. Durbin?

Letter To Senators Regarding SB 679

Sen. Coburn, Sen. Inhofe,                                                                            May 9, 2011

I am writing about S.679, introduced by Charles Schumer on March 30, 2011 and co-sponsored by 15 other senators, including the Republican leader and six other Republican senators.  This is another case of the Chavezization of the United States of America.  Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution the way they did for a reason.  They didn’t want this nation to become a third world banana dictatorship.  These great men of thought and courage wrote the Constitution to give us a system of checks and balances to prevent one person or a small group of people from taking absolute control of our nation.

With the passage of this piece of dictatorial legislation, Congress will essentially vote themselves, and We the People into a state of irrelevancy.  We already have too many czars who owe their allegiance to Obama rather than to the Constitution as designed.  But it isn’t only Obama I am concerned about.  I don’t want any president to have this much unchecked authority to do as he wishes without any congressional approval.

It may be easy for you to just pass this off as a “streamlining of the system”, but to me and many other American citizens it is not streamlining, it is abrogating the duties you swore to perform when you were elected to Congress.  The background checks and investigations are supposed to prevent tax cheats and radicals from gaining important posts in our government.  Look what we have in charge of our government now.  A Treasury Secretary who evaded hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes because he misunderstood the tax codes (?), a member of the House of Representatives who evaded hundreds of thousands of dollars because he misunderstood the tax codes (?), radicals in Cabinet positions who seek to destroy this nation by preventing us from gaining energy independence, other radicals who are printing money like it will actually be worth something.  While Ben Bernanke is screwing the Chinese with his monetary policies he is also screwing the American citizens, but that is the point isn’t it?

Now we also have another agency telling a company it can’t move from a closed shop state to a right to work state?  Since when does the federal government have the right to tell any company where they can and can’t do business?  Isn’t dictating where they can or can’t operate a dictatorship?  Isn’t this what Adolf Hitler did? How about Hugo Chavez?  Is this what you call a free market system?  Or is this what we are becoming, a socialist state run by government fiat?

Charles Schumer certainly isn’t doing this for any improvement in our government, or in the growth of American exceptionalism, strength, and freedom.  He is one of the most radical communistic people in Washington and believes in the subjugation of the American people.   If you look at Schumer’s record you find nothing but dictatorial policies.  He wants absolute gun control, open borders, murder on demand against unborn children, and total government control of every aspect of the lives of the citizens of America, just to name a few.  Schumer is one who would give us a Hugo Chavez type of America.  This is not what the founding fathers designed and it is not what the American people desire.

Anyone who supports this legislation is not doing so for the betterment of a free society.  If you are willing to ride in the back of the Obama bus and take what crumbs he doles out that is fine but resign from office first and allow We the People to elect people with the courage it takes to govern a nation as great as America.

The co-sponsors:

Lamar Alexander

Scott Brown, what a surprise!!

Susan Collins, what a surprise!!

Jeff Bingaman

Richard Blumenthal

Thomas Carper

Dick Durbin, of course

Mike Johans

John Kyle, can you spell RINO?

Joe Lieberman

Richard Lugar

Mitch McConnell, Republican senate leader would sell our freedom? Of course!!

Jack Reed

Harry Reid, no surprise here

Sheldon Whitehouse

These are 15 senators who would sell the freedom of American citizens, and for what?  What do they have to gain by destroying the Constitution?  How many more are going to join in this travesty to destroy America?  As my senators I certainly hope you will not be a part of this.  We have already seen the freedom of American citizens, We the People, taken by Marxists who desire no more than to subjugate the American people for their own power, prestige, and wealth.

This cannot be allowed to stand.  The American people are standing up in record numbers to say NO MORE OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  What is it going to take for Congress to listen to the people?  I am certain that you hear our voices.  Is it that Congress doesn’t care or is it that Congress thinks we don’t matter?  It must be one or the other because the voices of the people are being ignored.

This legislation gives any president unlimited power and finishes the destruction of our republic.  This will not be allowed to stand.  I understand the Democrat Party doing this.  It has been their goal for quite some time to destroy America and turn it into their fiefdom, but for Republicans to dance right along to the tune of radical Marxist dictators is disturbing and frightening.  It is time for the rank and file of the Republican Party in the senate to revolt and put a stop to this abrogation of duty by Mitch McConnell.   He has consistently lied to the American people and has shown he does not have the courage or ability to stand for the rights of We the People and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America.  He would rather ride in the back of Obama’s bus than stand for freedom.  He either does not have the courage of his convictions, or has no convictions at all.  I tend to believe the latter is the case.

It is time for the freedom loving members of the Senate to act.  If you cannot remove Mitch McConnell from leadership and replace him with someone of character, courage, and integrity then resign your positions and we will find American citizens who will actually uphold the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  We the People have had enough of this.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

 

In God We Trust,

Bob Russell
Claremore, Ok.

 

 

My Personal Rant to Senator Dick Dirbin – (D-IL)

Dear Senator Durbin:

I’m weird like that… I have this notion that when the American People elect one of their own – citizen – to be represented in Congress, this position elevates said citizen to a higher standard.

So in my simplistic way of thinking, it goes like this: When you reach the level of US Senator, it warrants a certain decorum that should prevent you, or any of your Democrat colleagues, from referring to law abiding citizens in any pejorative terms. The fact that you may have been elected from a Blue state does not preclude some of YOUR constituents from being Tea Party members, or God forbid Republicans.

While Republican voters from Illinois may not have voted for you, or agree with your policies, you have a duty to represent ALL of your constituents to the best of your abilities, once the votes have been counted.

You should not label Citizens of any political affiliations as ‘extremists’, ‘radicals’ or ‘terrorists’; and what’s more, you should fiercely defend this philosophy! It’s the honorable thing to do!

I, and many US Constituents in America take personal offense that your Party stubbornly refuses to call Fort Hood Murderer Nidal Hassan a Muslim Terrorist, when clearly, there are 14 innocents victims on his hands!.

The U. S Congress or Political Campaign material should never be the forum or vehicle to disparage Americans. On behalf of millions of Americans it would be my desire that the 2011 Congressional Record reflect a commitment to strike all disparaging references to Tea Party and Republican Americans; we are all Americans!

Your Party, which promises Fundamental Transformation, is fracturing the psyche of this country with its vitriolic language designed to sip into the subconscious of the Nation. All the money in the World cannot heal a broken spirit.

I will make sure to notify your office, in my household we are Proud legal, law abiding US Citizens, registered GOP voting Tea Party, neither extremist nor radical.

I don’t expect a response; but I feel much better for putting pen to paper; IT HAD TO BE SAID!

Respectfully- An American Citizen.

Why Do Democrats Want an Internet Shopping Tax

Internet Sales TaxCall it the eBay or Amazon tax – or perhaps the Barnes and Nobles, Apple Store or New York Times Online tax – call it whatever you like, but it is a tax. A tax proposed by Illinois’ own Senator Duck Durbin (D) that will be levied on all online purchases.

The Main Street Fairness Act, as Sen. Durbin’s bill is named, aims to reverse the decades long moratorium on online purchases that was put in place to foster online commerce. Now that virtual stores are actually closing down their brick-and-mortar counterparts the Federal government is looking to help the states.

There is a constitutional component involved. When someone purchases something online from a site that has a physical store in that same state, most states enforce the collection of state sales tax from the consumer. It is only when someone makes a purchase across states lines that the feds are even permitted to intervene, thanks to the [Interstate/Indian/Foreign] Commerce clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes [1]

The commerce clause has long been used by those in favor of a stronger central government so it should come as no surprise that it is Democrats doing more of the same.

There is a problem with the thinking on this bill. It will now create a situation where online retailers now suffer a bit of a disadvantage. A buyer selecting a $20.00 item from shopping.com would then get to pay a state sales tax on top of the shipping costs AND will have to wait a few days for their purchase to get there, possibly damaged in shipping.

With the new bill not offered up to the public as of yet, analysis was done against H.R. 5660, a bill with the same name but submitted last year by Sen. Durbin.

There are many legal and common sense perspectives to consider. First, is the Supreme Court Case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which the bill cites as a basis of authority. Quill is an office furniture retailer that had no facilities nor employees in North Dakota and therefor positioned that it was no burden on the state which gave the state of North Dakota no standing to force Quill to collect sales tax for the state. Notice, the argument isn’t about whether or not the consumer should pay sales taxes, but rather who could be compelled to collect them.

With the legal out of the way, comes the common sense. Imagine the complexity a business would have to deal with the understand the sales tax rates of each State, the counties that add a bit and the municipalities with their extra .25% sales tax. The chart of taxes is difficult enough to deal with for in-state companies, much less someone trying to operate a nation-wide concern.

Then – the costs. H.R. 5660 lines out the funding for:

  • Implementation of an online multistate registration system
  • Establishment of advisory councils
  • Provisions for funding and staffing the Governing Board

It should go without saying this will only skim money off the collected state funds. It would necessarily have to. That multi-state registration system won’t build or run itself and the councils and governing boards will be filled with even more bureaucrats that make huge sums of money and get ridiculous benefits. By the time that money gets to back to the states from which it came, it will be a fraction of what it once was – if it gets back to the states.

The final and most important part is that the Federal government will now control the revenues that come from these purchases. That will allow them yet another carrot and/or stick to use against the states. Similar to how the federal government pressures states into certain provisions in order to receive federal highway dollars, the states will be given orders that they must follow if they want to receive their share of the federal internet sales tax money. This is another attempt of the central planners in our society to weaken the power of the states. Imagine how the federal government could affect a cash strapped state like say .. Wisconsin, when they aren’t playing the way the majority in Congress desire.

This tax isn’t about ending budget shortfalls for the states. They could do that on their own, although painfully, without this kind of intervention. This is about power – pure Federalist, big-government power. The bill only requires 10 states to sign on which is almost certainly an indication that the bill’s sponsors know that not very many states will cede their sovereignty just for a few crumbs from the Federal table.

Sources:

[1] – Constitution of the United States – Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3