Fear Not, GOP, You Have the Initiative on the Budget

Dreamstime.com

President Barack Obama, after dissing Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, only to put himself in the position of receiving a stern and well-deserved lecture from said prime minister, is spending time traveling and seemingly trying to ignore the national debt and deficits.

It is to be hoped that Republican congressional leaders will stand firm on the idea of serious budget cuts, but this is far from certain. The best way forward, in my view, is to unite behind the Paul Ryan plan and not accept anything else, other than minor (and I mean minor) tweaking. This will require more political courage than some have seemed willing to show. And the Democrats are feverishly working to advance their weak position. Can the GOP rise to the challenge?

First, of course, the Democrats are already attacking the Medicare provisions of Ryan’s plan. Never mind that these provisions fall into the out years and won’t affect anyone who is now over 55 years of age. Even then, it will be a more efficient and means-tested plan that assures the likelihood that Medicare will still be around. If nothing is done, it will surprisingly soon be extremely difficult to fund Medicare and Social Security. The liberals would rather demagogue the issue and try to scare the recipients of these benefits, than face up to their responsibility to deal with reality.

The Democrats’ actions should be seen as a good political opportunity for the Republicans, assuming that the GOP doesn’t cower in fear of political risks. Whenever such challenges present themselves, there is going to be substantial risk to any person or group that attempts to responsibly take them on. Remember G. W. Bush’s Social Security proposals? He took extreme heat from the opposition, who couldn’t be bothered to suggest anything of their own. Here are some suggestions for the Republicans (which mostly they’ve already thought of, I hope).

1. Don’t fear a government shutdown. This may very well be the only way to effectively assert majority power in the House of Representatives, where the GOP has control of the purse strings.

2. Counter the Democrats’ fear tactics with the facts on the unsustainability of Medicare if changes aren’t made. The right changes will preserve it.

3. Understand that up to now there has been no serious proposal to effectively cut spending, other than Paul Ryan’s plan. Rep. Ryan seems to be the best defender of his work. GOP leaders should understand what he is proposing. They would do well to support it if they are actually serious about the deficit. Cutting a trillion dollars over ten years won’t help much when the debt is increasing well over $1 trillion per year. Someone should be doing the math.

4. Don’t allow any tax increases. This would stop the recovery. Point out the absurdity of raising taxes on the “rich” who earn $250,000 a year and still struggle to stay in business because of government over-regulation. Tax increases on the “rich” would hurt everyone.

5. Be aware that the Democrats want to increase the number of Americans who pay no income tax (currently about half), then count on them to support increasing taxes on everyone else. If possible, they will try to promote the entitlement mentality and encourage Wisconsin-type demonstrations by anyone who fears there may be a reduction in government benefits.

6. Help people to understand the problem: If serious measures aren’t undertaken now, there probably won’t be any, this side of a serious collapse that would make 2008’s financial crisis look like a minor downturn.

7. Understand the weakness of the Democrats’ position. They have offered little to nothing outside of demagoguery and scare tactics. But they can’t deny that there are serious fiscal problems.

It’s still possible to get on top of this debt problem. But it ultimately must include serious reform of entitlements if these programs are to be preserved at all. Paul Ryan has offered a credible approach. Certainly no Democrat has done that. The Democratic leadership sees no need to submit a budget proposal at all. They just demand tax increases.

Related articles

• Senate Shoots Down Paul Ryan Budget (blogs.abcnews.com)
• Paul Ryan Hits Back While Gaining An Unlikely Ally (virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com)

Who to Support for President in 2012? Why Not Herman Cain?

Herman Cain of Georgia (Photo: lifenews.com)

I am prepared to support the GOP nominee in 2012 against President Barack Obama. I don’t know of any that I wouldn’t prefer over Mr. Obama. The race has gotten off to a rather rocky start, with several supposed contenders not showing up for the South Carolina debate. People there will probably remember who was there and who wasn’t.

Herman Cain was declared the winner of the debate – a fairly obvious choice in my view. He gave thoughtful, logical, and clear answers to the questions that came his way. His track record shows that he is well-informed on the issues and can articulate a conservative point of view. Back to him a bit later.

Newt Gingrich’s well-publicized “gaffe” on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan didn’t help his cause, and, just as bad, was his statement about health insurance mandates being OK. That alone shows a serious problem vis-à-vis the Constitution. He tried to backtrack on all this, but some damage was done, and if Charles Krauthammer is right, that’s enough to wreck whatever chance Newt had for the nomination. I’m not quite so sure, since comebacks are not at all uncommon in politics.

Mitt Romney’s chances are in doubt because of his unapologetic support of Romneycare in Massachusetts. While that program is on only slightly firmer constitutional ground than Obamacare (which is clearly unconstitutional), it’s still a government insurance mandate, and a form of socialized medicine.

Rep. Ron Paul (TX) is running, and while he is unlikely to win, he could be a factor because of money-raising ability, and the fact that his ideas are being taken a good deal more seriously now than in past years. The deficit and general economic situation make the idea of sound money seem more attractive, and the Fed has brought plenty of doubt upon itself in terms of monetary policy. On the other hand, his debate performance was overshadowed by Cain's. And not many people support legalizing heroin.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN) would probably be a good compromise candidate, but may not have enough appeal to be the front-runner.

Out of the race, as we all know, are Mike Huckabee, Hayley Barbour, and Donald Trump. Trump appeared to have little to no chance for the nomination, but the other two were potentially viable candidates.

We still haven’t heard (as of this writing) whether former Gov. Sarah Palin (AK), Gov. Mitch Daniels (IN), Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN), or Gov. Chris Christie (NJ) will be running, although at least two of these probably will. Establishment figures are said to be enthusiastically courting Mitch Daniels to run, fearing that no one else might be attractive enough to defeat Barack Obama. [1] If the GOP gets a genuine conservative, Tea Party-type candidate who can explain and advance actual conservatism (limited government, low taxes, strong defense, and free markets), that candidate can win. If another “moderate” like McCain (e.g., Huntsman or Gary Johnson) is nominated, the race will probably be lost.

Back to Herman Cain. The Daily Caller reported on May 18 that polls after the S. C. debate show that Cain is one of the leading candidates, rather than near last place as previously [2]. He does not have the name recognition (yet) that the others have, some having run and lost in 2008, but he has several things some of the others do not: real-world leadership experience, private sector work experience, executive responsibility in business, and an appealing common-sense approach to things. He can see the conservative side of the issues, which should be obvious to all who are supposed to be conservatives, but for some reason isn’t. Some “conservatives” like the big-government approach to things, and would be content to try to “improve” the Democrats’ socialist ideas.

C. Edmund Wright, at American Thinker, lists his countdown of reasons why Cain should make a good candidate. One of these is

7. Will break every rule set for him by “strategists”: This one might be my favorite. Cain has never counted on political strategists to get him where he is now, and this alone separates him from all other candidates. Lord help the first “strategist” from the RNC who advises Cain to “tone it down” or “soften his position.” [3]

Another plus Wright emphasizes is that Cain’s candidacy would neutralize the race card and maybe we could just get over this race thing. He lists several other good reasons to consider Cain.

In case you missed the S. C. debate or haven’t heard much about or from Herman Cain, here are a couple of short videos that may interest you. See YouTube for more.


Cain announces exploratory committee with Neil Cavuto on 1/12/11:





On gasoline prices:





[1] Mike Allen, “GOP elite see Mitch Daniels as 2012 savior,” 05/18/2011, Politico.


[2] Alexis Levinson, “What a difference a debate makes: Cain surges to the top in latest TheDC/ConservativeHome Tracking Poll,” 05/18/2011, The Daily Caller.


[3] C. Edmund Wright, “Top Ten Reasons to Support Herman Cain for President,” 01/26/2011, American Thinker.

Related article

• Why are some Conservatives in such a rush to skip Herman Cain? (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

Paul Ryan-type Budget Plan Is Best Hope for Budget Sanity; Boehner Should Maintain His Strong Stand

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), official portrait

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio has said that there will be no raising of the debt limit unless serious budget cuts, involving “trillions, not billions,” accompany any such legislation. Here is one area the GOP must stand firm on. The hope that they would is the main thing that contributed to their 2010 election success.

The Democrats have shown that they really don’t want anything beyond simply nominal cuts, those being cuts that won’t matter in the actual spending situation. Republicans have, I think, been too shy about the idea of shutting down the government, if the need should arise.

As I mentioned recently, the House GOP majority must assert its power over the budget if any actual progress is to be made, shutdown or not. If the GOP doesn’t approve it, it can’t happen. If somehow a GOP budget is passed by Congress, it would still face a possible presidential veto. Boehner needs to maintain his position that there will be substantial cuts, or no debt limit increase will be approved. Period.

Americans for Limited Government posted the following video of remarks by Boehner to the Economic Club of New York, and added their own comments:


As reported by The Hill,

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Boehner was being inflexible by refusing to move from his opening position that the nation’s borrowing limit should only be raised with a deficit-reduction deal built on trillions in spending cuts and no new taxes…. “Maximalist positions do not produce compromise,” said Carney, who described Boehner as restating his “starting position” with his New York speech. [1]

It would be nice to get Democrats on board with the kind of cuts Boehner has in mind, but it will likely require a stand of inflexibility, at least no compromise on major points, to get any kind of budget that will keep our economy viable over the next few years, let alone growing. Democrats have very little in the way of ideas to grow anything except debt and government. They have demonstrated that they are unable to improve the employment picture to any significant degree.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has done admirable work in producing his “Plan for Prosperity,” and, while it may need some tweaking here and there, it currently represents one of the few, if not the only, serious plan to address the actual problems, including entitlements. Democrats are anxious to use his plan to scare seniors into thinking that Medicare is going away, when in fact, if the types of changes he proposes are not implemented, Medicare will have to go away, because it will not be possible to fund it. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security represent tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities, which do not show up on the formal budget.

A Ryan-type plan that seriously and credibly addresses the entitlement issues, and seriously cuts current spending, even into the future, is probably the only route, at this point, to avoiding a disastrous collapse. Even if the plan became law, there are still deep concerns. One, a future Congress can repeal it; two, the Fed can so damage the dollar that the numbers may become meaningless in a currency collapse. But without a cut on the scale proposed by Ryan, or even greater, we are only greasing the skid to the edge of the cliff. And gravity will take over.

[1] Erik Wasson, “Carney: Boehner being inflexible on debt,” 05/10/2011, The Hill.

Illustration: Public domain.

Fiscal Fantasy World of the White House and Congress

Dreamstime.com

With the election of a strong Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, many Americans entertained some hopes of seeing a significant reduction in government spending, and a refusal to increase the federal debt limit without such a reduction. What we have had so far are continuing resolutions (CR’s) with only minor cuts, funding the government for a few weeks at most.

Now, some say, there won’t be any more CR’s and serious negotiations must begin on the budget, even if it means a government shutdown. A government shutdown would be fine if it would lead to serious cuts in spending. Republican leaders seem to be overly anxious to avoid a shutdown, and therefore reluctant to forcefully push for major cuts. It’s true that jobs ought to be a high priority, but it is also true that out-of-control spending is quickly becoming a problem of such magnitude that we will be very fortunate indeed if we can avoid a major financial/currency collapse within a fairly short time.

Even the $61 billion in GOP-proposed cuts (or even $100 billion, if that could be done) is truly minor compared to the almost incomprehensible levels of federal spending going on day by day. To add to the deficit what President Obama’s proposed budget calls for is hardly short of asking for catastrophic results. We won’t “win the future” that way, because in all likelihood the U.S. dollar will lose so much value that the focus will shift more to financial (and maybe physical) survival rather than “winning.”

Senator Rand Paul is proposing $200 billion in spending cuts, but, unfortunately, that would need to be followed by many more billions to be seriously helpful. But it would be a start.

According to CNS News, the national debt increased by $72 billion the same day (March 15, 2011) that the House voted to cut $6 billion for the three-week period covered by the CR. [1] As you may notice, that one day’s increase is greater than the $61 billion the GOP wants to cut, and, of course the Democrats don’t want to cut much of anything.

David Stockman, in a lecture for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, explained how TARP marked the definitive triumph of crony capitalism over sound money. He went on to say,

The 1984 rescue of Continental Illinois; the 1994 Mexican peso crisis bailouts; the Fed's 1998 life-support operation for LTCM [prominent hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management] — were all just steps along the way to the fall of 2008.

Then, faced with the collapse of their own handiwork, Washington panicked and joined the Fed in unleashing an indiscriminate bailout capitalism that has now thoroughly corrupted the halls of government, even as it has become a debilitating blight on the free market.

In this context, the linkage between printing-press money and fiscal profligacy merits special attention. In the post-TARP world, there remain no fiscal rules at all, and already we have had cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, and under the homebuyer's credit, cash for convicts.

Indeed, my belief is that the subprime meltdown was only a warm-up. The real financial widow-maker of the present era is likely to be US government debt itself. [2]

In the context of total spending, there don’t seem to be any proposals for cuts of the magnitude that would make a meaningful contribution to solving the problem, let alone viable proposals for reform that could help prevent such errors (e.g., a Balanced Budget Amendment), other than Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” campaign, and, of course, Austrian school economists’ call for sound money in the form of the gold standard. But these ideas are anathema to the government establishment.

I support defunding of NPR, EPA, FCC, Obamacare, and Planned Parenthood, but we’re going to have defund a great deal more things than those to get out of the debt situation that is driving us toward the edge of the cliff a lot faster than Congress and the White House seem to realize. If this collapse happens, we may not even be in a position to decide what to do about other issues which urgently need attention, such as jobs, the Middle East, our energy situation, etc., etc. Our way of life and national security will be compromised, to put it mildly.

In an essay asserting that Obama and his “socialist cadre” are attempting to transform America into a “Democrat Socialism State,” through massive debt, and offering some evidence to support his assertion, Mark Alexander of Patriot Post, also says this:

Republicans scraped together a few more cuts for their feeble $61 billion in proposed 2011 budget reductions, but Obama and his Senate Democrats declared they would approve only $4.7 billion in additional cuts. "Do we want jobs?" asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "If we do, then we simply cannot pass the plan the Tea Party has already pushed through the House."

What is needed, if we're to have jobs in five years, is $4.7 billion in additional cuts for every day of this year's budget, and those that follow. [3]

The American people have noticed the profligate spending and have demanded action to get spending under control. The Congress and the White House, while giving lip service to the idea of reducing deficits, have offered very little in the way of actually accomplishing it. Republicans need to assert their House majority, and act as though they know that they control the purse strings and nothing can be appropriated unless they approve. There needs to be more emphasis on the fact that debt is quickly becoming the dominant issue, which, if not adequately dealt with, could make many other issues moot for a long time.


[1] Terrence P. Jeffrey, “U.S. Debt Jumped $72 Billion Same Day U.S. House Voted to Cut Spending $6 Billion,” 03/16/2011, CNSNews.com.


[2] David Stockman, “The End of Sound Money and the Triumph of Crony Capitalism,” transcript (published 03/14/2011) of the Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture given March 12, 2011 at the Austrian Scholar’s Conference of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is a lengthy and detailed piece, well worth reading and study. Mises.org.


[3] Mark Alexander, “Democratic Socialism: Political Consequences of the Looming Debt Bomb Shockwave,” 03/10/2011, Patriot Post. Emphasis added.

Related articles

• UPDATE 3-U.S. Congress aims to finish 2011 spending plan (reuters.com)
• Obama Budget Underestimates Deficits by $2 Trillion - Fox News (news.google.com)

NOTICE

Dear Readers,

I am placing this blog on hold for a while in order to focus on my ministry blog Eddie's Sermon Notes and Outlines. 

Thanks for reading. I'll return to this one fairly soon with more updates. Meanwhile, welcome to the other blog.

Eddie

Blueprint for Fiscal Failure

Image via Wikipedia

(2008 estimate, Per cent of GDP)

President Obama’s recently released budget proposal defies comparison with the president’s words about reining in the deficit while “investing” in necessary programs. The numbers have become so astronomical that, to me, it seems doubtful that those who crafted this budget really comprehend how huge these figures are.

We’ve already increased the national debt massively in the past two years. As of now, one national debt clock is showing $14.233 trillion plus. And the administration wants to raise the debt limit. Republicans say, “Not without significant spending cuts.”

Conservative House members are striving to reach the $100 billion level in cuts promised in the GOP’s “Pledge to America.” They may accomplish this. Even so, it’s a modest amount compared to the $3.7 trillion called for in the budget for Fiscal 2012. Somehow this budget proposal, if enacted, is supposed to help reduce deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade. But we would be running a deficit of $1.6 trillion just for FY 2012. Most of Obama’s proposed cuts, of course, are to be made in the out years, well after his current term expires.

The problem with trying to budget over ten years is that we have a new Congress every two years, and all that budgeting, were it to be enacted, is only suggestions to future lawmakers.

As stated by Christopher S. Rugaber at The Daily Caller,

The budget plan President Barack Obama sent Congress on Monday foresees a record deficit of $1.65 trillion this year. That would be just under 11 percent of the $14 trillion economy — the largest proportion since 1945, when wartime spending swelled the deficit to 21.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. [1]

Some Proposed Budget Spending Items
Of course, now, our national debt is about the size of our GDP. For all the talk about reducing future deficits, it’s hard to view this budget proposal as a sincere effort. Apparently, things we just can’t do without, according to the Administration, include big spending increases for the following (partial list by departments), according to FederalNewsRadio.com:

Education, $68 billion, increase of 38.5%
Commerce, $10.4 billion, increase of 13.9%
Transportation, $128.6 billion, increase of 68% (includes $53 billion for high-speed trains)
Some agencies received decreases. See the excellent article for a comprehensive listing and comments. [2]


As J.D. Foster points out in a Heritage Foundation article,

The President continues to speak of painful spending cuts even as spending continues to soar. He continues his call for future tax hikes driven by ideology. He continues to express concern over budget deficits while offering only gimmicks in the short term and silence for the long-term problems for which he appointed a now-ignored deficit reduction commission. [3]

Here are some comments by conservative members of Congress on a Heritage video:



Election Results = House Mandate
Republicans won in the 2010 elections largely on the promise of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington. As long as liberals are in charge, there will be excessive spending and increasing national debt until our currency collapses, then liberals will try to start the whole process over. Fiscal irresponsibility is so evident in the president’s proposed budget that it’s difficult to believe anyone can really take it seriously. It increases rather than decreases entitlements, it proposes very costly and unnecessary programs, like high-speed rail, and calls more government intervention in just about every facet of life. And I did mention significant tax increases.

What About the Recovery?
If the GOP’s proposed cuts result in some lost government jobs, they are likely to also result in many new private-sector jobs. When “economic growth” is basically government growth, it falls well short of a healthy recovery. I hope the House GOP leaders and members will stand firm on their “Pledge to America,” and make at least $100 billion in cuts to current spending, and defund Obamacare entirely. Even all that would be relatively small compared to overall spending, but it’s a start that would demonstrate a sincere effort to save our country’s fiscal policy from disastrous results: Chronic high unemployment and possible collapse of our economy and currency. The president’s proposal represents basically just more of the same thing we already have, but made worse.

What’s needed is a substantial reduction in the size and scope of government, not just slower government growth. And the cutting should start now.


[1] Christopher S. Rugaber, “Deficit is biggest share of economy since 1945,” 02/15/2011,
The Daily Caller.


[2] Jolie Lee and the Associated Press, “Breakdown of FY2012 Budget by Agency,” 02/14/2011, FederalNewsRadio.com.


[3] J.D. Foster, Ph.D., “President Obama’s 2012 Budget Builds on Failures of the Past,” 02/14/2011, www.Heritage.org.


Illustration: Public domain.

Related articles

• Obama's budget would add $13 trillion to national debt - Kansas City Star (news.google.com)
• Obama Budget Sets Up Fight Over Depth of Cuts (businessweek.com)
• Obama's Unsustainable and Gutless Budget Proposals (pajamasmedia.com)

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.