House Roll Call 636 (12-19-2012) H.R. 6655 Protect Our Kids Act of 2012.
Passed (2/3 required) 330 to 77, 24 not voting. Became Public Law No. 112-275 (signed by the President 1-14-13). GOP and Democrat selected vote.
Bill Summary: Establishes a commission to develop a national strategy and recommendations for reducing fatalities resulting from child abuse and neglect.
Analysis: The federal government was not conceived as an institution to solve all problems. The Constitution was designed to empower the federal government in very specific areas and forbid its meddling elsewhere. And the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority or responsibility over child abuse.
Of course, voting to establish a commission merely to study a problem undoubtedly looked like a politically safe step to many representatives. However, it is useful to look at the forces supporting this legislation to understand the real objectives.
Revolutionaries have long recognized that one of the best ways to win public acceptance for new government authority is to insist that government must act to combat a crisis — real or widely alleged. In endorsing the “Protect Our Kids Act,” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry stated before the Senate (12-21): “Child abuse fatalities are a national crisis that requires a collective solution.”
A much less obvious strategy for grabbing power was also at work with this measure. In the nineteenth-century, the French statesman-economist Frederic Bastiat, described the strategy succinctly. He observed that governments seek to increase their power by “concocting the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory.” What he meant was that governments often either create or exacerbate problems, which then require statist solutions.
As far back as the 1960s, the Insider-supported culture war targeted the traditional family and the values that supported it. Entertainment and opinion leaders condoned drug abuse, adultery, obscenity, abortion, divorce, teenage sex, rebellion and homosexuality while ridiculing Biblical standards of morality. And federal funding found its way to many of the organizations promoting the new values.
During the early 1970s, the federal government began to fund state and community welfare agencies under Title XX of the Social Security Act. One of the purposes of the grants was to help the agencies provide protective services to neglected and abused children.
Inevitably, federal control follows federal funds. By federalizing the problem, social workers achieved new power in pursuing allegations of parental child abuse.
Those representatives who understood that the new commission was merely a precursor to more unconstitutional legislation would have to vote no.
We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)