In a classic case of the Supreme Court legislating (or, assisting legislators), they Court didn't rule Obamacare unconstitutional as much as they found a basis for it to be Constitutional.
In an interpretation no one expected, nor did they ask for, the Roberts court decided the law would stand if we considered the individual mandate a tax.
Now, I suppose if the law had been conceived and sold as containing a massive tax to fund it, it would have failed miserably in even the Pelosi Congress. So, the Dems have their law, but they have been exposed by it as big taxers, which is what they are.
Addressing the Constitutional question with respect to the mandate under the Commerce clause, the Court said no.
So, in what the O admin actually argued, they lost. Saved by 4 liberals and a somehow misguided Chief Justice.
They also lost on a key funding question re:Medicaid.
Regardless of what you think, Obamacare must head back to Congress and get seriously re-written.
Both these rulings cause major problems for the funding mechanisms behind the law and must be addressed.
Follow your face SCOTUS blogs as this unfolds.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Liberals - Smarter than you are, deal with it.
Some Liberals like to confront conservatives and ask them if they would be willing to part with particular favorite programs (always those chosen by the Liberal) as part of cutting government spending.
When the Conservative declines to agree to this (seeming) compromise, that is used as the Liberal's "gotcha" moment, that conservatives are not really interested in reducing deficits, they just want to spend the taxpayers' money on their priorities (usually these are centered on defense).
These arguments are false choices. Not even the most libertarian among us (note to Liberals, the libertarians run among "us," not you) are planning, or desire, anarchy. What we want, instead, is a federal government that is limited. Limited to those enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution. Would this require some significant drawback from 100+ years of judicial overreach and state usurpation of power? Probably, and would that really be a bad thing? Has the massive government expansion of the 20th Century really produced results that better the country? Could the same results have been achieved without a massive federal nanny state?
I expect the answer is yes.
When I am posed with this question, my first inclination is to ask whether the program being posited for elimination falls within the enumerated powers of the federal government. Since Libs like to target defense programs, this is usually a yes. They don't ask about the Department of Education or the Department of Energy, where we could make a Constitutional argument that it shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility in the first place, no, it's always DoD. That's because they don't want to get into this enumerated powers argument. It's a loser for them. The idea here is to suck you into the tit for tat, and ignore the pesky Constitutional questions of much of the modern Liberal Nanny State. So, your first approach has to be, let's agree that the program even has a Constitutional leg to stand on.
After that, we can defend or oppose the program on its merits. That's also conservative turf, because the Liberal never defends his programs on their merits. Conservatives, because we care about the taxpayers money, should ensure that all government spending serves some legitimate, Constitutionally-defendable need, and that it is done in the most efficient manner possible.
I think a good approach here is to remind the Liberal that defense of the nation was among the first ideas for the federal government in the framer's mind, so, we can have a merit-based argument over the efficacy of particular defense programs, but, when we are talking about cutting spending, 1)defense is Constitutionally required, and 2)it's small potatoes anyway in the budget discussion. If the liberal really wants to discuss the budget, if he's unwilling to tackle social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, he's unserious about the argument anyway, and this is a game he's playing. It's not one you should play, because like most Liberals, they only care about scoring cheap debating points, and proving their intellectual muscle, they don't care about the actual problems facing us.
But, you can turn this into a fun game and expose the liberal. So, instead of asking, "Mr. Liberal, what programs are you willing to cut/give up?" recognize that's not the turf we want to fight on.
I want Liberals to justify the constitutional basis for their programs first, just as we have. Where we disagree with them we need to be vocal and stick to the "not a federal government responsibility" argument. The states need to provide many of the services that they have ceded (either out of laziness, or via the Courts) to the federal government, where tough decisions are easier to make, and where legislators can be more easily held accountable to their decisions.
Don't cede this ground. Much of the nanny state is built on shaky extra-Constitutional underpinnings., and they know it. The central conceit in the Liberal/Progressive psyche is their own personal moral and intellectual superiority. Let's face it, they went to better schools, they are more focused on education, they just plain know better. And their system of governing must, therefore, embody the fact that they are just plain smarter than you.
They're smarter than you.
That's all it boils down to.
Despite how many times it has been tried throughout history, it all boils down to that. That's why intellectual Liberals like Tom Friedman find the Chinese version of Communism so wonderful. Why, golly, they have so much power invested in a group of men who are just so damn smart.
So much smarter than you.
That's why these Progressives sit on the sidelines with their jaws wired shut as Barack Obama picks out who to kill next in his own personal War of Kinetic Exercises From Above (or whatever), but squealed like greased pigs on the way to the slaughterhouse when Bush did something similar. Bush was an idiot, Barack Obama? Why he's one of us, the intelligentsia. If he's picking who gets the drone axe, by golly, it must be right. He's smarter than you (and way smarter than Bush). Plus, he got Osama (take that, Bush!).
That's why they defend to the death the outright traitorous activity by members of the Obama administration in leaking classified information to the Washington Post and NY Times about computer viruses, and the drone killings, and don't want to see a special prosecutor appointed to investigate these leakers. That's why Obama can say with a straight face that he's offended, not at the leaks, but at the suggestion that the leaks came from "my White House." Leaks, ok. Suggesting we're doing them, not so much. He knows his Leftists friends will continue to defend, and use them in the manner intended, the glorification of Obama. Yes, these people find this behavior acceptable, but Scooter Libby went to jail for a leak by Richard Armitage.
To understand this reasoning, they must be smarter than you.
My point is, when you engage these people in an argument, recognize that they aren't really interested in a government, "of the people, by the people, for the people."
They're interested in a government run by themselves. Because, in their mind, the people, acting collectively, in their personal self interests, and being a compassionate people, are incapable of choosing the right path either on their own, or as a collective.
They're smarter than you.
When the Conservative declines to agree to this (seeming) compromise, that is used as the Liberal's "gotcha" moment, that conservatives are not really interested in reducing deficits, they just want to spend the taxpayers' money on their priorities (usually these are centered on defense).
These arguments are false choices. Not even the most libertarian among us (note to Liberals, the libertarians run among "us," not you) are planning, or desire, anarchy. What we want, instead, is a federal government that is limited. Limited to those enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution. Would this require some significant drawback from 100+ years of judicial overreach and state usurpation of power? Probably, and would that really be a bad thing? Has the massive government expansion of the 20th Century really produced results that better the country? Could the same results have been achieved without a massive federal nanny state?
I expect the answer is yes.
When I am posed with this question, my first inclination is to ask whether the program being posited for elimination falls within the enumerated powers of the federal government. Since Libs like to target defense programs, this is usually a yes. They don't ask about the Department of Education or the Department of Energy, where we could make a Constitutional argument that it shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility in the first place, no, it's always DoD. That's because they don't want to get into this enumerated powers argument. It's a loser for them. The idea here is to suck you into the tit for tat, and ignore the pesky Constitutional questions of much of the modern Liberal Nanny State. So, your first approach has to be, let's agree that the program even has a Constitutional leg to stand on.
After that, we can defend or oppose the program on its merits. That's also conservative turf, because the Liberal never defends his programs on their merits. Conservatives, because we care about the taxpayers money, should ensure that all government spending serves some legitimate, Constitutionally-defendable need, and that it is done in the most efficient manner possible.
I think a good approach here is to remind the Liberal that defense of the nation was among the first ideas for the federal government in the framer's mind, so, we can have a merit-based argument over the efficacy of particular defense programs, but, when we are talking about cutting spending, 1)defense is Constitutionally required, and 2)it's small potatoes anyway in the budget discussion. If the liberal really wants to discuss the budget, if he's unwilling to tackle social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, he's unserious about the argument anyway, and this is a game he's playing. It's not one you should play, because like most Liberals, they only care about scoring cheap debating points, and proving their intellectual muscle, they don't care about the actual problems facing us.
But, you can turn this into a fun game and expose the liberal. So, instead of asking, "Mr. Liberal, what programs are you willing to cut/give up?" recognize that's not the turf we want to fight on.
I want Liberals to justify the constitutional basis for their programs first, just as we have. Where we disagree with them we need to be vocal and stick to the "not a federal government responsibility" argument. The states need to provide many of the services that they have ceded (either out of laziness, or via the Courts) to the federal government, where tough decisions are easier to make, and where legislators can be more easily held accountable to their decisions.
Don't cede this ground. Much of the nanny state is built on shaky extra-Constitutional underpinnings., and they know it. The central conceit in the Liberal/Progressive psyche is their own personal moral and intellectual superiority. Let's face it, they went to better schools, they are more focused on education, they just plain know better. And their system of governing must, therefore, embody the fact that they are just plain smarter than you.
They're smarter than you.
That's all it boils down to.
Despite how many times it has been tried throughout history, it all boils down to that. That's why intellectual Liberals like Tom Friedman find the Chinese version of Communism so wonderful. Why, golly, they have so much power invested in a group of men who are just so damn smart.
So much smarter than you.
That's why these Progressives sit on the sidelines with their jaws wired shut as Barack Obama picks out who to kill next in his own personal War of Kinetic Exercises From Above (or whatever), but squealed like greased pigs on the way to the slaughterhouse when Bush did something similar. Bush was an idiot, Barack Obama? Why he's one of us, the intelligentsia. If he's picking who gets the drone axe, by golly, it must be right. He's smarter than you (and way smarter than Bush). Plus, he got Osama (take that, Bush!).
That's why they defend to the death the outright traitorous activity by members of the Obama administration in leaking classified information to the Washington Post and NY Times about computer viruses, and the drone killings, and don't want to see a special prosecutor appointed to investigate these leakers. That's why Obama can say with a straight face that he's offended, not at the leaks, but at the suggestion that the leaks came from "my White House." Leaks, ok. Suggesting we're doing them, not so much. He knows his Leftists friends will continue to defend, and use them in the manner intended, the glorification of Obama. Yes, these people find this behavior acceptable, but Scooter Libby went to jail for a leak by Richard Armitage.
To understand this reasoning, they must be smarter than you.
My point is, when you engage these people in an argument, recognize that they aren't really interested in a government, "of the people, by the people, for the people."
They're interested in a government run by themselves. Because, in their mind, the people, acting collectively, in their personal self interests, and being a compassionate people, are incapable of choosing the right path either on their own, or as a collective.
They're smarter than you.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Howard Fineman, God love him
> Once again, Howie Fineman was on the Tony Kornheiser show yeaterday to fulfill his role as Tony's personal Chris Matthews and Democrat talking-point man.
>
> I don't mind, him, except he spouts the half-truths that the DNC and their union thugs have been saying, that Scott Walker (victorious by a margin greater than in 2010) wanted to "take away collective bargaining rights" from state employees. That's not what Walker did, nor what Republican governors elsewhere have done. What he did was ask the state employee unions (and let's leave aside why state employees need a union) to pay more for their health care and pensions, in order to close a $3B budget deficit. When they balked at collective bargaining this, he got a bill passed to remove their right to bargain those provisions of their contracts. Their right to collective bargain salaries was left intact. Howie also conveniently ignored that Dem state senators fled the state to prevent a quorum from being present to actually pass the bill, required under some state rules. So, when you speak to Howie, just remember, he's an apologist for Liberals.
>
> When the state Supreme Court allowed the bill to be passed under different rules, rewritten somewhat, the Left, unsatisfied, decided to first try to recall the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin supreme court. Something they also failed to achieve. Then, they tried to recall senators to retake the state senate. They failed. Having gone a big oh-fer (sports term), they went after Walker and the LT Gov. Elections they also lost going oh for three.
>
> They did this time get a senate majority that they'll not be able to enjoy, since the Wisconsin state senate doesn't meet until 2013, after the November elections.
>
> The GOP is not rooting against the American economy. For those who get their "news" from MSNBC, maybe you aren't aware that the GOP controlled House has passed two budgets that address spending and entitlements, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has now gone nearly 4 years without even passing a budget. And the President's budgets can't even get Democrat votes in he House or Senate.
>
> My point is when Howard says crap like the GOP wants the economy to fail, and you think the same thing, you're either 1)wrong, or 2)lying. I think Fineman is willing to lie in order to press his agenda.
> The economy sucks still because Barack Obama's policies are abject failures.
>
> I don't mind, him, except he spouts the half-truths that the DNC and their union thugs have been saying, that Scott Walker (victorious by a margin greater than in 2010) wanted to "take away collective bargaining rights" from state employees. That's not what Walker did, nor what Republican governors elsewhere have done. What he did was ask the state employee unions (and let's leave aside why state employees need a union) to pay more for their health care and pensions, in order to close a $3B budget deficit. When they balked at collective bargaining this, he got a bill passed to remove their right to bargain those provisions of their contracts. Their right to collective bargain salaries was left intact. Howie also conveniently ignored that Dem state senators fled the state to prevent a quorum from being present to actually pass the bill, required under some state rules. So, when you speak to Howie, just remember, he's an apologist for Liberals.
>
> When the state Supreme Court allowed the bill to be passed under different rules, rewritten somewhat, the Left, unsatisfied, decided to first try to recall the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin supreme court. Something they also failed to achieve. Then, they tried to recall senators to retake the state senate. They failed. Having gone a big oh-fer (sports term), they went after Walker and the LT Gov. Elections they also lost going oh for three.
>
> They did this time get a senate majority that they'll not be able to enjoy, since the Wisconsin state senate doesn't meet until 2013, after the November elections.
>
> The GOP is not rooting against the American economy. For those who get their "news" from MSNBC, maybe you aren't aware that the GOP controlled House has passed two budgets that address spending and entitlements, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has now gone nearly 4 years without even passing a budget. And the President's budgets can't even get Democrat votes in he House or Senate.
>
> My point is when Howard says crap like the GOP wants the economy to fail, and you think the same thing, you're either 1)wrong, or 2)lying. I think Fineman is willing to lie in order to press his agenda.
> The economy sucks still because Barack Obama's policies are abject failures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)