Chuck Schumer

The Land of the Fee and Home of the Slave

In the days leading up to the IPO (Initial Public Offering) of Facebook stock as it became a publicly traded company, much of the news surrounding the company was made not by founder Mark Zuckerberg, but by Eduardo Saverin, a young man who became very rich after he invested his life savings in that unknown company running out of a Harvard dorm room. Saverin had announced that he was renouncing his U.S. citizenship, preferring to make his ties with Singapore instead.

In the aftermath of his announcement, it was claimed that he was doing so in order to avoid the heavy tax burden placed on his wealth by the United States. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), a man of whom former Senator Bob Dole once said that “the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera,” wasted no time in turning this into face time with the press to score political points, joining with fellow Democrat, Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) in announcing their intention to submit the “Ex-PATRIOT” Act.

According to Schumer, this law would “re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country.” Like a modern-day Rasputin, this would enact into law the assumption that politicians have supernatural powers of mind-reading, and would presume any person who renounced U.S. citizenship, while having a net worth greater than $2 million, or an average five-year income tax liability of at least $148,000, had done so for the purpose of tax avoidance. The law, eviscerating the Constitution’s presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” principle, would require the individual to prove to the IRS that they’d not done so for tax avoidance purposes, or risk additional capital gains taxes on any future investment gains.

Manifesto of a Right-Wing Extremist

Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate, was exposed this week for engaging in a coordinated effort to paint Republicans, and especially those with ties to the TEA Party movement, as “extremists”. Speaking to fellow Senate Democrats (and not realizing that the media had already been connected in on the conference call), Schumer explained that he “always use[s] the word extreme”, because “that is what the caucus instructed me to use this week”. This intentional attempt at character assassination comes because House Speaker Boehner is getting pressure from freshmen Republicans and the conservative base to do something more than offer lip service to fiscal responsibility.

Indeed, the problem is not that Republicans are too extreme. The problem is that they are not extreme enough; the $61 billion in budget cuts, from a $3.78 trillion dollar budget which increases the deficit by about a trillion and a half dollars, is little more than a rounding error. Much deeper cuts to spending are necessary if we are to get our fiscal house in order, and Republicans had better show some spine and get serious if they expect to keep the support of conservatives and the majority of independents come November 2012.

To be sure though, any Republican with an ounce of intelligence and awareness knew these attacks would come. After all, this is an administration who refuses to acknowledge the radical Islamic roots of the terrorist attacks on American soil over the last few years, yet whose Department of Homeland Security two years ago published a report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”. Obama himself has repeatedly refers to his political opposition as being extreme and dangerous.

Dems in Disarray: Chuck Schumer attacks Obamacare strategy

Chuck Schumer

A shocking change in tone in the Democrats’ “top message man,” according to POLITICO:

Democrats’ top message man Chuck Schumer criticized how his own party handled Obamacare’s political strategy on Tuesday, joining a list of prominent Democrats who’ve chastised their own party in recent days as they struggle to come to terms with a crushing defeat earlier this month.

Schumer commented at an event in Washington that Democrats “blew the opportunity the American people gave them” by concentrating on health care during the teeth of the recession in 2009 and 2010, calling it a focus on “the wrong problem.”

But this isn’t the first time Schumer attacked the strategy of passing Obamacare rather than focusing on economic issues. Jeffrey Toobin wrote in an August 2010 interview with Schumer for The New Yorker:

Well, this is unconstitutional: Senate Democrats want to go after corporations that have left the U.S. over the last 20 years

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws, those that are passed and signed to outlaw some sort of activity after the fact. But don’t tell that to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). He may soon introduce legislation that would penalize companies that moved their headquarters overseas because the United States’ unfriendly tax climate, reaching as far back as 1994:

A top Senate Democrat’s proposal to limit future deductions for companies that moved tax addresses out of the U.S. as many as 20 years ago would penalize dozens of so-called inversion deals.

The proposal by Charles Schumer of New York, the No. 3 leader in the Senate’s Democratic majority, would reduce the amount of deductible interest for inverted companies to 25 percent of U.S. taxable income from 50 percent, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg News.

President Barack Obama has included a similar provision in his annual budgets, and this is the first time the language made it into a legislative proposal, Robert Willens, a New York-based independent consultant on corporate taxes, said by phone yesterday.

“It would have a very profound and immediate effect on these companies and would be very effective at reducing the attractiveness of inversions,” Willens said. “This is certainly a political statement.”

Sorry, Chuck Schumer, Ted Cruz is right about Democrats’ plans to repeal political speech protections in the First Amendment

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) touched a nerve when he blasted Senate Democrats for the constitutional amendment they want to pass that would ostensibly repeal the political speech protections of the First Amendment.

Politico Magazine ran a piece earlier this week by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) in which they claimed Cruz is wrong because of certain “balancing tests” on free speech.

Basically, the two Democrats compare their absurdly unreasonable constitutional amendment to completely reasonable limitations on free speech, including safety restrictions, laws against libel, and — drumroll, please — prohibitions on child pornography. Yeah, really, they went there (emphasis added):

House Republicans should probably investigate Senate Democrats for the big role they played in the IRS scandal

House Republicans have spent a significant amount of time over the 13-plus months investigating the Internal Revenue Service and disgraced official Lois Lerner over the targeting conservative and Tea Party groups.

But a series of ethics complaints filed by the Center for Competitive Politics earlier this month highlights the involvement of nine Senate Democrats, including Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), in the IRS scandal, as A. Barton Hinkle explains:

The complaint details several letters Levin wrote to the IRS in which he insisted that “a message needs to be sent” to social-welfare groups “on an urgent basis,” and that the message should make it “crystal clear” they needed to restrict their political activities. Just so the IRS would not misunderstand, he drew attention to two TV advertisements—one by Crossroads GPS and another by Patriot Majority USA.

Unsatisfied by the IRS response, Levin continued to press the agency to give such groups—which are organized under Section 501(c)4) of the tax code—”a choice: either lose their exempt status (and pay taxes) or eliminate the partisan political activity.” He followed that up with a demand to see confidential information about Crossroads GOP, Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA. Informed that “the IRS cannot legally disclose” what he wanted, he tried again—and again. As the ethics complaint notes, “IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller acknowledged in an interview that Senator Levin’s effort did, in fact, have an effect on the IRS’ internal proceedings.”

Hahahahaha: Chuck Schumer doesn’t know who authored the Bill of Rights

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) may want to crack open a history book. During yesterday’s hearing on proposed constitutional amendment that would repeal political speech protections of the First Amendment, the New York Democrat said that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights:

“I think if Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Bill of Rights, were looking down on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute,” Mr. Schumer said.

Wait, what?

Yeah, Jefferson didn’t write the Bill of Rights — James Madison did. In fact, Jefferson as the minister to France when the when Madison crafted and submitted the proposed amendments. Jefferson didn’t leave France until September 26, 1789, a day after Congress approved the amendments, of which 10 would eventually be ratified by the states and become known as the Bill of Rights.

Another point that Schumer gets incredibly wrong his suggestion that Jefferson would support restrictions on political speech. This statement is completely ignorant of history.

Jefferson, then-vice president, vigorously opposed the Sedition Act, under which several political opponents of the Adams administration were prosecuted, and, along with Madison, authored the Kentucky and Virgina nullification resolutions in the late-1790s.

Leave our freedoms alone: Senate Democrats are actually campaigning on repealing part of the First Amendment

For the first time in Senate Judiciary Committee history, the majority and minority leaders will testify before the Committee, according to Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont. The subject? A proposed constitutional amendment to regulate and restrict political speech.

Democrats are attempting to make the 2014 elections about the Koch brothers, and this legislation is their constitutional shot across the bow and what they consider an unfair campaign finance advantage for Republicans.

In reality, Democrats have wealthy allies who bankroll their campaigns and projects to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Nevertheless, they see this amendment as a winning issue for the midterm elections.

From the POLITICO report:

“The Court has repeatedly used the First Amendment – not to protect the voices of all Americans, but as an instrument to amplify the voices of billionaires and corporations,” Leahy said of the Tuesday showdown. “Those voices are not the only ones who the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to protect.”

Conservatives have argued that Democrats’ intended constitutional change amounts to a “repeal” of the First Amendment and McConnell called the proposal “the ultimate act of radicalism.”

Senate Democrats want to dismantle the First Amendment

Senate Democrats plan to hold a vote on a constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) that would effectively rewrite the First Amendment to give Congress the ability to regulate political speech:

The Senate will vote on an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would overturn two recent court cases that have given corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals free rein to spend freely on federal races.

“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who announced the plan.

“The only way to undo the damage the court has done is to pass Senator Udall’s amendment to the Constitution, and Senate Democrats are going to try to do that,” he said.

Schumer said the vote would take place by year’s end and called on Republican colleagues to join Democrats to ensure “the wealthy can’t drown out middle-class voices in our Democracy.”

Eyeroll. It’s gimmick, part of the populist message on which Senate Democrats are desperately trying to run as they face a tough mid-term election. It also serves to rally the party’s leftist base, which, apparently, only likes free speech when they’re the ones talking.

Senate may weigh more sanctions against Iran, despite nuclear deal

The deal brokered between six major countries, including the United States, and Iran to slow the country’s nuclear program in exchange for loosened sanctions has been met with a cool reception in Washington from members of both parties.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) acknowledged on Monday that stronger sanctions against Iran may be considered when the chamber reconvenes early next month, though, they could be vetoed by President Obama:

Reid called the pact negotiated between six world powers and Iran an “important first step,” but expressed uncertainty whether it would be good enough.

“When we come back, we’ll take a look at this to see if we need stronger sanctions,” he said in an interview on “The Diane Rehm Show.”
[…]
“If we need to do stronger sanctions, I’m sure we will do that,” he said. “We’ll move forward appropriately.”

Reid acknowledged President Obama could veto stronger sanctions passed by Congress if he believed they ran counter to his foreign policy agenda.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Senate Democratic leader, criticized the deal at a press conference in New York Sunday.

“It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table. And any reduction relieves the pressure of sanction and gives them the hope that they will be able to obtain a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Schumer said the “disproportionality” of the agreement would increase the likelihood of Congress passing additional sanctions in December.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.