Senate Clears Spending Bill Funding Obama’s Executive Amnesty

December 15, 2014—We’ve just seen the CRombnibus bill passed by the House of Representatives, and the Senate I’m sure will do the same thing shortly, and it was a huge bill; $1.1 trillion, and it tides the government over into next year and everybody is happy except the conservatives and the liberals.

It was a split vote. The total vote was 219-206. Not exactly a landslide for support of the legislation, but a lot of people voted against it because there wasn’t enough money, and then a lot of Republicans voted against it because it was too much money and they weren’t doing the right things.

Anyway, the bill gets passed and it moves on, and even though there’s a lot of people complaining that it was irresponsible, don’t sweat it because I have a quote here from somebody in a very important position that will explain to us why you shouldn’t worry about this. This is a good piece of legislation as far as he is concerned.

Let me read about that. This comes from The Speaker of the House John Boehner. This is what he said so rest assured that the bill has to be okay. “House passes responsible spending bill,” according to John Boehner. Here he goes, “With a bipartisan vote The House has passed a responsible bill to keep the government running and address the American people’s priorities.” Well that sounds very reasonable. I wish they would protect my priorities of liberty, but that’s not the case.

He goes on to say, “This measure puts us on track to save tax payers more than $2.1 trillion while protecting jobs and supporting our national defense.” Wow. You take this most outrageous bill and so much pork and so much bad stuff in it, and yet the statement is, well, this is great because in the future we’re going to save $2.1 trillion.

This bill carries it through the fiscal year, except for Department of Homeland Security in February. Believe me, there’ll be some things attached. There’s always supplemental bills in Congress. As soon as there’s an emergency. If there’s a hurricane, or what if there’s a threat of Ebola? Oh you’ve got to have billions and billions of dollars for that. What if another war breaks out? You got to have money there. These numbers aren’t all that significant. They will not go down, they will go up.

Just a few things in the bill that as far as I’m concerned are so outrageous. The Congress agreed, the Senate and the House agreed that they would add over five billion dollars to fight the war. Fight the war in Syria. That’s what this is all about. The expansion of the war by our dumb policy because we precipitated these events, and we shouldn’t even be there. We should be cutting tens of billions of dollars from all this foreign intervention, but here in this very, very, important responsible bill, we add $5 billion to expand our conflict in Syria.

There’s another $5 billion. Now this is really important, especially if you’re in the medical profession because you have to have sympathy for anybody who gets sick. There’s been two cases of Ebola that has cropped up in this country, but there was an epidemic coming. It was used to generate excitement and fear so that it could pump more money into health matters and hospitals, and all these things, but the crisis didn’t emerge, it fizzled. The “need” for more money didn’t go away so they have $5 billion in here.

Just think. There’s $10 billion. That’s only two things that we looked at. Just think if we’d have allowed that $10 billion to stay into the pockets of the middle class? What might they do with this? This would be fantastic if we had that attitude. The last thing this bill has to do with Dodd-Frank because the establishment Republicans, establishment Democrats, and the President have agreed to back off on any regulation of the banks getting involved in derivatives.

Now, derivatives: I thought that was all cleaned up with the bust occurring in ’08 and ’09. Didn’t we clean that mess up and bail everybody out? No, we just facilitated it to be returned and dumped all the debt on the American tax payer, and the Fed did it in secrecy, and well Dodd-Frank bill is supposed to come in and say, “Okay thou shalt not do this.”

They don’t change the system that creates that, and that is the moral hazard of zero rates of interest and all the mal investment goes on. They think they can create these wonderful conditions of guarantees for people, the good people, but then if they do something wrong well we’ll handle that with regulation, and that’s what Dodd-Frank is supposed to do, but now they’re starting to realize that this is going to interfere with the bailout that they expect to come.

They’re also recognizing it’s getting dangerous. They see what’s happening in energy, they know this can’t last, and they are set for the next crisis, and that is what’s coming. There wasn’t a whole lot of talk about that, but the liberal Democrats of course want the regulations, and assume that is going to be the correction. I’m always for deregulation. Let people do what they want. If they want to invest and do these risky things, they should do it at their own risk. If they don’t commit fraud and they make money that’s fine, but they should never be guaranteed.

I’m with them on this no guarantee, but they want the guarantee for a certain segment but not the other segment, and they think they can pick and choose. I don’t think that’s going to happen but it shows the fallacy of the defects of The Federal Reserve, zero rates of interest, failure of regulations, and how special interests will always protect the big guys. This part is not good, but it might be the most significant part of this budget bill that was just passed.

Anyway, it’s not a responsible bill. I guess I’ll write John Boehner and tell him I didn’t think what they did was very responsible, and maybe they can turn that around and come back to their senses, and make all the conservatives and all the liberals happy. Good luck. Anyway, thank you for tuning in, and come back soon to The Ron Paul Channel.