It’s there reward for donating hundreds of millions to democrat party.
4 Likes
There’s your dues money hard at work. Just not going into the ■■■■■■■ pension funds.
2 Likes
I hope you are correct. Unfortunately, the Republican Party Leadership is infested with traitorous and un-American opportunists who work hand in hand with the tyrannical Democrat Party Leadership. And in the end, the people’s treasury is plundered, and fortunes are made, by cleverly legislated money laundering operations, just like Obama’s Green Energy plundering of the people’s treasury.
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes___ Obama’s Green Energy SWINDLING DEALS___, is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v.Topeka,(1875).
Funny thing, the PBGC is the federal program designed to step in when a pension fails. The PBGC is supposed to take over the pension, with invested assets of the pension transferred to the PBGC. The PBGC then takes over pension payments, which usually means adjusting the benefits to limits established by law. This usually means the pension payments are capped at a level usually below the members receiving the highest payouts under the old plan. That isn’t what appears to be happening here. Instead of assuming control of the pension under the PBGC, the PBGC is going to capitalize the failing pension plan, allowing it to keep paying as if it wasn’t failing. This is going to leave the pension in the same hands that mismanaged it. Not sure that will pass muster under the law governing the PBGC. The other obvious thing is that these COVID relief funds are just big vague slush funds.
2 Likes
Why does the POTUS have this right? He isn’t an emperor and there’s a process for spending money that isn’t his to spend and this isn’t it.
2 Likes
One thing Ol Folksy Joe has learned in his 50 year political career is how to buy votes. He loves him some unions too. Promise everything deliver nothing, just like minority vote buying.
I can’t imagine this latest vote buying scheme passing the court hearings or the Republican majority House.
What’s problematic is the Republicans will need to assign the lies associated with the union pension bailout where it rightfully belongs. Blocking the financing will be another campaign lie the Dimbulbcrats will use for ‘24.
2 Likes
There is nothing in the Constitution delegating such power to the president. And its exercise, which is condoned by the leadership of the Republican and Democrat parties, exhibits how far the separate institutions of our federal government now conspire to plunder the people’s federal treasury.
JWK
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
1 Like
Does not the Constitution allow, if not compel, the President to ensure that laws such as the American Rescue Plan are faithfully executed? From the OP:
The bailout was made possible by the American Rescue Plan Act, the $1.9 trillion package passed last year in response to the pandemic.
Financially struggling multiemployer pension plans can apply to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for assistance.
Before the act passed, more than 200 pension plans were on pace to become insolvent in the near term, according to the White House. Now, those plans are projected to remain solvent through at least 2051.
The $36 billion for the Central Pension Fund is the biggest boost from the program, and the largest ever federal financial assistance for troubled pension funds, according to the White House.
No.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858
Jeez, and here I thought it was right there in the job description.
No enumerated power for that in the first place.
A justifying clause to explain why a power to levy certain forms of taxes rather than beg the States for funds is not an enumerated power to spend. The enumerated powers to spend are given in the subsequent clauses.
2 Likes
And our federal Legislators, Executive and Judicial officials are all commanded by our Constitution to support and defend "this Constitution, and not one they believe ought to be the rule of law.
JWK
“To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation.”____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).
Isn’t it amazing how, after over a century, progressives on the Court suddenly discovered that the Framers on down had been wrong?
The only exception I take with your post is, they are not “progressives”. They are domestic enemies, and authoritarian revolutionaries.
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
If they had called themselves French Republic Style Arbitrary Government Wannabes they would have been honest … and not won elections.
Take it up with the courts then. The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.
You are the one suggesting our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure.
The fact is, our federal Constitution nowhere proclaims “The law is in place, and it’s the President’s duty to ensure that it’s faithfully executed.” As a matter of fact our federal Constitution is crystal clear in that it’s the Presidents duty to support and defend “this Constitution” and not laws which subjugate it.
And specifically, the President is commanded to
take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
So, my friend, what wording in our federal Constitution authorizes the expenditure in question? Eh?
The old saying goes, put up or shut up!
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
The lawless Court and the federal is in abeyance. The financial doom that lawlessness is leading to is unavoidable.
Hopefully the progressives will suffer worse than the rest of us, because they actually deserve it.
1 Like
Then the savior Obama failed. He failed to ensure many laws were faithfully executed. Heck, he was the master of ignoring laws he didn’t like. Or is that little caveat only for Republican presidents?
3 Likes
Please try to focus.
