Constitution Wins in Judge Vinson’s Decision

Image via Wikipedia

President's signature on Health Care bill

The Obama Administration has introduced numerous measures which are unconstitutional or constitutionally questionable: Cap and Trade, restrictive regulations, shutting down offshore oil drilling, etc., but none more blatantly outside constitutional limits than Obamacare. The majority of states have legal action against this law currently going on in Federal courts.

The most damaging decision to the socialized medicine law is a decision by a federal judge in Florida. This story is fairly familiar by now, but as it fades from the news cycle, it needs to be pointed out that this ongoing legal battle very well could (and should) result in the end of Obamacare.

The decision should remind the elites in charge in Washington that we still have a constitution, and that they are obligated to follow it.

In Pensacola, Florida, on Monday, January 31, 2011, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled the Obama health care reform law unconstitutional. According to his ruling, the mandate to purchase insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, and is not severable from the rest of the law. Therefore, the entire law is invalid. In his ruling, the judge sided with 26 states, which, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, brought the lawsuit. [1]

This ruling (found here) is a serious blow to the health care law, and apparently ends it, unless the decision is overturned by a higher court. The judge rejected the administration’s argument that the case should be dismissed because the states did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.


One refreshing thing about the decision is that it shows respect for what the Constitution actually says, and is not simply an act of bench legislation. If the individual mandate is allowed to stand, what can’t the government require? But our Constitution establishes a federal system and a central government with limited and enumerated powers.

Meanwhile, in Congress, following the House’s vote to repeal the act, the Senate voted on February 2, by a 51-47 majority, on a strict party line vote, against repeal. The Democrats are determined to protect the law, regardless of the facts that (a) the majority of the states are suing to have it overturned, (b) the majority of American voters disapprove of the law, and (c) a federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional.

According to the ruling (Page 42 of 78)

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power”[Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

From Page 75 of 78 of the ruling:

(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [citations]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” …..Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
[Emphasis added]

It might seem that the Administration would give this decision its due, but the Administration has chosen to ignore it as far as implementation is concerned, even for the 26 states involved in the lawsuit.

According to Heritage legal expert Robert Alt, Judge Vinson’s declaratory judgment binds the parties to the suit, which includes 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and the federal government. This means that, absent a court-issued stay, Obamacare cannot be further implemented as it pertains to these 26 states. So the White House now faces a simple choice: Will President Obama abide by a valid decision by a federal district court, or will he unilaterally ignore the rule of law? If the past is any indicator, the rule of law is in for a continued beating. [2]

According to Bill Wilson at IBD Editorials,

[Wisconsin Attorney General J.B.] Van Hollen has taken the proper step of following the law, which now says that ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety, relieving Wisconsin of any obligation to follow it.

It is the responsibility of every state attorney general in the nation to follow Van Hollen's lead, and halt any actions to implement this unconstitutional law. To do otherwise will open states up to legal liability. [3]

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said that the Obama Administration should enforce the law regardless of the court’s decision:

Given the judge’s ruling, CNSNews.com asked Durbin on Wednesday whether he thinks the Obama administration should stop implementing the health care law.

Durbin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said, “Personally, I don’t, because the judge was asked for an injunction, and he didn’t rule that there would be one. So he hasn’t enjoined any conduct or activity. At this point, we have 16 courts that have considered this case. [4]

As mentioned in the judge’s ruling, an injunction was considered unnecessary because of the presumption that the government would honor the ruling.

Obama apparently will continue to ignore this until the Supreme Court rules on it. Then what? The Administration has already been held in contempt of court by another federal judge.

As reported by Joe Newby of The Examiner, the Obama is ignoring another court order. The Administration has been found to be in contempt of court for defying an order to end the deepwater drilling moratorium. [5]

Newby quotes from Bloomberg’s article on the decision:

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling. [6]

So, does anyone notice a pattern developing? Apparently, the Administration is all for the rule of law when it suits their purposes. Otherwise, not so much.

[1] Melissa Nelson, Associated Press, “Florida Judge Strikes Down Obamacare, Says Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional,” 01/31/2011, via CNS News.


[2] Conn Carroll, “Morning Bell: The Obamacare Assault on the Rule of Law,” 02/03/2011, The Foundry, The Heritage Foundation.


[3] Bill Wilson, “Obama Invites Crisis If He Ignores Ruling,” 02/02/2011, IBD Editorials.


[4] Nicholas Ballasy, “Durbin: Obama Administration Should Enforce Obamacare Even Though Judge Ruled It Unconstitutional,” 02/03/2011, CNS News.com.


[5] Joe Newby, “Obama Administration found in contempt of court over drilling moratotium,” The Examiner (Spokane), 02/04/2011.


[6] Ibid.

Photo: President's signature on health care bill. Public domain.

The Waxman Inquisition

March 30, 2010

Several large companies have announced that they are taking charges to reflect expected losses resulting from the Obamacare legislation, specifically the deductibility of subsidies for providing retired employee drug coverage. [1] The White House says these companies get the dual benefit of a subsidy and a deduction, so the removal of the deduction simply closes an over-generous loophole. Be that as it may, the change represents a substantial reduction of income for some large employers.

The companies and their announcements, as reported by Business Week, are as follows:
AT&T: $1 billion
Deere & Co.: $150 million for the current fiscal year
Caterpillar Inc.: $100 million for the first quarter of 2010
Verizon: Said the law change “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.” [2]

Since these announcements tend to put the health care law in a bad light, Rep. Henry Waxman must of course hold hearings to grill the CEO’s and try to intimidate them for daring to suggest that the law might need to be changed, and that it will deliver a serious blow to their bottom line.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has “requested” internal documents justifying the write-downs, and asserts that “independent analyses” show that the law is supposed to reduce their costs. So Waxman is preparing a hearing apparently to disparage these companies for the sin of giving unfavorable publicity to the Congress and Administration. Of course, this plan could backfire by bringing even more negative attention to the health care law.

Waxman appears to think that these companies just wanted to embarrass the Democrats. These announcements should be justly embarrassing, but why would the companies make such announcements? It seems an expensive ploy, if that were the purpose. But they have valid reasons and requirements to fulfill. Accounting rules require that these known future losses be taken on their books at current value. Failure to do this would be misleading to investors. The companies do this in spite of the probability that their stock prices could go down as a result, something they do not wish to have happen.

Waxman wants to defend the law and put pressure on some of its critics. The Democrats’ strategy is generally to try to silence critics, demonize them, and, if possible, criminalize them. Waxman must know this is an unjustified and costly inconvenience. The “independent analyses” by the Congressional Budget Office have been based on information provided by the Democrats, who view the health care “reform” through rose-colored glasses. The things that are supposed to provide lower costs are not likely to happen (huge Medicare cuts, etc.) and the tax picture (in addition to the changes whose effect is being recorded by these companies) is unfavorable and probably largely unknown as to how bad it will really be.

Democrats hope to lay a trap to embarrass and intimidate the executives they are summoning. It remains to be seen whether the execs will be assertive or submissive. Generally, they want to be on the government’s good side, but at what cost?

The heretics must be called to account for the sin of doubting the cost-effectiveness of Obamacare. Even if they expected some financial benefit down the road, they can’t record that until it actually happens. Those pesky accounting rules again.

Meanwhile, they are expected to dig up every email, worksheet, confidential document, and published document to explain their decisions, and be prepared to defend them and to explain their accounting methods. They are asked to testify at a hearing on April 21, and to provide the requested information by April 9. And for what? For Waxman’s bullying PR stunt. None of Waxman’s efforts on this serve the public interest in any way.

In Waxman’s letters, he claims to be concerned about “unintended consequences.” This is just the tip of the iceberg of unintended consequences. That is largely the main characteristic of the results of liberal legislation. Of course, this particular legislation was passed as quickly as possible, with as little concern for (or knowledge of) the actual content as possible. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, when this law results in the collapse of insurance companies, it will be explained as a private-sector failure that has to be corrected with a single-payer plan. That is what Obama and the liberals have wanted all along. Meanwhile, how dare any private sector employers question its effects?

[1] Byron York, “Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill,” 03/28/2010, Washington Examiner.com.

[2] Viola Gienger, “AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs,” 03/27/2010, Bloomberg Business Week.


See copies of letters from Waxman to the executives here.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Republicans Are Different from Democrats

March 22, 2010

The outworn comment, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats,” is, I think, one of the dumbest sayings around. The health care vote is a good example. Even the RINO’s wouldn’t soil their hands with this piece of legislative garbage. To their credit, the Republicans were 100 percent against it, and with plenty of good reason.

Of course, the vote is over now, so score one for the fascists. Our Republic is not the same. Our liberty is diminished. Our treasury, already dangerously depleted, is on the way to deep distress.

A Yahoo! News Blog article tries to tell us that the Tea Party protesters made big trouble for Republicans by shouting racial slurs and so on at the Capitol. There haven’t been any videos on TV containing that, as far as I can tell. No evidence, only accusations. Also, it is mentioned that Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) shouted “Baby killer!” as Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) was at the microphone. Neugebauer said he actually shouted “It’s a baby killer!” referring to the health care bill. He apologized to Stupak for anything appearing to suggest that he was referring to Stupak personally. [1]

This is supposed to be a big faux pas that makes Republicans vulnerable? The way this Congress provokes people by ignoring common courtesy and demonstrating thorough corruption in the way they do business, it’s remarkable that decorum holds up as well as it does. The Democrats’ arrogant disdain for the people who oppose this bill is remarkable.

But, of course, there’s hardly a limit to the tear-jerking stories they can bring to the microphone. I was waiting for them to bring in some sick children who supposedly were going to die soon if this bill wasn’t passed – as though there was no solution but a massive government takeover of the health care and insurance industries. Most suffering, I suppose, is caused by a lack of government spending and control.

The article notes that former Bush speechwriter David Frum finds fault with the Republicans’ strategy of going

for “all the marbles” by unanimously opposing the bill and refusing to compromise in any way—fueling activist fury at the same time…. In losing the vote this time out via a strategy of strict opposition, Frum argues that the GOP has left itself little in the way of legislative achievement to run on in future campaigns…. [2]

Attempting to stop this monstrosity of a bill, and demonstrating solid opposition to it, is a worthy legislative achievement. The “political class” thinks that members of Congress and political parties must demonstrate “legislative achievement” in the form of new bills and laws in order to succeed with voters. Almost every new law is a further erosion of freedom and a further burden on the people. A lot of people are becoming very aware of this. Personally, I look forward to a Republican majority in one or both houses of Congress in 2011 and 2012, and a strong effort to stop President Obama’s agenda. I’m all for the “Party of No” when the opposition is a determined, ethically-challenged gang of fascists. They have offered practically nothing to say “yes” to.

There is still some unfinished business in the Senate, but now, much of the fight will take place at the state level, and in the federal courts. States are already preparing lawsuits, and probably nullification laws. The bill has been passed, but implementing it is another matter. There are several constitutional points on which this bill can be challenged: Tenth amendment issues, insurance mandates, unfunded mandates on states, etc.

This law will probably create a new industry for the legal profession. It will be no easy task to gain success against it in court, but perhaps it can be done. Getting it declared unconstitutional (at least in part) is probably more likely than repealing it, at least in the near term. In the longer term, all government entitlements are in danger, simply because of the deficit and debt situation, and the continual adding to the monumental levels of spending. At some point, it becomes impossible to continue, and that point is being brought closer than it would be otherwise, by the Obama Administration’s spending frenzy.

[1] Brett Michael Dykes, “‘Baby killer’ shouter steps forward, highlights internal GOP dilemma,” 04/22/2010, The Newsroom, Yahoo! News Blog.

[2] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

A Constitutional Question

From Article I – Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution:
“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

The health care bill the Democratic Party leadership is trying to pass (by vote or otherwise) is the Senate bill. This bill is apparently not a product of the reconciliation process since nothing was done to try to reconcile it with the House bill. It is, I think, a revenue bill originating in the Senate. If this is the case, it is unconstitutional.

This would be in addition to its generally unconstitutional content.

Any comments?

Is Steny Hoyer Right? People Don’t Care about Process?

Is the process used in Congress to pass a law something people care about? Steny Hoyer doesn’t think so.

As has been publicized, supposedly against the wishes of Washington Democratic leaders, the House is considering using a convoluted and rather obviously unconstitutional plan referred to as the “Slaughter Rule.” It is named after Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who proposed using it to approve the Senate health care bill (“deem it passed”) without voting on it. Only the desired changes would be voted on, then sent to the Senate.

As if “reconciliation” weren’t bad enough, this “Slaughter Rule” is infuriating to opponents of the bill, which would be a sizable majority of American likely voters, and the Republicans in Congress. There has been and will be a loud outpouring of righteous indignation over the cynical and possibly illegal methods being used. To the extent that citizens are paying attention, they largely oppose the reprehensible methods used and to be used in this sorry perversion of the normal process.

An Associated Press article reports that, defending the possible use of the “Slaughter Rule,” [t]he Maryland Democrat [House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer] also said the public didn't care about process but about results, and that the approach Democrats are weighing would result in enactment of President Barack Obama's landmark legislation to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured and create new insurance market protections for nearly everybody else.” [1]
(Emphasis added).

Well, someone had better be caring about process. This administration and Congress are willing to throw out the Constitution and, apparently a lot of political careers, to give Obama this legislation. If they’re willing to seriously suggest, let alone use, such methods to get their fascist-socialist plans enacted, what comes next? Maybe President Obama could just issue an Executive Order? But I don’t want to give him any ideas.

Unprecedented
Democrats argue that the plan has been used before, mostly by Republicans. Brian Darling at RedState writes, “The fact of the matter is that there is no precedent for the House to pass a bill without a direct vote by using a budget reconciliation measure as a trigger and a means to pass ObamaCare. Nancy Pelosi’s potentially unconstitutional strategy to pass unconstitutional ObamaCare is without precedent nor justification.” [2]

“Slaughter Rule” Is Unconstitutional
If Democrats can do these things without effective opposition, our constitutional republic is in serious danger. I don’t think Americans are going to accept such lawlessness. If this bill is passed, or “deemed passed,” the Supreme Court is going to have a case (one or more) to feast upon, and probably shoot the whole thing down.

As The Wall Street Journal points out,
“This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a ‘Bill’ to ‘become a Law,’ it ‘shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.’” [3]

Accountability
Everyone who votes for the bill itself now, or for the “Slaughter Rule,” will be held accountable in November. These votes will not simply be forgotten. Voting for the “Slaughter Rule” will be as bad as, and probably worse than, voting for the bill. House Members who aren’t in a safe liberal district like San Francisco (Pelosi) will find the going tough in November if they vote Obama’s way.

I have to hope these desperate measures of the Democrats fail. This is one attempt at legislation that needs to buried and forgotten.



[1] Associated Press, “Dems defend plan to push health care through House without vote,” 03/16/2010, at New York Post online.

[2] Brian Darling, “ ‘Slaughter Rule’ Strategy Unprecedented,” 03/16/2010, RedState.com.


[3] The Wall Street Journal online, Opinion Journal, “The Slaughter House Rules,” 03/16/2010.


Photo: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, official portrait.

These Benefits Will Hurt

What would “Health Care Reform” do for employment?
1. New federal payroll taxes. These taxes are paid partly by employers and partly by employees – at least in theory. They are all paid out of money earned by employees. They all increase the cost of employing people, thus are a disincentive to hiring. Taxes on “higher income earners” potentially hurt all workers, through job losses or lower pay.

2. New state taxes. States will have to deal with unfunded mandates to handle greatly increased Medicaid enrollment. The federal government will pay a lot of this, but by no means all (except maybe in Nebraska?)

3. Employer penalties for not providing insurance coverage. Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains:

Employers who don't offer health insurance and whose workers use tax credits to purchase insurance on the private market would be fined $2,000 per worker. For some firms this would create a substantial disincentive for hiring low-wage, unskilled workers such as teens, whose unemployment rate is now 26%, or adults without high school diplomas, who have a 15% unemployment rate. Other firms would be tempted to pay the penalty and get rid of the company health plan. [1]

Americans for Prosperity reports, “CBO estimates employers would opt to drop as many as 5 million workers from private insurance, and pay the fine instead of maintaining current coverage.” Employers with 50 or more employees would be required to provide insurance or pay the fee. [2] This is about the only way employers would see any reduction in costs.

Employers with more than 200 employees would automatically be required to enroll all employees in an insurance plan. [3] Thus some additional people might be covered, but this would likely result in layoffs or hiring freezes for many employers who aren’t already doing this.

4. Taxes “Cadillac” health plans. On this, unions would get a break. Also, this tax wouldn’t start until 2018. If Obama doesn’t want to introduce this tax now, it’s doubtful is successors would, either. [4]

5. New taxes on health insurance companies and drug manufacturers will discourage employment in those fields and raise costs and premiums.

6. Taxes on investment income.

The Heritage Foundation states the following:

The new White House proposal to impose a Medicare tax on investment income would reduce demand for investment, which is the last thing that the economy needs right now. It would slow recovery, reduce employment opportunities, and hinder wage growth. [5]

The Heritage Foundation estimates that the White House plan would result in an average of 115,000 lost jobs per year, and reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion per year (between 2011 and 2020). [6]

All these new taxes, about $493 billion [7], come at a very inopportune time, during an economic downturn. Even in better times, this plan could be expected to cause a downturn.

Heritage, again:

[T]he President's plan relies on deep cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and other institutional providers. But the chief actuary of the Medicare program has said repeatedly that these cuts are not realistic because they would push many institutions into serious financial distress. Still, the Administration claims that hundreds of billions of dollars from these cuts will materialize from 2020 to 2030, thus justifying its claim of large deficit reduction during that time. But it is far more likely that the Medicare cuts and tax increases will never be sustained, even as the entitlement costs from the Obama plan soar.[8]

What would “Health Care reform” do for (to) consumers/workers?
All additional taxes to suppliers and providers must be passed on to consumers (or insurers), as must all upstream costs, including direct taxes, fines, fees, compliance expenses, etc. Also, consumers must purchase insurance or pay a $750 fine (tax). Failure to do so could result in jail time. Such a mandate is blatantly unconstitutional and against all U.S. tradition. And, this runs counter to Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on people making under $250,000 per year. Further, there is no serious attempt to deal with tort reform. And, there seems to be no real assurance concerning federal spending for abortions.

Where are these lower costs supposed to come from? Lower costs will be just for those who will get subsidies. The real cost of health care will increase and quality will be diminished.

Spending estimated at more than $2.5 trillion over a decade still won’t be covered by the large tax increases, so only in the Twilight Zone would this plan reduce the deficit. Even if the plan itself tended toward deficit reduction (which it doesn’t), federal spending on many other items would more than offset any expected deficit reduction. Counting on Obama’s “reform” to create jobs and reduce the deficit is like counting on the “stimulus” to end unemployment, only less certain.

Greatly increased bureaucracies associated with “exchanges,” oversight panels, etc. will lead to ever-increasing cost and loss of freedom.

The current entitlements of Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable, and young people today should not expect to benefit from these programs when they reach retirement age. To add new entitlements through “health care reform” demonstrates either woeful ignorance or a serious lack of concern about the future of our economy. This so-called “reform” would be destructive to employment and the economy as a whole.

These entitlements, added to already ever-increasing record deficits, threaten the stability of our economy. Perhaps members of Congress will think again before repeating their mistakes.


[1] Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “Obamacare 2.0 Is a Job Killer,” 02/23/2010, Real Clear Markets.


[2] and [3] AFP Blog, “The Ten Worst Provisions in Senate Health Care Bill,” 03/05/2010, Americans for Prosperity.

[4] James C. Capretta, “The President’s Health Reform Proposal: More Like $2.5 Trillion,” 02/24/2010, The Heritage Foundation.


[5] Karen Campbell, Ph D. and Guinevere Nell, “The President's Health Proposal: Taxing Investments Undermines Economic Recovery,” 02/25/2010, The Heritage Foundation.


[6] Ibid.

[7] Furchtgott-Roth, see [1].

[8] Capretta, see [4].

Photo: Official White House photo by Chuck Kennedy. Found at whitehouse.gov.

America Doesn’t Want This. Obama Does.

“Americans do not want a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care stuffed with tax hikes, Medicare cuts and giveaways to Washington special interests. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.” – House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) [1]

As days roll on and election time draws nearer, some Democrats are increasingly concerned about supporting President Barack Obama’s health care plan, and still hoping to be reelected. Several, like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) are raising objections about federal spending for abortion. Leftist House members don’t like the Senate bill because it contains no public option.

Democratic House members from conservative districts are beginning to see the handwriting on the wall that signifies forced retirement for those who support Obamacare. Not only do most Americans reject the proposed legislation itself, they also reject the unethical manner in which it has reached its current stage, and the heavy-handed method proposed for enacting it, reconciliation. This is strictly a partisan bill affecting virtually all Americans and a very large chunk of our economy. There is no public consensus for this type of legislation.

Obama said, “At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.” [2] (Emphasis added by me). To me this is a very telling remark. First, this bill creates, rather than solves, problems. Second, Obama is preparing us, it seems, for future failures if he can’t get this item passed. Obama’s leadership ability is not strong enough to get a lot of his agenda enacted, largely because he’s trying to lead in a direction people rightly don’t want to go.

He is trying to pass laws that the people of America don’t want. This message has been sent unmistakably. Obama doesn’t care.


Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) wrote the following:

Today you heard the President – who promised transparency – embrace the product of backroom deals and political payoffs. This from the same President who said previously – on numerous occasions – that health care reform shouldn’t be passed with just 51 votes.

The American people have made it abundantly clear they do not want a job-killing, one-size-fits-all, $2.3 trillion dollar, Washington takeover of our health care system. No matter how he tries to spin it, he can’t fool the American people.
– Sen. John Cornyn following the President’s health care speech [3]

Also, his priorities are much out of line with those of the American public. We want to see jobs created and the economy improved, rather than endless spending down this rathole and others. If he thinks that Obamacare will be good for the economy, he needs to hire better economists. Just about anyone with a nodding acquaintance with Economics 101 knows that massive new taxes won’t help, either with unemployment or the deficit. It’s hard for me to believe that Obama is interested in improving the economy. Socialism is the opposite of prosperity and freedom.

Further, the arrogance of this man is breathtaking. When he should have been corrected somewhat by the recent elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, he has only stiffened his determination to not entertain any opposing views, except on minor points, or major points in a minor way (tort reform, for instance), none of which ameliorates the socialist oppressive nature of the “reform.”

The fate of the “health care reform” bill is still in doubt. The president surrounds himself with medical people in lab coats (their own this time?), but he’s probably not changing more than a very few minds. He appears to have learned little from his “bipartisan summit,” which should have taught him what the true shortcomings of this proposal are.

Whether any government officials will admit it or not, the whole area of retail health care is outside the government’s constitutional authority, except for narrow interstate commerce concerns. All other aspects belong to the states and to the people.

If the Administration succeeds in getting this bill passed, they will find resistance by the states. The states do not welcome the unfunded mandates (or even simply mandates) that go with it. If the “reform” does pass, I predict that in a few years, it will go the way of Prohibition. But it truly should never see the light of day.


[1] “Dem Dozen Threatens to Bail on Health Care Over Abortion Language,” Fox News.com, 03/04/2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/dems-wary-obamas-final-health-push/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Senator Cornyn’s newsletter email of 03/03/2010

Photo:  Official White House photo by Pete Souza, 03/03/2010. Found at WhiteHouse.gov.

Governing the “Ungovernable”

Some liberal observers, noticing President Barack Obama’s lack of success in advancing his signature agenda items, “health care reform” and cap and trade, are theorizing (or concluding) that America has become ungovernable.

Newsweek takes up this matter, blaming “obstructionist Republicans, spineless Democrats and an increasingly incoherent electorate” for America’s supposed ungovernability. [1]

The fact that “health care reform” is not yet a done deal is supposed to illustrate the problem. All liberals agree that Obamacare is sorely needed and would greatly relieve a lot of suffering. Yet the Republicans won’t get on board with it, and a majority of Americans, having been informed about it (since the Democrats’ initial dead-of-night, unread-bill effort to pass it didn’t quite work) selfishly don’t want to lose their current coverage, with which they are moderately satisfied, and pay substantially more in taxes.

It’s true that people don’t want to lose their coverage and pay high taxes for the proposed plan. It’s not selfishness, but rational self interest. And, people are becoming more aware of the Constitution and the federal government’s numerous efforts at violating it, thus curtailing freedom. Republicans simply don’t want their name attached to such an offensive piece of legislation, and some may even recognize that this whole area is outside the federal government’s legitimate constitutional authority.

Another consideration is that the Obama Administration has focused on getting their socialist agenda items enacted when the public’s concern was jobs and the economy, about which nothing successful was being done. There was no consensus on cap and trade or the health care effort, both of which could be seen as hurting the economy.

It’s not that America is ungovernable. It simply lacks executive and legislative leadership.

Charles Krauthammer remarks on the similarity of these most recent complaints of ungovernability to the Carter years: “In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say the office had become unmanageable and was too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president's own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.” Then he shows how, in contrast to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter was not able to provide the needed leadership. [2]

Thence the “malaise.” Are we going to be hearing that term again soon?

Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics faults Obama for two errors: First putting Nancy Pelosi (too far left) in charge of writing the health care legislation, and second, insisting on comprehensive reforms. “If the truly great Henry Clay could not pass the Compromise of 1850 through the Congress in a single package, what made Barack Obama think he could sign comprehensive energy and health care reforms?” [3]

As Krauthammer points out, economist Paul Krugman even blames the filibuster, although in the G.W. Bush days, he warned against “extremists” trying to get rid of the procedure, when liberals were using it to block Bush’s judicial nominees. [4]

It seems clear that liberals, very reluctant to acknowledge the demonstrated lack of leadership ability in their top government officials, must cast blame elsewhere: the public, the Republicans, and the basic structure of government (i.e., the Constitution), for their failures.

When Republicans return to power, perhaps they will remember how to lead. They have some good examples to look to. Of course, so do the Democrats.


[1] Michael Cohen, “America the Ungovernable,” 01/25/2010, Newsweek.

[2] Charles Krauthammer, “It’s vogue again to declare America ungovernable,” 02/20/10, Houston Chronicle,

[3] Jay Cost, “America Is Not Ungovernable” 02/08/2010, Real Clear Politics.

[4] Krauthammer, see [2].

Photo: Dreamstime.com

State of the Union: Plus and Minus on Obama’s Talking Points

In President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Speech of January 27, 2010, he said some noteworthy things, some positive, and others that actions thus far have not supported (earmark reform, for example), or that simply don’t register with many Americans. (Speech transcript [1] words in bold).

Positive

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -- (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this [high cost of education] problem.

This is probably the first time I have heard any liberal mention that educational institutions have any responsibility for their costs. Because of government and other financial aid, schools have little incentive to keep costs in line. Government likes to send money to colleges and universities, and expects them to indoctrinate students with liberal ideas, and to turn out liberal bureaucrats and politicians. And they expect to exercise some control.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

A spending freeze would be welcomed, but, as has been pointed out numerous times, this proposal only covers a relatively small part of total spending. But it’s better than nothing. Note that it takes effect in 2011, after the government has had time to spend a lot more. The proposal is not pleasing to the more leftist side of the Democratic Party, and thus may not be approved, or may be watered down considerably.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

If the president stays with some these suggestions, significant economic and energy progress can be made. Where have these suggestions been? Except for the parts about climate change and biofuels, I have to agree with this one. Climate change legislation should be scrapped, and hopefully is dead. The role of biofuels should be completely re-evaluated, especially as they relate to food crops.

But we could truly benefit from nuclear power, more domestic oil and gas production and clean coal. These are more urgent than alternative energy, which should be left to the private sector.

Negative

Let’s Blame Bush!
We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade -- what some call the "lost decade" -- where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

Well, how does that compare with where we are now? There was an event called “9/11” that contributed to the deficit. Jobs grew rather than shrank. The bubbles were largely brought about by government forcing banks to make bad loans, and Congress failing to allow effective regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite obvious and serious misbehavior. Banks issued dangerous derivatives, but government didn’t step in to stop them. For years before the meltdown, liberals criticized the state of the economy, but when they got in power, they pretended that they didn’t know what its actual condition was.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

Just a reminder, there were valid causes of much of the Bush deficits, but the ill-advised bank bailouts, which Obama supported, more than doubled the “inherited” deficit he keeps complaining about.

The recession was caused by various things, including government missteps, but because of the government’s response, it has lasted longer and been worse than it otherwise would have been. If Obama had not tried to take over the financial industry (Bush, too on this one), and much of the economy, while at the same time, proposing massive tax-laden and job-killing projects like “health care reform” and cap and trade, we would have likely been well out of the recession and back to normal employment by now. With these proposals hanging over employers’ heads, how could a quick recovery be expected? Obama’s mistakes are not Bush’s fault (except the bank bailouts).

On “Health Care Reform”
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

The problem was not a lack of clear explanation. The problem is that the more it was explained, the more obvious it became that this plan was an unacceptable and very costly government takeover that would require large tax increases and a degradation of health care. Its passage was to be achieved by unethical special deals, closed-door negotiations, and plain bribery. Talk of “death panels” hurt the effort, because it rang true. There would be government rationing.

The government should walk away from this effort entirely. It’s a plan that should be killed, not tweaked. Suggestion: If you can’t get the American people on board, and bipartisan support, forget it. The Obamacare plan, House or Senate version, is no good.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

“Investments in our people” means “more government spending.” This increases the deficit. “Extend tax cuts…” Obama tries to maintain the fiction that tax increases on the wealthy don’t hurt people who aren’t wealthy. The “wealthy” means people who could be in a position to hire workers. High taxes discourage economic activity, and workers will suffer from these higher taxes, either through unemployment or lower pay. Lower taxes in the Bush years resulted in record revenues to the government and did not cause the financial crisis.

Supreme Court and Campaign Finance
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Liberal opposition to this decision seems to be based on the weird notion that unions represent “people,” but corporations and some other organizations do not. The decision actually restores First Amendment rights that McCain-Feingold and other laws have suppressed. Freedom of political speech is protected except under dictatorial regimes.

Other Items
Earmark Reform – The president’s words sound good. We’ve heard a lot about the need for earmark reform before. Nothing significant has been done. Yet.

“Investments” in this or that equals government spending. The government should leave more “investment” situations to the private sector.

New Fees on Big Banks – See my previous article, “Obama: We Want Our Money Back. And We’re Going To Get It,” and my next article, about Obama’s war on Wall Street.

Financial Reform – Look for a big battle over this. The Administration isn’t making any friends among Wall Street bankers. Timothy Geithner reportedly has been working with banks to craft a regulation plan that would do the job and have some support from bankers, but Obama appears to be undermining that effort.

Guantanamo detention facility – not mentioned.

Conclusion

The Massachusetts U.S. Senate election, and the election of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey, plus the retirement of several Democrats, and prospects of Republican victories in the November elections, have forced a resetting of Administration priorities. The president is urging Congress to stick with his health care and climate change priorities, but these are doubtful of approval now. I hope.

Obama doesn’t see anything wrong with his proposals, apparently thinking that better PR is what’s needed. What’s really needed is a better program, based on free markets, low taxes, reasonably limited government, and respect for the wishes of the people.

[1] “Obama’s first State of the Union. Transcript,” appearing in Lynn Sweet’s Chicago Sun-Times column The Scoop from Washington, 01/27/2010, at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/01/obamas_first_state_of_the_unio.html


Photo: Official White House photo by Pete Souza. Found at whitehouse.gov.

Double Good News for American Freedom

This has been one of those rare weeks when two noteworthy and favorable political events happened.

I. Scott Brown (R) defeats Martha Coakley (D) in U. S. Senate race in Massachusetts

This defeat ought to at least force the Democrats to consider the fact that people are mostly opposed to their “health-care reform” plans, and are willing to vote accordingly. Democrats want us to believe this election was not a “referendum on Obama,” but it clearly was. It appears the Democrats’ 60-vote super majority is gone, and if they try to ram some form of the health-care legislation through without another Senate vote, they’ll look desperate and dishonest, and lose even more esteem among the public.

Therefore, we are hearing talk about a scaled-back approach to the issue. As you have read in numerous places, the election sent a shock through the Democratic Party, as it now appears many Democrats are vulnerable in the 2010 elections, if a blue state like Massachusetts can choose a Republican over a Democrat – especially, a Republican who campaigned with a conservative message, and presented himself as the candidate of the people, rather than the government.

It remains to be seen how this will play out, but it looks like the Obamacare program may very well be rejected. Certainly the voters across America are rejecting it, and are prepared to punish, at election time, incumbents who voted for it. Despite liberal pundits urging and predicting a full-blown effort to get the program passed, lawmakers who are facing the 2010 elections will probably be cautious. Are they willing to give up their congressional careers in order to give President Obama a face-saving “legacy” in the form of a hated socialist program?

If Obamacare is not passed, look for the economic outlook to quickly improve, especially if taxes associated with it are not somehow enacted. It really would be good news for America if Obamacare is dumped.

II. The Supreme Court overturns key parts of the campaign finance laws

This is a significant victory for the Constitution, as some serious limits on free speech have rightly been found unconstitutional. Now corporations (gasp!) will be permitted to freely advertise for and against candidates, right up to election day. So will unions, although they have been doing that, in effect, all along. All sorts of entities have been freed to express political views for and against specific candidates.

Democrats are in a huff about this, having lost the security of knowing that political speech was basically controlled by the politicians in power. As a matter of free speech, if this is a free country, political speech ought to be especially protected, and especially as elections draw near. The restrictions that were overturned were blatantly aimed at silencing opposition to incumbent politicians. The idea that this has somehow protected Americans from “big money” influence is given the lie by the fact that the Section 527 organizations have helped politicians by raising many millions of dollars to influence elections.

The court left intact the rules prohibiting corporations and unions from giving money directly to campaigns. [1] The main thing changing is that corporations can now spend their money on political ads, if they choose to do so, at any time. The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech applies to corporations and other organizations as well as individuals. The Constitution is pretty clear about prohibiting Congress from making laws abridging freedom of speech or of the press.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), quoted at The Hill praised the decision: “‘For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day,’ he said.” [2]

Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer (D-NY), supports legislation to restrict the effects of the decision: “‘The bottom line is this: The Supreme Court has just pre-determined the winners of next November's elections,’ Schumer said. ‘It won't be Republicans, it won't be Democrats, it will be corporate America.’” [3]

President Obama is pushing for such legislation [4] Democrats in Iowa, the state where the case arose which resulted in the Supreme Court decision, were critical of the Court’s action. Republicans had less to say, emphasizing their concern for disclosure, which was not affected by the Supreme Court ruling. [5]

Union leaders don’t particularly like the decision. For example, The Wall Street Journal has the following quote from SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes: “I don't think working people would ever have as much to spend as corporations. For us, being able to spend a few extra dollars isn't worth allowing decisions to be made from boardrooms instead of the polling booth.” [6]

If Democratic incumbents and their favored client interest groups stand to lose any influence from a decision that widens freedom of political speech (as required by the Constitution), then, by all means, protective measures must be taken. If such laws are passed, I predict that test cases will soon get to the Supreme Court, and the new laws will be struck down, too. Here’s hoping, anyway.

Conclusion
It has been a better-than-usual week for the American people in terms of freedom.

As Bojidar Marinov, at American Vision, points out, in an article citing the fact that British pensioners are buying books from charity stores to burn as fuel, because they can’t afford highly taxed gas, coal, and electricity, then describing, in general, the “gray market,” “Socialism is an ideology that calls for the confiscation of the individual’s life, liberty and property by the state; but whatever resources socialist governments commit to their propaganda, they can never talk the individual people out of loving their life, liberty, and property.” [7] The current socialist-fascist administration in Washington, and the Democratic Congressional leadership are shining examples. But fortunately, America has retained enough freedom to put up some effective resistance. Both of the events mentioned above show that the American spirit will not be defeated by would-be oppressors.

[1] James Oliphant, “Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling could bring flood of ads,”
01/21/2010, Los Angeles Times, at http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance-analysis22-2010jan22,0,7041058.story

[2] Alexander Bolton and Aaron Blake, “Democrats plan to push bill to limit impact of campaign finance decision,” 01/21/2010, The Hill, at http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/77261-supreme-court-strikes-down-campaign-finance-restrictions

[3] and [4] Ibid.

[5] Kathie Obradovich, “Iowa Democratic leaders rake SCOTUS ruling’” blog posting, 01/21/2010, Des Moines Register, at http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/01/21/iowa-democratic-leaders-rake-supco-ruling/

[6] Brody Mullins, “Big Donors Plan Boost in Campaign Spending,” 01/22/2010, The Wall Street Journal, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423204575017152825109576.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-MIDDLETopStories

[7] Bojidar Marinov, “God’s Rhapsody in Gray,” 01/20/2010. American Vision, at http://www.americanvision.org/article/gods-rhapsody-in-gray/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+AmericanVision+%2528American+Vision%2529&utm_content=Yahoo%2521+Mail

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Special Tax Treatment for Special Taxpayers

Speaking of the “Health Care Reform” legislation:
“‘I guess this bill is only good if it doesn't apply to you,’ GOPAC Chairman Frank Donatelli said…. ‘If this bill is so good, why does everyone need an exemption in order to vote for it? ... We see the drug companies get a special deal. We see what happened in Louisiana and most notoriously Nebraska in the Senate where they got special deals. And now the unions get a special deal….’” [1]

Arm-twisting, bribery, intimidation, and special treatment are required for the Democrats to make progress on getting “health care reform” passed. It appears that the top Democratic leadership doesn’t much care about the specifics of the final bill as long as they can get the votes and satisfy powerful client special interests. The American people should get this kind of consideration, eh? Most are solidly against this “reform.” [2]

To go along with so many other unconstitutional and destructive Obama policies and proposals, they’ve added the little detail of exempting union members’ “Cadillac” health plans from the proposed heavy tax. People whose insurance is covered by a collective-bargaining agreement get an exemption. Not other citizens. Isn’t there something in the Constitution about the “equal protection of the law”? [3] There’s also an item about “titles of nobility,” and while this isn’t a title as such, Obama doesn’t mind treating certain “classes” of people like they’re privileged characters compared to the rest of us. [4]

Specifically, “The deal reached by unions and the White House would tax family insurance plans worth $24,000, up from the $23,000. The average employer-sponsored family plan cost $13,375 in 2009, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The deal also would delay the tax until 2018 for policies covering workers in collective bargaining agreements,” according to an AP article. [5]

Is this a sweetheart deal or what? It’s worth $60 BILLION [6] according to estimates, leaving that much to be made up in other ways (i.e., taxes). This will kill and bury Obama’s “promise” that families earning less than $250,000 a year would get no increase – “not one dime” – in taxes. Of course, that was pretty well gone anyway. What someone said of Clinton may go better for Obama: “He kept all the promises he intended to keep.” “Deficit-neutral”? Are you kidding?

And in typical Obama and Congressional Democrat fashion, this agreement was reached behind closed doors. Obama’s talk of “transparency” in government now has to be regarded as a joke. But not funny.

Meanwhile, as the Obama Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership are busy with this socialist program, complete with more unsustainable entitlements and plenty of new taxes, they claim to be concerned about unemployment – which they want to deal with by more and more spending. When these new taxes come on stream, they will deal a serious blow to employment and likely make for a double-dip recession, with little relief in sight. The deficit will increase as a result of new taxes, not decrease. The mounting deficits could put the dollar itself in serious trouble.

I hate to sound pessimistic. With a common-sense approach to the economy, big improvements could soon be made. But nothing the administration is doing seems to point in that direction. Union bosses needn’t worry, though. The administration will try to protect them, as long as it means union support for their unpopular and misguided policies.

[1] Fox News.com, Major Garret and Trish Turner contributing, “Democrats Hammered for ‘Back-Room’ Deal with Unions on Health Care,” 01/15/2010, at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/democrats-hammered-room-deal-unions-health-care/

[2] Rasmussen reports that 36 percent of voters favor the plan, while 56 percent oppose it, including 44 percent who are “strongly opposed,”

[3] “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.

[4] Ibid, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States…”

[5] Erica Werner, Associated Press, “Obama, Democrats Make Closed-Door Deal With Labor Unions on Final Health Care Bill,” 10/15/2010, CNS News.com, at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59869

[6] See [1] and [5].

Public domain photo from photos8.com

Unemployment Numbers: Same Old, Same Old for Months To Come?

If you are looking for a job, no one needs to tell you that the American people, including employers, aren’t seeing much of a recovery from the recession. The “improvements” we’ve seen have been mostly from temporary government programs like “Cash for Clunkers” and various other government money going into the economy. Not really the stuff of healthy recovery. The following words from the Bureau of Labor Statistics give a brief description. Their web site gives more details:

“THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- DECEMBER 2009

“Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-85,000) in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 10.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment fell in construction, manufacturing, and wholesale trade, while temporary help services and health care added jobs.

“Household Survey Data

“In December, both the number of unemployed persons, at 15.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 10.0 percent, were unchanged. At the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons was 7.7 million, and the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent….

“Unemployment rates for the major worker groups--adult men (10.2 percent), adult women (8.2 percent), teenagers (27.1 percent), whites (9.0 percent), blacks (16.2 percent), and Hispanics (12.9 percent)--showed little change in December. The unemployment rate for Asians was 8.4 percent, not seasonally adjusted….”

“About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in December, an increase of 578,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey....” (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics) (Emphasis added)

The report for December was worse than many analysts expected. According to an AP story giving some analysis of the BLS report, “Counting the people who have given up looking for work and the part-time workers who would rather be working full-time, the so-called underemployment rate edged up to 17.3 percent in December. The record high is 17.4 percent, reached in October.”

“It was the second straight month the unemployment rate came in at 10 percent. The only reason it didn't rise was that 661,000 people stopped looking for jobs and left the work force.” [1]

The 17.3 and 17.4 percent figures compare to the 25 percent unemployment rate during the depths of the Great Depression. The U.S. saw 85,000 jobs lost in December. UPS is planning to lay off 2,000 workers and Lockheed-Martin will cut 1,500 jobs later this year. There are numerous applicants for most jobs that are advertised.

According to the AP article, “But the jobless rate is likely to rise in coming months as more people see signs of an improving economy and start looking for work again. Some economists think it could near 11 percent, which would be the highest since World War II, by June.” [2]

The government’s plans, including the recently-passed House “jobs” bill, call for government funding of programs to create jobs, extend unemployment benefits, and give money to states to help with their budget shortfalls. None of these measures is a substantial attempt to address the problem. Instead, it represents more government debt, and, by increasing the deficit, actually makes matters worse because it discourages more private-sector hiring outside of the specific targets of the legislation. The Senate is reluctant to act on the House bill.

Government policies, and uncertainty about what (or how bad) future policies will be, continue to discourage private-sector employers from expanding and hiring. One must wonder what the priorities of this government are, because they seem obsessed with getting a massive health-care taxing and entitlement program in place as soon as possible, before anything else is done. That is the top priority at the moment. Most people, including employers, and many in health care related industries oppose this legislation. It is an economic downer for everyone, except some insurers, and people who might benefit by getting government subsidies in Obama’s redistribution efforts. Don’t look for it to be any kind of boost to the economy. Just the opposite.

How can banks, manufacturers, and employers in general feel free to expand credit and payrolls when they are under a strong threat of numerous and expensive new taxes and regulations coming from government? It should be fairly obvious that economic recovery is not the government’s current plan, because virtually nothing is being done to encourage private-sector economic activity, and many things are being done to prevent it from increasing.

The government appears to want to control (if not own) every aspect of the economy, and that is largely the problem. Memo to government: It’s not rocket science. Let’s just stop trying to tax and spend our way out of this with more pork projects and entitlements. Get out of the way and let the market work. We’ll see good results fairly quickly.

[1] Jeannine Aversa and Christopher S. Rugaber, “Report suggests a year of high unemployment ahead,” Associated Press, at Yahoo! News, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

[2] Ibid.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Top (But Not Necessarily Best) Political News Items of 2009

I write this as the final few minutes of 2009 are ticking away. The year has not been a particularly good one in terms of the American economy and American politics. Rather, it has been a great challenge for many families and individuals, and full of disappointing actions by our federal government. It seems we have been set up for a good deal more suffering in the future in the areas of taxation, inflation, and more importantly, loss of liberty and increased government control over our everyday lives.

Here I am listing, with brief comments, what I consider the top items, organized by category. You can refer to my previous blog posts for comments on most of these items if you are interested.

First, the economy
Double-digit unemployment. This has probably been the top news story of the year, and it continues month after month in spite of the stimulus and increased spending in general. Forecasts suggest high unemployment rates will continue through much of 2010.
Auto company takeovers and bankruptcies. These were more government takeovers of private-sector industry. GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcies anyway. About $110 billion was spent on these items, with more losses to come.
Cash for Clunkers program. This program helped some people get new cars at a substantial cost to taxpayers. It ran out of money at one point and had to have new authorization to continue for a while. Dealers had to wait a long time to get paid by the government. The program was useful in illustrating the fine-tuned efficiency of government management that we can expect in other programs, like health care and cap and trade.
$1.42 trillion budget deficit. Annual deficits of over $1 trillion are projected for the next decade. This is not only disappointing and difficult, but actually dangerous to our economy.
Largest national debt ever. Currently $12.15 trillion [1], not including tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
House passes financial regulatory bill. Really a thinly disguised government takeover, as the bill includes authority to seize failing companies, or force them to split up. Maybe the Senate will have better sense than to repeat this nonsense.
California faces financial crisis. The liberal welfare state policies of California have naturally led to big deficits and near bankruptcy. Yet these same priorities are being pursued in Washington, where it is thought that the ability to print money will protect us, unlike in California. This, however is not true. A day of reckoning is coming if corrections aren’t made, and sooner than people think.

Second, Health Care
House and Senate pass differing health care bills. Harry Reid and friends will work out the differences in conference. Democrats have all the votes they need, and aren’t getting any help from Republicans. This strictly partisan bill is supported by only a minority of American voters. Democrats will see this in the 2010 elections.
Swine flu scare. “Pandemic” or not, this issue has been exploited as another “scare” to encourage people to look to government for help.
States raise constitutional questions about health care bills. Several state attorneys general are preparing to file lawsuits over various features that might show up in the final health care bill, such as mandates to purchase insurance, and special deals for certain states, that were negotiated to obtain votes enough to get to 60 votes in the Senate. The courts will likely rule on several constitutional issues. I hope they consider the Tenth Amendment.
Citizens protest against Obamacare at August town hall meetings. Several members of Congress were startled at the harshness with which many of their constituents received information about Obamacare, and got an earful at their town hall meetings that were supposed to explain the plan to the people and build support. Obama had to call out his SEIU thugs to assault some people.

Third, Climate Change
House passes cap and trade. A far-reaching and costly cap and trade bill was passed by the House, which drew ridicule from conservatives. House Minority Leader John Boehner spent an hour reading from the bill on the House floor, pointing out some of its ridiculous provisions. The billed was passed having been read by few or no members.
President Barack Obama goes to Copenhagen for climate meeting. The conference resulted in a five-party non-binding “agreement” among large nations, including the U.S., but overall was a major failure. But Obama promised tens of billions in aid to other countries, which is what the meeting was all about anyway.
HHS declares carbon dioxide is harmful to health. Thus, if cap and trade does not pass, the government can use HHS regulations to force CO-2 standards on industry and impose draconian regulations.
“Climategate” shows dishonesty of so-called climate science. The so-called science of climate change is severely distorted and is questioned by many scientists. It is a fraud and a hoax which serves as an excuse to seek more government control and power.

Fourth, the Tea Party Movement
Tea Party rallies draw thousands in various locations, a million or more in Washington; media loath to cover them.

Fifth, Foreign Affairs
Obama delays Afghanistan policy decision. Finally, Obama announces a troop increase of about 30,000, but his speech announcing this was halfhearted in tone, with more emphasis on getting out than in fulfilling the mission.
Higher rate of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan than in 2008.
Obama visits China; talks seem unproductive. No specific agreement announced about China financing U.S. debt, or China’s human rights policies, etc.
Talks with Russia seem unproductive. Hillary Clinton and the President have talked to Russian officials at different times. The on-again-off-again missile shield in Eastern Europe is a barrier, in Russia’s view, to the kind of nuclear disarmament Obama wants. In the interest of American security, one may hope it won’t happen soon.
North Korea pushes ahead with nuclear program.
Iran pushes ahead with nuclear program.
Iran experiences substantial internal dissent. Obama has been criticized for not taking a stronger position in support of Iranian dissidents protesting the Iranian presidential election.
Obama apologizes for U.S. in Europe and Latin America. Seemingly never wanting to miss an opportunity to criticize and apologize for America, Obama seems to think that before he came along, America was usually the bad guy.
Israel invades Gaza in response to attacks. The Democrats’ response? Many billions of dollars in aid to the Gaza regime, i.e., the terrorist organization Hamas.
Terrorist airplane bombing averted although security measures failed. According to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, the system worked, then it didn’t. Obama characterized the perpetrator as “isolated” despite his contacts with terrorist groups.

Sixth, Obama’s People
Obama appoints 30+ “czars.” They supposedly wield power like Cabinet officers are supposed to, but don’t need Senate confirmation and report only to Obama. That’s the Chicago way, I suppose.
Ben Bernanke appointed to another term as Fed head, named Time’s Person of the Year. A lot of people are unhappy with these developments.
Several of Obama’s appointments shown to be tax cheats, some have had to withdraw, such as Tom Daschle. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, tax cheat, stays on. He’s over IRS and a good many other things. He worked with Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke in the bank bailouts and other Obama moves to take over the financial sector.
Rep. Charles Rangel in trouble over taxes. He’s chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes and oversees tax laws
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who had a significant role in causing the financial crisis, have significant responsibility for dealing with it.

Seventh, the GOP
New Jersey and Virginia elect Republican governors. This is said to portend trouble for the Democrats in 2010. The Democrats probably think the voters will have short memories about Obamacare, etc. Are they right? Not if the Tea Party movement can keep going.
Sarah Palin publishes autobiography/memoir. This rekindles liberals’ fears of her, which they express through ridicule and abuse.

Eighth, Miscellaneous
Obama goes to Copenhagen to promote Chicago for the Olympics. Chicago is then the first city to be rejected by the International Olympic Committee. And after all that trouble.
Obama blames Bush Administration at every opportunity. Ho, hum, what else is new?
Obama’s talk to school children leads to controversy. Liberals don’t seem to know why. Could it be because now he’s the education Indoctrinator-in-Chief?
Obama wants more school days and hours for American students. He wants them to beat these foreign students on math and science tests. Also, he wants the federal government dictating policy to local schools. A better idea is to encourage school districts to expand vocational education.

So that’s briefly how some things happened in 2009. Let’s hope things improve in 2010. Happy New Year, everyone!

[1] U.S. National Debt Clock, 12/31/09, 11:53 PM CST, at http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Are the Proposed Health Insurance Mandates Constitutional?

The Democrats’ plans to require Americans to purchase health insurance or else be fined or imprisoned is one of those rare issues that gets some government officials questioning it on constitutional grounds. Most issues are not questioned if they can attract enough votes to be passed. But this one is getting some constitutionality attention.

There have been a variety of opinions offered on how this requirement can be constitutionally justified. CNS News features several articles about it, mostly with Democrats claiming that Congress can do just about anything it wants to “promote the general welfare.” This assumes that whatever they decide will do that is OK. They refuse to think that the “general welfare” clause is a statement of purpose, not a blank check.

Others cite the Congress’ responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, but requiring people to buy a certain type of product falls outside that authority.

Here are some items at CNS News [1] (in bold) reflecting the Democrat’s inability to pinpoint where this constitutional authority is specifically found, but expressing the idea that it’s there somewhere (my comments not in bold):

“Sen. Bob Casey [D-Pa.]: Health Care Mandate Constitutional, But Not Sure If There’s ‘Specific Constitutional Provision’” You might try reading the Constitution some time, Senator.

“Sen. Nelson[D-Neb.]: Constitutionally, Congress Can Probably Mandate Health Insurance in ‘Same Place’ States Can Mandate Car Insurance” Three points to consider here:
First, a person can avoid the requirement to purchase auto liability insurance by not driving. Second, The required auto liability insurance covers only people other than the insured. Third, under the Tenth Amendment, states can impose requirements that are not specifically granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states. It is this amendment that calls into serious question the constitutionality of the entire health care legislation.

“Sen. Sanders [I-Vt.]: Constitutional Authority for Congress’ Health Insurance Mandate ‘Probably’ Same as Medicare” He also mentioned Medicaid and VA medical services. Medicare is actually on questionable constitutional grounds, but by now it is entrenched to the point that it is politically unlikely to be questioned very much. Medicaid operates through the states, giving it a little better standing. VA health care can be considered part of the federal government’s authority to provide for the military. But the government takeover under Obamacare has no constitutional warrant itself, and certainly the insurance purchase mandate has none.

As Mark Levin, author of the best-selling book Liberty and Tyranny, pointed out at a Washington rally on November 5, the Democrats aren’t really much concerned with the Constitution:



Fortunately, some of our elected representatives recognize the constitutional shortcomings of the health care proposals. For instance, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) argues against the insurance mandate on constitutional grounds:

“‘Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,’ he said. ‘This is not at all like car insurance. You can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance.

“‘This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies,’ said DeMint. ‘We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans.

“‘This is not liberty,’ he said. ‘It is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.’” [2]

Sen. Nelson said that since he’s not a constitutional scholar, he couldn’t answer the question about the constitutionality of the mandate. [3] I say, the constitution is written in such a way that a person does not have to be a constitutional scholar to understand it. On the other hand, President Barack Obama is supposed to be a constitutional scholar and he doesn’t seem to understand it very well.

[1] CNS News.com, Politics news stories headlines, 12/26/09 at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/categories

[2] Chris Neefus, “Sen. Nelson: Constitutionally, Congress Can 'Probably' Mandate Health Insurance In ‘Same Place’ States Can Mandate Car Insurance,” 12/24/2009,
CNS News.com, at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/59008

[3] Ibid.