American Thinker: The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is NICE

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is NICE
By Joe Herring
In March of 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it." Subsequent study of this leviathan legislation has brought some truly startling revelations to light; however, the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will likely prove the most dangerous to our liberty.

IPAB is a fifteen-member board, appointed by the president and charged with developing recommendations regarding procedures, medications, and spending priorities for Medicare and Medicaid. Ostensibly, the board members are to discover ways to implement the best practices, devising methods by which these programs may provide better services at lower costs.

To describe this board as a "death panel," as Rush Limbaugh has, is to underestimate its power and misconstrue its purpose. While it is true that IPAB will decide which life-saving treatments and drugs Medicare and Medicaid recipients may access, its ultimate function will be to serve as a lever with which to pry the entire health care industry from private hands.

In Britain's National Health Service, there exists an identical organ: the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). (My previous articles on NICE can be found here and here.) Because Britain is an entirely socialized medical system, NICE wields power over the health care options of all residents of Great Britain. IPAB, initially, will make decisions regarding only the government-administered programs of Medicare and Medicaid. This is simply a stepping-off point, however, as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle admits (italics mine):

Experts from the Commonwealth Fund wrote "the Affordable Care Act includes important provisions that will finally begin to control unchecked health care costs, such as...the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Building on and extending these provisions across the health system has the greatest promise of slowing the growth of government health care budget outlays, private insurance premiums, and underlying health care cost trends."


Interestingly though, the enacting legislation has been written in such a way as to preclude any meaningful attempts toward reform of costs by IPAB.

According to whitehouse.gov, "IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."

This inhibiting covenant is an attempt by the White House to preempt the arguments of Americans wary of government intrusion between themselves and their physicians. The actual purpose, I believe, is to bar access to all cost-saving avenues, save the one sought by the Obama administration. This is a failsafe mechanism written into the law that forces Congress out of the process.

Again from whitehouse.gov:

Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB's recommendations.


When Medicare and Medicaid costs threaten to burst through the statutory ceiling, triggering action by IPAB, Congress will be faced with a Hobson's choice. IPAB can, and likely would, set the bar quite high for Congress by recommending huge cuts, using grossly inflated savings numbers, and making any equivalent cuts by Congress politically impossible to pass, resulting in certain inaction. Remember, every member of IPAB will be an Obama nominee, beholden to an administration with a laughably poor track record of veracity regarding fiscal matters. The pressure on IPAB to operate as a purely political instrument will be tremendous, if not irresistible.

Inaction on the part of Congress will effectively cede control to IPAB and HHS, leaving the administration unopposed in its effort to expand government control over the health care economy. Should Congress summon the courage to actually pass cuts equivalent to IPAB recommendations, the political fallout would be devastating. Either scenario plays to Obama's favor, and it is the purpose of IPAB to bring this about.

This is the Cloward-Piven strategy applied to health care. The ObamaCare legislation is chock full of measures designed to swell the ranks (and costs) of Medicare and Medicaid. The law creates entirely new classes of entitlements that not only will redound to the poor and elderly, but will inevitably co-opt the provider side of the industry as well. Cloward and Piven postulated that by overwhelming the system, you can collapse the system, leaving the people clamoring for a ready replacement and gladly trading their freedoms for security.

To understand IPAB and its intended role, it is essential to realize that ObamaCare isn't about health care, nor is IPAB about controlling costs. Both are mechanisms for building dependent constituencies, hopefully sufficient to provide the left electoral success for decades to come.

IPAB plays the role of goading agitator -- pitting groups dependent upon government largesse against those citizens from whom the government derives its funds. IPAB will demand, and Congress will reliably evade the tough decisions they were elected to make while bleating plaintively about their hands being tied by bureaucracy.

In Wisconsin we witnessed a grotesque belch of selfishness and entitlement on the part of public-sector unions. Despite their outsized salaries and benefits, the unions raised such a hue and cry over the prospect of losing a fraction of their boon that much of America watched their preening indignation with a mixture of revulsion and dread. How much more violent will the convulsions be when people are facing the prospect of medical rationing, the elimination of services for loved ones, and even death? Rather than a circumstance to be avoided, Obama and his advisors intend to amplify this rage in order to cow any opposition as they amass unassailable power.

In Britain, one assessment used by NICE in their cost-benefit rationale is the concept of "social usefulness." A necessarily subjective and entirely corrupt political calculation, social usefulness is nonetheless a significant factor in determining eligibility for life-saving or live-extending treatments in Britain. NICE is absolutely a rationing board. They don't deny it -- indeed, they celebrate their self-described "grown-up" treatment of the subject matter while simultaneously hiding behind the fig leaf of "citizen input" and "stakeholder consensus" when deciding who lives and who isn't worthy to draw another breath.

Dr. Donald Berwick, the recess-appointed head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services here in the United States, knows a thing or two about NICE. He was its architect. Berwick's think-tank, the Commonwealth Fund, is the leading apologist for single-payer health care in the United States and has long advocated installing our own version of NICE. IPAB will operate as an arm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Who better to direct and build a second Frankenstein's monster than Dr. Frankenstein himself? We need only look to Britain to see the failed model the Obama administration has imported.

The administration notoriously carved out special ObamaCare waivers for its friends and supporters. Can there be any doubt that these same supporters will be judged "socially useful" when rationing comes fully to our health care system? We will see Wisconsin ad infinitum once access to health care hinges on political patronage.

The author writes from Omaha, NE and can be reached at readmorejoe@gmail.com.
2 Comments on "The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is NICE"

American Thinker: Is Obama a Serial Liar?

Is Obama a Serial Liar?
By Nancy Morgan
Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Especially when that someone is the President of the United States. Charges of that nature should be leveled based only on absolute proof of a deliberate statement, intentionally made, whose sole purpose is to deceive. Based on this criterion, President Obama is a liar. Demonstrably so. And a disturbing pattern is emerging that allows for the possibility that our president is a serial liar. Consider:

In just the last month, Obama has made several statements that are just not so. Statements made to the American public that were in direct conflict with known facts.

In April, Obama flatly stated that implementing ObamaCare will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. A day later, the Congressional Budget Office reported that statement was 'incorrect,' pegging the "deficit savings" at $210 billion over 10 years.

In the same April 15 speech, Obama stated that the tax burden on the wealthy is the lowest it has been in 50 years. A simple fact-check proves him wrong. Obama did not correct his false statement and the media didn't either.

In January of 2009, Obama stated that it was no longer necessary to kill Osama bin Laden to win the war against al-Qaeda. On May 1, 2011, after the successful raid by Navy Seals that killed bin Laden, Obama told the nation that he made the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden a "top priority," and had instructed CIA Chief Leon Panetta to make this job number one. Which statement is correct?

Last week, several of my friends asked me if I believed that bin Laden was really dead. The questions weren't surprising, considering the mass of misinformation and conflicting accounts of bin Laden's death now emanating from the White House. It appears the question of bin Laden's demise was only settled after al Qaeda issued a statement confirming it.

What does it say about Obama's credibility when the pro-Arab al Jazeera media reports are given more credibility than our own president? Maybe that's why Columbia School of Journalism just awarded al Jazeera a journalism prize.

Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, I'll allow for the possibility that he underwent a drastic change of heart and altered his position on bin Laden. It happens. But when added to the increasing number of statements Obama continues to make that defy reality, the facts, and common sense, I'm more inclined to believe Obama's "mis-statements" are a deliberate effort to deceive the American people.

For example: Obama told the American people that not spending money is "mortgaging America's future." Who knows, it's possible Obama actually believes this, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows we can't spend our way out of bankruptcy.

Another blooper: Obama stated that increased drilling will not solve our energy problems. Huh? Again, the media let this statement go unchallenged. (At least Sen. Vitter called him on it.)

Obama would have us believe that the big bad oil companies are to blame for our skyrocketing gas prices, despite the fact that every energy decision made by Obama, from with holding drilling permits to increased regulatory burdens being placed on big oil, has directly resulted in raising the cost of gasoline.

Obama would like us to ignore the fact that his Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, stated in 2008 that he wants to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Since then, gas prices have doubled. Mission accomplished.

Despite the pain at the pump, Obama's energy dis-information campaign has been quite successful, with a new poll showing that only 9% of Americans believe that Obama is responsible for rising gas prices.

Tailoring the facts to reflect the most favorable interpretation is an accepted prerogative of the bully pulpit. Every president will of course, spin the news to a certain extent. This is not new. But under Obama, there appears to be a deliberate campaign by the White House and many segments of the government to blatantly deceive the American people. Consider our Department of Homeland Security:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that the Obama administration is trying to come up with a new yardstick to better reflect the improvements it says it has made. The Washington Times correctly noted that, unable to meet its border goals, the DHS merely moved the goals.

Arizona Sheriff Larry Deaver pretty much confirmed the Washington Time's report, testifying before Congress that the U.S. Border Patrol has told its agents to stop arresting illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico to keep the illegal immigration numbers down. In other words, deceive the American people by peddling perception as reality.

Obama and his administration are masters in getting Americans to think with their hearts instead of their brains. After all, emotions are easier to manipulate than facts. And many truths are easier to ignore than acknowledge. But not acknowledging reality, doesn't change the reality. And we ignore reality at our own peril, as we are now finding out on a daily basis.

Though not specified in our Constitution, I believe Americans should have the right to enough information to make informed decisions. Instead, we are being fed a steady stream of outright lies and deliberate misstatements. And when we the people fail to challenge our elected representatives when they lie, we not only enable them, we become complicit. We also forfeit the right to complain when reality hits us in the pocketbook while America continues its slide to the level of a third world country.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com. She lives in South Carolina.

White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden | Socyberty

White House Insider: Obama Hesitated – Panetta Issued Order to Kill Osama Bin Laden
by Ulsterman in Issues, May 3, 2011

"What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound."

Note:This update comes some 24 hours after our longtime Washington D.C. Insider first outlined shocking details of an Obama administration having been “overruled” by senior military and intelligence officials leading up to the successful attack against terrorist Osama Bin Laden. What follows is further clarification of Insider’s insights surrounding that event.

_______

Q: You stated that President Obama was “overruled” by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound. Was that accurate?

A: I was told – in these exact terms, “we overruled him.” (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president’s “persistent hesitation to act.” There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.

I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper. The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama. Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position. This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton. She was livid over the president’s failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such. As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts. One, that the military action could fail and harm the president’s already weakened standing with both the American public and the world. Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.

Q: What changed the president’s position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to proceed?

"What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound."

A: Nothing changed with the president’s opinion – he continued to avoid having one. Every time military and intelligence officials appeared to make progress in forming a position, Jarrett would intervene and the stalling would begin again. Hillary started the ball really rolling as far as pressuring Obama began, but it was Panetta and Petraeus who ultimately pushed Obama to finally act – sort of. Panetta was receiving significant reports from both his direct CIA sources, as well as Petraeus-originating Intel. Petraeus was threatening to act on his own via a bombing attack. Panetta reported back to the president that a bombing of the compound would result in successful killing of Osama Bin Laden, and little risk to American lives. Initially, as he had done before, the president indicated a willingness to act. But once again, Jarrett intervened, convincing the president that innocent Pakistani lives could be lost in such a bombing attack, and Obama would be left attempting to explain Panetta’s failed policy. Again Obama hesitated – this time openly delaying further meetings to discuss the issue with Panetta. A brief meeting was held at this time with other officials, including Secretary Gates and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Gates, like Panetta, was unable to push the president to act. It was at this time that Gates indicated to certain Pentagon officials that he may resign earlier than originally indicated – he was that frustrated. Both Panetta and Clinton convinced him to stay on and see the operation through.

What happened from there is what was described by me as a “masterful manipulation” by Leon Panetta. Panetta indicated to Obama that leaks regarding knowledge of Osama Bin Laden’s location were certain to get out sooner rather than later, and action must be taken by the administration or the public backlash to the president’s inaction would be “…significant to the point of political debilitation.” It was at that time that Obama stated an on-ground campaign would be far more acceptable to him than a bombing raid. This was intended as a stalling tactic, and it had originated from Jarrett. Such a campaign would take both time, and present a far greater risk of failure. The president had been instructed by Jarrett to inform Mr., Panetta that he would have sole discretion to act against the Osama Bin Laden compound. Jarrett believed this would further delay Panetta from acting, as the responsibility for failure would then fall almost entirely on him. What Valerie Jarrett, and the president, did not know is that Leon Panetta had already initiated a program that reported to him –and only him, involving a covert on the ground attack against the compound. Basically, the whole damn operation was already ready to go – including the specific team support Intel necessary to engage the enemy within hours of being given notice. Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority – namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta’s permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president’s full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval. Daley contacted Clinton within hours of their meeting indicating Jarrett refused to allow the president to give that approval. Daley then informed Clinton that he too would fully support Panetta in his actions, even if it meant disclosing the president’s indecision to the American public should that action fail to produce a successful conclusion. Clinton took that message back to Panetta and the CIA director initiated the 48 hour engagement order. At this point, the President of the United States was not informed of the engagement order – it did not originate from him, and for several hours after the order had been given and the special ops forces were preparing for action into Pakistan from their position in Afghanistan, Daley successfully kept Obama and Jarrett insulated from that order.
This insulation ended at some point with an abort order that I believe originated from Valerie Jarrett’s office, and was then followed up by President Obama. This abort order was later explained as a delay due to weather conditions, but the actual conditions at that time would have been acceptable for the mission. A storm system had been in the area earlier, but was no longer an issue. Check the data yourself to confirm. Jarrett, having been caught off guard, was now scrambling to determine who had initiated the plan. She was furious, repeating the acronym “CoC” and saying it was not being followed. This is where Bill Daley intervened directly. The particulars of that intervention are not clear to me beyond knowing he did meet with Jarrett in his office and following that meeting, Valerie Jarrett was not seen in the West Wing for some time, and apparently no longer offered up any resistance to the Osama Bin Laden mission. What did follow from there was one or more brief meetings between Bill Daley, Hillary Clinton, a representative from Robert Gates’ office, a representative from Leon Panetta’s office, and a representative from Jim Clapper’s office. I have to assume that these meetings were in essence, detailing the move to proceed with the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound. I have been told by more than one source that Leon Panetta was directing the operation with both his own CIA operatives, as well as direct contacts with military – both entities were reporting to Panetta only at this point, and not the President of the United States. There was not going to be another delay as had happened 24 hour earlier. The operation was at this time effectively unknown to President Barack Obama or Valerie Jarrett and it remained that way until AFTER it had already been initiated. President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission. Upon his arrival there was a briefing held which included Bill Daley, John Brennan, and a high ranking member of the military. When Obama emerged from the briefing, he was described as looking “very confused and uncertain.” The president was then placed in the situation room where several of the players in this event had already been watching the operation unfold. Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day’s events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president’s role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.

At the conclusion of the mission, after it had been repeatedly confirmed a success, President Obama was once again briefed behind closed doors. The only ones who went in that room besides the president were Bill Daley. John Brennan, and a third individual whose identity remains unknown to me. When leaving this briefing, the president came out of it “…much more confident. Much more certain of himself.” He was also carrying papers in his hand that quite possibly was the address to the nation given later that evening on the Bin Laden mission. The president did not have those papers with him prior to that briefing. The president then returned to the war room, where by this time, Leon Panetta had personally arrived and was receiving congratulations from all who were present.

In my initial communication to you of these events I described what unfolded as a temporary Coup initiated by high ranking intelligence and military officials. I stand by that term. These figures worked around the uncertainty of President Obama and the repeated resistance of Valerie Jarrett. If they had not been willing to do so, I am certain Osama Bin Laden would still be alive today. There will be no punishment to those who acted outside the authority of the president’s office. The president cannot afford to admit such a fact. What will be most interesting from here is to now see what becomes of Valerie Jarrett. One source indicated she is threatening resignation. I find that unlikely given my strong belief she needs the protection afforded her by the Oval Office and its immense powers to delay and eventually terminate investigations back in Chicago, but we shall see.

Stay safe.

American Thinker: Arrogance and Narcissism Reign in King Barack's Court

Arrogance and Narcissism Reign in King Barack's Court
By Anthony W. Hager
Arrogance is defined as an inflated degree of self-importance with a supplementary contempt for others. Narcissism describes a person totally infatuated with his own persona and possessing an overblown sense of ability or worth. Arrogance and narcissism are somewhat synonymous. Yet there is sufficient difference between the terms to apply both to the persona our current Commander-in-Chief embodies.

President Obama is a walking contradiction. Acts he once considered an abuse of authority are but policy recalculations when he exercises them personally. Other presidents have overstepped their authority. Obama, however, is uniquely intelligent and supremely qualified to properly wield powers he once considered abusive and to rule a free people. "Rule" isn't a word chosen at random; it's a term Obama himself has used to describe his administration.

Barack Hussein Obama doesn't see himself as merely the United States' 44th President; he is her liege, King Barack the First.

Obama's use of signing statements confirms his narcissism and arrogance. Obama's position on signing statements is similar, but in mirror image, to John Kerry's position on the Iraq War. Remember how Kerry voted for the war prior to voting against it? Obama was against presidential signing statements before he used them.

Before his coronation Obama considered signing statements beyond the president's constitutional authority. He pledged not to use such statements to circumvent Congress, a charge he leveled at his predecessor. However, when Obama's signing statement accompanied the recent budget deal he had to redefine his position.

King Barack has changed his mind. Signing statements aren't beyond the president's power after all, as he stated when campaigning in 2008. But such executive statements shouldn't be abused in the way his predecessor abused them. Note the arrogance and narcissism. Other chief executives have abused the signing statement. Obama, however, possesses the virtue, wisdom, and sound judgment necessary to exercise the signing statement effectively without crossing the line into abuse.

Obama further displayed his royal manner in his refusal to comply with Congress' ban on White House czars. Worse than his contempt for Congress, a feeling with which most Americans can empathize, is his disregard for the U.S. Constitution.

The President, according to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, will appoint various officers of the United States subject to the Senate's review and consent. The language represents a problem for czar appointees, who aren't presented for Senate review. The President may also appoint inferior officers, which could be interpreted to include czars, at his discretion. However, such discretionary appointments can be made only if Congress has empowered the presidency to make them. A Congress that can grant discretionary appointment authority to the president via legislation may revoke that authority in like manner, as this Congress did in the budget bill.

Yet the czars remain and Congress' duly passed law is ignored. King Barack the Arrogant and Narcissistic simply snubs Congress and the Constitution's directives on presidential appointments.

Instances abound to confirm His Majesty's elevated sense of worth and authority. Obama also thumbed his nose at a judge's decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional. If you or I ignored such a ruling we would be arrested. But people of superior intellect and insight, like King Barack, can't be bothered with trivialities, such as court rulings, that would apply to those of us in the great unwashed.

Arrogance allows Obama to travel on the publicly-funded Air Force One at $70,000 per flight hour while demonizing corporate CEOs for flying privately-funded aircraft at a fraction of the cost. Narcissism vindicates King Barack the First when he compensates his supporters with taxpayer provided stimulus cash while praising his administration's exemplary ethics.

Signing statements aren't the problem, be they issued by King Barack or a simple president. But a President serves within the office's authority at the pleasure of the governed. A King serves at his own discretion, believing the contemptible governed are beneath questioning or comprehending their ruler's decrees. Rulers embody arrogance and narcissism individually and simultaneously, a feat thoroughly possible in the Court of King Barack the First.

Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 300 articles for various newspapers, periodicals, and websites. Contact him via his website www.therightslant.com.

How Efficient Are Wind Farms?

Environment Issues

May 3, 2011
How Efficient Are Wind Farms?

Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed, producing below 10 percent of capacity for more than a third of the time, according to a new report. The analysis also suggested output was low during the times of highest demand, says BBC News.

* The research, carried out by Stuart Young Consulting for the John Muir Trust, analyzed electricity generated from UK wind farms between November 2008 and December 2010.
* Statements made by the wind industry and government agencies commonly assert that wind turbines will generate on average 30 percent of their rated capacity over a year.
* But the research found wind generation was below 20 percent of capacity more than half the time and below 10 percent of capacity over one third of the time.

The study also challenged industry claims that periods of widespread low wind were "infrequent."

* The average frequency and duration of a "low wind event" was once every 6.38 days for 4.93 hours.
* During each of the four highest peak demands of 2010, wind output reached just 4.72 percent, 5.51 percent, 2.59 percent and 2.51 percent of capacity, according to the analysis.
* It concluded wind behaves in a "quite different manner" from that suggested by average output figures or wind speed records.

Source: "Wind Farm Efficiency Queried by John Muir Trust Study," BBC News, April 6, 2011. Stuart Young, "Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation," John Muir Trust, March 2011.

For text:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410

For study:

http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

Vattel’s Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen

Vattel’s Influence on the term

a Natural Born Citizen



What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.



The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”



Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,



§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.



“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Working up a tax storm in Illinois

Working up a tax storm in Illinois


By George F. Will, Published: April 29

Tim Storm, an Illinois businessman until a few weeks ago, is now a Wisconsin businessman. Herewith a story about how states can reduce revenue by trying to increase them and about the economic benefits of federalism.

Storm, 42, is founder and chief executive of FatWallet.com. The company, until recently one of about 9,000 Illinois “affiliates” of Amazon.com, directs online shoppers to online retailers, which often pay affiliates commissions for referrals that result in sales. Storm’s company, which has 54 employees, used to be located in Rockton, Ill., but now is five miles up the road in Beloit, Wis.

One reason online sales are brisk is that the retailers are not required to collect state sales taxes. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such taxes must be collected only by companies that have a “substantial nexus” — basically, a brick-and-mortar presence — in the state. Under this rule, Amazon collects sales taxes in only five states.

Illinois, comprehensively misgoverned and ravenous for revenue, has enacted what has come to be called an “Amazon tax.” It requires Amazon and other online retailers to collect the state’s sales tax. Amazon and many other retailers responded by severing their connections with their Illinois affiliates.

Storm responded by relocating to Beloit. No one knows how many other Illinois affiliates of the thousands of online retailers — transactions with Amazon are less than 1 percent of FatWallet’s business — will lose revenue, pay less in taxes, cut jobs or leave the state. When Texas sent Amazon a bill for $269 million because of the “nexus” of its Dallas warehouse, Amazon decided to close the warehouse.

Hoping to turn the states’ budget crises to their advantage, Wal-Mart, Target and other large retailers are funding a coalition called Alliance for Main Street Fairness to lobby for measures — perhaps federal legislation — to require Amazon and other online retailers to collect sales taxes. This supposedly would serve fairness by leveling the playing field.

Most online retailers would, however, retain the advantages of convenience — shoppers do not need to drive to the store — and the price advantages of not having to pay the cost of brick-and-mortar stores. But the stores have the competitive advantage of local loyalties and customers being able to handle merchandise.

Besides, Main Street stores pay sales taxes to support local police, fire and rescue, sewage, schools and other services. If Amazon’s Seattle headquarters catches fire, will Champaign, Ill., firefighters extinguish it? And as Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby notes, “A Pennsylvania tobacco shop doesn’t collect Ohio sales taxes whenever it sells a humidor to a visitor from Ohio.”

Federalism — which serves the ability of businesses to move to greener pastures — puts state and local politicians under pressure, but that is where they should be, lest they treat businesses as hostages that can be abused. According to the Tax Foundation, Illinois has not only the fourth-highest combined national-local corporate income tax in the nation but also in the industrialized world. In Peoria, Doug Oberhelman, chief executive of Caterpillar, has told Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn that he is being “wined and dined” by other governors and their representatives encouraging Caterpillar to invest in their states.

It recently picked Muncie, Ind., for a major manufacturing plant. Says Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels of his neighboring state, “It’s like living next door to ‘The Simpsons’ — you know, the dysfunctional family down the block.”

A study by the Illinois Policy Institute, a market-oriented think tank, concludes that between 1991 and 2009, Illinois lost more than 1.2 million residents — more than one every 10 minutes — to other states. Between 1995 and 2007, the total net income leaving Illinois was $23.5 billion. The five states receiving most refugees from Illinois were Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin, Arizona and Texas. Two are Illinois’ neighbors, three have warm weather, two — Florida and Texas — have no income tax. In January, a lame-duck session of Illinois’ legislature — including 18 Democrats who were defeated in November — raised the personal income tax 67 percent and the corporate tax almost 50 percent. This and the increase — from 3 percent to 5 percent — in the tax on small businesses make Illinois, as the Wall Street Journal says, “one of the most expensive places in the world to conduct business.”

Tim Storm’s presence in Beloit demonstrates how American federalism gives force to a familiar axiom: Businesses go where they are welcome and stay where they are well-treated.

georgewill@washpost.com