Archive for the ‘Editorial’ Category
Addressing tea party, Republican, and veterans groups, Lynch met more than 1,000 Americans throughout Florida last week, and spoke about a wide range of topics affecting the country. His focus, however, was on immigration—the subject of his first two documentaries, “They Come to America” and “They Come to America II.”
The former businessman has two goals in mind for the three-month tour: educate Americans about what’s really going on at the Southwest border and get them fired up.
“First of all, just when you look at immigration, immigration is the number one issue facing America … and yet, even the well-informed tea partier or the well-informed GOP member, they still don’t know all the facts,” he said in an interview with Townhall, pointing to the administration’s inflated deportation numbers and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s backing of work visas for illegal immigrants.
When they hear the truth, he said, “they’re baffled.”
After discussing the immigration crisis at the Jupiter, Florida event, Lynch analyzed which possible Republican presidential candidate could really fix the problem. The Palm Beach Tea Party reports:
… Mr. Lynch gave his view of the current crop of candidates. Marco Rubio “will not be re-elected to the Senate”, let alone the Presidency. Chris Christie “is not an effective leader” if he didn’t know about the bridge lane closures, Ted Cruz “will be completely destroyed by the mainstream media who despise him”, Rand Paul has been pandering and opposes voter ID laws, and Ben Carson “does not want the job”, as well as being in favor of full legalization. On the mention of Jeb Bush, his comment was drowned out by the laughter in the room, most of whom oppose our former governor’s views on common core and immigration reform.
While Lynch’s goals for the tour may have only been about educating people and encouraging them to take a stand against the direction this country is heading, many attendees in Florida had another objective: Find out if he will run for president in 2016.
The native New Yorker was first asked this question on Facebook last year. Since his latest film “We Ride to DC” was released, however, it has become a question he fields from his loyal followers daily, he explained.
When Townhall asked YN1 Lauren Price USN (Ret.) whether anyone at the Tampa Bay event she cohosted questioned Lynch about about running, her response was, “everyone did.”
Lynch, for his part, said he’s considering it.
“If people would rally behind me like Ben Carson I would do it because I want the job. I know I could get in there and get things done,” he said. “The reason why Ben Carson, I believe, is asked is because people want somebody who’s outside, they do not want a D.C. insider.”
Aside from being an acclaimed filmmaker and award-winning entrepreneur, it’s Lynch’s ability to connect with people of all stars and stripes that has helped garner interest in him as a possible candidate.
“He truly can affect every single person that he talks to,” said Price, who is the cofounder of VeteranWarriors, a veterans advocacy organization. “Dennis does really relate to every single person he speaks to regardless of their walk of life, or income, or gender, race, religion … and that’s what we need in a leader in this nation.”
If he plans to run, Lynch said he’s counting on what happened in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, when David Brat, a college economics professor, ousted House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the primary election.
“If I decide to do this, I am 100 percent banking on what happened in that Cantor primary. I am banking on the fact that David can beat Goliath with the real, true message, and without having to have the money bank.”
“I very much want him to run,” Price said. “I’m hoping that it comes down to it, after he’s finished with his tour, that he decides to go ahead with it and surround himself with really strong people that can help make that happen.”
Can the House of Representatives Sue Obama for Not Executing the Law?
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, believes he has the key to reining in the executive branch: suing President Barack Obama for not faithfully executing the law. But while Obama has repeatedly waived requirements of laws, or chosen not to enforce them against whole categories of offenders, there’s a legal requirement known as “standing” that may stop Boehner in his tracks.
As John Malcolm and I detail in this Heritage paper, standing is a constitutional requirement for all lawsuits, including suits filed against the executive branch by private citizens, individual members of Congress, or an entire chamber of Congress. In essence, the standing requirement means that Boehner must be able to show that Obama’s failure to faithfully execute the law actually harms the House of Representatives, leaving it little recourse without court intervention.
Courts are generally reluctant to become referees in disputes between members of Congress and the executive branch when it would force them to police the limits of coequal branches’ powers. In such a case, it’s better for the political branches to work out their differences on their own—and Congress has tools such as appropriations and impeachment to deal with an obstinate president.
For this reason, most successful lawsuits challenging an administration’s abusive unilateral actions have been filed by private parties that suffered a demonstrable economic injury. A steel company challenged President Harry Truman’s attempt to nationalize American steel mills. After members of Congress failed in their lawsuit challenging the Line Item Veto Act, New York City and a group of businesses got the Act overturned. And recently, a bottling company brought down Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
Boehner has laid out a plan for suing Obama and other executive branch officials for their failure to fully implement Obamacare. You may be wondering why the party that has tried to defund and repeal Obamacare would sue to get the administration to fully implement that same law. The answer is pretty simple: the president’s failure to implement the law “squelches any opportunity to have a robust, political debate about [its] workability,” as law professor Elizabeth Price Foley pointed out.
Boehner argues that the House can sue (as an institution) if there are no private parties who can sue, there is harm being done to the general welfare and faithful execution of the laws, and no legislative remedies exist. Late last week the House Rules Committee approved a resolution that would authorize such a lawsuit.
Boehner will face an uphill battle in this lawsuit. But critics should not be so quick to dismiss this case. The administration and many others claimed suits challenging Obamacare’s “individual mandate” under the Commerce Clause were laughable and lacked any merit. (Recall then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded, “Are you serious?” to someone asking about Congress’s power to enact the individual mandate.)
But ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed that the individual mandate could not be justified under the Commerce Clause, and instead turned the mandate into a tax to uphold it. Boehner’s lawsuit may also surprise its critics.
I hate to say I told you so, but . . .
A few months ago I warned that if Congress didn’t lower corporate taxes, U.S. businesses would start moving their headquarters abroad.
Lo and behold, two major U.S. businesses now are looking to pack their bags for Europe.
Pfizer is trying to acquire AstraZeneca, a U.K.-based pharmaceutical company. If it does, the newly merged company will be based in the U.K.
Walgreens, the pharmacy and convenience-store chain, bought a similar company in Switzerland, and now its shareholders are putting intense pressure on it to move its headquarters there.
These well-known U.S. businesses are looking to pull up stakes because the U.S. taxes their foreign earnings at the highest rate in the industrialized world. Indeed, we are the only country that taxes the foreign earnings of our businesses.
By moving abroad, Pfizer and Walgreens could shed billions in taxes on foreign earnings – earnings that never would’ve been taxed to begin with if we had a territorial tax system like the rest of the developed world.
Last year, in a paper detailing the huge economic benefits of switching to a territorial system, I noted the following:
The worldwide system only applies to businesses headquartered in the U.S. If a U.S. business moves its headquarters abroad, it would still owe tax on income earned in the U.S., but moving its headquarters to another country would avoid the extra tax on foreign income. The U.S. has strong anti-inversion rules that make it difficult for a business headquartered in the U.S. to move its headquarters to another country, but little prevents U.S. businesses from selling themselves to foreign-owned businesses.
Pfizer and Walgreens didn’t sell themselves to foreign businesses, but buying foreign businesses and re-domiciling the new merged business is effectively the same thing.
In the same paper, I explained what’s at stake:
When a business moves its headquarters to another country, it takes high-quality jobs with it and leaves a palpable absence in the communities it once inhabited. Businesses often become synonymous with the cities in which they are founded and grow…
New York City (Pfizer’s headquarters) and Springfield, Ill., (Walgreens’ headquarters) are about to feel these losses. Congress needs to act soon to fix the corporate tax code, or other cities will join the list.
Originally published in National Review Online.