Law of the Sea Treaty Dead Again

We’ve spoken before about Big Business not being conservative. Here’s more proof, along with some very good news. The Law of the Sea Treaty is dead. Good for America.

Why This Is A Dangerous Treaty

I first became aware of the Law of the Sea Treaty when it was conceived during the Reagan years in 1982, and it seemed like a horrible idea at the time. The idea was that the world’s oceans contain a vast amount of mineral wealth, but because only the rich world has the resources to exploit it, a treaty should be passed to divide this wealth equally among all countries.

The way the treaty works is it divides the ocean floor into zones. Internal waters (like a bay) and up to 12 miles from shore are considered territorial water and are treated as if they are dry land. A country’s sovereignty is complete within that zone (the old zone was three miles). The next 12 miles are considered a continuous zone. Within that zone, countries may impose laws related to customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, but cannot stop navigation. The next 200 miles are considered an exclusive economic zone. Here the state has some rights, but foreign countries may lay pipe or cable and navigate freely. Beyond that are international waters.

This may sound harmless, but that’s not all the treaty does. The treaty includes 320 articles and is over 200 pages long. It establishes a complex regulatory regime that applies to almost every commercial and government activity related to the oceans. This includes the regulation of shipping, the regulation of drug interdiction, and even the regulation of manufacturing conducted in coastal waterways. Moreover, it gives the U.N. unprecedented taxing and permitting authority over international waters. Essentially, this is a U.N. takeover of oceans.

Through these regulatory schemes, the U.N. could impose things like the Kyoto Protocol (on global warming) through the back door, could forced U.S. citizens to pay energy taxes to other nations, and the U.N. could claim the power to regulate U.S. military actions.

Ronald Reagan refused to sign this treaty for similar reasons. The extension of the territorial limit from 3 miles to 12 miles meant U.S. submarines and intelligence ships could be put in danger. He felt the regulatory scheme would stop undersea mining as permits to mine require an application fee of $250,000 ($500,000 at the time), plus the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 millions to the U.N.’s International Seabed Authority, plus they would need to pay up to 7% of profits, plus they would need to share mining and navigational technology. Moreover, the decision on whether or not to grant such a license would belong to the Seabed Authority, which is controlled by Third World countries. This would give them veto power over all such activities. Reagan believed this was set up to discourage deep sea mining to protect the mining industries on land, which tend to operate in Third World countries. He also objected that the mandatory dispute resolution procedures bound Americans to the decisions of foreign judges and harmed American sovereignty.

Clinton tried to pass this treaty and essentially failed, as did Bush II and Obama. John Kerry has been pushing this in the Senate.

Why It’s Dead

Since two-thirds of the Senate must support a treaty before it can become law, it only takes 24 Senators to stop a treaty. Thirty-four Republicans have now come out in opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty, which means it’s effectively dead. The charge was led by Tea Party conservative Jim DeMint, who was joined by GOP liberal Rob Portman of Ohio, conservative Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, cow-tipper Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and 29 other Republicans. John “my friends” McCain was on the wrong side, as always. Since the treaty cannot get the two-thirds vote it needs, it’s dead, Jim. . . for now.

Who Supports It And Why

Naturally, only Democrats (and McCain) supported this thing, right? Actually, no. The American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce both supported it. API is Big Oil’s lobbying arm and the Chamber of Commerce is Big Business’s lobbying arm. How could they possibly support this, you ask? Doesn’t the loss of sovereignty, the risk to the US Military, the imposition of international taxes mean anything them?

Well. . . no. Their only concern is profit. And by getting all these minerals safely regulated by an international tribunal, they can then go about making money by extracting them. What about the taxes and fees? Well, that’s really your problem, not theirs, because corporations don’t pay taxes. . . their customers pay taxes.

If you ever needed a more clear example of how little the United States of America and you mean to these companies, this is it. They will happily sell you and your rights to a United Nations tribunal dominated by corrupt Third-World governments just so they can make sure they get the monopoly rights on these minerals. Think about that the next time some oil company or some mineral company or any other multinational company comes to you and says they need some law to help them.

These people are not our friends.


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Government Dependence Is Killing America

America is in trouble, that’s clear. Our economy is creaking along and has produced no jobs in a decade. Unemployment is soaring. The middle class is shrinking. Inflation is crushing wages and people on fixed incomes. Our national debt is stifling and our deficit tells us the powers that be are running full speed ahead with the same old dysfunction. Now we have some interesting data from the Heritage Foundation which highlights the greatest threat this country faces. In a word: dependence.

According to the Heritage Foundation, dependence on the federal government rose 23% in the first two years under Obama. That’s the biggest rise since Jimmy Carter. What's worse, almost every year sees a rise, and the cumulative effects are staggering. In the last two years, the number of people dependent on the federal government has risen 7.5% to 67 million people. That means 22% of the population, one in five people, is a ward of the state. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg because more than 49% of all Americans, 152 million people, live in a household that gets a check from the government.

Think about that.

Half of all Americans look to the federal government as a source of income, and one in five look to it as their primary source of income. Do you think those people will support cutting government spending? Unlikely. At this point, these people eat up 70% of the federal budget -- they claimed 25% in 1962 and 48% in 1990.

Further, 49.5% of all Americans pay NO income taxes (it was 12% in 1960). Do you think those people have any incentive to stop the growth of government?

America has become a country where the many mooch off the labors of the few. This is a disaster because it gives millions of people a strong incentive to vote to keep taking from the rest. And that is highly destructive to the fabric of the country. Why? Because a culture of dependence is forming where a majority of Americans see the government as provider. They have essentially become useless. . . a drain on society. But they have political power because of their sheer numbers and they have no shame in using the government to steal from everyone else. Essentially, the unproductive are using the force of government to make the productive into their slaves.

This must end and it must end fast because dependence makes people unable and unwilling to change. So long as this continues, these people will entrench themselves further and they will ultimately destroy the country in an orgy of debt.

After I started this article, I ran across an article about Jim DeMint. DeMint is the real intellectual Godfather of the Tea Party and must be credited with shaking Senate Republicans from their slumber. DeMint has put out a new book in which he says what I am saying above:

“Dependent voters will naturally elect even big-government progressives who will continue to smother economic growth and spend America deeper into debt. The 2012 election may be the last opportunity for Republicans to win enough votes to win the presidency and a majority in Congress, and enact policies that might turn our nation around from the imminent threat of fiscal calamity.”

This is a significant point. So long as the GOP lets the Democrats (and fellow Republicans) keep adding people to the government dole, we are making it harder and harder to win future elections. It’s a vicious circle, and it needs to be broken.

Interestingly, when DeMint was asked about the presidential candidates, he deferred, but he made two points very clearly: (1) winning the election trumps everything else because of the need to stop this culture of dependence, and (2) the winner of the primary must adopt/focus on Ron Paul’s ideas of individual liberty, cutting the power of the Federal Reserve, and limited government. Said DeMint:

“If our nominee doesn’t pick up a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas, we’re missing the boat and we’re missing a lot of people who could help us build our party. These are not wild ideas.”

I have to agree. I think that a sane Ron Paul without a surrenderist foreign policy would be an unbeatable Republican candidate in almost any election, and especially in this election. The question is, who is this person? Jim DeMint is about the only name that comes to mind at the moment.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's Time To Exploit The Debt Ceiling

Sometime between May and June, our government will breach the federal debt ceiling. We have three choices: raise the debt ceiling, cut spending, or default. The third choice would be a disaster, but I’m thinking that it might be the right time to oppose raising the debt ceiling. Jim DeMint thinks so. Interestingly, the same Democrats who voted against raising the debt ceiling before are now attacking Republicans for toying with the same idea.

Let’s start by explaining why we can’t default. If the US doesn't cut spending or raise the debt ceiling, it will literally (legally) run out of money. That means entitlements won’t be paid, government workers will be sent home (not just the essential ones), government contracts will stop, and repayment on the debt will stop. The biggest of these consequences might be the defaulting on the repayment of our debt. This would tank our credit rating and raise interest rates. Right now we pay approximately $160 billion per year on interest to service the national debt. Much of that has been at incredibly low rates obtained during the financial crisis of 2008. If we default, we could expect our interest rates to double pretty easily. That would mean spending almost as much on payment of interest as we currently spend on Medicare. Moreover, the higher interest rates would hit home mortgages, consumer loans, credit card rates, and crush the stock market. So default would begin a horrible economic spiral that would lead to an economic depression.

This means we must not default. It also means that anyone playing with a possible default better be sure they are right, because the consequences could be very severe and could be fairly easy to explain to every American, as they would be personally hit by this.

But default won’t happen until at least June or more likely July. So at this point, as far as the public is concerned, default is just theoretical. Thus, now is actually the perfect time to use the threat of default to extract goodies from the Democrats. Why? Because it’s too early for the public to get too upset about the idea of the interest on their ARM or their credit cards doubling. But at the same time, anyone worried about the consequences of not raising the debt limit (i.e. Obama and Senate Democrats seeking re-election) will be getting increasingly nervous.

Thus, now would be the time for Tea Party Republicans to make serious demands in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt limit. I say Tea Party Republicans rather than the party leadership because (1) it will be harder for the Democrats to attack Republicans generally if this was seen as just a subset of Republicans, (2) the Democrats think these people are crazy and thus are much more likely to believe this threat than they would if it came from Boehner, (3) Jim DeMint doesn’t have to reveal how much support he has, which will prevent the Democrats from judging how credible the threat is, and (4) this allows Boehner to play the mediator, which is an ideal position for an advocate -- it's essentially the good cop/bad cop routine.

I would also suggest that the demand be substantial and consequential, and it should not be anything that can be characterized as being done in the name of a small group of people like “the rich” or “corporations.” Thus, I would say, don’t ask for a few more billion dollars or tax cuts, but ask for a reformation of Medicare along the lines of that proposed by Paul Ryan, i.e. a de facto privatization. Or demand statutory spending caps fixing the maximum percentage of GNP that can be spent by the federal government.

Finally, start running ads right now pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats on this issue. President Obama, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid each voted against raising the debt ceiling when Bush was President. They are claiming their prior votes were mistakes. But others aren’t being as "genuine." Sen. “Air” Claire McCaskill claims it would be “profoundly irresponsible” for the Republicans to vote against raising the debt ceiling, without ever mentioning that she did the same thing when Bush was President. To hide the contradictions in their own votes against it under Bush and for it under Obama, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman are trying to blame Bush for each of their votes -- then and now. Nancy Pelosi and Caucus Chairman John Larson are simply refusing to comment on their flip flops. And Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn actually said that his vote against raising the debt ceiling (something the Democrats now describe as “profoundly irresponsible”) was just a “protest” of Bush’s tax cuts, i.e. he did something profoundly irresponsible just to register his anger at Bush?

The point here is simple. It will be very hard for the Democrats to defend this issue. Either they were horrifically irresponsible under Bush or they are playing politics now. Either makes for great ads and should help defuse any idea that the Republicans are about to destroy the country. So long as Obama is simultaneously afraid that not getting the ceiling raised will destroy the country (and it would), the Republicans should be able to extract something significant for the public.

Fortunately, this may be in the cards. Even Eric Cantor has said: “Let me give notice to the White House that blindly raising the debt limit without implementing real reforms is irresponsible and will simply burden our children with more debt. We Republicans are not going to go along with it.”

Ok. . . go for it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Can They Pass DonkeyCare By Reconciliation?

The big question over the past few days has been whether or not the Democrats can pass their health care reform creature using the reconciliation process. Answer: It’s not clear. Indeed, the process will be much more difficult that people realize.

1. The Non-Filibuster Filibuster

We all know the Republicans can’t filibuster DonkeyCare if the Democrats go the reconciliation route, right? Actually, that’s not entirely true. While debate would be limited to only 20 hours, there is no limit to the number of amendments that can be offered to slow the process down. Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) pointed this out in a letter a few months back, which the Democrats called “a manual on obstruction.” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has promised to offer enough amendments to delay any vote until November.

2. The Byrd Rule

Any reconciliation attempt will run smack dab into “the Byrd Rule” (Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act). The Byrd Rule is a Senate rule that determines what can and what cannot be done through reconciliation. If any part of the legislation does not satisfy the six part test created by the Byrd Rule, then that portion of the bill can be knocked out of the bill as the bill passes through reconciliation.

Of particular interest, the Byrd Rule provides that elements in bills that are not strictly designed to have a budget impact can be removed on points of order. Many believe this would prevent the Democrats from getting their abortion language through this process, and their attempts to impose requirements on private insurers. Without the insurance provision, this is nothing but a health care tax bill.

There is one caveat on this, however. To achieve this, the Republicans need to raise point of order motions against the individual pieces. These are decided by the Senate Parliamentarian. But Joe Biden could overrule the Parliamentarian. However, he would need to do so in direct opposition to parliamentary procedures and likely CBO conclusions. In other words, Slow Joe not only would need to lie, he would need to accuse the CBO and the Senate Parliamentarian of incompetence. And while worthless Joe is certainly shameless enough to make himself into a hated national joke, it is questionable whether many Democrats would be comfortable following his lead.

There are other exception, but they must be certified by the Senate Budget Committee chairman AND the ranking minority member, i.e. Mitch McConnell. So there is no chance of that.

4. Reconciliation Expires.

Right now, many on the right fear the Democrats will willingly sacrifice themselves with the idea that once a bill like this is passed, it will stay passed, i.e. the Republicans won’t have the nerve to repeal it. Thus, they win by shifting the country permanently to the left. This is wrong.

First, it totally misunderstands human nature. Current politicians will not sacrifice their careers so that their party can make ideological gains in the future. Indeed, as Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Penn) noted, “People who voted YES would love a second bite at the apple to vote NO this time, because they went home and got an unpleasant experience. On the other hand, I don't know anybody who voted NO who regrets it.” That hardly sounds like wagon circling.

But more importantly, everyone is forgetting that reconciliation bills expire. That’s right. Whatever the Democrats pass would need to be renewed (usually in either five or ten years), or it will repeal itself. It will take the Democrats more than ten years to recover from this debacle, which means renewal ain’t happening. Thus, when Democrats start to realize that they are being asked to sacrifice their seats for a half-bill that will expire a few years after they are cast out of office, Pelosi's support will collapse.

5. Pelosi doesn’t have the votes.

Finally, as I noted the other day, several Democrats are now starting to waver, and it’s fairly clear that Pelosi doesn’t have the votes to get this out of the House. With Pelosi losing four of her 220 votes already, she is now one short, barring further surprise. They have now announced that nine Democrats who voted NO may reconsider, but they have offered nothing solid to date. Moreover, this still only leaves Pelosi with a five vote margin before the other 216 Democratic YES's weigh in.

And Bart Stupak has indicated that his band of supporters cannot live with the Senate bill, and that the abortion language is just the first problem they see. Others are making similar noises about their pet peeves as well.

Further adding to the suspicion that Pelosi lacks the votes, she is now demanding that the Senate go first on the reconciliation process before she tries to pass this bill through the House. That's a pretty clear indication she lacks the votes.

Finally, let me finish with the very wise words of Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who notes that: “If they had the votes, we wouldn’t have had the summit.”


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama’s False Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship (n.) -- Word used by failing politicians to shift blame to the other side.

Obama is in trouble. His agenda is dead, killed by his own arrogance and stupidity, and the excesses of leftist Democrats. Now he needs to change the terms of the debate. His strategy, as I first noted the other day, is to shift blame to the Republicans by accusing them of a lack of bipartisanship. Let’s look at his faux “bipartisanship.”

Obama: Can’t We All Just Get Along

When Obama came to town, he told Republicans simply: “I won.” He then ignored every one of their concerns as he and his supermajority of Democrats set about creating a massive left wing legacy. But something went wrong on the way to the Politburo, the voters rose and up and the Democrats got shaky knees. Before it was over, Obama achieved nothing but falling poll numbers. . . numbers which hit a new low again this week.

By the time of the State of the Union, a speech which was supposed to be a victory lap for health care, Obama had gone from “I won” to calling for bipartisanship, begging that Democrats and Republicans forge “a sense of purpose that transcends petty politics.” But was he serious or was this just a political ploy to shift blame to the Republicans?

Obama: Nah Nah Nah, I’m Not Listening

On Tuesday, Obama summoned Democrats and Republicans to talk up his plans for bipartisanship. He began the meeting by whining that his administration isn’t getting enough credit for what it’s done to improve the economy. This, of course, begs the question: is he talking about the eight million lost jobs or the nearly two trillion dollar deficit that is so large it’s become a national security threat?

He then accused the Republicans of “want[ing] to kill” his agenda.

After that highly partisan start by Obama, Sen. Mitch McConnell said that they could work with Obama in various areas, including trade, offshore drilling and expanding nuclear production and clean coal technology -- all things Obama mentioned in his State of the Union. Obama wasn’t interested.

Rep. John Boehner then pledged that Republicans would support Obama if he used his authority to rescind spending measures, to help reduce the deficit. Obama wasn’t interested. Instead, he attacked McConnell for not supporting Obama’s attempt to create a “bipartisan debt-reduction commission.” Ignoring their concerns that creating such a panel will push off any debt reduction measures until after the election, Obama demanded that they appoint member to a debt commission he plans to create by executive order (without first providing them with any details about the commission), or he would appoint the members himself.

The Republicans also said they could work with Obama on a bipartisan jobs bill, so long as it didn’t become too costly and it didn’t just become another stimulus bill. Said McConnell, “We know that wasn’t a job generator.” But Pelosi immediately put out word that she would not support the only job generating portion of the bill, a $5,000 tax credit for businesses to hire new workers. . . though she would support more green spending (perhaps, spending that helps the price of her CLNE stock stock?). Several Democrats also stated their opposition to any agreement on trade.

Obama Attacks

Immediately following this one-way bipartisan meeting, Obama held an impromptu press conference -- his first in months. Obama appeared right after Robert Gibbs mocked Sarah Palin for using crib notes by writing “eggs, milk, bread, hope and change” on his palm. Obama (Mr. Can’t-Speak-Without-A-Teleprompter) took the podium and declared “I want a substantive discussion. . . The people who sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics.” I guess Gibbs didn’t get the memo?

The new bipartisan Obama then blasted the Republicans. He said that he’s seen few signs the Republicans are willing to support any of his policy initiatives:

“Bipartisanship cannot mean simply that Democrats give up everything they believe in, find the handful of things that Republicans have been advocating for and we do those things, and then we have bipartisanship. That’s not how it works in any realm of life.”

He then singled out Mitch McConnell and accused him of only paying lip service to bipartisanship:

“Mitch McConnell said something very nice in the meeting about how he supports our goals on nuclear energy and clean coal technology and offshore drilling to increase oil production. Well, of course he likes that — that’s part of the Republican agenda for energy.”

So apparently, bipartisanship as Obama defines it is Republicans giving up everything they believe in? Also, if Obama supports those goals too, as he claims, why not pass them . . . other than spite? Obama then blasted the Republicans for failing to act on his nominees (keep in mind that the Democrats control the Senate calendar). He then threatened to fill these appointments by recess appointments if they aren’t confirmed (something the left called unconstitutional when Bush did it).

Other Partisan Attacks Are Made

As Obama blasted the Republicans and Gibbs mocked Sarah Palin, White House counterterrorism aide John Brennan made a series of vile attacks against the Republicans on the issue of terror. You might recall Brennan as the idiot who can’t answer why Islamic terrorists want to kill us. In an op-ed published on the same day as Obama's (bi)partisan soirée, Brennan accused Republicans of “misrepresenting the facts to score political points” about panty-bomber Umar Abdulmutallab. He added that this “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of Al Qaeda.” As if he knew what those goals were.

But Brennan isn’t the only demonizer on staff. Obama has done it himself since his calls for bipartisanship. Last week, two “moderate” Democrats in danger of losing their seats told Obama that he needs to reassess his agenda. Sen. Blanche Lincoln told Obama that he needs to “push back on our own party and look for that common ground that we need to work with Republicans.” Sen. Evan Bayh told Obama that the Democratic Party needs to show that it can be trusted to bring down the deficit and control spending. Obama’s response? He attacked the Republicans, accusing them of causing the 2008 financial break down “to make sure that we continue the tax breaks for wealthiest Americans.”

The Republicans Aren’t Fooled

Fortunately, the Republicans are getting it. Noted Minority Leader John Boehner: “It’s not hard to figure out that there’s some kind of shell game going on here. I know bipartisanship when I see it, and it’s not saying one thing and doing another.”

They also expressed concerns about his health care conference because of his unwillingness to start from scratch, rather than continuing with his existing bill. Said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, “We’re not interested in a dog and pony show to trumpet failed bills that, in fact, the Democrats can’t even pass right now.” And Republicans appear to be sticking to their guns in demanding a fresh start on this.

They also pointed out that Obama’s talk is not consistent with his actions. For example, while he talked about moving forward on nuclear power, two days later he cut all funding for Yucca Mountain, a necessary storage site if nuclear power is to be extended, and he pushed back any alternative decision by creating a blue-ribbon panel to study nuclear energy and waste storage. . . effectively delaying any decision by at least two years. Said Sen. Jim DeMint: “It’s hard to take him seriously -- let’s push nuclear energy at the same time he makes it impossible to deal with the waste. What we’re losing now is just the ability to trust what he said.”

Finally, they noted that despite his claim in his State of the Union that he would “make tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” Obama’s budget tells a different story; it indicates that Obama has no intention of expanding oil production.

Obama’s demand for bipartisanship is proving to be exactly what it appeared to be during the State of the Union, just another disingenuous tactic meant to shift the blame to the Republicans. Since blaming Bush wasn’t working, he’s apparently decided that he need a new fall guy. . . one still holding political office. Fortunately, these Republicans aren’t playing his game.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...