Unemployment Benefits Unconstitutional? Time to Divorce Joe Miller
By Legal Eagle, Esq.
When I last put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard (as it were), we were discussing Joe Miller’s preposterous assertion that somehow, despite the Alaska Constitution and the Alaska Statehood Act, that Alaska could take land back from the federal government – and then apparently start strip mining Denali National Park (as one does). On that subject, the question posed was whether Joe Miller is an idiot or a liar. I believe that this question has validity across multiple subjects.
Take, for example, unemployment benefits. On July 22, 2010, President Obama signed into law an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. This extension provided the nation’s jobless with additional unemployment benefits through November, 2010. In order to be eligible for these extended benefits, a person must have already been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. This extension was absolutely necessary on a number of levels. First and foremost, on a human level, unemployed workers still need to eat. They still need to pay their mortgages, their electric bills, and to put gas in their cars.
Second, the extension of unemployment benefits is critical to revitalizing the economy. According to economist Mark Zandi, temporarily increasing is “better targeted and more stimulative than suspending taxation of unemployment benefits.” For every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits in this country, there is $1.63 in associated economic activity. These benefits are likely to be spent quickly, and in local communities. The extension of unemployment insruance benefits in a recession such as this is an automatic stabilizer that is both effective and appropriate.
Of course, in Joe Miller’s world, none of this matters. I suppose that he would tell jobless Alaskans to go hungry and to default on their mortgages. Because in Joe Miller’s world, unemployment benefits are “unconstitutional.” In a recent interview with ABC/Washington Post’s “Top Line,” Miller stated, “The unemployment benefits have gotten — first of all, it’s not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that’s gotta be looked at, so I do not favor their extension.”
Yes, you heard that right: unemployment benefits, in existence since 1935, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It’s strange that Joe Miller is the first person to think of this….I never imagined that a divorce lawyer knew more than constitutional law scholars about the constitution. Go figure.
Perhaps if Joe Miller had stayed awake during his constitutional law classes at Yale (instead of sawing a log and dreaming about how glad he was Yale has a pass/fail system), he would have read the three seminal cases from 1937 that upheld the constitutionality of unemployment benefits as part of the Social Security Act. These three cases — Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 610 (1937), Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) and Carmichael v. Southern Coal Co. and Gulf States Paper, 301 U.S. 495 (1937) — all involved either stockholders or employers disputing the constitutionality of the unemployment insurance program. In essence, the argument went like this: because the unemployment insurance tax was not one that was specifically enumerated in the Constitution’s list of taxes, it was unconstituonal. These opinions also concerned the constitutionality of “old age insurance,” or Social Security, which I’ll touch upon in another post (spoiler: Social Security is constitutional!).
In these opinions, the SupremeCourt ruled that the unemployment insurance program is constitutional. To understand the reasoning behind these decisions, we need to look at that ever-important document, the Constitution. Specifically, we turn to Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….”
In explaining this section, known as the “general welfare clause,” Thomas Jefferson stated: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
Yes, Thomas Jefferson — a founding father — stated that Congress can tax for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Supreme Court interpreted the general welfare clause expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power (an absolute power) to impose taxes and spend money for the general welfare. The Court held that the unemployment insurance program does not violate the 10th Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Cardozo stated,
“. . .there is need to remind ourselves of facts as to the problem of unemployment that are now matters of common knowledge. . .the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose [other] than the promotion of the general welfare.” (Emphasis added).
These cases are clear. The unemployment benefits program is constitutional. No serious constitutional scholar or politician, no matter which side of the political aisle they fall on, seriously challenges the constitutionality of these programs. While a person may have a philosophical disagreement regarding the role of the federal government in administering this or other programs, it cannot be claimed with any seriousness that it is unconstitutional.
The legal principle of “stare decisis,” the legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions, should put this matter to bed. The same arguments about unemployment insurance (and Social Security) — that it violates the 10th Amendment, and that it’s not part of Congress’ enumerated authority — have been argued since the Social Security Act was passed in 1935. They didn’t work then, and they won’t work now. The only way that this program, and other social welfare programs like it, could be found unconstitutional now is for the Court to define the term “general welfare” to exclude unemployment benefits.
How would the Court ever have an opportunity to redefine the term “general welfare”? First, someone would have to sue over the unemployment insurance program in federal court. Then the matter would have to be appealed to an appellate level court, federal circuit court. THEN the matter would have to be appealed to the Supreme Court, AND the Supreme Court would have to grant the petition for certiorari (essentially, agree to hear the case). Generally, the Supreme Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for certiorari a year, and grants about 100 of them — or 1%. This entire process would take years. And what would a sitting United States senator have to do with such a case? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
So, let’s go back to the original question: is Joe Miller a liar or an idiot? Is he saying all of this because it gives him credibility with the National Tea Party people, and he knows all of the above and is just telling people what they want to hear? Or is he a complete idiot, who has NO idea that long-standing precedent authorizes the unemployment insurance program, and also has NO idea about his potential role in the judicial process as a U.S. Senator? (In addition to a Black’s Law Dictionary, maybe his campaign should also request contributions for the Schoolhouse Rock series?)
Let’s face it: Joe Miller is a divorce lawyer (stop for a moment and let the irony of that sink in). When asked for legal advice in an area outside of my specialty, I typically advise friends, family and clients to seek another attorney. You wouldn’t go to a podiatrist for brain surgery, would you? It’s the same with lawyers. Don’t go to a divorce lawyer for advice on the constitution, folks. Or if you do, check and make sure that he or she isn’t a political climber whose legal advice is tainted by his right wing nut job world view.
It’s time to divorce the divorce attorney, Alaska.
Wasn’t Talis Colberg, our former state AG, an insurance lawyer? Sarah sure knows how to pick ‘em.
Owned!
Well said.
It’s sad that our political discourse has been so severely dumbed down over the past thirty years that the Joe Millers of the legal profession can obtain the nomination of a major political party for statewide office. Sadder still that he’s a member of the bar. But, as far as I know, neither lying nor idiocy are grounds for disbarment. Apparently, disbarment requires nothing short of sex with an intern.
Sex with a client will get you disbared. Sex with an intern only gets you disbarred if you lie about it.
True. Even then, I believe the lying has to be under oath. Idiocy would be so much easier to prove.
Lying to federal authorities during an investigation into the outing of a covert CIA operative will also get you disbarred, thank goodness.
Another good argument to minimize the rant of Joe the blowhard! This man is an idiot and, like Sarah Palin, a benefactor of Koch largesse and influence.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
Palin (a millionaire grifter) and Joe the (elite) Divorce Lawyer trying to convince the gullible common folk to get out of the way of the Koch Brothers’ tax cuts for the rich?
Even if I was a Republican and agreed with Miller, I wouldn’t vote for him since he is one of those scum of the earth divorce lawyer ripping off people during a period when they are so emotionally low and vulnerable. What does it tell you about a Yale law school graduate who specializes in divorce, and not corporate law or some other highly specialize field that requires a great amount of skill to compete and win in the court room. Divorce lawyers rarely deal with the Constitution and it’s pretty much straight forward.
a great read that clearly explains what the hell is going on in this race and others that can/will affect the brothers bottom line….they have a lot of investment in alaska and helping “choose” one of a hundred persons in the senate is a powerful thing…and could be quite profitable as he will owe them big time….another great read on how the republiCONS have convinced middle class americans to vote against their interests and for corporations that profit from their ignorance is, “what’s the matter with kansas” by thomas frank….scary times…
Is Joe Miller a liar or an idiot? The answer is yes.
hee!!
There are going to be a growing number of Palin (want to be likes) in the mix. 12 million is a chunk of change. Watch how she will pivot to the middle to sell her upcoming book. It is about making money. You can make a lot of money by seeming more accepting or moderate. It is not about winning an election, it is about selling books, ect. If President Obama does not run again, who will they pick on next?
Solid analysis, but a hoot nonetheless! Loved this post, loved, loved, loved it. Absolutely lifted my day!
Joe Miller is an incompetent either trying to bluff his way to election or deliberately lying to try and impress the low information voters. My sympathies to anyone who relied on his legal expertise because he obviously does not understand the basics of legal analysis and may have represented his clients to their detriment – if his latest public statements are any clue to his competence.
It seems obvious to me that Mr Miller will not be following any Constitutional law argument regarding unemployment insurance should he make it to Congress.
Remember this is the guy who thinks “defund it” is the appropriate tool to deal with that which he disagrees…
“Starve it ” will be his argument…
An ironic but revolting take on the “providing for the common welfare “
Well of course they are, it’s not like you pay for them. Every week. That you work. From your check. Year after year. In case you lose your job.
Oh, wait…
I would be interested to know if Mr. Miller has ever applied for unemployment insurance or if anyone in his family has ever had to apply for it.
I would also like to know if Mr. Miller’s parents or in-laws are currently receiving Social Security benefits or have planned to do so in the near future. I know he said his plan would not effect anyone currently on it or planning for it, but you would think he’d think about the impact it would have on children should their parents only have private investments or pensions that depend upon on the frailties and foibles of the stock market.
Also, does he not realize that Social Security is not just a safety net for the elderly poor and middle class, but also for others? Social Security The program includes retirement benefits, disability income, veteran’s pension, public housing and even the food stamp program. It also provides benefits for survivors whose loved ones are suddenly taken from them. None of the individual payments are large and do not come anywhere near “spoiling” those who need them.
Social Security exists to help people who face hunger, homelessness and humiliation were it not for its various programs. Do we really want to be a country that treats our elderly, our disabled, our veterans, our homeless, and hungry with cruelty? I do not think so, and someone needs to call Mr. Miller on this.
I bet he doesn’t even know how much this program does. Call him out on this. Make him discuss all aspects of Social Security and how he would propose taking care of all the people who need these kinds of safety nets. He is an unmitigated blowhard whose understanding of of the history and need for these programs would not fill a thimble. His cruelty is only surpassed by his egotism.
Sorry for the errors in grammar and proofing. I allowed myself to write while angry – always a mistake.
…his stock answer will that there are charities that one can apply to in times of need…….. the stock answer of those who advocate the termination of goverment social services…. and have never had to deal with Life’s disasters….. perhaps he should use the lines of Ebenezer Scrooge about them availing themselves of the poorhouse, and if not, speeding themselves from life ….( I don’t have a copy of “A Christmas Carol” at my fingertips)…
And how many times have we heard that response from the far right??? Unfortunately, depending on charity can be a problem if you live outside of a well-populated area where charities are limited or non-existent. It’s also very hard to take care of families when you have no dependable source of income and must depend on the ‘kindness of strangers’. Suppose the strangers aren’t so kind this week…so sorry, kids, no food until next week…maybe.
They also don’t take into account the fact that, as the economy gets worse and more people need help, fewer people are willing and/or able to donate. As the need grows, the support diminishes.
When my sister died at an early age, her three young children qualified for SS payments. It wasn’t a lot, but it certainly helped. Miller probably would have said to send them out to work. So what if the little one is in kindergarten, make her earn a living like the rest of us!
Mr. Miller went to college on the taxpayers’ dime (West Point). He could have enlisted and spared us this expense.
KS, I think I read that his parents are on SS. But I’m sure that his plan would ‘grandfather’ in those already receiving it.
Is it true that Scott McAdams is appearing with Palin and Beck on Saturday, 9/11? Is this really going to happen … that these people including the recently lauded Mr. McAdams are now going to do the same thing to 9/11 that they tried to do on MLK’s anniversary of his speech in D.C.?
There is a letter in the Wasilla newspaper, the Frontiersman, inviting people to a 9/11 event put on by the Conservative Patriots Group, noon to 2. In the letter it says Joe Miller and tentatively Scott McAdams will speak. This has to be a mistake. If you search the Conservative Patriots Group and Frank Bettine, they are classic tea party, climate change deniers, anti-environment, anti-science folks. They intend to show slides of the 9/11 tragedy and you are encouraged to bring your kids. This sounds wierd. Remember, the Glenn Beck event is a different event, later that evening in Anchorage, with $arah.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/09/08/opinion/letters/doc4c85cf05c99d8453748700.txt
It probably isn’t a good idea to insert any supreme court decisions into Jo(k)e’s stand on the issues.
Normal Alaskans have normal thought processes.
Jo(k)e’s followers are absent of any thought processes.
Good write up by the way. Quyana.
“The legal principle of “stare decisis,” the legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions, should put this matter to bed.”…. thanks for brining this back into the discussion. It opens up a whole new line of discussion…. primarily the amount of ‘settled law’ that the SUPREME COURT overturned with the recent Citizen’s United 5-4 ruling that gave corporations legal standing as individuals when it came to speech and campaign contributions… Miller trying somewhat of a similar tactic when it comes to his wigged-out issues is truly in the scope of how far this loon is prepared to go..
Oh, by the way, the answer to your original question is “BOTH”…
wow, thank you for this beautiful explanation! I feel much better now. So these wingers are just beating a long-dead horse, eh? Or perhaps f______ a long-dead chicken is a better metaphor?
Feathering?
Is Miller joining the making-money-off-9/11 Beck-Palinpalooza next week?
Oh, how I wish this was also a compass piece in the daily news. Those slack jawed Miller supporters really need to read this! But alas, somehow I think they wouldn’t be able to grasp the concepts contained therein (like Miller himself).
Thanks Legal Eagle, fantastic post. Enlightening and entertaining! I’m glad to add this information to my arsenal against clueless ‘constitutional conservatives’ I may come across, however most times, like Barney Frank, I think I’d have better luck arguing with a dining room table.
Here you go, Benlomond2 (8.8.1).
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Thanks !!!! ( and I like the Mr. Magoo cartoon version best !)
Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol was my favorite part of the season while I was growing up. I still miss it!
Thank you so much, legal eagle. However, I think you asked the wrong question. IMO, it should have read, Is Joe Miller a liar and an idiot? To which I answer, yes.
There are so many things not specifically allowed in the Constitution. Like divorce. Hey…
And marriage!
.
Baseball! Space travel! Cell phones!
Again an important great piece. The legal eagle explains so well that any person can understand
clear..what is written. Every good on line and print paper should use these pieces.. As the
national media is now writing more about Alaska political situations and certainly every Alaska
paper. It has to be that there are many ill informed voters..Mudflats is a very important ..
true information on important issues. This is not just ill informed in Alaska as to some voters
this is true nation wide.,this is not a time for ill informed voters..which goes without saying.
Keep up this very informative..clear writing legal eagle and Mudflats..
It would be interesting to know who would have standing to bring a suit?
Presumably state AG’s, claiming their right to starve their unemployed to death.
But in the real world repealing federal unemployment would only increase the burden on the state in welfare payments and food stamps, so why go there?
A class action by tax payers?
Same problem. You pay taxes for unemployment or you pay taxes for welfare.
So other than showing his ignorance, and realizing that there are just as many unemployed tea baggers as liberals, why does Miller make a public fool of himself over this nonissue issue?
Why? Because it sounds good to the uninformed and to business owners (lower taxes). The people who need unemployment are often people that paid into it for years before needing it (same with SS). I think that is why they call it “insurance”. Unfortunately, the people who are all fired up to vote for him are probably not looking joblessness in the face or they are already on the government dole and do not think beyond the R and “I hate Obama” meme to see that this guy wants them to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”. I wonder how he feels about Worker’s Compensation?
LOVE this headline and introduction paragraph at Media Matters (although they COULD have included most of the conservative/TP candidates including our favorite flannel-shirted, moose antler collector!):
Fox calls for repeal of the 20th century
Since President Obama’s election, Fox personalities have expressed opposition to or called for the repeal of virtually every progressive achievement of the 20th century, including Social Security, Medicare, the Americans with Disabilities Act, portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201009070031
Here’s what I have heard about Joe Miller that bothers me:
He lives at the end of a road outside Fairbanks. He will not allow the press to come to his home. He has 8 kids. They are home-schooled. When he is photographed with his wife, he is creepy and seems controlling. He has radical anti-government views, and claims his view is supported by the Bible and that he is doing God’s work.
Anyone remember Papa Pilgrim?
you are onto something here.
I just made a contribution to McAdams. First political contribution I made in 40 years of voting.
Legal Eagle, Esq.: Mr. Joe Miller is an idiot. Mr. Joe Miller is a lying liar who lies, also too, and therefore and whatnot.
Thank you for this post. IMO, I’d like to see your piece posted elsewhere.
Carry on…yes we can.
Hmmm… Stoopit or Evil. Evil or Stoopit. Stoopit/Evil… Evil/Stoopit….
Yeah, I’m gonna go with ‘Evil/Stoopit’. It suits him, the lying liar who lies, wanna-be-professional-victim that he is. (Just ‘cuz you say it’s so, doesn’t mean it IS so, Joe!)
Oh, and to Legal Eagle, Esquire: I appreciate you. <3
(Even though that School House Rock jingle has been playing on continuous loop in my head for the past 40 minutes!)
“…pro-viiide for the common defense… promote the general welfare a-and… secure the blessings of lib-er-teee (to ourselves and our pos-ter-i-TEE!) do ordain… and esta-a-a-blish this ConstituTION… fo-o-or the-e-e-e… United States of America-a-a-a!”
So if you believe in following the Consitution to the letter, it is okay for the police to search your car at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Nothing in the federal constitution says you have a right to privacy. It certainly doesn’t say your car has a right to privacy. What does Joe “Half Beard” Miller say about the constitutional right ot privacy?
Let me introduce you to the 4th Amendment : “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Pretty sure that protects you from unreasonable searches.
The more I read about Joe Miller the kookier he seems. Now Palin has endorsed that whack job in Delaware. That woman is certifiable. Aren’t there any semi-reasonable Tea Party people to endorse. If I was a Republican I’d be very worried about November. I know the polls say they are going to win big but it looks like there are an awful lot of loonies running on the Tea Party dime.
This as every piece the legal eagle of Mudflats writes..is always clear..completely understandable
this type of issue which as with most important issues today..with the majority of media or writers
is not clear..with the results that many..to many..voters do not understand an issue in any reality
ie then they cast their vote..not understanding the truth of the issue. I want to see the pieces
by the legal eagle and much of Mudflats reprinted in the media..also in national media. National
because in this time of such political that the public is being feed..distortions..and outright lies..
but if with pieces like this..if any voter simply opens up what mind they have left..the truths are
very plain to see. Notice the reader comments..Mudflats comment people seem to be on any
online comment section that always understand an issue ..very likely due to the clear..understandable
pieces written such as the legal eagle gives.
While I agree with you about the clear , concise handling of complex information by Legal Eagle and hope for wider audiences as well, I do think that a call to have it read critically by folks who have settled for a tiny worldview is going to be ignored.
I have posted this link before and think it pertinent to do so again. I don’t think it is cause to let go of hope but it is a call to re-orient the work ahead.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=1
I still think those who accept Mr Miller’s sorry take on Constitutional law would be comfortable with his avowed “defund it” and “starve the beast” strategies for effecting his goals (should he make it to Congress ) and it is likely there is where the battle will lie on issues such as these… It’s a strategy the GOP has used to sidestep legal issues about the constitutionality of certain things for quite awhile… and it has worked to some degree.
This is a really great entry. I found your website from yahoo while searching a similar subject matter. I really liked what you had to discuss. Keep up the good work!
The Supreme Court, under a threat of legislation from the Roosevelt Administration to vastly alter the structure of the Supreme Court and Federal Courts, commonly known as the Court Packing Scheme that could have destroyed the impartiality of the judiciary branch, decided to streamline much of the constitutionally questionable legislation of the New Deal.
The following is an excerpt from the case Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) referring to taxes imposed as an excise on the employment relation between an employee and employer:
”
First: The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
1. We are told that the relation of employment is one so essential to the pursuit of happiness that it may not be burdened with a tax. Appeal is made to history. From the precedents of colonial days, we are supplied with illustrations of excises common in the colonies. They are said to have been bound up with the enjoyment of particular commodities. Appeal is also made to principle or the analysis of concepts. An excise, we are told, imports a tax upon a privilege; employment, it is said, is a right, not a privilege, from which it follows that employment is not subject to an excise. Neither the one appeal nor the other leads to the desired goal.
As to the argument from history: Doubtless there were many excises in colonial days and later that were associated, more or less intimately, with the enjoyment or the use of property. This would not prove, even if no others were then known, that the forms then accepted were not subject to enlargement. But in truth other excises were known, and known since early times. Thus in 1695, Parliament passed an act which granted ‘to His Majesty certain Rates and Duties upon Marriages, Births and Burials,’ all for the purpose of ‘carrying on the War against France with Vigour.’ No commodity was affected there. The industry of counsel has supplied us with an apter illustration where the tax was not different in substance from the one now challenged as invalid. In 1777, before our Constitutional Convention, Parliament laid upon employers an annual ‘duty’ of 21 shillings for ‘every male Servant’ employed in stated forms of work. The point is made as a distinction that a tax upon the use of male servants was thought of as a tax upon a luxury. It did not touch employments in husbandry or business. This is to throw over the argument that historically an excise is a tax upon the enjoyment of commodities. But the attempted distinction, whatever may be thought of its validity, is inapplicable to a statute of Virginia passed in 1780. There a tax of 3 pounds, 6 shillings, and 8 pence was to be paid for every male tithable above the age of twenty-one years (with stated exceptions), and a like tax for ‘every white servant whatsoever, except apprentices under the age of twenty one years.’ Our colonial forbears knew more about ways of taxing than some of their descendants seem to be willing to concede.
”
The Supreme Court concluded that natural rights are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. Also, they concluded that “Excise”, which Congress has power to impose, is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether or to those that are the outcome of a franchise, but extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right (Const. art. 1, s 8).
Tea Party activists argue that there is a disctinction between natural rights and privileges. Natural Rights include birth and breathing clean air. The importance is that only privilieges may be taxes, such as licenses to do business, trade, etc. Natural rights should not be subject to tax. This would empower the federal government to tax anything and everything including the clean air you breath. the rationale for the Clean Air Tax would be that the government has expended vast amounts of funds on the Environmental Protection Agency and other clean air initiatives, which the general public benefits from in the form of cleaner air and thus healthier lives. This would be a health benefit subject to taxation regardless of the fact that breathing clean air is a natural right.
Now, I am uncertain if Joe Miller has articulated his argument this clearly; however, one should not be quick to judge a person because of a sound-byte extracted from a speech or statement without giving him or her an opportunity to fully explain their position.
Unfortunately, this case is established case law and highly unlikely to be subject to an overturn as it would undue nearly 50 years of legislation. However, considering that the federal government is facing the worst financial crisis since the birth of our nation, it would not surprise me.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER