Government Corruption and Treason

Obama to Seek Line-Item Veto Power to Trim Spending from Bills

May 6, 2010

New York Times - President Obama, in his latest effort to signal fiscal responsibility against the rising debt, plans this month to ask Congress to give him and future presidents greater power to try to delete individual items from spending bills.

In doing so, Mr. Obama will join a long line of his predecessors who have sought either line-item veto power or, after the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled such a veto unconstitutional, some other rescission authority that passes muster. Congress once again is unlikely to be receptive, though growing antidebt sentiment could give the proposal life.

Before Congress breaks for its Memorial Day recess, the White House will send it proposed legislation “to give the president a new tool to reduce unnecessary or wasteful spending,” according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Under existing law, a president can send Congress a request to rescind items in spending bills after a bill is signed into law, but if Congress does not approve the request within 45 working days, the money must be released. And Congress, traditionally protective of its constitutional power of the purse, usually ignores such presidential requests, killing them.

President George W. Bush did not propose any rescissions, according to the Congressional Research Service. Republicans in Congress have challenged Mr. Obama to do so, but he has not. Under Mr. Obama’s proposed legislation to expedite and strengthen the process in a president’s favor, Congress would have to vote on any rescissions.

A president would have 45 working days after signing a spending bill into law to submit to Congress items to rescind, the administration official said, and Congress would have 25 days to act. The House and Senate would have to vote the package up or down, without amendments.

“This new, enhanced rescission authority not only will empower the president and the Congress to eliminate unnecessary spending, but also discourage waste in the first place,” the official said.

Americans Are Ratting Out Their Neighbors to the IRS at a Record Pace to Reap Cash Whistleblower Rewards

INFOWARS COMMENTARY: IRS AS PART OF THE POLICE STATE: I would imagine that the fury of the formative founding fathers over taxes—epitomized by the Samuel Adams-led Tea Party protest—was based not only on the unfairness of the authority and burdensome price of the taxes, but also on the tactics used in its collection; i.e,. at the barrel of a gun. In our day, critics point towards the tactics of intimidation of the IRS—whose purchase of shotguns for IRS agents was widely publicized—and who have just gained greater authority vis-à-vis mandatory health insurance, among other provisions. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue collection authority has just launched an eerie big brother-collection commercial where a H.A.L.-like female cyber-voice tracks down a resident for back taxes through a high-tech grid, creepily promising “We do know who you are. Find us before we find you.” The people are angry, they are not violent; on the contrary, it is the agencies of government taking up arms and tracking people down through databases…

May 5, 2010

Bloomberg - Americans seeking reward money are turning in neighbors, clients and employers they suspect of cheating on taxes to the IRS at a rate of nearly eight per day, the director of the agency’s whistleblower program said.

Steve Whitlock, the director, told an audience of about 200 lawyers, investigators and government officials at a Miami Beach conference on offshore banking that his office receives 40 to 50 tips per month alleging tax liability in excess of $2 million. Americans submit another 200 per month alleging smaller violations, he said.

Whitlock said submissions have surged since the enactment in 2006 of a law that requires the IRS to pay awards of between 15% and 30% in cases where more than $2 million is collected. Prior to the law, both the decision on whether to make an award and the amount of payment were discretionary.